Colorado 'batman' shooting?

I find it very creepy that his father was scheduled to testify at the LIBOR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeFmpQpccuc"]7/28/2012 -- Colorado Shooter = Father is SENIOR SCIENTIST w/ FICO -- to testify @ LIBOR - YouTube


Is that, in fact true? Anyone?

 

You are correct in the fact that both of these tragedies involve the use of brute force, but you are not acknowledging the differences behind the intent of each tragedy.

1. The tragedy in colorado, was 1 man with no chain of command he had to answer too. He was just a citizen who went off the deep end and there's enough proof now to say he probably had a mental health issue.

2. War involves weapons that have very little precision, and while I wish war could be abolished entirely, it is necessary as long as you have extremists on both sides. Casualties of war happen, but you can't say that scenario in the context of war is equal to a domestic tragedy that had no purpose. In war, the purpose is not to senselessly kill, but to target specific areas and minimize casualties and minimize our own soldiers killed and maimed.

The question remains though, what wars are justified for self-defense, and what wars use the "self-defense" label to get sold because of corporate special interests that is the question.

---
As for most presidents, you can literally see the stress between when they enter office and leave it to let a new administration take over, and obviously those tough military calls aren't ones they take any sick pleasure in.

I see you only looking at the body count, and not any other aspects of context. Again i don't think either situation is good in anyway, but they're different.

It was crime not wartime action. War crimes should be compared to war crimes, and domestic crimes compared to domestic ones.

 

"Prosecutors charged Holmes with 142 counts in the shooting rampage at a midnight showing of the new Batman movie.

Holmes faces two first-degree murder charges for each of the 12 people killed and two attempted first-degree murder charges for every one of the 58 injured in the July 20 shooting."

http://www.theintelligencer.net/pag...lorado-Shooting-Suspect--Charged.html?nav=515

 

:iagree: Look, I even found an Obama Smiley :ears:

 

if anyone in that theater
had happened to have there concealed carry permit
i do believe that asshole would of been in for a rude awakening

i heard that he was actually failing at the college he was attending
no ideal if theres truth to that or not


after something like that i consisder it fair to keep him locked up for the rest of his life
and a family that he hurt be able to stop by and just take turns beating him and inch from his life then stop wait for him to get all better then the next family gets there turn and this process to be repeated till he dies from old age

 

and i also think this things name should not be mentioned
he should not get any kind of regonition for the act that was pulled

 

I have heard the idea that if someone in the theater on the night of the massacre had a concealed weapons permit along with a firearm some good would have come from it, I have to disagree, Imagining a more chaotic scene is hard to do, the movie blaring loudly as rifle shots ricochet off seats and through people all happening as a rush of humanity flood anywhere to escape the gunfire which they would have seen as coming from Holmes as well as the supposed hero. and in the rush of action probably seen as indistinguishable from one another.

To have another shooter firing off rounds in the dark towards Holmes general direction would have been a bad idea, and would have caused even more panic if not more casualties.

 

that could be possible although stating it as as a fact is wrong. that being said if i was 10 feet away from someone shooting a gun indiscriminately in my general direction and had the choice of nothing but a chair as protection or having a chair and a handgun as protection. i am taking the the latter every single time with out thinking about it.

 

I think so, too.
Read my posts and the articles I linked in the thread, you'll probably agree.

You should also read the articles I posted.

 

I never claimed it top be fact.

 

I could see that as a possibility. But it would all depend on who the person is. If someone knew their gun well, and had been trained how to use it then I see it as having more potential for good then bad. But to your point, of it were your average house wife with a hand cannon in her purse it would probably not end well.

That's where I see regulating CCW permits better, but not eliminating them.... as a reasonable answer.

 

Boo! The second amendment is my gun license!!! Moreover, if the government can't trust us with our guns, why should we trust them with theirs?

The people should also be the military, this is how our country was founded.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"~Thomas Jefferson~

 

I find all rifles acceptable and none in need of stronger regulation.

 

I agree completely. However in the case of assault rifles, I see the anti gun folks having a pretty easy of a time getting an all out ban. A compromise may (or may not) be something to look into before things get that far.