home

Details Regarding Colorado Shooting Suspect

CNN reports that James Holmes, the suspect who is believed to have attacked moviegoers at last night's opening of the latest Batman movie at an Aurora, Colorado multiplex, killing 12 and injuring around 50, is a Ph. D. candidate in neuroscience. Earlier reports state that Holmes was a former medical student at the University of Colorado in Denver. CNN also reports that Holmes was in the process of withdrawing from school prior to last night's events.

Holmes, a 24 year old white male, allegedly used gas canisters, an assault rifle and two hand guns in his attack.

< Friday Morning Open Thread | Al Green: Unamerican? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The media is certainly being helpful today (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Farmboy on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 04:12:58 PM EST
    MSNBC's amateur profilers think Holmes was motivated by Star Trek to kill all those people. Cause, you know, Star Trek is a big hit with the psychopath set.

    ABC did a google search on his name. Course, they cautioned folks that it probably wasn't the same person. Then they hid under the bed when they found out they were right - it wasn't.

    The Ailes' Empire believes Holmes is simultaniously: a card-carrying member of OWS, a card-carrying Black Bloc terrorist, a card-carrying anarchist, a card-carrying Democrat, a liberal plant, and Obama's biggest supporter.

    I'm sorry, I should have said the media is certainly not being helpful today. After sixteen hours of constant talking we have lots of data about the shooter, yet somehow I doubt that any of it is accurate.

    We disagree alot, Farmboy (none / 0) (#110)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 04:43:09 PM EST
    From what I've read of your posts. But not in this case. What a funny and accurate summary of the news reporting.

    I remember all the misinformation about Loughner when he first shot the Congresswoman. This seems to be similar.

    Parent

    You forgot (none / 0) (#137)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 09:01:47 PM EST

    to mention ABC's false claim that Holmes was in the Tea Party/

    Parent
    Not really (none / 0) (#171)
    by Farmboy on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 12:39:36 PM EST
    ABC did a google search on his name. Course, they cautioned folks that it probably wasn't the same person. Then they hid under the bed when they found out they were right - it wasn't.


    Parent
    They actually issued an apology ... (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:31:13 PM EST
    ... even though they clearly stated they did not know if it was the same person.  Personally, I think they should have waited until they were sure.

    Parent
    Bottom line (none / 0) (#176)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:40:42 PM EST

    The bottom line is they falsely associated Holmes with the Tea Party.  The correction was later.  Ross had no good reason to utter the two words "tea Party" at all.  It says far more about Ross's motivation than anything else.

    Parent
    Yeah ... it says ... (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:23:38 PM EST
    ... that Ross, like every other journalist, was trying to find out as much as he could/as fast as he could about the shooter.

    The rest is just your imagination.

    Parent

    To to find out about the shooter (none / 0) (#179)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:14:03 PM EST

    He chose to check out the Tea party!  That seems more consistent with trying to hang the motivation on the Tea Party.  About like Palin's "contribution" to the Gifford shooting.

    Parent
    He chose to ... (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 08:01:21 AM EST
    .. run an internet search for Jim Homes in Aurora Colorado, as opposed to doing a search for "Tea Party" and going through thousands (millions?) of results looking for a name and location that matched the suspect.

    Parent
    Repent ye, Repent ye! (none / 0) (#181)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 11:05:08 AM EST
    For the world is ending, and the Lord is Good.

    Well, it must be ending or someplace hot must be pretty darn cold right now for I find myself in 100 percent agreement with Yman on something.

    Yes, the press should be more responsible. Except for getting people information that could help them or save them as fast as possible, the media should take a more measured attitude when things like this happen.

    Parent

    Colorado is our home (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 06:50:11 PM EST
    I'm glad I had to be busy today.  I feel numb.  My husband is livid though.  Nobody needs to own a gun of any kind that can do that much damage that quickly and easily.  It has been something that has driven him crazy for years now.  Even if someone in the audience had a gun too, you're going to gun down someone who is laying down military style suppression fire?

    And now Josh is afraid to go to (none / 0) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 06:50:57 PM EST
    the damned movie, we are scheduled to go tomorrow night with friends.

    Parent
    NYT says the preview, which was (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 07:09:20 PM EST
    axed now, is for a movie in which someone mows down a bunch of people in a movie theater.

    Parent
    My husband woke me up this morning (none / 0) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 07:18:22 PM EST
    telling me what happened, but I had too much to do so I kept the T.V. off.  Listening to the reports now.  Some of the kids ran two miles to their friends home that they went with....ran

    Parent
    Perhaps this time (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by Tov on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 10:29:28 PM EST
    we wil not allow the NRA to hold elected officials hostage and the American public will demand common sense laws. Is it common sense that someone can buy the amount and caliber of weapons, ammo and clips in a three month period? In some states this man could legally enter a theatre armed as he was...sad...so  very sad. Professor Lawrence Tribe affirms that the Constitution does not quarantee such rights under the Second Ammendment. Common sense. I pray for the victims, their families and the United States of America.

    Dear internet people (none / 0) (#164)
    by cboldt on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:25:47 AM EST
    Hold the anti-gun talk, too.  It invites rebuttal.

    Parent
    Common sense (none / 0) (#177)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:46:38 PM EST
    .

    In some states this man could legally enter a theatre armed as he was...sad...so  very sad.

    So is it common sense to assume that if it had been illegal for him to enter the theater armed as he was that he would have been dissuaded from committing multiple murders?

    BTW, I took my son hunting once and we bought two guns in the same day!!!!!

    .

    Parent

    Don't know if people are still in this thread... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by magster on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:34:59 PM EST
    ... heard some interesting tidbits that reflect well on the Aurora Police Department. One is that after Columbine, police procedure changed from setting up a perimeter and/or waiting for backup, that police now run to gunfire regardless of consequences or whether someone has your back. Apparently, the police reacted and apprehended the gunman pretty quickly.

    Also, they were trained to get wounded to hospitals immediately and not wait for ambulances. Doctors are crediting the police with saving a few lives by just throwing wounded into patrol cars and driving to the nearest emergency room.

    And, how f'ed up is the booby trapped apartment?

    I would wager that (none / 0) (#160)
    by Tov on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 12:49:49 AM EST
    if you asked the police chief and his men what they think about current gun laws...we might be surprised.

    Parent
    extremely irrelevant and (none / 0) (#162)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:08:33 AM EST
    also uninformative comment since you provide nothing but your willingness to "wager."  

    It's not the job of law enforcement to determine the law, merely to enforce it. I could care less what any police officer's personal opinion on gun laws is -- especially the day after being involved in such a tragedy.

    If you only want to preach gun control, please limit yourself to four comments a day.

    Parent

    it is not your role (none / 0) (#163)
    by Tov on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:20:46 AM EST
    to make the laws either...so their opinions matter just as much as yours after such a horrible day as do mine.

    Parent
    Yes, I included this in the (none / 0) (#161)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:03:32 AM EST
    new thread here.

    Parent
    While there are some defending the (4.14 / 7) (#22)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:24:19 PM EST
    universe of guns and gun ownership in this thread, my initial reaction to it is that, on the whole, I think Jeralyn's going to hate this thread...I mean, really hate it.

    But I hope she doesn't shut it down, or cut off and/or delete the anti-gun/anti-gun control comments; if guns only had the potential to harm or affect their owners, as opposed to putting the lives of others ar risk, it would be a lot easier to wholeheartedly support gun rights and oppose gun laws - but the fact that guns - and the people who own them - have the ability to injure and kill others means that I think we have to find a way to balance the right to own a gun with the right to, well, live.

    I honestly don't know what the answer is, other than for an effort to be made to enforce the laws we do have, which I don't think is being done.  Given that the more laws there are, the more money and time needs to be devoted to them, maybe it's time to have some kind of comprehensive approach that would eliminate the redundancies and inconsistencies.


    Too bad none of you read this earlier. (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by womanwarrior on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:01:51 PM EST
    Andy Borowitz

    Dear Internet People: Maybe choose another day to make pro-gun statements. Sincerely, Good Taste


    Parent

    Right on! (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Tov on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:12:20 PM EST
    I won't shut it down (none / 0) (#127)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 07:37:42 PM EST
    I knew today would be bring out the anti-gun crowd.

    I'm amazed people think like you do,  As if a gun law would have stopped this guy. What's next to ban? Video games? Do you also want body scanners or armed security at the movies? How about the supermarket?

    We know nothing about the guy's motives or mental health, and yet you are so quick to jump on the gun control bandwagon.

    I'd rather focus on the unfolding developments and the tragedy and loss of life today. Politics can wait until at least the dead are identified, if not buried.

    Rest assured, though, I won't be agreeing with you on this issue any time soon.

    Parent

    dead people are not (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Tov on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:10:36 PM EST
    politics.

    Parent
    I am struck by the bringing-out (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 07:47:53 PM EST
    of the pro-gun/anti gun control faction.  

    Parent
    Sad. Too bad theaters ban bringing guns into the t (2.33 / 3) (#3)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:35:38 AM EST
    heater.

    If guns weren't banned, once the audience had seen Holmes walking into the building, they could've shot and killed Holmes before any harm occurred.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:37:52 AM EST
    Assuming that, in a panic, they would be better shots than professionals who are trained to deal with stress, and who still miss most of their shots.

    Also, the gunman left his weapons in the theater.  I think he was planning on suicide by cop anyways.

    Parent

    Self defense shooters have a much lower miss rate (2.33 / 3) (#27)
    by redwolf on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:41:28 PM EST
    than the police do.  If we accidentally shoot one we go to to jail or get sued. If the cops do it they get a paid action and then an award. Do some research before assuming cops are actually better shots than the general public.

    Parent
    They are much better trained (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:43:18 PM EST
    And deal with stressful situations much more than an average joe with a gun.

    Maybe someone with a gun in that theater would have stopped him, but it's just as likely (or more likely) that between the darkness, the smoke, and the confusion, that the body count would have been higher.

    Parent

    You've not been keeping up with police training. (none / 0) (#37)
    by redwolf on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:00:35 PM EST
    Cops spray an area with as many shots as possible. The days of accurate shooting has been replaced with 19 round glocks being discharged as fast as they can.  Take a look at that swat team in the Jose Guerena slaying:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP0f00_JMak

    They fired over 200 rounds and only 30 of the round hit their target.  Several near by houses were shot up by all the panic fire they put out. Clearly no concern for bystanders.  And these guys are the better trained "swat" team.  Regular cops spend even less time training on fire arms than these guys do.

    Parent

    Makin it up ... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:19:19 PM EST
    They fired over 200 rounds and only 30 of the round hit their target.  Several near by houses were shot up by all the panic fire they put out. Clearly no concern for bystanders.

    ... as you go along?  Numerous reports indicate that there were 71 shots fired in that shooting (as opposed to "more than 200").  Not to to mention the Guereno family's lawyer, Christopher Scileppi:

    Scileppi said the fact that Guerena had been fired at 71 times and hit 22 times was "grotesque," and "almost a caricature of an overly excited group of poorly trained law enforcement agents."

    Do you have a link indicating that "over 200 rounds" were fired or that "several nearby houses were shot up"?

    I'm not buying it.

    Parent

    So you have one example (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:03:56 PM EST
    Against thousands.

    Ok - you can't prove your point.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    Ok, since you don't like one off examples... (none / 0) (#40)
    by redwolf on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:09:18 PM EST
    Show me proof that the cops are less likely to shoot bystanders than civilians.  And remember you don't know the type of training cops receive these days so stop appealing to something you don't know crap about.

    Parent
    Hey, you made the claim (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by sj on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:12:02 PM EST
    Back it up.  Don't expect someone else to do your research and analysis for you.

    Parent
    No, the claim is the cops are better shots... (none / 0) (#49)
    by redwolf on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:30:04 PM EST
    and less likely to hit by standers than armed civilians.  I have presented evidence to the contrary and I've yet to see any evidence to the affirmative.  So put up or shut.  Show so evidence that cops are less likely to shoot bystanders than civilians are.  Waving a magic training wand does not make it so.

    Parent
    You've presented evidence? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:37:01 PM EST
    One youtube video does not prove that, as a general rule, trained LEO's, who encounter stressful situations on a daily basis, and who walk into dangerous and unknown situations are less accurate than Bubba Joe would be shooting in the middle of a chaotic move theater.

    We are not talking about at the shooting range.  We are talking about in live, dangerous situations, and you still cannot prove your cockamamie theory.

    Good day.

    Parent

    This is the original claim (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by sj on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:51:49 PM EST
    Self defense shooters have a much lower miss rate (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by redwolf on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:41:28 PM EST

    than the police do...  


    Back it up.

    Parent
    No you haven't (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:08:48 PM EST
    No, the claim is the cops are better shots and less likely to hit by standers than armed civilians.  I have presented evidence to the contrary and I've yet to see any evidence to the affirmative.

    1.  Your "evidence" does not compare the results of this shooting to civilians presented with similar circumstances.

    2.  One shooting incident is far too small a sample from which to draw conclusions.


    Parent
    And, really? (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:44:39 PM EST
    Self defense shooters have a much lower miss rate (none / 0) (#27)
    by redwolf on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:41:28 PM EST

    than the police do

    Show me.  Is that one on one - like when someone breaks into your house, or do you claim that self defense shooters are much better in a crowd situation (like this) than trained police officers?

    Parent

    I'll play this game. (none / 0) (#39)
    by redwolf on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    Find me a new story where someone defending themselves shot a bystander and then look up stories where cops hit innocent people.  The ratio of Civilian to police shootings are 3/1 and thus there should 3 times as many stories about civilians shooting the wrong person than there are about cops if they have equal skill.

    Parent
    Question, redwolf (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:06:44 PM EST
    Where are you going with this line of claims?  It almost sounds as if you would prefer or support citizens' militia type arrangements for law enforcement?  What are you really saying?

    Parent
    One thing... (none / 0) (#90)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:11:54 PM EST
    I think he is saying, and I agree, is that our police forces are far too militarized and far too quick to shoot people and/or endanger the public.

    Though I don't see how adding more guns in more hands to the equation is gonna lead to less blood in the streets.  

    What we need to spread is the love...

    Parent

    Prove it. (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:09:50 PM EST
    I'm also talking about an armed person in a panicked crowd under stress.

    But again, since you keep throwing numbers out there without proof, then I will know you are just making it up.

    Parent

    Don't forget (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:22:54 PM EST
    he had on BP vest and riot helmet. And there was smoke/tear gas along with darkness to go with the panicked crowd.

    Seems like an ideal situation for taking out the guy and not hurting anyone else . . .

    Parent

    Never the less (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:28:55 PM EST
    the victims would have a chance.

    As it was, they had none.

    Parent

    If guns were completely banned, this (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by observed on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:47:13 AM EST
    wouldn't happen at all. Much more logical.

    Parent
    Unfortuattly (none / 0) (#13)
    by nyjets on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:49:31 AM EST
    banning guns is just not a viable option as much as I wish it was.
    Best to have sensible gun laws and regulate there purchase.


    Parent
    I agree nyjets... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:00:17 PM EST
    the only way to rid ourselves of guns is to go back in time and prevent their invention.  They're here to stay.

    Parent
    So you are saying if guns were banned no one who (none / 0) (#18)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:07:34 PM EST
    wanted to do harm could get one?  Drug Prohibition works, so gun prohibition will also work.  heh.  

    Parent
    Funny you mention that comparison, because (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by observed on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:19:02 PM EST
    it proves you wrong.
    The data from most of the developed world shows that gun bans are rather effective, unlike drug prohibitions.
    If you go to Tokyo, I bet you can get any street drug, but you would have a hard time getting an AK-47

    Parent
    Norway has strict gun control laws. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:52:59 PM EST
    Mass murderer's clips were from a U.S. company.  

    Parent
    Do you really see this country (none / 0) (#26)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:36:37 PM EST
    being run like Japan?  Totally different mentalities.  

    Parent
    No, I see you losing an argument (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by observed on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:49:42 PM EST
    and changing the subject.

    Parent
    Do you assume that the killer (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:31:55 PM EST
    would have not broken the law?

    It seems he didn't pay any attention to the most basic:

    Thou shall not kill.

    Parent

    Why stop with allowing people to carry guns (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:02:56 PM EST
    anywhere?

    Laws should be changed to make it mandatory for owners to provide semi-automatic rifles to every man, woman and child entering any and all public events or establishments so that they can protect themselves in cases like this. :-(

     

    Parent

    Mo Blue, how the heck are you? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:24:59 PM EST
    It has been awhile since I've seen you around the place. I've wondering about you, hoping you were okay. It is good to see you.

    Parent
    Thanks for wondering about me (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:28:02 PM EST
    Daily life has been chaotic to say the least. Some ongoing family and health problems. Although the docs have not determined the cause of my problems, thank God, they have just this week pretty much ruled out a recurrence of cancer.

    Have lurked at the site but haven't had much new to say about our government by the rich and for the rich.

    Do think that having everyone armed in a public place would result in more deaths rather than less in situations like this and made my comment.

    Parent

    MO Blue, we have indeed been concerned (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:45:54 PM EST
    About not hearing from you.  So very sorry about your family and health problems, but I'm glad that they have ruled out cancer.  I'm sending you all the positive energy, best wishes, and prayers that I can, for you personally, and for your family.
    Namaste.

    Parent
    Seconded (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by shoephone on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 12:36:09 AM EST
    So glad to see you back MO. More sanity around here is appreciated.

    I don't pray, but do send good vibes galore.

    Parent

    MO Blue! (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:31:13 PM EST
    So good to hear from you!

    Think about you every time I read something about "sweet Claire"....

    Laws should be changed to make it mandatory for owners to provide semi-automatic rifles to every man, woman and child entering any and all public events or establishments so that they can protect themselves in cases like this. :-(

    How about crossbows instead?

    Parent

    Crossbows would be much better IMO (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:36:36 PM EST
    Can't think of one good reason for any civilian to own a semi-automatic gun or rifle.

    Parent
    The fact (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:29:31 AM EST
    is that Holmes didn't bring a weapon of any kind into the theater when he bought his ticket.  He was just another patron.  He went out the fire escape and loaded up from his car.

    I know that you can't lock a fire escape, it is illegal, but I am wondering why it wasn't on some kind of alarm system.  We have three at work and if someone opens them, they shriek like banshees.

    Parent

    I believe theaters maintain those alarms (none / 0) (#172)
    by lousy1 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:00:18 PM EST
    scrupulously. Not because of security but to protect ticket revenue.


    Parent
    Best case scenario, yeah... (4.63 / 8) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:38:46 AM EST
    worse case scenario, more killed/injured in the crossfire.  Or on any other movie night, an argument over talking during the movie escalates into a shooting.

    Parent
    Exactly Kdog (3.60 / 5) (#9)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:45:38 AM EST
    Odds that your handgun can be used to shoot a bad guy: 1 in a ten thousand or something ridiculous.

    Odds that a handgun is used in a situation that could have been been defused without someone getting shot:  way less than the odds above

    If we are siting the pluses and minuses of allowing weapons into places, we should weigh the outcomes on real world likelihoods.

    Parent

    13 dead and a bunch injured say (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:30:08 PM EST
    to h*ll with your odds.

    Parent
    Typical (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 06:19:57 PM EST
    nonsense that conservatives spew. The thing conservatives never consider in these cases is the element of surprise. The theater was dark, the guy put tear gas and yeah, I guess it would have been better if some idiot had a gun and starting shooting likely helping the guy kill more people.

    This certainly blows all to heck your talking points about the shooting about the Muslim guy in Texas that killed people.

    Parent

    Oh (4.57 / 7) (#7)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:40:16 AM EST
    that's horse poopoo.  From what we know, he threw down the gas canisters and everyone was half blind looking for a way out as he stood in the smoke.  

    The only thing a guy with a handgun would have done in that situation would be to accidentally shoot someone himself in the dark, gas filled theater during the chaos.

    Parent

    Nonsense! (4.27 / 11) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:44:58 PM EST
    Are you living in a cartoon world? Because what you're describing sounds like something right out of an episode of Archer.

    You know, tough talk is cheap. The cold reality, though is that far too many people who own guns have neither the proper training nor the personal temprament to use them either responsibly or properly.

    And because that's so, it's hardly surprising that according to the Centers for Disease Control (which compiles and tracks such statistics), those persons who live in households where guns are present are far, far more likely to become a victim of gun violence at the hands of a family member or personal acquaintance, than to be confronted and shot at random in a public place by a complete stranger.

    I'm a supporter of the Second Amendment, but honestly, the single most irresponsible thing the NRA has done has been to promote the illusion that there are gun-toting thugs hiding behind every building corner and hedge, and then bully and bludgeon state legislatures into passing socially demented laws like "Conceal / Carry" and "Stand Your Ground." Those 19th century days of Tombstone, Deadwood and Dodge City have long since passed.

    I live in a city that's the 11th largest municipality in the United States, where the 2nd Amendment is in full effect and respected, and we get along just fine without such insanely silly statutes. Not surprisingly, we have the lowest violent crime rate of any large city in the country.

    In the 26 years I've lived here, we've had one significant multiple homicide by gun, the Xerox Bldg. shootings over in Kalihi back in November 1999, when seven people were killed by a disgruntled and mentally disturbed co-worker. And out of that tragedy, we passed tougher gun laws mandating the disclosure of any mental health issues or treatment for such within the prior seven years by any applicant applying for a gun permit. Not surprisingly, the NRA opposed this legislation, and also not surprisingly, the legislature ignored the NRA.

    If we truly respected the Second Amendment, we'd promote and mandate personal responsibility in our gun laws, rather than seek to create conditions which invariably lead to greater mayhem.

    Parent

    Cool it Donald (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:08:51 PM EST
    Not being facetious, BTD...but (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:46:27 PM EST
    What is off limits?  I'd like to know...as a citizen of our country & as a Coloradan.  It is a very sad day.

    Parent
    Dan (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:41:07 AM EST
    I wouldn't much mind theater bans provided the theaters had at least one person who was armed and trained.

    This was well thought out. People were in costume, thus helping this guy blend in and not look so out of place. Also, I don't know how you think they would have spotted him before anything was done, he apparently had the "drop" on them, and so while its arguable that a few people might have been saved if someone could fire back, it's almost certain that his initial attack would have started first.

    And yes, crowded theaters are not the best place to deploy handguns in self defense. It's likely a few innocents would have been wounded or killed in the return fire.

    Still, given that 12 people died and some are in the hospital in critical condition, I think it might have saved lives if at least one person in that theater was armed - whether it was a trained security guard or a conscientious citizen.

    Parent

    Raising Hand (none / 0) (#10)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:46:18 AM EST
    Do we know yet that no one in the theater was armed?

    Parent
    It's a gun free zone. (none / 0) (#28)
    by redwolf on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:42:08 PM EST
    No one but the criminal was armed.

    Parent
    Is that your final answer? Really? (none / 0) (#130)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 07:57:37 PM EST
    You don't see the incredible illogic in your statements as somehow leading to a conclusive answer?

    Yikes.  Don't take up persuasion as a profession.

    Parent

    Didn't he have on riot gear? n/t (none / 0) (#14)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:56:15 AM EST
    Is that snark? (none / 0) (#24)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:30:39 PM EST
    No concealed carry permit could prevent him entering the theater and opening fire and in all likelihood hurting people with semi-automatic weapons.

    Parent
    Correct. (2.00 / 3) (#32)
    by redwolf on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:46:00 PM EST
    But fewer people may have died because of the people with guns.  20-30 years ago there was  church service in south Africa attacked by 7 communist guerrillas armed with AK47s.  They killed a couple people before they were driven off by a few church goers armed with .38 revolvers.  Everyone in the church would have ended up dead without those able to fight to fight back.

    Parent
    Imagine further down the line (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:13:39 PM EST
    What does a society so afraid of itself that everyone is armed evolve into?  What are the psychological implications?  Are you more likely or less to feel comfortable, say, speaking your mind politically in the public square, of passionately criticizing someone or something others just as passionately love? I assume you have seen some footage of the more infamous Tea-Party rallies? Imagine that dynamic with a fully armed crowd. Or would you want a hundred thousand strong OWS march with an entirely armed group?  Someone above mentioned a South African example where armed churchgoers lessened the severity of an attack, but do we really want to look to South Africa post-Apartheid for our future? Really? Is that the USA you want for your kids?  Maybe so, not me, in any way.

    Parent
    A place where everyone is armed? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by redwolf on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:31:42 PM EST
    It's called Switzerland and I hear it's quite pleasant.

    Parent
    Duh, that was you... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:14:26 PM EST
    ...with the South Africa example. Forgot the post I was responding to. Sheesh.

    Parent
    Come on Dadler (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:37:19 PM EST
    Don't play the political card. But since you have:

    Imagine this with people having guns.

    Parent

    An overactive imagination (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:59:21 PM EST
    You can "imagine" any outcome you want if you have a good imagination.

    OTOH - There are plenty of examples of actual* right-wing violence.

    (*no imagination needed):

     -- July 2008: Jim David Adkisson - killing two churchgoers and wounding four others.

    -- October 2008: Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman arrested in a plot to murder dozens of African-Americans, culminating in the assassination of President Obama.

    -- December 2008: "Patriot" movement radicals Bruce and Joshua Turnidge, who wanted "to attack the political infrastructure" -- kill two police officers with a bomb.

    -- December 2008: James Cummings, agitated by the election of Obama, building a "dirty bomb" in his basement.

    -- January 2009: Keith Luke - raping and wounding a black woman and killing her sister, then killing a homeless man before being captured by police as he is en route to a Jewish community center.

    -- February 2009: A Marine named Kody Brittingham is arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate President Obama. Brittingham also collected white-supremacist material.

    -- April 2009: Richard Poplawski, believing President Obama intended to take away the guns of white citizens like himself, kills 3 police officers.

    -- April 2009: Joshua Cartwright, similarly fearful of Obama's purported gun-grabbing plans, kills two deputies.

    -- May 2009: Scott Roeder walks into a church in Wichita, Kansas, and assassinates abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.

    -- June 2009: A Holocaust denier and right-wing tax protester James Von Brunn opens fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a security guard.

    -- March 2010: Seven militiamen arrested for plotting to assassinate local police officers with the intent of sparking a new civil war.

    -- March 2010: A "sovereign citizen" from Georgia is arrested in Tennessee and charged with plotting the violent takeover of a local county courthouse.

    -- May 2010: A still-unidentified white man walks into a Jacksonville, Fla., mosque and sets it afire, simultaneously setting off a pipe bomb.

    -- May 2010: Two "sovereign citizens" named Jerry and Joe Kane gun down two police officers who pull them over for a traffic violation, and then wound two more officers in a shootout in which both of them are eventually killed.

    -- July 2010: Byron Williams - attempting to attack the offices of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, shooutout with officers wounding two.

    -- September 2010: Justin Carl Moose arrested for plotting to blow up an abortion clinic.

    ... just some recent examples to get you started.

    Parent

    The personal IS political (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 04:38:33 PM EST
    That's just a fact in a corporate, consumer society.  Also, I didn't just leave the Tea Party out there hanging, I offered an OWS example, so what are you complaining about, I raked both sides of the bunker.

    Parent
    But there is no evidence that this (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 05:09:12 PM EST
    is political.

    So balanced reporting is still inaccurate reporting.

    Parent

    I'm not talking about THIS (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 05:36:39 PM EST
    I'm talking about the theoretical implications of a fully armed society. They do exist.  It's easy to say give everyone a gun. It's more difficult to contemplate the future psychological consequences of that decision on the larger society.

    Parent
    OK, I thought you were (2.00 / 1) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:17:22 PM EST
    commenting on the subject at hand.

    Sorry.

    Parent

    Please remind me to ... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:47:18 PM EST
    ... bring up your suggestion, the next time we're confronted with a well-armed communist insurgency in this country.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:29:53 PM EST
    Reach much, South Africa 20+ years ago, you need some new data, I could fill dump-truck with newspaper clipping of gun deaths in that span that guns actually caused.  I could probably fill up the Astrodome many times over with the bodies and all you can dig up is.... a church 20 years ago in South Africa, really that's all you got...

    How sad it must be to grasp as straws and realize their aren't any.

    Where does tear gas fit into your rhetoric, got any war of 1812 examples to want slap down ?

    Parent

    Ok here's some more storys: (none / 0) (#55)
    by redwolf on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:41:03 PM EST
    http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/ NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

    College shooting ended by a armed student:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

    I choose the South African one because you'd think guys with AK47s would have an issue with people armed with small pistols, but they did.  Criminals and scumbags thrive on what they feel is a risk free environment. When actually confronted most of them fold.

    Parent

    Fail (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:21:15 PM EST
    1 - Knife welder, two people hurt.
    2 - Great Example of how unseen guns stopped a shooting spree that was done right after someone decked the shooter who had no bullets.  Did I mention the gun owners we not packing, they went to their vehicles.  

    WTF, though we were taking about stopping someone shooting at you(not you in particular), now it's anything a gun owner stopped or rather may have stopped after the shooter was out of ammo ?

    You guys, can't even find good examples with the internet, NRA, and gun manufactures at your finger tips.  For you to use those is grasping at straws.  Keep digging, in the past century, you might find enough examples to account for the people killed by guns today in the US.

    My counter.... any paper, any day, from any metropolitan area.  The lives they save is miniscule to the ones they take, undisputed fact.  But I am sure some will dispute it.

    Again, I am pro-second Amendment, but I am anti-ridiculous gun claims for an industry agenda.  Which of course they have make, because actual evidence is sparse, almost non-existent.  So they must make ridiculous claims like the devastation taken out today, via gun, could have been avoided, IF someone had been packing.  IOW, their solution to gun violence is, and will always be more guns.

    They also fail to acknowledge, statistically speaking, the odds of someone having a gun today in that theater are pretty damn good.  After all, they keep telling me all the bad guys have gun(it's why we all need them), or do bad guys not go to the movies ?

    I don't know how many people were there, but seems fairly likely at least one had a gun, no ?  We will never know, but statistically speaking it's more likely than not.

    Parent

    And if there was anyone there with a (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:37:07 PM EST
    gun, chances are that in the chaos of a dark theater, with tear gas in the air, and people in a panic, the chances of him or her bringing the shooter down would be far less than the chances of adding to the damage by shooting an innocent bystander.  Not to mention the chance that, when the police showed up, they might mistake this hero-citizen for the one who started it.

    Really, the last thing we need are more people who think with their guns instead of their brains.

    Parent

    I would say (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:41:28 PM EST
    The lives they save is miniscule to the ones they take, undisputed fact.  But I am sure some will dispute it.

    that the people who were saved would totally disagree with you...

    But wasn't it Stalin who said something like.... 1 death is a tragedy... a million is a statistic???

    Parent

    They May... (none / 0) (#106)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 04:11:57 PM EST
    ...and I understand your point, but it doesn't change the numbers Jim.  About 75 people die every day from guns, 31 are murdered.

    But more importantly, what makes you think the people who have died from guns would agree with you, of which there arte many more.

    And I understand the actual presence of guns as a deterrent, and of course the armed police save many lives from their presence and occasional use.  I live in reality.

    My point Jim was really to slap down the ridiculous claim that those people today would have been saved if someone was packing.  it's unfounded and rather dumb when you add tear gas into the mix.

    I have a HD gun and truly enjoy messing around with them when I visit my brother who has a nice assortment.  I grew up on a farm, my favorite entertainment from about 8 to 16 consisted of finding ways to do really cool stuff with guns and unlimited gasoline every farm has.

    Parent

    No Scott (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 05:36:31 PM EST
    You can't claim that no one would have been saved if someone with a concealed carrier permit with weapon had been there. If nothing else the fact that he was being shot at would have distracted the killer and probably saved some lives.

    I don't know CO law, but in TN you have to take a class and pass it to get a permit. It is complicated enough and time consuming enough to weed out the people who aren't really motivated.

    My personal protection weapon, for the home, is a short barrel 20 gauge pump loaded with # 4 buck. Throws a pattern about 12" at around 30'. Light, reliable and deadly. And I would never use it unless someone was inside the house and I felt he was going to harm me or my family.

    Parent

    Interesting part of that Appalachian story (none / 0) (#112)
    by unitron on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 04:53:37 PM EST
    3 off-duty cops involved, at least 2 different stories from them about what really happened.

    Parent
    It would be nice if theater presented (none / 0) (#119)
    by lousy1 on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 06:22:28 PM EST
    ... consumers with the options.

    Would that be
     the non smoking legal gun toting theater
                   or
     the dope smoking, target rich theater?

    Local options could vary.


    Parent

    Not an assault rifle (none / 0) (#1)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:19:53 AM EST

    Both his rifle and shotgun have been reported to be semiautomatics. Sorry no link, gotta run.

    More on the rifle (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 10:30:18 PM EST
    A high-volume drum magazine was attached to the rifle, an assault weapon, the official said. Police Chief Dan Oates said that a 100-round drum magazine for the rifle was recovered from the scene.

    "I'm told by experts that with that drum magazine, he could have gotten off 50 to 60 rounds, even if it was semiautomatic, within one minute," Oates said at a news conference. "And as far as we know, it was a pretty rapid pace of fire in that theater." link


    According to the prevailing logic,  if all citizens added high-volume drum magazines to their weapons, more people would be saved.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#2)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:25:07 AM EST
    Abdul:
    Re: your comment about assault rifle versus semiautomatics
    For a "Progressive" site, a surprising number of people here will know the difference.

    That's not normal on most leftwing sites. I find that often the biggest haters of guns know the least about them.

    Parent

    Dude had (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:38:28 AM EST
    2 handguns, an assault rifle, a shotgun and tear gas cannisters.

    If we are focused on whether they were semiautomatics, we are kind of missing the point.

    I don't want to talk about the gun issues yet, but I do think that just as those that hate guns the most often know little about them, those that defend gun rights the most often know little about how the lack of laws translate into real world consequences.

    Parent

    Please don't mention lack of laws (none / 0) (#12)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:48:05 AM EST
    ABG:
    Because it makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about.

    There are literally hundreds if not thousands of laws concerning guns in this country. When you count Federal/State/Local there are probably at least 2 dozen per-State and some states have far more than others.

    Now you can argue we don't have the RIGHT mix of laws but please none of this bulldokey about how we need MORE of them.

    P.S This guy was studying neuroscience at the PHD level. Do you really think he wouldn't have been able to whip up some gas or some explosives if he didn't have access to a few guns? You might remember the Columbine shooters came literally within a hairsbreadth of destroying the school as they had it rigged to explode - and these were high school students and not particularly bright ones.

    Parent

    And (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:03:04 PM EST
    Many of those laws work.

    Before just arguing that there are laws and they do no good, an analysis of the impact of the laws would be helpful.  There are plenty of studies showing that areas with stringent gun laws see fewer violent deaths.

    That's the issue.  I want analysis.  Not sound bites that sound good.

    And besides, the point for gun rights advocates has nothing to do with impact ultimately.  They believe that the right to have mini WMDs is a right and would fight for that right regardless of how many people could ultimately be killed.

    Let's keep it real: if we spent a hundred million dollars and conducted the most detailed statistical analysis of gun safety every contemplated and the final conclusion was "limit everyone in america to 1 hand gun and ban all other weapons and you will save 3,000 lives a year" gun fans wouldn't change their opinions about limitations on guns in the slightest.

    We all know that so why do we pretend that people even care how many lives their right to bare arms costs?


    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#19)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:18:03 PM EST
    You might try asking just how well "Gun Free Zones" work when someone chooses to start shooting in them, or how many needless deaths have occurred due to the War on Some Drugs.

    Hypothetical are easy and fun, ABG, but I live with them on the ground every day. I live in a rather poor mixed neighborhood in Baltimore City.

    The biggest threat from guns to the average person would seem to be that they help you commit suicide. If you don't plan to commit suicide they represent a very small threat as most of the murders in this country are one member of the criminal class killing another.

    Baltimore, for instance, doesn't just ban handguns. They ban pepper spray and tasers as well. Yet the city has some of the most extensive gun violence in the nation. Meanwhile, Marylands rural and suburban counties -where gun ownership rates are far higher - have an almost miniscule percentage of gun deaths.

    Clearly number of guns does not directly correlate with number of lives lost.

    Parent

    I completely disagree Slayer (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:58:00 PM EST
    I live in Atlanta, and went to school in the worst part of the city.  

    For the innocent guy not involved in criminal activity minding your business, you are much more likely to be killed by a gun owner in your own family than some thug looking to rob you.  That's really the point.  

    Those dying in Baltimore and Atlanta from gun play on the streets are usually those also involved in dirty dealings.

    But that's not how most people die at the hands of a gun.  Most people die because their family, friend or coworker has a gun and uses it in anger in connection with a fight.

    If you were to focus only on the situation most likely to generate a bullet in your head, it's your spouse or your best friend.

    Having the right to carry a gun to the movies isn't helping you there and having the gun around makes the problem worse.  That's why these discussion wind up so skewed.  We aren't even discussing the real primary threats to safety and how guns impact THOSE dynamics.

    Parent

    Let me clarify your argument (none / 0) (#65)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:03:50 PM EST
    Let me make sure I have this correct, ABG:
    You are claiming that domestic disputes involving guns lead to more deaths than gunfights between criminals?

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:18:12 PM EST
    I am arguing:

    1. Criminals largely kill other criminals.

    2. If you are not a criminal, you are more likely to die at the hands of a friend or family member than a stranger/criminal.

    Gun rights advocates often argue as if they are living under the risk parameters of the people in category 1 while in reality they live with the risk parameters in category 2, and their discussions of correct policy do not recognize the issue.

    Look at the Kellerman studies:

    Link

    The most detailed analysis out there says that if you have a gun in your home, you are more likely to be killed.  You are actually safer without a gun in your house because most people are killed by their family or friends or acquaintances or suicide or accident.

    The guy who breaks in your house and kills you for example, is relatively rare.

    However, guns rights advocates argue as if the opposite is true.  That having a gun at home makes you safer.  It's demonstrably false.  Similar stats arise (although not as one sided) when it comes to those taking guns outside of the house.  Those folks escalate fights, kill themselves and others accidentally and kill themselves while out at higher levels than if there was no gun on them.

    Regardless of where you are on the Trayvon issue, the bottom line is that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun, the kid would be alive. That gets completely ignored.

    Better option: just say that your right to own a gun is fundamental and you should be able to do it regardless of the consequences.  There is a stronger argument there.

    Parent

    Guns make people *feel* safer, but (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:24:47 PM EST
    guns don't boost one's intelligence, common sense, or ability to react appropriately under chaotic circumstances.

    Parent
    and yet Anne (none / 0) (#83)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:29:14 PM EST
    Apparently the vast majority of legal gun owners do well enough.

    I really don't see any problems here.

    Parent

    Thanks for clarifying (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:27:55 PM EST
    However, you are not taking relative risk into account.

    The amount of gun deaths to gunowners in their homes (not counting suicides) is much much lower than the amount of gun deaths in the criminal class.

    Indeed, if you are not a criminal you are more likely to die in a car crash than by a gun that you own.

    This subject is ridiculously overheated. We have over 100 million gun owners, over 200 million (probably as many as 500 million total according to some estimates) firearms.

    Clearly, not counting suicides or the criminal class, "Gun violence" is rather rare. Which means the vast majority of people seem to be handling guns responsibly, so I really do not see what the hoopla is about.

    Parent

    the hoopla? (3.67 / 3) (#158)
    by Tov on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:56:39 PM EST
    ask the families and friends of the dead and wounded if it is just hoopla...

    Parent
    I call cheapshot (none / 0) (#168)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:51:39 AM EST
    And it says something about the poster.

    Emotional much?

    Parent

    Do you have any statistics? (none / 0) (#173)
    by lousy1 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:06:20 PM EST
    For the purpose of clarification does the term coworker include fellow gang member or members of the illegal substance trading guild?

    Parent
    re- read (none / 0) (#157)
    by Tov on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:55:09 PM EST
    what you just wrote... makes sense ? I think not.

    Parent
    Sure would have been nice (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:27:32 PM EST
    if there had been one or two folks there who had concealed carry rights... As it was the police arrived in time to count the dead and arrange transport for the wounded... and take the surrender of the killer who apparently did not resist.

    And I am not dissing the police. It's just the facts of the matter. They can't be everywhere at once so maybe a little self protection isn't all that bad.

    Parent

    Just keep in mind that (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:05:34 PM EST
    everybody who buys a gun, even if it's legal to do so, is contributing to the Big Gun Business.

    Sure, handguns are different from assault weapons.

    But concealed carry laws now in my state, for example, have helped a whole lot more of the Big Gun Businesses open here and aim (yes, I said aim) at my state with advertising for online gun sales and hold those horrible, huge gun fairs -- where Big Gun Businesses also sell a lot of weapons for a lot more money than they make on handguns.

    All guns are part of our appalling gun culture.

    And so are all gun owners of all guns.

    Parent

    What was their effect (none / 0) (#174)
    by lousy1 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:08:39 PM EST
    on the Big Funeral Business industry?

    Parent
    In Colorado (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:21:13 PM EST
    (to the best of my knowledge) you are correct, there are gun laws.

    There is a law that you can carry them loaded.

    There is a law allowing you to travel with them loaded.

    There is a law prohibiting gun registration.

    There is a law prohibiting law enforcement from maintaining a database of gun buyers.

    Yup, plenty of gun laws in Colorado.

    Parent

    No doubt about it (none / 0) (#100)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:43:27 PM EST
    .

    If Colorado had a law banning loaded carry this tragedy would never have happened.

    OTOH,

    We don't know how many innocents these robbers might have shot had it not been for the armed patron that caused them to rethink their priorities.

    BTW, I always carry loaded.  So does your local cop.  Generally it those that carry loaded are the safest folk around.

    .

    Parent

    who cares about guns? people in love with death. (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by Tov on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:02:10 PM EST
    Canisters? (none / 0) (#29)
    by lousy1 on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:42:23 PM EST
    Were test conductive for biological or chemical agents?

    Why canisters?
    Bottle booby traps?

    tear gas (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:54:01 PM EST
    Yes - thanks (none / 0) (#79)
    by lousy1 on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:26:13 PM EST
    That all makes sense

    Parent
    I think they were smoke bombs, (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:43:59 PM EST
    not tear gas

    Parent
    Cool it with the invective please (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:21:08 PM EST


    My Bad (none / 0) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:31:28 PM EST
    Struck a nerve today, won't happen again.

    Parent
    I deleted that comment (none / 0) (#142)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 10:24:14 PM EST
    Standard guns don't apply argument: (none / 0) (#52)
    by redwolf on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:36:19 PM EST
    Japan doesn't have any civilian guns.  It has a high suicide rate and very little violence.  Switzerland has an automatic weapon in every house.  It has a low suicide rate and very little violence.  Full or no ownership of guns has nothing to do with violence.

    Now there is a good argument to made that a partial gun ownership society like ours promotes violence.  Having some people armed and not others doesn't seem to work out well.  I haven't looked into that.

    Not believable; (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by shoephone on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:47:21 PM EST
    "Switzerland has an automatic weapon in every house."

    Parent
    Ah, after some research... (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by shoephone on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:53:31 PM EST
    Turns out the factoid is true, but not for use as a weapon of self-defense: For use as a member of the Swiss militia -- because Switzerland does not have standing army.

    Quite a different scenario from the U.S. of A. where personal weapons have litle to do with defense of country (militia) and everything to do with lust of guns.

    In other words, the Switzerland example is not a reasonable comparison to the U.S.

    Parent

    Just what country IS (none / 0) (#67)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:06:46 PM EST
    "A reasonable comparison to the USA", shoephone? I want to know, because I think we are rather unique and arguments about guns based on European cultures do not apply to us.

    Parent
    I couldn't agree more (none / 0) (#71)
    by shoephone on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:12:31 PM EST
    We are unique in our blood lust for guns.

    Parent
    Well, now, isn't that special? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:22:46 PM EST
    We're special!

    Parent
    The guns are (none / 0) (#82)
    by lousy1 on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:28:26 PM EST
    retained by the family after military service. Many families have generations of weapons dating back to WWI

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:58:53 PM EST
    is actually true

    Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. The personal weapon of militia is kept at home as part of the military obligations. Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.[1] In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.[2] A referendum in February 2011 rejected stricter gun control.[3]


    Parent
    The Swiss military is a militia system (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by shoephone on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:10:39 PM EST
    Due to its long history of neutrality, the Swiss "Army" does not declare war or fight other countries around the world. The last time the Swiss Army engaged in any kind of military defensive actions was during WWII. Since then, the Swiss Army only leaves Switzerland to participate in peacekeeping efforts in other parts of the world. The militia model has been re-ratified as of the 1999 constitution. In fact, there has been more than one movement to abolish the Swiss Army altogether.

    The weapons Swiss citizens keep in their homes are not for self-defense in the same way that U.S. citizens keep weapons for self-defense. The previous commenter's point is a dishonest one.

    Parent

    I don't think he was dishonest shoephone (none / 0) (#84)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:32:02 PM EST
    After all, it is not against Swiss law to use those guns for self-defense.

    If I was a petty thief in Switzerland one thing I'd avoid is casing occupied houses.

    Parent

    Yes, his argument was thoroughly dishonest (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by shoephone on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:38:52 PM EST
    It was based on the DECEPTIVE premise that all Swiss citizens have armed themselves with automatics for self-defense purposes, and that if Americans would only do the same, we wouldn't have the level of gun violence we have in this country.

    Now I'm bored. And it's lunchtime.

    Parent

    It doesn't make any difference as to (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:45:49 PM EST
    WHY.... The fact is they ARE.

    Parent
    No the "fact is" ... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 04:05:45 PM EST
    ... "Switzerland has an automatic weapon in every house" is false.  Not to mention all their highly restrictive laws and serious penalties re: ammunition, carrying, transportation etc.

    Parent
    I thought his premise was (none / 0) (#108)
    by lousy1 on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 04:22:47 PM EST
    In Switzerland there is no correlation between widespread legal gun ownership and either
     wide spread crime involving guns or
     a high  suicide rate.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#111)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 04:43:27 PM EST
    That would be a brand new (albeit more defensible) premise.  If you click on "parent" you can see the OP's premise.

    Parent
    After 102 parent clicks I got (none / 0) (#122)
    by lousy1 on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 06:48:22 PM EST
    Japan doesn't have any civilian guns.  It has a high suicide rate and very little violence.  Switzerland has an automatic weapon in every house.  It has a low suicide rate and very little violence.  Full or no ownership of guns has nothing to do with violence.
    Now there is a good argument to made that a partial gun ownership society like ours promotes violence.  Having some people armed and not others doesn't seem to work out well.  I haven't looked into that.

    Went back to the exodusian parent.

    It just struck me, perhaps this quote is not from OP who could have commented within some sub context, But my index fingers is to exhausted to investigate.

    The premise that started this thread was clear.


    Parent

    Is the limits on the use of each gun (none / 0) (#85)
    by lousy1 on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:33:11 PM EST
    engraved on the barrel.
    MILITARY USE ONLY

    Or is it the bullets that can discriminate?

    Has anyone in Switzerland ever been prosecuted for using that weapon to defend their household or life?

    Parent

    That Swiss army military defense (none / 0) (#135)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:34:15 PM EST
    during WWII was when Hitler wanted to cross Switzerland to get down to Gibraltar and on to Africa.  After seeing the massive steel tank traps on the narrow highways he diverted to Italy.  The Swiss told him you can't get in and if you do you can't get out.

    Parent
    Get to Gilbralter? (none / 0) (#166)
    by lousy1 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:16:19 AM EST
    Hitler needed better maps. I think you are confusing Switzerland with Spain

    Parent
    FYI, Switzerland is a country that ... (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:20:41 PM EST
    ... has a highly-organized and well-trained militia system, with mandatory military service required of all its male citizens between the ages of 20 and 30 (34 if you're an officer).

    Most weapons owned by Swiss citizens are military-issued assault rifles, and only officers are allowed military-issued pistols. Members of the militia are required to keep their weapons at home. It's really not uncommon to see someone carrying their weapon in public while they are serving on active duty.

    Switzerland has very strict penalties for the unauthorized used of a firearm, and the overwhelming majority of Swiss citizens don't walk about town with concealed weapons on their persons, because the law prohibits such without a Waffentragschein (permit to carry a weapon). A private citizen can only obtain a Waffentragschein if he or she is working in a security-related position.

    Further, while the Swiss government subsidizes the sale of ammunition to its citizens, you can only purchase said ammunition at a state-licensed gunnery range, and any ammunition that's purchased must be used at that particular gunnery range.

    When carrying or transporting a weapon in Switzerland, the ammunition clip must be completely separated from the gun, and no rounds can be in the gun magazine itself. You may only carry or transport your weapon while on active duty military service; otherwise, transport must be direct, i.e., only to and from an army warehouse or licensed gunnery range, or if you work in security, only on the job.

    Just so you know.

    Parent

    Because the Swiss (none / 0) (#182)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 10:28:42 AM EST
    Get involved in so many military and militia actions?

    WWII comes to mind....

    Parent

    Japan (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:40:29 PM EST
    allows rifles and shotguns, after a rigorous licensing procedure.

    Parent
    I wasn't aware of that. (2.00 / 1) (#56)
    by redwolf on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:42:53 PM EST
    That kills the total ban and partial ban ideas. Still hard to explain the Swiss away.

    Parent
    Wrong again (none / 0) (#74)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:18:17 PM EST
    Switzerland has an automatic weapon in every house.

    Members of the Swiss militia have army-issued weapons in their homes, but this would include only males from age 20-30 (34 for officers).  Retired militia members may be permitted to keep their weapons but they must be converted to semi-automatic only.

    Moreover, only military police and some rapid-deployment units actually have ammunition at their homes.

    Parent

    Should be in quotes (none / 0) (#75)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:20:08 PM EST
    Switzerland has an automatic weapon in every house.


    Parent
    From what I'v seen (none / 0) (#133)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:22:12 PM EST
    at various Swiss friend's houses their guns were semi-automatic.

    Parent
    And, (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:17:38 PM EST
    Just like CNN last month with regards to ACA decision, and MSNBC being, well, just generally terrible lately, ABC News has had backtrack on its inital claim that they thought the alleged shooter was a member of the Tea Party. Turns out, it was someone else with the same name.

    Oops.

    Excerpt from NYT: (none / 0) (#116)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 05:58:21 PM EST
    The suspect was in possession of a clip with more than 20 rounds, a federal official said, that would have been illegal under an assault rifle ban that expired in 2004.



    So (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 06:23:00 PM EST
    I figure, why not move to Colorado where relaxed gun laws would keep me safer. I could easily buy an AR-15 with no restrictions. But damn, how big a clip could I buy for self protection to keep loaded on the front seat? So I hop online knowing I'd need, oh say a 100 round clip to ward off intruders?

    Google Shopping is my friend. And there it is. I find it online to buy for $179.00.

    But wait...

    woe is me...

    What is this message I get when ordering?

    "Due to tremendous demand, we are heavily backordered on our 100-round magazines."


    Parent

    Another NYT excerpt: (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 06:08:24 PM EST
    Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, who has waged a national campaign for stricter gun laws, called on President Obama and Mr. Romney to address more concretely the issue of gun violence in their campaigns.

    "You know, soothing words are nice," Mr. Bloomberg said during his weekly radio program, "but maybe it's time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country."




    Parent
    one hundred round clip (none / 0) (#145)
    by Tov on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 10:38:12 PM EST
    From abc news: (none / 0) (#150)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:00:11 PM EST
    Suspected Colorado movie theater gunman James Holmes purchased four guns at local shops and more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet in the past 60 days, Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates told a news conference this evening.


    Parent
    Suspect's background: (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 06:35:01 PM EST
    Can't imagine getting news like this (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 09:13:58 PM EST
    as a parent.  I know parents on some level always have fear of something happening to their children at the hands of another, but I don't know how many ever dream they will be in the other position.

    Parent
    The whole situation is incredibly (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 10:03:39 PM EST
    sad. He was a good student in high school, participated in 2 sports, did well @ UC Riverside, couldnt't get a job so mom says may as well go to grad.  school.  But quiet and sort of a loner. No criminal record. Could be anybody. Did like virtual computer stuff.

    Parent
    An AR 15 is not an assault rifle! (none / 0) (#134)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:28:40 PM EST
    It's a civilian version of the M16 WITHOUT the ability to fire 3 shot bursts. It's not semi-automatic let alone automatic. It's just basically a high powered (though not armor piercing) rifle. Heck, I was shooting one that my dad owned when I was 15.

    Thank God for the internet. I do not trust a single mainstream news source these days. When they are not actively taking sides ala the Zimmerman case, they are often filled to the brim with fools who know little or nothing and can't be bothered to research or learn about what they report on.

    Slay... (none / 0) (#136)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:41:16 PM EST
    if it's not a semi-automatic how do you chamber rounds after each shot?

    Parent
    Fish (none / 0) (#140)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 09:53:48 PM EST
    You are correct.
    It's semi-automatic.

    Derp. My only excuse is I'm tired and the last time I held an AR 15 in my hands was 1995 or thereabouts.
    I'd cop to drinking if I was one to taste alcohol, but instead I'll blame it on 4 hours of sleep and call it a night.

    Parent

    From NYT "lede" blog re CO gun laws: (none / 0) (#146)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 10:43:05 PM EST
    In the never-ending argument, tragedy can become a talking point. Luke O'Dell, a spokesman for the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a Colorado-based group that fights gun control measures, said private gun restrictions may well have had "tragic consequences" in the shootings.

    He noted that the theater chain that owns the Aurora movie house bans firearms on the premises, and said that if other patrons had been legally able to carry weapons, the death toll might have been less. Mr. O'Dell also said that Mayor Bloomberg's call for a discussion of gun issues was "exploiting the blood of these innocent victims to advance his political agenda."  [Italics added.]



    BS... more NRA propaganda (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Tov on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 10:46:16 PM EST
    That is their answer= response every time this sort of tragedy happens. I don't buy it.

    Parent
    I agree. A rather incredible statement (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 10:55:07 PM EST
    by the quoted person.  

    Parent
    some people think (1.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Tov on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:25:09 PM EST
    that more guns and less regulation is the answer to mayhem...it leaves me and others speechless and that is what they count on...I have decided not to remain silent any longer. I hope others join in and turn the majority into the minority.
    Just think...civil rights, gay rights took some time... how about "life rights" quaranteed under the Constitution. Reality vs the need to aspire to trasnscend the present mind set. Guns-like nuclear weapons must slowly be eradicated. Call me naive... it will begin to happen in my lifetime. It is called EVOLUTION.

    Parent
    death is not (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Tov on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 10:50:11 PM EST
    a political agenda.

    Parent
    For your information (none / 0) (#169)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:57:16 AM EST
    Death is an inevitability for everyone who breathes on this planet. It's probably an inevitability for every thinking being in this universe, given things such as the second law of thermodynamics.

    I hope we've cleared that up?

    Parent