The guy described himself as the "Joker", but he had red hair. Doesn't the Joker usually have green hair?Yeah, although one of the retconned-in origins for the Joker is that he was previously the Red Hood.
Also, while I was looking for a decent image for that, I ran across a disturbingly familiar page from Dark Knight Returns.
Well, the Joker is one of the most iconic figures from Batman. He could have simply said "I'm the Joker!" in order to stir up controversy. Basically it's a way for him to throw off the theorists. If I'm remembering correctly, Charlie Manson used similar tactics during his trial, though his demonstrated more his control over the Family.
It's a ploy for attention, which is what a lot of spree killers want at the core of their problems.
Gun control has everything to do with Aurora.
Especially the notion that a gun check could involve flags from mental health agencies.
Only if:
(1)This guy has a history of mental illness, which we have no evidence of yet. Just because someone does something incomprehensible doesn't automatically mean they must be mentally ill (medically speaking).or
(2)We are talking about forcing proactive mental screenings for people want to purchase weapons (would we also include things like swords and other non-firearms, I think a few gamers might find they wouldn't pass the exam based on the bias of the interviewer).
Only if:
How about no 'only if'?
Gun control has everything to do with Aurora.
No 'only if' now.
As an aside:
"Holmes applied to join the club last month but never became a member because of his behavior and a “bizarre” message on his voice mail.He emailed an application to join the Lead Valley Range in Byers on June 25 in which he said he was not a user of illegal drugs or a convicted felon, said owner Glenn Rotkovich. When Rotkovich called to invite him to a mandatory orientation the following week, he said he heard a message on Holmes’ voice mail that was “bizarre – guttural, freakish at best.”
Reckon that would have been 'reportable' in a decent system, which in turn might have led somewhere - like a shrink, and a flag.
I wasn't referring to gun control but to "involve flags from mental health agencies". We have no evidence at this time if this guy ever was seen by a mental health agency. A strange rambling answering machine greeting doesn't really qualify as a strict diagnosis.
It should be noted that the shooting range guy called Holmes and left a message more than once. So as strange as the greeting was, it wasn't enough to totally discount calling the "weirdo" back. Holmes just never returned his call.
Sure Pres, I get that.
What I would suggest was that if there was an actual flagging system and a process of reporting, the Range owner might have felt (or just have been flat out) obliged to contact authorities and report 'strange behaviour'.
Similarly, proper reporting and control systems might have also alerted the Police to some guy buying up a bucketload of ammo (6000 rounds is a lot yeah?). Individually, maybe not much in the way of big news, but certainly enough flags popping up all of a sudden gets a lot of attention.
Its the same system credit card companies employ to detect fraud.
Strange behaviour + a lot of odd activity = ?
gun control has little to do with it. For example, in Switzerland, every household that has a military aged male (20 to 30, 34 for officers) is required to have a Sig 550 semi automatic rifle. Officers can instead choose to have a sig p220 .45 pistol. Citizens can also privately purchase their own firearms, after passing a background check and have no history of mental illness.
Switzerland has roughly 1 gun related incident of violence per 250,000 people.
The United States has approximately 3 incidents of gun related violence per 10,000 people.
In Switzerland, it is common to see people walking around with rifles strapped to their backs, even when out of uniform.
How is it that a country where a given population has roughly equivalent access to firearms, has so many fewer incidents of firearm related violence?
Who knows. What this done show, is that having access to firearms doesn't make people crazy and start murdering people. People can own firearms, and still be responsible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is it that a country where a given population has roughly equivalent access to firearms, has so many fewer incidents of firearm related violence?
Mandatory national service (military) for all males.
Read up and it all becomes clear... something about a Militia...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland
I also like the bit about 'background checks' and 'mental illness' checks :)
How is it that a country where a given population has roughly equivalent access to firearms, has so many fewer incidents of firearm related violence?
Mandatory national service (military) for all males.
Read up and it all becomes clear... something about a Militia...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_SwitzerlandI also like the bit about 'background checks' and 'mental illness' checks :)
Military service doesn't automatically make you NOT psycho or murderous, and doesn't make you more responsible with a firearm. (look at cases of US soldiers murdering civilians the last couple years.)
The US requires background checks in every state (which this individual passed), and had no record of prior mental illness, which wouldn't have raised a red flag with the Swiss system either.
I'm not trying to bring any kind of politics into this, I am merely pointing out that focusing on guns as the root cause here is erroneous, and probably has more to do with the US and its poor healthcare (and therefore increase chance of mentally disturbed individuals slipping by) and various other socioeconomic reasons.
Military service doesn't automatically make you NOT psycho or murderous, and doesn't make you more responsible with a firearm. (look at cases of US soldiers murdering civilians the last couple years.)
True, however Mental Illness is a barrier to entry to Swiss military service, and psychological interviews are carried out on all conscripts.
What that means is that mental illnesses have significantly better chances of being picked up (remember, EVERY Male will go through the process).What this means is that all the Swiss running about with their nice automatic weapon have been subject to a mental assessment (and background check) before being allowed to own a firearm. Thats Gun Control. There's also the advantages of the owner having acual training about care and handling, gun safety is also a big issue.
Poor healthcare, socioeconomic issues, and a particular mentality around gun ownership is more of a problem than the guns themselves, I'll happily pay that.
Ok then. The answer is mandatory military service for 2-4 years then, for all 18 year olds. They all get screened, then we'll know. We'll have a populace trained to handle handle and respect firearms, which the now discovered crazy people can't own legally. Everyone gets GI Bill for college when they're done, also.
This solves both the gun control issue and the tuition issue.
Works for Switzerland.
EDIT: And Israel.
Works for Switzerland.
EDIT: And Israel.
We don't subscribe to the idea that you have to give up all of your rights to the government just because you're 18 and male. Mental patients have more rights than military conscripts.
But it'll make America safer and a better place to live...?
We don't subscribe to the idea that you have to give up all of your rights to the government just because you're 18 and male. Mental patients have more rights than military conscripts.Works for Switzerland.
EDIT: And Israel.
I'm of two minds.
On the one hand, I don't want to fight in wars.
On the other hand, Americans would be far less complacent about the wars we let braver/more desperate folks fight for us out of sight and mind.
I'll happily take no wars instead, if that's an option.
On the other hand, Americans would be far less complacent about the wars we let braver/more desperate folks fight for us out of sight and mind.
The people actually making the decision to go to war or not would just get their kids stationed defending Nebraska.
How do their populations compare to ours again?Works for Switzerland.
EDIT: And Israel.
Itty bitty, to use a scientific term...
Well, Nebraska is where STRATCOM is...
Wait, why is there a war in Nebraska?
Or we could have a system with a general vote whether or not to declare war. Anyone who votes "yes" has to ship out.
(Let it be known that I greatly respect military service even though I disapprove of military action.)
|
Itty bitty, to use a scientific term...
I'd love to see the logistics and economics of doing it however. Training a group that is probably multiple times larger than our current end strength. I can only imagine the joy conservatives would have at a military strength of millions. Meanwhile, the military leadership would be in a nightmare scenario for management and the taxpayers would be screaming about the socialism involved in paying the paychecks, healthcare, and GI Bill benefits of an entire generation of deadbeat soldiers.
You mean an unsustainable govt program? Whodathunkit?
It would be clearly sustainable if we raised taxes on the rich. I'm sure they would love to have their own private army. :)
They already do and it pays for itself, so even better.
Thanks EL. That was the joke.
Oh.
It's not very funny, is it?
So either we go Heinlein or Shadowrun...hmmm...difficult choice.
Thanks EL. That was the joke.Oh.
It's not very funny, is it?
I'm laughing, can't you tell?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you're going to find is that there are no conceivable countermeasures that can prevent spree killings like this. Or at least not the majority of them where such events are the killers' first breach of the law.
Prevent? No. But perhaps, if just one whacko would be stopped from killing dozens because he could not get a gun as easily as he can at present, it might be worth the try.
I know that absolute security is just a dream, but if less guns are around in a society seemingly prone to use them, it might help just a little. Every life saved is worth the effort IMO.
Every life saved is worth the effort IMO.
I wonder how many freedoms we've already sacrificed due to this logic?
Itty bitty, to use a scientific term...How do their populations compare to ours again?Works for Switzerland.
EDIT: And Israel.
Now let's just compare it to Colorado.
As to forced military service, it would actually be a detriment to our technological advancement. Most scientist, inventors, etc make the major achievements at a fairly early age (early 20's I believe). It is rare for someone over 40 to make significant gains. Even many of those that are recognized at a later age, started their work when they were much younger. By having forced military service, you would be removing most of the future innovators during their most productive years.
Interesting point. Do these need to be meaningful inventions, like Edison, Bell or Tesla, or are we talking about the next seen on TV stuff?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This whole libertarian thing, we tried that for the first 10,000 years of human existence. It sucked. A lot.Now we have the Internet and vaccines. It's better. Look it up.
Wow. I've heard people go back to early America to try to disprove libertarian ideology. This is the first time that I've seen someone go all the way back to the Stone Age. Please tell me more about how progressivism is working out for us when it comes to teaching personal responsibility to the populous.
Gun control has everything to do with Aurora.
You're right. Excessive gun control stripped away the right of all of those victims to defend themselves.
You guys can argue all day long about how that may not have changed the outcome but you don't know that. It just as easily could have ended with few or no innocent lives taken. Gun laws don't stop criminals from committing crimes (by definition).
Please tell me more about how progressivism is working out for us when it comes to teaching personal responsibility to the populous.
Is lack of "personal responsibility" in the populace the cause of being poor (libertarian view), or a symptom thereof (progressive view)? Or are they intertwined in a vicous circle, and therefore harder to break (realistic view)?
Well, first you're obviously unprepared if you haven't already built up your tolerance to tear gas. If you don't do that, your not taking your self defense seriously.
Then, since it was a movie theater you should have your night vision goggles with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I spent the last few years building up an immunity to locane powder.
Ok then. The answer is mandatory military service for 2-4 years then, for all 18 year olds. They all get screened, then we'll know. We'll have a populace trained to handle handle and respect firearms, which the now discovered crazy people can't own legally. Everyone gets GI Bill for college when they're done, also.
This solves both the gun control issue and the tuition issue.
You'll probably be left agog but...I kind of like this idea.
With a few caveats (of course).1) It's a 2 year service contract. The option to renew is on the part of the individual, not the state. I hate that a childhood friend was killed in Iraq in year 6 of his original 2 years of service.
2) The enlistee has options of which branch, defaulting to state national guard service.
3) After the end of your service contract you're guaranteed an equal number of years tuition in a state-run (not private) higher education institution. This generally includes technical schools.
4) Upon completion of your service, with a psychological exam and criminal background check, you're also awarded licensure to own and/or carry firearms for 10 years. After which time you need to reapply for the same checks (or, if you prefer, reenlist) to renew your license.
I would think you'd want to do a psychological exam when they first entered the service. LOL
|
Yeah, I'd like to see the full transcript of that phone call.I couldn't play the clip. Was there more to the context? The words used in segments made like it did in the article could illustrate one thing the reporter was trying to push as an agenda that the mom knew her son had the potential to frame such a heinous act, but it could also be part of a larger context where information was provided to help better identify that they had the right individual by that name.It trips me up what his mother said. Link
"You have the right person," she said, apparently speaking on gut instinct. "I need to call the police... I need to fly out to Colorado."
If that's your first reaction to hearing your child is a suspect odds are you knew something was wrong and should have called the cops before they did anything.
Yeah. According to a press release by Mrs. Holmes
"I was awakened by a call from a reporter by ABC on July 20 about 5:45 in the morning. I did not know anything about a shooting in Aurora at that time. He asked if I was Arlene Holmes and if my son was James Holmes who lives in Aurora, Colorado. I answered yes, you have the right person. I was referring to myself. I asked him to tell me why he was calling and he told me about a shooting in Aurora. He asked for a comment. I told him I could not comment because I did not know if the person he was talking about was my son, and I would need to find out."
Apparently there is no recording of the conversation so it comes down to 'he said/she said', but I find her version a little more believable.
Fine up to 4, no making people earn or beg for rights. Might as well do the same for voting and speech, hell those are more dangerous.
Really?
There's no budging on this?Is there anyone on the pro-gun side that's remotely sane?
"Nope. Even spree killers have a right to buy guns. And paranoid schitzophrenics! Don't tread on me!"
I would think you'd want to do a psychological exam when they first entered the service. LOL
Then we'd have no service.
|
|
Fine up to 4, no making people earn or beg for rights. Might as well do the same for voting and speech, hell those are more dangerous.Really?
There's no budging on this?Is there anyone on the pro-gun side that's remotely sane?
"Nope. Even spree killers have a right to buy guns. And paranoid schitzophrenics! Don't tread on me!"
There is already a system to prohibit purchase by the mentally ill. YOU want a system that assumes guilt until (if) you can prove you deserve RIGHTS. This is how rights vanish. Do you propose mental health proof to vote? free speech? Is there no sanity on the anti gun side? or is sanity just "agree with me because i know better"
Lax gun control laws stripped away all ability to stop this before it happened; there's no reason anyone should have been able to buy those guns at all. You guys can argue all day long about how that may not have changed he outcome but you don't know that.
Strict gun control have been proven to do two things: Prevent some of accidental shootings and raise crime rates. The logic behind both of these effects is pretty simple.
Now, I don't really believe that, but do you see how specious that argument is? If you're going to make a claim, you need to offer something other than "This is how it might have gone differently in the fantasy world in my head."
I don't think that it's too much of a stretch of the imagination to say that if Aurora allowed concealed carry that someone could have stopped the massacre before the shooter got bored, ran of ammo or whatever it was that made him walk out of the theater and voluntarily surrender to the police. Obviously there is no way to know exactly how it would have turned out but at least these people could have had a chance to defend themselves. Isn't that better than just, well, dying.
Is lack of "personal responsibility" in the populace the cause of being poor (libertarian view), or a symptom thereof (progressive view)? Or are they intertwined in a vicous circle, and therefore harder to break (realistic view)?
Being poor has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of personal responsibility. I think Mother Teresa and Charlie Sheen prove this. You will see a disproportionate amount of poor people mainly because wealth can be easily squandered (or never obtained) by those who are irresponsible with money. But people can be irresponsible in many ways, not just with money.
The lack of personal responsibility of the populous is the unintended consequence of 100 years of progressive policy. As government grows larger and larger and take away more and more of our freedoms (i.e. choices), it's only natural that the citizens become less responsible about the choices that they make. Just like children, adult will also ignore any rules that they feel are obnoxious. When you discipline your child, you have two choices: violence or knowledge. Violence is easier and in the short term may seem to work better but we all know that down the road, it leads to many negative physical and emotional side effects. It's why it's frowned upon now-a-days. Imparting knowledge to your child as to why they shouldn't be engaging in whatever harmful behavior they are being disciplined for is much more difficult but they will be better off in the long run.
Progressivism is largely the use of force, coercion and violence against the people to mold them into "good citizens". Think about all of the things in our daily lives that forced to do whether we agree with it or not. This causes society to degrade, especially since we can blame "society" for all of our problems and go about our daily lives as if there's nothing we can do about it (which for the most part, there isn't). The responsibility doesn't fall on us directly so less people have incentive to have it. Progressivism is essentially beating your child, except on a national level.
Libertarianism is the other end of the scale. It places freedom and responsibility and eschews violence and submission. This requires more personal responsibility but as we know with our children, responsibility is learned not forced and society as a whole will be better in the long run using the same principles that most of us use to raise our children. Libertarianism allows people to make their own mistakes as long as they aren't harming another person or their property.
Well, first you're obviously unprepared if you haven't already built up your tolerance to tear gas. If you don't do that, your not taking your self defense seriously.
Then, since it was a movie theater you should have your night vision goggles with.
Never said that he didn't give himself advantages. He certainly did. Still, a chance at defending yourself is better than dying ... or waiting for the police to arrive which is pretty much the same thing in situations like this.
YOU want a system that assumes guilt until (if) you can prove you deserve RIGHTS.
Actually thats not what is being asked for.
I also find it curious that so many defending/demanding their 'rights' seem to not have an iota of interest in any sort of communal responsibilities.