14 people dead at Batman Film Premiere

[efq]

I personally think it's way to early to be wearing something like that, I see it as being very insensitive, and seeing as it was a 25 year old aged man, and not just a kid dressed as batman.

Why would you have ago at someone dressed as batman

[Mr.L.Darragh]

It's so sad, Jessica 'Redfield' was a friend of Countryboy96, a WH employee. She was such a lively person, and its sad to see her pass. If you want you can send your wishes to @Countryb96 I'm sure he'll be happy to hear it. :'[

[Chippiewill]

I personally think it's way to early to be wearing something like that, I see it as being very insensitive, and seeing as it was a 25 year old aged man, and not just a kid dressed as batman.

It's not like it was the film that killed them it was a guy, batman itself is irrelevant.

[Stephen]

I personally think it's way to early to be wearing something like that, I see it as being very insensitive, and seeing as it was a 25 year old aged man, and not just a kid dressed as batman.

So because that happened it means the whole world has to wait a few months before they can dress up as a batman character

[HotelUser]

Colorado allows the death sentence and for the moment I'm happy to see that the death penalty is on the table. I hope he cuts no deals, and finds a needle in his arm.

[sex]

Colorado allows the death sentence and for the moment I'm happy to see that the death penalty is on the table. I hope he cuts no deals, and finds a needle in his arm.

probably going to play the mental health card

[-:Undertaker:-]

Time and a place.

I don't understand why Americans still believe everyone should have the right to firearms, clearly situations like this and many others could have been prevented if guns were illegal.

Absolute and utter nonsense.

Had local guns laws in the area not have been as strict, then it would have been likely that a fair amount of people in the cinema would be carrying concealed guns - which means that as soon as the guy started shooting, people would have had a chance to defend themselves as well as protecting others. Another example of this is during the 9/11 hijackings when the federal government had banned firearms being carried on board planes - of course this meant that when the hijackers took out their guns, nobody was able to fight back as they'd all been disarmed by gun regulations (which of course, criminals will not and do not follow anyway).

And besides, the right to firearms is in the US Constitution - it isn't even up for debate whether they should be banned.

[dbgtz]

Absolute and utter nonsense.

Had local guns laws in the area not have been as strict, then it would have been likely that a fair amount of people in the cinema would be carrying concealed guns - which means that as soon as the guy started shooting, people would have had a chance to defend themselves as well as protecting others. Another example of this is during the 9/11 hijackings when the federal government had banned firearms being carried on board planes - of course this meant that when the hijackers took out their guns, nobody was able to fight back as they'd all been disarmed by gun regulations (which of course, criminals will not and do not follow anyway).

And besides, the right to firearms is in the US Constitution - it isn't even up for debate whether they should be banned.

Lots of smoke + fear in people could have easily made it more disastrous than it actually was. And besides, if there were no guns in the first place the whole thing wouldn't have occured, you'd just be fighting fire with fire.

At the last point, they could just amend the constitution so to say it isn't even up for debate is slightly incorrect.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Lots of smoke + fear in people could have easily made it more disastrous than it actually was.

But it also could have been much better than it was under my scenario, indeed the more people who were carrying concealed guns means the tragedy could have ended much sooner than it did.

And besides, if there were no guns in the first place the whole thing wouldn't have occured, you'd just be fighting fire with fire.

Ah yes, introducing a piece of paper will mean there are 'no guns' .. that really works doesn't it. I really don't understand the logic, the area clearly had tight gun controls and obviously the guy simply ignored them as all criminals do - but because of this it has resulted in unintended consquences which have left law abiding people unarmed.

At the last point, they could just amend the constitution so to say it isn't even up for debate is slightly incorrect.

The US Constitution isn't there to be fiddled around with by US politicians, it is there to be followed.

.. as for the post earlier which listed firearm deaths in the US, I could also produce similar (and indeed higher numbers) for the US and the UK concerning knife crime, club/pub deaths from glass bottles and even motorway accidents - yet would be consider banning or regulating any of these? and secondly, would it make any difference to those who are determined to carry out harm to others? the answer is no,

[dbgtz]

But it also could have been much better than it was under my scenario, indeed the more people who were carrying concealed guns means the tragedy could have ended much sooner than it did.

To be quite honest I won't bother debating this point any further, it is really hard to tell what would have happened because it ultimately relies on the person. Someone may be shaking a lot, missing shots which then hit others, but then you could have someone who is in the military and takes him out with ease.

Ah yes, introducing a piece of paper will mean there are 'no guns' .. that really works doesn't it. I really don't understand the logic, the area clearly had tight gun controls and obviously the guy simply ignored them as all criminals do - but because of this it has resulted in unintended consquences which have left law abiding people unarmed.

Well if you remove the source of guns, take as many as possible without infringing on human rights then they will slowly be eradicated. I mentioned earlier about this saying that I don't expect it to be an instant but at least the risk is then reduced.

The US Constitution isn't there to be fiddled around with by US politicians, it is there to be followed.

Regardless of what you think it is there for, it can still be amended.