10 shot dead at Batman showing in Denver

old hippy

old hippy wrote: »

How can someone be so alienated and messed up that they would plan something like this?

Marilyn Manson. Duh.

stevenmu

davet82 wrote: »

the media will blur the real issues unfortunatley, which imo is gun control and mental health i suspect

It's far to early to know what the "real issues" are, and tbh making pre-emptive judgements about them being gun control and mental health is only further blurring.

old hippy

stevenmu wrote: »

It's far to early to know what the "real issues" are, and tbh making pre-emptive judgements about them being gun control and mental health is only further blurring.

And don't forget bad parenting

stevenmu

stevenmu wrote: »

It's far to early to know what the "real issues" are, and tbh making pre-emptive judgements about them being gun control and mental health is only further blurring.

If anyone wants to start about gun-control answer me this; if there'd been a few dozen of the cinema-goers armed would the scumbag have killed and injured as many people? I'm gonna take a guess that the cinema (assuming the area it was in has liberal carrying laws) was "gun-free", as are most places where such shootings happen.

Einhard

whiplashed wrote: »

No harm can be done by putting the screenings on hold few for just two weeks or so.

I don't think the screenings should be cancelled. Bad things happen everyday all over the world, and life would simply grind to a halt if we were to react in the way you are suggesting.

Also, from what I can see, the people who carry out these atrocities thrive on the power and notoriety that they receive. To halt the opening of one of the biggest movies of the century thusfar would be playing right into his hand. As much as it might be difficult, people not directly affected by the actions, need to go on with their lives as normal.

Lollipops23 wrote: »

The thing is, Heston was a member of the NRA and had outspoken right-wingish views loooong before Moore came on the scene.

Being right-wing is not a crime. I'm not referencing you, and I favour gun control, but some people seem instinctively to point the finger at conservatives and the the NRA, while rightly condemning attempts to blame movies, games, Marlyn Manson or whatever.

old hippy

The finger of blame is always wagging in emotive issues like this.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

If anyone wants to start about gun-control answer me this; if there'd been a few dozen of the cinema-goers armed would the scumbag have killed and injured as many people? I'm gonna take a guess that the cinema (assuming the area it was in has liberal carrying laws) was "gun-free", as are most places where such shootings happen.

He was wearing some kind of body armour. The cinema was dark and filled with smoke. Many people reportedly had a delayed reaction, they initially thought it was a stunt or prank. Once people realised what was happening, there was chaos, with people running in front of each other.

So it is naive to think that a load of heros with guns would have reduced the death toll. If anything it may have increased it. A bunch of wannabe Rambos hopped up on fear and adrenalin getting into a gunfight in a crowded cinema is not the solution.

ScumLord

Buttonftw wrote: »

stevenmu wrote: »

It's far to early to know what the "real issues" are, and tbh making pre-emptive judgements about them being gun control and mental health is only further blurring.

If anyone wants to start about gun-control answer me this; if there'd been a few dozen of the cinema-goers armed would the scumbag have killed and injured as many people? I'm gonna take a guess that the cinema (assuming the area it was in has liberal carrying laws) was "gun-free", as are most places where such shootings happen.

clearly more guns are the solution. A shootout involving many people rather than judt one person can't end up killing more people.

Mickeroo

whiplashed wrote: »

If I hadn't seen this this morning, don't think I could enjoy the film seeing it within days of this happening.

Anyone has even seen the trailer should know why that is the case.

No harm can be done by putting the screenings on hold few for just two weeks or so.

They've spent hundreds of millions on marketing this film for the past year, other large releases will have avoided being released this weekend or next so they don't have to compete with it. THere's a lot of money riding on the film for the studio, plenty harm could be done in that regard by pulling it from theatres.

It could also be seen as giving in to the nutjob who did this, not to mention make them even more infamous. Cancelling the premiere was fair enough but other than that I think the most respectful thing the distributors can do is to continue screening the film, especially when you consider a lot of the people who died could be big batman fans.

On a more cynical note, controversy is rarely bad business either unfortunately.

A Primal Nut

Can understand cancelling the presentation because it's a celebration, a happy event which wouldn't really work now as everyone would be talking about what happened in Denver

Rediculous to suggest the film shouldn't be shown anywhere else though; it's not like anyone is blaming the film makers. Cancelling the film anywhere else wouldn't achieve anything; and the film has nothing to do with happened.

RIP to the people who died. It's very sad.

Stercus Accidit

ScumLord wrote: »

clearly more guns are the solution. A shootout involving many people rather than judt one person can't end up killing more people.

Well, yes, two people shooting at each other would cause less than 50 casualties.

Bacchus

First off, condolences to to the families of the victims and the people of Denver. It's a awful tragedy.

On the topic of "why" the shooter choose to attack a cinema, would it be outside the realm of possibility that this person was a Marvel fanboy and didn't want Batman to topple The Avengers as the comic blockbuster of the year and therefore did this in an attempt to damage ticket sales? All this of course added to the fact that he is seriously disturbed. You always see online wars on discussion boards/movie sites between Marvel and DC fans. Apply that fandom to someone with a gun and some serious problems and you get this.... Just a thought. Cos, I can't see any other 'reason' to attack the premiere of a Batman movie over any other target. It's just too random.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

clearly more guns are the solution. A shootout involving many people rather than judt one person can't end up killing more people.

In states and localities where private businesses choose whether guns are allowed on premises or not which do you think would be targetted more? There's plenty of cases of people taking out shooters that barely make the news because they were possible tragedies prevented.

old hippy

Have the NRA released a statement yet, I wonder?

Bacchus

Bacchus wrote: »

First off, condolences to to the families of the victims and the people of Denver. It's a awful tragedy.

On the topic of "why" the shooter choose to attack a cinema, would it be outside the realm of possibility that this person was a Marvel fanboy and didn't want Batman to topple The Avengers as the comic blockbuster of the year and therefore did this in an attempt to damage ticket sales? All this of course added to the fact that he is seriously disturbed. You always see online wars on discussion boards/movie sites between Marvel and DC fans. Apply that fandom to someone with a gun and some serious problems and you get this.... Just a thought. Cos, I can't see any other 'reason' to attack the premiere of a Batman movie over any other target. It's just too random.

He might've been trying to "emulate" something either.

old hippy

old hippy wrote: »

Have the NRA released a statement yet, I wonder?

That crowd generally do themselves no favours so true to form I'd guess they'll release something soon :pac:

scdublin

Really does make you wonder what goes wrong in peoples heads that they do this kind of stuff...

Wompa1

mike65 wrote: »

There is little to say about these acts of violence to be honest. Except maybe WHAT THE FVCK IS WRONG WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

Why just America? There was a bombing in Bulgaria a couple of days ago. It's not too long ago that that guy was holed up in France. Some guy threw a grenade from the top of a building in Belgium and multiple people were stabbed at music festivals in Ireland and the UK in the last 2 weeks.

Mickeroo

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Well, yes, two people shooting at each other would cause less than 50 casualties.

sure in a pistols at dawn type scenario maybe. 2 people shooting (neither of which are trained marksmen) at each other across a dark smoky cinema full of terrified civilians running for their lives? come on....

mathie

whiplashed wrote: »

They described the scene in the movie on CNN that was on when this happened and I think it was very deliberate to choose that moment so as to confuse people and make them just believe the gunfire coming from the movie. Some may think I am over-reacting, but I think all countries worldwide should stop screening the movie for a few weeks or so as a mark of respect.

Not according to reports on BBC ...

1532: William Washington, a Denver radio host who was in the cinema at the time of the shooting, said it was only a few minutes into the movie when it all happened. He said: "Anne Hathaway's character was in a meeting and all of a sudden there were lots of gun shots in the scene. But then they became very realistic, so much so my ears started to hurt."

1534: William Washington continued: "Someone then shouted at us not to go into the lobby as the gunman was in there. They just shouted, 'he has a gun!' People were there with bloody faces. We were so confused as to what was happening. You could taste and feel some kind of gas in the air."

NovabooM

crazygeryy wrote: »

old hippy wrote: »

crazygeryy wrote: »

What the **** was a 3 month old baby doing at a 1230 am showing of batman.crazy ass americans.

I don't care much for people bringing their kids or infants to the pub but it doesn't make them crazy. Or American.

Your right,i said that with a large helping of sarcasm.but bringing a 3 month old into a movie is mad.

Bringing a 3 month old to a late cinema may be mad in your eyes, But I find it just as MAD to bring a gun to a cinema and maim and murder innocent people.

The facts of who was there and their reasons for being there haven't been fully established, what is for definite is there has been a horrific incident and people have died.

Maybe save your foul language for the perpetrator of this crime and not the victims!!!

K-9

All this talk about the NRA and guns is diverting attention away from the real issue here, who brings a 3 month old to the cinema? :rolleyes:

mathie

K-9 wrote: »

All this talk about the NRA and guns is diverting attention away from the real issue here, who brings a 3 month old to the cinema? :rolleyes:

The real issue in a mass-murder is who brings a 3 month old to the cinema?

old hippy

scdublin wrote: »

Really does make you wonder what goes wrong in peoples heads that they do this kind of stuff...

Bullying. At some stage in his life the perp will have suffered from some kind of bullying and as a result he will have become more detached from real life and unable to articulate, this is the result.

My guess. Everything is of course speculation, gossip and internet chat at this stage. The serious analysis (I hope) comes later and we learn something about society and ourselves. Or we don't.

CodyJarrett

mathie wrote: »

Not according to reports on BBC ...

1532: William Washington, a Denver radio host who was in the cinema at the time of the shooting, said it was only a few minutes into the movie when it all happened. He said: "Anne Hathaway's character was in a meeting and all of a sudden there were lots of gun shots in the scene. But then they became very realistic, so much so my ears started to hurt."

Eh, what? Sure the BBC report confirms what I said: that there was shooting on screen at the same moment that the real shooting took place.

Dunny

Obama on now.

omgitsthelazor

old hippy wrote: »

Bullying. At some stage in his life the perp will have suffered from some kind of bullying and as a result he will have become more detached from real life and unable to articulate, this is the result.

My guess. Everything is of course speculation, gossip and internet chat at this stage. The serious analysis (I hope) comes later and we learn something about society and ourselves. Or we don't.

Most likely, popularity is everything in American culture so when somebody is made feel like an outcast as a child they harbor feelings of resentment to society. When they're at an age where they have the means to "get back" it doesn't take much to trigger them to do it.
Its scary looking at homicide rates in the US, you're literally 5 times more likely to murdered over there than here. Even countries like Cuba are safer. Many will blame gun law but countries like Finland allow civilians to have firearms and don't run into these problems, it's clearly a cultural thing in the states.

meoklmrk91

Police Chief just gave a statement, the suspects apartment is Boobytrapped, he said it was very sophisticated in how it was set up, several agencies are involved in how to safely get into the apartment and disarm the explosive devices. They don't know how long it will take but they may consider detonating.

mathie

mathie wrote: »

Not according to reports on BBC ...

1532: William Washington, a Denver radio host who was in the cinema at the time of the shooting, said it was only a few minutes into the movie when it all happened. He said: "Anne Hathaway's character was in a meeting and all of a sudden there were lots of gun shots in the scene. But then they became very realistic, so much so my ears started to hurt."

I'm not trying to be facetious but seriously, spoilers.

mathie

whiplashed wrote: »

Eh, what? Sure the BBC report confirms what I said: that there was shooting on screen at the same moment that the real shooting took place.

My bad. Apologies.
I read that as the shots were in the cinema and it was a quiet scene on film.
If the killer timed it to that perfection then its beyond chilling.

scdublin

Definitely could have started with bullying. Kids get bullied worldwide though and it never seems to occur as much as in the states....maybe it's because of the huge population there, that statistically it's more likely to occur?

Bacchus

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not trying to be facetious but seriously, spoilers.

Mod said near start of thread that movie spoilers in here would result in a ban. Fair enough I think though that particular spoiler is probably a bit OTT.

stevenmu

Huffington Post article on James Holmes: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/colorado-shooting-james-holmes_n_1688996.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

If anyone wants to start about gun-control answer me this; if there'd been a few dozen of the cinema-goers armed would the scumbag have killed and injured as many people?.

When you open fire with an automatic weapon on a tightly gathered crowd in a confined space, then you are going to cause multiple injuries and fatalities in a matter of seconds. Nobody would have had time to react.

Even if most people were carrying guns, their first instinct is to drop and hide and escape. Very few people without training would have the presence of mind or the balls to take their weapon out and try to return fire.
Anyone who did would likely be very panicky and confused and would shoot multiple targets - i.e. anything that moved and anything that appears to be carrying a gun.

A single trained person with a pistol would be a lot more effective than an entire room full of unprepared civilians carrying Uzis.

If a few dozen of the cinema goers were carrying weapons, most likely a lot more people would be dead and the police would be trying to deal with multiple shooters on the run as people panic when they realise that they've shot and killed other innocent people.

old hippy

Dunny! wrote: »

Obama on now.

Elegant and composed as ever but sad to hear all the god stuff.

Stercus Accidit

Mickeroo wrote: »

sure in a pistols at dawn type scenario maybe. 2 people shooting (neither of which are trained marksmen) at each other across a dark smoky cinema full of terrified civilians running for their lives? come on....

And you are telling me the above scenario would be worse than what happened, complete unopposed shooting into the crowd and 50 people shot? Any kind of resistance would have reduced the number of casualties, and glib sarcastic replies don't change that.

mathie

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not trying to be facetious but seriously, spoilers.

Sorry. Point taken.
Edited original post.

scdublin

scdublin wrote: »

Definitely could have started with bullying. Kids get bullied worldwide though and it never seems to occur as much as in the states....maybe it's because of the huge population there, that statistically it's more likely to occur?

300 million people there'll always be outliers.

Renn

seamus

seamus wrote: »

When you open fire with an automatic weapon on a tightly gathered crowd in a confined space, then you are going to cause multiple injuries and fatalities in a matter of seconds. Nobody would have had time to react.

Even if most people were carrying guns, their first instinct is to drop and hide and escape. Very few people without training would have the presence of mind or the balls to take their weapon out and try to return fire.
Anyone who did would likely be very panicky and confused and would shoot multiple targets - i.e. anything that moved and anything that appears to be carrying a gun.

A single trained person with a pistol would be a lot more effective than an entire room full of unprepared civilians carrying Uzis.

If a few dozen of the cinema goers were carrying weapons, most likely a lot more people would be dead and the police would be trying to deal with multiple shooters on the run as people panic when they realise that they've shot and killed other innocent people.

A fairly high proportion of those who would carry handguns would be well trained to use them.

zenno

It was just reported that the killers apartment is booby-trapped with a sophisticated setup... fox news.. http://live.foxnews.com/ I'm late as this has already been reported here.

K-9

mathie wrote: »

The real issue in a mass-murder is who brings a 3 month old to the cinema?

Not a fan of the roll eyes boyo but I put him there for a reason.

davet82

stevenmu wrote: »

It's far to early to know what the "real issues" are, and tbh making pre-emptive judgements about them being gun control and mental health is only further blurring.

true but i did add imo (in my opinion), i think its quite obvious unless batman made him do it

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

A fairly high proportion of those who would carry handguns would be well trained to use them.

Can you back that up?

Considering that as it stands most states allow people to purchase a weapon with nothing more than a background check, I would be surprised if most gun owners in the US would be "well trained" to fire a weapon in a combat situation.

Knowing how to fire a gun at targets or wild animals is one thing. Firing a weapon in combat situations where your life is at risk and every bullet you fire is potentially fatal, is a whole other scenario.

Bacchus

Deleted User wrote: »

A fairly high proportion of those who would carry handguns would be well trained to use them.

Not that I'm pretending I've first hand experience of this but I don't think you are required to have any training in the States to carry a gun. And those that do have training probably have never dealt with that type of intense scenario before and would be liable to panic.

seraphimvc

wtf wrong with these people.....

Is it supposed to be funny or some sort of twisted terrorism? Do we get the motive out of the gunners yet??

jesus.

Suryavarman

Deleted User wrote: »

A fairly high proportion of those who would carry handguns would be well trained to use them.

I heard somewhere else that you have to do some training before you are issued a concealed carry permit in Colorado so you're probably right there.

entropi

Why are there people in this thread worried about spoilers for a film, when there have been so many people injured, and some killed, by somebody with proper issues?

Fuck off tbh. There are more important things in life than a film:mad:

R.I.P. to those killed, and a swift recovery to those who were injured.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Can you back that up?

Considering that as it stands most states allow people to purchase a weapon with nothing more than a background check, I would be surprised if most gun owners in the US would be "well trained" to fire a weapon in a combat situation.

Knowing how to fire a gun at targets or wild animals is one thing. Firing a weapon in combat situations where your life is at risk and every bullet you fire is potentially fatal, is a whole other scenario.

Getting a gun is easy, it's the carrying permits that are generally harder to get. I don't know each state's laws in and out but concealed permits usually require some kind of training etc. Also in general the kind of law-abiding people who would want a concealed permit would be the kind of people who'd be serious about their guns to begin with.

flyswatter

Master of Nothing wrote: »

Why are there people in this thread worried about spoilers for a film, when there have been so many people injured, and some killed, by somebody with proper issues?

Fu[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]k off tbh. There are more important things in life than a film:mad:

R.I.P. to those killed, and a swift recovery to those who were injured.

Couldn't agree more.