Journalism

5 Rules for Coping with Tragedy

|

Early last year a senseless mass shooting played out in Arizona. And much like the reaction to that tragedy, journalists and politicians have begun to jump to conclusions surrounding the recent murders in Colorado. Therefore, It seems appropriate to reaquant ourselves with a few simple rules from a 2011 ReasonTV post.

Here is the orginal text from the video:

Tragedies like the mass shooting in Tucson at a public event organized by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) are horrifying enough on their own, but they also have a way of bringing out the worst in reporters and politicians.

In fact, knee-jerk reactions often leave us with misconceptions and bad policies that stick around long after the healing has begun.

And so Reason.tv presents: 5 Rules for Coping with Tragedy

Approximately 2.45 minutes

NEXT: Where are the Jobs? The Parallels Between Today and the Great Depression

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. http://news.yahoo.com/calls-gu…..19718.html

    Puke-inducing, noxious pile of bullshit excuse for an article. What a fucking blast.

    1. I) “Gun control advocates sputter at their own impotence. The National Rifle Association is politically ascendant. And Barack Obama’s White House pledges to safeguard the Second Amendment in its first official response to the deaths of at least 12 people in a mass shooting at a new Batman movie screening in suburban Denver.”

      II) “”Everyone is scared of the NRA,” he said on MSNBC. “Number one, there are some things worth losing for in politics and to be able to prevent carnage like this is worth losing for.””

      III) “Yet it’s been more than a decade since gun control advocates had a realistic hope of getting the type of legislation they seek, despite predictions that each shocking outburst of violence would lead to action.”

      IV) “In 1994, Congress approved a 10-year ban on 19 types of military-style assault weapons. Some Democrats quickly came to believe the legislation contributed to their loss of the House a few months later.”

      Where (on about 500,000 different occasions) have I read this shit?

      1. I love how it is the evil NRA like anyone would give a shit about the NRA if there wasn’t millions of Americans willing to vote to preserve the second amendment. These people just can’t admit that their policies are unpopular.

        1. I remember on 9/11 I could almost sixth-sense feel Brady-clowns ramping up with morbid glee for Big Mother gun control…until it came out box-cutters were the tools hijackers used. I think that much as anything put a sock in gun-control for this generation.

          Nothing gets people killed en masse like lambs to the slaughter than when they literally act like sheep.

    2. In terms of electoral politics, Harry Wilson, a Roanoke College professor and author of a book on gun politics, said violent crime has been declining in recent years and, “It becomes increasingly difficult to make the argument that we need stricter gun control laws.”

      Maybe that means we DON’T need stricter gun control laws, professor.

    3. The fact that this tragedy doesn’t have the public at large screaming for gubmit to do something makes me think there just might be hope for America’s future.

    1. The piece isn’t as horrible as I expected, but the comments are godawful.

      1. I think it summed up the tragedy cycle quite nicely, and ignoring the author’s apparent disappointment that no laws have been passed it was good read.

        As for the comments, I submit this beacon of ignorance:

        What about common sense regulation that would at least have the effect of reducing the carnage? In the Second Amendment “arms” is not defined. A lot of the Bill of Rights is written in general terms; they HAD to put trust in future generations to deal with situations as they arose. 50 caliber sniper rifles? 100 round drum magazine on the military style assault rifle the killer in Aurora used? 30 round magazines for automatic pistols? Can you see the insanity in allowing this? Anticipating the argument that they’ll get them anyway, I submit that control can be established if anyone convicted of selling them is put in prison until they rot.

        The founding documents outline how we will share power. When you stock your own personal arsenal it’s a statement that power sharing isn’t good enough. When the scary black man was elected president most available personal defense weapons and ammunition disappeared from the shelves. Was he coming to take them away? No. That was projection.

        Rank fear in the home of the brave.

        1. I died a little bit inside.

        2. Sadly, that is one of the more coherent ones.

  2. Again, maybe Reason should take its own advice in regard to police shootings.

    1. cant tell if serios

  3. http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sourc…..34899.html

    AURORA, Colo. (AP) ? The semiautomatic assault rifle used by the gunman in a mass shooting at a midnight showing of the latest Batman movie jammed…

    —————

    That’s when I stopped reading.

    1. It reminds me when the supposes oxycontin plague was hitting the streets every reporter would refer to oxycodone as a “synthetic form of heroin”. What? Really?

      Reason staff excluded, reporters are too dumb to handle the responsibility of providing the news. Fuck man, can’t we just clone Radley Balko and staff the papers with the results.

      1. We wish, dude. There was some vapid dipshit on TV today trying to explain how “semiautomatic assault weapons have high-caliber chambering and are really dangerous military weapons.” He then dove into a lecture about how the US is the most violent country in the developed world because GUNS!HYSTERIA!SANDYVAGINAHURRR!

        It’s fucking stupendous that these people have any sort of credibility. And they’re going to keep coming on and on and on and on for weeks, since there’s a fresh tragedy to exploit.

      2. Also, some British guy was saying how in England, a man can feel safe in the streets, whereas Americans must cower and tremble because thugs are armed because LAX GUN LAWS.

        Do words like ‘knowledge’ or ‘fact’ even feature in their dictionaries?

        1. The comments to the story aren’t as bad as one would think. Not like a CNN story, christ.

          Here’s a good one:

          Those super high capacity magazines sound terrifying and are great for parting suckers from several hundred dollars but they almost never function in in real life. No surprise his jammed.

          True.

          1. Particularly the ones you can get on a grad student budget. Dollars to donuts this guy had never shot the AR with that magazine in it before, as that would attract a lot of unwanted attention at a range open to the public.

        2. I did some trembling this morning…it was before my morning caffiene however, so its hard to read into it.

          1. The dipshit’s probably never seen crime statistics for our respective countries, and how much more violent than ours his is.

            1. what, the English aren’t all Hugh Grants?

              1. Shocker, right? Not only are they the most violent in Europe, they also managed to surpass South Africa in the rankings. South mother-fucking Africa.

                The irony is shit-thick.

        3. Despite the fact that violent crime in the UK is several times what it is here.

          1. Want a mental assault for dessert?

            US Violent Crime Rate: 475 per 100,000 citizens
            (Year: 2003 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html )

            UK Violent Crime Rate: 4,100 per 100,000 citizens
            (Year: 2003 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/r…..lr1804.pdf )

            That’s their peak in 2002-2003, still much, much, much higher than in the US either way.

        4. Also, some British guy was saying how in England, a man can feel safe in the streets

          Better to be stabbed than shot, eh?

          1. Only if you’re more likely to survive the stabbing.

    2. In fairness, an AR 15 is an “assult rifle”. I have always understood the term “assualt rifle” to not refer to it being automatic. But instead the term refers to a rifle that fires rounds in between a pistol load and a rifle load.

      Long guns that fire pistol loads are carbines. Long tuns that fire full rifle rounds are rifles. Long guns that fire an inbetween load are “assault rifles”.

      1. do any assault rifles (purchasable, not modified) still fire automatic bursts? I thought that all guns in sold condition on the market fire one shot per trigger pull. Is this correct?

        1. Unless you have a major federal fire arms’ license. Yes.

          1. so semi-automatic is a complete misnomer, because every gun would be semi-automatic then.

            1. so semi-automatic is a complete misnomer, because every gun would be semi-automatic then.

              Nope. Bolt-action rifles are good example of a weapon with nothing automatic at all. Pump-action weapons are another. And who can’t love some muzzle-loading Daniel Boone shit?

              Functionally, revolvers are ‘semi-automatic’ with one-shot-per-trigger pull. But anything ‘auto’ regarding guns refers specifically to bits and pieces of the gun using the gun’s combustion gasses to work the gun (eject cartridges and load rounds or whatever).

              1. Ok, so typical pistols (glock) are semi-automatic compared to a bolt-action or pump action gun, but the term semi-automatic always seems to act as a scare quote to get “automatic” into the conversation. A AR-15 is no more automatic than a typical pistol, yet are talked about in much worse terms.

              2. In a revolver, the next round is moved into the chamber by the shooter’s own muscle power, so it’s not semi-automatic. Even though in DA that’s all part of the process of pulling the trigger, of course.

          2. You don’t need an FFL to own a full auto. You need an NFA tax stamp, and the gun has to have been registered prior to 1986.

            If the gun was manufactured after 1986, THEN you would need an FFL, and you could only have the gun as a demonstration model and you’d need to have an active business of selling guns to the military and police.

          3. Wrong. You do not need an FFL to purchase an automatic weapon, just a lot of cash.

            1. And a background check.

            2. My understanding is that this varies by state.

      2. You know who else called them assault rifles?

        No really:

        The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally “storm rifle”, as in “to storm a position”). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[3] to describe the Maschinenpistole 43, subsequently renamed Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today’s modern assault rifles.

        1. And general Naked, do you know what bay the Sturmgewehr an assualt rifle as opposed to a machine gun? The Germans looked at the results in combat and concluded that soldiers rarely kill anyone at long range. At the same time, carbines and submachine guns didn’t have quite enough killing power or range. So they compromised and came up with a mid sized load that was lighter than a full rifle round (enabling the soldier to carry more rounds) but heavier than a pistol round (giving the weapon better range and stopping power than a carbine). Thus was born the “assault rifle”. And an AR 15 is descended dirctly from the Sturmgeweh 44.

          1. See the wiki didn’t have that info, pretty interesting.

            And now that you say it it seems like such common sense but it took a lot of years for somebody to actually think of it.

            1. Another concept that plays into assault-rifles is the rounds-per-kill. In WWII, we were finding it took thousands of infantry rounds expended to actually kill someone.

              Make cheaper low-powered rounds and the kill-ratio stays the same. So you want to spray them (drive the bullet count up on one side of the ratio) hence auto and burst-modes etc.

              Plus, for the same number of rounds its less weight for Beetle Bailey to lug around – indeed lighter through the whole logistics chain.

              And the military’s bean-counters just love all that kind of shit.

      3. It requires select-fire capability, necessarily including automatic fire. Point is, these people know as much about firearms as they do about economics — that is, nothing at all.

        1. By some definitions yes. But I go by the traditional definition, which defines it by the round it fires.

          1. That’s never been the traditional definition, to my knowledge.

      4. Every definition of assault rifle that I can find includes that it must be capable of both semiautomatic and full automatic fire. So while caliber is important, so is function.

      5. Wrong! An Assault Rifle, as defined by DOD is a medium caliber, SELECTIVE FIRE individual rifle. “Assault Rifle” as you are using is a Brady talking point. Get with the program John.

      6. In fairness, an AR 15 is an “assult rifle”. I have always understood the term “assualt rifle” to not refer to it being automatic. But instead the term refers to a rifle that fires rounds in between a pistol load and a rifle load.

        Firing intermediate cartridges is part of it, the other part being capable of firing in either fully automatic or 3 round bursts.

  4. Some stronger suggestions;

    1) Assume that all reports that come out sooner than six months after the tragedy will be wrong in every important particular. Such an assumption won’t be wrong often enough to matter.

    2) Any legislation proposed in the wake of a tragedy will be either a long standing hobbyhorse that could not, for good reason, have been passed without a general panic or a badly written mess certain to cause more trouble than the tragedy itself. Often both.

    3) Any politician who uses a tragedy to further his personal agenda is an unprincipled hack who should be separated from public office at the first opportunity.

    4) In the wake of any tragedy will come a flood of self-appointed experts desperate to impress the public by taking the situation ‘seriously’; such people are seldom helpful and often a hinderance. They should be made pariahs.

    5) Attempts to depict the victims of a tragedy as saints or the perpetrators and demons dehumanizes them and hinders any real attempt to understand causes and possible safeguards. People are not caricatures, and solutions that would work to prevent the intentions of an evil caricature will not work in the real world on real people.

    1. 1a) Editorials will be written by shocked, saddened, and dismayed pundits that would like to address the readership, not as a reporter but as a parent and as an American, to advocate for sensible, common sense, long overdue legislation so that one more child won’t have to die.

      1. If it saves just one child, it will all have been worth it.

        WE ARE ALL SMALL SCHOOLKIDS NOW.

        1. Speaking as a parent, and as an American I am shocked and dismayed at your flippancy during this time of crisis. The NRA is holding this great nation hostage and preventing sensible, common sense legislation that would have prevented anything bad from happening ever.

          1. I, too, speaking as a modern American parent of a small modern American child in modern America, wish to see my child protected by common-sense, common, logical, reasonable, logically reasonable, reasonably logical and commonsense streetsweeper assault gun cannon bans and hollow-cap assault bullet restrictions.

            Commonsense and sensible commonsense gun control child-saver legislation is commonsense and sensible.

            /IRL concern-troll eloquence

            1. Don’t forget those evil teflon coated, cop-killer bullets that are taking out the brave men and women in blue like the plague.

              1. The are especially bad when fired from a Saturday Night Special.

                1. what goes on on saturday evening that requires a saturday night special. You would think that most angering events occur during the week.

                2. On that’s got a barrel that blue and cold?

                  1. The term “Saturday Night Special” is a Racist take on the term “Nigger Town Saturday Night”. A phrase used commonly in the early 20th century by Police in the south to describe the criminal activities that occured, usually on Saturday when folks were drinking, in the poorer parts of town.

                    1. Seems like Friday night would be more violent, but I never grew up in poorer parts of town, maybe they were too exhausted then.

          2. Then propose an amendment to the Constitution that would make gun control Constitutional. I am far more worried by people who think that the Constitutional Limits (whatever may remain) on the powers of the State should be ignored if they interfere with an emotional agenda. If Gun Control is so important, then treat it as important enough to justify the work necessary to pass an amendment.

            1. The Constitution is about 130 years old and not written in English.

              “Thou art ruffian infringed bear arms secure in their persons”, or whatever the hell it says on that silly old piece of paper, ain’t English, bruh.

              /Ezra Klein

              1. A) If you seriously can’t understand the English of the Constitution, then you should sue your schoolteachers for malpractice.

                B) What you posted isn’t in English, either, which reinforces point A) above.

                1. Note the /Ezra Klein tag. I wasn’t being serious.

    2. Ive said before that any “event” that leads to a change in the law should require a 1 year waiting period before the law can be voted on.

      Exceptions can be made for acts of war, obviously.

  5. Warty said it best. Any tragedy is sure to confirm all of my pre-existing biases and beliefs.

  6. Have a dose of Gail Collins brand stupid. Although her lamentations and tears are quite yummy.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07……html?_r=1

    1. Bad, just so so bad. Yeah Gail, you fucking hack piece of shit, anti-gun nuts are just like those black kids getting dogs sicced on them in the ’60s south. That is one thing that pisses me off more than anything: comparing your pet cause to an actual example of oppression. Hey Gail, why don’t you just come out and say that the NRA are nazis and that gun control advocates are the people they fed into the ovens, you ass of a woman.

      Fuck her and her stoopid face.

      Oh and it’s funny the anti-gun nut’s name is Mauser.

      1. One of these days some clown is going to homebrew a flamethrower and wander into theater/school/Micky-D’s and I wonder what the AK-criers will say about that.

        “BAN ORGANIC COMPOUNDS!” or “BAN HYDRAULICS AND PNEUMATICS!” or go for the Hail Mary and “BAN TOOLS!” I mean, where do you go here if you have the Ban it! gene?

        1. Yeah, you’ll have to wait five days and pass a background check to buy one of these.

          “The mentally disturbec shouldn’t be allowed to buy matches! Common sense legislahuuur!”

    2. Exceptional. This level of developmental retardation should be an impediment to employment in media. Vapid prohibitionist sack of shit.

      1. She’s an ADA hire.

    3. “This is the only time you have the opportunity that people will listen to you,” said Representative Carolyn McCarthy, who has spent her entire legislative career fruitlessly attempting to do something about assault weapons that allow crazy people to easily mow down a flock of victims in a couple of minutes.

      Not sure if it was intentional, but if it is, the last sentence reveals Gail’s mentality. The people are sheep and they need a strong shepherd (like her) to tell them what do, or some wolf armed with an assault weapon will mow them down.

      Oh, and FEAR! DOOM! DESPAIR!

    4. Congress has, in recent years, refused to consider laws that would ban the sale of assault weapons capable of firing 100 bullets without reloading, and declined to allow the attorney general to restrict people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing weapons.

      I didn’t know about that last one, but not in the way she expects. Considering that the watch list is completely managed by the executive branch with no oversight and no recourse to get off of it, not allowing anyone on it to purchase weapons would be an obvious violation of the 2nd amendment.

    5. But presidential candidates look at this issue and see the same thing other elected officials do: a rich, fierce, loopy lobby on one side, and, on the other, people with petitions, slogging along.

      Well at least we agree on one thing.

  7. Okay, so I was reading the wiki page on assault weapons, specifically the ones included in the ban and it says that one of the characteristics of a bannable gun was a barrel shroud.

    Why put that on there? Is is because they make the gun look more military-y?Did they think that someone might not go on a rampage if they thought they might burn their hand on the top of the barrel in the commission of their mayhem?

    Same thing with the pistol grip. The mind, it boggles.

      1. Wow, that’s scary. I thought there was at least some sort of rational behind it.

        Guess not.

        1. There was a video out once (tried to find it on Ytube) where an instructor stands behind a table containing two guns of idenical make, one a hunting rifle (and not covered by the AW ban) and an obvious “assault” weapon (indeed covered by the ban).
          As he talks about the ban he moves the fire supressor, front handle, 30 round clip, retractable stock and bipod from the assault rifle and installs them on the hunting rifle, turning each into the other.
          Takes him abouit 2 1/2 minutes.

    1. It really isn’t exaggeration to say that the people proposing these sorts of laws don’t know anything about the thing they’re attempting to regulate or ban. They’re fucking idiots.

      1. On the contrary, the people proposing the laws know a fair amount. They count on the general populace not knowing much. They propose laws that sound like they ban military grade weapons (which are already tightly controlled) and include a scattereshot of characteristics broad enough that they can apply the law to just about any firearm they don’t like … and they don’t like any of them.

    2. Why do you have to pay $200 just to be allowed to buy hearing protection?

      Most gun control laws are completely retarded.

      1. That’s definitely a ‘watched too many movies’ law. They think that a suppressor makes the gun go ‘p’tchwee p’tchwee’ and inaudible in the room over.

        1. Whoa, found this gun it actually works almost like that. Neat.

        2. The sad thing is, it isn’t. Suppressors were regulated with the 1934 National Firearm Act (along with short barreled rifles/shotguns and full autos).

          It was actually an anti-poaching measure; or at least, that was the rationale. I’m pretty sure the only reason it has survived is because of movies, though.

          1. The real reason was there were all these G-Men who used to enforce Prohibition who needed something new to regulate.

            Actually, the real reason was that FDR was an authoritarian fuckstick who lived far longer then he deserved.

            1. The whole handgun “registration” law was a farce. Enacted to “protect” handgun consumers. What you received after visiting the sheriff with your new purchase was a “Safety Registration Certificate”.
              I scoffed at this after purchasing a Blackhawk .44mag and wanted to know how the deputy could determine it was “safe” without firing it. He said their indoor range wouldn’t handle the magnum load.

      2. I was ready to be outraged until I saw what you’re calling “hearing protection”.

        If you have to use an unusual definition of a term to make your point, it’s probably not a good point.

        1. You know Tulpa, you can be an outright dumbass sometimes.

          What the fuck do you think that suppressors were designed for? They’re essentially the same thing as a muffler for a car. Their original intended use was to protect the ears of the operator, plain and simple. Thus, they’re a form of hearing protection.

          1. Here are some old ads that prove my point:

            http://www.aacblog.com/wp-cont…..ont-pg.jpg

            http://rlv.zcache.com/vintage_…..2q_400.jpg

            Notice the emphasis on noise reduction and that these ads were targeted at target shooters.

            Hiram Maxim was the guy who invented suppressors. I think I’ll take his word for what they were designed for over yours, Tulpa.

            1. It should also be noted that several European nations, such as Norway, Finland, and fucking Great Britain, either don’t regulated suppressors at all (Finland and Norway) or only do so lightly. In Great Britain, they even encourage people to use mufflers for sporting purposes as it reduces noise pollution and the litigation that can surround it.

        2. That’s pretty stupid, Tulpa. Even in Europe, it’s considered rude to shoot without a sound suppressor.

    3. Yeah, and don’t forget bayonet lugs – that is another thing that the AWB banned. As if we really have to worry about drive by bayonetings.

      As I understand it, when they were adopting the list, Feinstein, in trying to point out a folding stock, said “the shoulder thing that goes up…” Those were banned too.

  8. The fact that it’s called ‘gun control’ should give you an idea of what it’s really about: it is not about making the country safer, it’s about creating a false sense of security for people who worship government. Liberals get off on being able to control the world using their favorite tool, government. That’s why most calls for gun control are from people who don’t know jack shit about guns and use ridiculous arguments.

  9. I’m wondering if we’ll find out whether Holmes was on psychiatric medications.

  10. http://news.yahoo.com/shooting…..19340.html

    Shooting suspect’s gun range membership rejected

    1. It’s annoying how they keep taking the same story and adding stuff on top of it and giving it a new headline. That said, I’d like to hear his “bizarre ? guttural, freakish at best” voicemail to the gun club.

      1. It was his voicemail announcement that the gun club guy heard when calling him, not the other way around.

        Probably doing some Joker thing.

      2. The Gun Club

        For no reason other than it may be the single best thing on youtube.

  11. I was THIS close to unfriending a batch of FB idiot commenters today, but gave it a rest. It is nearing the point where I literally can’t stand to read teh stoopid any more.

    I’d feel a lot better if I could put about 500 rounds downrange, but the gun club’s closed today….:(

    1. You could always “unfriend” people the old fashioned way. /sarc

    2. Dude. do what I did and just stop logging in to Facebook. 7 months ago.

    3. Ha! My progressive libtard fb friends would get eaten alive if they started spouting off in favor of gun control and by people who never participate in political discussions.Yankees,college faculty, Marxists, expats… no matter where they live now they all have some deep connection to The REAL AMERICA Dixie or they probably wouldn’t be people I’ve actually known. Quite a few are very pro-2nd amendment even if they are anti-private property. I logged in just to be sure

  12. The craziest thing I’ve read about the Batman shootings:

    http://www.naturalnews.com/036….._flag.html

    1. Actually the article makes some valid points. Ones I had been thinking since he surrendered and told the police his apartment was booby trapped. Why would a guy who just murdered 12 people (and to his knowledge possibly many more) suddenly get a conscience about killing his cops and neighbors with explosives he set specifically for that purpose?

      Kinda weird…

    2. How does an unemployed medical student afford $20,000 in weapons gear?

      NIH grants.I doubt he had more than $5k in that shit. The latest report I’ve seen (grain of salt) is that the tactical gear was an attempt to blend in with the SWAT team when they showed up. Supposedly the cops thought he was a “brother in blue” until one noticed something off and arrested him.

    3. This is some Alex Jones shit and it makes me laugh, but the whole way he gave up at the end and didn’t let the police blow up in his house is really inconsistent behavior.

      1. I usually agree that Alex Jones sucks…

        but this time is different. Just think that four years ago, if i said that the DOJ was giving thousands of guns to drug cartels you would have called me crazy..

        Just saying.

  13. Approximately 2.45 seconds

    If only.

  14. the media is absolutely running with this. Fox is saying that violent entertainment needs to be banned; CNN and the rest of the goons say guns AND violent entertainment needs to be banned….

    Remember this, Fast and Furious didnt pan out like the DOJ and Obama wanted it to.

    I fear the assault weapons ban is being dug back up by the trendies and soccer moms…it will be back in a few weeks

    1. *Northern Trendies

  15. All these incidents are just giving america a new direction and that is gun control.

  16. fact, knee-jerk reactions often leave us http://www.ceinturesfr.com/cei…..-c-27.html with misconceptions and bad policies that stick around long after the healing has begun.

    And so Reason.tv

  17. It really saddens me that not one single movie goer was carrying a firearm. Had jsut one person been carrying, they could have dropped that loser on the spot and saved lives.

    http://www.fun-anon.tk

  18. as Norma implied I am amazed that some people able to make $4245 in 4 weeks on the internet. did you look at this web site makecash16com

  19. What happened to masculinity in this society? In a room with probably a 100 or more men could not 2 or 3 of them said “We are going to take this guy.” The lives that could have been saved… Makes me respect what the Flight 93 people did even more.

    1. Completely different scenerio. On Flight 93, the assailants were armed with box cutters not guns. The passengers had a good amount of time to discuss things and plan their counter assault together, and they were unlikely to feel like their lives were about to end any second.

      In the movie theatre survival instincts kicked in and people did was natural, they tried to save themselves.

      1. Ayup. Nihlist has obviously never been surprised at deafening gunfire inside a room (regardless how large), nor heard the snap of a round close to his ear.

  20. This is a tragedy ! When you are faced with the tragedy , you will how to deal with ?

    Welcome to our custombeatsbydredanmark.com and purchase your favorite custom beats by dre!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.