ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums - Gunman kills 14 at Dark Knight Rises showing in Colorado

ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/index.php)

- Serious Debates & News (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=61)

- - Gunman kills 14 at Dark Knight Rises showing in Colorado (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207262)

Gunman kills 14 at Dark Knight Rises showing in Colorado

Quote:

Shooting Rampage at Dark Knight Rises Showing in Colo.; 14 Dead
According to witness reports, at least one gunman fired into the audience 15 minutes into the midnight showing of the film.

By Everett Rosenfeld | July 20, 2012 |

Early reports indicate that approximately 50 people were hurt and at least 14 were killed when a masked gunman opened fire during a midnight showing of the Dark Knight Rises at a mall in Aurora, Colo.

According to witness reports on Denver’s 9 News, at least one gunman fired into the audience 15 minutes into the midnight showing of the film. Several witnesses reported to 9 News that the gunman — who entered theater number 9 was wearing a gas mask and throwing tear-gas canisters at people in an attempt to stop them fleeing — fired a shotgun multiple multiple times into the audience. Aurora police chief Dan Oates say that 10 died during the attack, and four more died in area hospitals.

One person is in police custody, and authorities are saying that it appears this suspect acted alone. Police, however, are still scouring the immediate area and other local movie theaters for any possible accomplices. A Colo. bomb squad was also called to check reports that an explosion occurred within the movie theater, and to investigate a suspicious vehicle parked outside of the cinema.

At an early morning press conference, authorities said they found the gunman with a mask and weapon by a car behind the theater

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/20/...-colo-10-dead/

Wearing a gas mask..sounds to me like he was dressed as Bane :/

Masked gunman shoots 14 dead at Batman screening in Denver

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...reening-denver

Is it a Terrorist or a Nutter Killer
they are seaching his flat now

Probably both

Probably thought he was actually Bane

Yes Nathan
trying to be Bane

Murder Shocker in the night in Denver.

Shame it will
put a stain on the Film.

"Probably both

Probably thought he was actually Bane "

Yes a Nutter Armed and in a Fantasy Vision

I hope Dr.Dezzy
will give us his the mind split up
of this Evil Cray killer

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...30_634x454.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...76_306x423.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...79_634x475.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...83_634x451.jpg
The movie that started at Midnight in Denver Time

"Crime scene: Police officers took
witness statements - the 6ft tall man, (24 year old)
dressed in black and wearing a gas mask
opened fire at the showing of The Dark Knight Rises
and set off a smoke or tear gas bomb"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz219rmtZVc

No doubt eventually there will be footage because of social media these days

Quote:

Originally Posted by fruit_cake (Post 5319714)

how awful :sad:

Yes was it girl trouble
or Mad/Evil in the head film buff.

They have him arrested
he even had a bullet proof vest, on.

Wow what a fruitloop :(

It said that he was sat with his three children in a report I read. I can't imagine what horror it must have been. Why would he take his children with him?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fruit_cake (Post 5319731)

It said that he was sat with his three children in a report I read. I can't imagine what horror it must have been. Why would he take his children with him?

Not right in his Head.

America
Guns can be bought , in many ways
- thats why we have these nutters.

Not good for the movie

Still definitely don't need to work on gun control, America. Do they? Nope. Totally fine. These things are just so rare after all.

the youngset victim is and 3 months kid

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan (Post 5319715)

No doubt eventually there will be footage because of social media these days

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=90b_1342776620

:o

Yeah, I still don't think the US can. The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms, and it's a very touchy subject.

If Congress touched it, a lot of people would go mad, That's why we're considered "The Freest Country in the World"

They can ban amendments but I don't see it happening with the 2nd amendment. because Prohibition was an amendment and then they added a amendment to ban prohibition later.

It's on the national morning news right now, they're saying 12 dead, 50 injured. FBI is searching the jackass' apartment/flat

Premieres being cancelled, Paris etc

Quote:

The two points of view that are allowable in the narrow spectrum of debate in America regarding gun control are these: first, those who believe it is our constitutional right to bear arms (these are the ‘you’ll get my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers’ bunch – the National Rifle Association, and basically every yahoo goober you’ll ever meet in America), then there are those who believe it is our constitutional right to bare arms, but only after a one week waiting period before being able to purchase a gun, and/or psychiatric and criminal records check. In other words, they feel some type of gun control measure should be enacted so it’s just a little harder to purchase a gun, while not infringing on our guaranteed Constitutional Right to Bear Arms.’ (There is a third point of view on the gun control issue, those who I refer to as THE VICTIMS, but they remain strangely silent and unorganized.)

Well, here I was again reading these letters, these pathetic attempts of logic from tiny-brained, right-wing fearmongers (i.e. ‘if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns’, and ‘Guns don’t kill people, people kill people’) and letters from the timid, cowering ‘left’ having the gall to suggest that ‘while it is people who kill people, they do it much more readily and handily with guns than without them’, and ‘while outlawing guns would only leave outlaws with guns’ doesn’t take into account the fact that many of the victims of guns are children shot by other children – outlaws neither one. And, of course, there was no acceptance of the statistical correlation between the number of deaths caused by handguns […] in America, where guns are readily available, compared to the paltry number of deaths caused by handguns (22!) where guns are not so readily available.

[…]

Well, I took it upon myself to peruse a copy of the Bill of Rights to find out exactly what this article in the constitution states.

[…]

I’ll quote article Two of the Bill of Rights first, then present my simple realization and perhaps, God willing, this ludicrous issue can be resolved once and for all. (Yeah, right…) Here goes: ‘A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ As far as I can tell, that’s one sentence. This issue doesn’t need to be debated by constitutional lawyers. This whole debate could be cleared up by my first grade English teacher, Mrs Farmer. Article Two says, essentially, that: ‘In order to maintain a free state, a well regulated militia (the National Guard) is necessary, and to that end only (at least according to the grammatical content of the sentence) people (the National Guard) have the ‘right to bear arms.’ If you reverse the two parts of the sentence it becomes even more crystal clear: ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia.’

This sentence, this one idea, this complete thought in and of itself does not say every psychopathic yahoo in the country should be able to own a gun. It doesn’t say that at all, and anyone with an education higher than first grade should be able to comprehend this.

[…]

I can’t help but wonder why the simple and obvious meaning of the sentence has never been mentioned before. […] Are gun rights advocates arguing that roving gangs of young people shooting innocent bystanders constitutes a ‘well-regulated’ militia? Or that Clem shooting Burl because he mistook him in the dark for a ‘nigra’ constitutes a ‘secure and free state?’ What, exactly, is their argument based on? Because it is not based on any ‘guaranteed right’ in the constitution. A child could explain this to you if he or she wasn’t busy ducking for cover, or being strip-searched on the way to their grade school.

Bill Hicks > everyone

**** the second ammendment. How many massacres is it going to take for the american government to realise that something needs to be done? It's one of the most moronic and outdated laws I've ever heard and it beggars belief that it's still in effect given how many violent incidents there have been.

It seriously needs to change.

It does need to be changed, but it never will be

I hope this isn't real

http://i.imgur.com/b2UMI.jpg

''Suspect's mother tells @ABC News "You have the right person, I need to call the police.”''