Members V Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Yeah, I was terribly disappointed too when they gave the Joker a racial upgrade from Kazon to human. At least Bane could be interpreted as a TOS-style Klingon even if they don't say it outright. I know Although I did like how they interpreted Bele the Cheronian into Harvey Dent's character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terminus Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Tim Burton did something similar with actually portraying the Penguin as a Tellaratie, as he should. That's just it though. They had to pick a species that can be made analogous to humans. But at this rate we'll never see and Andorian or Bolian leading character. You can have black and white, but never blue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members V Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Tim Burton did something similar with actually portraying the Penguin as a Tellaratie, as he should. That's just it though. They had to pick a species that can be made analogous to humans. But at this rate we'll never see and Andorian or Bolian leading character. You can have black and white, but never blue. Yeah. At least we got a pseudo Trill with Ra's Al Goul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terminus Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Wow, I didn't even catch that. Maybe Nolan deserves more credit than I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members boytbpc Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Better gun control needs to happen. Saying that we have too many guns available so we shouldn't limit future gun sales is outrageous. We need to limit future gun sales and work hard to take as many illegal guns off the street. I believe that individuals that pass extensive screening should have access to long arms, but believe that pistols have no place in society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vidret Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 totally missed this debate/argument thing. anyway. AMERICA! There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6] that's like genocide right there. I think scandinavian countries are all just around 60-140 even though norway upped it a bit. And sure, these countries have a fairly smaller population, but you guys are up at something like 10-12 kills per 100k people and countries without guns are around 0.5-2 (finland's kicking it at just below 4 though but they'll kill each other with whatever they can find anyways if the alcohol don't get them first). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terminus Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 We're not even that far away in terms of guns per 100 people, (link) but the difference in firearm-related crimes is staggering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vidret Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 We're not even that far away in terms of guns per 100 people, (link) but the difference in firearm-related crimes is staggering. what. US got 90 out of 100, we got 31. how is that not far away? that's triple. triple is a 200% increase! a lot of the times a 20% increase is a huge difference when talking about crime/year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dpizappi Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 We're not even that far away in terms of guns per 100 people, ( link) but the difference in firearm-related crimes is staggering. Guns per 100 people is kind of a weird statistic because it's not saying 90 out of every 100 people have guns. It's not really a direct relationship at all. Since gun collecting is popular in the US the number of guns is not the same as the number of people who have guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ollenorin Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 I really don't understand why the public needs access to anything besides hunting rifles (which was what the law originally had in mind). I've heard many arguments about this from both sides and the fact of the matter is if only the military and police had access to automatic weapons and sidearms there'd be a lot fewer deaths. Before someone tries to claim that people need guns to fight back at the military if they want a revolution let me remind you that you'd be using small arms against a military that has access to heavy air support, drones, tanks, artillery, and sophisticated automatic weaponry. You don't have a chance against them anyway nor would you have much of a chance against a guy like this who comes in with a machine gun and tear gas to obscure vision of himself. It'd be like sending a housecat up against a den of lions. Sure it may give you a sense of security and hope (much like the so-called american dream gives hope to the poor to keep them from refusing to work for their exploiters) but it's false security and false hope. People who carry guns are far more likely to actually be injured or killed in a home invasion because they tend to try and use those guns, thus provoking a firefight. People who don't have guns just give the other guy what they want and live to see another day because that guy has a gun to scare you and take your stuff, not to kill you in the vast majority of cases. A similar thing happens with people who learn a soft martial art meant for exerciser (like tae kwan do) and people who are not trained to fight. One guy thinks hes a martial arts master and doesn't run from a fight with someone who actually knows how to fight, thus getting beat up. The other guy realizes, hey, I don't know how to fight and diffuses the situation instead.Now, as far as hunting weapons and former service personnel go, alright. You should have the right to have a way of feeding yourself by hunting if need be and those rifles are not easily concealed so they already have their intended intimidation effect if carried. You don't even need to draw them or use them. I also think if someone is mentally fit and trained in when to use their weapon and when not to that is another special case so former police and military could be an exception (again, so long as they are mentally stable). But I don't want my next door neighbor having a gun just cause he wants to be macho and shoot potential burglars.People can talk about their freedoms all they want but your freedom to have weapons like that is impinging on my freedom from worrying about them. + juan million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ollenorin Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Crohny....you are the biggest asshole ive seen here since i joined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 9520575 Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Crohny....you are the biggest asshole ive seen here since i joined. You're making a good run at it yourself, from my vantage point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members driverhasabomb Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Better gun control needs to happen. Saying that we have too many guns available so we shouldn't limit future gun sales is outrageous. We need to limit future gun sales and work hard to take as many illegal guns off the street. I believe that individuals that pass extensive screening should have access to long arms, but believe that pistols have no place in society. Would you grandfather in current guns or institute mandatory buyback programs to get them out of the hands of non-criminals? How would you work hard to take illegal guns off the street? What would you do that isn't being done now? I assume you singled out pistols because they're concealable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members arthurdent'd Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 I would send out armies of master ticklers, to tickle every gun owner until they give up their weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crohny Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Crohny....you are the biggest asshole ive seen here since i joined. Of all people to talk about assholes, it shouldn't be you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vidret Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members t-rey Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Forget your gun bans. Not gonna happen in America-ever. What we need to do is address people like this guy that have obvious psychological problems. This was no surprise to his parents. That tells me lots of people knew of this guy's problems but laws prevent dealing with these people.This not directed at you...I just happened to multiquote you to make sure I addressed the mental health points I want to make. If for some reason it seems like I'm singling you out, I apologize in advance.Soapbox time.Without knowing anything other than what the news has reported, this has schizophrenia written all over it. It is a disorder that tends to manifest in the early twenties. More intelligent people tend to be able to acknowledge that something is wrong and are able to hide it without seeking treatment until their symptoms become very severe. I tend to compare this to older people who are able to compensate for their symptoms of dementia and/or Alzheimers for quite some time before it's obvious to others.I would be very willing to bet that he does not have a personality disorder, especially antisocial personality disorder (which most people call sociopath). I saw a statistic that the prevalence of 'sociopath' is 3%, which I feel is very, very overestimated. Of course, a quick google brings up many results with that 3% figure. The actual prevalence of most personality disorders is less than 1% - but my DSM is at the office, so I can't say specifically what it has to say on the issue. Either way, a person with antisocial personality disorder does things without regard to others for their own gain and without being able to understand that the rules that govern other people's behavior also apply to them. I just don't see that here - but again, I don't have all the specifics.What I feel like happened is that his delusions became too much for him to handle on his own and he believed that he needed to prove some point or do this for some reason. As a person might expect, the delusions and hallucinations that people experience when they are psychotic are very very rarely positive in nature. He may have felt that the movie was inherently evil and corrupting people, or that those people receiving the message ought to be punished in some way. He told the police that he was the Joker and put up little to no resistance when captured - there is a very real possibility that he believed that this would make him into the Joker. I will stop speculating...because that could go on for far too long.I'm curious about what laws prevent people from 'dealing with the mentally ill.' It's absurdly easy to take out involuntary commitment papers on a person for almost any reason (at least in NC). If they are admitted and receive inpatient treatment is another story, however. It's also important to remember that people with mental illness shouldn't just be locked away in some psychiatric ward to be over sedated and shamble around out of sight. That would be a massive step backward in my opinion. Of course, the state of mental health is bleak to say the least - they continue to cut funding for treatment, which will only make matters worse.Just a side note - I do greatly appreciate the use of the spolier tags when talking about the movie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ollenorin Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Of all people to talk about assholes, it shouldn't be you. Pitbulls suck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ispunk Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 No offense taken. I realize we aren't going to be throwing people into institutions en masse. While I do not believe in gun bans, I do believe in prohibiting people who have serious mental health issues from buying guns. Adding this guy's name to a "Do Not Sell" list would have stopped him from buying all those guns legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ollenorin Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 You're making a good run at it yourself, from my vantage point. How so {censored}face? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cryptosonic Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Probably the constant name calling. Chrony is at least arguing a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 9520575 Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 How so {censored}face? oh I love reading post from idiots like you. Makes me smile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Gentlemen, in case you missed it a few pages back, here's another reminder: Debate the issues. Personal attacks and name calling ({censored}face, asshole, idiot, etc.) have no place in a civil discussion, and they're against the HC site rules. IOW, enough of the ad hominem attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crohny Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Pitbulls suck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members t-rey Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 No offense taken. I realize we aren't going to be throwing people into institutions en masse. While I do not believe in gun bans, I do believe in prohibiting people who have serious mental health issues from buying guns. Adding this guy's name to a "Do Not Sell" list would have stopped him from buying all those guns legally. I could easily get on board with this. I believe that IRG made a point about mandatory mental health assessments prior to being licensed to own firearms. I think (if implemented properly) that it could be a really good idea. If something like that were in place it most likely would have prevented this guy from getting guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.