Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TMZ)   With the mother of one victim planning to sue the movie theater and a survivor planning to sue Warner Brothers, The Aurora Movie Theater Massacre lawsuit sweepstakes have officially begun   (tmz.com) divider line 231
    More: Followup, Warner Brothers, emergency exits, massacres  
•       •       •

5033 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jul 2012 at 11:08 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-30 12:47:18 PM  

Mirrorz: gunga galunga: A man driving a Dr Pepper van smashed into the side of a bus ... The driver of the van was found to be at fault, so naturally all the families sued Coca-Cola because...

Dr. Pepper has NOTHING to do with Coca-Cola.
Competitor companies.


Dr Pepper is a coke product now
 
2012-07-30 12:50:36 PM  

Timid Goddess: lucksi: BTW, how did the shooter enter via the emergency exit? Over here those doors are locked from the outside with no handle and are alarmed as well.

Different in the US?

Not when I worked in one in Oklahoma a couple decades ago.


As I understand it, he went in through the front doors with everyone else, then went out through the exit and propped it open. Then he came back and shot up the place.

The door should probably have been alarmed. However, I still don't think a movie theatre will ever be able to prevent a massacre. If the door was alarmed he could have just walked in the front doors of the theatre with guns and started killing people there instead of at the screen. Crazy people and terrorists could kill any of us at almost any moment. It's an unfortunate fact of life.
 
2012-07-30 12:53:16 PM  

lucksi: BTW, how did the shooter enter via the emergency exit? Over here those doors are locked from the outside with no handle and are alarmed as well.

Different in the US?


He entered the theater normally and propped the door open.
 
2012-07-30 12:54:13 PM  

ronaprhys: Not all that different. It's an armed populace making life hell on an occupying army. I would guess that anything done internally would look different than that, but parallels certainly exist.


In the case of Iraq and Afganistan, it's an outside force using a relatively small percent of its armed forces to occupy a foreign nation overseas. And even then, the nation is occupied and has been for almost a decade. The sort of uprising you're talking about, in our own nation wouldn't look anything like that.

I'm not arguing against the 2nd amendment, I'm for it but not because I think there's any possible scenario where if the government gets out of hand the people will rise up with the guns they bought over the internet and straighten shiat out. If people would just say they're stockpiling weapons for the upcoming zombie apocalypse, I'd buy that a lot easier.
 
2012-07-30 12:55:22 PM  

gunga galunga: Mirrorz: gunga galunga: A man driving a Dr Pepper van smashed into the side of a bus ... The driver of the van was found to be at fault, so naturally all the families sued Coca-Cola because...

Dr. Pepper has NOTHING to do with Coca-Cola.
Competitor companies.

The Dr Pepper truck was owned by Valley Coca-Cola.

Linky


The Dr Pepper Snapple Group is an independent company. However, with the exception of some small bottlers (Dublin TX, being one of them), they do not have a network of distributors and are usually under contract with whatever distributor has a bottling plant in a major market. Where I live, the major bottler is the PepsiCo plant in Dayton, OH. Therefore, in this area, Dr Pepper is bottled by Pepsi. In the Cincinnati/NKY area, Coca-Cola has the major bottler so Dr Pepper is bottled by Coca-Cola.
 
2012-07-30 12:55:24 PM  

ronaprhys: balial: What makes you think this change needs to happen overnight? A steady decline in gun ownership will do the same for gun crime:

http://ilovecharts.tumblr.com/post/2844169468/gun-death-rates-vs-gun- o wnership

But you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say here. Nobody will prescribe that guns be banned. The costs of public insurance may go up. Perhaps home insurance will go up if you own a gun due to your public liability, depending how the lawsuits fall. If they skyrocket, people will opt out. The more that opt out will realise they don't need their GI Joy toys. Cities will have more support for saving tax dollars by finding ways to outlaw guns to reduce liability. Then it's not a long shot to shoot the 2nd.

Just saying it could happen. Rather than being so defensive, just have a think about it.

Because the incidence of speeding, driving drunk, etc., have all gone down due to increases in costs to private individuals? Because people don't buy homes in high risk areas due to higher premiums on their insurance? Because people stop smoking due to higher costs for health insurance (they may be stopping smoking, but that's due to other reasons - the pittance one saves on insurance ain't it).

But knock the nonsense off. You don't like firearms and believe they don't need to exist. If that's not the case, provide your actual position for us and a cogent and detailed argument to back it up. Make sure that you also manage to demonstrate what impact your solution will have on other crimes - not just firearm-related ones.


Make no mistake, the only reason I don't drive at 120mph when the freeways are clear is that there are financial consequences. I can't speak to smoking since I don't, but insurance companies give kickbacks to people who don't, but I guess I can't speak to casual smokers as to whether that would sway them.

As for housing -- that's an irrelevant example. High risk / high price areas such as Manhattan have benefits that outweigh the costs. The other end of the spectrum is Detroit which is practically free.

I'm fascinated by your questions, though. Why does the future depend on what my opinion is? If prices go up and things come to pass as I say they might, so be it. If it doesn't, it doesn't. My opinion is just as irrelevant as yours, it's just a hypothesis.
 
2012-07-30 12:56:47 PM  

ronaprhys: balial: scottydoesntknow: balial: Good. Hopefully the 2nd amendment will be struck down when people realise they can't afford it.

How much is a 2nd amendment? Can we pool our money together and share it alternating days?

Its true cost is measured in tens of thousands of deaths per year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Multiply that by court settlement amounts for a dollar value.

Can you factor in the cost of prevented crimes that are the result of private firearm ownership first? It has to be a net benefit, dontchaknow.


Of course you can factor that in, but it's most likely in the noise.
 
2012-07-30 12:58:57 PM  

Duke_leto_Atredes: Mirrorz: gunga galunga: A man driving a Dr Pepper van smashed into the side of a bus ... The driver of the van was found to be at fault, so naturally all the families sued Coca-Cola because...

Dr. Pepper has NOTHING to do with Coca-Cola.
Competitor companies.

Dr Pepper is a coke product now


No, it's not, see my above post. It's an independent under the Dr Pepper Snapple Group, which includes Dr Pepper, 7UP, A&W Root Beer, Hawaiian Punch, RC Cola, Canada Dry, Schweppes, and others.
 
2012-07-30 12:59:15 PM  

scottydoesntknow: balial: scottydoesntknow: l

scottydoesntknow: balial: But at the same time, I fully agree with almost everything you say. The roads are unsafe, let's fix them. Obesity is killing, let's fix that. Cigarettes could go away faster. But why the hell should dealing with the gun problem sit in line? They're equally addressable at the same thing.

And again, what makes you think that a sudden change in gun laws would make all the psychos/gangbangers/terrorists/neo-nazis give up their guns? Will they all turn up at "Turn in your guns Tuesday" at the local precinct?

What makes you think this change needs to happen overnight? A steady decline in gun ownership will do the same for gun crime:

http://ilovecharts.tumblr.com/post/2844169468/gun-death-rates-vs-gun - o wnership

But you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say here. Nobody will prescribe that guns be banned. The costs of public insurance may go up. Perhaps home insurance will go up if you own a gun due to your public liability, depending how the lawsuits fall. If they skyrocket, people will opt out. The more that opt out will realise they don't need their GI Joy toys. Cities will have more support for saving tax dollars by finding ways to outlaw guns to reduce liability. Then it's not a long shot to shoot the 2nd.

Just saying it could happen. Rather than being so defensive, just have a think about it.

Debunking a pro-gun control study using its own stats

The VPC ignored some information while cherry-picking others.


That article confuses a subjective study of "strong" vs. "weak" gun ownership with actual measurable gun ownership numbers. What's your point?
 
2012-07-30 01:02:55 PM  

This text is now purple: , they sell Mister Pibb Pibb Xtra.


Duke_leto_Atredes: Dr Pepper is a coke product now


That's just heresy and helps explains why The Dr. Pepper Co. sued Dublin Dr. Pepper.

I like how more of you are starting to focus on Dr. Pepper v Coke than the actual topic. My job here is done.
 
2012-07-30 01:07:08 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-30 01:08:46 PM  

This text is now purple: balial: scottydoesntknow: balial: Good. Hopefully the 2nd amendment will be struck down when people realise they can't afford it.

How much is a 2nd amendment? Can we pool our money together and share it alternating days?

Its true cost is measured in tens of thousands of deaths per year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Multiply that by court settlement amounts for a dollar value.

That's nothing. Article IV Section 2 cost 5 million lives in the span of 4 years.


Great point. Where do you get the 5 million figure, though?
 
2012-07-30 01:12:38 PM  

balial: Good luck standing up to the government when they have nukes, and chemical and biological weaponry.


Tell that to the Iraqis and Afghanis.

I seriously doubt the US government would ever, even under the most outlandish of scenarios, use CBRN weapons (other than tear gasses like CS) on US soil, especially with an explicit intent to hurt US citizens.

Asymmetric warfare could work very well CONUS, if needed. Given that you would have a lot of civilians who are GWOT veterans and know our COIN doctrine very well, it would be interesting to see because the people who our forces would be fighting would know their doctrines and tactics as well as they did. It would take the advantage of the smaller belligerent in asymmetric warfare, and combine it with US training.

In other words, nobody is grabbing guns by force, and while I sincerely hope it will never happen in my lifetime, the implied Constitutional check on government force in the Second Amendment is still going strong.
 
2012-07-30 01:19:08 PM  
Sources close to Shirley tell us she believes the theater's emergency exit doors should have been alarmed, or there should have been security guards posted next to them ...

our slowly but eventual spiral into a police state is a product of us and not that of the government...we have no one to blame but ourselves.
 
2012-07-30 01:19:10 PM  

Mugato: ronaprhys: Not all that different. It's an armed populace making life hell on an occupying army. I would guess that anything done internally would look different than that, but parallels certainly exist.

In the case of Iraq and Afganistan, it's an outside force using a relatively small percent of its armed forces to occupy a foreign nation overseas. And even then, the nation is occupied and has been for almost a decade. The sort of uprising you're talking about, in our own nation wouldn't look anything like that.



I suspect that were such an uprising to happen, things would be much worse than that.
Every piece of the supply line would be at risk, the assembly plants for the equipment are scattered all over the country (Thanks lobbyists! you did do something to help the people after all!!)
Were do you get new parts? new recruits? you can't burn the country side... what will you eat?
The cities are as full of your supporters as they are of the enemy, and of course, you can't even trust your own ranks.

The enemy is everywhere... yeah they only have little guns, but they are in half the houses, and you don't know which half. Quantity has a quality all it's own... as an example, remember the Naval exercises where the entire fleet was wiped out by swarms of little speed boats (or something similar)

At any rate, tyrants don't usually do their tyrannizing with the military and heavy weapons(by the time they turn those on their own people, it's usually too late), they use the police and the intelligence services. And while small arms don't help much against that second group, they do a good enough job of taking care of the foot solders, that oppressive regimes don't like the people to have access to them.
 
2012-07-30 01:20:30 PM  

tgambitg: gunga galunga: Mirrorz: gunga galunga: A man driving a Dr Pepper van smashed into the side of a bus ... The driver of the van was found to be at fault, so naturally all the families sued Coca-Cola because...

Dr. Pepper has NOTHING to do with Coca-Cola.
Competitor companies.

The Dr Pepper truck was owned by Valley Coca-Cola.

Linky

The Dr Pepper Snapple Group is an independent company. However, with the exception of some small bottlers (Dublin TX, being one of them), they do not have a network of distributors and are usually under contract with whatever distributor has a bottling plant in a major market. Where I live, the major bottler is the PepsiCo plant in Dayton, OH. Therefore, in this area, Dr Pepper is bottled by Pepsi. In the Cincinnati/NKY area, Coca-Cola has the major bottler so Dr Pepper is bottled by Coca-Cola.


So if a major corporation that just happened own a bottling plant that a different soft drink company used for distribution shelled out $150 million because the driver of one of their delivery trucks negligently smashed into a school bus and killed 21 kids, then I can easily see Warner Brothers having to shell out some major cash over the Aurora shootings.
 
2012-07-30 01:21:44 PM  
Silverstaff: It would take the advantage of the smaller belligerent in asymmetric warfare, and combine it with US training.

In other words, nobody is grabbing guns by force, and while I sincerely hope it will never happen in my lifetime, the implied Constitutional check on government force in the Second Amendment is still going strong.

So what you're saying is that the government would know every trick in the book of the insurgents? Keep enjoying those delusions that the populace could defend itself. If it came to a civil war the government would be more than happy to bust out its whole arsenal since it's already killing its voting public.

The 2nd amendment hold nobody accountable any more.
 
2012-07-30 01:22:33 PM  

Ravage: Medical care is prohibitively expensive primarily due to lawsuits and the insane cost of malpractice insurance people working in the medical field have to carry to protect themselves from idiots that sue for their lottery payout. If medical lawsuits were outlawed we wouldn't have such an unaffordable system and this new communist insurance plan wouldn't be needed.


You keep telling yourself that, and maybe one day it will come true. Meanwhile, I'll be over here looking at the for-profit hospitals, their shareholders, excessively compensated executives, and the costs of providing life-saving care for the uninsured (ironically, not the largest piece of the cost pie). You know, that whole "exploit an inelastic demand" machine thing we call REAL 'MERICAN HEALTH CARE!

Oh, and don't forget the political jackwagon who most recently made a bid for medical tort reform...has a history of hypocrisy on the matter.
 
2012-07-30 01:22:48 PM  

Pinhedd: This is pointless

A determined individual is going to commit a massacre no matter how many obstacles are put in his or her
the USA's way


AMERICAKKA FARKK YEAAHH!

guns, god, jesus and lawsuits!!
 
2012-07-30 01:34:28 PM  

gunga galunga: WTF Indeed: FirstNationalBastard: But why would anyone sue Warner Brothers, other than for making horrible comic book movies?

Because Warner Brothers will not publicly oppose a massacre survivor and will settle out of court. The conversation will go like this:

"Hey guys, so we've decided to sue you because [Insert Reason Here]."

"Okay, how does 50k sound?"

"Good. Deal."

This.

It's exactly like the Alton, TX bus crash of 1989. A man driving a Dr Pepper van smashed into the side of a bus knocking it into a water-filled gravel pit. Twenty one kids drowned. The driver of the van was found to be at fault, so naturally all the families sued Coca-Cola because.....well, they were the ones with the money. So Coca-Cola, who had nothing to do with the accident other than the fact it was one of their van being driving by a man who through his own negligence caused it all. They ended up shelling out close to $150 million to avoid further bad press.


It's almost like we want to incentive companies to be diligent in who they allow to operate heavy machinery for them.
 
2012-07-30 01:34:43 PM  

balial: Silverstaff: It would take the advantage of the smaller belligerent in asymmetric warfare, and combine it with US training.

In other words, nobody is grabbing guns by force, and while I sincerely hope it will never happen in my lifetime, the implied Constitutional check on government force in the Second Amendment is still going strong.

So what you're saying is that the government would know every trick in the book of the insurgents? Keep enjoying those delusions that the populace could defend itself. If it came to a civil war the government would be more than happy to bust out its whole arsenal since it's already killing its voting public.

The 2nd amendment hold nobody accountable any more.


Loosen up the tinfoil.

It's not a delusion to think that a skilled and motivated smaller force, with small arms alone, can effectively degrade the ability of a larger force to take and hold territory.

The Vietcong were very good at doing that to us in Vietnam.

Al Qaida in Iraq was pretty good at doing that to us in Iraq. In the end, it took the "surge" and AQI pissing off the Iraqi people so much that they didn't support them as much anymore to make things roughly equal, and even then we basically left while we were ahead and called it a win on the grounds we were up on points when the clock ran out.

The Taliban and Haqqani in Afghanistan have been doing that for some time. Unlike Iraq, and like the US, the Taliban have mountains and lots of terrain advantage to use.

By your logic, we should have quickly and decisively won all 3 of those wars because we could just bust out CBRN weapons. Dirty little secret of the military, they aren't as effective as you think. Chemical weapons are more for area denial than actual destruction of enemy forces. Biological weapons are a genie in a bottle, and once you unleash it you can't put it back in. Nuclear weapons? US soil against US citizens? You can't be farking serious.

Also, to be honest, in my time in the National Guard I've seen a LOT of NCO's and Commissioned Officers who are downright paranoid "they" are going to come for their guns or declare martial law, and quietly made it clear they would desert if that ever happened.

In this hypothetical scenario, you would see an insurgency manned and lead by a mix of survivalists and militia types, with defected US servicemembers who saw the country they loved betray them. At that point, it's practically a civil war, fighting an insurgency who knows your own tactics, techniques and procedures as well as they do.

Just not going to happen.
 
2012-07-30 01:36:05 PM  

balial: ronaprhys:
As for housing -- that's an irrelevant example. High risk / high price areas such as Manhattan have benefits that outweigh ...



Additionally, I don't think people generally move to high crime areas on purpose. I reviewed crime statistics before buying my home, but there's no guarantee the crime level will stay the same over the next 30 years. Sometimes the crime comes to you.
 
2012-07-30 01:37:54 PM  

James F. Campbell: Maybe if medical care wasn't so prohibitively expensive in the United States, people wouldn't feel compelled to sue so much.


Welcome to Backwards Day!
 
2012-07-30 01:38:07 PM  

balial: This text is now purple: balial: scottydoesntknow: balial: Good. Hopefully the 2nd amendment will be struck down when people realise they can't afford it.

How much is a 2nd amendment? Can we pool our money together and share it alternating days?

Its true cost is measured in tens of thousands of deaths per year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Multiply that by court settlement amounts for a dollar value.

That's nothing. Article IV Section 2 cost 5 million lives in the span of 4 years.

Great point. Where do you get the 5 million figure, though?


Adjusting for population changes between 1865 and 2012.
 
2012-07-30 01:39:51 PM  

beakerxf: balial: ronaprhys:
As for housing -- that's an irrelevant example. High risk / high price areas such as Manhattan have benefits that outweigh ...


Additionally, I don't think people generally move to high crime areas on purpose. I reviewed crime statistics before buying my home, but there's no guarantee the crime level will stay the same over the next 30 years. Sometimes the crime comes to you.


Oh, I should mention that my zip code just had 12 murders and 58 wounded added to it's crime stastic total. Oh, and some guy a few blocks over had a booby trapped apartment with explosives. When I bought my house 8 years ago, I couldn't have predicted that.
 
2012-07-30 01:39:58 PM  

Mugato: In the case of Iraq and Afganistan, it's an outside force using a relatively small percent of its armed forces to occupy a foreign nation overseas. And even then, the nation is occupied and has been for almost a decade. The sort of uprising you're talking about, in our own nation wouldn't look anything like that.


Yes - and while the actual Iraqi military was defeated very quickly the insurgency seemed to last quite a long time. That's the problem in the US, should someone actually try. It was hugely costly for us over there - here it'd be worse. The levels of sabotage and resistance would rise dramatically. As someone else pointed out, there are pipelines, factories, and all sorts of things out there that we've not had to worry about being attacked since the 1800s*. Throw in the more subtle forms (damn, this machine keeps producing junk. Not sure how it made it through QA. Or a raw materials provider having random equipment breakdowns. Or a sudden spat of illnesses in the workers during a critical time.) and it really is a non-starter. The firearms are a cream to that crop. Simple put, there's no way to identify and remove them from the population. Even a house to house search would take so long it'd be incredibly easy to avoid. Throw in soldiers being complicit in notifying their friends and families and I'm sure any searches like that would suddenly become fruitless.

I'm not arguing against the 2nd amendment, I'm for it but not because I think there's any possible scenario where if the government gets out of hand the people will rise up with the guns they bought over the internet and straighten shiat out. If people would just say they're stockpiling weapons for the upcoming zombie apocalypse, I'd buy that a lot easier.

I disagree that it couldn't happen. It really depends on the suddenness of the action. Right now the government seems to be pursuing it closer to the frog in slowly warming water method vs a sudden tyranny. The problem is that the people keep allowing the sacrifice in liberty for a temporary perceived increase in safety. It's very short-sighted of them and gets fed by the two party system.

*There was some minor concern during WWII, but compared to having any potential citizen being a saboteur, that pales in comparison to be basically insignificant.

balial: Of course you can factor that in, but it's most likely in the noise.


Sweet - you don't even know enough about the subject to be educated. I can now move to simply mocking you.

Hint: There's plenty of evidence that shows firearms prevent a very significant number of crimes each year. They even make the news from time to time - but generally not. Mostly that seems to be due to the fact that it's entirely possible no one was harmed. As news, that's kind of boring. However, we do hear of the granny defending her home or others as they're interesting to be news.
 
2012-07-30 01:42:52 PM  

Too Pretty For Prison: scottydoesntknow: FirstNationalBastard: The movie theater... eh, I can see that.

But why would anyone sue Warner Brothers, other than for making horrible comic book movies?

From the linked article (about a victim who wasn't injured):

2. Holmes' doctors. Karpel says it appears Holmes was on several medications -- prescribed by one or more doctors -- at the time of the shooting and he believes the docs did not properly monitor Holmes.

3. Warner Bros. Karpel says "Dark Knight Rises" was particularly violent and Holmes mimicked some of the action. The attorney says theater goers were helpless because they thought the shooter was part of the movie. Karpel tells TMZ, "Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today."

Yes, it really is an asinine reason to sue a studio.

Good luck with point #2. That would be virtually impossible to prove. Doctors aren't required to put the pill in someone's mouth every day and monitor their activities constantly. Point #3 is even more ridiculous. That's been tried many times in many different ways. It will (and should) get tossed out. I'm not a lawyer but I saw a movie once about a lawyer so I'm confident my opinion is correct.


I don't know Colorado law, but there is a significant history of claims against psychiatrists who failed to adequately protect the public from their patients. See Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976) Link.

If a doctor treating Holmes knew he intended to cause harm an identifiable victim and failed to take adequate preventive measures, he could absolutely be held liable.
 
2012-07-30 01:47:44 PM  

Silverstaff: balial: Silverstaff: It would take the advantage of the smaller belligerent in asymmetric warfare, and combine it with US training.

In other words, nobody is grabbing guns by force, and while I sincerely hope it will never happen in my lifetime, the implied Constitutional check on government force in the Second Amendment is still going strong.

So what you're saying is that the government would know every trick in the book of the insurgents? Keep enjoying those delusions that the populace could defend itself. If it came to a civil war the government would be more than happy to bust out its whole arsenal since it's already killing its voting public.

The 2nd amendment hold nobody accountable any more.

Loosen up the tinfoil.

It's not a delusion to think that a skilled and motivated smaller force, with small arms alone, can effectively degrade the ability of a larger force to take and hold territory.

The Vietcong were very good at doing that to us in Vietnam.

Al Qaida in Iraq was pretty good at doing that to us in Iraq. In the end, it took the "surge" and AQI pissing off the Iraqi people so much that they didn't support them as much anymore to make things roughly equal, and even then we basically left while we were ahead and called it a win on the grounds we were up on points when the clock ran out.

The Taliban and Haqqani in Afghanistan have been doing that for some time. Unlike Iraq, and like the US, the Taliban have mountains and lots of terrain advantage to use.

By your logic, we should have quickly and decisively won all 3 of those wars because we could just bust out CBRN weapons. Dirty little secret of the military, they aren't as effective as you think. Chemical weapons are more for area denial than actual destruction of enemy forces. Biological weapons are a genie in a bottle, and once you unleash it you can't put it back in. Nuclear weapons? US soil against US citizens? You can't be farking serious.

Also, to be honest, in my time in the National Guard I've seen a LOT of NCO's and Commissioned Officers who are downright paranoid "they" are going to come for their guns or declare martial law, and quietly made it clear they would desert if that ever happened.

In this hypothetical scenario, you would see an insurgency manned and lead by a mix of survivalists and militia types, with defected US servicemembers who saw the country they loved betray them. At that point, it's practically a civil war, fighting an insurgency who knows your own tactics, techniques and procedures as well as they do.

Just not going to happen.


Spent several years in the Reserves (USAF, out in 97) and it was much the same. As I posted to Mugato, I think it goes beyond that, too.

1 - by having defectors, especially if they happen in the enlisted leadership positions (senior and/or experienced NCOs), has a huge impact on the quality of the forces in the field. Especially if those NCOs are on the other side.
2 - if you get those NCO defectors, they're likely to take a decent portion of the enlisted folks under them along, too.
3 - how much materiel will come along with them. Why just defect when you can defect along with a truckload of ammo? Or after pouring sand into all of the fuel tanks for each of the tanks? Or gravel in the intakes for the fighters? Cheap as hell to do, incredibly costly to repair (gravel basically frags the engine for a modern jet).
4 - What response will the government have? Tie up more troops in trying to get those troops back? Who then manages to actually try and fight the insurgency?
5 - how do they get new recruits? Draft? Really? I'm sure that'd be a total cluster. It's one thing to try and draft to fight a "noble" war. It's another to try and do so to fight against your brothers.
 
2012-07-30 01:49:16 PM  

Silverstaff: balial: Silverstaff: It would take the advantage of the smaller belligerent in asymmetric warfare, and combine it with US training.

In other words, nobody is grabbing guns by force, and while I sincerely hope it will never happen in my lifetime, the implied Constitutional check on government force in the Second Amendment is still going strong.

So what you're saying is that the government would know every trick in the book of the insurgents? Keep enjoying those delusions that the populace could defend itself. If it came to a civil war the government would be more than happy to bust out its whole arsenal since it's already killing its voting public.

The 2nd amendment hold nobody accountable any more.

Loosen up the tinfoil.


What's the 2nd amendment for if it's not tinfoil? "Oh, we just rolled the tanks into Chicago for fun! Just kidding".
 
2012-07-30 01:49:51 PM  
If stricter limits on malpractice awards are passed, will we have to be especially careful near Dr. Pepper vans?

And will Coca Cola be cheaper?

Even if it's only Valley Coca Cola?
 
2012-07-30 01:50:12 PM  

djseanmac: Ravage: Medical care is prohibitively expensive primarily due to lawsuits and the insane cost of malpractice insurance people working in the medical field have to carry to protect themselves from idiots that sue for their lottery payout. If medical lawsuits were outlawed we wouldn't have such an unaffordable system and this new communist insurance plan wouldn't be needed.

You keep telling yourself that, and maybe one day it will come true. Meanwhile, I'll be over here looking at the for-profit hospitals, their shareholders, excessively compensated executives, and the costs of providing life-saving care for the uninsured (ironically, not the largest piece of the cost pie). You know, that whole "exploit an inelastic demand" machine thing we call REAL 'MERICAN HEALTH CARE!

Oh, and don't forget the political jackwagon who most recently made a bid for medical tort reform...has a history of hypocrisy on the matter.


THIS
 
2012-07-30 01:52:06 PM  
So, is it plausible that we all file a class action lawsuit against the MPAA, all movie studios and any venue that shows movies because we are now fearful that we could possibly be shot in their establishment because the MPAA licenses the movies that are shown in the theaters, the movie studios produce the movies that we may potentially die whilst seeing and the theaters do not have ample protection to ensure us that we will not be killed during the viewing of the movies that they show. We could all get rediculous sums of money.

Of course, maybe a few movie theaters should put up TSA like safety checks. When everyone complains, point to a picture of James Holmes.

"See this goofy bastard? He decided to shoot a bunch of people in a movie theater."

Then, he should point to the pictures of the asshole who sue because they weren't harmed when some goofy asshole went postal and killed a bunch of people.

"See these lopeared dogturds? They decided to sue us because we didn't protect them from not being shot when the goofy bastard when nutzo. Here's your ticket, movie is in theater 13. Here's the addresses to the lopeared dogshiats who ruined this experience for you."
 
2012-07-30 01:53:58 PM  

This text is now purple: balial: This text is now purple: balial: scottydoesntknow: balial: Good. Hopefully the 2nd amendment will be struck down when people realise they can't afford it.

How much is a 2nd amendment? Can we pool our money together and share it alternating days?

Its true cost is measured in tens of thousands of deaths per year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Multiply that by court settlement amounts for a dollar value.

That's nothing. Article IV Section 2 cost 5 million lives in the span of 4 years.

Great point. Where do you get the 5 million figure, though?

Adjusting for population changes between 1865 and 2012.


Ah, so in current terms. Makes sense. But yeah, they repealed that one. Just sayin' it could happen to the 2nd.
 
2012-07-30 01:58:58 PM  

steklo: I feel sorry for the person who sold Sideshow Bob the ticket to get into the theater. I wonder if he/she gets any sleep, knowing he/she sold a ticket to the guy that shot up, killed and wounded innocent people.


Unavailable for comment:

www.actclassy.com

(But yeah, if he did go to the ticket counter, I see what you mean *shudder*)
 
2012-07-30 02:02:12 PM  

Celerian: Of course, maybe a few movie theaters should put up TSA like safety checks


They'd get away with it too because people are cattle. After 9/11 they started rifling through everyone's bags at the entrance to Disney World. I never heard anyone say a word about it.
 
2012-07-30 02:05:10 PM  
If this theater is liable, then why not other businesses?
Supermarkets - Giffords shooting, 2011, 19 people shot
Gyms - 2009, Pennsylvania, 12 people shot
Retail stores - Lane Bryant, 2008, 5 dead
Fast food restaurants -McDonalds, 1984, 40 people shot
Family Entertainment restaurants - Chuck E Cheese, Aurora in 1993, 5 shot
 
2012-07-30 02:05:58 PM  
Woman: Hi, I'd like to exchange some freedom for some safety money.

Court: No problem.


Rest of America: *Face Palm*

Soapbox:
I agree with the alarms on the exit doors (safety/sneaky people entering the theater reasoning) but not the guards or scanners etc... I think guards and scanners and such goes a bit too far (ok more then a bit too far) this was basically an isolated incident (like all mass murders). I like my freedom, I really hate when people want to intrude on that and try to replace it with safety instead for things that randomly happen whether we prepare for it or not. People who do this kind of shiat do it regardless anyway. They also plan it out just like this creep did, where there is a will there is a way and if there is a loophole someone will find it. I do not feel like living in a bubble just to make her feel safe even though she is not that is how life goes (if it's your time it's your time). If we start trading in our freedom for safety then losers like Sideshow Bob wins.

*Steps down from soapbox and exits stage left*
 
2012-07-30 02:06:14 PM  

ronaprhys: 1 - by having defectors, especially if they happen in the enlisted leadership positions (senior and/or experienced NCOs), has a huge impact on the quality of the forces in the field. Especially if those NCOs are on the other side.
2 - if you get those NCO defectors, they're likely to take a decent portion of the enlisted folks under them along, too.
3 - how much materiel will come along with them. Why just defect when you can defect along with a truckload of ammo? Or after pouring sand into all of the fuel tanks for each of the tanks? Or gravel in the intakes for the fighters? Cheap as hell to do, incredibly costly to repair (gravel basically frags the engine for a modern jet).
4 - What response will the government have? Tie up more troops in trying to get those troops back? Who then manages to actually try and fight the insurgency?
5 - how do they get new recruits? Draft? Really? I'm sure that'd be a total cluster. It's one thing to try and draft to fight a "noble" war. It's another to try and do so to fight against your brothers.




6- Civilian contractors.
7- Assembly and manufacture dispersed to multiple states in order to secure contracts.


And that's why you use the police. Already adversarial to the public since they deal with nothing but angry assholes all day, just make it impossible to get though the day without breaking a law, and make the police into revenue collectors. then the public hates to see the police, and the police hate them back.

It will be a police state, not a military state.

I don't think it's even intentional, just that all the pieces are all going to be there, and some enterprising person is going to be the glue. I do think that red team and blue team sense it though... they fight so hard to be sure they they are in place then it finally happens.
 
2012-07-30 02:06:43 PM  

beakerxf: If this theater is liable, then why not other businesses?
Supermarkets - Giffords shooting, 2011, 19 people shot
Gyms - 2009, Pennsylvania, 12 people shot
Retail stores - Lane Bryant, 2008, 5 dead
Fast food restaurants -McDonalds, 1984, 40 people shot
Family Entertainment restaurants - Chuck E Cheese, Aurora in 1993, 5 shot


In all fairness, have you BEEN to a Chuck E Cheese?
 
2012-07-30 02:08:06 PM  

ronaprhys: Sweet - you don't even know enough about the subject to be educated. I can now move to simply mocking you.

Hint: There's plenty of evidence that shows firearms prevent a very significant number of crimes each year. They even make the news from time to time - but generally not. Mostly that seems to be due to the fact that it's entirely possible no one was harmed. As news, that's kind of boring. However, we do hear of the granny defending her home or others as they're interesting to be news


Got any data on that? Or just anecdotes?
 
2012-07-30 02:09:06 PM  

qmart: gunga galunga: WTF Indeed: FirstNationalBastard: But why would anyone sue Warner Brothers, other than for making horrible comic book movies?

Because Warner Brothers will not publicly oppose a massacre survivor and will settle out of court. The conversation will go like this:

"Hey guys, so we've decided to sue you because [Insert Reason Here]."

"Okay, how does 50k sound?"

"Good. Deal."

This.

It's exactly like the Alton, TX bus crash of 1989. A man driving a Dr Pepper van smashed into the side of a bus knocking it into a water-filled gravel pit. Twenty one kids drowned. The driver of the van was found to be at fault, so naturally all the families sued Coca-Cola because.....well, they were the ones with the money. So Coca-Cola, who had nothing to do with the accident other than the fact it was one of their van being driving by a man who through his own negligence caused it all. They ended up shelling out close to $150 million to avoid further bad press.

It's almost like we want to incentive companies to be diligent in who they allow to operate heavy machinery for them.


I'm sure they were. But if a driver with a hithertofore spotless driving record were to, say, right a stop sign and kill somebody, where was the bottling plant's negligence?

I'm not saying that was the case here. I have no idea what record this guy had. But I have no doubt that a company as large as Coca-Cola is going to make a point to carefully vet the drivers of their delivery trucks.

It's not like with Domino's back when they had their "30 minutes or it's free" policy which of course encouraged their delivery folk to drive recklessly if they were running late. There, it was a no-brainer that Domino's was liable when one of their drivers struck somebody.
 
2012-07-30 02:15:14 PM  

balial: browntimmy: Girion47: balial: scottydoesntknow: balial: Good. Hopefully the 2nd amendment will be struck down when people realise they can't afford it.

How much is a 2nd amendment? Can we pool our money together and share it alternating days?

Its true cost is measured in tens of thousands of deaths per year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Multiply that by court settlement amounts for a dollar value.

How many of those deaths would have been prevented by lack of firearms? 10%? 20%?

Violence is already outlawed, getting rid of a tool that can be used in a violent act would only shift the violent to using another tool. you anti-gun nuts aren't very reasonable.

Interesting, you don't often see the words "stabbing" and "spree" used together.

You could of course, but:

a) The numbers would be much, much lower.
b) It's hard to cook dinner without a knife
c) Just repeal the 2nd and let the states work it out. If guns are that important* they'll still be legal
*) Hint: They're not


Do you have a reason for wanting to take people's freedom away besides your cowardice?
 
2012-07-30 02:16:16 PM  
I'm sure it's been said, but: Oh, for FARK's sake.

30.media.tumblr.com/hot
 
2012-07-30 02:27:46 PM  
How are teens supposed to sneak their buddies into movies for free if they alarm the exit doors?
 
2012-07-30 02:27:57 PM  

UnspokenVoice: balial: browntimmy: Girion47: balial: scottydoesntknow: balial: Good. Hopefully the 2nd amendment will be struck down when people realise they can't afford it.

How much is a 2nd amendment? Can we pool our money together and share it alternating days?

Its true cost is measured in tens of thousands of deaths per year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Multiply that by court settlement amounts for a dollar value.

How many of those deaths would have been prevented by lack of firearms? 10%? 20%?

Violence is already outlawed, getting rid of a tool that can be used in a violent act would only shift the violent to using another tool. you anti-gun nuts aren't very reasonable.

Interesting, you don't often see the words "stabbing" and "spree" used together.

You could of course, but:

a) The numbers would be much, much lower.
b) It's hard to cook dinner without a knife
c) Just repeal the 2nd and let the states work it out. If guns are that important* they'll still be legal
*) Hint: They're not

Do you have a reason for wanting to take people's freedom away besides your cowardice?


Contrary to folks assumptions around here, I'm not trying to advocate for it, I'm just saying this kind of lawsuit shenanigans could snowball. The flip side, of course, being that maybe a few people get rich and nothing changes.

As I understand it, though, the counter to the "freedom!" argument is the human toll. Unlike the aforementioned hazardous freedoms of automobiles, fast food, cigarettes, knives, and whatever else you care to pick, guns are all too often associated with death and injury. Sometimes it's horribly deliberate like this, others it's accidental. The data shows that statistically bald apes are very bad at handling firearms en masse and it causes unnecessary harm to society when they serve no useful purpose.

Out of interest, how many people dying is enough? At what point would you say "this freedom costs too much". You're clearly happy for a lot of people to die for this freedom. What if it were 100k people are year? A million? Do you think the whole population of the US should lay down their lives so that guns are not outlawed?

Obviously this is just another hypothetical, and it's not going to run away... I'm just saying, all else ignored, how much do you think this freedom is worth? Is it negotiable at all?
 
2012-07-30 02:30:11 PM  

Celerian: beakerxf: If this theater is liable, then why not other businesses?
Supermarkets - Giffords shooting, 2011, 19 people shot
Gyms - 2009, Pennsylvania, 12 people shot
Retail stores - Lane Bryant, 2008, 5 dead
Fast food restaurants -McDonalds, 1984, 40 people shot
Family Entertainment restaurants - Chuck E Cheese, Aurora in 1993, 5 shot

In all fairness, have you BEEN to a Chuck E Cheese?


For my personal safety, I steer clear of dark alleys, crack houses, and restaurants with ball pits.
 
2012-07-30 02:35:00 PM  

balial: Contrary to folks assumptions around here, I'm not trying to advocate for it, I'm just saying this kind of lawsuit shenanigans could snowball. The flip side, of course, being that maybe a few people get rich and nothing changes.

As I understand it, though, the counter to the "freedom!" argument is the human toll. Unlike the aforementioned hazardous freedoms of automobiles, fast food, cigarettes, knives, and whatever else you care to pick, guns are all too often associated with death and injury. Sometimes it's horribly deliberate like this, others it's accidental. The data shows that statistically bald apes are very bad at handling firearms en masse and it causes unnecessary harm to society when they serve no useful purpose.

Out of interest, how many people dying is enough? At what point would you say "this freedom costs too much". You're clearly happy for a lot of people to die for this freedom. What if it were 100k people are year? A million? Do you think the whole population of the US should lay down their lives so that guns are not outlawed?

Obviously this is just another hypothetical, and it's not going to run away... I'm just saying, all else ignored, how much do you think this freedom is worth? Is it negotiable at all?


More proof to show you're uneducated on the topic. The rate of firearm crimes by those who've legally purchased them is small enough to be considered negligible. So the bald apes are actually very good at being safe with firearms. However, criminals are not so careful. Nor are disaffected urban youth and drug cartels.
 
2012-07-30 02:35:03 PM  

Celerian: In all fairness, have you BEEN to a Chuck E Cheese?


I like to hang out five hundred and one feet from one.
 
2012-07-30 02:38:03 PM  

gunga galunga: qmart: gunga galunga: WTF Indeed: FirstNationalBastard: But why would anyone sue Warner Brothers, other than for making horrible comic book movies?

Because Warner Brothers will not publicly oppose a massacre survivor and will settle out of court. The conversation will go like this:

"Hey guys, so we've decided to sue you because [Insert Reason Here]."

"Okay, how does 50k sound?"

"Good. Deal."

This.

It's exactly like the Alton, TX bus crash of 1989. A man driving a Dr Pepper van smashed into the side of a bus knocking it into a water-filled gravel pit. Twenty one kids drowned. The driver of the van was found to be at fault, so naturally all the families sued Coca-Cola because.....well, they were the ones with the money. So Coca-Cola, who had nothing to do with the accident other than the fact it was one of their van being driving by a man who through his own negligence caused it all. They ended up shelling out close to $150 million to avoid further bad press.

It's almost like we want to incentive companies to be diligent in who they allow to operate heavy machinery for them.

I'm sure they were. But if a driver with a hithertofore spotless driving record were to, say, right a stop sign and kill somebody, where was the bottling plant's negligence?

I'm not saying that was the case here. I have no idea what record this guy had. But I have no doubt that a company as large as Coca-Cola is going to make a point to carefully vet the drivers of their delivery trucks.

It's not like with Domino's back when they had their "30 minutes or it's free" policy which of course encouraged their delivery folk to drive recklessly if they were running late. There, it was a no-brainer that Domino's was liable when one of their drivers struck somebody.


The 350 lawsuits resulted in
settlements totaling more than $150 million. In the end, Valley Coca-Cola paid some $144 million in
claims of which lawyers took an estimated $50
million. Families who lost children received about
$4.5 million from Valley Coca-Cola for each child
who perished while the 60 children who survived
each received an estimated $500,000 to $900,000.
 
2012-07-30 02:42:00 PM  

Sticky Hands:
6- Civilian contractors.

Also problematic. You could get more volunteers here, but the number has to be huge for it to be impactful. This also comes with a huge cost. Those who are smart enough to know where the firearms actually are would likely not be inclined to sign on for the job, so you're back to drafting.
7- Assembly and manufacture dispersed to multiple states in order to secure contracts. This already exists. It's great in terms of fighting a conventional war as you don't have significant exposure if a plant is lost as well as lots of excess capacity. However, it also makes security much more difficult. Since the battles aren't normally fought on our shores, it's not been a big deal. In something like this, however, it's much more difficult to deal with. All those plants and people resisting in subtle ways. How do you chase it down? And then how do you prove it? Thing of the manpower involved to try and police that.

And that's why you use the police. Already adversarial to the public since they deal with nothing but angry assholes all day, just make it impossible to get though the day without breaking a law, and make the police into revenue collectors. then the public hates to see the police, and the police hate them back.

It will be a police state, not a military state.


Which does get closer, but the police in much of America aren't at odds with most of the people. They're friends and neighbors. They may also be inclined to help the resistance - at which point it becomes even more difficult as you've now got to police the police.

I don't think it's even intentional, just that all the pieces are all going to be there, and some enterprising person is going to be the glue. I do think that red team and blue team sense it though... they fight so hard to be sure they they are in place then it finally happens.

I think it's going to be one of the red vs blue deals, if it happens. They've both shown strongly authoritarian streaks when given a chance and, in all honesty, they're both close enough on the substantive pieces that they're somewhat interchangeable outside of a few key wedge issues.
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report