Two or less Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 A friend of mine thought she'd heard somewhere that the shooter was a neuroscience PhD student (???)... did anyone else hear that? He was, but he was in the process of withdrawing, but nobody really knows why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 A friend of mine thought she'd heard somewhere that the shooter was a neuroscience PhD student (???)... did anyone else hear that? I heard, that, too. But he was dropping out of the curriculum. He was, but he was in the process of withdrawing, but nobody really knows why. He snapped? I know this may sound too "easy", but people can simply snap. Remember the guy in Canada who stabbed the guy on the bus and started to eat the body? How else do you explain it? We try and rationalize the irrational and, I think, come up way short every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 A friend of mine thought she'd heard somewhere that the shooter was a neuroscience PhD student (???)... did anyone else hear that? Not sure about the neuroscience part, but he was a PhD student. However, he was in the process of withdrawing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 A friend of mine thought she'd heard somewhere that the shooter was a neuroscience PhD student (???)... did anyone else hear that? Yes, he was at CU-Denver. I know that program well. Have a good friend who went through that program (I was teaching at CU-Boulder prior to moving to Nashville). As for the mental health argument, it is impossible to know which of your students are ready to snap and which are not. If the student isn't seeking help and/or their friends and family don't step in, then I fail to see how we're going to diagnose and weed out all possible mass killers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biodork Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 Boy you guys are quick (and well-informed). The whole situation is sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 Move along. Nothing to see here. Its incredibly sad but everytime it happens everyone acts so shocked like its never happened before. Get used to it. Its part of the human condition. Look at the silly fukcs mugshot. He's smiling. Just like the loon in Norway. A great big smile like he's finally got recognition. I am a somebody. Draw and quarter these lowlifes in the public market and televise it. Now thats a deterrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 Move along. Nothing to see here. Its incredibly sad but everytime it happens everyone acts so shocked like its never happened before. Get used to it. Its part of the human condition. Look at the silly fukcs mugshot. He's smiling. Just like the loon in Norway. A great big smile like he's finally got recognition. I am a somebody. Draw and quarter these lowlifes in the public market and televise it. Now thats a deterrent. You can't deter crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 You can't deter crazy. Well ya you have a point there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeanbe Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 My niece works at the University of Colorado Hospital in the Neuro ICU and was on duty at the time. She said it was the saddest thing she has ever seen with the family and friends of the victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 It's another sad day in America... The booby trapping of his apartment was just sick. He was truly out for mass casualties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 There is just no justifiable reason for any American citizen to own or be in possession of an automatic weapon. The President should out law them immediately through Executive Order declaring them a threat to national security. And please, don't give me the that meaningless "Rights to Bare Arms" ######. If the founding fathers would have had any idea what the single shot musket would evolve into they never would have included it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sloth Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 PA you've got it dead right in my book. What has happened to mental health funding? We've got social workers making 15 bucks an hour trying to keep those with real stability issues away from the ledge and we have institutions failing to report and follow uo on folks who are slowly becoming a danger to themselves and others. I agree w/ you to a certain extent. Social workers are underpaid and are rarely given the appreciation they deserve. People fail to consider the sacrifices social workers are making. The pay is low and the job can be very stressful. This happens w/ other professions as well. Examples include teachers, police officers, EMT's, etc... However, hate to put it this way, but even if more time and money were directed towards the finding/treatment of individuals w/ some type of mental illness, sick things like this will continue to happen. Let me stress more money should still be given to people in the professions I mentioned. All in all, it would benefit society as a whole. You'd have higher quality this, that and the other. That is my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 There is just no justifiable reason for any American citizen to own or be in possession of an automatic weapon. The President should out law them immediately through Executive Order declaring them a threat to national security. And please, don't give me the that meaningless "Rights to Bare Arms" ######. If the founding fathers would have had any idea what the single shot musket would evolve into they never would have included it. No. The first thing an oppressive government does is remove the guns when they take over. I'll take my chances with the random nutjob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 No. The first thing an oppressive government does is remove the guns when they take over. I'll take my chances with the random nutjob. Not all guns are automatic. The idea that removing automatic weapons is a type of repression is ridiculous. Automatic weapons serve only one purpose, killing a great deal of people efficiently in a a short period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 I agree w/ you to a certain extent. Social workers are underpaid and are rarely given the appreciation they deserve. People fail to consider the sacrifices social workers are making. The pay is low and the job can be very stressful. This happens w/ other professions as well. Examples include teachers, police officers, EMT's, etc... However, hate to put it this way, but even if more time and money were directed towards the finding/treatment of individuals w/ some type of mental illness, sick things like this will continue to happen. Let me stress more money should still be given to people in the professions I mentioned. All in all, it would benefit society as a whole. You'd have higher quality this, that and the other. That is my opinion. I blame it on Hollywood and video games. As a society we gladly portray scenes of guys using automatic weapons to mow down crowds of people. Isn't it just a bit ironic that Warner Bros had to remove a movie trailer from Batman that showed a bunch of tommy gun thugs opening fire on a crowd? Games like Battlefield 3 give you unlimited ammunition to kill people. Then we all act stunned when some person with mental health issues opens fire on a school. Our children are exposed to an endless amount of violence on TV. We glamorize violence in one form of media and shreak in horror when it gets carried out for real on another form of media. I'm with Deluca and the Mayor of NY, get rid of the guns. My son asks me seemingly everyday for an air soft gun. He's 10. My answer is the same, no. When he asks why, I give the same answer. Because I don't like them and they're dangerous. You're too young to handle responsibly. This guy legally purchased his assault weapons and then unleashed horror on a theatre filled with women and children. And if I may, what the heck were infants and kids doing at a midnight showing of Batman? I guess we have a need to instill violence in our young at the earliest possible age. As a parent in this day and age, it is extremely difficult to limit exposure to violence. It is everywhere and it is glamorized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sloth Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 Not all guns are automatic. The idea that removing automatic weapons is a type of repression is ridiculous. Automatic weapons serve only one purpose, killing a great deal of people efficiently in a a short period of time. This I agree w/. Americans should always be allowed the right to bare arms, but a drawing should be established. There is no reason for a civilian to have an automatic weapon. Deluca was making reference towards automatic guns. He wasnt saying remove our right to bare arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 Not all guns are automatic. The idea that removing automatic weapons is a type of repression is ridiculous. Automatic weapons serve only one purpose, killing a great deal of people efficiently in a a short period of time. I don't really feel like getting into this. The focus should be more on how to fix those broken human beings rather than on the tools they might use to harm. Now, if there was an Executive Order declaring that no news outlets could cover the event more than just a cursory report with no video, I think that would go a lot farther in detering it from happening in the future and I would be all for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 No. The first thing an oppressive government does is remove the guns when they take over. I'll take my chances with the random nutjob. So keeping this on a civil level, I respect your opinion. My sincere question to you is would your position change if it happened in your hometown and it was your neighbors and kids friends that were the victims? I think it is easier to take your stance when it doesn't directly impact you. I'm not an anti gun zealot. I just think they're too powerful and our society has changed from the days of we need them for protection to we need them when we're just pissed off at life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 So keeping this on a civil level, I respect your opinion. My sincere question to you is would your position change if it happened in your hometown and it was your neighbors and kids friends that were the victims? I think it is easier to take your stance when it doesn't directly impact you. I'm not an anti gun zealot. I just think they're too powerful and our society has changed from the days of we need them for protection to we need them when we're just pissed off at life. There is no question that my stance would change, but I would think that at that point, I would no longer be qualified to make a judgement on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 There is no question that my stance would change, but I would think that at that point, I would no longer be qualified to make a judgement on the matter. Fair enough answer. I'm there now. I don't want to wait around til it happens in my hometown.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 There is just no justifiable reason for any American citizen to own or be in possession of an automatic weapon. The President should out law them immediately through Executive Order declaring them a threat to national security. And please, don't give me the that meaningless "Rights to Bare Arms" ######. If the founding fathers would have had any idea what the single shot musket would evolve into they never would have included it. I'm not going to bother to debate you over something as emotionally driven as this, but if you are going to demonize something you should probably make sure you are demonizing the correct item. He did not use an automatic weapon. And automatic weapons are beyond the means of most people to obtain leagally, requiring federal background checks, expensive licensing, and most of them cost 10's of 1000's of dollars because none made after a certain date (I believe 1968) are allowed to be purchased at all. As for the actual weapon type he used, you are not correct in your characterization of its lack of uses. But like I said, I am not going to bother to get into any debate with you about it. You apparently have your mind made up. As for this tragedy, broken people find ways to do broken things. Living among society means we are going to occassionally find ourselves making contact with broken people. I'm not sure there is anything realistic that can be done to change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 "Theaters ban masks." There we go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 I'm not going to bother to debate you over something as emotionally driven as this, but if you are going to demonize something you should probably make sure you are demonizing the correct item. He did not use an automatic weapon. And automatic weapons are beyond the means of most people to obtain leagally, requiring federal background checks, expensive licensing, and most of them cost 10's of 1000's of dollars because none made after a certain date (I believe 1968) are allowed to be purchased at all. As for the actual weapon type he used, you are not correct in your characterization of its lack of uses. But like I said, I am not going to bother to get into any debate with you about it. You apparently have your mind made up. As for this tragedy, broken people find ways to do broken things. Living among society means we are going to occassionally find ourselves making contact with broken people. I'm not sure there is anything realistic that can be done to change that. So based on your comment I went back and read about the guns he used. He had a semi-automatic rifle with a 100 round magazine capable of dispensing 60 rounds a minute. At least that is what I think I read. I'm not sure of the true distinction in automatic versus semi-automatic but 60 rounds per minute feels like a very dangerous weapon to be sold legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 "Theaters ban masks." There we go. I think the next step should be to ban emergency exits. So based on your comment I went back and read about the guns he used. He had a semi-automatic rifle with a 100 round magazine capable of dispensing 60 rounds a minute. At least that is what I think I read. I'm not sure of the true distinction in automatic versus semi-automatic but 60 rounds per minute feels like a very dangerous weapon to be sold legally. The AR-15 he had is capable of 800 rounds per minute if it is Fully Automatic. That's about 13 rounds per second. It may have been a semi-automatic which would mean he'd be able to shoot as fast as he can pull the trigger, so 1-3 rps isn't unreasonable on an old assault rifle with a long squeeze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 So based on your comment I went back and read about the guns he used. He had a semi-automatic rifle with a 100 round magazine capable of dispensing 60 rounds a minute. At least that is what I think I read. I'm not sure of the true distinction in automatic versus semi-automatic but 60 rounds per minute feels like a very dangerous weapon to be sold legally. Right. It is a dangerous firearm. They are all dangerous. The reason I am not interested in debating where to draw the line is because drawing the line at "too dangerous" is going to be an emotional and most likely arbitrary process. And one in which nothing said here is going to change the opinions of the debaters. 1,000's of these rifles are sold every year. We live in a country with 100's of millions of inhabitants. And we see these incidents less than about once every 5 years or so. But these weapons, the thousands of these things that have been in the marketplace for decades, are too dangerous to have out among the populace. . It's a debate based on emotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.