The local reports state that the movie hadn't even started yet when this happened.
They also say that it was in the middle of the previews, and that the shooter was a 71 year old man who was physically assaulted by the texter after the 71 year old had reported the texter to the theater management. If something were escalating to a physical altercation with someone 30 years younger than you, and you were a little old guy with a gun, would you take the beating, or would you shoot?
Interesting, that does not tally with the following, which I presume is from the same witness : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yLeDpfQDVI
In that he states he did not see who through the popcorn.
Another study just came out showing that increased gun ownership actually lowers the murder rate and lower gun ownership does the opposite. We have multiple points of confirmation and there are a few skeptical politicians that are starting to come around.
The old truism is confirmed. Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have them.
Does Chicago have a violence problem? Yes. Gun bans are not the solution.
What study? Can you please provide a link to it.
Saddam considered the Iranians to be a strategic threat to Iraq and discounted the possibility that the West & UN would act against him in a forceful manner. As a result Saddam had his government continue to act as if they still had WMDs to fool the Iranians after they had secretly disposed of their VX nerve gas after previous fooling the inspectors. (It sounds stupid, but that was Saddam.) Saddam's strategic deception was such a success that he was invaded for it.
That was not the reason for the invasion, it was a political decision, that was merely the excuse for the decision. That is all beside the point, I was referring to the report that the UK Government revealed to the Members of Parliament and the UK people to justify the war, all the cautions that the security services had about the evidence were removed. Alistair Cambell, Tony Blair's spin doctor was heavily involved in that process, despite having no knowledge of either the security services or WMD.
If it makes you feel any better, there were unfilled chemical warheads found for Iraq's long range missiles. With a native chemical industry that had previous experience making chemical agents they could have been filled in the future. The disarmament agencies also recovered a number of anthrax bombs. I'm sure there is more. And the other causes of action were still true, such as the massacres of the Kurds - a crime against humanity, and Iraq's support for terrorism.
Yes, the remnants of Chemical weapons were found, all of which dates from the 80's and early 90's, and all of which tallied with the UN Inspectors reports about them decommissioned in the mid 90's (from memory I see to recall 1995). am aware of the Anfal pogroms, then again I was aware of them in the late 1980's, but as prior to the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam was the West's "friend" in the region, that was ignored by the Western governments, as were the reports that he used chemical weapons against the Iranians during the Iran Iraq war.
If only there was proof. At this point the British believe that the Chinese, the Russians, or both, have copies of all the documents that Snowden took.
Who believes that? The security services or the Politicians? I cannot help but remember that prior to the Iraq war the UK's security services produced reports on WMD in Iraq that were full of cautions about the evidence, these cautions were subsequently removed as the report was doctored, or "firmed up" as it was referred to, when the Politicians and their advisor's got involved when trying to make a case for war,
if the politician already believed it was necessary, there would be no need to pay them.
The money is used for their election... if they don't have money, they don't advertise enough, people don't vote for them, someone who has different views ends up in office.
In the UK, the amount that Political Parties can spend on elections, at local and national level, is a fraction of what the US spends on its elections, so we do not get much in the way of Political advertising compared to you in the states. That being said, it is over 30 years since I became old enough to vote in elections, and during that time I have seen quite a few Political advertisements, in all those years, never once has any advertisement caused me to change the way I vote, at most a political advertisement will cause me to research a point raised during it.
Do people really change the way they vote just because of advertising, or lack thereof?
They should punish all involved in NHS Surrey. Hit them where it hurts, final warnings, no pay rises, no promotions, no pension contribution for the year.
they used to do this in the military decades ago. the result was that lots of soldiers would get robbed on pay day. the thieves would wait for them outside the base
Many years ago in my city there was a large construction project that was adjacent to the City's red light district. The construction workers were all paid in cash every friday, and the prostitutes used to line up nearby waiting for them...
Using the UK price of approx £1.40 per liter, and the Sterling to USD exchange rate quoted on xe.com, it would cost £95.34 or $147.13 to fill a 15-gallon tank in the UK.
You never had it so good...
You are confusing uk gallons with US Gallons. There are 3.78541 Liters to a US Gallon, whereas in the UK it is 4.54609 liters to a gallon.
Tony Blair made 'silence' an explicit indicator of guilt that could be used as part of the prosecution case.
I believe that is incorrect, that change happened in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Tony Blair and the Labour Party did not enter office until May 1st 1997. The amendment was made under the Government of John Major.
People often try to blame the police in court to get off easy, and the police always has to prove they didn't use undue violence during the arrest. So videos are a good idea.
Does this actually occur? I know that in the UK, blaming the police would not help a person to get off, indeed it is more likely to increase any sentence. As for the police having to prove they did not use violence / excessive force, the UK courts seem to except to almost always accept the word of the Police regardless of how far-fetched the Police version of events is. It is only when there is overwhelming independent evidence of the violence / excessive force that the authorities / courts look at the allegations.
It's a cop-out, nothing more.
Display the time in GMT. State that the time is in GMT. Offer a drop down menu showing "-12h" to "+12h", save the option in a cookie. Or don't. No one from the licence fee paying British public would mind if it only showed British time.
Use someone else's time server. There are plenty to pick from. No need to run your own.
It took me 2 minutes to type this. Who wants to implement it by Friday?
GMT is only "British time" for half of the year. From the last Sunday in March to the last Sunday in October, we are on British Summer Time, which is GMT + 1. Given how many people get confused over summer / daylight savings time, I am sure that setting the BBC clock to GMT all year round would generate a lot of complaints.
This may be helpful:
Is it helpful? The answer is no. I produce reputable links to show that there is a difference between what the UK & the USA classifies as Violent crime and you produce a partisan link that is long on rhetoric but short on citations. Perhaps in my (admittedly) skimming of the article I missed the citations to the raw data that was mentioned...
As for the assertion that "since handguns were banned in 1998, handgun crime has more than doubled." Do you have a citation for that? As yet, I have been unable to find any information prior to 2000/2001. The link I did find shows that there was an increase from 2000/2001 that peaked in 2003 / 2004 and has fallen substantially since then.
Firearm Offences in England & Wales :
Data involves ALL crimes involving a firearm.
Page 23 of http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb1109chap3.pdf
Page 5 of http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb1210chap1.pdf
Page 55 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116483/hosb0212.pdf
It is accurate to state that in England and Wales "A separate offence is recorded for each victim of homicide, so that in an incident in which several people are killed, the number of homicides counted is the total number of persons killed". However it would appear that the FBI also records Homicides based on the number of Victims, not the number of people involved in committing the Homicide, so I am not sure how we are substantially under reporting the issue when compared to the USA.
England & Wales :
Footnote 1, page 32 : https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116483/hosb0212.pdf