Mass Shooting at CO Dark Knight Rises Premiere

[Spesh]

Ah, so going with option "B" of the responses Jason Alexander elegantly spoke of:

Then there are the tweets from the extreme right - these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn't see it should...
a. be labeled a moron
b. shut the **** up
c. be removed

Anyway, copycats commence!

A Maine man was arrested when he told authorities that he was on his way to shoot a former employer a day after watching "The Dark Knight Rises," Maine state police said Monday.
Timothy Courtois of Biddeford, Maine, had been stopped for speeding, and a police search of his car found an AK-47 assault weapon, four handguns, ammunition and news clippings about the mass shooting that left 12 people dead early Friday, authorities said.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[cbreeden]

A gentle cure for the mentally ill who commit crimes was discovered on Finheaven:

Spesh, love the editorial sig.

[SkapePhin]

Listen, I understand why you are so GUNg-Ho about the issue. When it comes to MOST issues, MOST people align themselves with their own interests. That's just the way it is. You enjoy shooting guns, you likely own some, so any form of gun control seems like an affront to your interests. I grok that. Likewise, I don't own guns. Although I have gone to the gun range on a few occasions, I feel no need to own one, nor do I think it makes my home safer or my person safer.

I would rather invest in a home security system and a trusty dog to protect my home, as its more likely these preventative measures would be more effective in thwarting would-be thieves and evil-doers than having a gun under my cushion. Fact is, if someone breaks into my house, they are most likely looking to steal my things, not kill me or my family. However, the second I introduce a gun into that charged situation, its me or them. Do I trust myself, blurry-eyed and ripe from slumber, to shoot an intruder before the alert intruder shoots me? Not enough. The second the intruder feels threatened, its me or them, and in those circumstances, I don't like the odds.

Secondly, I don't enjoy shooting animals for sport. Some people do, and that's all well and good. I understand our evolutionary desire to hunt. It is a holdover from our ancestors, and although all of our food is now available at massive food stores, I understand there is still a primal urge to hunt, which has not been cleansed of our system yet, and likely shouldn't, since I have a suspicion humans will need to go back to their hunter-gatherer ways in order to survive sometime in the future. If hunting is done respectfully, with respect for the dead animals, wherein all parts of the animal are used for some purpose other than human pride, I am all for it. Especially in cases where a certain animal population needs to be culled to maintain a balance. Personally, I think those who hunt with a bow are much more badass than those equipped with a rifle, but that's just my opinion.

As Spesh has also stated, I have never voiced an opinion that handguns or rifles should be banned. I see their purposes, and while they do lead to many unfortunate deaths, I don't believe that banning them outright would have a substantive effect on violent crime in this country. As others have stated, the primary focus should be on finding ways to help reform those who have violent tendencies or come from disadvantaged, desperate environments, or, for those who are sufficiently crazy or hateful, find ways to discover them before they ever purchase weapons to slaughter innocents. A very needed step in regard to that, is to set up central databases where pertinent information regarding a gun-buyer is stored, including mental health history, criminal background and previous weapons purchases.

As for assault rifles, I have still not seen one valid argument why these weapons should be available to anyone on the street. Unlike handguns and rifles, they can't be used for personal protection or hunting, so what purpose does it serve? Being that an assault rifle has no other primary purpose other than to kill mass quantities of organic beings in a single sitting, I see no need to have them around. When people get all upset about an assault rifle ban, it just seems like they are upset about people taking away their favorite toy. That's the gist of it...

[Spesh]

Spesh, love the editorial sig.

Wouldnt have put it up if the guy hadnt felt the need to make sure we all knew that it wasnt just public torture that was needed, but "hardcore". When he clarified that point it had me rolling
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[tylerdolphin]

The eyes tell the whole story. Nobody's home.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Over on the other board I post at, theres a guy that works in the Med School where this guy was at. Although he had never met this guy, he says a few of his other students often jokingly refered to him as "the serial killer." Pretty easy to see why judging by the pics. Crazy how his mom wasnt shocked and everyone at his school knew he was a weirdo...

[R&R Express]

As for assault rifles, I have still not seen one valid argument why these weapons should be available to anyone on the street. Unlike handguns and rifles, they can't be used for personal protection or hunting, so what purpose does it serve? Being that an assault rifle has no other primary purpose other than to kill mass quantities of organic beings in a single sitting, I see no need to have them around. When people get all upset about an assault rifle ban, it just seems like they are upset about people taking away their favorite toy. That's the gist of it...

There's 3 million legally owned "assault rifles" in this country. Compare to the amount of people actually getting murdered by them and you make yourself sound quite ignorant with statements like that. Using that ignorant logic, ANY firearm that isn't required to reload after a single round qualifies for that. I think Bumpus has this one right. No idea how someone can form an opinion on something they (admittedly) have no clue about.

Well less than 1% of legal "assault rifles" in this country are used to commit murder. Yet they're only put on this earth to kill a bunch of things in one sitting. Comical.

[SkapePhin]

There's 3 million legally owned "assault rifles" in this country. Compare to the amount of people actually getting murdered by them and you make yourself sound quite ignorant with statements like that. Using that ignorant logic, ANY firearm that isn't required to reload after a single round qualifies for that. I think Bumpus has this one right. No idea how someone can form an opinion on something they (admittedly) have no clue about.

Well less than 1% of legal "assault rifles" in this country are used to commit murder. Yet they're only put on this earth to kill a bunch of things in one sitting. Comical.

R&R... I am speaking to their FUNCTION, not what people actually do with them. Their FUNCTION is to kill multiple living things. Assault rifles are designed for war. They are designed to kill more efficiently and in larger quantities. While people who legally own them don't often use them for this function, that IS their function. So, what do people who legally own assault rifles do with assault rifles? They shoot paper representations of humans. That's it. They don't protect their homes with them, they don't hunt animals with them, ALL they do with them is shoot pieces of paper. So tell me again, is this a valid reason to keep them legal? So people can get their kicks shooting paper? Meanwhile, the 5% of crazies can still have easy access to them so that they can commit unspeakable atrocities... Is it worth it?

I just don't see the logic in that, sorry.

As I stated, handguns and rifles actually have valid uses other than to kill humans or shoot pieces of paper. Assault rifles do not.

[cbreeden]

Skape, you're missing the overall point of the posts and it appears confusing "assault rifle" with "automatic weapon". Bottom line: you will not stop this type of violence by legislating a ban on weapons...assault or otherwise. Period. The actual thought of banning weapons to preclude an act like this is a knee-jerk reaction and serves no purpose other than infringing on 2nd Ammendment rights.

Additionally, not all assault rifles are automatic weapons and for those that are gun enthusiasts will agree that many of today's assault rifles are preferred for personal protection within the home. They can also be used for hunting as their range and accuracy are equivalent to traditional hunting rifles.

I do agree with you in part that the weapon purchase process is not perfect and can probably be more inclusive of the data it shares. The problem with having "central databases" is the cost; access; amount and type of data that should be shared within the gun communities. It will take some heated debate within each state to determine what is needed, by whom, how fast and who will maintain the infrastructure to enable the technology.

[SkapePhin]

Skape, you're missing the overall point of the posts and it appears confusing "assault rifle" with "automatic weapon". Bottom line: you will not stop this type of violence by legislating a ban on weapons...assault or otherwise. Period. The actual thought of banning weapons to preclude an act like this is a knee-jerk reaction and serves no purpose other than infringing on 2nd Ammendment rights.

Additionally, not all assault rifles are automatic weapons and for those that are gun enthusiasts will agree that many of today's assault rifles are preferred for personal protection within the home. They can also be used for hunting as their range and accuracy are equivalent to traditional hunting rifles.

I do agree with you in part that the weapon purchase process is not perfect and can probably be more inclusive of the data it shares. The problem with having "central databases" is the cost; access; amount and type of data that should be shared within the gun communities. It will take some heated debate within each state to determine what is needed, by whom, how fast and who will maintain the infrastructure to enable the technology.

Thank you for a well-reasoned response. That is all I have been asking for. If people use assault weapons in their homes for personal protection, then I can see its use. It still seems like a weapon that is unneccessary for most uses, but I can get behind that perspective. The only thing I will speak to that is why are weapons such as RPGs or miniguns are not protected under the 2nd amendment? It seems like even the 2nd amendment has its limitations in regard to what kinds of weapons are acceptable for citizens.

[tylerdolphin]

Thank you for a well-reasoned response. That is all I have been asking for. If people use assault weapons in their homes for personal protection, then I can see its use. It still seems like a weapon that is unneccessary for most uses, but I can get behind that perspective. The only thing I will speak to that is why are weapons such as RPGs or miniguns are not protected under the 2nd amendment? It seems like even the 2nd amendment has its limitations in regard to what kinds of weapons are acceptable for citizens.

Obviously youve made it clear you disagree with this, but my opinion is that even if an AR-15 is just essentially a cool toy, it still shouldnt be illegal. Comparing an AR-15 to an RPG is quite a bit of a stretch.