Gunman Opens Fire During "The Dark Knight Rises"

[PSKsilver]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

He disgusts me. He doesn't even put an arm about his fiance to console her while they were being interviewed. She's just as stupid if she's going to marry this piece of shit.

Totally agree.

"Rohrs said he didn’t want to run back into the theatre because he didn’t want to die and leave his children as “orphans with no parents.""

This sentence makes no sense to me at all.

First, he put the four month old on the floor while considering jumping over a balcony. While it is nice that he was concerned about breaking the child's neck, putting an infant on the floor, especially when mass hysteria happens, is probably not a very good idea.

Second, he realized his child was still in. He didn't want his children to lose both their parents. So he sent her in. Meaning there is still a possibility that the children will still lose one parent, as well as their own lives.

Third, while he was still safe outside with the rest of the people outside with the cops, HE LEFT THE FUCKING SCENE!

I think the priorities are a little screwed up. I mean, it's nice that you don't want your kids to not live without their parents, but come on. You kinda left your kids and girlfriend to die. I still believe he should have just left it at that he panicked and knows he did something wrong.

And also after watching the video, it's amazing that he can cry without tears.

EDIT: And apparently Piers Morgan was not paying too much attention during his interview with the couple

http://kollegekidd.com/news/piers-mo...ory-incredible

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by PSKsilver

Totally agree.

"Rohrs said he didn’t want to run back into the theatre because he didn’t want to die and leave his children as “orphans with no parents.""

This sentence makes no sense to me at all.

First, he put the four month old on the floor while considering jumping over a balcony. While it is nice that he was concerned about breaking the child's neck, putting an infant on the floor, especially when mass hysteria happens, is probably not a very good idea.

Second, he realized his child was still in. He didn't want his children to lose both their parents. So he sent her in. Meaning there is still a possibility that the children will still lose one parent, as well as their own lives.

Third, while he was still safe outside with the rest of the people outside with the cops, HE LEFT THE FUCKING SCENE!

I think the priorities are a little screwed up. I mean, it's nice that you don't want your kids to not live without their parents, but come on. You kinda left your kids and girlfriend to die. I still believe he should have just left it at that he panicked and knows he did something wrong.

And also after watching the video, it's amazing that he can cry without tears.

EDIT: And apparently Piers Morgan was not paying too much attention during his interview with the couple

http://kollegekidd.com/news/piers-mo...ory-incredible

I didn't realize that this was the same woman who was helped out of the theater by the 19-year-old! That just makes Mr. Rohrs look that much worse.

[ASTalumna06]

So sad...

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...mily-says?lite

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

So sad...

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...mily-says?lite

I can't imagine how tragic this has been for that family. Could the shooter be charged with 13 counts of murder now, instead of 12?

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Could the shooter be charged with 13 counts of murder now, instead of 12?

Not according to that link.

Defense attorney Karen Steinhauser, a former prosecutor and current adjunct professor at the University of Denver, told The Associated Press that suspected gunman James Holmes, 24, will not face an additional charge as result of the miscarriage. She said charges in Colorado apply onto to those "who had been born and alive."

Wow. She'd just lost her father and now not one but two children? That poor woman has my prayers. All of them do. This is so overwhelmingly sad.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Not according to that link.

Right. In Colorado, homicide charges only apply to people who are living/were born alive. There will still be 12 victims.

[BAckbOwlsgIrl]

Just a little update from the home front.

Life is getting back to normal. Every time I hear emergency vehicles come, especially at night, I think of the tragedy. We are getting back to normal.

This tragedy has sparked more debate on health care than on gun control here. So many of those hurt had minimal or no insurance.

I may go see the memorial for the tragedy. I may take a picture and post if there is interest.

[ASTalumna06]

James Holmes charged with 24 counts of murder:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...-shooting?lite

[DrPhil]

I am watching Jane Valez-Mitchell on HLN. They were supposed to have the mother of one of the victims (the woman who left behind 2 kids) on the phone, Shirley Wygal.

Jane Valez-Mitchell: You were in court today in the overflow, what were your feelings and thoughts?
*silence*
Jane Valez-Mitchell: Shirley, can you hear me?!
Fake Shirley Wygal: *phone picks up* Yes, I can hear you!
Jane Valez-Mitchell: *repeats question*
Fake Shirley Wygal: Well, first I have a question for you....
Jane Valez-Mitchell: Uh...yes...go ahead....
Fake Shirely Wygal: Uh...can I (*bleep* edited out)...
Jane Valez-Mitchell: Wow...I do not know how that happened. Why someone would make light of this tragedy is...*pause*...unfathomable to me.

That was truly a crazy thing that caller did. I thought to myself "Shirley Wygal sounds like a man, but okay, whatever they say." It is crazy that someone would do that.

They finally got Shirley Wygal on the phone and she is currently being interviewed.

[VandalSquirrel]

Billboard compares the gunman from the Aurora shootings to President Obama. I can't even, seriously Idaho?

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/0...hes-nerve.html

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

Billboard compares the gunman from the Aurora shootings to President Obama. I can't even, seriously Idaho?

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/0...hes-nerve.html

Oy.

[Jeff OTMG]

Sorry been working lately and now I have to figure out how to do something called multi-quote before responding to all the others.

This is what happens when an armed private citizen is present during what could have been a mass shooting. I speculate that, due to his age, the shooter may be a veteran.

http://www.youtube.com/v/epZod2qyyN4

My father carries concealed, being allowed by the concealed carry for retired law enforcement officer legislation signed by President GW Bush in 2004. He turned 87 on July 31 and scored over 90% on all shooting qualification courses of fire, beating many of the members of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.

If you know of a shooting that was made worse by the presence of a concealed carry holder then that would be interesting. I have previously posted a number of shootings that were cut short by concealed permit holders.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

This is what happens when an armed private citizen is present during what could have been a mass shooting.

That is only what happened in that specific instance. That is what happens in a small percentage of instances.

Longass River of Redundancy/

There is no such thing as "this is what happens when..." unless you are willing to acknowledge what is more likely to happen in a majority of instances. There is a greater probability that an armed LAW ABIDING citizen will have the weapon taken or will be too (depending on the circumstances) afraid/cautious/apprehensive/wise to use the weapon in the first place. It is similar to what happens in the average home invasion in which the law abiding home owner has an accessible weapon either hidden or in her/her hands. There is a greater likelihood that the law abiding citizen cannot or chooses not to access the weapon OR the weapon is stolen by the motivated offender. That is one of the differences between a law abiding citizen (who are not law enforcement officers or military) and a motivated offender. I laugh when the average law abiding citizen boasts about having been to gun ranges and being about to "take" a motivated offender. That makes the law abiding citizen sound delirious or too anxious to shoot an actual person. The small percentage of gun owners who actually can access their gun and can effectively take down an offender aside, there is a greater probability the law abiding citizen is (1) full of crap and will do what most gun toting law abiding citizens would do if the time comes to shoot a person; (2) the law abiding citizen is too excited over the possibility and is therefore crossing the line into becoming a motivated offender her/himself; and/or (3) the law abiding citizen has a mental health condition that fuels the excitement over potentially shooting an offender.

Law enforcement officers can have their guns taken from them or can opt out of using their guns for whatever reasons. Why can't people grasp this happening for other law abiding citizens, most of whom do not have extensive training? Law enforcement officers can be cautious about having to shoot a person (especially for the first time) and traumatized after having to do so. Why can't people grasp this happening for other law abiding citizens, most of whom do not have extensive training? People need to stop the silly pro-gun versus anti-gun as though this issue is that simple.

There are years of news articles and scholarly journal articles on this issue but I think this former law enforcement officer did quite well. If people are pro-gun access, that is fine as long as the proper training and precautions are required. But, that still does not mean that these gun toting law abiding citizens will be willing and able to take down motivated offenders. As for the law abiding citizens who complain that their gun training and precautions should not be greater than what offenders have to do in order to access and carry guns--there are reasons why THEY are the offenders and YOU are the law abiding citizens.

/Longass River or Redundancy

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

Sorry been working lately and now I have to figure out how to do something called multi-quote before responding to all the others.

This is what happens when an armed private citizen is present during what could have been a mass shooting. I speculate that, due to his age, the shooter may be a veteran.

http://www.youtube.com/v/epZod2qyyN4

My father carries concealed, being allowed by the concealed carry for retired law enforcement officer legislation signed by President GW Bush in 2004. He turned 87 on July 31 and scored over 90% on all shooting qualification courses of fire, beating many of the members of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.

If you know of a shooting that was made worse by the presence of a concealed carry holder then that would be interesting. I have previously posted a number of shootings that were cut short by concealed permit holders.

The last murder/suicide in my town was carried out by someone with a Utah concealed weapons permit, not even a year ago. I knew all involved, even the person who did the CCW training. The perp suffered from mental illness.

There was also an incident 5 years ago, where citizens went to assist and it wasn't a good situation. I witnessed the shooting, and since we couldn't be sure what was going on we stayed indoors with our firearms. The perp killed his wife, a church caretaker, a police officer (the only one to die in the line of duty in the history of the town), himself, and wounded others. he suffered from mental illness as well. About 6 weeks before this incident a mentally ill person murdered a student here in Moscow, another student in Boise, and attempted to murder a student in Arizona. These three incidents were all perpetrated with legal weapons by mentally ill people. The only other shooting I remember was of a football player and the perp was not mentally ill, I'd say in 2004?

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/break...ry.asp?ID=9960

That's a lot of murder with legal weapons by mentally ill people in a town of about 20,000. These incidents both in my tiny town and across the country have two things in common; legal firearms and mental illness. Hopefully with the Affordable Care Act incidents like these can be prevented with better access to mental health and psychiatric care, but since all of these incidents were with legally obtained weapons something is wrong. Maybe ammo needs to be better controlled, maintained, regulated, and tracked since one can't go on a spree without a lot of ammo.

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That is only what happened in that specific instance. That is what happens in a small percentage of instances.

We don't know how many instances it happens in. In the times it has happened to me no shots were fired so no police were called. An unreported defense. We only have figures for instances when it was reported. To support your statement tell us how many times has an armed citizen been present and stopped a robbery/rape/murder/mugging and how many times has one been present and it had no effect.

DGU (defensive gun use) numbers are interesting. Dr Gary Kleck, criminologist from Florida State University, estimates 2.5 million times per year in 1994, but when establishing a more strict criteria the number was reduced to 1.5 million. The Clinton White House did not like this and had the National Institute for Justice do their own study, National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (NSPOF).

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

The NSPOF came up with 3.1 million people committing a DGU. They also go to great lengths to try to discredit the findings. The report also states, 'On the basis of National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year.' The thing is that even if we use that 'RARE' number it is still over 10 times the number of fireamrs homicides (9,146 in 2009).

Originally Posted by DrPhil

There is no such thing as "this is what happens when..." unless you are willing to acknowledge what is more likely to happen in a majority of instances. There is a greater probability that an armed LAW ABIDING citizen will have the weapon taken or will be too (depending on the circumstances) afraid/cautious/apprehensive/wise to use the weapon in the first place.

That is pure speculation on your part. I showed you a video of an old guy shooting bad guys. I previously listed a number of high profile, primarily school, shootings stopped by armed intervention of concealed carry permit holders (Virginia, Austin, TX, Pearl, MS). Show me instances where an armed LAW ABIDING citizen has had his weapon taken away. I know of no instances that has ever happened. It has happened to law enforcement, but the job of an LEO is to go into harms way. The obligation of a concealed carry permit holder is to avoid confrontation.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

It is similar to what happens in the average home invasion in which the law abiding home owner has an accessible weapon either hidden or in her/her hands.

Not similar at all. Whether you believe it or not few of us, LEO included, carry at home. My father use to leave his S&W mod 10 .38 Spc revolver in its holster on top of his dresser in the bedroom. It came off the belt when he came home and went back in place when he left the house. I am one of only two people that I know for a fact have a firearm within reach effectively 24/7.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

There is a greater likelihood that the law abiding citizen cannot or chooses not to access the weapon OR the weapon is stolen by the motivated offender.

Weapons used by criminals are usually source to burglaries from people who fail to secure them properly. Home invasions are rare, as a burglaries of occupied dwellings, due to the chance of an armed incounter with the home owner.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That is one of the differences between a law abiding citizen (who are not law enforcement officers or military) and a motivated offender. I laugh when the average law abiding citizen boasts about having been to gun ranges and being about to "take" a motivated offender. That makes the law abiding citizen sound delirious or too anxious to shoot an actual person. The small percentage of gun owners who actually can access their gun and can effectively take down an offender aside, there is a greater probability the law abiding citizen is (1) full of crap and will do what most gun toting law abiding citizens would do if the time comes to shoot a person; (2) the law abiding citizen is too excited over the possibility and is therefore crossing the line into becoming a motivated offender her/himself; and/or (3) the law abiding citizen has a mental health condition that fuels the excitement over potentially shooting an offender.

I wouldn't laugh. I attended an Urban Combat Rifle course here a couple of years ago taught by John Farnum. Urban settings are, for me, the most likely scenario for a defensive encounter and although a pistol is usually the weapon that is available, when at home there are other options, the shotgun and rifle. In fact when I travelled extensively by car a rifle was with me much as the police carry a shotgun or patrol rifle in their cars. I was the second student to successfully complete the final course of fire, doing so on my first pass. I easily beat the firearms trainer for the Oklahoma Highway Patrol who was also taking the class. From the people that I know who carry on a regular basis, you would find them highly proficient. Many who have a permit only have one to carry 'when they feel like it' and are not willing to go through the trouble and make the sacrifices necessary to do so on a daily basis. They tend to be much less proficient.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Law enforcement officers can have their guns taken from them or can opt out of using their guns for whatever reasons. Why can't people grasp this happening for other law abiding citizens, most of whom do not have extensive training?

They can and do, though training and equipment has reduced those occurrances. The downside to being a cop is that your job is to go into harms way, not avoid it. You also stick out like a sore thumb wearing the uniform, badge, and gun. The private citizen generally has the advantage because the gun is concealed and the bad guy doesn't know you have one. Can't take it if you don't know it is there. The concealed carry holder in Texas must also complete conflict resolution training as part of the Concealed Handgun License class. Another advantage that the private citizen generally has is much more lee way in shooting while LEO's have very strict rules of engagement and escalation of force that must be followed. A LEO is usually equiped and will resort to pepper spray and/or a TASER as well as physical restraint before introducing a firearm because their job is frequently to apprehend while the private citizen is generally just as authorized to use a firearm as they would pepper spray. If you are justified in squirting them with pepper spray you are usually justified in shooting them.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Law enforcement officers can be cautious about having to shoot a person (especially for the first time) and traumatized after having to do so. Why can't people grasp this happening for other law abiding citizens, most of whom do not have extensive training?

It is traumatic. My trainers always told me that the second worse thing that can happen is shooting someone and taking a life. The worst thing was having them kill you.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

People need to stop the silly pro-gun versus anti-gun as though this issue is that simple.

Agreed. You can't ban guns without a rewrite of the US Constitution and that isn't going to happen. The Supreme Court Ruled on it last year. The question of assault weapons was actually answered in the US v Miller (1939) Supreme Court case when they were discussing the 'militia'. If you don't know what the definition of 'militia' is, it has nothing to do with the National Guard that was formed by the Militia Act of 1903 while the US Constitution was written in 1787, read US Code Title 10 Section 311 which defines the types of militia. US v Miller (1939) states '...that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.' The M16A4 and M4 carbine is the standard issue rifle, or carbine, for the US Armed Forces today and the most popular firearm sold today is the MSR, Modern Sporting Rifle, which is a semiautomatic version of the M16 platform. Externally similar, but the internal fire control parts do not interchange and the receivers are different. There is much more to it. There are cultural issues. We are not has bad as most countries when it comes to murder, but worse than others.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

There are years of news articles and scholarly journal articles on this issue but I think this former law enforcement officer did quite well.

I read the article and found it amusing. He supports gun control, he worked in a city that has the strongest gun control in the country, he worked in the only state in the country that does not allow concealed carry, yet Chicago currently has the highest gun murder rate in the US.
1. Thank you for pointing out that gun control is not effective.
2. Thank you for pointing out that guns are not the problem.
Chicago doesn't have a gun problem, they have a people problem.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

If people are pro-gun access, that is fine as long as the proper training and precautions are required.

I don't know what you are suggesting, but I have no problem with it so long as it doesn't violate the 14th Amendment against equal protection and it survives a 'rights test' when applied to the other rights recognized in the US Constitution.