Waking up to horrible news - 14 reported dead more than 40 injured at movie theater shooting (Denver: crime rate, buy)

[Toronto416]

It sounds as if this young man was exceptionally bright. I've known a couple people like this who had their doctorate at such a young age (25 or so) and were incredibly book smart, got perfect scores on entrance exams, etc, but when real life - meaning getting a job with lots of other people who scored just as high as you did, and had landed just as great of an internship as you did, went nuts. Now they have to use their book smarts with social interaction, which they couldn't do. All they were good at was being a professional student - almost everyone knows someone like this. They can't function in real life or have any kind of bonding relationships or friendships. At some point I'm guessing they're not sure what their purpose is in life, and slowly go downhill from there. Now, in no way am I excusing this person but I do think it's only natural to start wondering why would someone do this...

The small tragedy that I also see is a real lack of original comments from officials, politicians, companies, etc...it's all pre-written lawyer-speak, and it's garbage. If I hear one more statement like 'our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families' - really? How? Why can't someone say what's on their minds rather than something proofread by a lawyer because everyone's so afraid of getting sued? Who the hell brings a 3 month old to a movie at midnight, or a 6 year old for that matter?

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Toronto416

Who the hell brings a 3 month old to a movie at midnight, or a 6 year old for that matter?

I was with you until this ^. Children sleep very well through loud noise like that. It's not as uncommon as you might think

And further, how dare you begin to question the victims.

[ryanek9freak]

Originally Posted by patrickfatrick

I agree. The second amendment is at best the tip of the issue-iceberg this tragedy and others like it unpack. Unfortunately, as with every other instance, absolutely nothing will be done except for some inane political bickering and finger-pointing that'll go on for about a week.

And as usual, the typical flood of anti-gun lunatics will use this tragedy to come out of the woodwork, ready to dance in the blood of the victims, to renew thier push for more gun control, as if somehow that would have prevented this.

Something for you people to comprehend: I have spent many, MANY years working with law enforcement, and have studied criminal pshycology extensively. What makes a person dangerous is INTENT. This man had the intent to take the life of another human being, and would have done so with whatever he would have been able to get his hands on. Does a firearm make it more CONVIENENT to kill another human? Of course it does, but as I said, he more than likely would have done it another way.

The INTENT to chose to kill another person is what makes a man dangerous, not the weapon with which he choses to commit murder. You need to understand this. No amount of gun control, or high capacity magazine/"assault weapons" ban or restriction, would have prevented this. As a matter of fact, Denver County ALREADY has a ban on magazines that can hold over 10 rounds of ammunition. Worked pretty well didn't it?

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Toronto416

It sounds as if this young man was exceptionally bright. I've known a couple people like this who had their doctorate at such a young age (25 or so) and were incredibly book smart, got perfect scores on entrance exams, etc, but when real life - meaning getting a job with lots of other people who scored just as high as you did, and had landed just as great of an internship as you did, went nuts. Now they have to use their book smarts with social interaction, which they couldn't do. All they were good at was being a professional student - almost everyone knows someone like this. They can't function in real life or have any kind of bonding relationships or friendships. At some point I'm guessing they're not sure what their purpose is in life, and slowly go downhill from there. Now, in no way am I excusing this person but I do think it's only natural to start wondering why would someone do this...

The small tragedy that I also see is a real lack of original comments from officials, politicians, companies, etc...it's all pre-written lawyer-speak, and it's garbage. If I hear one more statement like 'our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families' - really? How? Why can't someone say what's on their minds rather than something proofread by a lawyer because everyone's so afraid of getting sued? Who the hell brings a 3 month old to a movie at midnight, or a 6 year old for that matter?

Nice psycholanalysis, but the alleged shooter was a first year grad student, not a PhD.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by RedJacket

This has nothing to do with the state of Colorado. It has nothing to do with politics. It has nothing to do with guns.

This is all about one person, who for whatever reason, completely lost it. I only wish that people who feel like their world is falling apart would seek help rather than destroy so many other lives.

Nothing to do with guns? The suspect was armed with four guns, had thousands of rounds of ammunition in his posession. He couldn't have killed and wounded all those people with sticks and stones.

[jwiley]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Nothing to do with guns? The suspect was armed with four guns, had thousands of rounds of ammunition in his posession. He couldn't have killed and wounded all those people with sticks and stones.

He also rigged a bomb in his apartment, he easily could have used a bomb to do much more damage.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by jwiley

He also rigged a bomb in his apartment, he easily could have used a bomb to do much more damage.

The fact of the matter is that he used guns. It doesn't matter what he could have done.

[NOEM1226]

Here's what I think- When someone commits a crime like this and they are in custody or dead, we should not say their name or plaster their picture all over the news. We should refer to them as the "coward in wherever". If mentally ill nutcases looking to take other people out looking for attention knew they would go unknown it would make them less likely to commit such crimes.No infamy. If they want to take themselves out fine, but if you take others-you will not get your name in the history books!

Of course if the suspect is on the loose, we have to show pictures, but other than that don't give them the attention they were seeking in the first place. Focus on the lives they took, not their sorry lives.

[Yankees1212]

Originally Posted by NOEM1226

Here's what I think- When someone commits a crime like this and they are in custody or dead, we should not say their name or plaster their picture all over the news. We should refer to them as the "coward in wherever". If mentally ill nutcases looking to take other people out looking for attention knew they would go unknown it would make them less likely to commit such crimes.No infamy. If they want to take themselves out fine, but if you take others-you will not get your name in the history books!

Of course if the suspect is on the loose, we have to show pictures, but other than that don't give them the attention they were seeking in the first place. Focus on the lives they took, not their sorry lives.

But it's only natural for people to wonder what exactly set this guy off. I saw on CNN an interview with a guy who states that he had a beer with the suspect about a week ago. According to this individual, there was nothing "off" or odd with the killer. I find this extremely baffling. People that saw him or interacted with him had to feel that their was something not right or that he was emotionally cold.

[Cyborgt800]

Yes, he used guns...and he had acquired explosive material (supposedly) which are illegal. He killed people, which is also illegal. Do you think for a moment that if guns were illegal that he would have sighed and said; "Oh, darn! I guess I can't do this."?

The Denver metro area is practically an entire gun free zone due to the municipalities undermining (successfully) state law which provides for open carry. many businesses have also chosen to not allow CCW holders access to their establishments. This all adds up to a complete free fire zone for anyone bent on harming others. If there had been CCW carriers in that theater it's possible one may have been able to stop him earlier.
Yes, it's true that someone could have also been injured by friendly fire, just as cops have done as well...it's a risk a CCW holder assumes and is held accountable for. In this case it sounds like the gunman was in front and everyone was running away from him...probably not too many folk directly behind him. This would make him an easier target and lessen the chance of a background casualty.

The fact is that cops can't be everywhere and would you really want to live in a police state? Even then they couldn't prevent something like this from beginning, only end it sooner just as an armed law abiding citizen could.

Unless you could go back and un-invent firearms, there's no real way to keep them from criminals!
If there was, places like Canada, Japan, England and Australia would not ever have shootings...but they DO! heck people in prison wind up with firearms....how much more control can you get? Then again PRISONS seem like very dangerous places...hmmm, could it be that it's the residents that make them dangerous...even WITH all that monitoring?

What I want to know is WHY? Why his mother was NOT surprised at all about this. Heck, she was SURE her son was involved when she heard the news, BEFORE hearing his name! WHAT in God's name did she know and not tell beforehand that would have put this nutbag on someone's RADAR?

This guy COULD have done much worse, luckily he stopped early on his own and went back to his car where police apprehended him. He could have easily barricaded himself inside and took hostages and booby-trapped the theater. I guarantee he did NOT have thousands of rounds of ammunition ON HIS PERSON BTW. 1,000 rounds of .223 ammo weighs around 30# not including the 34 30rnd magazines needed to hold the rounds....He would have needed a tactical vest as well just for a thousand rounds, let alone THOUSANDS of rounds. While we're correcting misinformation...he didn't have a bullet-PROOF vest...he had a bullet-RESISTANT vest.

If you don't think ARMED law abiding citizens are part of the answer, start googling CCW's and armed citizens foiling crimes. You don't hear about it because the anti-gun media doesn't want you to know PLUS it's not very sensational. Are there idiots out there? Sure and they will be held accountable if they mess up...just like driving a car on public roadways.

As far as chastising someone for bringing up the question of WHY a 3 month old baby was there....That IS a legitimate question! It's not an attack it is a valid OBSERVATION, learn the difference.

It's pretty selfish taking a baby into a theater. I've been in a theater when they start crying...it ruins everyone's experience that paid to enjoy the movie. If you can't get a sitter, wait until you can...if you can't afford one then you probably shouldn't be blowing the money to go to a theater either.

Heck I won't even go if I have allergies...it's not fair to be sneezing and coughing through the movie.


Hey! I can see pretty well from atop this soapbox...