Batman Shooting
POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Monday, August 13, 2012 04:15
VIEWED: 47539
PAGE 8 of 19
Just for fun, let's throw this into the mix:Quote:
The conceptual problem is immensely difficult, especially in a society that is already as gun-saturated as America is today. The political problem borders on the impossible. Gun policy in this country is made by the National Rifle Association, and no serious effort at gun control can currently get past its veto.
Even when legislation passed during the Clinton years in the form of the Brady bill, requiring background checks at the time of gun purchases, or the assault weapons ban, the NRA succeeded in injecting gaping loopholes into the laws.
Who needs to go through a background check at Walmart when you can get your gun without one at the local gun show or from some shady figure on a street corner?
The assault weapon ban only prohibited the manufacture of new guns (it grandfathered in a huge cache of pre-existing weapons) and gun manufacturers easily redesigned their guns to circumvent the ban. The NRA then trumpets how "gun control" doesn't work.
But it can.
Consider what happened in Australia after a crazed gunman killed 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996.
The Australian federal government persuaded all states and territories to implement tough new gun control laws. Under the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), firearms legislation was tightened throughout the country. National registration of guns was imposed and it became illegal to hold certain long guns that might be used in mass shootings.
The gun ban was backed up by a mandatory buy-back program that substantially reduced gun possession in Australia.
The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total suicides and homicides) fell. Importantly, while there were 13 mass shootings in Australia during the period of 1979--96, there have been none in the sixteen years since.
In 1996, then-Prime Minister John Howard stated that the "whole scheme is designed to reduce the number of guns in the community and make Australia a safer place to live." The Australian attorney general praised the cooperation and responsibility of Australian firearms owners with the gun controls and buy-back, saying, "they have been paid cash for their firearms - giving our nation a welcome Christmas gift by removing unnecessary high-powered firearms from the community. It offers all of us the real chance of a safer festive season and New Year."
Of course, the Australian gun control law in 1997 enjoyed an extremely high level of public support and was not hampered by any domestic gun industry (since Australia did not have any).
Such would not be the case in the United States where pro-gun political views and NRA power create a very different climate. In the wake of another tragic massacre of innocent lives, we should look carefully at the Australian experience to see if the American public will ever rise up as one against gun violence.
They won't of course...rise up that is...and if they did, politicians and the NRA would smack 'em back down. But it's worth noting that it worked in Australia.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, hey, I love it! What I said about the response being that if someone else in the theater had a gun, the mass murder could have been avoided? I was right on target:Quote:
The CNN story about the Aurora movie theater shooting had more than 19,000 comments as of 3:45 p.m. ET. The most "liked" comment -- and one that has inspired dozens of responses -- came from Samuel27: "If only there had been someone else with a gun there to stop him. Because nothing is safer than having multiple gunmen in a dark, crowded theater full of panicky people running around."
Samuel27 apparently meant his words sarcastically, but several commenters took him seriously, observing that the surprise and panic created by a sudden shooting is not the atmosphere in which to react with more shooting.
Cestlavie3 wrote an armed civilian could have lowered the number of casualties. "I'm sitting in a theater, three rows in front of me a man stands up and starts shooting. Immediately I access my pistol, stand up and then end his life. He has killed 2 people, but 12 others will go home alive. You do the math," he wrote.
PCShogun wrote that taking action was important.
"I'd rather die with a gun in my hand trying to defend my family and myself than see them all die in front of me knowing I did nothing to try and stop it."
Perhaps the split between opinions is best captured by commenter Corey Hurd, who echoes the ideas of a much different film, Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven," in which Eastwood's character remarks, "It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have."
"By the vast majority of comments on this site, everybody needs some form of counseling; this is not about black or white or red and blue states," Hurd wrote. "Human lives were taken without regard; we need serious dialogue here, but the saddest thing about it is that there aren't any politicians who want to step up to the plate. Should we arm every citizen with a Desert Eagle, am not sure that will make us all safer.
Please note that there were myriad comments about the fact that someone else having a gun WOULDN'T have solved the problem. I omitted them to make my point, but in fairness here they are:Quote:
"So all you people out there commenting with your guns are all crack shots that you could take this nutjob down with one shot, without hitting anybody else, in a darkened theater, where said nutjob threw a smoke bomb and there are panicked people running around. That's impressive. Unrealistic, but impressive," wrote Laureth. "How would you people feel if instead of hitting the nutjob, you shot someone's kid by mistake?"
Commenter CAFlyers -- who identified himself on a phone call as Robert Bickle of Townsend, Massachusetts -- wrote, "Based on the facts as I know them, I have to say that it is UNLIKELY that I would have been able to take the shot in this scenario effectively due to the state of mind I would have been in at the theater, the speed of the event, the smoke, the commotion, etc."
In a phone interview, Bickle, a Navy veteran and former law enforcement officer whose family has deep roots in both the military and police, added that his family's safety would have been at the top of his mind in such a situation.
"I would be more concerned about the person I was with, and especially if my two kids were there, I'd probably spend my time throwing them on the ground and getting on top of them and crawling our way out of there, than I would ever reaching down into my ankle holster or shoulder holster and try to pull out a weapon and return fire," he said.
BryanPetty cautioned that taking such a shot carries risks. "Conceal and Carry personnel should know better than to draw down in this situation, unless they had a clear shot and could neutralize the target,&quo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The Gun Is All. That's what I've seen over and over here, and I think the folk here represent how a lot of pro-gun people think.
Hello,
I think you'll find me a pro-gun person and I think you'll find that I stated quite early on that I don't think there's anything I could have done even if I had been in that theater with a gun.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It rather heartens me that folks here seem to be a bit more rational and reasonable about this.
Agreed, very unlikely given the amount of preparation and venue involved that a CCW holder could have made significant impact on the situation, despite the typical gunbunny knee jerk response.
Also agreed, very unlikely ridiculous TSA-level security theatre would have made an impact either, again, due to the prep and planning involved and the fashion in which it was carried out, despite the typical "anti" knee jerk response.
Honestly, neither extreme, nor anything in between, could have prevented or mitigated this.
And PROFOUNDLY agreed, Siggy - this is a mental health problem, NOT a gun issue, but why is it that no one ever seems to realize that ?
Both "sides" were chucking stones at each other before the wounded were even cared for, and that outrages me a bit.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony, I wasn't directing my comments at you, but at the more fervent gun-bunnies here, who have repeatedly stated that "if only someone had had a gun..." something would have been solved. You've read it here before, surely.
Yes, Frem, it sickens me too, mostly because it's a waste of breath. In my opinion, something like this happening (or any of the other mass murders!) SHOULD bring the discussion to the fore, but the way things actually are, I think even talking about gun restrictions is a waste of time, so they shouldn't be bothering to take the focus off the tragedy itself.
And yes, it is a mental-health issue, which again, little or nothing is done about. So many slip through the cracks, or end up on the street, our mental-health system is a disaster. Unfortunately, tho', there is a down side to that, too, in that invariably people look toward easy fixes...like forced medication, of which I, of course, am terrified! There are myriad things we COULD do to solve that problem, but that's not what people look to immediately...and if Romney gets in office, guaranteed mental-health care will LESSEN, not improve. As well as whatever minor gun restrictions that might exist being lifted...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Theatre-wise, ONE FUCKING USHER checking doors could have prevented/limited this. Oh, no ushers anymore. Well, the theatre corporation saved themselves a lot of money.
Smaller version of 9-11 here. No or shit security for BUDGETARY reasons. Save a buck; lose some lives.
Hello,
I don't think more security is the answer to this question. I'm not sure I want enough security to protect me from madmen who plan killing sprees.
Bringing ushers back would hardly be an overblown security measure. This situation wouldn't have needed "enough security to protect from madmen," it just would have needed enough security to close a door. It might not have saved everyone, but it would certainly have made a difference.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey all,
Until our culture stops perceiving the mentally ill as some kind of sideshow, something shameful, something to be shunned, we'll never be able to help people like James Holmes (Even among us here, I'm sure there are several of you who want nothing to do with helping him). Until then we'll be continually shutting barn doors after the cows are gone. At this point in our history, all of our solutions to the James Holms problem focus on his monstrosity. More guns to put him down! Fewer guns to control his choices!
The state of the mental health system in America is apalling, not just in terms of funding and the like, but, more broadly and crucially, in terms of culture. Holms was ill before the rampage. This was known by key people in his life. But nothing was done about it because our society sneers at healing, at therapy and "dependancy," "playing the victim," etc. etc. etc. Those who seek help are weak, shameful. We push people toward antisocial behavior, rather then showing them and affirming the real need for healing. Every time we, in our dubious superiority, casually celebrate our contempt for "group hugs" and "kumbaya moments" and "being needy" and "speaking from the heart" and "victim culture," etc., we participate in this other culture that sees violence and control as the best solution for our worst problems.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gawd, Cav, that was SO beautiful and SO right on it almost made me cry. It's wonderful to see a person "get it", and pretty rare.
Tell you one thing, tho'; mood disorders experience less stigma now than they did (when people who weren't famous just got locked away in a "madhouse"--those with talent and/or fame, of course, were only considered "eccentric"!), and hopefully down the line that will keep happening. What to DO about it probably won't improve until the stigma is far less, unfortunately, but it's on the right road.
On the other hand, the state of our mental-health care is absolutely horrific. The mentality these days is to drug the hell out of someone until they stop "acting out", then give them a prescription and turn them loose--or put them in jail. Believe me, I experienced it first hand with Jo, many times. She could act out like nobody's business, and the actual treatment she got was minimal, even when we had to 51/50 her.
I knew two perfect examples of bipolars who didn't get treatment. May have posted this before. One young lady, VERY bright, professional (tho' I'm not sure being a lawyer necessarily represented her "sanity"!), very "normal" most of the time, took a tire iron to her pharmacist when he wouldn't give her drugs to commit suicide. She ended up in county jail. Another, really sweet lady, did "slalom" on the Golden Gate Bridge, weaving between the cones that separate one direction from the other (makes me shudder just to think of it!). She ended up in County too, and lost custody of her two kids to boot. Both were really nice people, sensible as anyone 90% of the time, but after their stints in County nobody bothered to get them any further treatment, help them afford counseling, or ANYTHING else. So those sorts of things would probably happen to them again, and maybe worse, down the line. How does that help anyone??
The mentality has to change before the treatment can, as you said, and I probably won't see it in my lifetime, unfortunately.
Threadjack: One of the things I'm happiest to see on TV is that the mentally disordered are beginning to show up as PEOPLE...hell, showing up at ALL is an improvement, even if it's just as the "token" mentally ill. The single best character on Alphas (which I just started watching) is the autistic boy and, tho' they haven't got autism down perfectly, and seem to be making him less and less autistic as time goes on, it's a start.
Then there's the new series "Perspective", of which the star is a schizophrenic. I'm really grateful for that one--not only have they managed to get schizophrenia down pretty damned well, but they've shown how he can be a perfectly valid member of society (a working professor), can solve things others couldn't with the help of his manifested subconscious AND that he makes a serious effort to be responsible and aware of his disorder. It's still far from perfect (Law & Order was a pioneer in this and did a damned good job with bipolars! and not half bad with schizophrenics, tho' they tended to show the latter negatively), but again, it's a start.
Just like other minorities, if we can get a place in TV and be integrated as real people, it can only help. But we have a DAMNED long way to go, and until something changes, you hit the nail on the head, Cav. In spades.
By the way, it COULD be worse. In Japan, people are too ashamed to even ADMIT they have a problem, and if they dare admit it to their family, they get locked up so the family doesn't have to face the "shame". So it could be worse.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Meanwhile, here's some food for thought:
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If we're talking underlying issues now, I think the focus needs to be on more than just mental health, especially since most people who are crazy are not violent.
Seems to me like the people who go on mass shootings are usually white men. Why is that? Why is it that a very small subset of crazy white men reach for this type of violence, and very few other people (and only one (white) woman that I can find) do? If this was just because of some general culture of violence, wouldn't it affect everyone equally? Because it seems to me like a) something about white masculinity is attracted to the idea of mass shootings and/or b) white men have greater access to the tools needed for mass shootings.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME