12 killed, 50 injured at new Batman movie

[electricrelish]

When my pitbull can go into a theatre and harm 50+ and kill a dozen +, I will say ban them.

 

Good plan. Be sure to monitor your pitbull's Internet activity.

[MrTed46]

Good plan. Be sure to monitor your pitbull's Internet activity.

 

 

When he gets back from mauling school children I will have a talk about his internet activity.

[stevegrab]

Good plan. Be sure to monitor your pitbull's Internet activity.

 

 

Yeah make sure he doesn't make any dumb posts on twitter like this guy

[SEC=UGA]

When he gets back from mauling school children I will have a talk about his internet activity.

 

 

He can maul all the summer school kids he wants. Most of them would end up wards of the state in some form or fashion at some point in their life.

[moneymakers]

Yeah make sure he doesn't make any dumb posts on twitter like this guy

 

 

almost as dumb as not wearing a motorcycle helmet.

[SEC=UGA]

almost as dumb as not wearing a motorcycle helmet.

 

 

Or opposing abortion rights.

[stevegrab]

almost as dumb as not wearing a motorcycle helmet.

 

 

or laws do ban sodas over 16oz

[stevegrab]

You demonstrate little understanding of the insanity defense.

 

 

Just a follow up to this part of the discussion, hear do the radio today that Holmes has been charged. They also mentioned that a big part of legal defense will be his mental state. Below is a link to an article and some of the relevant portion

 

http://www.winonadailynews.com/news/article_c3b74730-dabd-11e1-8e3a-0019bb2963f4.html?comment_form=true

 

“I don’t think it’s too hard to predict the path of this proceeding,” Silverman said. “This is not a whodunit. ... The only possible defense is insanity.”

 

Under Colorado law, defendants are not legally liable for their acts if their minds are so “diseased” that they cannot distinguish between right and wrong. However, the law warns that “care should be taken not to confuse such mental disease or defect with moral obliquity, mental depravity, or passion growing out of anger, revenge, hatred, or other motives and kindred evil conditions.”

 

Experts said there are two levels of insanity defenses.

 

Holmes’ public defenders could argue he is not mentally competent to stand trial, which is the argument by lawyers for Jared Loughner, who is accused of killing six people in 2011 in Tucson, Ariz., and wounding several others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Loughner, who has pleaded not guilty to 49 charges, has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and is undergoing treatment at a Missouri prison facility in a bid to make him mentally fit to stand trial.

 

If Holmes’ attorneys cannot convince the court that he is mentally incompetent, and he is convicted, they can try to stave off a possible death penalty by arguing he is mentally ill. Prosecutors will decide whether to seek the death penalty in the coming weeks.

 

---

 

So it appears that use of some form of insanity defense while rare does come into play in at least some of these mass shootings. (I mean CHIPS AHOY!, who thinks these people are not a little crazy when they do these things.)

[Furd]

In the New York shooting, two cops approached a man who drew a pistol. The cops were about 10 feet away. They fired 16 rounds.It not clear how many struck the man. The cops shot 3 bystanders. 6 other bystanders were struck by "fragments" (probably created when a bullet struck something, like nearby flower pots.)

 

video

 

If two cops, who aren't taking fire, in broad daylight, with unobstructed vision, miss an uncovered, unarmored target 10 feet away with half, or more, of their shots, what is guy with a pistol going to do in the Aurora shooting if he decides to shoot?

[irish]

I love me some guns!!! As soon as each person turns 18 we should just hand them a gun and say protect yourself at all costs. YEE-HAW!!!

Edited August 26, 2012 by irish

[delusions of grandeur]

In the New York shooting, two cops approached a man who drew a pistol. The cops were about 10 feet away. They fired 16 rounds.It not clear how many struck the man. The cops shot 3 bystanders. 6 other bystanders were struck by "fragments" (probably created when a bullet struck something, like nearby flower pots.)

 

video

 

If two cops, who aren't taking fire, in broad daylight, with unobstructed vision, miss an uncovered, unarmored target 10 feet away with half, or more, of their shots, what is guy with a pistol going to do in the Aurora shooting if he decides to shoot?

 

That's a strawman. Unoftunatley cops being too trigger happy is becoming an all too often occorence (its way more common than is reported nationally, I can assure you) does not mean that citizens are... I mean, even if everyone is acting responsibly, you can expect cops to fire more shots for many reasons, and their job justifies that for the most part. It is comparing apples to oranges, and not justified for my rights to be tied to police actions whose gun rights aren't in quesiom.

 

In short, if you ask me who's going to be more trigger happy, civilians or police, my answer should be unsurprising.... Of course that doesn't relate to the criminals, such as in the recent new York and Chicago shootings, both in places with strict gun control.

 

I think the maverick CC tough guy seems to be more fabricated than are the supposed threats to take our guns.

Edited August 26, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[bushwacked]

If two cops, who aren't taking fire, in broad daylight, with unobstructed vision, miss an uncovered, unarmored target 10 feet away with half, or more, of their shots, what is guy with a pistol going to do in the Aurora shooting if he decides to shoot?

 

 

 

That's a strawman.

 

 

No, it's a direct rebuttal to at least two separate posts in this tread.

 

If Perch had been there this would not have gone down like this. That's a fact.

 

 

violent crime rates have gone down in places with the most liberal carry laws.

 

[SEC=UGA]

In the New York shooting, two cops approached a man who drew a pistol. The cops were about 10 feet away. They fired 16 rounds.It not clear how many struck the man. The cops shot 3 bystanders. 6 other bystanders were struck by "fragments" (probably created when a bullet struck something, like nearby flower pots.)

 

video

 

If two cops, who aren't taking fire, in broad daylight, with unobstructed vision, miss an uncovered, unarmored target 10 feet away with half, or more, of their shots, what is guy with a pistol going to do in the Aurora shooting if he decides to shoot?

 

 

The guy had 10 bullet wounds and 16 shots were fired and only two of the victims were hit by "whole bullets" according to CBS news and CNN.

 

Now, the problem as I see it is this... The cops got a little overzealous with the amount of lead they were putting down.

 

ETA: In researching for my post ( ) one of the comments below the story read: "NY Police: Ready... Fire... Aim..."

Edited August 27, 2012 by SEC=UGA

[cre8tiff]

This topic made me look up something I remembered from the Gabby Gifford shooting:

 

 

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "

 

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

 

 

Zamudio agreed:

 

 

I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.

 

 

 

 

http://www.slate.com...y_firearms.html

Edited August 27, 2012 by cre8tiff

[Perchoutofwater]

In the New York shooting, two cops approached a man who drew a pistol. The cops were about 10 feet away. They fired 16 rounds.It not clear how many struck the man. The cops shot 3 bystanders. 6 other bystanders were struck by "fragments" (probably created when a bullet struck something, like nearby flower pots.)

 

video

 

If two cops, who aren't taking fire, in broad daylight, with unobstructed vision, miss an uncovered, unarmored target 10 feet away with half, or more, of their shots, what is guy with a pistol going to do in the Aurora shooting if he decides to shoot?

 

 

My uncle is a cop. I fire off more rounds in a typical month than he does in a year. I'm a much better shot than he is.

[i_am_the_swammi]

My uncle is a cop. I fire off more rounds in a typical month than he does in a year. I'm a much better shot than he is.

 

 

That settles it: the general public should be armed, the police should not.

 

I mean think about it: right now, the bad guys know to hide from cops. If cops weren't carrying, they would have nothing to fear. But if every other person out there was packing heat, they'd be afraid of everyone, crime would go down, and we'd all be happy.

 

I plan to call my local precinct tomorrow and demand our department lay down its weapons.

[Furd]

My point is only that shooting an armed man, let alone an "active shooter," isn't easy, even under ideal conditions. Its something that is completely overlooked in the discussion about the effect that an armed person, particularly an untrained armed person, may have in those types of situations.

[delusions of grandeur]

That settles it: the general public should be armed, the police should not.

 

I mean think about it: right now, the bad guys know to hide from cops. If cops weren't carrying, they would have nothing to fear. But if every other person out there was packing heat, they'd be afraid of everyone, crime would go down, and we'd all be happy.

 

I plan to call my local precinct tomorrow and demand our department lay down its weapons.

 

Or how about the police show more discretion in not taking a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentlity, like I see all too often reported.

 

It's a marked difference between the police and your lawful civilian in the use of force, because your law-abiding citizen knows that it better be life or death and you'd better make sure you know what you're shooting at, or you're going to end up in jail for firing off shots, maybe even on murder... As for justice agaisnt trigger-happy police, not so much, as they have a much easier time "justifying" their reckless behavior in many cases, unfortunately. They also have the "law" on their side to even be brought up on embarassing charges.

 

My point is only that shooting an armed man, let alone an "active shooter," isn't easy, even under ideal conditions. Its something that is completely overlooked in the discussion about the effect that an armed person, particularly an untrained armed person, may have in those types of situations.

 

Again, I think most of those comments about stopping the Aurora shooter were before we had all the facts, because I don't think most law-abiding citizens would have taken the shot in a crowded cloud-filled theatre unless they knew they had it.

 

I think this mythical CC maverick who shoots first is almost completely fabricated, and of the few who have been like Zimmerman, contiune to see far more justice than the cops who get away with shooting in non-life-or-death situations and are infinitely more likely to be the trigger-happy ones.

Edited August 28, 2012 by delusions of grandeur