Colorado Shooting Update

Roundup from a combination of our local news channels:

70 people were shot, 12 have died in last night's shooting at the Aurora, CO movie theater. 10 died at the scene, 2 died in hospitals.

James Holmes is in the Arapahoe County Jail. His first court appearance will be Monday. He stopped talking to cops shortly after his arrest and asked for a lawyer. He will be represented by the public defender.

Holmes passed both an FBI and CBI background check when he bought the guns (he only has a traffic ticket on his record.) The AR 15 is a semi-automatic firearm. It's legal under both federal and Colorado law. (It was subject to the federal assault weapons ban until 2004 when the ban was repealed.) [More....]

Where Colorado law differs from some other places is that guns do not have to be registered and no permit or license is required to carry a weapon openly. Also, law enforcement is prohibited from building a database of gun purchases and owners.

Holmes bought 6,000 rounds of ammo online. Those purchases were also legal.

What's atypical according to the local news, is that 95% of guns used in violent crime are obtained illegally. What probably wasn't legal was the gas cannisters he used.

Holmes acted alone. This was not a spontaneous crime. It was well-planned. And no one knows his motivation.

Holmes was an honor student in college and a Ph.D. candidate in neuroscience at the University of Colorado in Aurora until last month when he withdrew. He booby-trapped his apartment, there are incendiary devices, chemicals and a central detonator inside. 5 apartment buildings were evacuated. Residents have been allowed back into 4 of them to retrieve belongings.

He bought a ticket to the movie, entered the theater through the front dressed in regular clothes, and then exited through the emergency door inside theater 9. He propped the door open and returned a few minutes later, decked out in riot gear, and released the gas canisters. He then opened fire, from the front of theater 9.

Before he asked for a lawyer, Holmes told police his apartment was booby-trapped and he had taken a Vicodin about 2 hours befoer the shooting.

Holmes father flew to Colorado this afternoon and was picked up at the airport by the FBI to answer questions about his son.

Colorado law enforcement is getting big praise. They were at the scene within 3 minutes. Local police were able to enter immediately, having been trained, rather than having to wait for a SWAT team as they did at the time of Columbine. They arrested the suspect by his car in the parking lot within minutes. He was still wearing his gas mask. When there weren't enough ambulances, police drove victims to the hospital themselves.

The hospitals were also well-equipped to deal with the victims. They went into triage mode.

President Obama gave a very moving speech. Romney also addressed the tragedy. While it wasn't a day for politics, Romney to me seemed wooden -- ill at ease -- reading from notes.

One thing I could have done without: a reading of celebrity athlete tweets about the tragedy.

< Al Green: Unamerican? | The Killer is Rarely Who He Seems >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    One point is that (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Tov on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 12:42:25 AM EST
    he purchased all the guns, clips and ammo legally.
    What that tells me is that there is a lack of common sense in gun laws. Legal does not make it just or smart. Think of all the laws that have been overturned in the last 100 years. RE Civil rights...what about my guarantee under the Constitution to... life. The President and Mr. Romney should have to address their views on the gun culture in America- I agree with my mayor on that point. It would be helpful if the NRA didn't threaten elected officials with reprisals and dollars and took an honest look at what they have wrought and embarked on a more common sense approach and education for weapon ownership. Why encourage multiple and "military use" gun ownership for civilians in the first place?- is a good question...maybe the economics of the industry? "Send lawyers,gun and money"...sounds more like the NRA's motto than a 80's song. I have, in the final analysis, faith in the American citizenery... and that an evolution of thought will occur and allow for a safer life  for all of us...in our lifetimes.

    If 95% of the guns (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 12:50:10 AM EST
    used in violent crimes are acquired illegally, gun laws are pretty much irrelevant.

    If you have a statistic to cite to show our local news is wrong on that statistic, I'm happy to check it out. (And please cite a government statistic, not that of a gun control group.)

    Also consider that violent crime has been steadily declining in recent years. That includes murder, rape and robbery.

    Why not spend your time addressing what causes people to have such rage or encourage greater availability of mental health treatment?


    Is it fair to say that whatever percentage (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:29:43 AM EST
    of guns acquired and used illegally were at some point acquired legally?  And how do you factor in that, in Colorado, it is not illegal for someone to re-sell a gun to a third party, who presumably undergoes no background check, and who can then, in turn, sell the gun to yet another person?  With no database, and no registration, isn't it impossible to know who is legally in possession of any gun?  

    I guess my point is that unless you are making the argument that guns are sold illegally right out of the factory, these illegal guns begin their lives as legal, don't they?

    Does Colorado - or any state with similar laws - have any idea how many of the guns purchased there actually stay there?  


    Re: If 95% of the guns (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by unitron on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:29:52 AM EST
    "If 95% of the guns...used in violent crimes are acquired illegally..."

    ...then has it ever occured to anyone that there are far, far too many guns floating around out there in the first place?

    Weren't most of them originally legally manufactured?

    At what point in the chain of possession do they drop off of the radar?

    And where is the financial incentive for the manufacturers to support the idea of legal possession only as opposed to make and sell all that you can regardless?


    If you had read further (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:42:23 PM EST
    Obtained on the street/illegal source 39.2%

    Perhaps he had a psychotic breakdown. (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 12:57:21 AM EST
    Nothing in the article I posted from the North County Times (San Diego County, where he grew up and went to high school and where his parents still live) indicates a history of mental illness.  

    Here is the 2010 report (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:02:02 AM EST
    from the FBI on background checks. They do a pretty good and through job.

    I doubt this was an instant psychotic breakdown since so much planning went into it and his mother told police they probably had the right guy. It sounds like there were clues over a period of at least a month.


    Putting my bet on (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:46:47 PM EST
    schizophrenia.  Its onset is slow and insidious, and 24 is pretty typical for the time when it becomes full-blown.

    His mother apparently knew, if reports of her comments are correct, that something was very wrong with him.  But only a tiny fraction of people whose family members are worried about their mental state go on to kill anybody, never mind what this guy did.

    What goes on in the human mind is essentially unknowable.


    You two are talking about (none / 0) (#80)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:56:08 PM EST
    twp diffrent things, a factor in the confused conclusions:  a breakdown vs. a psychotic break.

    We report, you decide (none / 0) (#17)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:08:54 AM EST
    Inmates serving time in state prisons said they obtained their guns from the following sources in percentages:

    Purchased from a retail store 8.3%
    Purchased at a pawn shop 3.8%
    Purchased at a flea market 1.0%
    Purchased at a gun show 0.7%
    Obtained from friends or family 39.6%
    Obtained on the street/illegal source 39.2%

    Sources: US Department of Justice, National Security Institute, National Association of Chiefs of Police

    While the 95% number seems to be an exaggeration, the actual numbers, in my opinion, are high enough to place this into the category of a "Difference without Contradiction"

    No Pinocchios today


    Difference (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Andreas on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:24:55 AM EST
    A difference between 95% and 39.2% is significant.

    You are ignoring (none / 0) (#22)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:12:03 AM EST
    Family, friends, and flea markets. That bumps to over 80%

    Nope (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:20:53 AM EST
    because obtaining it from a friend does not fall into the "illegal" category.

    Not true (none / 0) (#78)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:13:32 PM EST

    It is an ambiguous classification.  It is illegal to transfer a firearm to a friend, family member, or anyone else you know to be unable to lawfully possess a firearm.  

    What fraction of those transfers were illegal we don't know but it is completely unreasonable to assume that it is zero.  Given that most residents of the slammer have extensive criminal histories and therefore likely known to friends and family it may be that a large majority of those transfers were illegal.  


    And where do you think those (none / 0) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:48:30 PM EST
    illegal "street guns" come from, hmmm?

    I have learned from this thread and others (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:12:51 PM EST
    that the attempts to limit sales of guns based on categories are virtually meaningless due to the infinite customization possibilities of the guns and ammo.

    I think we have created an all or nothing world in which the 'all' is going to win. Possibly though, gun enthusiasts will eventually outsmart themselves and people will decide to ban everything because it is impossible to sort it out effectively. Probably not in my lifetime though.

    I wish the futility of the war on drugs was recognized as well.


    Not that there is any real solution re (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:25:34 PM EST
    firearms post Heller decision, but you think it is even futile to try and control firearm and ammo sales?  

    I'm starting to feel that way (none / 0) (#83)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:55:45 PM EST
    Hard to see that it is doing any good. I agree in principle with controlling it but it seems impossible to do it effectively without a much more stringent ban that would not be accepted.

    I don't know how old you are (none / 0) (#89)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:16:25 PM EST
     but there was a time, oh, roughly 50 years ago, when it was "society" that dictated acceptable, or not acceptable, behavior. In the 50's simply kidnapping a child was so unacceptable that it was almost non-existent. As a matter of fact it was considered so heinous that the crime carried the  death penalty.

    But, the point is, when the majority of citizens simply won't tolerate a certain behavior, that behavior tends to whither and die. When I was 5, 6, 7 years old, growing up in the Bronx, I traveled all 5 boroughs by subway, alone, without any fear for my safety. Back then the 8 million citizens of NYC simply wouldn't let it happen.


    54. I agree- kind of making the same point (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 06:53:17 AM EST
    It seems to me that society is so accepting of the gun culture at this point in our country's history that no more stringent bans will be accepted. Even most Dem pols have given up. It is not an issue that seems to fit the liberal-conservative model- many liberals take the libertarian position on gun control - so it is hard to identify the political base for gun control base. I think gun control advocatates have lost the argument in this generation.  There are some victories, but not enough to make a real difference.

    That's how I see it on this sad day anyway.


    Absolutely (4.00 / 4) (#104)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 01:13:38 PM EST
    "I think gun control advocates have lost the argument in this generation."

    But, they didn't lose the argument intellectually, they lost it due to the power and greed of the gun lobby and their purchased quislings in Congress. It's similar to our having given up hope regarding The Banks. If the Powerful don't like a Law, they simply buy the Politicians and change the Law.  


    They lost it because (none / 0) (#106)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 02:57:21 PM EST
    They lied too often.

    Does the name Michael Bellsiles mean anything to you?

    I mean your side just loves to bring up John Lott every chance they get.

    Then there's pretending the opinions of police chiefs (pretty much always political appointees) should mean something in gun debates.

    Pretending that 15 to 17 year old gang bangers who shoot each other are the same as little 4 year old Suzy having an accident with a gun so they can inflate the number of "child" deaths.

    Using scare words and adjectives, talking about a "public health crises" concerning gun deaths when such deaths don't even make it into the top 15 causes of death per year.

    Yep, over the years I've run into lots of "intellectual" arguments for gun control. Few of them have been honest.


    Not so. They're futile for political reasons. (none / 0) (#128)
    by jr on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 10:38:48 PM EST
    The Holy Grail is the external magazine. If only weapons with internal magazines were permitted to be possessed by civilians, you could significantly reduce the likelihood of mass shootings (not that they would be dropped to "zero," of course: the Cumbria shootings in Britain were only two years ago).

    Internal magazine or magazine-free weapons can be made available as semi-automatics or, in the case of revolvers, double-action (which is not technically the same thing), but reload times are usually substantially longer. My semi-automatic rifle, a Ruger .22, can be reloaded with a full external magazine in a couple of seconds, whereas my bolt-action rifle, a 7.62 caliber Soviet monster, takes about 6-10 seconds even with a stripper clip. In theory, I could shoot dozens of rounds per minute with one of them (far more than that with certain techniques, such as "bump firing"), but no more than ten or so with the other.

    Home defense? Perfectly possible with internal magazine or magazine-free weapons. Pump and breech shotguns, bolt and lever action rifles, revolvers: these are commonly available, widely owned, and perfectly effective. Defense against that mythical tyrannical government repression? If that's your brand of paranoia, fine: the Mosin Nagant that I own was able to stop Hitler and the Nazis, it costs less than $100, ammo is about $.25 per round (available in tins of 440 and 880), and there are literally millions of them sitting in Eastern European armories waiting to be sold. And Nagants, while heavy, are great as hunting rifles, I'm told.

    The issue is that there will most likely never be a political will in the US to do away with all external magazine ownership for private use. Under the Assault Weapons Ban capacity was limited for new magazines, but ones manufactured prior to the ban were still legal to buy and sell. At a minimum, high-capacity magazines should be regulated, but even that might take more political capital than anyone is willing to spend.


    That is the logical end (none / 0) (#133)
    by Rojas on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 08:20:04 AM EST
    ban all weapons with external magazines.
    Why stop there?
    Tubular magazines capable of 20 rounds are fairly common.
    Seems to me, metallic cartridges would be the holy grail.
    Then again, pre-charged air guns capable of storing enough energy for a mass shooting is a technology that is only about 250 years old and the amunition is much more compact.
    Perhaps we should ban the sale of pressure vessels capable of a burst pressure of over 500 psi and ban any co2 container with a capacity greater than 5 grams.

    Police: Colo. shooter James Holmes (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by rjarnold on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:26:12 AM EST
    set up elaborate bomb in apartments as distraction.

    That... (none / 0) (#15)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:00:35 AM EST
    is probably the most terrifying part of it.  How many more would have died if that part of his plan has succeeded?

    How much more organized can a killer get?  I would like to see the FBI profile on him.


    I admit... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:31:33 AM EST
    I love guns.  I have been around them all of my life but I draw the line with assault rifles.

    I don't think they have any place in the hands of private citizens.

    Just IMO.

    The problem with your thinking (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:20:15 AM EST
    is that the so-called "assault rifles" are simply semi-automatic guns. The only difference between them and the thousands of regular, every day, semi-automatic hunting rifles is their menacing appearance.

    Now, military type, fully automatic rifles are something else again, and with those I agree with you completely. Thank goodness those are very, very illegal, and being caught with one is a major felony, with major jail time.


    Non expert on guns (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by brodie on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:53:03 AM EST
    but my understanding is there are some important differences between a common rifle and the kind of semi auto military style assault weapon Holmes was able to purchase legally.  The major difference being his assault rifle was designed to be lightweight and hold clips that have 100 rounds of ammo, all legally purchased, apparently off the Internet. It's estimated that he could have squeezed off 50-60 rounds w/n a minute --and still had 40 more bullets to shoot. Witnesses suggest this is indeed what happened.

    That's a huge difference -- the ability to shoot so many bullets w/o having to pause to reload.  A true Weapon of Mass Destruction.  Made to kill or injure a large number of people in a very brief period of time.

    It escapes me why such a WMD is legal in this country, and why clips of 100 rounds or 50 or 20 are okay.  I don't recall seeing a good argument from the NRA crowd and their 2A absolutist enablers as to how society benefits from permitting such high-powered mass killing machines and the large clips.


    When you can get off 50 to 60 (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:41:29 AM EST
    rounds a minute, I think that's ridiculous.

    If you could load the clips fast enough (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:04:12 AM EST
    You could get an equivalent weight of fire from some pistols.

    Seriously, what is a rapid rate of fire?
    No civilian has this.


    The World War I (4.00 / 1) (#36)
    by lousy1 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:21:19 AM EST
    Bolt action Lee-Enfield  Rifle which had a 10 shot magazine (reloaded by 5 round clips ) was capable of firing 28 aimed shots per minute.

    Infantrymen were trained to put at least 15 shots in a 12 inch circle at 300 yards within 60 seconds. Mad Minute

    It was not uncommon during the First World War for riflemen to greatly exceed this score. Many riflemen could average 30+ shots

    For reference this target would be about the size of a football 3 football fields away.

    This skill  requires that the soldier remove his hand from the trigger; cycle the bolt and reacquire the target.

    He was also required to stuff a five round clip into the magazine twice after firing ten shots.

    I don't think that clip size ( or even Semi -automatic weapons) are as significant as some propose


    I think there's a key difference... (none / 0) (#129)
    by jr on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 10:47:35 PM EST
    ...between people who are professionally trained and spend many hours of each day honing their ability to use a weapon with that degree of skill, and some random schmuck with a desire to watch the world burn.

    50 to 60 rounds (none / 0) (#79)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:27:55 PM EST

    Out best shooter at today's pistol match scored 32 hits on four steel targets (one hit each) and fourteen paper targets (two hits each) plus a couple of misses in 16.75 seconds.  That required drawing the pistol and moving about 20 yards at least one magazine change and engaging targets on the move.

    One shot per second is pretty slow for a practiced shooter.  

    I am fairly slow but my second shot time is around 0.16 seconds.


    In other words, a useless attempt (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:05:20 PM EST
    at a parallel of a movie theater at capacity, i.e, hundreds of targets, and only inches apart from each other.

    Take your four targets, multiplied times 50 for a movie theater of 200, and then tell us the result.

    Or multiplied times even more, as this li'l everyday weapon not worth banning, per this blog, snet bullets through walls to the next theater, too, to injure even more "targets."  (I prefer to call them humans.)


    Amazingly dishonest, Towanda (1.20 / 5) (#84)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:36:10 PM EST
    But a Goebbels would be proud.

    The poster speaks of his time at a shooting range, where you shoot at targets and you turn those targets into humans at a theater. Sorry, but disagreeing with you that this shooting has any larger meaning or even any real solution via gun control methods does not equal a lack of empathy for human life.


    Ridiculously dishonest of you, Slayer (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:10:15 PM EST
    and you had to go there.  You make yourself a joke.

    Anyone with operative brain cells can see the math that I stated -- and that I sad nothing about lack of empathy for human life.

    Go to . . no, you're there.


    No dear (1.40 / 5) (#90)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:25:58 PM EST
    You turned targets at a shooting range into humans in a theater so you could argue using emotion.

    If it's things that can end human life you want to "ban" , then I suggest you surrender your arms and legs. You do know that under assault laws arms and legs can be considered deadly weapons?

    In fact the real source of danger for you is the human brain because its the human brain that invents means to kill other humans and also gives the impetus to actually do so.

    I guess this is just a longer way of me saying you will not be able to "ban" your way out of any conceivable danger. You might want to think on that.

    Or not.


    And you compared Towanda to J. Goebbels (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 10:22:27 PM EST
    Read the site rules. Even if Jeralyn hasn't deleted your vicious comments, you are coming off like an unhinged troll.

    Truly. (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Towanda on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 10:56:17 PM EST
    But Jeralyn won't ban anti-gun control commenters.

    Not to worry, shoephone -- not for me.  If I received the regard of such sorts, then I would worry for myself.

    As for the site, well, see above.


    No kidding, Towanda. (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 12:31:02 AM EST
    His comments won't be banned and neither will he. Two months ago I said that TL had become a place where there were suddenly different rules for different commenters. I stand by that assertion.

    You and Towanda are right (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by sj on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 10:42:31 AM EST
    She especially won't ban anti-gun control, pro-Zimmerman zealots -- no matter how my misogynistic.  I guess if that's who she wants dominating her site it's up to her.  

    I said he would be proud (1.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 11:16:07 PM EST
    He was a famous propagandist, not a murderer.

    If the shoe fits, you should wear it. Or else knock off that type of behavior. No one here needs lectured about how bullets can kill human beings.


    Your insults are not working (4.43 / 7) (#101)
    by ZtoA on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 11:49:55 AM EST
    except to maybe to GOTV for democrats.

    This entire post is about the shooting at the theater. Mass murder IS emotional for most people. Removing emotion by reducing shooting to target practice at a gun range is missing the point. It is simply a return to reality to bring the discussion back to the actual mass murder of innocent humans.


    I haven't ... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:15:50 AM EST
    seen the how to for converting a semi- to a fully automatic weapon.  From what I understand it is fairly uncomplicated.

    This is just me being simplistic but I am a simple kind of gal:

    Handguns = personal protection (legal semi-auto)
    Rifles = hunting large prey (deer, moose, elk, etc)
    Shotguns = hunting small prey (bird hunting)

    AR-15(and the like) = hunting humans (war)


    Unless you are skilled (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by lousy1 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:57:16 AM EST
    The shotgun is probably your best bet for all three functions. (if we only count home defense - not carry situations)

    Its a bit awkward. But a reliable pump action shotgun more likely to hit the target in the hands of a casual user than a pistol. The pellets are also less likely to penetrate a neighbors walls than most rifle or handguns rounds. Conversely a bad guy seeking cover behind and interior wall at short range is still at risk.

    It has been rumored that the distinctive sound of the pump can have a calming effect on an intruder.

    One Caveat.

    If you like to enjoy a few adult beverages and plinking at the flies in your living room, a small caliber hand gun is more suitable than a shotgun.

    An AR-15 is a rifle. It may look mean but is is functionally no different than any other semi automatic rifle. The size of a magazine is not determined by the style of the rifle. Extended magazines are available for most rifles.

    The AR 15 is well suited for hunting, home defense    (perhaps not in a densely populated area) and target practice.

    Hunters tend to carry a small magazine because of weight. However a large magazine simplifies target practice particularly when renting range time.


    Yes, a 20 gauge pump (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:53:22 PM EST
    with the shortest possible legal barrel length loaded with #4 buck and no choke is the best possible home defense weapon.

    Reliable, light weight and easy to hit the target with enough shot to be deadly inside a home.

    12 and 16 gauges may be preferred by some but the recoil may make using difficult for small people.

    The 20 is shotgun enough.


    That's correct, re: AR-15 (none / 0) (#119)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 05:31:34 PM EST
    But its successor, the M-16, the weapon I slept with for 3-1/2 years in the 60's,  was.

    I think the point is that for the purpose of shooting a bunch of innocent civilians the fact that one gun shoots in "bursts" with a single pull on the trigger, and another that shoots as fast as you can pull the trigger, is a distinction without a difference.


    Only if shooting 3 times as many bullets (none / 0) (#125)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 07:07:07 PM EST
    Per trigger squeeze makes no difference.

    Heck, why not just give him a machine gun? It's all the same , right?


    BTW (none / 0) (#47)
    by lousy1 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:19:01 AM EST
    I am not aware of any military that has used the AR 15 to equip its troops. It is not used for warfare.

    Sorry, (none / 0) (#120)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 05:32:43 PM EST
    my comment above was meant to go Here.

    Romney's speech was awful (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:39:41 AM EST
    And he did a thing that I do when I'm being contrite with a touch of preachy, he made a slight smacking sound at the end of sentences that requires that you suck on the back of your teeth.  If that's what I sound like, I need to do something about that.  Whenever I do do it around my daughter she hisses 'Mom, you're sucking on your teeth again"

    Here's my definition of a Second AA (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:15:51 AM EST
    Or Second Amendment Absolutist:

    A. Thinks every type of firearm available to the military should be available to a civilian. This would include machine guns, even the 40 thousand shot (per barrel) gun I linked to above. Except for a very very very few nutcases this does NOT include tanks, planes, atomic weapons, etc. because even most of the rather few SAA that do exist recognize those are not firearms.

    B. Believes any regulation is Unconstitutional. To "regulate" means to make "well-ordered" and applies only to military discipline of the militia, or so they would argue.

    I don't think a single person on this thread is a Second Amendment Absolutionist, per the definition above. Some of us might argue whether we need more regulations or merely different ones or even if (where I stand) the government should react at all to what seems to be merely a statistical abbe ration by someone who possibly was not in his right mind.

    You know (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:46:39 PM EST
    I have this friend of mine husband's who a gun nut. He always yammering about how he needs guns to protect himself from the "government". I told him one time that having guns, even an arsenal, in your own home is not going to protect you. If the full force of the military industrial complex in this country wants to take you out, you're a goner. Look at exhibit one: Osama Bin Laden. I'm sure he had an arsenal and it was less than worthless in protecting himself.

    Maybe he thinks it will be (none / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:41:25 PM EST
    some "government bureaucrat" that comes after him, not Delta Team 6.

    Regular people versus "The Man" (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:54:07 PM EST
    Well, to be honest:

    There aren't enough "Delta Team Six" members to go around. Any large scale governmental oppression would have to rely on the regular soldiers and cops. I doubt the government as of now COULD rely on them for mass oppression but maybe eventually if the cops continue to militarize and the armed services continue to recruit from foreigners and a small self-selected subset of the population. On top of that, unless the government actively thinks you are dangerous OR wants to give you "special treatment" for some reason (Waco, Ruby Ridge), most of your interaction with the feds would be with bureaucrats or agents with handguns. So yeah, occasionally your normal bureaucrat, beatcop, or junior agent finds him/herself outgunned by a homeowner. I could resist the real life agent Smith or Officer Jones and his partner Willie. I couldn't resist the Baltimore city SWAT team nor
    any unit of the armed services.


    I hope you are right about your point (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:04:59 PM EST
    that the government would not be able to rely on the regular soldiers and cops, but I fear the cooperation of the regular soldiers and cops would depend won who the mass oppression was aimed at.

    I don't think oppression of the form of coming for everyone in their homes is even remotely on the horizon, but good luck to you if it is.


    13 years and 13 miles. (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:02:15 PM EST
    The lesson learned from Columbine was how to react to these events, but sadly not how to prevent them.  

    Yesterday, four million Coloradans went to work and played football in their front yard; strangers opened doors for each other; people gave blood, offered shelter, served hot meals, held grandkids, played pick-up basketball and committed unnumbered acts of kindness and gentleness. One Coloradan dressed up like a villain and believed that by showing up at the site of America's mythical hero he could slay our actual heroes.

    It's true there was no Batman sitting in the theater to fly down and tackle James Holmes, as he hoped there might be. He had tactical assault gear covering his whole body, ready for America to fight back.

    But love is more organized than that. Love has cellphones and ambulances, nurses and doctors, complete strangers and policemen and emergency responders always at the ready. Love has nurses who will jump out of bed in the middle of the night and get family members to watch their children so they can rush to the hospital and save the life of someone they've never met. Love has first responders who will walk into a booby-trapped building to save the lives of neighbors they will never meet.

    It must be lonely being James Holmes, spending the first part of your life planning alone for an act that will leave you sitting alone for the rest of your life. For the rest of us, life is crowded. Love is always only three numbers and one movie seat away.

    We have lived our country's history as a chapter of wars, and many of those wars we have been blessed to win. We are a team that loves each other and will fight for each other, and if you punch us in the mouth, we will fight back.

    That is one of our obvious strengths, but it is not our greatest strength. America's awesome strength to fight is overwhelmed by its irrepressible strength to love. James Holmes took twelve lives last night. Love saved fifty-nine lives. Policemen on the scene in minutes, strangers carrying strangers, nurses and doctors activated all over the city.

    But we didn't stop there. Love saved the 700 other people who walked out of the Aurora movie theater unhurt.

    But we didn't stop there. Love saved the 5,000 who went to see Batman all over Colorado, and the 1.2 million who saw it all over the country, who walked in and out safely with their friends, arm in arm.

    But we didn't stop there. Love claimed the four million other Coloradans who went to bed peacefully last night, ad who woke up this morning committed to loving each other a little deeper.

    The awe of last night is not that a man full of hate can take twelve people's lives; it is that a nation full of love can save 300 million lives every day.

    I sat this morning wondering what I could do to help: give blood, support victims, raise money, stop violence. How could we start to fight back?

    My friends were texting me that they had plans to take their kids to Batman tonight but were now afraid to go. Others who were going to play pick-up basketball or go out to dinner were now afraid to leave home. They thought they would bunker down in their home and wonder, "How do we fight back?"

    The answer is we love back. We live back. We deepen our commitments to all the unnumbered acts of kindness that make America an unrendable fabric. We respond by showing that we will play harder, and longer. We will serve more meals, play more games, eat more food, listen to more jazz, go to more movies, give more hugs, and say more "thank yous" and "I love yous" than ever before.

    So while James Holmes settles into the cell where he will spend the rest of his life, wondering what we will do to fight back, we will love back. We will go to a park this afternoon and play soccer, we will go to the playground and restaurants and movie theaters of our city all weekend and all year.

    He should know not only that he failed in his demented attempt to be the villain, but that Batman didn't have to leap off the screen to stop him, because we had a far more organized and powerful force than any superhero could ever have. Even the twelve lives that he took, this nation will love so strongly and so deeply that we will ensure they get a lifetime full of love out of a life he tried to cut short.

    And the fifty-nine lives we took back will be so overrun with love that they will live their lives feeling blessed every day, and everyone who ever meets them will pass on in an instant a love they never knew they earned but we will never let them forget.

    In a movie theatre in Aurora 50 years from now, one of last night's survivors will be waiting in the popcorn line and mention that he was in Theatre 9 on that terrible summer night in 2012. And inexplicably, with an arm full of popcorn, a total stranger will reach out and give that old man a huge hug and say, "I'm so glad you made it."

    Love back. We've already won.

    Share what you're doing to love back on Facebook and Twitter by using the hashtag #loveback or #liveback.

    CO State Senator Mike Johnston

    When Pres. Obama meets with (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 12:49:04 PM EST
    victims' families, will he address gun control?  The Politics of Crime.  

    Given how much the federal government (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:58:36 PM EST
    knows about each of us in the interests of homeland security, why didn't they know about the suspects purchase of 4 guns and 6000 rounds of ammo?  link

    I gave the answer in the post (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 12:42:27 AM EST
    He passed the background checks, Colorado law doesn't require registration, just a background check, and prohibits law enforcement from developing a database.

    Buying four guns hardly warrants tracking by homeland security.

    As to the ammunition, since that was done on the internet, I don't have an answer. I would say it's none of their business if the purchases are legal, which according to the news, they are.

    I really don't think we should encourage more monitoring in hopes of catching a few deranged people.

    You are barking up the wrong tree. Why wasn't there better security at the theater for such a high profile premiere? Why didn't someone at his school notice a change in him, especially when he wanted to drop out, and try to get him counseling?  Why didn't his family or or his acquaintances or neighbors notice a change?

    How would tracking his gun purchases have prevented his use of explosives or booby traps? If he didn't have guns, he might have built a bomb and taken out far more people.

    He's obviously got mental issues-- anyone who engages in a mass shooting does -- the guns didn't cause this mental issues, they were the means by which he expressed them.


    The federal gov't. knows so much about (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 12:59:17 AM EST
    each of us.  I heartily disagree re your assessment guns and ammo purchases are "the wrong tree" to bark up.  

    As to the ammunition, since that was done on the internet, I don't have an answer.

    I've blown through 2000 rounds of ammo... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by redwolf on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:55:18 AM EST
    taking a group of friends to the range.  6000 probably wouldn't be that odd for a serious gun person.

    Better security at theaters needed? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by heidelja on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:32:17 AM EST
    Do movie goers really want to pay for this, too, and $5 for a small Coke?  To have prevented this so call "Movie Theater Massacre" it may have required every door been watched.  

    The weak link was that the exit door could be opened without an audio alarm sounding in the theater. But then who knows what kind of mass hysteria this might cause in the future given this event. Likely there will be found that there was a silent alarm someplace that went unnoticed.

    Actually, the greatest "threat" to security has been the immense news coverage and the details made public.  Haven't we seen enough irresponsible journalism in other alledged criminal matters going seriously awry that no one has learned any lessons? Note particulaly HLN yesterday!  

    I do not think a near "first" step (within 12 hours) that all the local do gooders should get together in front of the cameras for a news media event. I think their collective time would have been better spent thinking what a responsible level of information divulged at the very outset be rather than a reckless telling of the details to "build the case against the guy" manner that went down.    


    Indeed, significantly upping (4.33 / 6) (#28)
    by brodie on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:31:13 AM EST
    security at theaters and malls is going to also up the costs that would be passed along to consumers, probably causing some of these businesses to go under. We would also get much closer to the sort of omnipresent police state many of the fervent defenders of the 2A supposedly are against.

    Do we want to constantly walk in public with police and armed guards at every corner, every venue where people congregate, or is it more sensible to at least limit by law the type and amount of massive firepower an individual can legally acquire and put real teeth into laws for enforcement.

    And silly me: I had gotten so discouraged by the trends in recent years that I didn't learn until yesterday that some kinds of semi auto military assault weapons were still legal to buy, and that they and the massive clips could be purchased off the internet.  

    Wow.  Appalling situation.  And the 2A absolutists whine about "all the gun control laws already on the books.". Apparently a lot of those laws are full of holes.


    Umm . . . (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:37:12 AM EST
    Why wasn't there better security at the theater for such a high profile premiere?

    We have had high profile premieres forever and a day. Do you really want more security just to see a freakin' movie? Iirc, there was a shooting at a Mickey D's, should we have increased security at all fast food places? Should we just turn all malls into places with metal detectors at the doors?


    Whereever will teenagers, and others, (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:01:37 PM EST
    unfortunately, obtain minimum wage/no benefits jobs?

    Jeralyn... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:40:30 PM EST
    sometimes you leave me breathless.

    Good answer Jeralyn (none / 0) (#12)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:48:30 AM EST
    the guns didn't cause the mental issues.  Very, very true.

    Yeah, but... (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by unitron on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:36:55 AM EST
    ...they made a hell of a consequences amplifer for them.

    You get (none / 0) (#143)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 05:45:48 PM EST
    no argument from me on that.

    I trust your statistics (none / 0) (#9)
    by Tov on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:55:32 AM EST
    are correct and will not dispute them. Your last question is a very good one. It may be that the rageful and mentally unstable and/or desperate- where desperation results in personal criminal acts and more extreme acts such as the Aurora tradgedy have found an easy way to fullfill their selfish and sick goals by using guns. Our culture has re-enforced this as the way to solve "problems". Not on purpose  mind you... but by decades of gloryfing and romanticizing gun use in literature and other media. It is a visious circle. My main point and hope is that we come to an epiphany where guns are not the first option and that the culture of crime and death are seen as the destructive force they are and not so readily accepted as the unchangeable "human condition". How do we get there? I honestly don't know, yet the culture of fear and guns does not seem to be the answer. In the interim we might just make it a little harder to access the tools of death. Perhaps the NRA could spend some of it  millions on mental health programs instead of blindly promoting its industry. I would ask the same of the Brady Org. It might just help if they/we work together. As President Obama states ... and I am projecting here... there can be no Change without Hope and I would venture to say the the inverse is true.  Peace.

    I'll take guns over bombs any day of the week. (3.50 / 4) (#14)
    by redwolf on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:58:04 AM EST
    I'm glad no one has noticed yet, but as Iraq proved that well setup IDEs can do more damage than thousands of AK47s.

    At least you're honest. Incredible comment. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:26:17 PM EST
    More background re the suspect: (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:11:00 AM EST
    WSWS on Aurora, Colorado tragedy (none / 0) (#16)
    by Andreas on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:04:09 AM EST
    The WSWS writes today:

    The tragedy, the public is told, is "senseless" and "inexplicable"--in any case, it has nothing to do with the state of American society.

    Thirteen years after the Columbine High School killings, which occurred only 30 miles from Friday's atrocity (...), and after countless other mass shootings in the intervening years, including the massacre at Virginia Tech in 2007 and the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in 2011, the establishment's arguments are not merely banal and superficial, they reek of bad faith. ...

    Obama told the crowd that, "the federal government stands ready to do whatever is necessary to bring whoever is responsible for this heinous crime to justice. (Applause.) And we will take every step possible to ensure the safety of all of our people."

    This is demonstrably false. By its plundering of resources and military aggression overseas and its social destructiveness at home, the US ruling elite, with Obama at its helm, has made life immeasurably less safe for the American population.

    Obama continued, waxing philosophical, "We may never understand what leads anybody to terrorize their fellow human beings like this. Such violence, such evil is senseless. It's beyond reason." This from the man who helps draw up a weekly "kill list" of those targeted for assassination in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and elsewhere.

    Aurora, Colorado tragedy: The latest mass shooting in the US
    By David Walsh, 21 July 2012

    So? (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Tov on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:13:07 AM EST
    What is your point?  What is your answer?

    I think he's merely pointing out the irony (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Dadler on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:49:06 AM EST
    We lead the world in these types of domestic incidents.  AND we are kings of the drone killing culture.  Just sayin'.  Something to chew on, to ponder.  Don't want to?  Then don't.  As for answers, you got any yourself?

    Seriously...we've got situational ethics (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:48:42 AM EST
    going all day long, it seems; the only difference is that drones kill from afar, and we don't have to stick around to deal with the aftermath.  I nearly fell off my chair the other day when I read that there is consideration underway for awarding Medals of Honor to drone operators.

    Oops - there I go into politics.  Well, politics, and the hypocritical disconnect between government-sponsored and -approved killing and citizen-driven killing is part of the problem.

    The simple truth for me is not that I want guns to be banned, and it isn't that I want more laws or more security.  It's that I don't want to go about my daily life constantly wondering who has a gun; I don't want to be in the cross-hairs of some idiot who thinks his gun is a substitute for a brain.  Or minding my own business when the gunfight breaks out.

    Buy a gun, go to the range with a gun, hunt deer or rabbits or wild boar; just have the courtesy to respect the rights of your non-gun-owning fellow citizens to live in peace.


    A little re-wording to make a point (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:32:09 AM EST
    "It's that I don't want to go about my daily life constantly wondering who has a knife..."

    A gun is a tool. Do you really live in a place where you have to constantly worry about someone misusing that tool or not?

    I live in a place where that particular tool is banned. Somehow, I think I'm at more risk than you are.


    Why, yes, I'm in a workplace (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:22:23 PM EST
    where, much of the time, I'm in a room with hundreds of people who can conceal their carrying of guns now, and in a locale where the concealed-carry law has led to the sale of thousands more guns weekly.  And the rooms in whih I work are in public buildings with absolutely no security checkpoints, dozens of doors, open usually 20 hours a day.  So I sometimes have to ask the homeless to leave, so that we can work.

    I teach.

    With the new laws in my locale, I am trying to retire as fast as I can -- as it was bad enough before, having had a classeeld hostage, being stalked by a convicted felon, being told by the DA that nothing could be done because a teacher is a public figure. . . .

    Until I can retire, I am trying to teach online all that I can, believe me.  And I have cut back in-person office hours all that I can, too, although after a hostage experience in my office as well, I rearranged furniture and always have a drawer open with a large scissors in it, all that I am allowed.

    You, the public, do not pay me enough for this.  And you cut my pay, anyway, while also cutting back on the pathetically little security force that we did have.

    Btw, it's much better at private campuses.  I would not send my children to public campuses anymore.


    Wow (none / 0) (#91)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:48:38 PM EST
    Prior to this law in your area you get stalked, taken hostage, and you aren't , apparently, even now allowed to carry yourself.

    And yet now that your classrooms are full of potentially armed people (thus, at least setting up a potential mutually assured destruction scenerio should someone be foolish enough to attack) you feel LESS safe?


    But I know the arguments: it's only a matter of time until someone shoots someone else over seating arrangments, or for not sharing their number 2 pencils. Will probably happen tomorrow; clearly given how idiotic and irresponsible about using guns many on here think the "average person" is, it probably should have happened already.


    YOU have that backwards (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 09:45:40 AM EST
    A gun is a tool.

    No. A knife is a tool. A gun is a weapon.  Can a knife be used as a weapon?  Sure, but so can my shoe, an umbrella, the mug on my desk, etc.  A gun has one and only one purpose - as a weapon.


    Tell that to a hunter (none / 0) (#137)
    by Slayersrezo on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:40:19 PM EST
    Well, goodness, golly me, I do believe they are using the gun as a superior hunting tool.

    I would also point out that a gun fires projectiles. Killing people with those projectiles is only one of the potential uses of them.


    where would that be? (none / 0) (#100)
    by LeaNder on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 11:10:05 AM EST
    I live in a place where that particular tool is banned. Somehow, I think I'm at more risk than you are.

    And who exactly endangers you, where you are not allowed to carry a gun, if I understand correctly?


    Simple (none / 0) (#107)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 03:10:56 PM EST
    I live in Baltimore city.

    I've been randomly attacked 3 times.
    I've been mugged at gunpoint once. This was about 2 blocks from the police station on Baltimore Street.
    My home has been robbed once.
    Once my car had its windows smashed.
    Based on an anonymous call from some guy who had a snit with my brother my house was raided by 6 cops for drugs and guns. I was handcuffed.
    I can't sue the cops, by the way if they fail to protect me.

    In Baltimore city:
    I can't conceal carry.
    I can't have pepper spray.
    I can't use or possess a taser.
    I can't wear or possess a bullet proof vest. Yep, here its illegal to have passive protection.

    In Baltimore city I feel like my life is in the hands of some feudal lord who doesn't even deign to grant me decent protection, even though he won't let me defend myself.

    Meanwhile I have friends and relatives in West Virginia, western Maryland, and Pennsylvania. There's an actual gun culture there, and most people I've known are packing.

    Welcome to my world. Sounds fun, doesn't it?


    Maybe you should move. (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 03:27:15 PM EST
    I live in northern Baltimore County; my brother and future son-in-law hunt on our property and my son-in-law has a handgun that he takes to the range.

    I work in the city, and am happy to leave it at the end of the workday; city life has no appeal to me - sounds like it has no appeal for you, either, so why stay?


    If I could, I would (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 03:45:32 PM EST
    One word:

    I don't have the money to move. Maryland has some of the highest priced living in the country. I also don't have rare skills that would be easily valued in another state.
    I own -free and clear - my home here.
    Yet selling it, wouldn't help. It wouldn't fetch enough of a price to enable me to move elsewhere, renting or not.


    I live in Baltimore city. (none / 0) (#110)
    by sj on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 03:26:53 PM EST
    I have never been attacked.
    I have never been mugged, much less at gunpoint.
    My home has never been robbed*.
    My car has had its windows smashed.  No one was hurt or injured.  They got five dollars, my radar detector and a brand new bottle of Rain-X from the trunk.  

    I was new to that neighborhood.  Although it wasn't a plan of mine, I'm pleasant to the street regulars so since then I am almost never asked for money and they look out for my car.  And me.

    I have no feudal lord, but I do have a landlord.  He's a very pleasant sort.

    Most people I know aren't packing.  I don't live in "The Wire".  I live in your city but not in your world.

    * My home in Denver was burgled once when the backyard fence was being replaced.  This was in a "safe" neighborhood.


    Are you telling us (none / 0) (#112)
    by lily on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 03:40:33 PM EST
    you are SPECIAL, not lucky

    that crime is only targeted, not random or opportunistic, that crime only happens to people who have the wrong demeanor or attitude, and you are a perfect example of multiculturalism that protects you from any harm. really???


    I'm telling you the facts (none / 0) (#117)
    by sj on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 04:31:49 PM EST
    I don't care what "world" you live in (none / 0) (#113)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 03:41:45 PM EST
    I do care about my own life.

    I notice you claim to have never experienced crime here. Even assuming I believe you, what is your point? That somehow what has happened to me is ok? Can you think of any good reason I shouldn't be allowed a bullet proof vest or pepper spray for craps sake?


    Barking at this imaginary moon (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by bmaz on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 04:11:58 PM EST
    Is of diminishing returns and annoying.  You at this point are just wantonly consuming comment space. Your position is clear, and was loooooooong ago.

    Reading comprehension is lacking (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by sj on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 05:37:59 PM EST
    I think that there (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:03:19 AM EST
    are going to be several things about his behavior in the last months or even years that people that know him will be seeing as clues in retrospect. He will surely be interviewed by psychiatrists or psychologists, and maybe we can get insights about what causes people to have such rage and think this is the way to make themselves feel better in some way. That is the advantage of having him alive rather than dead. I hope he has enough humanity left in his heart to cooperate with such research.  Maybe it would teach us how to better identify people on the edge, and yes, add something to the background checks that prevent them from creating a private arsenal of 'pain relievers'.

    There was a time (none / 0) (#34)
    by Georgie Girl on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:14:28 AM EST
    during the Clinton administration and until 2004 in which the manufacture of certain types of weapons was restricted. I believe it was an attempt to keep these types of weapons out of the hands of the general public. I was wondering if during that those ten years there was a notable reduction in gun violence using those types of weapons & has there been an increase since then. And, really, why would a civilian need a weapon that shots off multiple rounds in a minute?

    Why? To kill and harm others, no other reason. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Angel on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:23:31 AM EST
    When was the last time (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:34:03 AM EST
    there was a firearm of any type that couldn't get off more than one shot in a minute? Back in the days of flintlocks?

    Wow, talk about ignorance making for poor arguments.


    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Georgie Girl on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:46:38 AM EST
    I don't understand how guns work & that my question was so stupid. However, I still do not understand why a civilian would need a gun that fires a large number of bullets in a short span of time.

    I suppose you could argue (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:56:06 AM EST
    That more than about one bullet per second is excessive. So figure about 60 shots per minute is the limit of necessary rate-of-fire for normal civilian usage.

    Why this rate? Well, for self-defense you want the gun to shoot as soon as you pull the trigger. And you want to be able to get out more than one shot in a rather short period of time because:
    A. You might miss
    B. Your first bullet might not stop someone.
    Bullets hardly ever knock someone off their feet (they are too small), and they usually aren't instantly fatal unless you hit the heart or, sometimes, the head.

    The anti-gunners here have better arguments when they go after clip size. I'd be ok with restricting clips to 60 shots per the argument above.


    2 two guns firing at that rate at once (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:00:28 PM EST
    Which is humanly possible to do and seems to have been done in this case puts how many rounds out there in a minute?

    120 rounds in a minute (none / 0) (#64)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:41:53 PM EST
    Which is still nowhere near what a machine gun would do.

    I suppose you could make it a crime to carry more than one gun concealed on your person or more than one rifle on your person when off the firing range or away from your home or place of business.

    But from what I'm reading (read ONLY a total of 4 articles on this so far) he had the guns hidden either in his car or some sort of cache in the parking lot. He picked a good night to perform this atrocity: His getup hardly drew notice, so it's unlikely anyone would have noted if he was carrying what they thought was a fake handgun or shotgun around.


    Who cares if it isn't what an machine (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:47:50 PM EST
    gun puts out?  Who really cares?

    What's your point then, MT? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:54:18 PM EST
    Who cares how many bullets he shot. He had the capability to do damage in multiple ways and the intention to do so.

    Sorry if that scares you. It's certainly very surprising.


    To clarify (none / 0) (#77)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:56:15 PM EST
    I should say your fear and insecurity is certainly very surprising.

    Perhaps to make you feel better, we should ban advanced math. You have no idea just what that enables a single person to do.


    It's not a stupid question (none / 0) (#96)
    by Rojas on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 07:54:30 AM EST
    The technology:

    The Girandoni air rifle was in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. The advantages of a high rate of fire, no smoke from propellants, and low muzzle report granted it initial acceptance,....

    The Lewis and Clark Expedition used the rifle in the demonstrations that they performed for nearly every Native American tribe they encountered on the expedition.

    The rifle was 4 ft (1.2 m) long and weighed 10 lbs (4.5 kg), about the same basic size and weight as other muskets of the time. It fired a .46 caliber ball[2] at a velocity similar to that of a modern .45 ACP and it had a tubular, gravity-fed magazine with a capacity of 20 balls.

    Contemporary regulations of 1788 required that each rifleman, in addition to the rifle itself, be equipped with three compressed air reservoirs (two spare and one attached to the rifle), cleaning stick, hand pump, lead ladle, and 100 lead balls, 1 in the chamber, 21 in the magazine built into the rifle and the remaining 80 in four tin tubes.

    The air reservoir was in the club-shaped butt. With a full air reservoir, the Girandoni air rifle had the capacity to shoot 30 shots at useful pressure. These balls were effective to approximately 150 yards on a full load.

    The Girandoni air rifle was an important first. It was the first repeating rifle of any kind to see military service. It was one of the first uses of a tubular magazine. And, although it saw service for only 35 years, it predated and was more advanced in design and mechanical technology than the Henry rifle which arrived fifty years later.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#53)
    by lousy1 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:43:50 AM EST
    But the infantry men on Fredrick the Great armed the flint lock muskets were capable of firing 3-6 shots per minute.


    Even as far back as the 30 year war  (early 17th Century)

    The introduction of the paper cartridge by Gustavus Adolphus in the Thirty Years War greatly improved the reliability of the rifle and increased its rate of fire.Riflemen could now fire two rounds a minute instead of a single round every 2-3 minutes.

    Never the less combatants,fanatics and zealots all  seemed to prefer blade weapons when massacring unarmed inhabitants.


    It was probably related to rate of fire (none / 0) (#56)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:57:43 AM EST
    Seriously, if it takes any longer than say 3 seconds to squeeze off a shot, you are very vulnerable to a rush from a single person.

    I agree (none / 0) (#57)
    by lousy1 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 12:19:24 PM EST
    but beyond that a bayonet is more economical. Witness some of the Japanese massacres in WWII

    If I am in a fight for my life a want to have the best tool available for the job. It's ridiculous to postulate a semi -automatic weapon is not suited for self defense.


    Hey there Georgie Girl! (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by brodie on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:33:10 AM EST
    Good question.  And relevant considerations also should include how tight, sweeping and loophole-free the original 1994 ban was. My info from a common site suggests both that it was easily gotten around and that it led to a reduction in assault weapon violence.

    That wraps it up for me on this topic -- don't want to run afoul of existing rules and regulations on this board.


    I've heard people (none / 0) (#40)
    by jondee on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:33:56 AM EST
    say that once you fire one, you become addicted, which is probably true for some people..

    And some people seem to get addicted to acting out violently, or fanticising about acting out violently..

    There are way too many people with a feeling of powerlessness that they have a desperate need to compensate for in this country. Couple that with a sense that others are just in your way, and you have a recipe for disaster..

    Addicted (none / 0) (#54)
    by lousy1 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:47:43 AM EST
    Do you mean like hitting a golf ball?

    Any task that can be repeated (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:50:07 PM EST
    easily with immediate feedback of success or failure can become habit forming in that way. (I don't want to use the term addiction.) That is what the creators of video games count on. The key is the immediate feedback. If target practicing took half an hour to get the result, most people would lose interest pretty fast.

    like blowing a golf ball (none / 0) (#136)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 12:11:32 PM EST
    to smithereens..

    Here's a link... (none / 0) (#48)
    by magster on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:29:37 AM EST
    ... to the Post article on some of the radio dispatch communications as it unfolded. Pretty riveting.

    CO currently has death penalty (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:32:03 PM EST
    on the books per Wiki.  

    And DA Carol Chambers likes to use it (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 12:04:50 AM EST
    But she's out in November, and her successor will make the final call. If his public defender asks for a competency evaluation, that could eat up months.

    With Chambers though, I won't be surprised if she files a death charge and leaves it to her successor to withdraw if he wants.

    I'm supporting Ethan Feldman to take her place. When I first began practicing he was a DA in Arapahoe County. He went on to become Chief Deputy  for major crimes. He has been a county court judge for the last 20 years. (He left in December, to run for DA.) The defense bar here is pretty solidly behind him. He's also a very nice guy. Here's his issues statement.

    He supports Drug Courts and Mental Health courts, and the county has both. I doubt he'd have a problem with the death penalty for Holmes, unless he was really mentally ill. I would hope he wouldn't try to execute a seriously mentally ill person.

    I'm wondering now if the feds won't also file charges for the explosives. Holmes is unlikely to ever get out of prison or a mental hospital. There's no need to put him to death. Life in prison or a mental hospital will be a death sentence -- he'll only come out in a box.


    I would traditionally (none / 0) (#97)
    by bmaz on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 09:12:58 AM EST
    ...have thought it absurd for the Feds to get involved in a state law based local crime, even a notorious one like this.

    BUT that was all before I saw how DOJ bigfooted all over Barbara LaWall, hard and fast, in Pima County for the Giffords shooting. The DOJ is out of control and they may well want a piece of slam dunk action, because that is just how they roll now.


    me thinks all it takes (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by fishcamp on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 12:44:31 PM EST
    for the feebs to get involved is explosives in this case.

    Question is not whether Feds can... (none / 0) (#105)
    by bmaz on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 01:21:06 PM EST
    ...but rather SHOULD they. Traditionally, where main crimes were state based, the Feds tagged on and kept their potential jurisdiction in their pocket as a backup in case something went sideways in the state case; especially so where the state has life in prison/death penalty potential already.  It is a waste of time and resources to do otherwise, and has potential to bugger up the prosecution path.

    some other cases (none / 0) (#124)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 06:32:58 PM EST
    With Loughner, the feds knocked the state of AZ out because Rep. Giffords and the judge were federal officials.

    The DC snipers were charged in both federal court and Virginia, and then John Ashcroft withdrew the federal charges, realizing the John Muhammed as most likely to get the death penalty in VA. Alabama and Maryland were also vying to charge.  (Malvo was tried in a different county than Muhammed and got life. He was 17.) Muhammed was executed in 2009.

    On the flip side, Terry Nichols got life in federal court and then Oklahoma tried him seeking the death penalty. He got life again.

    Bombing cases are usually brought in federal court. Kaczinski and Eric Rudolph are other example.

    I actually don't think the feds will jump in right now. But I'm sure they'd like to and are thinking about it.

    BTW, the Colorado state Public Defender's office is one of the best in the country at defending against the  death penalty. Federally here, we hardly get any death penalty cases (and very few terror cases),so the federal public defenders aren't as experienced with them.


    what good is gun ban? (none / 0) (#108)
    by diogenes on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 03:14:40 PM EST
    Um, he had about a million grenades in his booby-trapped apartment.  If there were a gun ban he would have brought explosives or poison gas to the theater if hadn't bought a gun illegally.

    In all this talk (none / 0) (#109)
    by sj on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 03:14:49 PM EST
    about how much safer it would be if everyone was packing and someone could have shot him down before he killed more people, one thing has been ignored: if he had been killed by a theatre patron, far more people would have died in the booby trap in his apartment building.

    Do you have information I haven't seen? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 03:54:07 PM EST
    My understanding is he didn't tell the cops about the traps at first. They didn't walk right in, but instead opened the door with a camera arm and that's how they discovered them.

    IF what I've been reading is correct his idea was to have someone call in a noise complaint. The cops would be preoccupied at his place - and getting to experience the Joy of Explosives - while he'd be "busy " at the theater.

    I don't think his death would have cost the life of a single police officer. They were only apparently saved by God or by two facets of dumb luck:
    A. No one called in the noise complaint
    B. They didn't rush right in blindly after they captured him in the parking lot


    He told them (none / 0) (#118)
    by sj on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 04:47:44 PM EST
    there were explosives in his apartment which is what prompted them to inspect before entering.  As I understand it, you're mostly right: he didn't tell them it was booby-trapped.  But he did tell them enough to be cautious.  

    Had they simply entered his apartment it would have blown.  And they would have entered his apartment eventually.  With or without noise complaint.  But they wouldn't have taken those precautions.  In any case the noise stopped at 1:00AM.

    You're wrong that nobody called it in.  When it was called in, the caller was told that they were in crisis and could not respond.

    Do you honestly think that in your scenario, after his dead body was identified they would have left his apartment alone?  Somebody would have opened that door.  Period.  Neighbor?  Police? Gawkers?  Family?  Who knows?  But somebody would have opened that door.

    It wasn't dumb luck.  It was actually -- and I'm surprised to say this -- good police work, IMO.


    In my scenerio (none / 0) (#122)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 05:48:30 PM EST
    They would have treated his apartment with caution: same as they do with just about any mass murderer. I doubt very much they'd just mosey on in, that's not what I am used to the police doing after mass killings of this type that I have heard about.

    And if I'm right, once again, his death saves no cops.

    Course this is all speculation. Thank God or Goodness the neighbors gal didn't open that door when she went up at 12:15.


    Yes (none / 0) (#123)
    by sj on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 06:13:56 PM EST
    they would have been cautious.  They would have cautiously opened the door and triggered the booby trap.  It really is not SOP to enter a second story apartment via window.  Not that kind of building.

    And yes, the neighbor was very lucky.  Although most people wouldn't enter without invitation, obviously some people would.  But I have no doubt there was hyperventilating involved when she found out what could have happened.


    300 million people (none / 0) (#138)
    by bobmark on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 02:14:48 PM EST
    In a population of about 300 million people the amazing thing is how rare these type of events are, given that on any day of the week someone is irrationally outraged or suffering from mental illness.

    On the same day as the Colorado shooting roughly 88 people died in car accidents (32310 in 2011).

    Please provide links for your last sentence. (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 02:50:02 PM EST
    32310/365? (none / 0) (#140)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 04:26:02 PM EST
    Is it clear to you? andgarden used to (none / 0) (#141)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 04:31:59 PM EST
    say when I just threw in a couple factoids:  air link!

    Sorry, 32310/365 = ~88 deaths per day. (none / 0) (#142)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 06:11:53 PM EST
    Not supporting the poster's comment, just pointing out that he/she explained where the 88 number came from.

    I do like the "air link" concept though! Gonna have to use that my own self...