Colorado 'batman' shooting?

Was probably whatever he ate that morning.

 

Marijuana bought from someone he met on line = 3birds, one freaking stone.

 

When was this?

When did this take place again?

Well to be honest it would seem that their society works very well, as you had said supposedly little violence there. The fact that they were a victim of a lone terrorist doesn't defeat their track record of non violence.

That said many historic churches are often burned down there in acts of vandalism.

Perhaps.

Explain this part again?

Clearly not everyone agrees with sign such a contract, nor should they.

No an alternative would be acting only in selfish behavior, which I will detail in doing something only because it makes you feel good or benefits you. Now if helping your neighbor turns out to be one of those things fine but don't claim it to be right of the very society to force such an action on someone.

 

About access to guns, the thompson typewriter was a lean, mean, .45, killing machine.

Before that, so was the colt revolver, when you could escape on a horse while the other guy was reloading.

I think that considering that police abilities have only increased as other people's have, access to guns hasn't been something that has really changed killing abilities.

 

More on acts of mass scale violence in americas past,

The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, which killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, four other adults and the bomber himself; at least 58 people were injured.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103186662

 

how the hell does a guy shoot over 70 people and no one tackles him?...there must have been hundreds of people there

and how does he get away without people chasing him and beating the life from him?

 

Attacking the shooter is the easiest way to get shot. In a situation where a bunch of people are being shot at, the general reaction I think, would be to try to get out of site and not become the target.

 

heard he stopped to reload so i dont know for sure but to answer the first part of your question...he had a fucking rifle. this isnt rambo or some ninja movie, try running towards someone with an automatic weapon and see what happens.

 

This was tragic. I felt sick when I firts heard about it. I hope he drops the soap everytime he showers in prison.

 

honestly its hard to argue with you when something like this happens it seems obvious. the one catch though is that millions of people saw that trailer and only one (maybe we dont even know if he actually saw the trailer) man decided to go killing people. if the rest of us are so desensitized then why dont we all go killing people?

 

who the fuck brings their kids to a midnight showing of batman?!

 

ask me on the thread about lying and i will lie about how i really feel.

 

that's pretty bad. if your point is that stuff like this has been going on for a long time, a point well taken

however, it seems like both spree and serial killings are more frequent nowadays. if you've got evidence to the contrary, i would certainly consider it though.

as roor mentioned, police capabilities have also increased. lots more people in jail too, relatively more restrictions on owning firearms. you would think that we would be getting safer.

 

other factors like world-wide communications, you know like newspapers, television, radio, internet.

Violent crime and mass murders have happened as long as there have been humans. One thing that has drastically changed is how fast and how far reaching news of such events is. Think about it, within hours the world was made aware of this shooting. 100 years ago most of us would have NEVER heard about it, let alone people in other parts of the globe.

How come people NEVER factor in the differences in population numbers, mobility, communications, etc. when going on with this type of myopic rhetoric.
Maybe the incidences of these types of crimes hasn't drastically increased, but the population has and the percentage of nut jobs is the same as it always has been, but there are more simply more because there are more of every type of person, and we get information more rapidly than ever before in history.

population of Iceland for 2010 was: 318,470 (approx)

the number of registered crimes for 2010: 73,525
that amounts to just over 23% of the population.
http://www.statice.is/Statistics/Population

the 2010 Census showed the resident population of the United States on April 1, 2010, was 308,745,538
http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb10-cn93.html

total crimes reported for 2010: 10,329,135
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

that amounts to about 3.3% of the total population.

Kinda looks like Iceland has a much bigger crime problem than the United States.

(I used 2010 because that was the most recent year that I was able to find stats for quickly)

Shows that you have to apply a little thought and logic and look at the REAL stats, not just perceived stats. I admit that I was a little surprised at the high percentage of crime relative to the population in Iceland.

 

Finally put the news on and I'm just so I dunno just I dunno how I feel I go to the movies a lot and I love a premer I couldn't imagine what I would do in such a situation Im also mad that the only thought going through my head would be all the times I wanted to kill myself and didn't because life is worth living bla bla bla and some jack ass with a gun kills me how fucked up and all those people with their kids and loved ones and now parts of their hearts are just taken from them nothing could make this better all those people are just forever broken by this. Those people had like lives and were like working and saving money for futures that won't come now what crap what fucken crap this is just so upsetting to me

 

he didnt use the ar15 until after the shotgun was empty

plenty of tackle time ..there were people admitting to being 3 feet away

 

plus disarming someone who is wielding a rifle is lot easier than if they had a handgun. A lot easier to get to them and past the business end of the rifle.

 

Would you use the Ashi Guruma Sasae, Tsurikomi Ashi or would you use your super ninja phantom kick?

 

mass media reporting of crimes could certainly create an exaggerated impression of the prevalence of crime. and further, that reporting could encourage copy-cat crimes. good point.

however, if we compare the prevalence of spree and serial killings, in, let's say 1960 vs. today, i suspect that the rate is higher now, even if one adjusts for population.

as mass media was available then as well as now, media reporting should not be a factor, unless one argues that the same rate of crimes occurred, but the media just didn't report it. i suspect that that is not the case, however.

in comparing the spree and serial killing rates, one should also consider that the incarceration rate in the us is much higher now than it was then. also, there is the the hyper vigilance of us security, increased firearm restrictions, video surveillance, ect. that would presumably keep us safer.

according to wikipedia, the us murder rate per 100,000 population from 2000-2009 ranged from 5 to 5.7.

during the same period, iceland's murder rate ranged from 0 to 1.79 per 100,000

Kinda looks like the United States has a much bigger homicide rate than Iceland.

now you cite the number of "registered crimes" in iceland vs "reported crimes" in the us. does the number of reported crimes actually reflect the number of actual crimes? and since iceland and the us have different laws, is this stat really comparing similar crimes? even if the laws in each country were identical, it is not a comparison of violent crimes, or crimes of like severity. without proper identification of the types of crimes the in statistic you cite, iceland could be including overdue library book fines in its crime statistics for all we know.

beyond this, what is at issue is not the overall number of crimes per 100,000, but homicides, and specifically spree and serial killings.

Shows that you have to apply a little thought and logic and look at the REAL stats, not just perceived stats. I admit that I was a little surprised that you would so casually and condescendingly dismiss my arguments while not considering the flaws in your own.