http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/20/us-usa-shooting-denver-idUSBRE86J0AM20120720

My condolences to families, friends and neighbors...

Then this guy goes to prison for a few decades and costs the taxpayer millions.

 

That guy does not need a trial, he just sentenced himself to death.

Why would he open fire at the first place.

 

Maybe not. There were children hurt too. Prisoners have their own rough code of justice. People who hurt children tend to have fatal accidents.

 

Killing innocent cannot be justified

 

Maybe not. There were children hurt too. Prisoners have their own rough code of justice. People who hurt children tend to have fatal accidents.

He'll never see gen pop in his live. He live in protective custody like all high profile prisoners. As to how we prepare for this, we don't. Everyone has their limits and finally with enough pressure short circuits. Then add in we really never know whats going on in someones life. Recently I had a friend that went to school at an ivy league school,then went to a medical university, then got her phd at UC. Sweetest girl that ever lived, donated time to the homeless, etc... 2 weeks before her phd arrived she jumped off the GGB. How do you prepare for that? No one even knew she was depressed. For weeks we all thought she was murdered, then the letters arrived which pretty much confirmed everything. It was by far the hardest thing I've ever had to deal with. My point is as the country/world/economy crashes more and more people will hit that limit and that crazy wire gets crossed.

 

Prisoners have their own rough code of justice.

Maybe they will pay people to be his buddy like in case of that shooter in Norway. Justice system makes me sick. Isn't it sad when one is left to hope for prisoners to fix (and for free) what legal systems fails to do (for exorbitant amounts of money)?

 

There's very little you can do to prepare for something like this. Would things have turned out differently if the theater had had a policy that allowed patrons with concealed carry permits to carry? Maybe. If the shooter had known that the theater allowed it, would he have decided not to carry out this attack? Maybe. Or would he have just decided to carry out the attack a few blocks away at a different venue? Maybe.

The press conference they had earlier says that from the time the first 911 call came in until the time he was in custody was only about a minute and a half (the police station is only about a block away). You really can't ask for a faster response and that underscores that, in most situations, it is unreasonable to expect police to respond to a crime in progress in time to prevent it -- by the time they are made aware of the situation and physically travel to the scene (even if nearby), whatever is going to happen has already happened.

Like most people, I feel particularly hard hit when young people are killed or injured this way and I cannot begin to imagine how the parents feel or how (or if) they will be able to cope with it. Sadly, losing a child (even to an illness or accident) often causes the eventual breakup of the family because the two parents simply need to deal with it in different ways and the two ways put them in too much conflict for the marriage to survive. At least the counseling and assistance resources are much more aware of these things than they were in years past, so hopefully most of the families will get the right help in order to let them weather such a brutal storm.

As for the gunman. Give him all of the due process and presumption of innocence and a scrupulously fair trial that our system of protections demand and, if he is found not guilty, release him and accept that such is the price of the protections of our system. But if he is found guilty, then he should have the opportunity for one appeal at which he must establish his innocence (not that some technicality wasn't quite met). Furthermore, being already found guilty, the presumption should become one of presumed guilty and, should that appeal fail, then he should be executed within weeks, if not days.

As for the violations of technicalities in the legal system, the remedy there is to deal harshly with those that commit them.

 

As someone who lives on the other side of the Atlantic, and seen the North of my own country torn apart by mindless murder, I can never understand the obsession with "the right to bear arms". Surely some sort of gun control where the nuts & deranged can be stripped of that right would inevitably lead to a safer society.
I do not wish to thread on American political sensitivities but when I see Charles Heston give his "cold dead hands " speech it sends a shiver down my spine.
My condolences to all

 

If "stripping them of that right" was going to have any impact, then why don't we strip them of their right to commit murder in the first place?

Was the problem in the North of your country the result of them having the right to have the weapons they did? Was the solution arrived at by just banning their weapons?

 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...TOk0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=MSEGAAAAIBAJ&pg=3422,522217

1999. Studying medicine too....

 

As someone who lives on the other side of the Atlantic, and seen the North of my own country torn apart by mindless murder, I can never understand the obsession with "the right to bear arms". Surely some sort of gun control where the nuts & deranged can be stripped of that right would inevitably lead to a safer society.
I do not wish to thread on American political sensitivities but when I see Charles Heston give his "cold dead hands " speech it sends a shiver down my spine.
My condolences to all

I've not had the same experiences you have, so I can't feel what you feel. All I can do is apply cold logic to the discussion, and that logic is that if someone's a nut and wants to hurt a bunch of people, they are going to do it by whatever means available. Gun control rarely keeps guns out of the hands of the nefarious, just the innocents. Even if said nut was unable to get his hands on a gun, he could have just as easily (or probably more easily) locked doors and burned the place to the ground and achieved a higher head count.

Even if we took away the right to bear arms from people who are nuts (we do, actually) and who are convicted criminals (we do, for certain crimes), and this guy was abiding by the law previous to the slaghter, it would not have stopped him as he's never had any diagnosed mental illness and his only crime before that was a speeding ticket.

 

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...gives-meaning-bad-timing-light-185707891.html

 

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...gives-meaning-bad-timing-light-185707891.html

I don't know what the time limit is for removing insensitive, oblivious, (potentially automated) tweets, but I didn't hear about the shooting until about 2PM. I'm glad it wasn't my tweet.

 

And I think anyone that makes a big deal over a tweet like that is being completely irrational. The intent of the message was perfectly clear and perfectly reasonable. Yes, if they were aware of the events here they should have (and probably would have) squelched it, but I suspect that it was prepared earlier, perhaps weeks ago, and set to go out automatically.

I'd be willing to bet that, after any tragedy of any type, that you could track down some tweet, some ad, some public comment somewhere that would look insensitive if put side-by-side. Similarly, I would bet that a surprising fraction of tweets, ads, and public comments could be made to appear insensitive if you look hard enough to find a suitable tragic event somewhere that occurred shortly beforehand.

 

I can never understand the obsession with "the right to bear arms". Surely some sort of gun control where the nuts & deranged can be stripped of that right would inevitably lead to a safer society.

that person had no record and wasn't on anyone's "radar". His name was probably run through the normal process when he purchased those weapons. All of the specifics will come out as people promise "not to let this happen again." Unfortunately we will experience another event in the future.

 

that person had no record and wasn't on anyone's "radar". His name was probably run through the normal process when he purchased those weapons.

And this is assuming he even purchased them legally. He may or may not have. As JoeJester points out, doing so in this case shouldn't have presented any difficulty, but even it he had been someone that had just been released from prison for a felony that barred him from owning a firearm for life, he would have just bought them on the private market, stolen them, or bought them on the black market. Keep in mind that making possession and distribution of illicit drugs has had a pretty poor record, worldwide, of preventing anyone that wants the drugs from getting them. The same with weapons -- in fact, like drugs and other things, the more you try to eliminate legal possession, the more available they become on the illegal market (assuming all other factors being the same).

 

Things get out of hand.

On one hand, one could argue that a gun is a tool. Like a drill or hammer, it can be used to kill someone either intentionally, or when used incorrectly. As such, use the gun as a tool and not for 'fun'.

But then, you find that only law abiding people will follow the new law, thus the problem remains of criminals having unlicenced guns.

But then, it would make it easier for the police to intervene earlier against said criminals. They find you with an unlicenced gun and nick you before you have the chance to hurt others.

But what if they licence the gun and then go rampage anyways?

In my opinion, only stricter control can help. I'm not saying ban guns, they are tools for a job. But they are far easier to mis-use than a drill. Nobody needs an AK47, but a gamekeeper might need a shotgun and a rifle.

Would it have helped if anyone else in theatre hand a gun???

 

71 year old man shoots armed robbers, July 13, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm9o3vhKoF8

"Gun Control" is how you disarm honest citizens so they have no way to defend themselves. It has little effect on criminals. After all, if they obeyed the laws, they wouldn't be criminals! Calling for more gun control after each nutcase or robber kills somebody only makes it safer for the criminals.

 

Mass murder by an amok is a universal feature of humanity. Nothing we do can stop it from happening. My heart goes out the the victims of evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

 

When I asked "How to prepare for THIS" I meant, even with so many firearms in the hand of american citizens they are still not prepared. Otherwise there would have been someone to put an end to the attack, right there in the movie theater.

Even though we may say "It's just a tool, like a hammer etc", it's undeniable that pulling a trigger is easier than swinging a hammer, it requires less physical effort and kills more people in less time. There is also little you can do against someone pointing a gun at you...

However I'm beginning to lean more towards having a firearm myself, you never know, might be useful one day.