Gunman goes crazy in cinema in Denver Colorado

[Ms. Kianna]

I don't think that "Americans" are short sighted. I think that the people that are elected do not want to make CHANGES, they just want to tweek things a little bit, to the advantage of themselves, and those they represent.

The ones that want to make CHANGES are the middle class, and unfortunately people in the middle class don't have the millions of dollars it takes to campaign on a scale that would actually make them as visible as their competitors, they do not have the savings to be able to quit their jobs to campaign and serve, and still be able to take care of their family and pay their bills, and those CHANGES cost big, big, money.......which no one that needs/wants the CHANGES seems to have.

If a President, like Obama, could come in and make things happen, that would be one thing.........but, the system that we have, puts every decision through so many steps, and approvals, that BIG CHANGES never get very far.

And most importantly, until the "livable" wage, actually becomes "livable," even people that NEED CHANGES(like healthcare), know that they can't afford them, because that "livable" wage takes every dime they have to provide the basics.

 

[mikeyank]

I don't think that "Americans" are short sighted. I think that the people that are elected do not want to make CHANGES, they just want to tweek things a little bit, to the advantage of themselves, and those they represent.

The ones that want to make CHANGES are the middle class, and unfortunately people in the middle class don't have the millions of dollars it takes to campaign on a scale that would actually make them as visible as their competitors, they do not have the savings to be able to quit their jobs to campaign and serve, and still be able to take care of their family and pay their bills, and those CHANGES cost big, big, money.......which no one that needs/wants the CHANGES seems to have.

If a President, like Obama, could come in and make things happen, that would be one thing.........but, the system that we have, puts every decision through so many steps, and approvals, that BIG CHANGES never get very far.

And most importantly, until the "livable" wage, actually becomes "livable," even people that NEED CHANGES(like healthcare), know that they can't afford them, because that "livable" wage takes every dime they have to provide the basics.

Very well stated, Ms. K.

 

[erikthbod]

Our world is so full of crazy people. I don't understand people think that killing other people is what they have to do. So very sad and so very scarey. I must pray for the victims and their families.

 

[cumrag27]

TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY, by any other name, is STILL TYRANNY!

I don't think that "Americans" are short sighted. I think that the people that are elected do not want to make CHANGES, they just want to tweek things a little bit, to the advantage of themselves, and those they represent.

The ones that want to make CHANGES are the middle class, and unfortunately people in the middle class don't have the millions of dollars it takes to campaign on a scale that would actually make them as visible as their competitors, they do not have the savings to be able to quit their jobs to campaign and serve, and still be able to take care of their family and pay their bills, and those CHANGES cost big, big, money.......which no one that needs/wants the CHANGES seems to have.

If a President, like Obama, could come in and make things happen, that would be one thing.........but, the system that we have, puts every decision through so many steps, and approvals, that BIG CHANGES never get very far.

And most importantly, until the "livable" wage, actually becomes "livable," even people that NEED CHANGES(like healthcare), know that they can't afford them, because that "livable" wage takes every dime they have to provide the basics.

Very well stated, Ms. K.

Dear Fellow Forumites,

With the wealthiest still getting wealthier yet, the only classess that have stayed at a constant income level since the 1970's are the middle and lower classes. The tax advantages GW Bush pushed through was intended to trickle down to the lower classes. I don't know about you, but I have not heard the first drip yet coming from the top down my way yet, not even a "TRICKLE"! With all the disinformation the naysayers put out, the fact is that only the wealthy are continuing to get wealthier while everyone must tighten their belts to the size of a pencil, and even that is not enough! I feel that is perfectly okay for all the talking-heads that promote our need to become more competitive by having only the middle and lower classes sacrificing to allow top management for "Super Star-type salaries" while we each have to settle for doing more work, for less pay, less job security, and less benefits. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT, PERHAPS, EVEN OUR TEA PARTY FRIENDS MIGHT AGREE WITH THIS ANALYSIS, PROVIDED THEY STILL HAVE THEIR EYES OPEN!

AMERICA HAS BECOME A VERY TREACHEROUS PLACE FOR ALL BUT THE WEALTHIEST AMONG US! IT SEEMS AS IF AMERICA HAS REGRESSED BACK TO THE TIME WHEN THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION FIRST IMPACT WAS FELT. SAFEGUARDS HAV ACCUMULATED OUT OF LESSONS LEARNED SINCE THAT TIME, BUT NOW WITH MORE AND MORE PRESSURE FROM THE "SCROOGES" IN OUR SOCIETY, PEOPLE MATTER MUCH LESS TODAY AS A RESULT OF "GLOBALIZATION EFFORTS" IN OUR SOCIAL CONSCIENCE!

I will have to continue later on...


Sinicerely,


Stimpy

 

[Phantom]

Knowing very little about American law, rights or constitution I bow to your knowledge. However, an amendment to me, means that they have amended a document. So why in 2012, don't they amend the second amendment !! I'm also quite shocked that respected TV companies don't challenge the 2nd amendment - The BBC would certainly highlight and press for any change in the law should such a law need changing over here. For a country that put men on the moon, and invented all sorts of gadgets, assisted in getting rid of Hitler thus making the world a safer place to live - You (America) are so short sighted in addressing your own internal problems.

In order to pass a constitutional amendment, it has to have a 2/3 majority vote in both houses of congress and 2/3 of the states have to ratify the amendment, or it cannot be added to the constitution. It is difficult to get one passed. Remember, we are a federation, not a unitarian government. Besides, these days it is all but impossible to pass an amendment because it's very hard to get 2/3 of the senators and representatives in Washington DC to agree on anything, let alone the states. We are not as united as we once were.

 

[joninliverton]

I don't think that "Americans" are short sighted. I think that the people that are elected do not want to make CHANGES, they just want to tweek things a little bit, to the advantage of themselves, and those they represent.

The ones that want to make CHANGES are the middle class, and unfortunately people in the middle class don't have the millions of dollars it takes to campaign on a scale that would actually make them as visible as their competitors, they do not have the savings to be able to quit their jobs to campaign and serve, and still be able to take care of their family and pay their bills, and those CHANGES cost big, big, money.......which no one that needs/wants the CHANGES seems to have.

If a President, like Obama, could come in and make things happen, that would be one thing.........but, the system that we have, puts every decision through so many steps, and approvals, that BIG CHANGES never get very far.

And most importantly, until the "livable" wage, actually becomes "livable," even people that NEED CHANGES(like healthcare), know that they can't afford them, because that "livable" wage takes every dime they have to provide the basics.

I was referring to the administration Miss K, but you only chose to pick up on the very last bit of my post. Read the rest of it then comment on it all, it makes interesting debate.

 

[joninliverton]

Well November is quickly approaching, so please use the people power vote and lobby your representative about a change in gun law and whatever other changes you would like making. As this thread is about the attrocities of a 24 yo college student who - from the latest bbc news, had a massive arsenal of weapons and bullets, then surely this will still be fresh in everyones mind when it comes to election time.

 

[grace17]

Knowing very little about American law, rights or constitution I bow to your knowledge. However, an amendment to me, means that they have amended a document. So why in 2012, don't they amend the second amendment !! I'm also quite shocked that respected TV companies don't challenge the 2nd amendment - The BBC would certainly highlight and press for any change in the law should such a law need changing over here. For a country that put men on the moon, and invented all sorts of gadgets, assisted in getting rid of Hitler thus making the world a safer place to live - You (America) are so short sighted in addressing your own internal problems.

Jon, I completely understand and feel your frustration, but unfortunately the US doesn't have a BBC or Australia's green/environmental movement, which helps make OZ gun control work, what they do have is massive gun support in high places. The average person no doubt feels the same way you do but is helpless to do anything about it...it must break their hearts

I believe their political system is very different to UK and OZ

 

[grace17]

I was 13 on November 22, 1963 when President Kennedy was assassinated. Shortly thereafter Reverend Martin Luther King, and then Senator Robert F. Kennedy were also assassinated.

As a young teenager, I could see how the assassins all became famous. We all knew the names of Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray and then Sirhan Sirhan. I also remember mass murderer's Richard Speck & Charles Whitman from my childhood.

It occurred to me that there was something wrong about publicizing the names and stories of these deranged murderers. It seemed to me as a young man that society was making these people famous to the extent where today, 40-50 years after these acts of horrific violence, I still know the names and the stories behind many of these deranged killers.

And now this latest maniac has made a name for himself. Unlike many of the others, he did not want to be taken down by the police, but to instead "bask" in his infamy. During a baseball game, if a fan runs out on the field, the television cameras do not show him, as they don't want to encourage others to break the law to become "famous". I have long wondered if perhaps we should also not publicize these sick people who destroy human life to boost their own ego's.

I'm so sorry as a young teenager you were exposed this type of violence, although children are resilient the events you lived through obviously left their mark.

I think your idea of less publicity for mass murders is worth serious consideration. Maybe it's a realistic place to start where the average person could try and make a difference...

 

[JLipps4u]

Well November is quickly approaching, so please use the people power vote and lobby your representative about a change in gun law and whatever other changes you would like making. As this thread is about the attrocities of a 24 yo college student who - from the latest bbc news, had a massive arsenal of weapons and bullets, then surely this will still be fresh in everyones mind when it comes to election time.

Jon,

I sincerely think most of us here in America, and on this forum wish that it was as easy as you describe, but alas, it is not.

 

[joninliverton]

Jon,

I sincerely think most of us here in America, and on this forum wish that it was as easy as you describe, but alas, it is not.

Jeez dudes, I feel so sorry for you guys. It certainly doesn't appear the land of the free when people in high office cannot do anything to change such an outdated and unnecessary law. David Crosby sang his heart out on the line "How many more" on the CSNY track Ohio. Sure it was about the Kent state shootings but the song line can be adapted for this issue.

 

[tampa24]

It occurred to me that there was something wrong about publicizing the names and stories of these deranged murderers. It seemed to me as a young man that society was making these people famous to the extent where today, 40-50 years after these acts of horrific violence, I still know the names and the stories behind many of these deranged killers.

And now this latest maniac has made a name for himself. Unlike many of the others, he did not want to be taken down by the police, but to instead "bask" in his infamy. During a baseball game, if a fan runs out on the field, the television cameras do not show him, as they don't want to encourage others to break the law to become "famous". I have long wondered if perhaps we should also not publicize these sick people who destroy human life to boost their own ego's.

I quite agree with you Mikey that I think they have gone way overboard on the coverage and publicity of this atrocity. Yes. It's absolutely terrible that this happened. And I'm not suggesting that it be given short shrift. What most annoyed me though is that as a citizen of the planet there are other news stories I want to follow also. I watched one cable news channel on Friday hoping to also find out the situation in Syria for instance. Where up to hundreds of people are dying every day taking on a brutal dictatorship. I even recorded the news so I could faast forward to other news once they took a break from coverage of Colorado. There was no break whatsoever in coverage from dawn to dusk that I could find.

Don't the television media in particular realize that if they give wall-to-wall coverage of these tragedies that it also glorifies these awful people in their infamy? Huge publicity is exactly what these sickos hope for. And then the media goes and plays right into their hands. Twelve people died. Maybe more will who are in the hospital. Sixty people were injured. Yes. It's awful. Yes. The story should be told. But you would have thought that this was 9/11 type national event the way the media covered it. How many other violent people who have no moral compass, no fear of death, and so on, will think that if one guy can paralyze the whole country and national media with a death toll of only 12...what can they themselves do for their own name and legacy if they can kill 20 or more? It sends a terrible message to to the sickos that they can achieve national and worldwide fame if they can just kill more people than the last guy. If one guy can get the country talking about next to nothing else for 3-4 days...maybe they'll hope they can get a week of coverage for themselves.

The media should definitely cover stories such as this and get the stories of the victims and so on. But they shouldn't go overboard and play right into these egomaniacs hands. More than 12 people are killed or murdered in many other countries all over the world on a daily basis. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria...just to name a few. The media should weigh how much coverage to give to these kinds of tragedies so as not to glorify the killers' deeds.

Okay. I'll get off my soapbox.

 

[cumrag27]

You be the judge...

Jeez dudes, I feel so sorry for you guys. It certainly doesn't appear the land of the free when people in high office cannot do anything to change such an outdated and unnecessary law. David Crosby sang his heart out on the line "How many more" on the CSNY track Ohio. Sure it was about the Kent state shootings but the song line can be adapted for this issue.

Dear jon,

The Kent State massacre was indellibly burnt into my memory. I did not know any of these Kent State student victims, but I had been actively protesting on my college campus as well. What these students did was not any different that what I had done myself in 1969 - 71, only I was fortunate enough to not have had "trigger-happy poorly-trained crowd-control nervious campus security with loaded guns aimed at protesters. When the Kent State massacre happened, it was felt instantaneously across college campuses nationwide. Colleges held student organized "silent candle-light vigil moritoriums" for those fallen Kent State victims(some not even protestors) in direct opposition to this senseless killing of innocent students at a non-violent demonstration. The effect of this tragic event at Kent State was like a "black hole" to immediately suck all of the oxygen out of a guaranteed basic right established by our Founding Fathers, namely the "Bill of Rights". America was no longer looking like the country we were taught in school to expect. It was a...

"PROFOUNDLY BLACK DAY" for the notion of "American Democracy" and "American Idealism"​

...not hugely unlike the three vastly significant assassinations in the 1960's, the repeated "Ku Klux Klan murders" of "Civil Rights Workers" occuring mostly in the South especially in the 1960's, the ritualistic self-immolation at major American Monuments with gasoline doused on by the protester, often Buddist Monks, against the wars in South-East Asia, the continuation of a war nobody finally wanted in Vietnam (in sharp contrast to the many politicians that felt we couldn't exist without fighting), and the Cold-war staged against our perpetual Russian enemies, beginning immediately following WWII.

While all the protests of the 1960's - 70's in the USA never resulted in a definitive "coup d'état" like the "Storming of the Bastille" during the French Revolution, our domestic protests in that period have left a lingering bad taste in the mouths of those Americans who lived through it and an unspoken consensus for wanting never to return to such turmoil ever again! In contemporary America, there has always been a heavy, ever-growing presence of the "Military-Industrial Complex" Eisenhower so profoundly recognized and warned us against. Yet, following the tumultous 60's and 70's resulting in so little actual gains in personal freedom and at such a great human cost, the American public's focus - having experienced most wars fought in other lands - turned away to other more manageable tasks and essentially left an ever greater opportunity for big business to seize the moment. They have not let go since. Back then, protestors were always labeled with the "epitaph" of being against ALL business and/or wanting to replace Democracy with either a Socialistic- or Communistic-form of government, knowing full well that such an extreme change would NEVER FLY WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and would immediately discredit any justifiable criticism these protestors might bring to the fore.

The "Land of the Free" became the "Land of the Barely Surviving" with little hope left to look forward to other than survival itself! Forget the mythical, it seems, American Dream! Suddenly the "attainment of merely everyday consumer goods" became our ONLY underlying "Raison d'être (namely a reason for living). Also, we satisfied our own egos by saying "America is #1" essential meaning in all things, which it stands to reason this could never in fact be! Self-delusional became our national passtime and "Modus Operandi" and a lot of so-called "Patriotic Americans" have become content, absent of any real knowledge of our national history, finding this brain-dead approach to be satisfying enough! It seems we are content enough to settle for the label of no longer "The-", but rather as "A-" Superpower (that is: one of many)! Our wealthiest self-promoting top 1%'ers count on the general populace being "asleep at the wheel" due to insufficient living wages, inadequate health care, and total lack of job security. These Multi- Billionaires made their fortunes like Mitt Romney in parasitic business investments milking dry any remaining financial capital (like the leaches that they are), leaving broken American Businesses and their employees to pay the consequences of these "Venture Capitalists" - Scavengers that they are in real life. More accurately, I feel more correctly, they should instead be called "Vulture Capitalists"!

The late 60's secured the distasteful, "John Wayne-ish" battle cry of...

"AMERICA - LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!"​

In their monosyllabic narrow-minded vision of love, it did not allow for any criticism, constructive or otherwise! I always thought this spoke negatively about their character for lacking the basic understanding that America represents - inclusively speaking - ALL the combined human efforts of diverse groups with a common vision. The narrower viewed folks are probably alligned today with the "less-inclusive side of the immigrant issue" devisizing schemes to fly them ALL back to where they came from, like the similarly inclined segregationist wanting in an earlier time to send them ALL (namely the black slaves) back to Africa, where they came from originally! Being that our nation is almost 250 years old, is it too much to ask for US citizens TODAY to have any sense of appreciation for their collective history amassed as our nation??? Or is the singular knowledge of ones favorite sports team's statistics enough for now??? You be the judge!



Sincerely,



Stimpy

 

[joninliverton]

The BBC and The Sunday Times newspaper have excellent coverage of the massacre. They mention Obama turning up to see the families of the deceased today but they also mentioned that because it is so near the election, that the Gun issue will not and I quote "as expected" be addressed in this govt. The majority of British people think a lot about our cousins across the water. You should hae seen the reception Tiger Woods got today when he walked up the 18th fairway - and he didnt even win. Mrs Obama is heading the American Olympic delegation and is being looked after by Mrs Cameron. The republican opposition and his wife - I forget their names - are guests for the opening ceremony on Friday too.

 

[joninliverton]

I see bullets have been flying around in Annaheim too...

 

[joninliverton]

Obama talks guns after massacre

Latest news from msn.

US President Barack Obama has called for tougher background checks on Americans trying to buy a gun as he and Republican challenger Mitt Romney engaged in their most extensive discussions on the gun control issue since last week's massacre in a Colorado theater.Their pointed comments revived a debate - if briefly - that has faded to the background in national politics and been virtually non-existent in this year's close presidential race.Mr Romney said in a television interview that changing the nation's laws would not prevent gun-related tragedies. He mistakenly said many weapons used by the shooting suspect were obtained illegally. Authorities say the firearms used to kill 12 people and injure dozens were purchased legally.In his speech to the National Urban League civil rights group, Mr Obama said he wanted a national consensus in the effort to stem gun violence.Despite the Second Amendment's protection of gun rights, Mr Obama said, "I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that an AK-47 belongs in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals - that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities."Gun control is a hotly partisan issue in the US. The powerful National Rifle Association, which fights gun control and has huge sway in Congress, has successfully made the issue nearly off limits among most legislators who fear the group's opposition at re-election time.The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence challenged both Mr Obama and Mr Romney today to lead a search for solutions to gun violence.The group's president, Dan Gross, said it's shameful for leaders to play politics with the issue when lives could be saved.The White House has faced fresh questions since the shootings about whether Obama, a strong supporter of gun control while a senator from Illinois, would make an election-year push for stricter measures.Mr Obama acknowledged a national pattern of failing to follow through on calls for tougher gun restrictions after violent crimes.​

 

[JLipps4u]

I see bullets have been flying around in Annaheim too...

I live across the border from Mexico. In the past 2 years, twice we have had to close the University campus (directly across from Mexico) because of gunfire reaching our buildings and parking lots. Those bullets, and grenades, are all purchased illegally from Americans who have access to automatic weapons, and have no qualms about selling them to Mexican drug lords. While many weapons are purchased legally at gun shows, many are stolen from American military arsenals. Now that is something that the President and the Military command COULD do something about!

 

[Ms. Kianna]

I live across the border from Mexico. In the past 2 years, twice we have had to close the University campus (directly across from Mexico) because of gunfire reaching our buildings and parking lots. Those bullets, and grenades, are all purchased illegally from Americans who have access to automatic weapons, and have no qualms about selling them to Mexican drug lords. While many weapons are purchased legally at gun shows, many are stolen from American military arsenals. Now that is something that the President and the Military command COULD do something about!

I saw on the news today, that Obama said that "changing" the gun laws would not be part of his plan........going after stricter enforcement of the current laws, would be part of his plan.

 

[JLipps4u]

I saw on the news today, that Obama said that "changing" the gun laws would not be part of his plan........going after stricter enforcement of the current laws, would be part of his plan.

While I honestly don't think that will be enough, it is a good place to start. Even if that is all we could do to start, it is far better to do something, than to sit back and let this go on unchecked. Truly enforcing current laws is an excellent place to start with. I can't imagine that it would not have some impact on violent crimes.

 

[joninliverton]

I saw on the news today, that Obama said that "changing" the gun laws would not be part of his plan........going after stricter enforcement of the current laws, would be part of his plan.

He was stated as saying that people shouldn't be walking around with AK47s. Then yesterday we get news that gun sales have gone up 40 odd percent in Colorado since the shootings.