This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Thanks for clarifying.I know and is why I tried to clarify it.. My bad.That's not what you originally said.It is like talking to a
I've explained myself.. If you don't agree you don't agree.. Last I looked we ALL have the right to our own opinions and in this regard this guy is NOT mentally ill when it come to the law.My Opinion from the many stories that I've read is that this guy is not mentally ill when it comes to the law..
Is he "sick in the head" in the head..... anyone that thinks taking innocent lives is OK has something wrong upstairs.
But in my opinion when someone spends weeks planning something like this, they also have the capability to understand the difference between right and wrong and therefore should not have the ability to use the "insanity" defense.
It appears that he "surrendered" so he could hear whether his Plan B, the Pentagon to his WTC - the rigging of his apartment & creating stimuli he thought would cause someone to trip the massive explosion - was successful. I'm guessing his anxiousness to find out is what tipped police to pursue that line of questioning at the site when there was so much else going on.
YEah, but did he use a gun?
Killed seven with bombs, 80 with guns. In Colorado, none with bombs, 12 with guns.
We should outlaw discretionary income. It's much easier to kill lots of people with extra money.
I'm guessing he comes from a fairly well-off family. Not sure if that's where he got his money, but that's my guess.
Well, he's a college student, so he probably had about 40 credit cards and just maxed them out.
I'm an executive at a movie theater company and our policy is to NOT put up "Guns Banned" signs for this exact reason. If a Conceal Carry customer could've taken action it might've saved lives.
The similarity between his name, Jamie Rohr, and mine, Rohn Jambo, is purely ooincidental.
And this guy made the rounds to every major news network and told the same story and cried as he told it each time. I wanted to smack him in the face then and now to read this,I really want to punch him in the face. What a tool...
I hope they put on bio-hazard suits first.
not sure what the question was about? I'm not saying his slayings were like the Sweden guy, but it appears he tried to rig a bomb (and played loud music to entice someone to open the door and set off the bomb) at the same time as he was shooting up somewhere else to create a diversion for LE.
Honestly I just don't understand this argument. I lived in Canada for a number of years and I couldn't tell you where to pick up an ar-15. Could someone get one in canada...sure, probably. But it would be damn hard. This guy wasn't a criminal, he didn't have a ton of criminal connections. He was mentally ill and bought a gun designed to do nothing but kill people with extreme ease. In a nation where 10% of the nation is on some sort of anti-depressant or anti-anxiety there is a hell of a lot of the population lining up for these events. it takes one person with nothing to live for and a couple of bucks to pull this off.
Really? You understood what he meant when he said the guy was psycho but not mentally ill? I didn't.
Why don't you wait until the guy explains his motive, if he talks, that is. I would agree he is crazy if he overreacted to someone opening a can of tuna fish.
How do you classify the guy who shot Giffords? He planned out his act as well, and was clearly crazy.I know and is why I tried to clarify it.. My bad.That's not what you originally said.It is like talking to a
I've explained myself.. If you don't agree you don't agree.. Last I looked we ALL have the right to our own opinions and in this regard this guy is NOT mentally ill when it come to the law.
Is he "sick in the head" in the head..
But in my opinion when someone spends weeks planning something like this, they also have the capability to understand the difference between right and wrong and therefore should not have the ability to use the "insanity" defense.
I'm not sure how your post relates to the argument that perhaps someone in the audience that was carrying a gun could've changed the outcome.
I've heard that question a few times. At first, I just presumed he'd used credit cards and possibly even taken advantage of overdraft protection on a debit card or three.But than I remembered Occam's razor. It's far simpler to realize that this was a false flag attack masterminded by Browser Helper Object to ensure the United States is a signatory to the UN small arms treaty.
I recommend a snogger forum.
Not to be confused with the snorg forum.
I don't think they HAVE to bulldoze it, myself. Guess the theater owners and local community will play it by ear -- check back in a few years.
Kept the school, but tore down and replaced the library:
Just what the situation needed to make things better - a bunch of people knocking over their drinks and popcorn and boxes of Sno-Caps to retrieve their peacemakers and start firing rounds in the general direction of a moving guy in a bulletproof vest in a darkened crowded theater. Yeah, great idea.
Don't forget the tear gas.Just what the situation needed to make things better - a bunch of people knocking over their drinks and popcorn and boxes of Sno-Caps to retrieve their peacemakers and start firing rounds in the general direction of a moving guy in a bulletproof vest in a darkened crowded theater. Yeah, great idea.
It seems like a strange argument to me. Dark theatre and all of a sudden you have 10 people standing up shooting wildly into the darkness. How, as a law abiding citizen, do you tell if the guy across the theatre firing a gun is another law abiding citizen or another shooter, or the shooter. Its why the police generally wear uniforms.Don't forget the tear gas.Just what the situation needed to make things better - a bunch of people knocking over their drinks and popcorn and boxes of Sno-Caps to retrieve their peacemakers and start firing rounds in the general direction of a moving guy in a bulletproof vest in a darkened crowded theater. Yeah, great idea.
Didn't you know once you get your CCW you become John Rambo every time you pull your piece?It seems like a strange argument to me. Dark theatre and all of a sudden you have 10 people standing up shooting wildly into the darkness. How, as a law abiding citizen, do you tell if the guy across the theatre firing a gun is another law abiding citizen or another shooter, or the shooter. Its why the police generally wear uniforms.Don't forget the tear gas.Just what the situation needed to make things better - a bunch of people knocking over their drinks and popcorn and boxes of Sno-Caps to retrieve their peacemakers and start firing rounds in the general direction of a moving guy in a bulletproof vest in a darkened crowded theater. Yeah, great idea.
I really wished we'd drop insanity defense when it comes to murder. If you're proven guilty of a murder like this...sorry, but this society no longer has a use for you. Throw them in a hole and fill it up with dirt.How do you classify the guy who shot Giffords? He planned out his act as well, and was clearly crazy.I know and is why I tried to clarify it.. My bad.That's not what you originally said.It is like talking to a
I've explained myself.. If you don't agree you don't agree.. Last I looked we ALL have the right to our own opinions and in this regard this guy is NOT mentally ill when it come to the law.
Is he "sick in the head" in the head..
But in my opinion when someone spends weeks planning something like this, they also have the capability to understand the difference between right and wrong and therefore should not have the ability to use the "insanity" defense.
I'd be willing to bet that fewer than 70 people would get shot in your Wild West scenario.It seems like a strange argument to me. Dark theatre and all of a sudden you have 10 people standing up shooting wildly into the darkness. How, as a law abiding citizen, do you tell if the guy across the theatre firing a gun is another law abiding citizen or another shooter, or the shooter. Its why the police generally wear uniforms.Don't forget the tear gas.Just what the situation needed to make things better - a bunch of people knocking over their drinks and popcorn and boxes of Sno-Caps to retrieve their peacemakers and start firing rounds in the general direction of a moving guy in a bulletproof vest in a darkened crowded theater. Yeah, great idea.
People making this argument are assuming that audience members with guns could have created a more favorable outcome. However it is more likely that it would have caused more casualties. I don't think a layman is capable of hitting the correct target with people running around in the field of view, in the dark, while his vision is compromised by smoke and tear gas. The better argument would be if people jumped on the shooter they could have saved lives. But you can't blame them for not taking that action either, they were in flight mode.
And any law abiding gun owner that unintentionally kills an innocent bystander in the process will probably end up in jail for manslaughter.I'd be willing to bet that fewer than 70 people would get shot in your Wild West scenario.It seems like a strange argument to me. Dark theatre and all of a sudden you have 10 people standing up shooting wildly into the darkness. How, as a law abiding citizen, do you tell if the guy across the theatre firing a gun is another law abiding citizen or another shooter, or the shooter. Its why the police generally wear uniforms.Don't forget the tear gas.Just what the situation needed to make things better - a bunch of people knocking over their drinks and popcorn and boxes of Sno-Caps to retrieve their peacemakers and start firing rounds in the general direction of a moving guy in a bulletproof vest in a darkened crowded theater. Yeah, great idea.
Student loans and financial could have helped him get it too.
Two seperate arguments here. Should law bidding citizens be able to carry a handgun vs should a law bidding citizen be able to buy an AR-15?
I don't know because I wasn't there. But if I had the opportunity to get close enough to jump on him, I could have been more effective and cause no colateral risks with a point blank range gun shot to the head.
I wonder if the body armor would protect against tasers. They wouldn't hit the skin, but would the electricity still give enough of a jolt?The helmet might take that, but he might get a concussion. Don't know anything about gasmasks if they have ballistic protection. I suppose point blank, stick the gun in his arm pit and fire.
This argument is made here several times. I don't recall the same argument made in the Sandusky thread.
#### yes. Preach it GB.
I saw this guy on one show and just wanted to punch him in the face after 3 seconds. I didn't know this part; even bigger doosh.
