Shooting at a Colorado Movie Theater

I was about to suggest that the man in question was perhaps suffering of a psychosis, and could have thus pleaded insanity (or something like that; I know nothing at all about law). A seemingly normal person, such as this man, may fall victim to psychotic thinking and not even know it.

However, my belief in this possibility has wavered since you mentioned it having been planned. I think it is safe to throw this one out the window...

 

Here's the article that I draw from, if you guys want to read it.

The guy sounded really smart and hard working actually, which makes this event all the more tragic really. I just wish I knew what caused him to want to do this.

And on a side note, read the comments for that article...

 

This, you mean?

Disagree. Oh, if only it were so simple as that? He is highly unsympathetic, that much is evident...

 

No one bothered to counter you, but I think some good questions need to be brought up.

If banned substances are so easy to get a hold of, what makes you think that guns would not be as well?

Furthermore, the reason why no one was saved by a gun in this instance is because no one else at the theatre had one. Do you think as many people would have been killed if something like 10% of the theatre-goers had been carrying weapons as well?

Giving one class of people a level of physical power that you deny to the average man will show itself in an obvious divide. The divide already exists without a gun ban in the US. For example, the level of police violence against protesters in the US has increased dramatically in the past few years, new laws have been put in place that deny the right to a trial, indefinite detention is now legal, they are pressing to be able to tap into all electronic communications, the police are becoming militarized and gaining military equipment, domestic drones are being purchased and used, lamp posts that record conversations and can speak out at you are being bought and placed across the country, the trespass laws have been edited to state that anyone protesting on public property such that it might obstruct government can be imprisoned for up to ten years, and so on.

Really the only thing left is a gun ban. You can bet that it will more than likely come in the form of extremely rigorous licensing processes and fees. After that they will be able to go to war with Iran and any civil unrest or protest will be shut down swiftly. After a gun ban, I expect a curfew. People are poor and they will be defenseless, but that makes them desperate, so even-increasing restrictions will be imposed to ensure that the war goes smoothly.

Given the fact that the war with Iran is at stake, it makes sense that Israel is jumping on it. They profit from a gun ban in the US as well.

But, after all of that conjecturing and fear-mongering (to be honest I see this shooting and the media reaction as fear-mongering), I have a question.

How does an unemployed student afford $20,000 in arms, over 6,000 rounds of ammunition, full body armor, and explosive materials over the course of three months to carry out a mass shooting?

To my knowledge this question has been ignored by the media entirely.

 

This is just tragic.

I also heard about this a few days ago, but didn't see this thread until now.

May those who were killed rest in peace, and may those who were injured make a full recovery. My heart also goes to the shattered families as well.

 

Guns, if banned in the US, would likely still be very prevalent, since the amount produced exceeds the amount to be controllable. You could still buy a handgun relatively easy now, legally or illegally, at the moment in the US. The reason I think they should be harder to get a hold of is because civilians have no reason to hold guns, unless they have a profession that requires them to hold a weapon. In the UK, and I suppose most of Europe, all offensive weapons are illegal, especially the possession of guns. Our gun crime combined would still be considerably less then America as one country. Logically thinking, the correlation is between the legalisation of weaponry in said countries.
It's not impossible to get a gun here, I know that, but the illegality and awareness of it means it can not be a public and accepted fact, so more people are discouraged from them in general. In America, gun culture is quite readily accepted, and in a number of circles promoted as a good thing to won one.
If America had laws in place before, the chances of this happening would be reduced, not necessarily nullified, but reduced nonetheless.

Weapons are not like drugs, the only function of a gun is to shoot it. To attack, to 99% of the time, kill. It is not like it's a shield, or kevlar armour, which is used to defend from weapons, its purposes is to harm.
If anyone in that movie theatre had attempted to use a gun to 'defend' themselves, the chances are they would either miss or more likely to hit the 300 other civilians in friendly fire more then one man. Not to mention the apparent use of tear gas, they would be shooting blind an even greater chance of hitting innocences.
Truly, if some in that theatre had tried to use a weapon, there would likely have been more deaths then there were, statistically speaking.

Your example of gun banning is one of many, others are more likely to happen then that one. Your description also sounds quite paranoid in its own way.
Civilians are not defenceless, with or without weapons. Gandhi and Martin Luther King are prime examples of the power of the unarmed and non-violent.

How do gangs get guns? It's all about who you know, and how cheap you can get them at. This guy might also have known or been related to someone with military grade equipment, taken it and used it for his own purposes. As well, he could have sold cars or property in order to gain the appropriate equipment he had in mind, as well as saving in banks that he might have withdrawn, family members that he received money from. It's not hard to get money if you have materials to sell and barter with or the force to take it.

 

I knew it would come across as paranoid. Oh, well. I am assuming the worst because the news has been incredibly in favor of the worst for the past year. It is hard to deny that the law is stepping closer and closer to "the police can do whatever they want" with each law that passes. If a gun ban were to happen, even with good intentions, it would be in the context of this lack of due process and as such it would turn out badly regardless of intentions.

The function of a weapon is not related to the frequency with which a gun may be obtained. I am comparing drugs and firearms as black market items, not for their individual functions.

I have trouble believing that they would have increased the number killed. Even if they missed and hit some other people, they have limited ammunition while the attacker did not. Missing every single shot would mean they were not competent enough to use the gun they had even if they wanted to, which is stupid in and of itself.

Well, I would feel entirely confident in my own abilities if I were there with a firearm. I suppose it is unfair to expect everyone else to have the same level of competence.

My problem is that they did not explain how he got them. There are many options, but nothing has been released, even with all of this attention.

My main concern is that it may have been staged, like some other events that the FBI have been hatching of their own accord in recent months.

 

My thoughts and prayers go to the victims.

As for the shooter... He was mentally ill, but he got all the guns legally. In the U.S. you can get an automatic weapon legally. Thank the NRA for such a thought out law.

He showed no signs of mental illness except to his family. You do have to realize, if he's a schitzofrenic. (I know I spelled that wrong.) He can be completely normal, I dated one. If they decide to go off their meds, my bf did once in a while, he terrified me with his talk of violence and swords. What REALLY scares me is two things:

There's people posting in other places there should have been concealed guns that people had. Yes, they could've shot him down, more likely they would've seen a little kid (yes,there was little kids in the theater) who was waving a fake gun and shot them. Or they would've shot a person going to the bathroom. Or three people would have stood up and shot on the shooter and killed more innocents. In a dark, smoke filled theater with people screaming and panicking and fleeing, that's a higher chance.

Another thing that scares me, 20 minutes away form where I live, a man armed to the teeth in his car went to see The Dark Knight and left and was picked up by the cops going 112 miles per hour down the highway. He didn't shoot anyone, but seeing that so close to home convinced me to rent.

 

Would the shooter have even bothered if he could have expected such a threat from said three people? The idea is not that only that they could defend themselves, but that the shooter would have had a lot more to consider if he had reason to expect others with firepower in the room.

The majority of shootings like this have happened in gun-free zones because people feel free in gun-free zones. They know that they will be mostly safe until the police show up, and then they can surrender. If there were no gun-free zones, maybe these shootings would be less frequent. Not because people would stop them, but because the potential shooters would be too scared to attempt them. It wouldn't be as easy.

How many mass shootings by a citizen can you name that did not occur in a gun-free zone?

 

My prayers go out to the families of those killed.

May those killed rest in peace.

May those injured make a full recovery.

This dude is nuts. He apparently wanted to get Christian Bale and Anne Hathaway.

It's people like this who make me sick. My aunt almost took my cousin to see this movie. I am VERY grateful that she had to work that day, and my cousin was unable to go. I have no idea what I'd do if they had been injured or killed.

Question is, how did nobody hear him getting all this crap?

 

You're cousin was going to that exact theater?
I thought you lived in Idaho...
Getting all what? A gun? Owning a gun is an amendment (Or rather the right to own a gun), It's not against the law. You know...The Second Amendment?

Wikipedia isn't a ... Good source, Per Se, But I'm kinda too lazy to look for another.

To keep this form counting as Spam, If he is "Nuts" or "Crazy" then he could plead Innocent due to cause of Insanity, So everyone that wants him to get hurt, That would suck for you.

Also, That's pretty bad security. I wonder how much, if any, Movie theaters have lost money or consumers because of this ordeal ...

 

After Senator Giffords shooting, they made it so insane people like the shooters would get insanity but still jail time. No hearing, no bail, nothing... It's an automatic label. He had the same thing added to his sentence. He is not going to get out at least until the trial. I do hope they don't use the insanity plea.

 

Or more likely it would increase, since you've increased the supply of guns. More guns, more gun shootings are to occur. Less guns, less shootings to happen.

Gun crime is almost unheard of in the UK, even here in London. Only the army and special police forces have access to firepower 'legally', the general police officers on the street don't possess guns of any kind, much like the criminals a major majority of the time don't.

If you were to introduce gun accessibility to the UK, gun crime would increase, not lower. That would happen anywhere.

 

However, that is in the context of UK culture and education. I also assume they do not allow people to be detained without trial legally.

The police are becoming militarized in the US. Their weapons and training are becoming more hostile. They can arrest people without charges and face no legal repercussions. The chances of regular cops not carrying guns when the military is coming in to train them how to use more advanced weaponry and tactics is so low that I am baffled you would even suggest the possibility.

Removing a citizen's right to weaponry in this climate is the last step into the definition of a police state.

 

So in response you should militarise the public?

It would be safer to simply demilitarise both police and public. Like I have said, America's right to bear arms is an old and out of context law, and causes more damage these days then ever before.

 

Not the public, but the individual. People are not to be grouped collectively when they face different risks and come from different walks of life.

It would be safer, but impractical and extremely unlikely. Ideally, all guns would cease to exist. Why don't you suggest that instead?

I disagree. Even if the police were to lower their gun use and the citizens were to have guns banned, the slaughter done by the US in war would still make the difference in the homeland look very slim indeed. Because of that, riots would still happen, and in the face of civil unrest all governments resort to violence. Even Britain.

What you suggest is that the US become a more peaceful entity in its entirety. That goes far beyond a gun ban. Only in a more peaceful setting could a gun ban result in peace.

 

My prayers are with those who were killed, as well as those who where injured. This is one of the most terrifying incidents of the year, thus far. R.I.P. and get well soon.

My thoughts:
I think the shooter was in fact intelligent(I mean, the guy WAS going to university..), furthermore, I believe he had this all planned out. I mean, it's an ideal place to plot an attack: A movie premiere, with almost all ages, playing a sequel to a movie which received excellent reviews and grossed a lot of money. What you need to realize is that most of these situations usually result in the person killing themselves.(I mean think of previous mass murders in the past few years or so...most of them stemmed from mental illness, correct..but the murderer ended up killing themselves. This man, however, did not. To add to this, his lack of emotion after the court trial infuriated the public. This killer is a bit different in his actions, and I simply believed he strategically planned this out.

To add to this, while briefly reading a few earlier posts, someone jokingly mentioned "he was inspired by The Joker", or something like that..well that's exactly what I thought of when I saw the way this man's hair was styled and dyed. This theory is a bit far-fetched but I believe he actually was inspired by The Joker(looking at his university pictures, and his profile now.)

As for gun ban, I agree with Makaze. Gun ban will make no difference in curing the violence carried out right now, since the world we live in is becoming more accustomed to violence. Plus, imagine an unarmed police officer trying to arrest a "criminal"(who is now equipped with a gun which is illegal) who is proven to have a concealed gun which was illegally created/forged/maintained. What can the police officer, let alone the public, do against a criminal with a gun who is wiping out countless people until he his finally taken down?

Everything is messed up, that's what I think.

 

It really was a true tragedy. It was one of the reasons that I felt I shouldn't go. 1 reason being fear and another being reason being respect to the victims. I was dragged along anyway to the movie.