Reported: 10 Killed in US Batman Premiere

Soldato
Joined
15 Nov 2003
Posts
14,342
Location
Marlow
Maybe one of these day's America will learn to tighten up the access that people have to firearms.

The stable door has been left open too long... There's so many guns out in the general public it would take generations to change it. And they simply don't have the desire/will to do that within their culture (at the moment).
 
Associate
Joined
8 Oct 2004
Posts
2,283
I just asked the question on Reddit why there were kids under 13 years old there and got downvoted to hell. But it's a serious question. Were these kids inside or outside the auditorium? Outside the theatre? It has serious implications for the parents/guardians and the staff. Did they let underage kids in? Or were they outside the auditorium just having drinks or something. It needs answers.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Mar 2007
Posts
10,938
Well, its a contentious issue and I'm sure I'll not convince you to change your outlook, but my opinion is that people should be allowed to carry weapons with the proper training and various checks made on them, and this would have a positive effect on crime. I'm talking about the US here, not the UK.

Fair enough but answer me this hypothetical....

If you could push a button and the amount of guns in America magically became the same as the amount of guns in the UK (all guns both illegal and illegal) per head, do you think deaths by firearms would go up or down (as well as deaths in general)?
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2009
Posts
19,892
Location
Wales
Had someone in that theater had a legal weapon to stop the shooter from killing people, it would have ended differently. Criminals conceal carry illegal guns. Laws against it don't stop them. They only stop innocents from defending themselves.


I'm just not sure on my opinion in events like this..
 

RDM

RDM

Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2007
Posts
20,612
I just asked the question on Reddit why there were kids under 13 years old there and got downvoted to hell. But it's a serious question. Were these kids inside or outside the auditorium? Outside the theatre? It has serious implications for the parents/guardians and the staff. Did they let underage kids in? Or were they outside the auditorium just having drinks or something. It needs answers.

http://www.mpaa.org/ratings/what-each-rating-means

The US uses a completely different rating system. A PG-13 means that parental guidance is suggested but doesn't stop children going in. Even the R rating just means 16 or younger need an adult with them.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Mar 2007
Posts
10,938
As per usual, Bill Mayer hits the nail on the head...


"They have this fantasy that some kind of tyranical government will get in and they'll have to rise up and take this country back; now that may have made sense when the second amendment was written when everyone had muskets but now the government has nuclear weapons, F22's and the Marine Corp; and it's probably unlikely that Vern and Earl are going to be able to take over the government." :D
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
8 Oct 2004
Posts
2,283
http://www.mpaa.org/ratings/what-each-rating-means

The US uses a completely different rating system. A PG-13 means that parental guidance is suggested but doesn't stop children going in. Even the R rating just means 16 or younger need an adult with them.

Ah right. So it's strongly advised but not enforced. That's pretty shonky to be honest. And who would really bring their 4 month old baby into a midnight screening of a violent film? Or 6 year old for that matter.
 
Caporegime
Joined
28 Jan 2003
Posts
39,876
Location
England
I just asked the question on Reddit why there were kids under 13 years old there and got downvoted to hell. But it's a serious question. Were these kids inside or outside the auditorium? Outside the theatre? It has serious implications for the parents/guardians and the staff. Did they let underage kids in? Or were they outside the auditorium just having drinks or something. It needs answers.

Basically you were trying to troll and got found out then they kicked the proverbial out of you.

Lol.

Ah right. So it's strongly advised but not enforced. That's pretty shonky to be honest. And who would really bring their 4 month old baby into a midnight screening of a violent film? Or 6 year old for that matter.

Get a grip of yourself. Next you'll be saying they deserve it for doing such a thing.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,188
I just asked the question on Reddit why there were kids under 13 years old there and got downvoted to hell. But it's a serious question. Were these kids inside or outside the auditorium? Outside the theatre? It has serious implications for the parents/guardians and the staff. Did they let underage kids in? Or were they outside the auditorium just having drinks or something. It needs answers.

Yes, there doesn't need to be answers at all, they have a sensible ratings system, where by kids who can see the film on tv any time they want, can also go to the cinema when accompanied by a parent/guardian who gets to choose what their child can see.

Likewise, premiers at 12am is a publicity stunt that cinemas/studios needs to think about, the guy could obviously just as easily have walked into a midday showing of Bambi and shot kids so not sure why you think these answers would change anything?

Ah right. So it's strongly advised but not enforced. That's pretty shonky to be honest. And who would really bring their 4 month old baby into a midnight screening of a violent film? Or 6 year old for that matter.

Likewise, seriously what has 12am got to do with anything. Every kid on earth has stayed up late for some special occasion or another, an ecplise, a sighting of a planet, comets.

http://www.hollywood.com/news/Record_Breaking_Midnight_Screenings_of_Harry_Potter_7_Pt_2/7817823

LOADS of kids went to midnight showings of Harry Potter, and loads of kids went to the UK midnight screenings. As i said before, someone could have walked into any time screening of ANY film and done this, or walked into a school, or a starbucks, or a supermarket, anything, should kids never be allowed out because a psycho might kill them? Is there a higher incidence of spree killings in cinema's or after midnight?
 
Last edited:

RDM

RDM

Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2007
Posts
20,612
Ah right. So it's strongly advised but not enforced. That's pretty shonky to be honest. And who would really bring their 4 month old baby into a midnight screening of a violent film? Or 6 year old for that matter.

Do you think a 6 month old baby will be watching the movie? They would likely be sleeping. My main issue for taking a child that young would be if it started crying.

I have also taken my 6 1/2 year old daughter to see PG12 films in this country. Obviously I would do the research on the film first to see if it would be problematic, so Avengers was a "Yes" but Batman is a "No" for me.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Dec 2005
Posts
12,488
Location
Bath
Ah joy, the USA gun-law debate again.


My two penneth is that here in the UK where guns are banned, the bad guys still have them... In-fact, it's only the bad guys that have them. In the USA where guns are allowed (but perhaps not licensed as tighly as they should be) both sides have guns - the good guys and the bad guys.


And when people say "ZOMG if you allowed guns in the UK eleventy million people would get shot", I'd bet you money that the number of people getting stabbed would go down. And I bet that in the USA if they banned guns the number of stabbings would go up. Should we ban knives too? But then like with guns in the UK, the bad guys would still have them and it's only the law-abiding majority that would be affected by the law. Scum will still do bad stuff with no matter what tools are available to them.
 
Associate
Joined
2 Apr 2003
Posts
55
This is a bit weird for me as I spent some time in Aurora last year and visited that very cinema on a couple of occasions. The town was a bit of a dump to be honest but generally, I felt safer in Colorado than in any other state I visited ouside of maybe Wyoming. Just real nice down to earth American people, not the bible bashing crazies you see down in the deep south. Didn't see a single gun during the 4 days I was there last year and the week I spent in Colorado Springs this year which I certainly couldn't say for Texas ;) Such as shame to see so many lives cut short by one guy with clear mental issues.

I love the American news comments saying if more people were armed, they could have ended the shooting spree soone.... because shooting through smoke in a dark crowded cinema with people fleeing everywhere would not just end up in some mass gunfight with many mroe people cut down in the crossfire... :/
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Mar 2007
Posts
10,938
My two penneth is that here in the UK where guns are banned, the bad guys still have them... In-fact, it's only the bad guys that have them. In the USA where guns are allowed (but perhaps not licensed as tighly as they should be) both sides have guns - the good guys and the bad guys.

Not true and misleading.

A) In the UK there are far more guns in "the good guys" hands than the bad guys (farmers, people who shoot for sport, armed police, the army etc etc), there isn't a blackout on guns here they are just heavily restricted (to make sure that only the good guys have them, legally anyway).

B) Whilst you didn't explicitly say it, not all 'bad guys' have guns in fact very, very, very, few of them do. When guns are used here it hits the headlines because it's so rare in the UK to die via a firearm. The vast majority of gun deaths in the US are unreported (especially here) as they are so common.
 
Associate
Joined
15 Jun 2003
Posts
1,342
And when people say "ZOMG if you allowed guns in the UK eleventy million people would get shot", I'd bet you money that the number of people getting stabbed would go down. And I bet that in the USA if they banned guns the number of stabbings would go up. Should we ban knives too? But then like with guns in the UK, the bad guys would still have them and it's only the law-abiding majority that would be affected by the law. Scum will still do bad stuff with no matter what tools are available to them.

I'd bet the people in the cinema would've much rather the attacker wield a knife than a gun. Plus, knives are useful for things other than killing.
 
Back
Top Bottom