Looks like he may have been intending to take out his neighbours. The couple who lived below him heard loud music coming from the apartment only a short while before the shootings took place, and when they went upstairs to complain he of course didn't appear to be in, and the door wasn't locked. Thankfully they didn't go inside.Originally Posted by vinraith
That is some... fucked up shit, in lack of other words. I have easier time trying to comprehend passion crimes/momentary insanity/whatever it's called than just this kind of... pre-meditated sadism and bloodlust.
I agree. Sort of. Seattle police here in Washington did it right: they didn't increase patrols and they didn't send officers to theaters. But they rerouted patrols so that the police presence around cinemas was more visible and they made public announcements. People noticed, too. Places they wouldn't normally see unmarked cars or cars at all they'd see a cop go by a few times within an hour. I'd say it worked well without being invasive and damaging. I could even understand the police presence if it isn't limited to theaters showing the Dark Knight--sends a better message, but still provides peace of mind. Deflect, redirect, control, comfort. It's a smart reaction.
But I don't think we're sending the right message by restricting people along these lines, as though we expect it to happen again in a very similar way. There could be a copy-cat; but the odds are it will be someone who was already going to do something like this and won't occur very close in time to this one. People don't go on a shooting rampage just because someone else did, do they? It's no common enough to be a peer pressure phenomenon.
It's also irresponsible. Concerned citizens, police and media making this an issue about people wearing costumes, violent movies, midnight showings, and the Dark Knight in particular. Odds are high none of that has any bearing on what happened. A murderer can still kill people in a costume without a full face mask.
It's just so irresponsible to react like this after a major, tragic occurrence. People become very impressionable at a time like this, more when they're directly involved. There's a particular obligation on the part of people in charge and anyone in a rational frame of mind to make sure we don't over (or under) react in ways that can cause long term problems. How long can we escalate our response to this sort of violence without becoming an overly restrictive state? These policies come into being at a time of vulnerability and tragedy when it maybe makes sense. But they stick around. These policies aren't going anywhere. And they aren't going to stop violence. People who want to commit this sort of extreme violence are going to find ways to avoid security and resistance--unless they mean to directly confront security measures but that's not exactly a more pleasant idea.
We need to respect the context in which this occurred. I understand trying to comfort people who are scared, but there's a fine line between comforting them and validating irrational fears. America routinely flies past that line. Similarly there's a fine line between creating a sense of rule-of-law that discourages crime and creating an environment ruled by fear--both of crimes that won't happen, and of running afoul of security. We can't treat everyone like criminals. It's not right. De-contextualized security is a bad, bad thing.
Last edited by gwathdring; 21-07-2012 at 06:52 PM.
I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardust’s Music Sounds Better With You. There’s lots of fog. --tomeoftom
The weapons he bought were all legal. The ammunition he bought - several thousand rifle rounds - were all legal. The NRA lobby is going to make sure events like this don't curtail gun sales in any way. So, effectively, we've made our bed, so let's lay in it.
Active shooters are always a dreadful occurence, shocking to the people involved, disturbing to the wider audience.
Here's a BBC report on the shooter http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18937513
I draw your attention to the following sections...
"There were no real girls he was involved with," she told the Washington Post. "It seemed he was really into a video game group that hung out together."
And again...
"Lab colleague Billy Kromka said he had been one of the quieter people, and had spent much of his time immersed in his computer, often participating in role-playing online games."
Here we go again.
^^ Well that name is a bit of bad taste at the present time if ever a name was.
I hate side quests. If you can't be bothered to write a decent enough story to fill a game, then just hire a writer that can. Enough of these filler quests that really turn an interesting game into a grind.
Could be harmless. Let's wait till a respected source more explicitly points fingers at gaming before we get out the pitchforks.
I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardust’s Music Sounds Better With You. There’s lots of fog. --tomeoftom
So what's the NRA saying? Always amusing to hear their yak on these things. No doubt the solution to the problem is that everyone should carry a gun on them at all times, to protect themselves from this sort of thing. Never take the guns away, because that would be plain daft.
Last edited by Kadayi; 21-07-2012 at 11:54 PM.
Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil
Tradition is the tyranny of dead men
Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi GFWL: Kadayi
Probable Replicant
*blush* I'm flattered by the attention boys, but please let's not make the thread about liddle old me
Despite what you think of the NRA the truth of the matter is that criminals will always find a way to obtain firearms. There are other ways to mass murder people without firearms, you can't just ban everything.
Besides all that owning firearms is a constitutional right in America. As much as I don't agree with most of what the NRA does, someone does have to protect the second amendment.
That being said, it doesn't really matter what the NRA says anyway. If the US government tried to take away the right of civilians to own firearms there would be a civil war.
Most of Europe manages to get by without guns perfectly fine: -
UK:651 deaths recorded in the 12 months to November 2009.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ja...office-figures
US Homicide rate for the US in 2009 was 13,636 deaths of which 71.8 percent were firearm related.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/off.../homicide.html
Now bear in mind this, the UK population is only a 6th of that of the US and we are much more densely populated (having a 49th of the landmass), have a large multi-cultural mix yet, you have a homicide rate completely out of scale and proportion to ours. You don't think that easy access to firearms potentially has anything to do with it?
Why? Is it still pertinent? What's so fundamental about it that it's worth upholding at the cost of several thousand peoples lives every year like some kind of firearm tax?Besides all that owning firearms is a constitutional right in America. As much as I don't agree with most of what the NRA does, someone does have to protect the second amendment.
Rednecks Vs the US military war machine...my money would be on the Marines tbh.That being said, it doesn't really matter what the NRA says anyway. If the US government tried to take away the right of civilians to own firearms there would be a civil war.
Last edited by Kadayi; 22-07-2012 at 02:38 AM.
Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil
Tradition is the tyranny of dead men
Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi GFWL: Kadayi
Probable Replicant
*blush* I'm flattered by the attention boys, but please let's not make the thread about liddle old me
Owning a firearm does not a redneck make.
The Medallion of the Imperial Psychopath, a Napoleon: Total War AAR
For the Emperor!, a Total War: Shogun 2: Fall of the Samurai AAR
I mostly agree with Kadayi's response to this. But you're right that taking away guns doesn't solve the underlying cause of violent crime or weapon-assisted crimes. However, it does seem to help. Making the entry level to mass murder more difficult will reduce mass murder to a certain extent. And change the scale of violence that does occur.Despite what you think of the NRA the truth of the matter is that criminals will always find a way to obtain firearms. There are other ways to mass murder people without firearms, you can't just ban everything.
Besides all that owning firearms is a constitutional right in America. As much as I don't agree with most of what the NRA does, someone does have to protect the second amendment.
That being said, it doesn't really matter what the NRA says anyway. If the US government tried to take away the right of civilians to own firearms there would be a civil war.
There's something to be said for guns as an equalizer--but I'd love to see some stats on the frequency with which gun ownership has prevented crimes and provided for self-defense. My gut tells me guns are used for crime more often than to prevent it.
I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardust’s Music Sounds Better With You. There’s lots of fog. --tomeoftom
Firearms are not outright illegal in NYC.
Europe is irrelevant to this discussion. It's part of our culture and it's part of our constitution, the fundamentals upon which this nation was founded.
Access to firearms is irrelevant. The country is already flooded with them and we border Mexico. You know what else is illegal? Drugs and we have plenty of those. Making them illegal would do nothing but take them out of the hands of non-criminals.
A large portion of the US military ARE those "rednecks". You severely underestimate how important the second amendment is to people in America.
The biggest problem is one of a "slippery slope". I know it's seen as a logical fallacy in many cases, but it is applicable here. Constitutional rights are held sacred, the argument can (and has) been made that if you take one of them away, which one will be next. This is why many people are hesitant to vote for a politician who support stricter gun control.
As for your question "Why?", it doesn't matter why, that's just the way it is.
Again, I think the main issue has very little to do with any of that. It's a constitutional issue. Without looking up any stats, I'm fairly certain you are correct. What would be more interesting to see is how many of those firearms that were used in a homicide were obtained illegally. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of homicides with a legally obtained firearm are crimes of passion and other similar things. Gang killings, robberies, and other such violent crimes are generally done with illegally obtained guns.
Last edited by Hypernetic; 22-07-2012 at 03:54 AM.
No, but they're as close as you can get to being outright banned. And for all his faults, Bloomberg's been pretty on the ball when it comes not only to disarming the city but ensuring that handguns don't make it anywhere near the city. (Usually shipments heading our way get stopped in your illustrious state of Pennsylvania.) There are about 50,000 handgun owners in the city of eight and a half million, putting them at even a smaller minority than, say, transgender latinas.
But most importantly, in direct contradiction to your earlier assertion, people have not risen up to rebel against New York's strict laws, as the culture here is not one that abides by guns. People here would be taken aback by the idea of open- or concealed-carry being the norm, and tend to view gun ownership itself as aberrant behavior.
Yeah, in the South, there's definitely a "pry from my cold, dead hands" mentality, but they also tend to believe in the second coming of Jesus and the need to teach creationism in Biology class. In other words, fuck the South.
The constitution is not only from the tail end of the eighteenth century, but also exceedingly vague, routinely reinterpreted and occasionally formally amended. Constitutionality is not a fact. It's not even an argument on it's own. It's an opinion.
I'm sure plenty of illegal guns are used for crimes. But hang on a minute--in some states you can legally purchase automatic and semi-automatic weapons. For under a hundred dollars you can pack a fairly powerful hand gun. You can pick up a gun at Walmart or Sportsman's Warehouse. Anyone without a strong criminal record, and some that have one, can purchase a gun before committing a crime. Premeditated crimes like the recent shooting and most non-gang related homicides probably involve guns that were either easily available or purchased for the purpose of the crime. I'm sure it didn't escape your attention that all four weapons used in the recent shooting were legally purchased.
Getting rid of cheap hand guns can reduce gun related crimes. Not everyone is in the loop for purchasing illegal weapons. And maybe it would be easier to figure out where illegal weapons were coming from if we didn't have so many legal guns floating around. Our gun laws are so relaxed ... there aren't many people who need to get illegal weapons to put them to illegal uses.
Last edited by gwathdring; 22-07-2012 at 07:01 AM.
I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardust’s Music Sounds Better With You. There’s lots of fog. --tomeoftom
No, you do need illegal weapons for illegal uses, unless you don't care about getting caught. Finding an illegal gun is about as easy as buying a box of cereal from the grocery store in pretty much any city.
I don't know the gun laws in every state, but in PA you are required to take a background check to purchase any firearm, including long guns (shotguns, rifles, etc). Automatic weapons are completely illegal. Many misdemeanors in PA can bar you from purchasing a firearm, you don't need to be a "serious criminal" or even have a history of violent crime.
P.S. lol @ the constitution being an opinion. Is that what you'll say when they start censoring the media too?
Hanging out under the bridge again?
Actually, that is not quite true. Legal guns are tracked by their serial number, but they do not leave those serial numbers on the bullet casings. As long as you keep your weapon with you when you flee the scene, a legal weapon is just as good as an illegal weapon. And even if the gun was left at the crime scene, your fingerprints would be much better evidence then the fact htat the gun was registered on your name.
Illegal guns are actually quite hard to get in the Netherlands (a country with stricter gun laws then its neighbours Belgium and Germany), and they cost a lot more - think €2500 for a glock pistol, instead of the usual €650 (source: NRC). I suspect a similar situation arises in NYC.
P.S. lol @ the constitution being an opinion. Is that what you'll say when they start censoring the media too?
This is actually already happening. The law is only a protection if people choose to abide by it.
Last edited by Grizzly; 22-07-2012 at 09:35 AM.
I can buy a dirty handgun for very cheap in Philadelphia. And no, you don't want to keep the gun you've used in a crime, that is beyond stupid. You might as well just turn yourself in if you plan on keeping the weapon around.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
