Im sure you know by now, but:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-574 ... e-wounded/

That **** is just messed up. Now days, going to the movies has a slight chance that you will be shot up too? Its just wrong, so wrong. These people should go to their little corner and die alone.

In before Raiden saying more people should have guns so this wouldn't happen.

the guy was apparently wearing a bullet proof vest, not sure what effect other people having guns would have had(im no gun expert so w/e)

but yea this is messed up, now we can't enjoy a ******* movie in peace....

No no no, if all the movie goers had guns they'd be immune to bullets![/sarcasm]

Mike

Wouldn't save him from dozens of people shooting him, surely?

And I was wondering how long till it popped up here.

I couldnt get to the premiere, I'd kill to see this movie.

Dozens? I think you got the shooter and shootees mixed up, even if dozens of people in that crowd were armed, how many do you think would be able to realistically actually return fire? Of those, how many might be targeted by the gunner before they can fight back? Considering the types of weapons the movie goers would be carrying(pistols most likely) the body armor might have been of some use. Sure not long term, how many gunmen think "I'm gonna to shoot up a bunch of mofos, then take a vacation to germany then settle down and start a family!" They stop thinking once they get to the 'shooting up bunch of mofos' part.

Mike

This complete idiot had his attack planned. He came along not only with his vest but also with a gas mask and some gas grenade that made his mask necessary.

Now, you're going to a move with a bad guy with a mask in it and a good guy with a mask in it. This killer can go into the theatre without anyone thinking that he is acting strange, so no one is going to be prepared.

As soon as the gas grenade is thrown, half of the audience is going to be caught of guard and will stand up to run out for fresh air. I'm certain that no one will know who actually threw this thing, simply because this can be done from the back.

As soon as that happened and you see him shooting, the first thing you're thinking is "get the **** out of here". The same if you only hear him shooting. You're going to have to be trained on emergency situations if you're going to properly use a gun if you have it with you. Untrained people will think of running away to save themselves first instead of returning fire if they have a gun.

So even if 50% of the people there had a weapon, they're barely going to be able to do something, and then you have to consider a bulletproof vest. Small firearms are useless in that case.

I'm actually surprised that the death toll is "only" at twelve.

Yea have to agree with plasma here, in fact the only people who could have returned fire would probably either be A) Police officer, or B) military personnel(had there been any of the mentioned people who were armed). pretty certain if there were civilians who were armed nothing would have changed, if anything the death toll probably might have gone up from a civi blindly shooting (just because someone can get a gun doesn't mean they know how to use it properly)

just my 2 cents

This is why it should be your civil duty to, at all times, carry an assault rifle with armour piercing, depleted uranium rounds. Also, everyone who was born on the first day of the month should carry a rocket launcher instead, in case a looney attacks with a tank.

Location: Netherlands.


Or those pesky Germans again!

On topic: I've heard the special effects are really good in the movie though, people were blown away

Before you know it, someone is going to be coming in and shooting up the public restrooms next. Youre not going to even be able to take a **** without worried about getting shot.

Not me, because I'm not an American.

Sorry, senseless killings aren't limited to america

They had a political agenda, it wasnt just random shooting people, random snipers, random school shootings, etc etc

Doesn't make it any less senseless

That makes it way different

Of course it does, are you saying retards going mental and shooting up schools/malls/theatres is in any way similar to political terrorism?

The US is the only one with a culture of this happening.

Very smooth toot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/2 ... 89099.html

YEEE-HAW!

Yes, the victims are dead all the same.

Tragic, yeah but you're an idiot if you death is the only thing that matters here. You can take the faux moral highground like some pretentious born again virgin and ignore everything relevant to the issue because 'people died and that's all that matters, my magnanimous soul weeps for all humanity blahblahblah' but all that kind of narrowminded holier-than-thou bullshit serves to do is obscure the issue.

People died for a reason and if anybody actually gave a damn about the tragedy of the loss of human life and the impact on the grieving families they'd be far more interested in asking 'why?', 'what can we learn from this?' and 'how can we prevent it in the future?' than avoiding the issue with some condescending blanket statement.

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but it seems like some here are saying that political mass killings, such as the mass murder in Norway, are somehow more justifiable than the mass murders of lunatics who may not have political motivations. I don't think either can be justified in any way whatsoever.

In fact, I think the crazed actions of a schizophrenic lunatic who kills a lot of people seems a lot less evil and horrifying than the calculated killings of innocent people by murderers who are doing it in the name of a carefully thought out political agenda.