Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2012 13:45:38 GMT -5
Oops...didn't even take that long: ABC News draws possible Tea Party connectionThe shooter's name is "James Holmes". Brian Ross looked at a Colorado Tea Party web site and found a "Jim Holmes". Without verifying that it was in fact the same guy, they reported it anyway. Assholes. Don't pay any attention to the reporting after the event, for a while. It's dead time that simply MUST be filled with speculation, conjuration, and fear. Just be glad that the guy's name was not Muhammed Holmes". Not just the media, either. Within hours of the event, some govt. employee was quoted as stating "this is NOT an act of terrorism". Huh? Did someone change the definition of "terrorism"? I mean, if ripping apart a crowded movie theater doesn't qualify, what IS terrorism? And, only 2-3 hours after the event, the govt. guy has presumably NO CLUE as to the shooter's motivations. I don't even have the slightest curiosity as to this guy's motivations. Maybe he's some covert liberal, trying to make a point about gun control... Or, maybe a delusional liberal who imagined he'd just been appointed czar of the secret "Death Panel" by the president. (change "liberal to whatever group you are currently suspicious of, and that's as good as anything that will be reported about the guy for a couple days). There WILL be interviews with a couple neighbors who remember the shooter as "He seemed like a pretty nice guy, really. kinda quiet, and kept to himself...." Let it sit for a few days. Whether he was a liberal or some kind of tea bagger is a pretty peculiar concern, imo. His religion, if any doesn't provoke my curiosity. Until I see the picture, I will have no idea of the guy's race. Turn the TV off, for a while, and you will be spared: 1. Speculation that the shooter is an agent of a foriegn government, or some islamist organization. 2. Suggestions that there are a lot of folks who share the shooters political views who may also be dangerous. 3. Phony suggestions that this would have been avoided with "sane" gun laws. 4. Phony suggestions that the tragedy would have been mitigated if EVERYBODY was carrying their own assault rifles. 5. Is the movie "cursed"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2012 14:24:06 GMT -5
Harris, Klebold and Anders Breivik will have company in the 10th circle of hell.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Jul 20, 2012 14:43:00 GMT -5
One of my kids is an assistant professor in the Neurophysiology dept at Colorado, I'll see if he knew the guy.
|
|
|
Post by Ann T on Jul 20, 2012 14:47:01 GMT -5
His high school is in our school district (which is considered to be one of the best school districts in San Diego County).
Total speculation here: I suspect a paranoid schizophrenic break (often occurs in late teens/early adulthood), perhaps deluded that the movie goers were part of some secret army receiving training from the Batman movie and who must be stopped before they take over the world. Some overlord (in his brain) was ordering him to accomplish this mission.
(I had the outpatient schizophrenia clinic as my assignment when I was on my psychiatry rotation in med school, and used to hear this kind of overlord stuff.)
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Jul 20, 2012 14:53:00 GMT -5
I just had a phone conversation with my old office mate, well-known Iowa pshychologist, retired. She said pretty much exactly what you said, Ann.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 20, 2012 15:06:56 GMT -5
When the story broke I wondered why nobody tackled the guy, maybe during a magazine change. Then I read this: According to Oates, Holmes dressed all in black for the attack, wearing a tactical helmet, vest and leggings, as well as throat and groin protectors. . . .
Oates said that Holmes used an AR-15 assault rifle, a Remington shotgun and a 40-caliber Glock handgun during the attack. And he has been described as 6'-6'-3". So, armed, armored, and big, with gas and smoke and darkness. No wonder nobody took him on. The elaborate kit and the fact that he booby-trapped his apartment says that if he's delusional, it's an elaborate delusion. As for the possibility that a patron packing a handgun might have taken him out, there was an interesting post on Boing Boing this morning from someone who took his firearms training very seriously-- I used to carry. Movie theaters gave me pause. They are one of the few situations where there's likely to be a solid wall of people behind any person you might have to shoot. In practice, most of the movies I attend are weeks after opening, during an early matinee, and there are maybe a dozen people in the theater. Ultimately, I always carried in theaters.
If I were going to be in a theater where every single seat was occupied, I'd still carry but I'd also do a great deal of thinking while I was settling into my seat. Where can I get a good down angle to break a pelvis rather than shoot through the torso? What is available (railings, seat backs, armrests) for me to climb atop to achieve a better down angle? Where are the good backgrounds (solid side and divider walls) that would stop a bullet? Shooting safely in a crowd is an almost oxymoronic concept; it requires forethought and even higher situational awareness than carrying a gun in general. Both things are very difficult in a crowded theater. I'd still carry and, to specifically answer your question, people should be allowed to carry in theaters.
People should be *allowed* to carry everywhere, in principle. In practice, carrying in a packed theater entails extra risk and there's a strong possibility that the proper response of someone in the crowd to someone who starts shooting randomly might simply be duck and cover, then run. It all depends on the circumstances and it's up to each person who carries to be constantly re-evaluating those circumstances and adjusting their thought processes accordingly. boingboing.net/2012/07/20/gunman-kills-at-least-12-in-mo.html
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Jul 20, 2012 15:16:10 GMT -5
This is what my son said-
He rotated through the lab next to mine-he was kind of a creepy guy. Not all there.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jul 20, 2012 15:30:31 GMT -5
This is what my son said- He rotated through the lab next to mine-he was kind of a creepy guy. Not all there.Wow, that is some pretty good insight, and firsthand....
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jul 20, 2012 15:58:54 GMT -5
Incidentally, if you have an American flag it should be at half staff from now until the 25th in honor of the victims. I get these notifications from the company I buy my flags from. Mine's done.
Past that, I'm waiting for the smoke to clear.
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Jul 20, 2012 16:04:53 GMT -5
This is what my son said- He rotated through the lab next to mine-he was kind of a creepy guy. Not all there.\ Much better than the usual "he was always sort of quiet, a kept to himself". I'm calling the Braille School about the flag thing. It seems they've paid no attention to that lately. Thanks for the heads up.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jul 20, 2012 16:13:23 GMT -5
Sometimes The Onion seems to sum it all up....
Sadly, Nation Knows Exactly How Colorado Shooting's Aftermath Will Play Out
WASHINGTON—Americans across the nation confirmed today that, unfortunately, due to their extreme familiarity with the type of tragedy that occurred in a Colorado movie theater last night, they sadly know exactly how the events following the horrific shooting of 12 people will unfold. While admitting they "absolutely hate" the fact they have this knowledge, the nation's 300 million citizens told reporters they can pinpoint down to the hour when the first candlelight vigil will be held, roughly how many people will attend, how many times the county sheriff will address the media in the coming weeks, and when the town-wide memorial service will be held. Additionally, sources nationwide took no pleasure in confirming that some sort of video recording, written material, or disturbing photographs made by the shooter will be surfacing in about an hour or two. "I hate to say it, but we as Americans are basically experts at this kind of thing by now,” said 45-year-old market analyst Jared Gerson, adding that the number of media images of Aurora, CO citizens crying and looking shocked is “pretty much right in line with where it usually is at this point." "The calls not to politicize the tragedy should be starting in an hour, but by 1:30 p.m. tomorrow the issue will have been politicized. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if the shooter’s high school classmate is interviewed within 45 minutes." "It's like clockwork," said Gerson, who sighed, shook his head, and walked away. According to the nation's citizenry, calls for a mature, thoughtful debate about the role of guns in American society started right on time, and should persist throughout the next week or so. However, the populace noted, the debate will soon spiral out of control and ultimately lead to nothing of any substance, a fact Americans everywhere acknowledged they felt "absolutely horrible" to be aware of. With scalpel-like precision, the American populace then went on to predict, to the minute, how long it will take for the media to swarm Aurora, CO, how long it will take for them to leave, and exactly when questions will be raised as to whether or not violence in movies and video games had something to do with the act. The nation's citizens also confirmed that, any time now, some religious figure or cable news personality will say something unbelievably insensitive about the tragic shooting. "Unfortunately, I've been through this a lot, and I pretty much have it down to a science when President Obama will visit Colorado, when he will meet with the families of those who lost loved ones, and when he will give his big speech that people will call 'unifying' and 'very presidential,'" Jacksonville resident Amy Brennen, 32, said, speaking for every other person in the country. "Nothing really surprises me when it comes to this kind of thing anymore. And that makes me feel terrible." "Oh, and here's another thing I hate I know," Brennen continued, "In exactly two weeks this will all be over and it will be like it never happened."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2012 16:23:05 GMT -5
"The nation's citizens also confirmed that, any time now, some religious figure or cable news personality will say something unbelievably insensitive about the tragic shooting."
As though the accusations of ABC and Brian Ross weren't enough.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jul 20, 2012 16:29:49 GMT -5
Holy Cow, we know one of the shooting victims!
We know her through home-schooling. She was shot in the kneecap (OW!) and last we heard is still in surgery. It must be a terrible injury, but not nearly as painful as the hurt experienced by bereaved parents...
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jul 20, 2012 17:45:49 GMT -5
When the story broke I wondered why nobody tackled the guy, maybe during a magazine change. Then I read this: According to Oates, Holmes dressed all in black for the attack, wearing a tactical helmet, vest and leggings, as well as throat and groin protectors. . . .
Oates said that Holmes used an AR-15 assault rifle, a Remington shotgun and a 40-caliber Glock handgun during the attack. And he has been described as 6'-6'-3". So, armed, armored, and big, with gas and smoke and darkness. No wonder nobody took him on. The elaborate kit and the fact that he booby-trapped his apartment says that if he's delusional, it's an elaborate delusion. As for the possibility that a patron packing a handgun might have taken him out, there was an interesting post on Boing Boing this morning from someone who took his firearms training very seriously-- I used to carry. Movie theaters gave me pause. They are one of the few situations where there's likely to be a solid wall of people behind any person you might have to shoot. In practice, most of the movies I attend are weeks after opening, during an early matinee, and there are maybe a dozen people in the theater. Ultimately, I always carried in theaters.
If I were going to be in a theater where every single seat was occupied, I'd still carry but I'd also do a great deal of thinking while I was settling into my seat. Where can I get a good down angle to break a pelvis rather than shoot through the torso? What is available (railings, seat backs, armrests) for me to climb atop to achieve a better down angle? Where are the good backgrounds (solid side and divider walls) that would stop a bullet? Shooting safely in a crowd is an almost oxymoronic concept; it requires forethought and even higher situational awareness than carrying a gun in general. Both things are very difficult in a crowded theater. I'd still carry and, to specifically answer your question, people should be allowed to carry in theaters.
People should be *allowed* to carry everywhere, in principle. In practice, carrying in a packed theater entails extra risk and there's a strong possibility that the proper response of someone in the crowd to someone who starts shooting randomly might simply be duck and cover, then run. It all depends on the circumstances and it's up to each person who carries to be constantly re-evaluating those circumstances and adjusting their thought processes accordingly. boingboing.net/2012/07/20/gunman-kills-at-least-12-in-mo.htmlVery good thoughts there. I'd hate to be carrying there and have to react. I think I would approach it from the other direction. How can I get a shot up at him from my position under the seats. And I carry guns that have low potential for thru and thru shots, that's why I won't carry a 9.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jul 20, 2012 18:48:30 GMT -5
I'm reminded of a study of New York Policemen that showed that in actually stress situations when dealing with real crooks, at distances of SIX FEET OR LESS, they mised 57% of the time. At distances of up to 75 feet, they missed 93% of the time. And you would assume Police train frequently. Some guy with a glock in his jock and an over abundance of self confidence is much more likely to kill a few people in the general vacinity of the bad guy than the bad guy himself. Unlike the bad guy, the hero has to aim. The bad guy can shoot pretty much anywhere and be sure to hit something he doesn't mind hitting. The Hero has to go into a theater of 700-800 screaming running people (where tear gas has been set off so visibility his low) and manage to hit the only person in the room it is ok for him to hit. Good luck, Joe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2012 18:55:55 GMT -5
Exactly, Tramp.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jul 20, 2012 19:10:23 GMT -5
I'm reminded of a study of New York Policemen that showed that in actually stress situations when dealing with real crooks, at distances of SIX FEET OR LESS, they mised 57% of the time. At distances of up to 75 feet, they missed 93% of the time. And you would assume Police train frequently. Some guy with a glock in his jock and an over abundance of self confidence is much more likely to kill a few people in the general vacinity of the bad guy than the bad guy himself. Unlike the bad guy, the hero has to aim. The bad guy can shoot pretty much anywhere and be sure to hit something he doesn't mind hitting. The Hero has to go into a theater of 700-800 screaming running people (where tear gas has been set off so visibility his low) and manage to hit the only person in the room it is ok for him to hit. Good luck, Joe. Those were N.Y. cops. Now if it was a Kroger store manager...
|
|
|
Post by david on Jul 20, 2012 20:27:55 GMT -5
Damn, this is just so sad. One screwed up guy, and all these people suffer. Makes me think of Syria on a smaller scale. I often wish there were someone that we all had to answer to while on earth.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jul 20, 2012 20:54:18 GMT -5
I'm reminded of a study of New York Policemen that showed that in actually stress situations when dealing with real crooks, at distances of SIX FEET OR LESS, they mised 57% of the time. At distances of up to 75 feet, they missed 93% of the time. And you would assume Police train frequently. Some guy with a glock in his jock and an over abundance of self confidence is much more likely to kill a few people in the general vacinity of the bad guy than the bad guy himself. Unlike the bad guy, the hero has to aim. The bad guy can shoot pretty much anywhere and be sure to hit something he doesn't mind hitting. The Hero has to go into a theater of 700-800 screaming running people (where tear gas has been set off so visibility his low) and manage to hit the only person in the room it is ok for him to hit. Good luck, Joe. Cops are terrible shots in general, CCW holders are much more likely to practice. Cops once or twice a year, CCW holders in general practice way more. I'd trust the CCW holder rather than the cop to hit what he's shooting at and FBI stats bear that out. Doesn't make it a shot I'd want to take as I said earlier, I'd want a good shot up from where I was under the seats.
|
|
|
Post by Hobson on Jul 21, 2012 9:56:46 GMT -5
|
|