toldailytopic: Who is to blame in the Colorado movie theater shooting?

[Nathon Detroit]

So who's really to blame?

The shooter of course. He planned, prepared, and carried out his murderous vision.

But why did he do it?

Because people are evil. Some say people are inherently good, but that's not true. We live in a fallen world and people are inherently evil and wicked. And as a society we contribute to the wickedness of people by failing to have a godly justice system, by devaluing human life via abortion, euthanasia, and the acceptance of suicide. We teach kids that they evolved from slime and that they really are no different than a animal. We teach kids that there is no morality and there is no such thing as right and wrong. It's these confusing and immoral signals that help contribute to these acts of evil.

But in the end... each man is responsible for his or her own actions therefore the blame lies fully with the perpetrator of the crime.

 

[vegascowboy]

So who's really to blame?

The shooter of course. He planned, prepared, and carried out his murderous vision.

But why?

Because people are evil. Some say people are inherently good, but that's not true. We live in a fallen world and people are inherently evil and wicked. And as a society we contribute to the wickedness of people by failing to have a godly justice system, by devaluing human life via abortion, euthanasia, and the acceptance of suicide. We teach kids that they evolved from slime and that they really are no different than a animal. We teach kids that there is no morality and there is no such thing as right and wrong. It's these confusing and immoral signals that help contribute to these acts of evil.

But in the end... each man is responsible for his or her own actions therefore the blame lies fully with the perpetrator of the crime.

:first:

Exactly.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

And then the church fumbles the ball by saying things like....

- This is all part of God's plan
- God works in mysterious ways
- God needed the victims in heaven
- We shouldn't judge the shooter
- We need to forgive the shooter
- We shouldn't put the shooter to death because God doesn't like the death penalty.

All of those things are the opposite of what God says in His word.

Mainstream Christianity fumbles in crisis when it could/should be there as a positive healing force in the community.

Tragic.

 

[PureX]

The shooter ...

One would think. But we don't have all the info, yet.

 

[vegascowboy]

One would think. But we don't have all the info, yet.

I hope you are being sarcastic.

If not, how sad.

Who else is to blame BUT the shooter?

We are all products of our environment and upbringing, but at the end of the day, the one who pulls the trigger is always to blame.

We live in a sad state of affairs when we blame everyone but the one who ACTUALLY DID the crime.

Defense attorneys and media will argue endlessly that...

the shooter isn't to blame because the school to which they went didn't notice the warning signs in time

or

they didn't have the correct family support in the home

or

they were bullied growing up and couldn't help but take out their aggression on innocent people

or

there weren't enough government programs in place to educate people of the evils of...evil.

Where does it end? All of these things play a part, but AT THE END OF THE DAY IT WAS THE ONE WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER THAT IS TO BLAME.

 

[The Berean]

Roughneck, eh?

Well, I used to be... :idunno:

MrDeets! Is this you?!! :jawdrop:

 

[Alate_One]

The shooter is to blame, but Poly is right; especially about the bad parenting IMO...

What every happened to "crazy"?

The first thing I thought of when I heard this story on the news this morning was: "If there had been just 1 person in the audience with a concealed carry license, who is knowledgeable about operating a firearm and knowledgeable about self-defense, some lives could have been saved." A bulletproof vest doesn't protect a person's head.

This is true, but you're in a dark theatre and it's going to be hard to see anything, much less the guy's head. Secondly he supposedly used tear gas before opening fire. Thirdly the guy had an assault rifle and it takes only seconds to kill lots of people with an AR 15. So before you can even react, a dozen people may be already dead. The idea that someone else in the theatre with a gun could have saved the lives of the people now dead is frankly, stupid.

AR-15 Slide Fire Maximum Fire Rate

There's a reason they were banned not long ago. You simply can't achieve the same rate of fire with most firearms. The only reason you need a gun like an AR15 is to kill lots of people very fast. There's no self defense reason for that unless you're in a war zone. And if you have a handgun against that, you can guess what will happen.

I've no problem with the idea of self defense, but assault weapons are hardly that.

 

[sesseltheologe]

The shooter.

 

[TomO]

What every happened to "crazy"?


This is true, but you're in a dark theatre and it's going to be hard to see anything, much less the guy's head. Secondly he supposedly used tear gas before opening fire. Thirdly the guy had an assault rifle and it takes only seconds to kill lots of people with an AR 15. So before you can even react, a dozen people may be already dead. The idea that someone else in the theatre with a gun could have saved the lives of the people now dead is frankly, stupid.

All of them? No, I'm quite sure that is not the case....some of them? Possibly. Accurate return fire does wonders to throw off a shooter (wearing body armor or not). You might want to stick with matters relating to biology here Alate, you have no idea what you are talking about. :nono:

AR-15 Slide Fire Maximum Fire Rate

What's this got to do with it?...Did the guy have a Slide-Fire fitted to his weapon? :think:

There's a reason they were banned not long ago. You simply can't achieve the same rate of fire with most firearms. The only reason you need a gun like an AR15 is to kill lots of people very fast. There's no self defense reason for that unless you're in a war zone. And if you have a handgun against that, you can guess what will happen.

I've no problem with the idea of self defense, but assault weapons are hardly that.

What was banned?...You mean actual assault rifles? lain:

 

[zippy2006]

Liberal answer of who's to blame...

- Guns
- Violent Hollywood movies
- Video Games
- Conservatives
- George Bush
- High Fructose Corn Syrup
- Heavy Metal Music (wait... that might be true)
- Bullying
- Racism

And then the church fumbles the ball by saying things like....

- This is all part of God's plan
- God works in mysterious ways
- God needed the victims in heaven
- We shouldn't judge the shooter
- We need to forgive the shooter
- We shouldn't put the shooter to death because God doesn't like the death penalty.

All of those things are the opposite of what God says in His word.

Mainstream Christianity fumbles in crisis when it could/should be there as a positive healing force in the community.

Tragic.

Tragic? :think: Why are you using this as a political occasion to take pot-shots at liberals and organized religion? And you manage it without giving any sources whatsoever. Even the OP does nothing but invite the response you disagree with.

 

[Alate_One]

All of them? No, I'm quite sure that is not the case....some of them? Possibly. Accurate return fire does wonders to throw off a shooter (wearing body armor or not). You might want to stick with matters relating to biology here Alate, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm talking timing here. Unless you're a vet straight from the battlefield your reaction time isn't going to be that hot. And accuracy is hard in a dark theater with people screaming and running. You could even hit innocent bystanders while trying to take the guy out.

All I'm saying is fighting fire with fire is not necessarily the best solution unless you're in an ideal situation.

What's this got to do with it?...Did the guy have a Slide-Fire fitted to his weapon?

Guess we'll find out won't we? They're talking like his apartment is full of fairly sophisticated bombs so I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[alwight]

So who's really to blame?

The shooter of course. He planned, prepared, and carried out his murderous vision.

But why?

Because people are evil. Some say people are inherently good, but that's not true. We live in a fallen world and people are inherently evil and wicked. And as a society we contribute to the wickedness of people by failing to have a godly justice system, by devaluing human life via abortion, euthanasia, and the acceptance of suicide. We teach kids that they evolved from slime and that they really are no different than a animal. We teach kids that there is no morality and there is no such thing as right and wrong. It's these confusing and immoral signals that help contribute to these acts of evil.

But in the end... each man is responsible for his or her own actions therefore the blame lies fully with the perpetrator of the crime.

I certainly agree with Knight's conclusion but my route to it is rather more from the evolved slime.
God either once again allows bad things to happen to good people or God is not quite what many Christians like to suppose.
If we are all evolved slime then we each have an evolved morality(not none) in our less than perfect bodies, which to my mind is just how it seems to be.

 

[PureX]

I hope you are being sarcastic.

If not, how sad.

Who else is to blame BUT the shooter?

Is the shooter connected to a group? Did someone pump him full of drugs? Did someone deny him some drug that he needed to stay sane?

We are all products of our environment and upbringing, but at the end of the day, the one who pulls the trigger is always to blame.

Not always. There are very rare circumstances under which the shooter may not be held responsible.

We live in a sad state of affairs when we blame everyone but the one who ACTUALLY DID the crime.

I don't anyone, anywhere, suggesting that we do this.

Defense attorneys and media will argue endlessly that...

the shooter isn't to blame because the school to which they went didn't notice the warning signs in time

or

they didn't have the correct family support in the home

or

they were bullied growing up and couldn't help but take out their aggression on innocent people

or

there weren't enough government programs in place to educate people of the evils of...evil.

Where does it end?

You don't seem to understand that it's the defense attorney's job to do those things. He is supposed to pose any possible mitigating factors on behalf of his client. It's a pretty important part of how we try to maintain fairness in our trial system.

All of these things play a part, but AT THE END OF THE DAY IT WAS THE ONE WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER THAT IS TO BLAME.

Not if he somehow had no idea what he was doing at the time. It's very rare, but it does happen.

 

[TomO]

I'm talking timing here. Unless you're a vet straight from the battlefield your reaction time isn't going to be that hot. And accuracy is hard in a dark theater with people screaming and running. You could even hit innocent bystanders while trying to take the guy out.

All I'm saying is fighting fire with fire is not necessarily the best solution unless you're in an ideal situation.

Fair enough. lain:

Guess we'll find out won't we? They're talking like his apartment is full of fairly sophisticated bombs so I wouldn't be surprised.

:idunno: He might possibly...I guess it wouldn't surprise me. It would surprise me if he actually used it for that though. Contrary to popular belief full auto/rapid fire does not facilitate a high kill rate. Steady accurate semi-auto fire is what does that. Full auto is kind of hard to keep on target much less choose targets and the human body is tougher than people think in most cases.

It is true that the random bullets flying around could most certainly strike some vital organs if people are all crowded together but this is just due to the law of averages. Aimed single shots are what kills. Automatic fire is best used to create an "OMG DUCK!!" mentality when in an actual firefight....it really doesn't have much more use than that contrary to popular belief.


....It's also kind of fun if you've got some watermelons handy. :think:

 

[OMEGA]

FACE READING
------------------

Large Spaced Eyes - shows very Emotional and Sensitive

Eyebrows - High Arch = Dramatic Actions

Tenseness in Smile - Not Open to Communication = Shyness - Social Frustration

Validictorian - indicates High Intelligence

Leaving the University Position as Neuroscientist - Feelings of Rejection leading to

Resentment against Staff and students

No Future Position = No Reason to go on

RESENTMENT = "REVENGE":execute:
==================================

Ro 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves,
but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written,
Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

 

[Architect]

This is true, but you're in a dark theatre and it's going to be hard to see anything, much less the guy's head. Secondly he supposedly used tear gas before opening fire. Thirdly the guy had an assault rifle and it takes only seconds to kill lots of people with an AR 15. So before you can even react, a dozen people may be already dead. The idea that someone else in the theatre with a gun could have saved the lives of the people now dead is frankly, stupid.

Yah, I think some is the key word here... It would obviously be a difficult task, given the conditions, even for someone like an off-duty police officer or someone with military training... I would think the chances of neutralizing the situation would be much greater, though.

So who's really to blame?

The shooter of course. He planned, prepared, and carried out his murderous vision.

But why?

Because people are evil. Some say people are inherently good, but that's not true. We live in a fallen world and people are inherently evil and wicked. And as a society we contribute to the wickedness of people by failing to have a godly justice system, by devaluing human life via abortion, euthanasia, and the acceptance of suicide. We teach kids that they evolved from slime and that they really are no different than a animal. We teach kids that there is no morality and there is no such thing as right and wrong. It's these confusing and immoral signals that help contribute to these acts of evil.

But in the end... each man is responsible for his or her own actions therefore the blame lies fully with the perpetrator of the crime.

:up:

But you know as well as I do, nobody wants to take responsibility for their actions any more! And society would say you don't have to.

Josh

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Tragic? :think: Why are you using this as a political occasion to take pot-shots at liberals and organized religion?

I don't call them "pot shots". I think they are better described as... accurate observations.

 

[Alate_One]

Fair enough. lain:

Quasi-agreement again, what's the world coming to? :chuckle:

:idunno: He might possibly...I guess it wouldn't surprise me. It would surprise me if he actually used it for that though. Contrary to popular belief full auto/rapid fire does not facilitate a high kill rate. Steady accurate semi-auto fire is what does that. Full auto is waaaay to innacurate and the human body is tougher than people think in most cases.

So if that's the case, shouldn't we consider limitations on any weapon that enhances people's ability to get multiple kills rapidly?

I don't think banning guns is a good idea, since we are terrible at banning things in this country and I don't believe guns are inherently evil. However I also do not think it is a good idea to let everyone and their uncle have guns that are good for obtaining multiple kills. The more people that have guns the more odds some crazy person will do what the man did in the theater.

I know someone that's certifiably crazy who now calls himself a "gun nut". I'm afraid one day he may do something similar.

It is true that the random bullets flying around could most certainly strike some vital organs if people are all crowded together but this is just due to the law of averages. Aimed single shots are what kills. Automatic fire is best used to create an "OMG DUCK!!" mentality when in an actual firefight....it really doesn't have much more use than that contrary to popular belief.

Fair enough.

But I also went to graduate school with a young man whose father was murdered by someone with an AK who simply unloaded two clips into his house. Hurricane Katrina hit not long after and the perp was never caught.

....It's also kind of fun if you've got some watermelons handy. :think:

I can see that. I'll have to see what I can do, next time I'm able to "visit" my son's AR-15. (Yes, he's not even two, his grandpa bought it for him.)

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Who is responsible for the shooting?

Using Obama logic the shooter didn't do it.

Obama logic

Clearly the shooter used roads and other resources to get to the theater. The shooter didn't build the gun and likely didn't make the bullets. Therefore according to Obama the shooter didn't really do it.

 

[vegascowboy]

MrDeets! Is this you?!! :jawdrop:

You found him!

Here's a picture of us in our prime...