Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver - Thread 2 [W:1/52]

[RedAkston]

Since the first thread was closing in on 2000 posts rather quickly, this is a continuation of that thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...tack-batman-film-premiere-denver-w-120-a.html

Moderator's Warning:

Let's leave the personal attacks, baiting, flaming and trolling out of this thread and stick to the topic at hand. Debates over gun control laws do not belong in this thread.

 

[Moot]

People don't like false terms being created to describe weapons. It's a comination of hating the stupidity of the creators of the term and the complete ignorance of the subject it projects.

From reading the Wiki article I got the impression that the Assault Weapons Ban law used the term "assault weapons" to describe a group of weapons that could all rapid fire, as opposed to weapons that didn't. The law also made the distinction between assault rifles by defining them separately even though they were included the assault weapons ban. Should the law makers have said "rapid fire weapons" instead of "assault weapons" and would it have made any difference in the types of guns that were banned?


Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




I just noticed the DP forum doesn't seem to have a firearms/gun rights forum of it's own which surprises me considering how many people like to discuss guns and how political the topic is.

edit oops I just read Hugh's warning. So I guess this conversation is over.

 

[TurtleDude]

From reading the Wiki article I got the impression that the Assault Weapons Ban law used the term "assault weapons" to describe a group of weapons that could all rapid fire, as opposed to weapons that didn't. The law also made the distinction between assault rifles by defining them separately even though they were included the assault weapons ban. Should the law makers have said "rapid fire weapons" instead of "assault weapons" and would it have made any difference in the types of guns that were banned?


Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




I just noticed the DP forum doesn't seem to have a firearms/gun rights forum of it's own which surprises me considering how many people like to discuss guns and how political the topic is.

edit oops I just read Hugh's warning. So I guess this conversation is over.

all semi automatics can fire at the same speed. some have tubular magazines that limit the amount of ammunition they can hold. Most use detachable magazines which can allow the weapon to fire 20-30-40 rounds without reloading though some small pistols do not CURRENTLY have say 20 round magazines available for them. THe weapon the killer in Colorado used is an aftermarket magazine not sold by the makers of the various versions of the AR-15 (Armalite developed the AR-15, it was designed by Gene SToner over 50 years ago and Armalite was a division of Hughes Aircraft. The patent was sold to Colt Firearms but the patent has long expired and varous makers (often using the same parts subcontractors of competitors) market an AR-15. Those include, Colt, Bushmaster, Windham Firearms (the Old Bushmaster/Quality Parts contractor in Windham Maine) Armalite (the name was bought by a subsidiary of the Belgian Fabrique National which won the Military M16 contract for a short period of time) Smith and Wesson, Rock RIver Arms, Lewis Machine Tool, Remington, and DSA among others. THere are at least 20 different "Makers" or marketers of AR 15s that I have personally handled and/or fired.

THe most popular 100 round magazine (there are not more than a couple IIRC) retails for over 250 dollars and I have seen maybe two in use in all the years I have shot. They are bulky, make the weapon hard to carry for sustained periods of time and are not nearly as reliable as the common military spec magazines such as the "MAGPUL" brand magazines which many competitive shooters use

 

[dontworrybehappy]

From reading the Wiki article I got the impression that the Assault Weapons Ban law used the term "assault weapons" to describe a group of weapons that could all rapid fire, as opposed to weapons that didn't.

Would you consider a .22LR semi-auto 17rd rifle as an assault weapon? Because, according to your article on wiki, it had nothing to do with caliber. If the .22LR had a detachable magazine and folding stock, by definition, it's an assault weapon.

You see how stupid this gets?

 

[tessaesque]

Back to the main premise:

One of my former coworkers posted a very thought provoking statement on facebook regarding the shooting. Prior to working with me at Rave Cinemas he worked for Cinemark for 10 years. He said that as a theater manager he'd probably spend a significant amount of time after the shooting blaming and questioning himself, wondering if there is anything he or his staff could have done to prevent something like this.

That said: I wonder if Cinemark corporate will put any sort of grief counseling or other programs into place for the theater staff (or if they'll contribute to a victim relief fund).

 

[ttwtt78640]

From reading the Wiki article I got the impression that the Assault Weapons Ban law used the term "assault weapons" to describe a group of weapons that could all rapid fire, as opposed to weapons that didn't. The law also made the distinction between assault rifles by defining them separately even though they were included the assault weapons ban. Should the law makers have said "rapid fire weapons" instead of "assault weapons" and would it have made any difference in the types of guns that were banned?


Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




I just noticed the DP forum doesn't seem to have a firearms/gun rights forum of it's own which surprises me considering how many people like to discuss guns and how political the topic is.

edit oops I just read Hugh's warning. So I guess this conversation is over.

The rate of fire ALONE does not make an "assault weapon", as all semi-automatic firearms are capable of fairly rapid fire (as fast as you can pull the trigger for each round). The distintions were largely cosmetic, stock/grip design, magazine capacity and threaded barrel for flash suppressor (or other attachments) for rifles. For pistols I beleive it was based on weight and having a heat shielded barrel. Essentially if it LOOKED dangerous it was illegal. I believe that was a silly law since you could basically change only the magazine capacity (or remove the threading from the barrel tip) and the SAME weapon became "legal".

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

Using this unfortunate circumstance as a platform for gun control is ludicrous. Guns do not kill people, people kill people.
Had the bombs in the booby-trapped apartment gone off, likely more people would have died from that than gunshots.
Given the fact that I myself, being only slightly versed in science, can walk into a Home Depot and buy all the ingredients needed to build a deadly explosive, I would think if a deranged psycho is set out to kill people he will find a way.
Take a look at this picture.. Each blue mark indicates an incident were a gun was used in home defense which resulted in the home owner possibly saving their own life. Now tell me... Would you have sacrificed all those lives for the 12 in Colorado?
I am not meaning to be cold, but I am trying to keep things real.

Source:

www.gunssavelives.net/incident-map/

 

[Paratrooper]

This thread reminds me of:

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

Rahm Emanuel

I can set my glock on the table right now and watch it, and it will not shoot anyone. I have had it for 6 years and it has never killed anyone. Guns are not the problem.
Everytime a situation like this happens the knee jerk response is to call for bans are more strict requirements.

This guy wanted to kill a lot of people. If he did not have guns he would have simply found another way to do it. Like grabbing an old copy of the Anarchist Cookbook and making something nasty out of components he could buy at Walmart. I mean he didn't just flip out and start rampaging, he planned this well in advance.

If more people in that theater were armed, less deaths might have resulted. The police response time was 1.5-2minutes (impressive) yet by the time they got there the damage was done. Unless were talking "Minority Report" police have to know a crime is taking place before they can respond to it.

We can't wrap ourselves in a bubble and simply prevent murder from happening, there have always been bad people doing bad things, and there always will be. Incidents like this while terrible are rare and do not justify punishing all Americans by restricting their rights.

 

[MSgt]

It is unbelievable how pathetic and weak minded people are in the wake of tragedy. The stupidity is jaw dropping.....


Breivik traveled Europe and the Internet to obtain his weapons, which he used in Norway to murder 77 people. Terrorists use communication wire and cellular phones to create explosives (some even use airplanes). Given the sincerity and commitment of the DC Sniper, without the ability to obtain a Bushmaster he would have simply used a deer rifle since single shot attacks was his forte. And most people murdered are done so with hand guns...not rifles.

So what is the answer to everybody's pathetic fear? Ban the Internet? Ban comm wire and cell phones? Ban hunting rifles? Hand guns? No, but we want to appeal to everybody's immediate and temporary emotions by focusing on what happened most recently and exploit it don't we? Certain Democrats have this false idea that if we only apply just the right amount of sledge hammer to our Ammendments that utopia will spring forth. Somehow, the idea of cracking down on Semi-Automatic assault rifles will make everybody feel responsible and safe. Didn't jack the Ripper use a knife? The Boston Strangler strangled (I assume from the name). The fact is that most people are killed by people they know and many are crimes of passion meaning any weapon available (Home Depot better start screening who they sell hammers to).

Well, I own a Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle. Never killed anybody with it. I own handguns. Never killed anybody with them. I own a cell phone and sometimes I fly on airplanes. I've never made a bomb. But just like a car, we don't know who is going to drink and drive until they do. And if they kill somebody are we supposed to assume some sort of great responsibility to crack down on DMVs and the inability to sniff out the drunk? Or the First Class Citizen who will one day be fired from his job, get drunk, and drive?

The answer isn't more rules and more laws. The answer is not to react like weaklings afraid of the 99 percent of gun owners who don't go on rampages in theaters. The answer is to deal with the incident as an incident and not a trend. (Of course, if we want to remind people about Colombine maybe we should ban weapons from people born in Colorado.)

What angers me about this (aside from the weak minded jack asses wishing upon a utopian star) is that I deserve better. I spent 20 years in the Marine Corps. During that time I have done my job from behind the trigger abroad. I have trained behind M249 SAW, 50 cal, and 240G (even the M60) machine guns. I have trained with grenade launchers and even automatic machine gun grenade launchers. But now that I have earned a bit of retirement and relaxation from all of that I'm supposed to entertain the idea of a few mindless morons who are overreacting to another moron dressed as the Joker?

Idiots.

Most people who have Concealed Weapons Permits usually don't even carry. Perhaps they should. The first thing people I described above will say is that we don't need citizen shoot outs in theaters. Perhaps. Or perhaps the "Joker" would have managed to kill less. But isn't that the policeman's job? Hell no. Are you assigned a personal cop for your protection? "Protect and Serve" is and has always been a joke. Policemen and strictly reactionary. If your car gets broken into they will react, dust, and move on to the next call after the fact. If your house gets broken into, you will wait on that phone for police to react. And if the "Joker" appears in your movie theater firing weapons senselessy into the crowd your option is to stop him....... or wait for somebody with a badge to react while the blood stains the seats.

And the same kind of people I describe will also bring up the crime rate in America in correlation to our gun laws in comparison to the rest of the world. They will dismiss the fact that our culture is built around aggression in the first place. They will dismiss the fact that guns merely add to the romance of the rapper. They will dismiss that donning boxing gloves football pads is a great way to teach our young that inflicting pain can be entertaining to others and fun to ourselves. But they dare whine about a handgun or a rifle in our society? We groom aggression. We always have. We have built our society on the basis of rebellion and defiance towards establishment. From the Revolutionary War to the Civil Rights Marches Americans have raised a fist at "the man" who dares to tell them what to do or where their place is. We produce movies that glorify violence. We stamp a code on video games and pretend we are now responsible for what we buy our kids. We've come a long way from Pacman to Grand Theft Auto where stealing, murdering, and ****ing prostitutes is awesome. But pretend to have some sort of responsibility morality to everyday life because we react stupidly to a single incident in a theater who absolutely has to define the vast majority of gun owners like me? And aren't most gun violent crimes committed by civilians anyway? Maybe it should be all civilians we crack down on. That "Joker" represents that side of our society. I know who I'm supposed to kill.

And by the way....Prague is known for being the most important transit site point for illicit drugs and weapons in Europe. Despite this fact Prague also has one of the lowest crime rates among European capitals. Explain that. Their cops better? Since cops react....is their education better? Since most of the world class universities reside in America....is their culture more passive?

The answer to this problem is a complex one. It's not as simple as introducing more rules and laws to strip away for which merely feeds the lawyer/judicial system of irresponsibility....who by the way...become politicians that "represent" you.

 

[MSgt]

This thread reminds me of:

Rahm Emanuel

I can set my glock on the table right now and watch it, and it will not shoot anyone. I have had it for 6 years and it has never killed anyone. Guns are not the problem.
Everytime a situation like this happens the knee jerk response is to call for bans are more strict requirements.

This guy wanted to kill a lot of people. If he did not have guns he would have simply found another way to do it. Like grabbing an old copy of the Anarchist Cookbook and making something nasty out of components he could buy at Walmart. I mean he didn't just flip out and start rampaging, he planned this well in advance.

If more people in that theater were armed, less deaths might have resulted. The police response time was 1.5-2minutes (impressive) yet by the time they got there the damage was done. Unless were talking "Minority Report" police have to know a crime is taking place before they can respond to it.

We can't wrap ourselves in a bubble and simply prevent murder from happening, there have always been bad people doing bad things, and there always will be. Incidents like this while terrible are rare and do not justify punishing all Americans by restricting their rights.

Absolutely. But this flies in the face of the dreamers who pin their commitment to achieve utopia on simple solutions and control. Police response isn't good enough. The threat must be dealt with as the threat appears. Therefore, it is up to the responsible citizen to protect himself and his fellow citizen. By the time the first cop appeared (1.5-2 minutes), he should have just had to collect witness statements and the dead criminal.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Back to the main premise:

One of my former coworkers posted a very thought provoking statement on facebook regarding the shooting. Prior to working with me at Rave Cinemas he worked for Cinemark for 10 years. He said that as a theater manager he'd probably spend a significant amount of time after the shooting blaming and questioning himself, wondering if there is anything he or his staff could have done to prevent something like this.

That said: I wonder if Cinemark corporate will put any sort of grief counseling or other programs into place for the theater staff (or if they'll contribute to a victim relief fund).

Surely such potential feelings of guilt will afflict any who had an operational function associated with the crime.

Where it gets more dicey is where there may have been a protocol or procedure not followed, or recommended and dismissed, that then better allowed the attack.

The theater is going to face lawsuits. Whereas they have basic security if one comes through the front, as in 'must have a ticket, must use ticket at checkpoint, must walk in well lit areas before gaining admission to darkened auditorium", the issue will be the level of security, if any, provided to minimize the ease to which such measures are circumvented. Like coming in through an emergency exit. Or an exit designated only for exit. Was the door wired to provide some alert that it was open, and in this case, propped open ? If so, then who was not monitoring such ? Or ignored such ? How about cameras outside the back doors, on a simple closed circuit ? Or was all this possible or available, but then nixed by a company VP because it was seen as a "low crime" area ?

I am sure that the second-guessing is already in high gear.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I do wonder what theaters are going to address as far as their safety protocol goes. I had gone to see a movie that showed in the smallest theater, don't remember which one but they used the E.exits as primaries for but it led to the parking lot after the movie finished, that would necessitate that the alarm had to be disabled or that they had the door unlocked and it could open without the push bar. The only way this kid could have propped up the door to get out was if it remained unlocked for him to open it, had the push bar been necessary it would have triggered the alarm, it's tied to the lock and bar mechanism.

I do wonder if not only theaters but other establishments will start to take those doors more seriously.

 

[Moot]

all semi automatics can fire at the same speed. some have tubular magazines that limit the amount of ammunition they can hold. Most use detachable magazines which can allow the weapon to fire 20-30-40 rounds without reloading though some small pistols do not CURRENTLY have say 20 round magazines available for them. THe weapon the killer in Colorado used is an aftermarket magazine not sold by the makers of the various versions of the AR-15 (Armalite developed the AR-15, it was designed by Gene SToner over 50 years ago and Armalite was a division of Hughes Aircraft. The patent was sold to Colt Firearms but the patent has long expired and varous makers (often using the same parts subcontractors of competitors) market an AR-15. Those include, Colt, Bushmaster, Windham Firearms (the Old Bushmaster/Quality Parts contractor in Windham Maine) Armalite (the name was bought by a subsidiary of the Belgian Fabrique National which won the Military M16 contract for a short period of time) Smith and Wesson, Rock RIver Arms, Lewis Machine Tool, Remington, and DSA among others. THere are at least 20 different "Makers" or marketers of AR 15s that I have personally handled and/or fired.

THe most popular 100 round magazine (there are not more than a couple IIRC) retails for over 250 dollars and I have seen maybe two in use in all the years I have shot. They are bulky, make the weapon hard to carry for sustained periods of time and are not nearly as reliable as the common military spec magazines such as the "MAGPUL" brand magazines which many competitive shooters use

So all semi automatics can fire at the same speed. Is that the only thing that makes them semi-automatic? If so could you group all semi-automatics into a category?

 

[Moot]

Would you consider a .22LR semi-auto 17rd rifle as an assault weapon? Because, according to your article on wiki, it had nothing to do with caliber. If the .22LR had a detachable magazine and folding stock, by definition, it's an assault weapon.

You see how stupid this gets?

Is the .22LR semi-auto 17rd rifle a rapid fire weapon?

 

[Moot]

Back to the main premise:

One of my former coworkers posted a very thought provoking statement on facebook regarding the shooting. Prior to working with me at Rave Cinemas he worked for Cinemark for 10 years. He said that as a theater manager he'd probably spend a significant amount of time after the shooting blaming and questioning himself, wondering if there is anything he or his staff could have done to prevent something like this.

That said: I wonder if Cinemark corporate will put any sort of grief counseling or other programs into place for the theater staff (or if they'll contribute to a victim relief fund).

I read somewhere the theater companies are going to beef up their security. I wouldn't be surprised is some of the victim's families tried to sue the theaters. But I really don't think it was their fault.

But do you think the movie shares in some of the blame. After all, Holmes thought he was the Joker.

 

[Moot]

The rate of fire ALONE does not make an "assault weapon", as all semi-automatic firearms are capable of fairly rapid fire (as fast as you can pull the trigger for each round). The distintions were largely cosmetic, stock/grip design, magazine capacity and threaded barrel for flash suppressor (or other attachments) for rifles. For pistols I beleive it was based on weight and having a heat shielded barrel. Essentially if it LOOKED dangerous it was illegal. I believe that was a silly law since you could basically change only the magazine capacity (or remove the threading from the barrel tip) and the SAME weapon became "legal".

So if all semi-automatic firearms can rapid fire, could you put them into a single category or classification of weapons?

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

Is the .22LR semi-auto 17rd rifle a rapid fire weapon?

Moot, please do your homework before spouting off about things which you do not fully understand.

A semi-auto can fire as rapid as you can pull the trigger. I can fire 17 rounds in 2.5 seconds. Is that rapid enough?
So the question was, do you consider it an "assault rifle"?

Do you?

 

[tessaesque]

I read somewhere the theater companies are going to beef up their security. I wouldn't be surprised is some of the victim's families tried to sue the theaters. But I really don't think it was their fault.

But do you think the movie shares in some of the blame. After all, Holmes thought he was the Joker.

I don't know that we can blame the movie anymore than we can blame Linkin Park and Marilyn Manson for Columbine.

 

[Moot]

Using this unfortunate circumstance as a platform for gun control is ludicrous. Guns do not kill people, people kill people.
Had the bombs in the booby-trapped apartment gone off, likely more people would have died from that than gunshots.
Given the fact that I myself, being only slightly versed in science, can walk into a Home Depot and buy all the ingredients needed to build a deadly explosive, I would think if a deranged psycho is set out to kill people he will find a way.
Take a look at this picture.. Each blue mark indicates an incident were a gun was used in home defense which resulted in the home owner possibly saving their own life. Now tell me... Would you have sacrificed all those lives for the 12 in Colorado?
I am not meaning to be cold, but I am trying to keep things real.

Source:

Map Of Self Defense Stories Using Firearms | Guns Save Lives

In this country we seem be reactionary's and respond after the fact, rather than prepare for what might happen. It wasn't always like that but thats the way it seems these days. The clamour for banning guns will soon die down, it always does until another tradgedy occurs and then it starts up again. Here is a map of all the gun massacres that have occured over the last thirty years in the US.

MAP: 50 Mass Murders Across America in 30 Years | Mother Jones

They are random and unpredictable and probably impossible to prepare against without taking away everyone's freedom in some way or another.

 

[Moot]

Moot, please do your homework before spouting off about things which you do not fully understand.

A semi-auto can fire as rapid as you can pull the trigger. I can fire 17 rounds in 2.5 seconds. Is that rapid enough?
So the question was, do you consider it an "assault rifle"?

Do you?

Hasn't the distinction already been made between an assault rifle and assault weapons? The wiki link I posted says there is and I am not disputing that.

 

[Moot]

I don't know that we can blame the movie anymore than we can blame Linkin Park and Marilyn Manson for Columbine.

Yes, I agree, the movie can't be blamed....although sometimes I wonder if the more we see violence on the screen, the more we become immune to it.

 

[ecofarm]

So if all semi-automatic firearms can rapid fire, could you put them into a single category or classification of weapons?

Yes. Semi-automatic.

 

[Moot]

Yes. Semi-automatic.

Thats what I thought. So the main objection seems to be calling them assault weapons instead of semi-automatics, is that it?

 

[nota bene]

I don't know that we can blame the movie anymore than we can blame Linkin Park and Marilyn Manson for Columbine.

If I'm not mistaken, SCOTUS has sided with the artist in cases that reach it, e.g. the 2LiveCrew case.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So if all semi-automatic firearms can rapid fire, could you put them into a single category or classification of weapons?

Sure but for what purpose? This is the part of "gun control" that makes no sense to me. Pistols, rifles and shotguns are all capable of being used to commit crime and all capable of many other uses. What difference do you think it makes to a victim whether they were shot with a revolver or a semi-auto pistol? I prefer my semi-auto pistol because it is flatter/shorter than a revolver (1 1/4" wide, 6" long), has a 15 round magazine and is thus easier to carry and less likely to ever need a reload (picture on my profile page).