The Dark Knight's Dark Night (Shooting in Aurora)

Ok.. so that sums up that you DON'T know what mentally ill means.. Because you just listed someone with a Mental DISORDER.

Anyways, not going to bother with you.

As I am more interested in this case as a whole. I kind of want the person who knew James personally to post a bit more, as it seems like he might have known him fairly well. I'm just interested in what makes people turn to these things. I have done some research on other various cases and some serial killings, and there are a lot of similiarities. Pretty annoying how some people are already starting to make jokes on twitter and FB and such.

I think the term you're looking for is "Pleading Insanity", which is more determining whether the person was insane or not.

The definitions of legal insanity differ from state to state, but generally a person is considered insane and is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of the offense, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts

It isn't anything about whether he's competant or not, just the fact if he know's what he did. He could have been a college student that finally cracked under pressure or the lack of social support, thus looking for attention. He clearly had no social life, so maybe depression got to him, what deterimines this plea is if he can fathom the worth of a human life/actions he took and why they are wrong.

@KhainiWest That makes a lot more sense. I also watched him during his first court appearance today. He looks really out of it, almost like he wasn't even really there. Still following the case closely. Waiting for him to actually make some statements, which he didn't today.

The guy looks like he may have mental problems.

The fact that this guy obtained tons of weaponry/tactical gear without any background check being done, shows something needs to be about our country's NRA-happy gun laws.

It seems like nothing was learned since Columbine.

I cannot mesh the two individuals I first heard about, then saw in court today. I might have some serious police procedural brain drain, but I wouldn't put it past a Ph.D candidate to create this individual for the public. No doubt, his defense team isn't downplaying it at this point.

The guy looks like he may have mental problems.

The fact that this guy obtained tons of weaponry/tactical gear without any background check being done, shows something needs to be about our country's NRA-happy gun laws.

It seems like nothing was learned since Columbine.

Even with a background check, this guy would have been plenty able to obtain the weaponry he got. He had no record with crime, he was a PH D student (hell he was the perfect student) and no notable mental illness as diagnosed by any doctor. The only thing they could have got him on would have been him being anti-social and quiet. Besides that, he was basically the every day normal guy. So if a case liek this ever happened again, a background check wouldn't really help in any circumstance because the guy appears to be completely "sane" and "normal". However, had people tracked his ordering history, we'd have seen that the guy had bought most of his guns and ammo within the last two months, which, for a person with no gun ownership history or involvement with the sport of hunting, would make his purchases extremely suspicious (i.e. why would a guy, with no record or remote interest in guns, all of a sudden order 3-4 high powered weapons and cases of ammo all within 2 months?). Now that's not to say that tracking orders would be 100% accurate, but it's a way to control weapons and make sure nothing liek this happens again. Also include the fact that people apparently don't background check over the internet anyway, so it's not like they would have done anything about it then (many legislators have also tried to make gun purchases face-to-face only, but have failed). Also doesn't help the guy had a near zero internet foot print to background check either. Also add to the fact that his guns an ammo were all legally obtained across states and you have a fricken scary realization that any dude who wants to do so could potentially just get as many guns and ammo he wants as long as he lives in state where they have loose gun control laws and he buys via the internet.

Getting a full on ban on guns would not be viable at all in this country, but if other states embraced similar legislation to the laws in California, for example, then it would be much harder for people to come about assault rifles and high powered weaponry. I believe the country had a country-wide ban on assault rifles and other high powered weaponry a few years ago, but it expired during Obama's administration and he has not yet tried (maybe? dunno) to get it into congress/the senate. Unfortunately, many states do not react in the same way as California and haven't tried to re-establish the gun control on high powered weapons. Apparently, this issue hasn't been a severe issue lately in the state or federal government. Perhaps now they'll all go back and examine the legislation now.

Honestly, I feel like some gun control is acceptable (why the hell does someone need a 100 round clip for self defense? If you are expecting dozens of people to raid your house you are either NOT mentally stable or you are in some sort of criminal organization, normal people don't have that happen to them LOL), but full gun control will never work in this country. Automatical weaponry with dozens of rounds, propelled explosives, chemical weaponry, long range projectiles...sure, nobody needs to own that stuff, none of that should be legal for normal citizens under any circumstances. Semi-automatic weapons and handguns though? A ton of people that aren't even NRA supporters would probably take issue with that, myself included.

Even with a background check, this guy would have been plenty able to obtain the weaponry he got. He had no record with crime, he was a PH D student (hell he was the perfect student) and no notable mental illness as diagnosed by any doctor. The only thing they could have got him on would have been him being anti-social and quiet. Besides that, he was basically the every day normal guy. So if a case liek this ever happened again, a background check wouldn't really help in any circumstance because the guy appears to be completely "sane" and "normal". However, had people tracked his ordering history, we'd have seen that the guy had bought most of his guns and ammo within the last two months, which, for a person with no gun ownership history or involvement with the sport of hunting, would make his purchases extremely suspicious (i.e. why would a guy, with no record or remote interest in guns, all of a sudden order 3-4 high powered weapons and cases of ammo all within 2 months?). Now that's not to say that tracking orders would be 100% accurate, but it's a way to control weapons and make sure nothing liek this happens again. Also include the fact that people apparently don't background check over the internet anyway, so it's not like they would have done anything about it then (many legislators have also tried to make gun purchases face-to-face only, but have failed). Also doesn't help the guy had a near zero internet foot print to background check either. Also add to the fact that his guns an ammo were all legally obtained across states and you have a fricken scary realization that any dude who wants to do so could potentially just get as many guns and ammo he wants as long as he lives in state where they have loose gun control laws and he buys via the internet.

Getting a full on ban on guns would not be viable at all in this country, but if other states embraced similar legislation to the laws in California, for example, then it would be much harder for people to come about assault rifles and high powered weaponry. I believe the country had a country-wide ban on assault rifles and other high powered weaponry a few years ago, but it expired during Obama's administration and he has not yet tried (maybe? dunno) to get it into congress/the senate. Unfortunately, many states do not react in the same way as California and haven't tried to re-establish the gun control on high powered weapons. Apparently, this issue hasn't been a severe issue lately in the state or federal government. Perhaps now they'll all go back and examine the legislation now.

Duly noted. But I think that the mere fact that he was able to obtain such a large amount of weaponry is inexcusable. There has to be a limit as to how much/what you can get at a time based on whether your occupation demands it or not (occupation and proof of occupation should 100% be part of background check regardless of merit, character, crime history). Being allowed to get a shitload of guns simply for recreational purposes is not a justifiable nor viable reason.

@KhainiWest That makes a lot more sense. I also watched him during his first court appearance today. He looks really out of it, almost like he wasn't even really there. Still following the case closely. Waiting for him to actually make some statements, which he didn't today.

Yeah same, to be honest I think he was heavily sedated to calm him down or something and this is just the after effects.

Honestly, I feel like some gun control is acceptable (why the hell does someone need a 100 round clip for self defense? If you are expecting dozens of people to raid your house you are either NOT mentally stable or you are in some sort of criminal organization, normal people don't have that happen to them LOL), but full gun control will never work in this country. Automatical weaponry with dozens of rounds, propelled explosives, chemical weaponry, long range projectiles...sure, nobody needs to own that stuff, none of that should be legal for normal citizens under any circumstances. Semi-automatic weapons and handguns though? A ton of people that aren't even NRA supporters would probably take issue with that, myself included.

I agree, I think the "right to bear arm's" should be limited to possibly a shotgun, rifle and/or pistol, maximum, and the rifle has to be hunting purpose specifically. I think everyone should have a right to own a gun, but not 8 ak47's, that's just...screaming a problem.

There's 2 sides to the coin.

Gun laws aren't really in the mind of people who are planning a massacre, but on the other side, it's certainly easier to get it legally at the moment.

At least he'll receive real punishment in US. In Finland, he would sit 10 years in "prison" with a sofa, free food, TV, playstation and with rights for outdoor activities and pittance for doing a little work. But because he would be a first-timer without no previous criminal record, he would only sit half of the sentence. It sickens me to find out that criminals have better rights than elderly in nursing home.

Yeah same, to be honest I think he was heavily sedated to calm him down or something and this is just the after effects.



I agree, I think the "right to bear arm's" should be limited to possibly a shotgun, rifle and/or pistol, maximum, and the rifle has to be hunting purpose specifically. I think everyone should have a right to own a gun, but not 8 ak47's, that's just...screaming a problem.

Thing is, some Americans believe they have a right to be able to defend themselves not just from robbers or bears, but also from a regular military force. Either American or foreign. They consider it possible for the US government (along with the police and military) to go corrupt (think Mexico), or for Russia/China/Mars to overcome the US military and have only the people with 8 AK47s (and other goodies) to oppose them. And then there's the post-apocalypse survivalist crowd...
To these people, the government using cases like this mad shooter to forbid anyone from owning more than a popgun, is a sure sign the government is thinking totalitarian thoughts. Doesn't help that Obama heads it at the moment...

Thing is, some Americans believe they have a right to be able to defend themselves not just from robbers or bears, but also from a regular military force. Either American or foreign. They consider it possible for the US government (along with the police and military) to go corrupt (think Mexico), or for Russia/China/Mars to overcome the US military and have only the people with 8 AK47s (and other goodies) to oppose them. And then there's the post-apocalypse survivalist crowd...
To these people, the government using cases like this mad shooter to forbid anyone from owning more than a popgun, is a sure sign the government is thinking totalitarian thoughts. Doesn't help that Obama heads it at the moment...

Yes but sapta even if they had 8 ak47's that wont be able to do much to the military weaponry that would come from russia, china, etc. Think about it, they could jst bring a military tank and the people with ak47's couldnt do jack pomegranate.

Yes but sapta even if they had 8 ak47's that wont be able to do much to the military weaponry that would come from russia, china, etc. Think about it, they could jst bring a military tank and the people with ak47's couldnt do jack pomegranate.

Ever heard of guerrilla warfare?

Ever heard of guerrilla warfare?

Yes I have, but I still don't see them having a chance against the army

Yes I have, but I still don't see them having a chance against the army

Her comment wasn't anything about logic, it's the right to allow them to attempt, essentially. Yes it seem's unreasonable from a suburban stand point, putting limit's only encourages those who don't agree with it to acrew more of an armory anyway. The people who would think such a limitation is unreasonable aren't exactly the most reasonable ones at the same time

According to an article I read in the paper this morning, several gun owners have reported that 1000 rounds of ammo in a day is not an out-of-the-norm happening for gun shops. I completely forgot about the sport of gun shooting. But I suppose it would still be beneficial to use to track buyer history whenever a purchase goes down. Finding that a person who has all of a sudden picked up gun shooting as a hobby in the last two months should at least send up some sort of red flag.

I think Cali is one of the only few states (there's something like 10?) that has a restriction on assault weapons and high capacity bullet cartridges. So in almost every other state, you can buy as many assault weapons and rifles and stuff like that with no issue (unless you're clearly mentally ill and are a criminal and other obvious reasons). I agree that people don't need to have 100 bullet cartridges on weapons that shoot hundreds of rounds per minute. I also acknowledge that many Americans believe it is in their rights to protect themselves from the government should it become corrupt and tyrannical. It's a hard balance, but everyone has got to give on both sides of the table. There have been many gun control laws in the past, but gun control only really works on people who follow the law. Which is why I think some of my friends are really not logical on this issue because they grew up in places where everyone followed the rules of society- I grew up in a place where there were rules, but people only chose to follow them. My friends want to ban every single gun in the United States because the Constitution language in the 2nd amendment is too "Archaic"; that guns kill people; that the criminals will be scared off from killing people because the police will get them; that all gun owners are stupid and put their guns in places where 3 year olds can get them and then the gun will kill their parents; and other illogical arguments that look good on paper, but won't happen in the real world. Their arguments against mine were always hypothetical and never concerned with both sides of the argument (for example: Do you know how someone responds in an adrenaline rich situation? Do you KNOW how you will react when YOU hold a gun and aim it at some one? You will probably miss your shot because it will be dark and you will be too affected by biochemistry to react properly. The gunman will probably kill you before you even have a chance to get the gun? What's the point of having a gun THEN? How many times will you even need to use your gun? What's the point of having it when you will only ever use it like once? etc.)

I think Cali is one of the only few states (there's something like 10?) that has a restriction on assault weapons and high capacity bullet cartridges. So in almost every other state, you can buy as many assault weapons and rifles and stuff like that with no issue (unless you're clearly mentally ill and are a criminal and other obvious reasons). I agree that people don't need to have 100 bullet cartridges on weapons that shoot hundreds of rounds per minute. I also acknowledge that many Americans believe it is in their rights to protect themselves from the government should it become corrupt and tyrannical. It's a hard balance, but everyone has got to give on both sides of the table. There have been many gun control laws in the past, but gun control only really works on people who follow the law. Which is why I think some of my friends are really not logical on this issue because they grew up in places where everyone followed the rules of society- I grew up in a place where there were rules, but people only chose to follow them. My friends want to ban every single gun in the United States because the Constitution language in the 2nd amendment is too "Archaic"; that guns kill people; that the criminals will be scared off from killing people because the police will get them; that all gun owners are stupid and put their guns in places where 3 year olds can get them and then the gun will kill their parents; and other illogical arguments that look good on paper, but won't happen in the real world. Their arguments against mine were always hypothetical and never concerned with both sides of the argument (for example: Do you know how someone responds in an adrenaline rich situation? Do you KNOW how you will react when YOU hold a gun and aim it at some one? You will probably miss your shot because it will be dark and you will be too affected by biochemistry to react properly. The gunman will probably kill you before you even have a chance to get the gun? What's the point of having a gun THEN? How many times will you even need to use your gun? What's the point of having it when you will only ever use it like once? etc.)

I dunno about all that, though I'll use myself as an example. I own a .45 pistol, I know how to use it, I go shooting with it. So if I hear someone break in, my initial reaction, gun, load, cover. Then again with how my family functions, specifically my sister coming in at 3 am at night, I have a better chance of shooting her than some criminal.

I dunno about all that, though I'll use myself as an example. I own a .45 pistol, I know how to use it, I go shooting with it. So if I hear someone break in, my initial reaction, gun, load, cover. Then again with how my family functions, specifically my sister coming in at 3 am at night, I have a better chance of shooting her than some criminal.

My point in a follow up post was that they were speculating- that I wouldn't be able to control my emotions; speculating that every gun owner wouldn't be able to. To counter their argument, I speculated that there would be others who COULD handle the situation and make the right decision. I just hate it when people think their way is completely correct and support it with hypothetical situations that are one-sided in favor of their argument because it doesn't show that they thought about the whole issue and only about that which supports their issue. So while there may be people who are trained who CAN'T handle their weapons under pressured circumstances, it is equally likely that there is a person who CAN. It's not that their wrong (because their situation is one possibility under a certain circumstance) it's that they haven't logically thought about the other possibilities also. I even explained the possible problems they could face if a full out ban on guns was implemented in the United States, something they had never thought about at all (i.e. If all guns were banned from households, how would individual states react? How would police make sure that every household has absolutely no guns in their homes? Rely on individuals to tell the truth? etc.) They think only about a small picture, but they never look at the bigger picture, which is a problem with many people these days as they take politicians' and people's arguments at face value and don't do their own research on the issue.

EDIT: Also culture in America differs from culture elsewhere, which is why we embrace guns rather than shun them. According to article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international...hs/260189/

Well, I'm not American but IMHO the government should make the fact of having a gun a total pain in the ass, for example if a guy from the army loses his gun, he'd probably be castigated for that in a hard way, whereas civilian just don't say a thing and act normally. We could evade this with a presentation regime (they show the authorities the guns) and if a gun is lost, the person should be punished with x years of jail and if there were some crimes committed with that gun, he should receive the same punishment the killer receives. And a lot of laws like that....

Guy making a lawsuit because the cinema didn't have the emergency exits guarded. Also because:

Brown's legal team also insists that Warner Bros is partly responsible as well because of the violent content in the Batman films.

"Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today," Brown's lawyer Karpel said.

I knew it would come up eventually. pineappleing idiots.

It's funny, because me and many other people have watched violent films and played violent games and haven't gone on a shooting spree. the effects must be hit and miss.
Clearly an attempt to make money out of this tragedy, which i find quite sickening.

It's funny, because me and many other people have watched violent films and played violent games and haven't gone on a shooting spree. the effects must be hit and miss.

If I find it, I'll post it, but there was someone who believed that the drive to shoot-up an area is not in the violent nature of media, but how the media ends up portraying the event and the shooter.

I'm fine with basic gun rights, but the fact that this person acquired so much without raising any flags is a testament to the problems with current gun laws.