"Batman Massacre"

[Nekojin]

You obviously didn't read the very first thing the article said.

I did, actually. Perhaps you might want to reread it yourself, with a more critical eye for what exactly is being said... And what isn't. Hint: a gang-related shooting isn't necessarily an AMBUSH.

China for example when someone snaps and goes on a spree, its typically with a melee weapon.

China's not exactly known as being exactly forthcoming with its statistical data. I don't generally trust it (or many of the other less free countries) to give a full and accurate accounting.

[Gravekeeper]

I did, actually. Perhaps you might want to reread it yourself, with a more critical eye for what exactly is being said... And what isn't. Hint: a gang-related shooting isn't necessarily an AMBUSH.

So you're trying to argue that some entries on the list are what exactly? Gang Arranged Live Action Team Fortress 2? That two gangs showed up to duel each other at dawn?

If you like you can read the full 62 page unabridged list here before the author removed the gang related shootings, drive-bys, domestic shootings, etc. Its much longer and has full incident details but includes pretty much every major shooting incident over the last 7 years.

If you'd like school schootings as well, there's a seperate report for them that's another 39 pages long.

China's not exactly known as being exactly forthcoming with its statistical data. I don't generally trust it (or many of the other less free countries) to give a full and accurate accounting.

It wasn't exactly a secret. They had like 8 or 9 axe/cleaver/knive sprees inside of a year there.

[lordlundar]

ON-TOPIC:
my fondness for bale gets a bit bigger. he went and visited the victims <3
as himself, not as a rep of DC, warner, or anyone else.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/850...ms-in-hospital
i wonder how many kids called him bruce wayne? lol

As long as he wasn't in character. No one would be able to understand him.

[siead_lietrathua]

As long as he wasn't in character. No one would be able to understand him.

HAHAHA no kidding! nope, looks like he just showed up and hung out, signed autographs, and talked to people. pretty cool.

sidenote: anyone else think that the disscusions above over which country has worse shootings seems almost like the old "well my dad's tougher" argument? does it really matter how many people died where by what murderous means? it still all sucks.
that's the one thing i hate about statistics. it reduced victims to numbers.

[Aethian]

sidenote: anyone else think that the disscusions above over which country has worse shootings seems almost like the old "well my dad's tougher" argument? does it really matter how many people died where by what murderous means? it still all sucks.
that's the one thing i hate about statistics. it reduced victims to numbers.

exactly. It deserves it's own thread son e it has made people completely forget why they are throwing numbers around in the first place.

Yay to the visitation. I was hoping he would do something like that.

[Andara Bledin]

that's the one thing i hate about statistics. it reduced victims to numbers.

When discussing resource allocation, everything is reduced to numbers.

We hyper-focus on events like these and literally waste millions reacting to them that would be better spent on other issues.

The issue is that things like the shooting in Colorado are more evidence of the fact that we don't have nearly as much control over our lives as we like to think we do. Nobody likes to contemplate that their lives could be ended by some completely and utterly random happening that they have zero control to prevent, so we almost literally burn money to keep the boogeyman away while ignoring issues that we can make a real and valuable difference about but that we fail to actually think about as issues because we are either completely desensitized to them because they happen so often (car crashes, gang violence) and we lie to ourselves and believe the fiction that we aren't nearly as helpless as we are.

The lack of control is why victim-blaming happens. If we can turn it around and figure out some reason why the victim was responsible for their own victimization, then we don't have to worry about it happening to us because, of course, we know better and won't ever put ourselves in that same position.

But there isn't anything we can possibly do or not do to avoid things like this shooting. And since we don't want to think about how vulnerable we are to the fickle whims of fate, we go nuclear in our reactions, wasting time, money, manpower, and letting other, more pressing issues slide as a result. Paying more than cursory attention to how to stop these events makes things worse, not better.

Hell, if we put the resources spent on security theater towards, say, small business loans, we'd be more likely to make a difference.

In other news, Fox News is claiming that the gunman sent a notebook with details, including stick figure illustrations, to a university psychologist more than a week prior to the attack, but the package sat, undelivered, in the mail room until this week, when another package was thought suspicious and police were called.

Since this information is only available through Fox News, I'm not sure how reliable the report is.

^-.-^

[siead_lietrathua]

sorry, the jump from "it reduced victims to numbers" to "we don't have nearly as much control over our lives as we like to think we do" i don't get.
they had no control over what happned to them. the only way they could have avoided this was by not going to the movie. i don't think anyone that walked in that theater that day expected to get shot. how can, in this case, could they have controlled anything? and how is saying to actually care about the victims equate to either reducing the knowlege gained form the incident, or equate to victim blaming. i'm missing the connections between the thoughts...

i get that you are trying to use this case as a way to show that the economy is shit and until we make things better people will keep snapping and hurting eachother. i get it. but you are still bandwagoning on the back of death.
yes the economy is shit, people are stressed and broke and losing their sanity. but it takes a special breed of asshole to do this sort of thing, and if the economy was great and they were a bajillionare, they would still find a way to do terrible things to people. the only diffrence between rich sociopaths and poor ones is the bank balance.

edit: main point= it's too soon after the incident for anyone to reduce it to statistics or political fuel. let the bodies be buried and the wounded be healed first. have some curdosy for the victims.

[crashhelmet]

When discussing resource allocation, everything is reduced to numbers.

We hyper-focus on events like these and literally waste millions reacting to them that would be better spent on other issues.

The issue is that things like the shooting in Colorado are more evidence of the fact that we don't have nearly as much control over our lives as we like to think we do. Nobody likes to contemplate that their lives could be ended by some completely and utterly random happening that they have zero control to prevent, so we almost literally burn money to keep the boogeyman away while ignoring issues that we can make a real and valuable difference about but that we fail to actually think about as issues because we are either completely desensitized to them because they happen so often (car crashes, gang violence) and we lie to ourselves and believe the fiction that we aren't nearly as helpless as we are.

The lack of control is why victim-blaming happens. If we can turn it around and figure out some reason why the victim was responsible for their own victimization, then we don't have to worry about it happening to us because, of course, we know better and won't ever put ourselves in that same position.

But there isn't anything we can possibly do or not do to avoid things like this shooting. And since we don't want to think about how vulnerable we are to the fickle whims of fate, we go nuclear in our reactions, wasting time, money, manpower, and letting other, more pressing issues slide as a result. Paying more than cursory attention to how to stop these events makes things worse, not better.

Hell, if we put the resources spent on security theater towards, say, small business loans, we'd be more likely to make a difference.

In other news, Fox News is claiming that the gunman sent a notebook with details, including stick figure illustrations, to a university psychologist more than a week prior to the attack, but the package sat, undelivered, in the mail room until this week, when another package was thought suspicious and police were called.

Since this information is only available through Fox News, I'm not sure how reliable the report is.

^-.-^

But this is why the gun control debate keeps coming up after events like this. The advocates for stricter gun control laws say "These people were shot because this person was allowed to buy his guns. Take away the guns from this person and he can't shoot them."

Sure, he may have resorted to home made bombs, or stealing a gun, or something else, or maybe he wouldn't have done anything at all at that point in time. In his case, we still don't know what his motive was or why he chose them as his target. Was one of the attendees an ex? Someone that bullied him? Someone that was responsible for him dropping out of the doctorate program he was in? We don't have that information yet and don't know to what extent he would've gone to make his "statement."

No one ever really grasped the idea of a fertilizer bomb or thought it necessary to monitor how much fertilizer someone would buy at a time until the Oklahoma City bombings. Now they do and now it's controlled.

The 3 day wait most places have for purchasing a gun is designed to be a cooling off period. it's intended to keep someone angry enough to kill from going down, buying a gun they didn't have, and then killing someone with it. To quote Drew Carey, "If you're the type of person that can't wait 3 days for a gun, you're exactly the type of person that needs to wait 3 days for a gun."

Until we find away to detect when people are going to snap and commit crimes like this, a la Minority Report, some sort of security theater is going to be needed. Whether it's background checks, limitations, cooling off periods, registrations, inability to carry, etc. Something will need to be done other than shifting blame.

[Nekojin]

But this is why the gun control debate keeps coming up after events like this. The advocates for stricter gun control laws say "These people were shot because this person was allowed to buy his guns. Take away the guns from this person and he can't shoot them."

Not always. Some of the instances involve stolen (or otherwise illegally-obtained) guns.

Until we find away to detect when people are going to snap and commit crimes like this, a la Minority Report, some sort of security theater is going to be needed. Whether it's background checks, limitations, cooling off periods, registrations, inability to carry, etc. Something will need to be done other than shifting blame.

Paraphrasing: "Something bad happened, and something must be DONE to prevent it from happening again! ANYTHING!"

I have a riddle for you. Currently, people who are felons or adjudged as mentally incapable are barred from buying guns. What additional prevention can you add that would be effective in preventing incidents like this one, while also NOT infringing on the law-abiding gun owners?

[Andara Bledin]

Just something to ponder:

Security theater plays into what the spree shooters want. It becomes a part of their "message."

It spends money for little to no effect and only benefits the ones performing the theater and the perpetrators themselves. It does nothing to benefit those affected (it's too late for them) or those who might have been affected (the probability is so low, you'd be better off spending the money on personal lightning shielding, as an example).

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

Not always. Some of the instances involve stolen (or otherwise illegally-obtained) guns.


Paraphrasing: "Something bad happened, and something must be DONE to prevent it from happening again! ANYTHING!"

I have a riddle for you. Currently, people who are felons or adjudged as mentally incapable are barred from buying guns. What additional prevention can you add that would be effective in preventing incidents like this one, while also NOT infringing on the law-abiding gun owners?

In the case of the Aurora shooting, registration and limitations could work. Everything this guy bought in the quick amount of time he bought it would've tripped red flags and he could've possibly been stopped before he did it. It could've denied him the purchase of one or some of the weapons he bought.

Here in Las Vegas, you have to wait 3 days to own a gun. If you drive a few miles down the road to the city of Henderson, they do an instant background check and you take your gun home 15 minutes later. The State of Arizona uses the instant check as well. Set up the 3 day wait on all purchases across the nation. Use that to do a background check as well as a cross reference of any other weapons purchased to make sure no one is stockpiling weapons for an unknown reason.

This does not infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Anyone that says it does is the type of person that gets offended because they want to be offended. You want to own a gun for self defense? Sure. Go ahead and buy one... not five.

Req

[siead_lietrathua]

adding safety, like having security at events like these, would benefit people in general. not jsut against spree shootings, but from generic human stupidity. kinda like if they bothered controlling black friday bullshit there would be less tramplings.

not learning from tragety and creating effective, sensible means of safety is like not inventing seatbelts because a few people died in car crashes. did we ban cars because people died? no, but we learned how to make cars safer. go back to my earlier post on how theaters can beef security without having every patron inside armed. it IS possible to make sensible solutions to a potential problem.

[crashhelmet]

Not always. Some of the instances involve stolen (or otherwise illegally-obtained) guns.


Paraphrasing: "Something bad happened, and something must be DONE to prevent it from happening again! ANYTHING!"

I have a riddle for you. Currently, people who are felons or adjudged as mentally incapable are barred from buying guns. What additional prevention can you add that would be effective in preventing incidents like this one, while also NOT infringing on the law-abiding gun owners?

In the case of the Aurora shooting, registration and limitations could work. Everything this guy bought in the quick amount of time he bought it would've tripped red flags and he could've possibly been stopped before he did it. It could've denied him the purchase of one or some of the weapons he bought.

Here in Las Vegas, you have to wait 3 days to own a gun. If you drive a few miles down the road to the city of Henderson, they do an instant background check and you take your gun home 15 minutes later. The State of Arizona uses the instant check as well. Set up the 3 day wait on all purchases across the nation. Use that to do a background check as well as a cross reference of any other weapons purchased to make sure no one is stockpiling weapons for an unknown reason.

Require mandatory licensing and registration. This ensures proper education and training in their use, safety measures, and security, and helps to keep someone from purchasing a gun for someone that cannot legally own one.

This does not infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Anyone that says it does is the type of person that gets offended because they want to be offended. After all, if they're law-abiding, they have nothing to worry about.

The argument to the registration issue is "But then the guvmint will know how many guns I have" How many guns do you need to defend yourself or to hunt with? Seriously? If you're that paranoid that the government is going to take over and steal all of your guns, maybe you need to submit to a psych test and see if you should have those guns in the first place.

I know the government isn't perfect, but it's also not as bad as the crackpot conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones seem to think. Shit... They posted an article the other day about the Aurora shooter being a real life "Jason Bourne" project. Seriously?

[Nekojin]

In the case of the Aurora shooting, registration and limitations could work. Everything this guy bought in the quick amount of time he bought it would've tripped red flags and he could've possibly been stopped before he did it. It could've denied him the purchase of one or some of the weapons he bought.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda...
This is feeble hand-waving. It also requires something along the lines of a national registry, which I believe has been ruled as unconstitutional. Not that I'm completely opposed to such, mind you, but the political will against such a thing is immense.

Here in Las Vegas, you have to wait 3 days to own a gun. If you drive a few miles down the road to the city of Henderson, they do an instant background check and you take your gun home 15 minutes later. The State of Arizona uses the instant check as well. Set up the 3 day wait on all purchases across the nation. Use that to do a background check as well as a cross reference of any other weapons purchased to make sure no one is stockpiling weapons for an unknown reason.

And if someone buys five... then what? Do they get a knock on the door by the Sheriff or the FBI? Even if they get a home visit from the Popo, what is going to be done about it? Buying the guns isn't illegal.

This does not infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Anyone that says it does is the type of person that gets offended because they want to be offended. You want to own a gun for self defense? Sure. Go ahead and buy one... not five.

In your opinion. You are not Everyman; other people might well decide that they need a rifle for long-range threats, a shotgun for close-range threats, and a pistol for tight spaces. Heck, they might well decide that they need multiple, in case one runs out of ammo before they can reload. Or any other rationale that they have. Or maybe they just like collecting them.

That's for them to decide... not you.

adding safety, like having security at events like these, would benefit people in general. not jsut against spree shootings, but from generic human stupidity. kinda like if they bothered controlling black friday bullshit there would be less tramplings.

Okay, let's do that. We'll implement security protocols to prevent that from happening.

We need security guards to guard the exits. Most theaters have doors set up so that two theaters empty out into one alley, so you can guard two theaters with one guard. You'll also need three more guards - one for the lobby, and one for each additional side exit (2 on average).

There are approximately 6000 theaters in the United States, with approximately 40,000 screens between them. At the rate of 3 guards plus 2 per screen, that works out to 38,000 guards.

The average theater operates for approximately 16 hours per day. That works out to 608,000 man-hours (assuming that you don't hire any "relief" guards). At $10 per hour for unarmed guards*, that works out to $6,080,000 per day, or just over 22 billion dollars per year.

* Double that if you want armed guards.

Let's pass that suggestion on to the National Association of Theater Owners, and see how they feel about incurring that expense without raising ticket prices. Or are you willing to have your ticket price raised to around $60 each to cover the cost of all of those security guards?

not learning from tragety and creating effective, sensible means of safety is like not inventing seatbelts because a few people died in car crashes. did we ban cars because people died? no, but we learned how to make cars safer. go back to my earlier post on how theaters can beef security without having every patron inside armed. it IS possible to make sensible solutions to a potential problem.

Ah! You hit on the key word there! SENSIBLE! A sensible reaction to the 9/11 incident was installing reinforced, locking doors on the cockpits of planes and having Air Marshals riding on some flights at random. That was done. The 9/11 hijackings and subsequent tragedies are functionally impossible to do now, at a minimal cost. The TSA screenings are security theater - it's a show to calm the average flyer, it doesn't actually do much (if anything) to stop would-be terrorists. And an expensive show, at that.

[crashhelmet]

Okay, let's do that. We'll implement security protocols to prevent that from happening.

We need security guards to guard the exits. Most theaters have doors set up so that two theaters empty out into one alley, so you can guard two theaters with one guard. You'll also need three more guards - one for the lobby, and one for each additional side exit (2 on average).

There are approximately 6000 theaters in the United States, with approximately 40,000 screens between them. At the rate of 3 guards plus 2 per screen, that works out to 38,000 guards.

The average theater operates for approximately 16 hours per day. That works out to 608,000 man-hours (assuming that you don't hire any "relief" guards). At $10 per hour for unarmed guards*, that works out to $6,080,000 per day, or just over 22 billion dollars per year.

* Double that if you want armed guards.

Let's pass that suggestion on to the National Association of Theater Owners, and see how they feel about incurring that expense without raising ticket prices. Or are you willing to have your ticket price raised to around $60 each to cover the cost of all of those security guards?

You just solved the Unemployment Crisis. Are you eligible to run for the Presidency?