DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Denver shooting - at least 14 killed
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 220, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/20/2012 12:40:05 PM · #26
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by jagar:


I don't suppose the fact that guns are so easily available has anything to do with this?


If guns kill people, then my silverware made me fat.


guns just allow you to do it without getting your ass kicked in the process.
07/20/2012 12:42:00 PM · #27
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by deeby:

Originally posted by mike_311:

so let me get this straight, you know your son is unstable and you wait for something to happen to contact the authorities???


Mike, it doesn't work like that.

[mother] Hello police? Yeah my son is unstable and I think he might be close to doing something harmful either to himself or others
[police] Has he harmed anybody?
[mother] No but he will I'm sure of it I'm his mother and I know him best
[police] If he hasn't done anything illegal ma'am we can't do anything about it. You should get your son some help from medical professionals or a psychiatrist. (lol)
[mother] I called his doctor and the mental health clinic but they have no space for him, and they don't have time to see him until next week...that will be too late. It doesn't matter anyway we can't afford the medical bills any more. And the magic crystals no longer seem to have power over his bad energies. I don't know what to do and I'm sick with worry.
[police] I'm sorry ma'am but there is nothing more I can do at this time.
[mother] Fuck you then, asshole.
hangs up


its sad that i actually agree with the point you are making.

we are doomed.


So, you would prefer that anyone could call, say you are a threat, and have your home raided by SWAT in the middle of the night?

Yeah, I think I'd prefer that we keep things as they are. No predictive crime-prevention-enforcement for me thanks. Thought-crimes anyone?

Seriously enough, it's a tragedy, but eroding privacy and rights to prevent occasional tragedies like this from occurring is certainly a far worse problem than the problem you would are attempting to solve.

Frankly, this is a big part of the argument in favor of the war on drugs, and a premise I disagree with, that essentially says that "People who do drugs are more likely to commit crimes", therefore, "doing drugs should be a crime".

Pretty easy to follow that up with "People who are mentally ill are more likely to commit crimes", therefore, "being mentally ill is a crime"

Or perhaps "People who are poor are more likely to commit crimes", therefore, "being poor is a crime"...

My heart goes out to the families (his as well, jeez, can you imagine getting that call? From ABC at that??).

We need to stop thinking in such a risk-averse way as a society. Preventing a few crimes per year by taking away freedoms from everyone does not equal out as a good cost/benefit ratio. I read a very interesting article the other day on the value of the life of an Astronaut, and why it's arguable that NASA commits "statistical murder". Frankly, this sort of thinking is very much along the same lines. How much do we pay to protect and prevent? And I'm not just talking about money.


This is arguably the best post I've ever read on this site.
07/20/2012 12:43:09 PM · #28
Originally posted by Cory:



So, you would prefer that anyone could call, say you are a threat, and have your home raided by SWAT in the middle of the night?

Yeah, I think I'd prefer that we keep things as they are. No predictive crime-prevention-enforcement for me thanks. Thought-crimes anyone?

Seriously enough, it's a tragedy, but eroding privacy and rights to prevent occasional tragedies like this from occurring is certainly a far worse problem than the problem you would are attempting to solve.

Frankly, this is a big part of the argument in favor of the war on drugs, and a premise I disagree with, that essentially says that "People who do drugs are more likely to commit crimes", therefore, "doing drugs should be a crime".

Pretty easy to follow that up with "People who are mentally ill are more likely to commit crimes", therefore, "being mentally ill is a crime"

Or perhaps "People who are poor are more likely to commit crimes", therefore, "being poor is a crime"...

My heart goes out to the families (his as well, jeez, can you imagine getting that call? From ABC at that??).

We need to stop thinking in such a risk-averse way as a society. Preventing a few crimes per year by taking away freedoms from everyone does not equal out as a good cost/benefit ratio. I read a very interesting article the other day on the value of the life of an Astronaut, and why it's arguable that NASA commits "statistical murder". Frankly, this sort of thinking is very much along the same lines. How much do we pay to protect and prevent? And I'm not just talking about money.


i agree with you, i prefer the way it is too, but its sad if his mom knew he needed help and couldn't get him any.

07/20/2012 01:39:52 PM · #29
I wasn't suggesting that the police should respond to pre-emptive warnings. I merely illustrated how it works right now. Mental illness + lack of treatment + stress = bad. Crime rates go up during economic downturns right? Stress.

Originally posted by Cory:



So, you would prefer that anyone could call, say you are a threat, and have your home raided by SWAT in the middle of the night?

Yeah, I think I'd prefer that we keep things as they are. No predictive crime-prevention-enforcement for me thanks. Thought-crimes anyone?

Seriously enough, it's a tragedy, but eroding privacy and rights to prevent occasional tragedies like this from occurring is certainly a far worse problem than the problem you are attempting to solve.

Frankly, this is a big part of the argument in favor of the war on drugs, and a premise I disagree with, that essentially says that "People who do drugs are more likely to commit crimes", therefore, "doing drugs should be a crime".

Pretty easy to follow that up with "People who are mentally ill are more likely to commit crimes", therefore, "being mentally ill is a crime"

Or perhaps "People who are poor are more likely to commit crimes", therefore, "being poor is a crime"...

My heart goes out to the families (his as well, jeez, can you imagine getting that call? From ABC at that??), but I can't condone what is being suggested.

We need to stop thinking in such a risk-averse way as a society. Preventing a few crimes per year by taking away freedoms from everyone does not equal out as a good cost/benefit ratio. I read a very interesting article the other day on the value of the life of an Astronaut, and why it's arguable that NASA commits "statistical murder". Frankly, this sort of thinking is very much along the same lines. How much do we pay to protect and prevent? And I'm not just talking about money.
07/20/2012 01:44:01 PM · #30
It's a tragedy, but given the scale of human to human contact on earth, tragedies like this are only inevitable. What I really hate are the over-reactions. The knee-jerk responses.

"If only someone in the audience had a gun".
"This is retribution from God for idolizing false heroes".
"Rush Limbaugh ranted against the movie, it's his fault".
"Violent Entertainment is the root of it all!"
"Video games teach children to become killers!"
"His mom knew he was dangerous and did nothing/tried to and the authorities did nothing!"

It's all just pure clap-trap. Fact is, someone disturbed decided to do something bad and people got killed. It has no reason, it has no fault (outside the killer's own). We are living on a cramped planet with over 9 billion people on it. It is, quite frankly, shocking that we don't have this kind of thing happen far more often.

Incidents like this are going to happen. We can, and should, work towards preventing them as much as possible, but preventing them totally is simply unrealistic.

It's painful, and regretful and tragic, but it is also just another part of living amongst our species. Anger and blame and over-reaction are just as dangerous as the gunman himself.

07/20/2012 01:51:20 PM · #31
A sad day, and the killer's motivation will be a hot topic unless there's a confession or manifesto. Serious mass murderers always seem to have a manifesto. Rants, diatribes, editorials and satirical prose are commonplace, but manifestos are the apparent medium of psychopaths. Maybe writing a manifesto should be a felony? As usual, there are already loud, pointless calls for (and against) gun control. Restricting gun ownership isn't going to stop a lunatic bent on murder (he could have just set the place on fire or run a truck through the wall), and suggesting more guns in the theater is abject stupidity (people with handguns in the chaos of a dark, smoky, crowded theater have little chance of stopping a killer in body armor and every likelihood of mistaking each other for bad guys). It's a terrible tragedy, and just 13 miles from Columbine, but the only effective prevention for these kinds of attacks is to identify and thwart dangerous individuals... a daunting task that ventures dangerously into personal privacy, profiling and harassment.
07/20/2012 01:54:07 PM · #32
deleted

Message edited by author 2012-07-21 15:50:14.
07/20/2012 01:59:22 PM · #33
Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

It's a tragedy, but given the scale of human to human contact on earth, tragedies like this are only inevitable. What I really hate are the over-reactions. The knee-jerk responses.

"If only someone in the audience had a gun".
"This is retribution from God for idolizing false heroes".
"Rush Limbaugh ranted against the movie, it's his fault".
"Violent Entertainment is the root of it all!"
"Video games teach children to become killers!"
"His mom knew he was dangerous and did nothing/tried to and the authorities did nothing!"

It's all just pure clap-trap. Fact is, someone disturbed decided to do something bad and people got killed. It has no reason, it has no fault (outside the killer's own). We are living on a cramped planet with over 9 billion people on it. It is, quite frankly, shocking that we don't have this kind of thing happen far more often.

Incidents like this are going to happen. We can, and should, work towards preventing them as much as possible, but preventing them totally is simply unrealistic.

It's painful, and regretful and tragic, but it is also just another part of living amongst our species. Anger and blame and over-reaction are just as dangerous as the gunman himself.


Knee jerk? Really? I'd just like to point out the fact that no where did I say it was Rush Limbaugh's fault. I think hate filled rhetoric has been proven to push people over the edge...

Often we hear the excuse that the problem is simply the fact that these people are mentally ill crazies who would be doing something crazy anyway.

This is, of course, a complete cop-out. It ignores, in fact, the cold reality that violence, even by the mentally ill, does not occur in a vacuum. When people become the subject of a relentless campaign of demonization -- especially by the use of grotesque smears that make them out to be monsters and provably false "facts" that have the concrete effect of unhinging people from reality -- it will only be a matter of time before the lethal violence breaks out. link


Nowhere did I single out anyone on here for these reactions. Fact is, these are reactions that are all over the internet right now, and yes, they ARE knee-jerk. And useless.

I also stated that we can and should keep trying to prevent things like this from happening. This includes (but is not limited to) trying our best to quell demonization of people, events, etc. However, we will NEVER be able to stop tragedies from occuring. EVER. So when they DO happen, it is in NOBODY'S interest to start throwing around blame and anger at 'possible' faults or reasons. Especially random people on the internet that have no more to do with the incident or the investigation(s) surrounding it than a field full of cattle in South America.

07/20/2012 02:05:18 PM · #34
Originally posted by K10DGuy:

I also stated that we can and should keep trying to prevent things like this from happening. This includes (but is not limited to) trying our best to quell demonization of people, events, etc. However, we will NEVER be able to stop tragedies from occuring. EVER.

This will never happen. Politicians live in the here and now. Preventive measures take time to implement and take effect; the plebs like insta-gratification. This is why tough on crime laws pass all over the place even though they are completely ineffective. States with the death penalty have higher crime rates. Punitive measures after the fact do not deter crime. The one thing the punitive side does have are concrete numbers, something the preventive will never attain. So the plebs get what they want without solving the problem. But hey, it looks good on paper, or more importantly, in sound bites.

Message edited by author 2012-07-20 14:06:23.
07/20/2012 02:07:20 PM · #35
I went through a similar tragedy a few years back. You want to blame someone, something. It's easy to blame just about anything. Our minds automatically try to apply logic to an event such as this. However, there is no logic to something like this. Guns aren't to blame, his Mom isn't to blame, the police aren't to blame, the movie nor Rush is to blame. It's the shooter's own demented mind that is to blame. Stop looking for a scapegoat.

"Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view, and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life, beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and its purpose in the service of your people... When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way." -Tecumseh

Death is a part of life, however it is one subject that is difficult for nearly everyone to accept - especially in an age where all medicine and doctors work towards prolonging life. We try to squeeze every possible minute from it. When something terrible like this happens, fear creates sparks in the mind of the witnesses. Fear allows us to willingly give up our freedoms. The all-knowing government must protect us... how can this be prevented from happening again?! But who will protect us from the government?

Take this tragic event for nothing more than it is... a tragic event. However realize that noone and no law will ever be able to prevent death from occurring. Do not let irrational fear of death alter your senses.
07/20/2012 02:26:17 PM · #36
Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

It's a tragedy, but given the scale of human to human contact on earth, tragedies like this are only inevitable. What I really hate are the over-reactions. The knee-jerk responses.

"If only someone in the audience had a gun".
"This is retribution from God for idolizing false heroes".
"Rush Limbaugh ranted against the movie, it's his fault".
"Violent Entertainment is the root of it all!"
"Video games teach children to become killers!"
"His mom knew he was dangerous and did nothing/tried to and the authorities did nothing!"

It's all just pure clap-trap. Fact is, someone disturbed decided to do something bad and people got killed. It has no reason, it has no fault (outside the killer's own). We are living on a cramped planet with over 9 billion people on it. It is, quite frankly, shocking that we don't have this kind of thing happen far more often.

Incidents like this are going to happen. We can, and should, work towards preventing them as much as possible, but preventing them totally is simply unrealistic.

It's painful, and regretful and tragic, but it is also just another part of living amongst our species. Anger and blame and over-reaction are just as dangerous as the gunman himself.


Knee jerk? Really? I'd just like to point out the fact that no where did I say it was Rush Limbaugh's fault. I think hate filled rhetoric has been proven to push people over the edge...

Often we hear the excuse that the problem is simply the fact that these people are mentally ill crazies who would be doing something crazy anyway.

This is, of course, a complete cop-out. It ignores, in fact, the cold reality that violence, even by the mentally ill, does not occur in a vacuum. When people become the subject of a relentless campaign of demonization -- especially by the use of grotesque smears that make them out to be monsters and provably false "facts" that have the concrete effect of unhinging people from reality -- it will only be a matter of time before the lethal violence breaks out.
link


So should Limbaugh be banned from speaking? What about crazies on the other side of the isle such as Bill Maher? Where does it stop? Who decides who gets to speak their mind and who doesn't?
07/20/2012 02:35:04 PM · #37
Originally posted by chazoe:

So should Limbaugh be banned from speaking? What about crazies on the other side of the isle such as Bill Maher? Where does it stop? Who decides who gets to speak their mind and who doesn't?

Rush makes shit up. At least Bill tries to base his rants in reality. I don't like either personally, but at least left leaning major mouth pieces in America typically do research and have facts to support them.

edit - It's funny really. Bill gets taken off the air because he said the 9/11 perpetrators weren't cowards. And you know what, he was right. Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter, spread outright lies and their ratings go up. Go figure.

Message edited by author 2012-07-20 14:37:00.
07/20/2012 02:38:40 PM · #38
Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by chazoe:

So should Limbaugh be banned from speaking? What about crazies on the other side of the isle such as Bill Maher? Where does it stop? Who decides who gets to speak their mind and who doesn't?

Rush makes shit up. At least Bill tries to base his rants in reality. I don't like either personally, but at least left leaning major mouth pieces in America typically do research and have facts to support them.

edit - It's funny really. Bill gets taken off the air because he said the 9/11 perpetrators weren't cowards. And you know what, he was right. Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter, spread outright lies and their ratings go up. Go figure.


Both sides are full of shit. You'll be more apt to believe the side that is more closely aligned to the side you believe in does research, but the truth is they're both lying fucktards.
07/20/2012 02:42:17 PM · #39
Originally posted by chazoe:

Both sides are full of shit. You'll be more apt to believe the side that is more closely aligned to the side you believe in does research, but the truth is they're both lying fucktards.

They're not full of shit equally. That's the main point.
People who watch Fox news are typically less informed than people who don't watch any news. That's downright amazing if you ask me.

edit - There are more studies showing this. The right, at least in the US, are on average more misinformed than the left. Look at the aftermath of 9/11 and ties to Iraq. Fox news viewers overwhelmingly thought there was a connection when none has been proven. That's documented.

Message edited by author 2012-07-20 14:44:54.
07/20/2012 02:43:48 PM · #40
Originally posted by chazoe:

So should Limbaugh be banned from speaking? What about crazies on the other side of the isle such as Bill Maher? Where does it stop? Who decides who gets to speak their mind and who doesn't?


How about we ban only the ideas, concepts, beliefs and thoughts that are not based on reason/logic and cannot stand up to scrutiny? So basically 99% of what comes out of Rush's mouth and 1% of Maher's. Problem fixed.

I should charge for this.

Message edited by author 2012-07-20 14:44:34.
07/20/2012 02:45:35 PM · #41
Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by jagar:


I don't suppose the fact that guns are so easily available has anything to do with this?


If guns kill people, then my silverware made me fat.


guns just allow you to do it without getting your ass kicked in the process.


They just delay the ass kicking.
07/20/2012 02:49:02 PM · #42
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by chazoe:

So should Limbaugh be banned from speaking? What about crazies on the other side of the isle such as Bill Maher? Where does it stop? Who decides who gets to speak their mind and who doesn't?


How about we ban only the ideas, concepts, beliefs and thoughts that are not based on reason/logic and cannot stand up to scrutiny? So basically 99% of what comes out of Rush's mouth and 1% of Maher's. Problem fixed.

I should charge for this.


So maybe just you should tell us all what's right and wrong.

I hate Rush Limbaugh, but to blame him for this in any way is absolutely stupid. To even have his name mentioned in this tragedy at all is ignorance beyond belief. You wanna know who's to blame? His name is James Holmes and he doesn't have a radio show and he's not a comedian.

Personal responsibility is completely gone, not just in this country but everywhere.
07/20/2012 02:49:26 PM · #43
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by chazoe:

So should Limbaugh be banned from speaking? What about crazies on the other side of the isle such as Bill Maher? Where does it stop? Who decides who gets to speak their mind and who doesn't?


How about we ban only the ideas, concepts, beliefs and thoughts that are not based on reason/logic and cannot stand up to scrutiny? So basically 99% of what comes out of Rush's mouth and 1% of Maher's. Problem fixed.

I should charge for this.


The problem is they're not held accountable for being factual in what they say. Their listeners hear them say it and suddenly it's true. If Limbaugh said the sky was green and Maher said it was pink with orange polka dots, the listeners would argue that "their" side is right and everyone else is stupid and unpatriotic.
07/20/2012 03:11:30 PM · #44
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by chazoe:

So should Limbaugh be banned from speaking? What about crazies on the other side of the isle such as Bill Maher? Where does it stop? Who decides who gets to speak their mind and who doesn't?


How about we ban only the ideas, concepts, beliefs and thoughts that are not based on reason/logic and cannot stand up to scrutiny? So basically 99% of what comes out of Rush's mouth and 1% of Maher's. Problem fixed.

I should charge for this.


The problem is they're not held accountable for being factual in what they say. Their listeners hear them say it and suddenly it's true. If Limbaugh said the sky was green and Maher said it was pink with orange polka dots, the listeners would argue that "their" side is right and everyone else is stupid and unpatriotic.


I wouldn't worry about Rush or Maher. It's the sheep that are the problem and the system that breeds them at an early age. At least real sheep can smell bullshit.

Message edited by author 2012-07-20 15:12:12.
07/20/2012 03:41:06 PM · #45
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by chazoe:

So should Limbaugh be banned from speaking? What about crazies on the other side of the isle such as Bill Maher? Where does it stop? Who decides who gets to speak their mind and who doesn't?


How about we ban only the ideas, concepts, beliefs and thoughts that are not based on reason/logic and cannot stand up to scrutiny? So basically 99% of what comes out of Rush's mouth and 1% of Maher's. Problem fixed.

I should charge for this.


The church would object, vehemently.
07/20/2012 04:58:05 PM · #46
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by chazoe:

So should Limbaugh be banned from speaking? What about crazies on the other side of the isle such as Bill Maher? Where does it stop? Who decides who gets to speak their mind and who doesn't?


How about we ban only the ideas, concepts, beliefs and thoughts that are not based on reason/logic and cannot stand up to scrutiny? So basically 99% of what comes out of Rush's mouth and 1% of Maher's. Problem fixed.

I should charge for this.


The problem is they're not held accountable for being factual in what they say. Their listeners hear them say it and suddenly it's true. If Limbaugh said the sky was green and Maher said it was pink with orange polka dots, the listeners would argue that "their" side is right and everyone else is stupid and unpatriotic.


I wouldn't worry about Rush or Maher. It's the sheep that are the problem and the system that breeds them at an early age. At least real sheep can smell bullshit.


I don't know about sheep, but cattle will literally run until they die. If you have a herd of cattle stampeding because they're being chased by a dog you kill the dog first.
07/20/2012 05:00:39 PM · #47
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by chazoe:

So should Limbaugh be banned from speaking? What about crazies on the other side of the isle such as Bill Maher? Where does it stop? Who decides who gets to speak their mind and who doesn't?


How about we ban only the ideas, concepts, beliefs and thoughts that are not based on reason/logic and cannot stand up to scrutiny? So basically 99% of what comes out of Rush's mouth and 1% of Maher's. Problem fixed.

I should charge for this.


Didn't hitler try that? Who gets to decide what stays?
07/20/2012 05:07:39 PM · #48
Godwin's Law. Thread over. lol.
07/20/2012 05:16:14 PM · #49
Damn that Godwin, he has killed so many threads.
07/20/2012 05:20:49 PM · #50
Someone had to do it. It was getting off track.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 02:35:06 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 02:35:06 AM EDT.