The Spill Movie Community
If it's crap ... We'll tell you
Seriously, FUCK The Colorado DKR Shooter
Hearing about this has officially fucked my day up.
Can you just imagine: all those people going to the movies, just trying to have a good time, probably just as excited as we are about seeing DKR, ending up getting brutally, senselessly murdered. May they rest in peace.
Views: 1395
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by NeonKazma on -
Well ok, not the worst thing that would happen, but it's still a shame after this incident.
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Anders on
-
they'd better lock that dude up before someone (like me) gets to him and murders the cunt
-
Permalink Reply by DoctorWitten on -
@Supes
It could have happened, it was pretty chaotic, ya never know, most of those 'chargers' end up dead though, but honestly it's just one survival mechanism over another. depends on the situation, if your within inches of the attacker, charging could make more survival sense than running. but again, it can just come down to instinct. not so much a person thinking "i need to save these people!". But you really can't tell for certain you'd fight back, survival instinct just kicks back in, or maybe even not at all. people say it's fight or flight. but really it's fight, flight, or freeze.
Anders Brevik, the norweigen mass killer, said that some of his victims just froze and went into shock when he started killing, even when he was casually reloading his gun and they had the perfect opportunity to run or charge, they just froze, it's a complete and utter breakdown. And I don't think any of these people ever thought to themselves "in the event of an emergency; i'm going to freeze and break down." unless youve been trained or face these kinds of situations before, you really can't tell how you're mind is going to react.
You also have to account, in addition to the tear gas, for the fact that the darkness of the cinema heavily favored the shooter being that the light from the screen iluminated his targets much more than it did him. It's dark, tear gas on your eyes and respiratory passages, you're mentally unprepared with little awareness of what on earth is going on. you barely have time to process what's going on let alone try and charge the guy.
-
Permalink Reply by DoctorWitten on
-
Aaaaaand here come the gun control folks to start pushing down their agenda. -,-
-
Permalink Reply by MDS on -
Yeah, isn't it kind of funny that while back in the 1940's and 1950's when the US was flooded with people who were able to get their hands on all sorts of WW 2 fully automatic weapons, that no one entered a theater and started shooting. Maybe that's because there was an underlying fear that someone ELSE in the theater might be packing a pistol on them at the time. Hell, I'm pretty sure that the movie theater in question probably had one of those little signs saying that it was illegal to even have a concealed weapon in the theater... which is really nothing more than just advertizing for someone to do shit like this.
I mean, as tragic as this shooting is. Notice that you hardly ever hear about someone who goes on a "shooting spree" in areas where the public are allowed to carry concealed or "open" (Holstered on hip) weapons? You never hear about someone going on a shooting spree at a gun show, or at a firing range, or hell even at a skeet tournament.... wonder why that is? Oh yeah, because it's so much easier to pick on the law-abiding public that are forced year after year to put their guns away unloaded and under lock-and-key, than it is to actually try HARDER to keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill or criminals.
-
Permalink Reply by Stephen Quentin Easton on -
Trying harder to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill or criminals is gun control by definition.
-
Permalink Reply by MDS on
-
I never said one thing about "gun control" being a good or bad idea. I just think that it's funny how many loopholes, restrictions, guidelines, by-laws and ordinances that the "legal gun owner" has to follow.... and yet, some mentally ill or criminal gets hold of a gun, and not a single person seems at all interested in doing anything about it. Nope, instead of taking steps to PREVENT the "wrong people" from getting guns... It's always adding yet more restrictions, more by-laws, tougher guidelines addition ordinances that make it harder for "legally aware" gun owners to have/use their guns even in a case of self-defense or defending others.
I'm not saying that it would have been easy for some guy to pull out a pistol and shoot this guy in the head. In a smoke-filled theater, in the dark, wearing body-armor, and all the chaos involved it would have been difficult to get a "kill shot". Yet, can't help but think that if there was a CHANCE that someone was packing in the theater, would the shooter have continued to do this act... or would he have re-thought the whole thing? Because again, I'm just curious why you never hear about some sicko going on a shooting spree at a Skeet Tournament or firing range..... and yet, there's always loaded guns available to get hold of at those two places? I just think that there is something to look into with that question.
-
Permalink Reply by Pretty in Plague on -
Uhm... if I recall, they do have specific regulations involving the mentally ill in buying a gun. The problem, however is that the regulation is only based off of previous history of mental illness and, like in the case of James Holmes, if he doesn't have one... then what's that even going to matter anyway?
Besides, the rounds he bought that most people would find suspicious at the excessive amount he bought online. The internet is a hard fucking thing to regulate.
-
Permalink Reply by MDS on
-
I agree, mental illness is difficult to keep records on. But that doesn't mean you should take the guns away from people who have gone through the process to legally purchase them.
And as far as I'm concerned, any ammunition or firearms should NOT be allowed to be sold through the internet. It might be hard to regulate, but it's not impossible. You can find a lot of things that are difficult to purchase online.
And yet, at the same time. I think that EVERY state should allow you to carry a firearm that is holstered and publicly displayed. That individual store-owners shouldn't be allowed to put up some "sticker" that restricts where concealed weapons can be carried. State/Federal guidelines already restrict where concealed and open weapons can be carried (Such as schools, banks and such). But a business can put up 1 sticker and completely negate the entire state's guidelines regarding weapons? Sorry, but something there is just completely screwed up.
-
Permalink Reply by Pretty in Plague on
-
See, I'm very mixed about this, although I primarily feel as if those who cling onto the 2nd amendment and want guns for the sake of protection shouldn't have anything more than a handgun, really. It feels a bit much for people to just have shotguns and AK47s and then preach about it being for the sake of protection.
I can see why it's unfair to those who didn't do any harm to have to give up their guns, but I also kind of don't see why they're that necessary to have to begin with apart from hunting and self-defense.
-
Permalink Reply by MDS on
-
It is really a matter of "usage" more than anything else. I understand using a Handgun (Pistol), Rifle (yes, even Ak-47... although a bit extreme even to me) or a Shotgun for self-defense. I can even understand using any of these firearm types for hunting, because it depends on WHAT you are hunting. A 22 rifle might be good for hunting birds or squirrels, it's not going to do shit for hunting deer or "big game". It's all a matter of properly using the weapon. But it's when people MIS-USE the weapon (Such as firing into a crowd), the instant "knee-jerk reaction" is to start imposing additional restrictions and guidelines. That's what I think is the wrong course of action to take.
But let me give you a good scenario that I've faced many of times as a "legal gun owner". I've worn my fully-loaded .357Magnum (And .45cal) in a holster on my hip, walking down main street of Charlotte, N.C. It's out in the open, it's publicly displayed and available for self-protection or protection of others in case I needed it. Due to the fact that it is "holstered and not displayed in a threatening manner", it was perfectly legal to have the weapon on me and in public. I walk to a door to go inside a store to purchase a 20oz Coke. But because of 1 sticker on the front of the store... what was "perfectly legal" is now "completely ILLEGAL". I had to return to my vehicle and lock away my handgun, then go back through the same neighborhood to get a drink... all because of ONE STICKER. A perfectly legal-observing individual, now has to completely give up that "self-defense" just to enter a store and purchase a coke.... all because of a sticker that says that "Open and concealed weapons are not allowed on the premises". See, I'm legal. I'm following all state/federal guidelines and restrictions. I'm the one who is using the weapon "properly".... But it's some dipshit that breaks the law and "Mis-uses" a weapon who went into the exact same store and killed the clerk in a robbery. Why am I being punished and not the criminal? Because "knee-jerk reaction" types want to restrict the "LEGAL" gun-owners more than the criminals. That's where I have issues with the whole gun-control debate. The steps are always taken to create a harsher environment for the "legal people" while doing nothing about the "criminals".
© 2013 Created by The Spill Crew.
