E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSJames Eagan Holmes, the suspected gunman in the deadly Aurora, Colo. movie theater shooting, makes his first court appearance. NBC's Brian Williams, Kate Snow and Mike Taibbi report with TODAY's Savannah Guthrie.
ANALYSIS
While lessons learned from previous mass shootings may have helped limit the carnage in the Aurora, Colo., theater shooting, it remains unclear whether there were warning signs that might have been missed.
Although it is too soon after the tragedy to draw any hard conclusions (unlike the shooting that took but a few minutes, investigations of such events are meticulous, time consuming affairs), it seems likely that lessons learned from similar events might well have reduced the human toll, which currently stands at 12 dead and 58 injured.
It appears that first responders in Aurora arrived on the scene no more than a minute or two after calls began flooding 911. That rapid response meant that the suspect was quickly detained, possibly preventing additional casualties. In addition, emergency medical care arrived shortly after, undoubtedly comforting and likely saving many of the wounded. And in the coming days, counselors and other medical professionals will surely provide support to both the countless physical and emotional victims of the early morning shooting.
Each of these efficient and effective responses is born of past tragedies. Through similar events close by (Columbine) and far away (the 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai, India), first responders learned of the need for rapid intervention, securing a perimeter and waiting for specialized units. Whether it is an active shooter scenario or a Mumbai-style terrorist attack, state, local and federal authorities have modified their tactics and training to fit what has regrettably become a semi-regular occurrence.
Hard questions remain
But early indications are that some other lessons of the past may be more elusive. Much focus has of course been on the shooter, and indeed it is critical that his past behavior be closely examined for warning signs that might have been missed. In some cases, terrorist or non-politically motivated shooters display outward signs of future violence —either through antisocial behavior or obtaining weapons or their precursors — potentially putting officials in a position to disrupt the attack before it happens. As last week’s report on the Fort Hood shooting noted, however, even when such warning signs are present, our ability to identify them properly and take action is mixed.
Such is surely the case as well for non-terrorism-related violence, as criminologists have long struggled with accurately identifying future criminals.
That can be a slippery slope. If concerns about “false positives” are discounted, then we are more likely to intervene in the lives of those who show warning signs, but are merely eccentric, not dangerous.
As the nation agonizes over Friday's massacre in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater, family and friends are sharing stories and memories of the 12 people who lost their lives. NBC's Savannah Guthrie reports.
In short, although we might be able to improve our ability to spot the next mass shooter or serial killer before the crime is committed, attempting to do so raises numerous legal and ethical questions and likely won’t be easy or particularly effective. It hasn’t worked in the past and it is unlikely to work in the near future.
One need not be a terrorism expert or criminologist to know that every society has faced criminals and mad men before. Are there more terrorists or mass murderers today than in the past? Perhaps. But what is unquestionably true is that it has become increasingly easy for murderers of any stripe to kill more and more people in one fell swoop.
In some parts of the world, terrorists have had to be innovative to do so. The 2005 al-Qaida-inspired terrorist attacks in London, for example, used improvised explosive devices composed in large part of concentrated hydrogen peroxide. Creating these weapons wasn’t excessively difficult, but doing so required some care. More than a few trained terrorists have tried and failed in the past, both in the U.S. (Faizal Shahzad in Times Square in 2009) and the U.K. (the bombers of July 21, 2005). Early reports also allege that Holmes engaged in such explosives plotting.
In the U.S., however, counterterrorism officials and police have long since accepted that neither creativity nor immense skill is required for an individual to be an effective mass murderer. The ready availability (either legally or illegally) of semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines makes such killing remarkably easy. Moreover, given the endless supply of “soft targets” in our open society, it is simply impossible to harden every theater, school and workplace.
When I served as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, whenever I was asked, “What keeps you up at night?” I without fail focused on a lone wolf who would be difficult if not impossible to detect and armed to the teeth with deadly firearms. And while some of my foreign police and security counterparts had similar fears, all were sympathetic to the vastly greater challenges we faced in the U.S., where such weapons are so easily accessible.
Looking ahead
None of this provides an easy answer. Would stricter control of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines in the U.S. reduce mass murders? Perhaps, but the current inventory is so vast that we might only be closing the proverbial barn door. Would an armed moviegoer have been able to stop the Aurora shooter in his tracks? Again, perhaps, although given his preparations and the mayhem it would surely have been difficult for even a highly trained individual to do much good. Needless to say, addressing any of these issues is made even more difficult by the political swirl around gun control -- not to mention the very real limitations of our Constitution’s Second Amendment.
That being said, we must be honest about the challenges we face. We will never identify and stop all of the crazed killers before they strike, whether they are motivated by al-Qaida or something even more mysterious within their heads. We can detect some through community-focused efforts, but there is no panacea or even anything close. In addition, while we can reduce the carnage, no system of first responders will make us perfectly safe.
While the truly committed killers will always find ways to kill, we regrettably live in a society where even the near-spontaneous, untrained individual can bring tragedy to the doorstep of entire communities. Our freedom -- to live in a non-police state, to have a degree of privacy and most especially to bear arms -- has very real costs. The destructiveness of certain firearms in the hands of some individuals increases those costs. We must all pay the price -- but none moreso than the victims in Aurora and elsewhere.
Michael Leiter is a former director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center and NBC News consultant.
Related content from NBCNews.com:
- Shocked Aurora vows, 'We will remember' victims of theater shooting
- Aurora pastor: 'I don't know' why God allowed theater slaughter
- Double tragedy: Aurora shooting victim learns her daughter was killed
- Victims who died include girl, sailor, aspiring sportscaster
- Police: Trip wire, bomb disarmed at suspect's apartment
- Photos of James Holmes, camp counselor for underprivileged kids
Leave a Comment:
To suggest that it is too late to try to limit the availability of assault weapons is lunacy. Sure, it will take time to eradicate them, but the sooner we start,, the sooner all of us, and our children will be safer. There is zero, absolutely zero, justification for private ownership of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. The NRA and associated gun nutz keep sending our country into a quagmire of increasing gun violence. It's time to STOP THE GUNS.
The gun nuts will be attacking you. They ARE lunatics when it comes to their toys. And they will scream about their rights, in spite of the fact that the US Supreme Court has not struck down any assault weapon ban. It's not that I'm against guns, so much as I am against the attitude toward guns displayed by these morons. Everyone is so concerned about their "rights'" but not so much about their responsibilities. Maybe the question you people should ask yourselves is are you willing to shoulder some responsibility for that gun. If it gets stolen, then you should be responsible for what it is used for, since you failed to secure it properly. If your kid gets a hold of it, and accidentally kills himself or another, then YOU should be charged with murder. Maybe then you would question whether or not the RESPONSIBILITY that goes along with this "right" is worth the risk. Enough of these massacres, and we will see another assault weapons ban. It's just a question of how many innocents must die before it happens.
Valid - Why the focus on assault weapons? They are used in less than 1% of all gun crimes. As noted below the top 10 guns used in crimes consist of 9 pistols/revolvers and 1 shotgun. Among the most commonly used guns is a 5 shot .38 caliber revolver. That one gun has been used to kill FAR more people than ALL the assault style rifles used in crimes combined. If you really think guns are the problem then why aren't you (and others) going after the ones that are used most often...unless of course your fear mongering tactics don't make sense to people when you start trying to apply them to a snob nosed .38 with only 5 shots of course.
With ownership of a firearm of any sort comes awesome responsibility. One who carries a gun has the ability to take another person's life in the blink of an eye. To get a drivers license, one must go through a rigerous course of training, take tests, and go through a probationary period. And yet, a person driving a car still does not have the power to take another person's life like a person with a loaded gun does.
That being said, why there not a more intensive training and vetting process for people who wish to obtain a firearm?
Any idiot off the street can go buy a gun as long as he is not a convicted felon. Why is that?
If we can not exactly prevent tragedies like this from happening, as the article is suggesting, then the only way to avoid them is by MAKING ILLEGAL THE SALES OF SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. The only reason that there are not hundreds dead, is because the semiautomatic weapon that Holmes was using-with 100 rounds of ammunition- jammed the last minute.
If he had only a pistol, the damage would have been significantly less. How is the second amendment a green light to have tear gas, thousands of rounds of ammunition, a protective vest, and all the other stuff that this lunatic had?
Red flags should go up when someone is ordering all that stuff on line. Owners of these shops should look beyond the fact of just making a buck, and try to get a little research on their clients. If that is too much for them, then don't sell that type of merchandise.
JJ
We have to start someplace, Assault Weapons have no justification of ownership. We need to implement a red flag system... A guy that buys 4 weapons in a 2 month span and has never before applied for a gun permit has to be double checked!
I'm sure this has been mentioned before but about 80 MILLION law abiding American gun owners hurt no one today, or any other day.
Mike - weak argument. Everyone is a law-abiding citizen until they commit a crime.
Despite what the NRA tells you, people with permits do commit crimes with their guns and their guns end up in the hands of criminals.
And my question to you Mike, is, if you have no intention of hurting anyone, what do you need them for?
The "justification of ownership" thing gets into a slippery slope. Where does it end? Am I justified to own a Jeep that only gets 20MPG?
Criminals aren't going to care about whatever gun laws are put into place either
MJ,
Whats the justification of buying a Cadillac Escalade, Mercedes, BMW, etc when a cheaper car will do?
Whats the justification for a 80" LED TV when a 32" would suffice.
More people are killed by drunk drivers than guns, should we ban cars or alcohol?
If you're that scared of getting shot, never leave your house.
John -
Never leave the house without your own sidearm.
The point of having that right is to defend yourself against a tyrannous gov. Our gov has definitely gotten to big and will eventually take all of our rights and freedoms in the name our our so called "protection." Ever heard of Residential Centers??? This looks like a red flag operation...take off your blinders and look deeper.
Sherbud, I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. Nobody is taking your rights or freedoms away. I swear, every time there's a Democrat in the White House, the kooks ratchet up this fear-mongering, reactionary, faux-patriotic b.s. - it makes money for the gun dealers, the NRA, the Glen Becks, the survivalist websites, and you all tremble in your bunkers at night, fearing something that never happens. Residential Centers are just another way to scare you into spending your money. Stop being a fool and just relax.
Pedestrian,
The same can be said of the liberal democrat nuts. They use every incident like this to ban items or pass new laws, saying they know best and to trust them to protect you. You're only giving up a little bit of freedom for security.
@JJMurray
The premise that you proceed from is misleading and misses the point entirely. It's like saying that of all the bombs dropped in the history of humanity .000001 percent of them have been atomic bombs, so why worry about them?
The reason to start with assault weapons is because, although they may be used in a smaller percentage of crimes, when they are used, they are used as weapons of mass distruction, literally. It is also hard to make a case that one needs a weapon like this for hunting or sport.
My wife is a professor at a tier 1 university. She had until recently a grad student who behavior was very eccentric. Though he got high grades in high school, college, and on the GRE, he has proved unable to handle the work. He has plagarized, done unethical things, and just done work far below the caliber required. Every one wants him out of the program, but no one wants to drop the axe. As a result, he is washing out of the grad program in extreme slow motion, unable to find a faculty sponsor and forbidden to attend classes and on probation. One reason that no one wants to tell him that he is out is that a previous professor had taken it upon herself to inform another professor that the grad student was erratic and should be watched for cheating. He successfully grieved her and negatively effected her job. Apparently this kid has not told his parents or his friends that he is washing out of grad school. He still hangs around campus and pretends that he is going to classes and such.
The problem is that after the theater shooting, so much of this sounds familiar that I am very afraid for my wife. Before the situation had gotten this bad with the student I bought her a mace spray canister for Christmas because his actions were so erratic. The kid's mother is a lawyer and my wife is convinced that when the kid finally washes out he will sue her (and all the issues that would bring) and she doesn't want to do anything to make the situation anythying worse. Both parents are big time academics so they know their way around the politics of universities. She refuses to notify the campus police or to try to get him a "counseling intervention" with the student health organization --- mostly fear of creating a documentation trail that would be followed by the lawyer mother. This gives you the idea of the kind of manipulative fear that the kid generates. I have thought about trying to notify the campus police anonlymously, but they don't do anonymous.
This is the sort oof dilemna that the article is talking about. Maybe this kid is just "eccentric" and somehow managed to get through high school and college with good grades --- maybe by cheating --- but now that he is expected to do real work, he simply can't handle it and is too embarrassed to admit it to family and friends. But on the other hand, there is something about his mannerisms that cause me to always look twice at him. What do you do? Take the chance on ruining someone's life needlessly or take a chance that you might be preventing something like the theater shooting.
I haven't found an answer yet.
I agree with laura-313822, "never leave you house with out your own sidearm" Very good point! It's in the constitution and has been RECENTLY AFFIRMED, by the supreme court.
FIRST! Get the nomenclature correct. The term assault weapon/rifle came into use in describing the German selective fire infantry rifles.
As far as I know, there has never been a civilian crime in the USA where an assault weapon was used. To legally own one you must have a Class 3 license.
assault weapon
noun
any of various automatic and semiautomatic military firearmsutilizing an intermediate-power cartridge, designed for individualuse. Compare assault rifle.
assault rifle
noun
1.
a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomaticfire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2.
a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle,usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.
It is illogical to argue that assault weapons or large magazines are in any way a statistically significant problem to warrant elimination. This tragedy could have just as easily been perpetrated with handguns, a shot gun, and he only needed 100 or so rounds, so even the large number of rounds he had amassed has nothing to do with the tragedy / crime.
I personally don't own a gun, as I am not comfortable with them. That said, this is a random act. There is 100% certainty that if this deranged douche could not buy an assault rifle, a gun, or ammunition legally, he would have done so illegally, and if that was not available, he clearly had the mind and education to build explosive devises that could have reeked even more deaths.
There is no way to slow down or stop the lone gunman. All we can do is be vigilant, and maybe eliminate the ability to buy ammunition on the internet. A faceless purchase is so much easier, and as much as I am for gun ownership freedom, but if we registered all ammunition purchases with an ID, maybe (and this is a big maybe as you can load your own rounds) but maybe someone in law enforcement would have had access to question this loon before the tragic day.
I'm not sure what a "Residential Center" refers to, but I do believe that more law is not the way to go.
This guy, just like Harris and Klybold at Colombine, were under the radar. The difference, Harris and Klybold posted their intentions on a web-site and told friends about their intentions, though no one took them seriously.
The problem you run into is; when you look at the 2nd Amendment and determine the intent, you have to look at the power the government has at its disposal. You and I are not allowed to own fully automatic weapons, but the military services have them. You and I are not allowed to have incindiary weapons, that's a given, but you get my point. If it comes to a tyrranical government that tries to take over in the US, what do you and I have to fight back with? I, personally, would rather have an assault rifle, that carries more than 10 rounds than a single shot hunting rifle, or shotgun with a three round magazine.
In the case of Holmes, most of the damage he did was with pistols. Not Assault rifles, or even the shotgun he brought with him. He HAD the rifle, but we don't know if he used it in any capacity as of yet.
I LOVE THE MORONS WHO LIKE TO TELL ME WHAT I NEED AND DONT NEED!!
You want to say that Assault weapons have no place, and people dont need them, fine.
but there will be some trade offs.
Nobody needs more than 2 kids unless you live on a farm, so if you have three kids pick the 2 you think might succeed the most. what country already tells you what you need and dont need, OH YES CHINA!!
Nobody needs a car costing more than $18,999, and if you have one you will be taxed, HHMMMMM taxing people for wealth and forcing people to purchase something they dont want, sound familiar?
you dont need anything with more than 3 grams of sugar unless grown from the ground.
you morons get the point?!
there are alot of things we DONT need, but spend money every day to fulfill our wants.
so to thoes people that think they know what i need, you can suck on the business end of my un-needed AR!
Military-Man -- You and I are allowed to own fully automatic weapons, it's actually a very easy process, the main deterrent though is they are realllly expensive. A normal M-16 will run about $20,000-30,000
Yes, we are allowed, but you have to go through some pretty substantial processes to do it...unless you modify a weapon, illegally. You also have to pay a mint as you stated. AND it is tracked and licensed.
OMG,
I'm not going to address your rudeness. I will however, address your point.
It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. 'nough said.
I recall when this first came out on the news..his own parents knew it was him... they said..NO DOUBT ITS HIM...to me they knew their own child needed help..but did nothing..or was to late!
I'll argue some points just so I can read this after I get out of class. I really hope someone proves me wrong or shows me an angle of thought I hadn't thought of before. It's rare in these discussion threads no doubt.
I'll start from the top. If guns weren't readily available then people who had it out for movie theaters, universities, high school, camp grounds, and well... Americans then they would find other means. If you wanna do something you will find a way to do it. Lets work on realistic ideas on how to improve the process a law-abiding citizen needs to aquire a gun.
For most of you: AR's/AW's are needed. Some people enjoy shooting them just as they would a slingshot or bow. Some people like the added protection, especially those living in low populated areas away from emergency services and deterrent police parols. Why an AR? Because it sure as hell is more menacing than a .38 snub nose. With training and respect for the weapon, a weapon may never need to be fired in self-defense. As far as going bonkers and killing people, that can be done by any means.
Our deterrence of these crimes are the problem, not the instruments used to commit them. I say keep guns, but definitely implement a larger and more stringent method to getting them.
I've had a man come into my apartment by breaking down the door (breaking the deadbolt carriage).....he was drunk and realized he was in the wrong apartment. He thought his roommate had locked him out. It was at 2am, and I was asleep upstairs. If that man had criminal intent and I had no gun....well there ya go. I would kill everyone walking through my door before I let them harm my wife or my kids.
Thats what guns are for. For protection. Wanna use the blackbelt method? Sure go ahead. I've been OC sprayed, tear gassed, and tazed. Well I'll let the tazed one go...thats pretty damned effective lol. Unless your attacker is on PCP, etc. Or maybe the baseball bat method? Just be sure you are willing to bet the life of your family if you die protecting them. Read some of the stories of serial killers and mass murderers that killed and tortured a whole family because they were afraid to defend themselves or had no weapon.. Then cut and paste that to your own life.
My wife was deathly afraid of weapons until I got her familiar with it. We shoot regularly and practice safe keeping, muzzle awareness, and backdrops. She now thanks me and says she will read the news in a different mindset. I explained to her it is no different than owning a vehicle. It requires upkeep, cleaning, and a little training to use properly. There are a set of rules to follow to maintain minimum safety. If you choose to race, to drive drunk, or to just go nuts, you can potentially kill dozens of people..... I can now leave home and know that she has a much better chance of protecting herself and my children.
Chris: I highly recommend creating that paper trail for your wife. From a legal standpoint, there is a ton of speculation a lawyer can do if something does come to a head and there is no history to refer to. Unless she is going about it all wrong, for the sake of your wife's safety and career, have her go through the proper steps and documentation to establish her case, if ever needed. Heck, have her carry around a recorder to record conversations with university staff and managment in case they want to try and "can" her based on hearsay. Either way, I hope the best for you and your wife.
I hope I wrote enough to be clear and maybe give some perspective to a few people. For others I apologize you had to use your middle mouse wheel a few extra times to get past my landfill of a post. Best wishes and comfort to the families of the victims, especially having to see this man taken care of for the next year.
Oh and there have been AR's used in criminal activities. Drug running across the border on multiple occasions and the bank robbery in California in the 90's. They were fully armored and had AK's.
John. So, what has been "banned" since the last tragic shooting? Nothing. Y'all need to get a grip and stop believing this crap.
here is a sad reality . i dont think anyone can be ready for attack . it can happen anytime and where . its something no one can understand . its a harsh relaity in todays world . i think it will only get worse not just in one place but everywhere . we can only live for today and not worry about tommrrow . we can only enjoy what we have and love every moment like its the last . so love eachother and be kind to eachother .
I would certainly be in favor of some controls on guns for items that do not make sense for the sport shooter, like high capacity magazines for instance.
The article makes a very good point on which I agree and that is that you will never stop someone that is very intent on harming others. Perhaps you can slow them down or limit the availability of the most dangerous weapons, but the fact is that you will never stop it completely.
There is so much focus on so called assault weapons because that makes good political fodder for the left, but in reality there are other more available weapons that are just as dangerous in close quarters. Take for instance a 12 gauge shotgun that holds six rounds of 00 shot at nine balls per shell would mean that in medium to close quarters an assailant could disperse 54 "rounds" in very short order. This might be more lethal than a rifle.
I disagree with respect to the comment on whether or not an armed citizen might have made a difference. With that many victims there had to be mass confusion that not even the assailant could keep up with and surely there were many people outside of his line of sight and if one of more of those persons were armed they would have a very good chance of bringing him down. Remember that most persons that have concealed carry permits are avid shooters that have some training (as required by law) and very good with their guns. The potential issue would be hitting bystanders if the path was not clear.
For most if not all of the freedoms we have and all of our accomplishments there is risk to individuals or groups and we know that there is a price to pay. How much damage could someone do if they ran a light airplane filled with fuel tanks into a crowd at a fair, or how much damage could someone do if they ran a large vehicle into a crowd of people? But we aren't trying to outlaw light aircraft or large vehicles. And how many people are killed in auto accidents every year because of our desire to be able to travel from place to place in a fairly efficient fashion? If we lowered the speed limit to 20 MPH there would obviously be a dramatically lower fatality rate, but what would be the cost to society? We accept that because we want to efficiently travel from place to place. I know that is not an ideal comparison to the gun issue, but the point is that we pay a price for all of our freedoms and there is a tradeoff.
As far as availability, if guns were less available in the U.S. one could just go to Mexico and get one from the Obama administration.
I think there were a couple of points to this article. First off, assault weapons/rifles are generally unnecessary and should not be available to the public.
Yes, this d-bag would have still caused a lot of damage with other weapons but he was able to shoot so many only because of the weapon and magazine he had. The process of re-loading may have given some victims a chance to get away.
The second issue is the balance of trying to identify these nutbags in advance with respecting people and not vilifying somebody simply because they are different or socially awkward. I think it falls to the people in their immediate circle - friends, family, etc. People talked about how this guy kept to himself and didn't have friends - what would have happened if a couple of people went out of their way to befriend him? Would a personal connection to other people have prevented his ability to kill in such a cold way?
What about body armor? Why doesn't anyone think that is kind of odd? A person can buy multiple firearms and still be a recreational shooter, but when they start buying body armor a red flag should go up. I don't recall ever seeing a recreational shooter at a civilian firing range in full battle rattle.
Contemplating the apprehension or investigation of individuals simply for exhibiting some form of anti-social behavior or eccentricity is asinine since we'd be locking up half the population. The facts are that 99.9% of such individuals are harmless and pose no threat to anyone, except possibly, on occasion, themselves.
Even though mass killings (5 people or more) represent significantly less than 1% of all killings, it is they that generate the most press, which is why it seems to be some sort of epidemic.
Why do we have these incidents at all? It generally can be directly attributed to the decay of society, something that has been going on for around the past 40 years or so and those that think the solution is more gun control are not living in reality. Think about it. 50 years ago we had virtually none of the nonsense (as one example, we certainly didn't have 100's of thousands of gangbangers) and that was before any type of gun control regulations. In 1962, one could go down to the local hardware store and buy a shotgun, or perhaps a handgun as these were treated as any other tool for sale.
Yes, there were specialty stores (sporting goods stores, etc.) that had a larger variety of guns, but anyone could sell them before the GCA. The real reason for this chaos is that our society, having rejected traditional values in favor of a permissive and non-judgmental "me first" system, is rotting from within and I don't think this is reversible.
"The ready availability (either legally or illegally) of semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines makes such killing remarkably easy."
And yet, it is EXTREMELY rare that these assault style weapons they implicitly talk about here are ever used to kill anyone. Instead the top 10 most common guns used in crimes are 9 pistols/revolvers and 1 shotgun. Assault style weapons are used in less than 1% of all gun crimes. And yet, THAT is the focus of the anti-gun crowd and the media. It never ceases to amaze me how they continue to overlook and not report on the tens of thousands of people each year that use their legal firearms to stop crimes or cut them short while spending incalculable time on the rare instances when someone uses an assault rifle.
Apples and oranges. We're talking about massacres of the sort that can only be carried out by someone wielding an assault style weapon with high-capacity magazines. Whether or not such weapons are used in a small fraction of crimes, there is no arguing that the damage such weapons can wreak are enormous.
You still fail to answer the question being asked by others: Why is it necessary for a civilian to be able to own such weapons of mass carnage? Your packing a pistol for self-defense will do you no good against someone firing at you with a semi-automatic weapon.
I rarely if ever agree with a pro gun advocate when the argument that such events could be prevented by someone in the general public carrying firearm. I have not come across many such reported incidents, either because of my selective reading or because like you say these are under reported.
Even if I concede that such events are under reported it couldn't be tens of thousands , could it? Secondly I disagree primarily because the general public ( most if I may say) is not well trained both in terms of handling firearms and their emotions for such situations and cannot be expected to rationally defuse such situations. Their response firing could turn out to be as indiscriminate as the perpetrator's. Somehow it is hard for me to buy that argument.
Because it's extremely difficult to hide an assault rifle. You don't have to be too bright to figure out that most incidents are crimes of passion, undertaken in the heat of the moment, with a hidden weapon. Most people don't plan to kill anyone. They just get angry.
all the more reason to get them off the street.
Little frightened people who shoot first then think later... maybe...
Iconoclast, many pistols are, in fact, semi-automatic weapons as are many shotguns. They do not, however, have large capacity magazines.
What a worthless article. Zero concrete info. Only perhaps and maybe
There's 310 million in the USA ( not all over 18)..but how the hell can anyone see warning signs..people can flip..overnite..its easy to do in our lives today!
Now this POS..flipped about two months ago..but he was a loner..being quite who would know?
His parents even admitted..NO DOUBT ITS HIM..guess they knew well in advance... but never reported their own son had problems..how can they..its their genes!
What is your limit iconoclast?
What is the maximum number of rounds that guns should be designed to hold?
Hey Mike and everyone else, if you saw the report were the reporter called the home and his mother said yes thats him well thats not how it went down. the reporter called the home and said is your son James Holmes the one who shot the gun and she said yes thats my son, not yes my son did the shooting if you watch the report were the family lawyer talks to the press you will hear what she really said... but the reporter lied and ran with it.. thats why you can not trust the media people just like 9/11 so many lies in the beginning... im not defending him but the media gets away with murder...
Just sayin
It's not that extremely rare. There was a lunatic that just shot 70 people in a movie theater the other day in Colorado with an assault rifle. Less than a week ago, so you can stop saying "it's extremely rare". It's a clear and present danger.
the fact most people are arguing its because he had a gun, or an assault weapon, or high capacity magazine is null and void. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. and we have killed people since before we had guns. Those saying well if we had the guns banned to begin with it wouldnt of happened, well your full of crap. Only law abiding citizens obey laws. If he wanted to break the law he would still get what he wanted, regardless of a ban. ALSO, even without guns, he had what, 30 sophisticated explosives? He could have just a easily blown them up, and a bookbag would have been nothing noticeable. So people, please use some more intelligent train of thought.
And to the person saying the public shouldnt have assault weapons, thats ridiculous as well... A guy with a regular pistol can still hit a bunch of people. Ban hi cap magazines? Then he just uses more magazines, and its not hard to practice a quick reload. Laws do not help, arming the law abiding citizen and not hindering their attempts or efforts to defend themselves, do help.
They don't ignore the legitimate defensive use of firearms, they suppress any and all stories of it. Sometimes it comes out in a local paper or on a local network affliate, but as far as the national media picking up a story in which a good man with a gun actually helped a situation: it never happens because it goes against their political agenda to disarm the American public completely and make their brave new world of socialism possible. After all, the government can always dictate terms to unarmed subjects, look at the Soviet Union and Germany under National Socialism. Do I think these liberal elites in this country are evil? No, but they think that their world view is the best one and they will go to great lengths to foist it on every citizen of this country. After all, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Also, I'm continually reminded every time one of these incidents takes place and the media is screaming for gun control from the rooftops: remember when Bush and congressional Republicans were pushing for the Patriot Act and every liberal commentator and online commenter was quoting Benjamin Franklin "Those who would trade a little liberty for a little security deserve neither."? Well, where is their concern for the shredding of the Constitution now? Are not all the first ten amendments co-equal? I guess freedom is all well and good as long as it comes to the freedom of gays to get married (which don't get me wrong, I support) and for terrorism suspects to roam around free on the streets while the government is powerless to stop them but my freedom to own a gun is somehow suspect. Great consistency there liberals, your hypocrisy is awesome, keep it up!!!
I believe a .40 caliber Glock pistol holds 15 rounds. An aftermarket magazine costs about $20. So for $60 you can buy three spare magazines and have 60 rounds to fire in a very short period of time. They could easily fit in your front pants pocket. A single box of bullets has 50 rounds, and can be bought for about $25 for metal jackets, and $40 for hollow points. He could have killed just as many or more with just the one gun. Him buying 6,000 rounds is just a feel good story. No one can use that much ammo in a two day firefight against a SWAT team. Unused rounds still sitting in a box are useless to anyone. You can't load rounds in a magazine while shooting at people.
It really doesn't matter if the killer mowed over people with his car or used a gun. What matters is that if we would let sane and trained people that have concealed weapons into a theater or restaurant (as long as they don't drink) the criminal will know that some of the people may be armed and he/she will possibly get killed in the process. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you ban law-abiding citizens from having guns just about anywhere a criminal can walk into, you're going to have criminals knowing that there's a good chance they can kill anybody they want without the chance of being shot.
Someday, after many hundreds of people getting killed by these sickos, we'll finally make the laws where gun owners that have proof of some training and skill, will be allowed to carry their weapon concealed (we don't want to scare anybody going to a violent movie) so we can protect ourselves and those who do not own guns. I'm sorry to say it will be a long time before that happens. As I always say, "There would be no serial killers if the first intended victim owned a gun and knew how to use it".
To MY CORNER: If you read the American Rifleman magazine, there is a page called The Armed Citizen. There are usually 5 or 6 reports, describing the crimes that were stopped by homeowners mostly and some business people because they had a gun. On the bottom of the page is a statement to the effect that many crimes have been stopped or prevented when the intended victim showed they had a gun and was ready to use it (some did when drawn upon by the criminal(s). The statement also mentions that about 2 million crimes a year are prevented when an armed citizen is present. This is an estimate because some of those prevented crimes are not reported and the American Rifleman magazine doesn't have room for all the stories. I especially love the ones that report that the criminal dies. That way, our society doesn't have to pay for a lengthy trial and incarceration. Why should the bastards get free food, medical care and a roof over their heads at taxpayer's expense?
Maybe the focus should be on the body armor that is readily available rather than the weapons. Do you think this nut would have been half as confident in his efforts if he wasn't covered from head to toe in body armor. Let's start tracking sales of this stuff to find people of questionable intent...you don't need body armor if you're hunting, target shooting, or just wanting to have a weapon with a high capacity magazine as a novelty item at the range. On the other hand, if the ATF finds that someone has a purchase history that contains a combination of weapons and body armor you'd think it would be enough to throw a few red flags.
The author of this article didn't do a very good job of concealing his bias against the second amendment...it's time to think about the whole picture, not just the weapons!
There was at least one serious warning sign that was not followed up on by authoriies--the dude was turned down for membership in a shooting range, the operator was personally concerned about his stability. Either the operator failed to inform local authorities regarding the threat he perceived from this individual or they were informed and failed to pursue him as a possible threat to public safety. These people exhibit behaviors that are unusual and invoke concern. Businesses who ignore such behavior should be held accountable--they are placing profits above public safety. A review of this person's activities should prompt new regulations regarding such activity as it relates to public safety. He was doing things that "normal" people do not do--amassing large amounts of handgun and military style ammunition--in a manner that makes it easily trackable--online, electronic purchases using credit cards or paypal. Financial transaction debiting systems can easily be modified to trigger at thresholds of concern.
Lets see. I've been turned down for membership at a local range. Because I asked if they had a 1000 meter target. They didn't. I've also bought case lots government surplus ammo on-line. Both in 5.56 and in 7.62 nato. At the last gun show I went too, a vendor was selling and I purchased several 500 round cans of hand gun ammo. .45 long. Should I be considered a danger? Of course they may have to explain why some fat old grunt with a cane or if it is a bad day, a wheel chair is so dangerous, Should I expect a visit from the FBI or the ATF? Or should I go on with my planned trip to the range ? Even with a bolt action rifle, I can and have used up several hundred round in a single session
Aint the rifle, aint the pistol, aint the knife, its that demented warped individual that decided to take anothers life. Now he has to go. Lets see, kill a few people and calmly surrender to police to await life in prison with Cable and 3 square meals a day...he should of resisted arrest or whatever...and what ahppens, happens..no one would feel sorry for him.
I'm still trying to figure out when a semi automatic rifle became an assault rifle. Since an assault rifle, by definition, is capable of multiple fire modes (single, burst, auto, or similar combos), a semi auto rifle cannot be called an assault rifle. If that's the case, then many of your readily available .22s are assault rifles. They are more easily obtained than an AR-15, since they can be purchased at a Wal-Mart, are cheaper, and just as potentially deadly as the AR-15. I'm also still trying to figure out how an inanimate object is capable of killing someone on its own. It's the person using the fire arm that is killing, not the weapon. The weapon is just the tool, like McVeigh (sp?) and his Ryder truck, fertilizer, and fuel oil. Maybe 9/11, with their box knives, and passenger jets.
bad as this was , if he had not resorted to firearms and a dramatic attack such as this a very bright individual like this one might have produced a serious weapon of mass destruction . the concept and the how to diagrams for nearly anything of this type massacre is available for the pleasure of any mass murderer on the internet and materials are much cheaper than firearms and ammunition . most of these items require little if any paperwork and everyone that wants to can get them easily . anyone remember oklahoma city ?
Guns are not the problem - if somebody wants to inflict harm, they will do so. They may just go rent a truck and buy some fertilizer to do it. Yea, I was there.....
I am going to stand up in front of a crowded theater and slew fertilizer around.
There are household plants can be used to creat deadly poisons to cause mass deaths. The Castor plant comes to mind. I bet a person could find instructions on the internet on how to do this. As you said, even if guns are taken away from loons like this red head joker, they will find other ways to kill.
I am going to stand up in front of a crowed theater and throw around household plants.
Therman, you are ignorant. Here, let me refresh your memory, as you may be too young to even know this incident that happened in Japan.
The Sarin attack on the Tokyo subway, usually referred to in the Japanese media as the Subway Sarin Incident (地下鉄サリン事件, Chikatetsu Sarin Jiken?), was an act of domestic terrorism perpetrated by members of Aum Shinrikyo on March 20, 1995.
In five coordinated attacks, the perpetrators released sarin on several lines of the Tokyo Metro, killing thirteen people, severely injuring fifty and causing temporary vision problems for nearly a thousand others. The attack was directed against trains passing through Kasumigaseki and Nagatachō, home to the Japanese government. It is the most serious attack to occur in Japan since the end of World War II.
People can't get large amounts of fertilizer any more since the Oklahoma incident. Sarin is a chemical not readily available in this country, because the FBI knows that it is used to create weapons.
http://www.grasshopperfertilizer.com/ammonium-nitrate-buyers-getting-closer-scrutiny
No, the other way. Thermen is senile.
No Judd you are ignorant. Your argument is we can't stop people from killing other people so why bother to even try.
You understand very little about the human psyche if you imagine this man would have created a bomb or poisoned anyone. This man killed these people in a violent aggressive way that put him right in the spotlight. He wanted the attention and he never would have gotten it with bombs or poison. He was not a silent killer making a point, he was a violent young man who was angry and wanted to be heard and seen. Recall he did not even put up a fight when the police caught him in the parking lot.
IRESPOND-2315268
While people get closer "scrutiny" of large purchases of fertilizer, is it not possible over a two month period to acquire the ingredients as this pathetic excuse of a human being did? Multiple stores, multiple cities, even multiple states?
We have been very fortunate in this country as we have not yet experienced the devastation of a suicide bomber or a vehicle laden with explosives as an IED. Will it happen? I very sincerely hope not, but they only need to succeed once out of a hundred or a thousand. Our side needs to succeed AGAINST them 100% of the time.
Thermen, never mind...others have explained the fertilizer comment which is what I was going to do.
Thermen,
Are you being obtuse? Fertilizer can be used to build a bomb. Didn't you ever reador watch TV what Timothy McVeigh did? or did you just get TV in your house?
XDm9mm,
Are you kidding? You think we have not yet experienced a vehicle laden with explosives as an IED? Are you too young to remember the first attacks on the World Trade Center and the Oklahoma City bombing?
Laura,
We should tell him what happened on 9/11 , it'll be such huge news to him!
Banning semi-automatic weapons will not solve the problem. Take away the guns, and see how much carnage you can create in a packed theater with a machete. Take away the machete and see how much carnage you can create by driving a car into a crowd of people. Holmes had explosive devices in his apartment. He could have used those in the theater just as easily. Fertilizer too hard to get, how about a propane tank or a rental truck full of gasoline cans. A look at the various methods used by terrorists proves that you don't need guns to kill people on a mass scale. All you need is the desire. Yes guns are in the news and are currently the weapon of choice for the deranged among us. Take them away and something else will become the weapon of choice.
I think what we need to accept is the fact that half of the population in this country is mentally deranged and they are armed. They take out co-workers, family members, and total strangers. So there will continue to be carnage as long as these loonies have access to guns. They are law abiding citizens until they kill a bunch of people. If you know anyone who owns a gun or 20 of them, watch them carefully. The life you save could be your own.
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than any of the guns I own, and yes, some of them are "deadly assault weapons". I like shooting, it's fun and challenging. My friends and relatives, the only thing they're concerned about, in fact the only thing they ask about is what my monthly ammo bill looks like (it's pretty rough) I also realize that there has to be a check on government/corporate power and that people need the means to defend themselves agaisnt tyranny. Syria, Iran, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany: these are the reasons why the Second Amendment needs to be defended as vigorously as the First. I'll bet money that many of the people who own guns privately ( such as cops, federal agents, soldiers, sailors, arimen and Marines) are more sane, more responsible and in general better people than you ever thought about being because they understand self sacrifice and have made sacrifices for their country and communities. All you understand is talking points put out by people on the Left who only want power and control over the lives of their fellow man.
Angela Monger you are an alarmist idiot. Rethink your craziness and try to be sane about how many individuals actually shoot someone. Then compare these numbers to any other means of death in this country that you wish. You will than see how small the number of shootings deaths really is!
I undertstand one of the business owners, where this loon purchased some of his amo and weapons said he thought the guy had odd behavior, or troubling behavior, however, it did not stop the gun shop owner from selling him weapons. He should have called the police to notify them of this loons troubling behavior. Better safe than sorry. Also, I find it interesting that the mother of this loon said, upon finding out they got her son as the suspect, "you got the right person." If the mother knew her son had such troubling behavior, why did she not reported to the police.I sure as hell would have!! It would have been better safe than sorry. There are many countries with gun control, or even states in the USA, and yet thousands are have died gun related deaths. Chicago, UK Sweden come to mind. In the US, many people want more gun control, when we cannot even enforce the gun control some states already have!? Why is that?
I can't wait to live in a world where we all turn each other in for suspicious behavior. The quicker I can start turing in people who piss me off, the better.
Judd,
Because its not Politically Correct to do so..................next thing you know the store owner is getting sued because he is being discriminatory.
Yes, because he actually would be discriminating...but that has nothing to do with "political correctness".
Regarding the mother's comment: I thought the same thing when I saw that, but the media reported it in a way intended to mislead. The truth is the mother was awakened by an early morning caller saying they were trying to reach whateverherfirstnameis Holmes, mother of James Holmes. She said "yes, you have the right person" - referring to herself! But of course, that is not an interesting story so they had to spin it.
As traumatic as events like this are, anybody that truly wants to kill people can find a way. This guy obviously had the skills necessary to create explosive devices, so imagine the carnage if he threw explosive material into those theatres. The sad part is, in a free society events of this magnitude is very easy and they will continue. All that gun control will do is force them to look for other alternatives and they will look.
Then let them look. Gun control is only a stop gap measure at best. Even Canada has more guns per household than the US, but rarely a murder. The disconnect in our society (the U) is the fascination and love we have of the Machiavellian "might makes right, survival of the strongest' mentality. Until we begin to positively change the thought processes which guide our behavior, we will continue to witness this latest and future tragedies.
I think the disconnect is that we are unwilling to address the mentally ill among us and Canada is. In addition to screening for diabeties, heart disease, dislexia, autism, etc. we should be screening for mental illness. Right now people who are mentally ill have the right to refuse treatment, etc. In fact it is almost a badge of honor to be mentally ill.
As with other, we will probably hear that this person exhibited signes of mental illness in a variety of ways and because it is ok and no one wanted to be involved and if they did there would be nothing anyone could have done about it, it doesn't matter.
Guns are not the problem mentally ill dangerous people are the problem.
A man in my area is going to trial for slitting the throats of his 3 little girls. Is he mentally ill, YES. Should he ever be let out NO. Being mentally ill doesn't mean that the person should avoid responsibility (which is how the courts have structed it). Time and time again people have refused their medication or won't stay on it and now they roam the streets or create a dangerous reality. This is why we used to have mental institutions and we need them again. I've been involved in trying to get someone committed. My GOD, the person couldn't take care of themselves on the most basic level, wouldn't take their medication, violently threatened their family and they couldn't get them committed for more than 72 hrs and even if they could they didn't have the beds.
This persons family fearing for their lives notified the police (who have had many calls) that this person was out and they moved away.
Another domestic violence victim in a custody battle with her husband was told that she should get a gun, but that if she told anyone that was her advice she would deny it. Her husbands mental health issues were so severe that he should be locked up, but no one could do anything about it. He did time in jail for violating a restraining order and that seemed to help, then she moved.
There are crazy people in the world an until that is addressed it is a waste of time to do gun control.
Fertilizer and the ingredients for making bombs are controlled substances and cannot be easily/legally obtained in quantity. If you want to understand gun control, check in for a flight at your local airport. The article is quite correct on all points. Gun control may be the answer, it is in other industrialized countries, no other country has our incidence of gun violence (not even close), but it will be almost impossible to enact here. Without it, however, this is the price we will pay. Guns do not make us safer. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and in the U.S., people kill people with guns, repeatedly, dramatically and en masse because guns are high tech and readily available. It is not a matter of if these incidents will occur, it is simply a matter of when. Get used to it, tragedies like this one will continue on a regular basis and proliferating gun ownership will not prevent it, it will exacerbate it.
Ever hear of the Duneblane Masacre in Scotland? There are more incident of gun terrorist attacks like this in other European countries that have gun control. Sweden comes to mind. I believe there was also another school masacre in Germany. All these countries have gun control.
If you put all of Europe together, they still don't have as much gun violence as the good ol' US of A.
I fly regularly with my firearms declared and in checked in luggage.
What's your point?
Please remember that there were 80 million... yes 80 MILLION American citizens who did NOT do this wanton act of violence.
Must the many pay the price for the individual?
Steve, we're still no. 1 at something! Sad it has to be this, though.
Does anyone remember 9/11? The weapons the terrorists used were box cutters. We better ban those. or should planes be banned only for the military?
These mass murder events are dramatic but are relatively rare. The murders that take place on a daily basis exact a far greater body count. Homicide rates in Western Europe are 4-7 fold lower than in the US. One would hardly describe these countries as "police states". Perhaps we should start looking at what they are doing right. Gun or ammo control might be part of the solution but, forgive me, they are not magic bullets. This is a complex problem and there are no simple solutions. That is not to say that we should sit on our hands and do nothing.
Kriblet,
Events just like these are rare also.
XDm9mm
I fly regularly with my firearms declared and in checked in luggage.
What's your point?
Please remember that there were 80 million... yes 80 MILLION American citizens who did NOT do this wanton act of violence.
Must the many pay the price for the individual?
You might want to ask that last question to the survivors in Aurora, obviously there's 12 individuals you can't ask.
"Those who would trade a little liberty for a little security deserve neither" -Benjamin Franklin. I'll never forget how many liberal commentators used that quote when the Patriot Act was being passed. I guess that's all forgotten now that Barack Obama is in the Whitehouse, huh? This country was built on the rights of the individual. In fact that's what the Constitution values over everything else. The many sometimes do pay the price for the individual's liberty, which is why we have a criminal justice system. It's horrible that these people had to die, but I for one am not going to give up an ounce of my liberty because of it. I carry a gun, legally and frequently. I am not looking for trouble when I carry it, but this event proves that bad things can happen in unexpected places. I'm not some idiot with a hero complex, I don't know if a law abiding citizen with a gun could have stopped this massacre, but I know one thing: the guy didn't shoot at the armed cops that came to arrest him, even though he certainly had the present ability to do so. Why do you think that is? Because he was a coward, and it was easy for him to shoot unarmed innocents, but as soon as he was confronted with deadly force he surrendered.
Ecoman--Mexico, which has no Second Amendment rights, has HORRIBLE problems with the Drug cartels--and the law abiding Mexican nationals have been HORRIBLY victimized in the areas controlled by the cartels. The law abiding Mexican nationals are defenseless against the cartels. The Federales can't be everywhere, particularly in the Northern States
The Dunblane massacre in Scotland is the reason Scotland has gun control. Massacres committed with firearms and gun violence in general are rare occurences in any other industrialized country as compared to the US, especially those with gun control. Mexico is not an industrialized country and 40% of the firearms in Mexico come from the US. We export gun violence to Mexico. It is a specious argument against gun control here based on the success it has elsewhere and it is successful elsewhere. The 2nd amendment has already been successfully challenged here, precedents have been established. We ban access to guns/weapons in airports, on commercial flights, in schools, in courts, and elsewhere. It already exists to a degree because it is a safety concern. Again, the comments, as expected, are largely unenlightened, unsupported, and off point. Gun control is a proven solution. It may not work here and may never be attempted on a national level, but the resulting and escalating gun violence will be the price we will continue to pay for that freedom. It is that simple. For those who doubt, just keep watching the domestic news for the next dramatic gun-related incident. See how long it takes. We've already had this dialog several times in the past year.
So what's the answer, giving mental health tests to everyone who walks into a movie theater? If a crazy person wants to kill people, they're gonna do it. Being prepared, as I believe they were in this case, saves many lives. His mother apparently knew as soon as she heard it on the news, so I'm guessing she was aware he could be dangerous, unfortunately, we don't have the ability to force people into psychiatric facilities, whether we want to or not, based on what they "might" do.
There are those posting here, and you are one of them, that have given up on fixing our society already. If yours is the attitude, we are lost.
Another way to "be prepared" to to educate people what to do in an "active shooter" scenario. Here at Fort Hood, I recently had to do such training online. Required by all of us who work at/for the hospital. Guess that was a "lesson learned" from the shooting here 5 Nov 2009.
piglizard - I agree. It's such a defeatist attitude. Nobody wants to stand up and say, "we can do better." We can, but nobody wants to.
So Steve, what is it that you want to do?
Twenty years ago I went to a gun safety class just to brush up. I had recently become a single mother and wanted to provide protection for my family. My ex husband's girlfriend somehow found out that I was going to the classes and went into a tizzy. In her delusional, paranoid mind she took this as a threat to her.
I'm the one that asked my ex-husband to leave, I certainly didn't care what he was doing or with whom he was doing it.
Should I have been locked up or put on a "watch list" because some idiot thought I was a threat?
Laura, if I were your ex-husband's girlfriend, I'd have been afraid too. Owning a gun means you're prepared to kill someone. It's a mental line that most won't cross.
As the owner of a weapon designed to kill, the onus is on YOU to prove that you're not dangerous.
BS Steve!
Owning a gun doesn't mean that I'm a threat to anyone.
If I ever use my guns for anything other than target practice, it will probably be to kill a bear, fox or the neighbor's pit bull. I haven't been threatened yet by the pit bull so perhaps he's safe from me too.
Of course, if anyone threatens my family or my property, that is always a possibility too.
There should be no onus on me to prove anything. I passed the background checks and have attended more than one firearms class.
I also have knives, tools, bleach and other "deadly" chemicals in my home. Most likely nearly everyone is the "owner" of a deadly weapon or two.
Got to agree. Guns are a tool. They don't form your attitude, they just do what you use them for. The only time I would hurt someone with a gun is if they enter my home uninvited, or if I am able to defend someone who is being attacked, including myself and my family. I've owned guns for several decades, and I've never pointed one at anyone, nor have I shot anyone.
I have the right to own guns. There are those that are quick to point out the "rights" of any and all groups. Even illegals who don't even have our rights. So now its my turn: I have the right to own and bear arms, and I will.
Just because crazies will "find another way to kill" doesn't mean we have to make it easy for them. Who the hell needs a 100-round clip? If the gun hadn't jammed there would have been even more casualties.
Arming more people isn't the answer either. Having half a dozen amateurs with pistols in a dark movie theater would have produced an even worse outcome.
SPOONS MAKE PEOPLE FAT! LOL.
Seriously though, no one really needs a magazine that holds more than 8 rounds. If you do then you're a bad shot and need practice. All rifles, handguns and shotguns should be limited to 8 rounds/shells. I guess then the crazies will learn to do mag changes at blazing speed !
There are always signs of an impending delusional state. Look at Nidal Hassan of Ft Hood, there were all kinds of people who knew he was going off the deep end and did nothing. The same will hold true for Mr. Holmes. A lone wolf, not comfortable around others, a loner, just finally ran into the stone wall in graduate school and had to drop out or be pushed out. Angry and boiling inside and having to blame others, becomes psychotic and feels he is the joker and all in the theater are there to support his arch enemy. Probably not exact but close enough. People knew and were powerless to do anything.
Do you really think people were powerless? The mother was not surpised that Holmes was the suspect. This may lead one to believe he had made threats to kill, which his mother was aware of? Just wonder, if she had made law enforcement aware of such threats, might this have changed the course of events? what about the gun shop owner who said he thought Holmes behavior was bizarre, and yet, he sold him weapons anyway.
The problem is that for every one of those guys who "goes off the deep end," how many just like him don't? Should all quiet people having a hard time be considered suspicious? Should people who keep to themselves have their home searched and get sent for a psych evaluation?
Yeah, I think being judgemental of those who are different is a sign of a delusional state. We are all different.
Hey, what about using a sudden interest in stockpiling weapons and ammunition, or Internet purchase of explosive components as evidence of an impending delusional state? Seems pretty paranoid anyway. Just sayin'. Makes more sense to me than relying on amateur psychology.
Well, there have been several cases where respectable gun owners have killed intruders in their home. Intruders who, if they had the chance, would have caused great harm to their families. So Steve, taking guns away from responsible and respectable gun owners is not the answer either. I do agree about military style weapons being band though. Why does an average household need an AR-15?
apparently if you live in hog country, you need an AR-15. at least, that's what someone told me earlier. it doesn't come in handy, its necessary. BS.
Here WE Go, The Second Guessers are coming out.
Are you sure?
That @!$%# was funny, boom.
From Wikipedia: "The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States armed forces. "
These are sad days indeed if our country can't even agree that military grade weaponry should not be easily procured by civilians.
Wikipedia is wrong, do you believe evrything you read on the internet? The AR-15 was originaly tested by the Air Force as a semi-auto rifle. Then AutoOrdinance got the ARMY interested in it but they wanted the select fire capability (Semi/Full auto) that is when the M-16 was born. I was in the Air Force and I know Wiki is wrong. The AR-15 is not a true "Assault Rifle".
BTW: The shooter (I refuse to use his name) was denied membership to a gun club in June because they thought that he was fishy in the head. Why is it that "Gun Nuts" saw something wrong with him and no one else did?
That Wikipedia is wrong will be a great relief to the dead, injured and their families.
I'm also glad to see that you've really stepped up to the plate with a focused plan of action, like not using the shooter's real name. Take that, Holmes.
The article said he also had materials for making bombs. There are so many different ways to make a bomb, it would be necessary to outlaw fertilizer, cosmetics, manure, bleach, LP gas, bottled hydrogen, oxygen, matches, cigarette lighters, cell phones, gasoline, pipes, bottles, and hundreds of other things that can be used as components for a bomb. If some turkey with cerebral hemorrhoids decides to commit mass mayhem he/she will find a way.
You need gun laws. Crazy how easy it is to buy a gun in the United States!
We have gun laws. But the lawless refuse to abide by them.
... and each state has different laws, some more (N.Y. California) others less (Arizona Colorado) and those in between. In Michigan you must pass a background check before purchasing a firearm, to purchase a pistol you must get a "permit to purchase" first and register it with the local law enforcement agency.
We have "Gun Laws", the ones we have must be strictly enforced as a deterent; as that is all any law is.
- "Thanks or callin' Guns-n-Stuff, how can I help you?"
- "Um yes, I'd like to order a 100-round clip for an AR-15 assault rifle and 6,000 rounds of .40"
...Nope, no warning signs here.
Hundreds of those 100rd. mags have been sold around the country but only one was used for evil purposes, then there's the competition shooters who go through 10,000rds. or more a year. Are they suspect too?
I own guns and have a CCW permit, I have no intention of shooting anyone unless they are shooting at me first.
Join the real world my friend.
Operation "fast and Furious". Our government allowed illegal gun trafficing by known drug cartels and these weapons have made their way back into our country and were used on our own law enforcement. What amount of curtailing our Second Admendment rights, making assalt style weapons illegal or profilling and screening (of course profilling is illegal if your a terrorist anyway) will have the desired effect if the government is peddling weapons to those the current laws are designed to deny ownership?
Holmes was arrested in his car without incident, per the PD. He knew he would be arrested or killed (why the body armor, which may not have been all that protective, is puzzling, could go to his mental state). Nevertheless, somewhere in his mind he knew he had no intentions of ever setting foot in his apartment again, because he had booby trapped the place! For whatever reason, he may be regretting that the police didn't just shoot him. Suicide by police. Wouldn't be the first time that has happened.
For all - I'm assuming based on his mother's reaction that she DID try and tell someone about her son. Law enforcement cannot go in an check up on everyone, unless there is a verifiable and specific threat. Her son was an adult - over 18 - meaning that she could not have had him committed without some sort of judicial hearing. Mom & Dad live in the San Diego area. He lived in Colorado. She could have called local law enforcement, or stood out on the street corner and hollered until she had no voice left - there's nothing that legally could have been done. About the only thing that might have helped - and this is assuming that he did display some strange behavior (stranger than orange hair, by the way), would have been to report him and his oddities to student affairs at the school he was attending. They MIGHT have been able to at least start an investigation of sorts.
These mass murder events are dramatic but are relatively rare. The murders that take place on a daily basis exact a far greater body count. Homicide rates in Western Europe are 4-7 fold lower than in the US. One would hardly describe these countries as "police states". Perhaps we should start looking at what they are doing right. Gun or ammo control might be part of the solution but, forgive me, they are not magic bullets. This is a complex problem and there are no simple solutions. That is not to say that we should sit on our hands and do nothing.
One thing that bothers me here is that I KNOW there will be lawsuits against the theater company. In my mind, I can't imagine what they could have possibly done to prevent something like this happening, given the meticulous planning and execution Holmes put into this. The way I see it, they are as much a victim here as the patrons watching the movie.
Mark my words, you know they'll be sued. It's all part of our culture these days.
Of course they will be sued. If its true that the gunman exited through the emergency exit door at the theater and propped it open while he went to his car in the parking lot to gear up and get the guns....and then returned into the theater armed to the max through that same emergency exit door. If that is true, there will be legitimate lawsuits against the movie theater company for allowing access and not noticing someone had entered the premises - inside the theater - armed and dressed to kill.
Had he come in through the main entrance dressed like that and armed like that and movie theater personnel immediately called the police that would be one thing. But if he was actually able to access the premises unnoticed and armed to kill that I think would show a serious breach of the theater's responsibilities.
Not that I think for a minute anyone could've stopped this massacre and certainly doubt that main entrance vs. back entrance would've prevented him from bursting in with weapons ready.....but people were sitting ducks inside the theater because he was able to (supposedly) come and go at will through doors that he shouldn't have had access to. I suspect lawsuits will hone in on that fact...if it turns out to be 'fact'.
Guns. We seem to live by them, yet we don't want to die bye them?
We are a violent lot, with a crass culture, whom are only reaping what we have sown.
We need to survive puberty and embrace a new culture, or fade away.
Not blaming the movie theater because this could've happened ANYWHERE in that apparently short and lethal couple of minutes. But it seems to me if something was "missed" or needs further questioning it is why and how could someone enter and/or exit through the movie theater's back entrance without setting off alarms and notifying authorities? That is not to say that alarmed doors would've stopped any of this, but perhaps could've alerted authorities and the theater personnel sooner that there was an emergency. Around here once the movie starts if the emergency exit doors located at the front of the theater are opened the lights flash, alarms sound and the movie stops. Perhaps this is something that can easily be done at other theaters or similar locations?
But again I highly doubt any of that would've prevented this mass killing and horror. The only thing in my mind that would've lessened the carnage would be if semi-automatic guns and high capacity magazines were outlawed. I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would feel the need for such high powered weapons and ammunition to "defend or protect" themself or their property, or to legally hunt animals.
My father was retired military and avid gun collector. He hunted and shot skeet at his hunt club. That said, even he lamented the availability of high-powered and assault rifles. He said they were good for nothing but killing other people. I believe he was right! Nobody needs these guns to either protect themselves or hunt their food nor are they used for sport.
I use what the media claims is an assault weapon to hunt, target shoot, and for protection if the circumstances warrant. "Shot skeet at his hunt club" skeet is a clay target and not an animal. What is a hunt club?
Ok, so let me get this straight. We'll ban all assault weapons and everything will be euphoria and there'll be NO MORE mass murders, right?! Does any one of you REALLY believe that? Maybe next time some drunk drives into a crowd of people we'll ban Chevy's as well. And if some lunatic driving a semi plows into a downtown crowd, we'll ban Peterbuilts. My point is this- it DOES NOT MATTER what you ban! If someone has that sort of rage they WILL find a way to carry it out! And as for the argument that no one 'needs' an assualt rifle- I think most of us have plenty of things we don't 'need', so if you're going to start taking other peoples 'unneeded' posessions you'd better be ready to give up some of your own. I don't own one but that doesn't mean that I'm going to tell the other guy that he can't have his. One final question- how would the outcome been different if SOMEONE in that theater had been carrying? Most theaters that I've been in don't allow them. One good shot to the head and the whole mess would've been over with....
What we do already is we take away his driver's license and don't let him drive - plus send him to prison if he hurt anyone! How about taking just a LITTLE time to checkout the mental status of someone who wants to be an assault weapon and 6000 rounds of ammo! According to the World Health Organization, of 75 developed countries there are 54 with fewer gun-related deaths than our good Christian nation. You'd be safer in countries like Slovenia, Qatar, Belarus, Kuwait, Azerbaijan, and Peru! Last year 15 Americans were killed by terrorists WORLDWIDE - 31,500 Americans were killed by Americans with American made guns in America! How stupid do we have to be to keep going down this road! Till we're 74th - just below Colombia and just ahead of South Africa!