Jump to content

Mass Murder At Dark Knight Rises Premiere


Roman

Recommended Posts

  • Members
Posted

No law will ever discourage someone who is determined enough. They will always find a way to get what they want, whether it's drugs or guns or whatever. But when you have a society where guns are so easily accessible, they become much more a part of daily life, and that undoubtedly makes it easier for "ordinary" people to resort to guns to settle their grievances, whether it's with society, or a bully at school or something else. Whereas in countries where guns are much more difficult to acquire and they're not a part of society in the same way that is less likely to happen.

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members
Posted

Louie Gohmert has made himself part of the problem by suggesting that walking around with guns is the soluction. The gunman wore bullet resistant gear so unless he's suggesting that gun toting moviegoers could have known to shoot him in the head, then his simplistic view of this is pointless. It concerns me when I hear someone (especially someone in an influential position) suggest that more guns will help.

  • Members
Posted

I was going to say that the last time I remember something like this happening in Australia was Port Arthur.

That of course still doesn't stop people from getting guns and using them; if someone wants a gun bad enough, they'll get one. Even with waiting periods and strict gun laws, we still have gun crimes- just yesterday, a woman here in Sydney got shot at her home and every few weeks there are stories about shootings.

  • Members
Posted

I need my 22 to kill the squirrels that are chewing the window frames and door casings off my house. Many people need them to feed themselves. Where I come from, a gun is a tool, the equivalent of a fishing pole. And we shoudln't be punished because a bunch of city slickers misuse it. It reminds me of grade school when a couple kids act up and the teacher makes the whole class stay in from recess. Drunk driving is a huge problem, but I don't see anyone calling for prohobition.. although liquor never passes my lips, and prohobition would suit me fine. And as opposed to guns, which people use to gather food, alcohol has zero nutritional value. It's only used to lower your inhibitions because people don't have the GUTS to be who they really are without chemical assistance. The only way I see to lower gun violence is to make it so if you commit a CRIME using a gun, even if it's a 17 year old kid sticking up a 7-11... you do it ONCE, and you go to jail forever, and you never come back. period.

  • Members
Posted

I don't know where you live, but it seems amazing that the internet came to your part of the country but the grocery never did. And if you look at these high profile incidents, it is never city slickers. It always happens in some small town somewhere like Aurora. And a life sentence for sticking up a 7-11 is just ridiculously draconian. It's positively "Le Miserables"

  • Members
Posted

Yes, it is draconian, but it would stop it. Aurora Colorado is not a small town, it has 1/3 of a million people. And of course, we have grocery stores.. where I live you drive 10 miles to get to one, and the gas station... but some people don't hunt because they don't have access to the grocery store, they do it because they are too poor to always buy meat at the grocery store. Personally, I do it because I like fried squirrel and rabbit, and you can't buy that in the grocery store. You can get rabbit at the store in France, but not here. When I speak of people who need to use guns, I speak of farmers. People use them to kill the turkey that they have raised so they can pluck it and cook it.. And for a frame of reference... when I talk of small town, I mean towns of less than 5,000 people. I'd have been hard pressed without my rifle last fall, I sure wasn't gonna stand by and watch those damn squirrels chew all of the trim off of my house. The town nearest me has a population of 3,000 people... and 5 murders in 150 years. And the percentage of gun owners is FAR higher than in cities. Once again, farmers and country people like myself should not be punished because nutjobs and inner city residents can't manage to handle their anger with a knuckle sandwich instead of a gun. I think the larger problem when it comes to massacres is the lack of being able to recognize people with psychotic tendencies, or the lack of resources to deal with them. Thom Bierdz said his mother took his brother to 40 doctors, and she tried and tried to get help, and get him committed to an institution, but they kept dumping him back in her lap, and ultimately, he killed her. There are two separate issues, the culture of violence that permeates the inner cities and the mentally ill that does stuff like this shooting. I suppose you could only allow people who own 10 or more acres of land to own a gun... how about that one? If it's illegal to discharge a gun within the city limits of most cities.. then let the city dwellers not be allowed to have them. Theyr'e not allowed to have livestock, so treat guns the same way, and just see if it reduces the gun violence. I bet it don't.. but your'e welcome to try.

  • Members
Posted

Maybe the plan is to have citizens walking around in protective gear.

I would love to hear a group of elected officials engage in one open discussion about guns in our society. Once they're done, they can admit that they fear the NRA and have no intention of doing anything.

I don't know where I stand on the issue right now but hearing something other than "guns don't kill people, people do" might be refreshing.

  • Members
Posted

He may be crazy and he may have anger issues, but he turned out to be a class act here. He didn't have to do that and was in no way responsible and only connected to the incident in the most tangential way possible.

o-CHRISTIAN-BALE-AURORA-570.jpg?5

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • John and Marlena may have committed adultery, but they weren't going to be smug creeps about it. "Roman, how do you feel about the name Isabella Titania Brady?"
    • -- It's always amazing to me that these "terrible breakdowns" (by writers so bad they shall not be named) are saved by incredible script writers. Every time 

      Please register in order to view this content

      -- Kat is a "spoilt bitch" while Eva isn't??? -- Does Kat go too far with her mouth? Absolutely. But I get it. Eva has done some terrible things and continues to enable her criminal mother while Kat's family and boyfriend DEFEND her and show her love. -- Eva's complaints about Leslie are meaningless, because they're never backed up with anything. I'll take "spoilt bitch" any day before I take "criminal enabling hoe." -- It's nice that Martin accepts Eva, but the way he's handling it is eye-rolling. Eva gets hugs and smiles and full acceptance while Kat is trashed -- to Eva's face. -- Martin is STILL obsessing over the Kat conversation about sex that Samantha heard. Are you kidding me with this? And now Eva offers to speak to Kat. Yeah, very cute that the sister who screwed the other sister's boyfriend is the one with relationship advice. -- The food at Uptown looked pretty good today. Orphey Gene's food has yet to impress me, and I think it's clear that the country club chef is an alcoholic who cannot control his kitchen.
    • At this point, Marlena, John, and Roman all thought Roman was Belle's father. Sami had switched the initial blood tests. When it was time for another round of tests (because Belle was jaundiced), Sami panicked and kidnapped the baby.  Up until January 1994, Sami was the only one who knew that John was Belle's father. Next up were Stefano and Peter, once Stefano read Sami's diary (he figured it would reveal what was going on between John & Marlena). Stefano revealed the truth of Belle's parentage to Roman AFTER Marlena revealed her tryst with John (about two weeks later, to be exact). Marlena and John were the last ones to find out (during February sweeps, naturally). The John Black name was revived in September 1991.
    • The show has been getting better and better. Dani and Andre solidly "coupling" has been amazing. Genie Francis says soaps don't do couples anymore...maybe Dani/Andre can prove her wrong. To me they are the best couple on the show.  Eva vs Kat is always great. The show continues to find ways to keep it going and I'm all for it. Kat annoys me so bad. She is such a spoiled princess and acts it. I agree the comment about wishing Eva had been aborted was low. If that were the case, then why is she constantly getting in Eva's face? Why doesn't Kat just stay away and ignore her completely like she doesn't exist? I know. I know. It wouldn't be soaping.  This Hayley plot to kill Bill now taking a detour onto Izaiah has me curious. Does Hayley even know what she wants? I can't wait to see the fallout for Hayley and Randy....but not too soon.  I am tired of hearing about Winterfest already though. Can we get to it? lol
    • Great rundown of Long's second stint. Now you got me wondering...and again, thinking how real life impacted the direction of the show. We were talking about how practically the minute Long landed back on GL, she wrecked Ross and Vanessa and threw Alan and Reva together. Soon after, Alan started pursuing Vanessa again (because he was SO afraid of the "real" feelings he was having for Reva for the first time in his life, LOL). It's like she was determined to do an Alan/Vanessa/Somebody triangle at some point. She started one with Billy as the third side (well, actually, Alan was the third side) back in late 83/early 84 before Bernau exited GL the first time. So she had to drop it. But since Billy was gone this time, she seemed to decide, hey, I'll do it, only with Reva as the missing side of the triangle. Then Maeve left, messing that up! So I wonder, would she have had Alan and Vanessa marry? Maybe not, but I doubt Vanessa would have taken kindly to being overthrown for Reva. Could have been done in a really humiliating way, like after the invitations went out or even at the wedding. Maybe she would have helped Phillip with his plot to dethrone Alan. Lots of interesting possiblities.  I did like the way this story was handled. Chelsea was clearly more in love with Phillip than he was with her. Even "dead," no one could compete with Beth. So it was always doomed, but they showed how Phillip lost his way because he was obsessed with getting back at his dad. I also thought the relationship between Alan and Chelsea was a little...strange. He was very much in favor of their relationship, even though she came from an even lower background than Beth's. She also always fiercely defended Alan. Which has made me wonder if--ick--one of the many writing teams was thinking about putting them together romantically. (Of course, in my headcanon, where Alan has a youthful romance with the never seen Reardon sister, his fondness for Chelsea then makes perfect sense.) I always wondered why they never thought of putting Chelsea with Rick, especially after they butted heads over the death of her fiance. Seemed like a no-brainer.
    • Aubrey's Marina was great...but they wasted her...she could have been a new Nola (since she was living in the BH I would have had her find the N.R. + K.N. thing Nola carved in her bedroom...."I don't know who this girl was but she seems to be as unhappy as I am stuck here.") And have her set her cap for a good recast Shayne and take on the Old Bag Reva when she tries to interfere.."Oh please, I heard she was back in Oklahamo giving blow jobs behind the gas station, and she acts like she is Mother of the Year...God I hate her."  When they recast with that boring Kit girl and then...cutesy Mandy it was done. I love the idea of Billy and Van bonding over hell on wheels Peter. and kicking **** to the curb.Billy went to prison to protect him from Roger but that was never mentioned when Billy returned. Peter and Aubrey's Marina would raise Hell together..do a Nolaredux  in that he bangs her, she gets preggers, passes that off as Shayne's with Ole Bag Reva suspicious...I could see Marina ringing a bell to get the Ole Bag to bring her some ice cream...."But Grandma...oh you hate that I am sorry, okay, Grammy, you know I can't be stressed and oh, Shayne would be mad if I lost the baby..."ah what could have been.
    • Please register in order to view this content

      Yeah, that's I mentioned the christening, when the truth comes out Reading October and November 1993, what is actually nuts is how much story they went through in a month. Because John's not even interested in Marlena at the time of Belle's birth.  He is rebound lusting for Kristen, who delivered Belle (funny mention in SOD about Marlena being unable to service at the Horton cabin on her "cellular" phone, I assume there was heightened vigilance to the exposition covering the tech of the time).   And, of course, since it was Kristen helping Marlena give birth during a stormy night, they both looked glossy, windswept, and gorgeous.    Justice for Jamie, I bet she's still holding Sami's secrets wherever she is.
    • You know what's crazy? Even though JFP ultimately has been a disaster at many soaps, and even though all the negatives about her are true, I'd still prefer her over Josh Griffith at Y&R. She can take over for him anytime, and I will applaud.
    • The baby was named when Roman was believed to be her father.
    • I gotta agree with Sami on this one. -- thanks @Franko for the source, that's a good find. I mean, not enough to sell the kid on the black market (pun intended) but.. At least it wasn't John who suggested it, that makes it cleaner.  Roman had naming rights until the christening cleared up the paternity.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy