mass shooting at movie theatre in Aurora,Colorado
- Thread starter J.LOTTO
- Start date
Is it though?
Would there still be the same amount of gun violence if the gun laws in the states were the exact same but there were absolutely no cartels? Or beyond that, lets say there are no drugs whatsoever, would the gun violence still be the same?
Our laws may facilitate the acquisition and therefore the amount of gun violence, but I would argue the gun violence is a direct result of the cartels and drug trade, not america's gun laws.
Would there still be the same amount of gun violence if the gun laws in the states were the exact same but there were absolutely no cartels? Or beyond that, lets say there are no drugs whatsoever, would the gun violence still be the same?
Our laws may facilitate the acquisition and therefore the amount of gun violence, but I would argue the gun violence is a direct result of the cartels and drug trade, not america's gun laws.
This guy is a coward
[video=youtube;YFZ7C5-h_m4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFZ7C5-h_m4[/video]
this 19 year old stepped up and took care of business!
[video=youtube;YFZ7C5-h_m4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFZ7C5-h_m4[/video]
this 19 year old stepped up and took care of business!
that 19yo deserves getting pussy thrown at him all day now haha
I would be ok with the law. The law would deter me from fuckin shit up.
No, you're comparing two totally different things. We make laws and statutes that say it is ok to drive drunk or ok to drive at this level. Just like we make laws that say if you cross a street in front of a business you get fined X amount of dollars. However, when it comes to murder that is inherently evil and most if not all societies agree with this.
I can provide you with many ISBN's for books devoted to this and can link you to readings and stories on the web that cover the topoc. Many times in third world countries, people fuck up and there whole line gets the business.
This has happened plenty of times and if you were non white they really gave you the treatment.
Just admit it, that would not stop someone with an agenda to hurt others even if their family members were to be held responsible...
It's pretty obvious that shit has never worked and it never will..
And of course it happened to non-white families during the "racist era", black families were assassinated by the white klan due to the fact that those families didn't have the power to defend themselves..
Let's see them try that shit now though, not gonna fly at all..
It's pretty obvious that shit has never worked and it never will..
And of course it happened to non-white families during the "racist era", black families were assassinated by the white klan due to the fact that those families didn't have the power to defend themselves..
Let's see them try that shit now though, not gonna fly at all..
It's Malum prohibitum because the statute makes it that. We don't need a law or statute or rule to tell us rape is wrong, murder is wrong, theft is wrong, etc. However, we have laws saying you can't smoke this, you can't drink this past this level, you can’t drive this fast, you can’t burn this, etc.
No, you aren't reading and if you are going to quote me please understand my premise and refrain from misconstruing what I've plainly typed. What I'm saying is not a "third world idea" even though I referenced third world countries. The fact is, it is a HUMAN idea and can be extended to first world, second world, third world or any other "world" or society. We employ such tactics in times of war against so-called enemies so why should we refrain from utilizing extreme methods on citizens who do heinous crimes? So please, since you mentioned it. provide us with a highly logical and universally agreed on definition of a "civilized society."
In many places they have. In places where they haven't it can be linked to a lack of enforcement and that in itself can be attributed to a multitude of things.
First, you have no jurisdiction of what goes on in another country so that is out of the question. Immediate family would be anyone who is a ward or you have wardship over or a connection that the courts have designated/defined as "immediate family."
As for drawing the line that can be a case by case ordeal or it can be something that is across the board and the same can be said for punishment.
You are never going to get rid of crime but a deterrent is better than nothing. If I know I love my momma, and that if I do X that they are gonna come after her, I'm not doin it.
No, you aren't reading and if you are going to quote me please understand my premise and refrain from misconstruing what I've plainly typed. What I'm saying is not a "third world idea" even though I referenced third world countries. The fact is, it is a HUMAN idea and can be extended to first world, second world, third world or any other "world" or society. We employ such tactics in times of war against so-called enemies so why should we refrain from utilizing extreme methods on citizens who do heinous crimes? So please, since you mentioned it. provide us with a highly logical and universally agreed on definition of a "civilized society."
In many places they have. In places where they haven't it can be linked to a lack of enforcement and that in itself can be attributed to a multitude of things.
First, you have no jurisdiction of what goes on in another country so that is out of the question. Immediate family would be anyone who is a ward or you have wardship over or a connection that the courts have designated/defined as "immediate family."
As for drawing the line that can be a case by case ordeal or it can be something that is across the board and the same can be said for punishment.
You are never going to get rid of crime but a deterrent is better than nothing. If I know I love my momma, and that if I do X that they are gonna come after her, I'm not doin it.
That depends on your definition of agenda and how prone they are to completing it. For many people it would stop them from doing crimes.
No, it isn't pretty obvious, not by a long shot. Like I said, I can provide you with the information if you want it.
But earlier you said "Even in the early days in the united states families didn't get killed when their family members committed ugly crimes.." so which is it? Did whole families get the business for one person fuckin up or not?
White on black crime? Shit, that happens everyday. It may not be the way it happened back then but racism isn't going anywhere. Or are you talking about rounding up entire families (no matter the color) and giving them the treatment? If that's what you're talking about, all it takes is one catalyst, a pen stroke and then it's law.
No, it isn't pretty obvious, not by a long shot. Like I said, I can provide you with the information if you want it.
But earlier you said "Even in the early days in the united states families didn't get killed when their family members committed ugly crimes.." so which is it? Did whole families get the business for one person fuckin up or not?
White on black crime? Shit, that happens everyday. It may not be the way it happened back then but racism isn't going anywhere. Or are you talking about rounding up entire families (no matter the color) and giving them the treatment? If that's what you're talking about, all it takes is one catalyst, a pen stroke and then it's law.
Powepad, power glove, blowing in the cartridge or stickin a piece of cardboard in there so the game would play.
Ghostbusters (I hated the movie and cartoon) so lets go gobots, transformers, Gi Joe (the ONLY time someone died was in gi joe the movie) and WWF.
Purple Rain...Appolonia was fine but she deserved to get slapped up for tryin to join Morris' group.
Like you said fam, you ain't a 80's baby if you don't know about that shit.
Ghostbusters (I hated the movie and cartoon) so lets go gobots, transformers, Gi Joe (the ONLY time someone died was in gi joe the movie) and WWF.
Purple Rain...Appolonia was fine but she deserved to get slapped up for tryin to join Morris' group.
Like you said fam, you ain't a 80's baby if you don't know about that shit.
Heresy ...
I'm a 3rd world country child, I've seen people do some ugly crimes..but never seen their families get put on the line because of their family member that committed the crime...
Yes I said that, but those families were murdered by a group of bigots with an agenda to exterminate a certain race..
And remember, most of those families lost their lives due to lies and laws that were made by WHITE PEOPLE...
Of course racism lives, but I'm talking about black families paid the price over false accusations that were made by the racist white's in the early days.
but to end this shit, I still disagree with you and families shouldn't be responsible for the crime someone in their family committed..
I'm a 3rd world country child, I've seen people do some ugly crimes..but never seen their families get put on the line because of their family member that committed the crime...
Yes I said that, but those families were murdered by a group of bigots with an agenda to exterminate a certain race..
And remember, most of those families lost their lives due to lies and laws that were made by WHITE PEOPLE...
Of course racism lives, but I'm talking about black families paid the price over false accusations that were made by the racist white's in the early days.
but to end this shit, I still disagree with you and families shouldn't be responsible for the crime someone in their family committed..
I understand the difference between the two, I dont think we need a law to tell us that being impaired while driving is wrong. It is not the same as smoking or simply being drunk.
Maybe im not understanding what you are saying, but the way i see it is that you are stating a "human opinion" and using third world countries as support for your opinion. You think that killing or harming the family of a malum in se crime offender would be an accepted and supported belief among the majority of the people in first world countries? I would say it isnt because if the majority of the people believed as such we would at least be hearing some rumblings about it at the minimum, if not it simply being the way of the law as we know it.
I cant say you are wrong because not only do i not know the specifics about successes/failures of having shared culpability, i cant even name you a specific country off the top of my head where this occurred. Nevertheless, i highly doubt shared culpability eliminated crimes in any country that employed that tactic. I wouldnt mind reading about an example if you have one.
Fair enough
I agree with you for the most part, but we already have deterrents. We have to draw the line of how extreme to make the deterrents somewhere. I just dont agree with the idea of shared culpability. The first time this fails, which it is bound to, should we raise the level of the deterrent to killing/punishing someone who had any influence on the person that committed the crime or possibly that person's favorite musician that may have "inspired" them to commit the crime?
I just believe people should be held accountable for their own actions. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
Maybe im not understanding what you are saying, but the way i see it is that you are stating a "human opinion" and using third world countries as support for your opinion. You think that killing or harming the family of a malum in se crime offender would be an accepted and supported belief among the majority of the people in first world countries? I would say it isnt because if the majority of the people believed as such we would at least be hearing some rumblings about it at the minimum, if not it simply being the way of the law as we know it.
I cant say you are wrong because not only do i not know the specifics about successes/failures of having shared culpability, i cant even name you a specific country off the top of my head where this occurred. Nevertheless, i highly doubt shared culpability eliminated crimes in any country that employed that tactic. I wouldnt mind reading about an example if you have one.
Fair enough
I agree with you for the most part, but we already have deterrents. We have to draw the line of how extreme to make the deterrents somewhere. I just dont agree with the idea of shared culpability. The first time this fails, which it is bound to, should we raise the level of the deterrent to killing/punishing someone who had any influence on the person that committed the crime or possibly that person's favorite musician that may have "inspired" them to commit the crime?
I just believe people should be held accountable for their own actions. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
If you understood the difference between the two why are you making comments that suggest otherwise? It isn't a matter of us needing a law to tell us that being impaired while driving is wrong. It is a matter of driving while drunk not being inherently wrong. Listen, murder would be inherently wrong if there were no written law stating otherwise. However, driving drunk is only wrong because laws prohibit it. No law prohibiting it, no violation of the law. You're basing your opinion on what could happen i.e. someone could die by the hands of a drunk driver. What if no one is on the road at the time a person is driving drunk? What if there are no cars period? Would we still need the statute?
I don't know why you aren't comprehending what I've typed. It is coherent and a reasonable person should understand things just fine. In any event let me retype this again.
What I'm saying is not a "third world idea" even though I referenced third world countries. The fact is, it is a HUMAN idea and can be extended to first world, second world, third world or any other "world" or society.
Your question is derived from a warped reading of my statement and is something you should seek to rectify. However, all it would take is a catalyst and a pen stroke and the idea would be accepted by the majority of people in any given country. Remember, countries utilize such methods in times of war and there should be no distinction when it comes to applying the law to citizens within a given country who have committed a heinous crime such as this. Their actions shock the community and the heart of the nation; therefore, such measures should be enacted to protect the stability and well being of the community.
Did I say the majority of people believed this or that? If not, why are you asking a leading question and telling me what the majority currently believe?
BTW, I'm not asking you rhetorical questions so here is a reposting of the question you failed to answer.
We employ such tactics in times of war against so-called enemies so why should we refrain from utilizing extreme methods on citizens who do heinous crimes?
It is highly illogical to openly state that you can't say I'm wrong, that you don't know the specifics about the successes/failures and can't name a specific country yet in the very next sentence say you highly doubt something.
No problem.
Oh yeah, since you mentioned it, provide us with a highly logical and universally agreed on definition of a "civilized society."
Which deterrents are you referencing? The death penalty? Lengthy jail sentences? Fines?
I've already addressed this and have already posed a question that is correlated to such.
This is fine and well within your right.
At best this question is a feeble attempt at relying on a plethora of logical fallacies to strengthen your position. However, it clearly shows your inability, for whatever reason, to utilize basic critical reading and thinking skills.
In short, the question is useless as I’ve already stated who it would be applied to.
It’s great that you believe people should be held accountable for their actions, that is something we both believe. However, I’m all for extending accountability as a deterrent.
I don't know why you aren't comprehending what I've typed. It is coherent and a reasonable person should understand things just fine. In any event let me retype this again.
What I'm saying is not a "third world idea" even though I referenced third world countries. The fact is, it is a HUMAN idea and can be extended to first world, second world, third world or any other "world" or society.
Your question is derived from a warped reading of my statement and is something you should seek to rectify. However, all it would take is a catalyst and a pen stroke and the idea would be accepted by the majority of people in any given country. Remember, countries utilize such methods in times of war and there should be no distinction when it comes to applying the law to citizens within a given country who have committed a heinous crime such as this. Their actions shock the community and the heart of the nation; therefore, such measures should be enacted to protect the stability and well being of the community.
Did I say the majority of people believed this or that? If not, why are you asking a leading question and telling me what the majority currently believe?
BTW, I'm not asking you rhetorical questions so here is a reposting of the question you failed to answer.
We employ such tactics in times of war against so-called enemies so why should we refrain from utilizing extreme methods on citizens who do heinous crimes?
It is highly illogical to openly state that you can't say I'm wrong, that you don't know the specifics about the successes/failures and can't name a specific country yet in the very next sentence say you highly doubt something.
No problem.
Oh yeah, since you mentioned it, provide us with a highly logical and universally agreed on definition of a "civilized society."
Which deterrents are you referencing? The death penalty? Lengthy jail sentences? Fines?
I've already addressed this and have already posed a question that is correlated to such.
This is fine and well within your right.
At best this question is a feeble attempt at relying on a plethora of logical fallacies to strengthen your position. However, it clearly shows your inability, for whatever reason, to utilize basic critical reading and thinking skills.
In short, the question is useless as I’ve already stated who it would be applied to.
It’s great that you believe people should be held accountable for their actions, that is something we both believe. However, I’m all for extending accountability as a deterrent.
The Unknown Why in the Aurora Killings
Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/opinion/sunday/the-unknown-why-in-the-aurora-killings.html?_r=1
YOU’VE had 48 hours to reflect on the ghastly shooting in Colorado at a movie theater. You’ve been bombarded with “facts” and opinions about James Holmes’s motives. You have probably expressed your opinion on why he did it. You are probably wrong.
I learned that the hard way. In 1999 I lived in Denver and was part of the first wave of reporters to descend on Columbine High School the afternoon it was attacked. I ran with the journalistic pack that created the myths we are still living with. We created those myths for one reason: we were trying to answer the burning question of why, and we were trying to answer it way too soon. I spent 10 years studying Columbine, and we all know what happened there, right? Two outcast loners exacted revenge against the jocks for relentlessly bullying them.
Not one bit of that turned out to be true.
But the news media jumped to all those conclusions in the first 24 hours, so they are accepted by many people today as fact. The real story is a lot more disturbing. And instructive.
At every high school, college and school-safety conference I speak at, I hold up the journals left behind by the killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. The audience is shocked at what they learn. Perpetrators of mass murder are usually nothing like our conceptions of them. They are nothing like a vision of pure evil. They are complicated.
Mr. Harris kept a sort of journal for an entire year, focused largely on his plan to blow up his school and mow down survivors with high-powered rifles. Mr. Klebold kept a more traditional journal for two years, spewing a wild array of contradictory teen angst and deep depression, grappling seriously with suicide from the very first page.
Audiences are never surprised by the journal of Mr. Harris. It’s hate-hate-hate all the way through. He was a coldblooded psychopath, in the clinical use of that term. He had no empathy, no regard for human suffering or even human life.
Mr. Klebold’s journal is the revelation. Ten pages are consumed with drawings of giant fluffy hearts. Some fill entire pages, others dance about in happy clusters, with “I LOVE YOU” stenciled across. He was ferociously angry. He had one primary target for his anger. Not jocks, but himself. What a loathsome creature he found himself. No friends, no love, not a soul who cared about him or what became of his miserable life. None of that is objectively true. But that’s what he saw.
It’s a common high school malady, taken to extremes. Psychologists have a simple term for this state: depression. That surprises a lot of people. Depressives look sad, but that is the view from the outside. Of course they’re sad; they’ve probably gone their entire day getting berated relentlessly, by the single person in the world whose opinion they hold most dear — themselves.
Psychologists describe depression as anger turned inward. When that anger is somehow turned around, and projected outward, watch out.
Dylan Klebold was an extreme and rare case. A vast majority of depressives are a danger only to themselves. But it is equally true that of the tiny fraction of people who commit mass murder, most are not psychopaths like Eric Harris or deeply mentally ill like Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech. Far more often, they are suicidal and deeply depressed. The Secret Service’s landmark study of school shooters in 2002 determined that 78 percent of those shooters had experienced suicidal thoughts or attempts before mass murder.
At this very moment, the police have probably gathered a great deal of evidence from James Holmes. They may well have a clear read on his motives right now. It is vital that they share this information fully with the public, but just as vital that they conceal much or all of it while they conduct their investigation. Testimony from friends, family and survivors of the massacre is also crucial, and witnesses are highly suggestible. Information must be withheld in the short run to safeguard corrupting their stories. Not for seven years, as in the case of the Columbine diaries, but perhaps several weeks.
Over the next several days, you will be hit with all sorts of evidence fragments suggesting one motive or another. Don’t believe any one detail. Mr. Holmes has already been described as a loner. Proceed with caution on that. Nearly every shooter gets tagged with that label, because the public is convinced that that’s the profile, and people barely acquainted with the gunman parrot it back to every journalist they encounter. The Secret Service report determined that it’s usually not true.
Resist the temptation to extrapolate details prematurely into a whole. Every time you begin to think we’re ready to answer the burning why, focus on the image of Dylan’s hearts. The killer is rarely who he seems.
Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/opinion/sunday/the-unknown-why-in-the-aurora-killings.html?_r=1
YOU’VE had 48 hours to reflect on the ghastly shooting in Colorado at a movie theater. You’ve been bombarded with “facts” and opinions about James Holmes’s motives. You have probably expressed your opinion on why he did it. You are probably wrong.
I learned that the hard way. In 1999 I lived in Denver and was part of the first wave of reporters to descend on Columbine High School the afternoon it was attacked. I ran with the journalistic pack that created the myths we are still living with. We created those myths for one reason: we were trying to answer the burning question of why, and we were trying to answer it way too soon. I spent 10 years studying Columbine, and we all know what happened there, right? Two outcast loners exacted revenge against the jocks for relentlessly bullying them.
Not one bit of that turned out to be true.
But the news media jumped to all those conclusions in the first 24 hours, so they are accepted by many people today as fact. The real story is a lot more disturbing. And instructive.
At every high school, college and school-safety conference I speak at, I hold up the journals left behind by the killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. The audience is shocked at what they learn. Perpetrators of mass murder are usually nothing like our conceptions of them. They are nothing like a vision of pure evil. They are complicated.
Mr. Harris kept a sort of journal for an entire year, focused largely on his plan to blow up his school and mow down survivors with high-powered rifles. Mr. Klebold kept a more traditional journal for two years, spewing a wild array of contradictory teen angst and deep depression, grappling seriously with suicide from the very first page.
Audiences are never surprised by the journal of Mr. Harris. It’s hate-hate-hate all the way through. He was a coldblooded psychopath, in the clinical use of that term. He had no empathy, no regard for human suffering or even human life.
Mr. Klebold’s journal is the revelation. Ten pages are consumed with drawings of giant fluffy hearts. Some fill entire pages, others dance about in happy clusters, with “I LOVE YOU” stenciled across. He was ferociously angry. He had one primary target for his anger. Not jocks, but himself. What a loathsome creature he found himself. No friends, no love, not a soul who cared about him or what became of his miserable life. None of that is objectively true. But that’s what he saw.
It’s a common high school malady, taken to extremes. Psychologists have a simple term for this state: depression. That surprises a lot of people. Depressives look sad, but that is the view from the outside. Of course they’re sad; they’ve probably gone their entire day getting berated relentlessly, by the single person in the world whose opinion they hold most dear — themselves.
Psychologists describe depression as anger turned inward. When that anger is somehow turned around, and projected outward, watch out.
Dylan Klebold was an extreme and rare case. A vast majority of depressives are a danger only to themselves. But it is equally true that of the tiny fraction of people who commit mass murder, most are not psychopaths like Eric Harris or deeply mentally ill like Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech. Far more often, they are suicidal and deeply depressed. The Secret Service’s landmark study of school shooters in 2002 determined that 78 percent of those shooters had experienced suicidal thoughts or attempts before mass murder.
At this very moment, the police have probably gathered a great deal of evidence from James Holmes. They may well have a clear read on his motives right now. It is vital that they share this information fully with the public, but just as vital that they conceal much or all of it while they conduct their investigation. Testimony from friends, family and survivors of the massacre is also crucial, and witnesses are highly suggestible. Information must be withheld in the short run to safeguard corrupting their stories. Not for seven years, as in the case of the Columbine diaries, but perhaps several weeks.
Over the next several days, you will be hit with all sorts of evidence fragments suggesting one motive or another. Don’t believe any one detail. Mr. Holmes has already been described as a loner. Proceed with caution on that. Nearly every shooter gets tagged with that label, because the public is convinced that that’s the profile, and people barely acquainted with the gunman parrot it back to every journalist they encounter. The Secret Service report determined that it’s usually not true.
Resist the temptation to extrapolate details prematurely into a whole. Every time you begin to think we’re ready to answer the burning why, focus on the image of Dylan’s hearts. The killer is rarely who he seems.
