Why are people blaming the gun or the "arsenal" for Aurora? Read before commenting please.

[shadowrider]

This man had, and has, obvious, obvious mental problems that were apparently recognized by his mom. She, by reports, knew it was him when she first heard of this tragedy. What did she know, when did she know it, what did she know was wrong with him and why wasn't anything done?

The man dyed his hair red and identified himself at the police station as "The Joker".

This guy, and I'm no psychologist or psychiatrist, in my opinion, began to live live his life in a blurred state between reality and fantasy. He wound up, and lived, as a character in the Batman series. He did what his character was supposed to do. His mind is nowhere near reality.

There is a lot of blame on the gun. The gun didn't do this on its own. It did it because of the man holding it/them. He is seriously ill and this tragedy, had he received the help he obviously needed, should have never happened.

Just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

[Speck Tater]

1. One thing I know for sure...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=992663

[shadowrider]

3. I didn't say he wasn't responsible. I said he has a condition that should have been

treated.

Of course he's responsible, he pulled the trigger.

[randr]

2. It is mistaken to conclude that people are blaming guns

People want rules on how anyone can purchase such weaponry.

[Tejas]

4. You're joking, right?

You need to go peruse LBN and GD for a little bit. Total bans were being called for 1st thing yesterday morning. "Ban guns entirely, sooner or later everything will be okay" was and still is a common meme.

[randr]

117. I am not joking

And I see the heated rhetoric over "banning guns" as just that.
Just about every one I know is either a hunter or has guns for their own reasons. Most of us all agree that there are some individuals that should not be allowed to possess fire arms.
The meme that the "government" is going to confiscate our guns is the real joke.
The question of whether or not we need to have a National dialog regarding fire arm procurement is a very serious question and one we will be better off asking sooner than later.

[shadowrider]

5. The immediate call for increased gun control tells me the gun(s) are being blamed

The extent of the control varies from source to source.

[Pamela Troy]

7. Yeah, imagine that!

I mean, he could have done JUST as much damage with a knife or club, right?

[shadowrider]

9. Nah, knives never cause mass murder

A Japanese man rammed a truck into a crowd of shoppers, jumped out and went on a stabbing spree in Tokyo's top electronics district Sunday, killing at least seven people and wounding 10 others.

http://www.welt.de/english-news/article2079925/7-dead-in-stabbing-spree-in-downtown-Tokyo-after-attacker-drives-into-a-crowd.html

March 2010
Main article: Nanping school massacre

On March 23, 2010, Zheng Minsheng (郑民生 [2] 41, murdered eight children with a knife in an elementary school in Nanping,[3] Fujian province;[4] The attack was widely reported in Chinese media (called 南平实验小学重大凶杀案 ,[2] sparking fears of copycat crimes.[4] Following a quick trial, Zheng Minsheng was executed about one month later on April 28.[3]
[edit] April 2010

Just a few hours after the execution of Zheng Minsheng in neighboring Fujian Province,[5] in Leizhou,[6] Guangdong another knife-wielding man named Chen Kangbing, 33 (陈康炳 [7] at Hongfu Primary School wounded 16 students and a teacher.[4] Chen Kangbing had been a teacher at a different primary school in Leizhou;[7] he was sentenced to death by a court in Zhanjiang in June.[8] On April 29 in Taixing,[3] Jiangsu, 47-year-old Xu Yuyuan went to Zhongxin Kindergarten[9] and stabbed 28 students, two teachers and one security guard;[4] most of the Taixing students were 4 years old.[10] On April 30, Wang Yonglai used a hammer to cause head injury to preschool children in Weifang,[3] Shandong, then used gasoline to commit suicide by self-immolation.[4]
[edit] May 2010

An attacker named Wu Huanming (吴环明 , 48, killed seven children and two adults and injured 11 other persons with a cleaver at a kindergarten in Hanzhong, Shaanxi on May 12, 2010;[3] early reports were removed from the internet in China, for fear that mass coverage of such violence can provoke copycat attacks.[3][11] The attacker later committed suicide at his house; he was the landlord of the school,[12] Shengshui Temple private kindergarten, and had been involved in an ongoing dispute with the school administrator about when the school would move out of the building.[12]

On May 18, 2010 at Hainan Institute of Science and Technology (海南科技职业学院 , a vocational college in Haikou, Hainan, more than 10 men[13] charged into a dormitory wielding knives around 2:30 am;[14] after attacking the security guard and disabling security cameras, 9 students were injured, 1 seriously.[14] The local men attacked the dorm in an act of revenge and retaliation against college students following conflict the previous day at an off-campus food stall in which 4 students were injured, for a total of 13.[15]
[edit] August 2010

On 4 August 2010, 26-year-old Fang Jiantang (方建堂 slashed more than 20 children and staff with a 60 cm knife, killing 3 children and 1 teacher, at a kindergarten in Zibo, Shandong province. Of the injured, 3 other children and 4 teachers were taken to the hospital. After being caught Fang confessed to the crime; his motive is not yet known.[16]
[edit] August 2011

Eight children, all aged four or five,[17] were hurt in Minhang District, Shanghai when an employee at a child-care centre for migrant workers slashed them with a box-cutter.[18]
[edit] September 2011

In September 2011, a young girl and three adults taking their children to nursery school were killed in Gongyi,[19] Henan by 30-year-old Wang Hongbin with an axe.[20] Another child and an adult were seriously wounded but survived.[21] The suspect is a local farmer who is suspected of being mentally ill.[22]

[Warren Stupidity]

12. yes there are other ways. So best not to do anything to make it less easy.

yet another old worn out NRA argument.

[Pamela Troy]

13. Sure, knives are sometimes used in murders.

Funny thing, though -- you don't often hear of a single person who managed to kill over a dozen people within minutes, from a distance, using a knife.

So, if knives are as effective as guns, why not just pass out knives to police departments and get rid of guns altogether? After all, they're JUST as effective, right?

[shadowrider]

17. Hang on a second please

Your comment:
quote
Pamela Troy (1,308 posts)
7. Yeah, imagine that!

View profile
I mean, he could have done JUST as much damage with a knife or club, right?
unquote

My response was to prove just as much damage happens with a knife, the tragedy in Aurora notwithstanding.

You asked, I answered.

[Pamela Troy]

23. Those examples you offered don't prove knives can cause just as much damage as guns.

In fact, they show just the opposite.

James Holmes a single person armed with four guns, killed 12 people and injured 59 within minutes. James Cho, a single person armed with two semi-automatic guns, killed 32 people and wounded 17. Anders Breivik, a single person armed with guns, killed 69 people within a few hours.

In the examples you gave:

1. A man with a knife AND A TRUCK managed to kill seven and wound ten.
2. A man with a knife murdered eight KIDS. Not eight adults, who might have been able to tackle and disarm him. Kids. Another man with a knife wounded -- not killed, WOUNDED -- 16 kids and a teacher. And yet another man with a knife stabbed -- but apparently did not kill -- 28 kindergartners.
3. A man armed with a cleaver killed seven preschoolers and two adults and wounded eleven others.
4. TEN men with knives attacked a school and managed to injure -- again, not kill, but injure -- nine students.
5. A single man with a knife attacked a school and slashed 20 students, killing three children and a teacher.
6. An employee with a box cutter attacked and HURT (not killed) eight preschoolers
7. A young girl and three adults were killed by a deranged man with an axe.

None of these approach the body count of Holmes, Breivik, and Cho. If they had been carrying guns instead of knives, they probably would have.

[gejohnston]

39. 11 killed with a homemade flame thrower?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne_school_massacre

[Pamela Troy]

42. LOL! Given up on the knives thing, eh? Very wise.

Home made flame throwers, oddly enough, just don't seem as thick upon the ground as guns. Don't often hear of them being used in hold ups or rapes, etc., probably because they just aren't as accessible, convenient, and dependable as a nice semi-automatic weapon that you can use to plug movie-goers running for the exit across the room.

That's probably why, even with the exits blocked, this guy STILL couldn't quite match Holmes for dead and injured.

[shadowrider]

44. Are dead only dead if killed with guns in your view or do other means mean nothing?

[Pamela Troy]

45. Oh, the dead are no less dead. There just tend to be so much fewer of them

in attacks that don't involve guns. Fewer dead. Fewer injured. Fewer maimed and crippled. Fewer anguished parents, brothers, sisters, children, spouses, friends...

[PavePusher]

134. You missed the memo on Rwanda, didn't you? n/t

[gejohnston]

46. guns are not often used in hold ups and rapes

they are only used in something like 20 percent of all violent crimes other than murder.
Actually, he topped Holmes for the dead based on the last report I saw. But then, throwing a couple of gas grenades in a windowless room before setting them ablaze would likely have killed more. BTW, where did he get the grenades? Not at Gander Mt.

[Pamela Troy]

47. Holmes didn't injure 71 people and kill 12?

[gejohnston]

49. last one I saw was

10 killed and 71 injured. But then, I rarely watch TV and after the first five talking heads repeating each other and talking out of their asses, I tend to tune out. I did specify kill.

[Pamela Troy]

53. No. Not ten.

Twelve.

[Euromutt]

19. Why does distance matter?

I mean, there have been instances in which someone used a knife, or in one case a wheeled front loader, to kill over a dozen people within minutes. What difference does it make whether they were killed from two feet away or from forty feet?

[shadowrider]

20. They're more dead when killed with a gun, ain't you got the memo? n/t

[Pamela Troy]

26. They're less alive than they would be

If Holmes had been forced to rely on running up and stabbing every person heading towards the exists.

[Euromutt]

144. You don't know that, and you can't know that

Going by historical evidence, it's quite possible that Holmes might have killed as many people as he did using a bladed implement. He very likely wouldn't have caused as many wounded, but wounded ? dead.

[Pamela Troy]

171. Please cite for me some examples of a single individual killing a dozen or more people within minute

using a knife.

And yes, I am reasonably certain that many of those people running for the exits would have NOT been injured if he'd merely been armed with a knife.

[gejohnston]

175. they were choking on tear gas

he was wearing a gas mask, I kind of doubt it.

[Pamela Troy]

186. Still waiting for all those examples of a single person with a knife

killing a dozen or so within minutes.

[gejohnston]

189. Still waiting to hear where he got the tear gas grenades

and the money to buy the rest of the shit is a short time. Not something you could do on unemployment. Like the guy that shot Gabby, where did he get the money being unemployed (how did he afford his pot)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
Not quite a dozen each, but they were not in an choking on tear gas in a room either. An important detail you choose to ignore. I don't think he would have used a knife. I think he would have used frag grenades or firebombs, which would have fewer wounded but many more dead.

[Pamela Troy]

190. Yeah, the sale of that stuff needs to be controlled, to.

Did Mr. Cho use tear gas grenades at Virginia Tech. Don't remember hearing about that. And how about Loughner -- you know, the guy who was able to shoot and kill several people within a matter of seconds.

You can't come up with a single case of a knife attack by a single person that killed a dozen people in minutes.

[gejohnston]

192. it is, that was my point

I don't even think they are legal for non LE use. That is why I keep asking it. You think he bought them at Gander Mountain? Cho did not need them. Cho did not use because he was not trying to be a cartoon character. The students were locked in. While the campus police stood around with their fingers up their asses and counting the shots, waiting for real cops to show up. Even then, it took the real cops six minutes to get inside of the building because of locked chains and barricades. That is why the meme "another gun in the mix" is total bullshit.
Each of these need to be looked at individually, the details are different. Cho was not Holmes. Motivations were different.
Just because one can't find it via Google or Yahoo, doesn't mean it didn't happen. But that is the best you can do, your argument is not going well.

[gejohnston]

194. Seems I may have answered my own question, sort of.

Seems you can but it online. gas grenades that is.
http://www.nbc12.com/story/19078338/tear-gas-canisters-easily-available-online

RICHMOND, VA (WWBT) -
Colorado detectives are still trying to determine the type of gas grenades that were detonated in the Aurora movie theater moments before the attack. Survivors of the massacre say the suspect threw at least two canisters into the auditorium, releasing an irritant that burned their eyes and throat.

They were likely tear gas or pepper spray grenades and while there are strict rules about buying guns, tear gas is another matter.

While pepper spray itself is meant for self-defense, a tear gas canister or pepper spray grenade is another matter.

[Pamela Troy]

25. You don't think being able to kill from a distance makes killing more effective?

Many of the people murdered by Holmes were running for the exits. I doubt he would have managed to plug all of them with a knife.

[Euromutt]

102. You're moving the goalposts

You were originally asserting that it's very difficult at a minimum to kill over a dozen people within minutes with a knife. In actual fact, there is ample historical evidence that this is perfectly feasible. Very simply, one armed individual can quite readily wreak havoc in a crowd of unarmed people.

Whether that applies in this particular instance is a different question. Personally, I'd speculate that if Holmes had used different weapons, he could have killed as many people, but wounded fewer. But that speculation is based on all other things being equal, and there's no reason to make that assumption. For example, if Holmes hadn't had firearms, he might have done things differently, chaining some of the theater doors shut much like Cho at Virginia Tech. Mass killers adapt their plans to the means they have available.

[Pamela Troy]

113. I wish people would learn what these expressions mean before using them.

No, I have not "moved the goalposts." I've been quite consistent in saying that it's much easier to kill a large number of people with a gun than with a knife. Nowhere have I said a guy with a knife couldn't "wreak havoc." He is, however, likely to kill and maim fewer people than someone armed with an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.

[Euromutt]

143. Let me quote what you said...

you don't often hear of a single person who managed to kill over a dozen people within minutes, from a distance, using a knife

The fact that is that such mass killings do occur, albeit mostly outside the United States, and such incidents frequently result in comparable or even larger numbers of victims killed than many mass shootings. The above quote is thus demonstrably wrong, and then you try to wriggle out of it by making what started out as a general statement into one specifically about the Aurora, CO shooting. That's shifting the goalposts.

[Pamela Troy]

167. Indeed. You DON'T often hear of a single person managing to kill over a dozen people...

within minutes, from a distance, and using a knife.

Please cite some examples for me of single individuals, armed with knives, managing to kill a dozen people (some of them all the way across a theater) with a knife.

[HockeyMom]

8. So all K-12 schools shouldn't be gun free zones?

Should we arm teachers too? Maybe REQUIRE them to own and be trained in shooting? We are certainly a DOOMED society if that is what people, and the NRA, want. You could count me out in working in that kind of an environment, or society.

[shadowrider]

11. I didn't say they shouldn't be gun free but explain to me how you enforce it?

Some nut with a gun walks into a school, or theater for that matter, and opens fire. No one can defend themselves. How do you stop that? TSA at each entry point?

Tell me how to stop that.

[upaloopa]

28. We can't prevent murder so should we then decriminalize it?

You make no sense. Most of the crimes are not preventable but they are still crimes.

[shadowrider]

32. I said nothing of decriminalizing it. I asked how you enforce a no gun zone

Please answer the question.

[hack89]

151. A gun free zone does not actually protect kids, does it?

how does it actually stop someone from carrying a gun into school and shooting someone?

[shadowrider]

153. He apparently can't explain how a gun-free zone would be enforced

I've asked and hear crickets in return.

[gejohnston]

14. In high school I took a gun every Thursday

along with the rest of the rifle club.
But to your point, many schools have armed cops posted there.

[alabama_for_obama]

157. Armed cops

Who don't actually stop kids from bringing guns into the school. Unless they are going through airport type screening for every child.

[Pamela Troy]

6. No, the gunS (he had more than one) didn't do it on their own.

Nor did he. He could not have killed so many people so quickly if he had not had the guns he had.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. I blame our idiotic gun culture and the absurd availability of weapons.

Obviously the weapons do not up and do this on their own, that is a stupid strawman argument, a tired stupid old used up worn out NRA bullshit argument.

[shadowrider]

15. So the mental health aspect means nothing. Blame it on the gun. Got it.

[Pamela Troy]

16. Yep. Without the guns this disturbed young man would likely not have done as much damage.

God forbid we discuss keeping guns out of the hands of unbalanced individuals like this one.

[shadowrider]

18. NOW you're getting it. Why wasn't this "unbalanced individual" treated when by all

accounts at least one person knew it. Had that happened, this incident MAY not have happened.

Why?

[Pamela Troy]

77. Being in favor of some level of gun control

does not preclude also being in favor of mental health services.

[shadowrider]

90. Good. Mental health services in this particular case could have averted this tragedy.

Glad you and I agree on something.

[Pamela Troy]

96. Coupled with effective gun control, yes, I think they could have.

[Trunk Monkey]

29. W/out the gun

Are you not aware that this guy's apartment was loaded w/ enough bombs to level the building?

Do you really think this guy couldn't have got the job done w/ out a gun?

[shadowrider]

33. Dude, get the memo. You're more dead if killed with a gun. Theyz evil I say n/t

[Pamela Troy]

114. Yes, I really think this guy would have been less likely to kill and maim the people he did

...without a gun.

How many people did his boobytraps kill again?

[gejohnston]

118. where did he set them

his ability to kill a lot of people is limited only by his imagination. If he was able to get gas grenades, could he get frag grenades? he could have done more damage without a gun. he simply didn't.

[Pamela Troy]

119. You think he used a gun because he wanted to kill FEWER people? Really?

[gejohnston]

120. no,

where did I say that? I have no idea why. I was simply pointing out a flaw in your logic.

[Pamela Troy]

121. His ability to kill a lot of people plainly was limited, because his attempt at it WITHOUT a gun

...didn't work so well.

[gejohnston]

122. for example?

[Pamela Troy]

123. His booby trapped apartment killed nobody.

[gejohnston]

125. Only because the cops knew what they were doing

if someone entered that did not know what to look for, someone would have died.

[Pamela Troy]

166. But you see, nobody did enter and the cops knew what they were doing.

That's why constructing and planting a bomb is more complex and difficult than simply pointing a gun at a crowd and pulling the trigger. That's why mass murdering loners in this country prefer automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

[gejohnston]

174. that is not why

Something like that would not have been part of his "Joker" fantasy. The Joker would not do that, so he would not do that. When was the last time one of these guys used an automatic weapon? Automatic weapons being used in shootings are more common in the UK and Europe than here.

[Clames]

156. Well duh, he did warn the police about that.

I bet if had given the same warning when he planned the shooting there wouldn't have been anybody killed either. Logic, go find it.

[Pamela Troy]

168. Even if the cops hadn't known about it, there's go guarantee...

the death and injury toll would have been as high as the theater's. That's the thing about bombs. They just aren't as certain as a well-aimed semi-automatic or automatic to inflict a high number of casualties.

How many people did Breivik kill with his bombs? How many people did he kill with his guns?

[gejohnston]

173. actually,

If he used a machete, he would have killed more people while choking on the, probably illegally obtained, tear gas. He would have wounded fewer, but he would have killed more. No one outside would have heard the shots. I doubt if they were well aimed. If he had an automatic weapon, how would this affect the conversation?

[Trunk Monkey]

127. could he get frag grenades?

I can make a field expedient fragmentation grenade for about 20 bucks I bet 2 would have done just as much damage as this guy did with a gun

[Trunk Monkey]

128. I don't mind debating the point with you but please

at least be intellectually honest.

The reason his booby traps (AKA IEDs) didn't kill anyone is because he told the police they were there.

If he knew how to doctor the smoke grenades I'm certain he could gin up some fragmentation grenades I could make a fragmentation grenade.

[ThePhilosopher04]

179. By that logic, you don't need a gun to defend yourself or hunt.

[Euromutt]

31. We're quite willing to discuss it

What we're not willing it discuss is the option of treating everyone by default as if they were unbalanced like Holmes, and restricting their ability to acquire and possess firearms accordingly. And certainly not without some form of judicial oversight and due process.

[EX500rider]

135. Nonsense..

....he could have likely killed more by renting a large SUV and plowing into the movie line outside before the show at 80mph+ and kept on the gas. Also you keep talking knife, he could have likely killed as many or possibly more in a crowded theater with a razor sharp Samurai sword. If either had happened would there be much talk of banning?

[Mojorabbit]

63. It isn't though

There are millions of firearms in this country owned by responsible people and never used in any sort of crime. It takes a criminal mind(who will not follow the law anyway) or someone with mental issues it seems to do something like this. They will use bombs, guns, chemicals, whatever and unless one can find a way to identify these people in advance everything else is just a feel good measure.

[shadowrider]

72. Thanks for a clear thought. It's appreciated, truly n/t

[TrogL]

21. I'm not the sanest person in the world

I saw the Batman movie last night in a packed theatre. Had I gone amok (relax, I've been taking my meds) I probably would have managed to punch a couple people before bystanders took me down. Now add guns to the mix.

[gejohnston]

22. how insane are you?

and please entrust any guns or sharp objects to someone who can secure them from you.

[TrogL]

24. Mild bipolar

On one of my bad days I'd do exactly that

[gejohnston]

52. my bad

sorry.

[upaloopa]

27. If he didn't have a gun he could be crazy as a loon and those people would have enjoyed their movie

[shadowrider]

34. Sure. And the police department has been trying for a day and a half to get into

his apartment because of booby trapped bombs. No way he coulda made one and thrown it into the crowd. Nah.

Gunz iz evil I say. Without them, nothing would have happened.

Bless your heart

[Pamela Troy]

35. Except, you see, he didn't.

He used his guns instead.

Why do you think that is?

[shadowrider]

36. Because he's exceptionally unbalanced and needed help long ago n/t

[Pamela Troy]

37. And yet, as you pointed out, unbalanced people have been known to use knives...

And as I pointed out, the death rate from such attacks tends to be significantly lower than the death rate from attacks by a loon with a gun (like Breivik, Cho, and Holmes.)

He wanted to kill as many people as possible. The booby-traps at his apartment were just lagniappe. The main course was the body count in the theater, and his use of a gun made that body count higher.

[shadowrider]

38. And yet you continue to ignore his mental problem and blame the tool n/t

[Pamela Troy]

40. Oh, I factor in his mental health.

Allowing guns into the hands of violent loons like this make for attacks with very high body counts.

Sorry your knives eqivalence didn't work out, but reality is like that sometimes.

[shadowrider]

41. My knives equivalence worked out just fine. You choose to discount it.

That isn't my problem.

Tell me, are those victims more dead, or less dead since they were killed with a gun?

[Pamela Troy]

43. I chose to point out the math. As horrible as those attacks were, they did not leave as many killed

or injured as do gun attacks.

No, those victims are no less dead. There are, however, significantly fewer of them.

[shadowrider]

48. So less lethal means aren't as bad as long as there are less victims?

Sheesh.

[gejohnston]

50. or to paraphrase Stalin

one shooting is a tragedy, ten stabbings are statistics

[shadowrider]

54. .

[Pamela Troy]

58. Are you an admirer of Stalin?

[gejohnston]

64. no, not at all.

[Pamela Troy]

68. But you appear to agree with his claim

that a higher death count is meaningless, nothing more than a statistic.

[gejohnston]

73. see post 70 NT.

[Pamela Troy]

88. Been there, done that.

[Pamela Troy]

57. Your quote makes no sense in this context.

Stalin was dismissing a higher body count -- as you seem to be.

[gejohnston]

70. no, I'm projecting

that view on gun control advocates. Notice when gun control advocates talk about gun violence, they don't talk about violence. When they proclaim "gun suicides dropped because of some gun law" they miss the fact that the suicide rate did not drop, only the use of firearms.

[Pamela Troy]

82. "Projection" is when someone ascribes his or her own attitudes and faults to others.

Kindly deal with what I've said rather than what you wish I'd said.

[gejohnston]

94. you must be unique among gun control advocates

My bad, long day. But if you look at what most gun control arguments look like, that is what it amounts to.

[Pamela Troy]

55. Yes, "less lethal" means that people who would have been likely killed in a gun attack

would likely survive in a knife attack.

Are you, in all seriousness, attempting to argue that a higher body count in gun attacks doesn't mean guns are more lethal?

Sheesh.

[shadowrider]

59. No. I'm saying you're discounting other means of mass murder and insisting guns are

are the cause of mass murder.

Until you realize dead means dead, by whatever mass means, knife, bomb or flamethrower and get off your "it's the guns fault" meme, I think we're done.

[Pamela Troy]

62. No, I'm not "insisting guns are the cause of mass murder."

I'm simply saying they make mass murder easier and more effective.

[shadowrider]

66. You are incorrect. Oklahoma City ring a bell or was that not mass murder?

No guns used.

[Pamela Troy]

74. Of course it was mass murder.

But it involved more elaborate preparations than simply toting a gun into a crowded theater.

And by the way, in the wake of Oklahoma City, purchases of large amounts of the ingredients that went into making that bomb found themselves under scrutiny.

[shadowrider]

81. Really? News reports say this tragedy in Aurora took 4 months to plan

How long did Oklahoma City take?

You can put LARGE purchases under scrutiny, but what if someone buys 100 lbs a month for a year? That's UNDER the level of scrutiny. BANG, people die. No gun.

[Pamela Troy]

84. Actually, I believe they said he was planning it as far as four months ahead.

That doesn't mean he was spending the bulk of those four months planning it. He just spaced his gun and ammo purchases out across that time. And I suspect that most of the "planning" went into setting up his booby-traps at his apartment, which so far, have killed nobody (thank goodness.)

[shadowrider]

92. No one knows. And I agree the apartment took a lot of time

how else do you booby trap an apartment without setting off the traps.

This guy is sick and needed help he didn't get.

[Pamela Troy]

95. Yep. Building and planting an effective bomb takes time and care.

Not like toting a few guns into a public place.

[shadowrider]

99. Toting guns into public places takes no time and care. You already know your

target isn't armed and can't fight back. Simply put them on and start firing.

The bigger questions is, when did he learn to fire them? Hitting a moving target isn't easy. The man had practice. Where, when and with who?

[Pamela Troy]

115. Not when you're firing into a crowd.

[alabama_for_obama]

158. I've never tried, but

Im guessing it is much easier than you would think to make some sort of explosive device. Have you heard of maltov cocktails? The only thing slowing this guy down from killing even more people is the fact that he wanted to shoot people instead of blowing up the theater or burning it up, or whatever. I don't know how the fomented minds work that want to kill people, and why they do the things they do but I do know that if it wasn't for guns, he would have found a way to do this by other means for a lot less money.

[shadowrider]

160. He would have found another way with a much higher body count. n/t

[Pamela Troy]

165. And yet, isn't it interesting that most of the worst mass killings in this country

-- the ones done by disaffected loners rather than terrorist conspirators, were done with guns, not bombs.

I'm sorry, but this mantra I keep hearing recited, about how crazy people who want guns will get them anyway, and he would have used a bomb if he couldn't get a gun, yaddayaddayadda... all of it is nothing more than a rationalization for inaction. The FACT is that mass murderers like this typically use guns, and when they get their hands on automatics, or semi-automatics, they manage to kill lots of people within a short period of time. The FACT is that the booby traps Holmes set in his apartment failed. They did not kill anyone, because constructing and planting bombs is not as simple or as easy, or as convenient, as simply pointing a gun and spraying a crowd with bullets.

Would crazy people sometimes obtain guns if we had stricter gun laws? Sure. But the number of people who managed it would likely be minimized. Would mass murders take place? Sure, but not as frequently, and probably not with as high a body count. The "oh, it would happen anyway" justification is one that could as easily be used for legallizing murder. After all, if someone REALLY wants to kill you, they're going to do it, right?

[gejohnston]

172. Most in the world are disaffected loners.

Would crazy people sometimes obtain guns if we had stricter gun laws? Sure. But the number of people who managed it would likely be minimized. Would mass murders take place? Sure, but not as frequently, and probably not with as high a body count. The "oh, it would happen anyway" justification is one that could as easily be used for legallizing murder. After all, if someone REALLY wants to kill you, they're going to do it, right?

Why should I pay for a problem I don't contribute to?

[Pamela Troy]

187. For the same reason you don't march onto certain military installations or parts of

the White House without permission, even though you're not a spy or an assassin and have no bad intentions, you don't get to drive a car without a license, even though you figure you're a reallly good driver, and you don't get to buy anthrax spores without a certain amount of clearance, even though you have no intention of using them for terrorism.

[gejohnston]

191. The examples given

you can drive a car without a license, just not on public roads. The rest have nothing to do with a constitutionally protected right either. Also, the White House is also someone's home.

[rl6214]

138. It's already against the law for a person with mental issues tobuy a gun

Are you suggesting we make it super duper illegal?

[alabama_for_obama]

159. Lol

[Jenoch]

185. Nah, the

body count would have been higher had he used fertilizer and diesel fuel.

[4th law of robotics]

131. He was a smart kid

maybe he would have figured out what chemical fertilizers are capable of.

Then we'd be flailing about for blame as to why 100+ people are dead and hundreds more wounded in this pointless act of violence.

[Lint Head]

30. Guns don't kill people. Gun owners do.

[LonePirate]

51. Why can't I own a nuclear weapon as part of a well-regulated militia?

[gejohnston]

56. because they are not small arms

You can't afford one unless you are one of the Kochs, they are not cheap to build and maintain. Could you get one registered as a destructive device under the NFA? Search me, call the ATF and ask them.

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/22-208.aspx#startofcomments

[shadowrider]

61. I want to be a fly on the wall for that one

"Hello, BATFE? I want to know how I can get a nuclear weapon"

[gcomeau]

65. Uh huh...

And what part of any of that stuff you just said is in the Second amendment?

[gejohnston]

75. they used military terms of the time

they would probably view nukes as ordinance.

[LonePirate]

67. The Second Amendment makes no mention of small-arms or size.

If size matters, then we need to broaden our definition of what is considered "small arms" as you say.

[gejohnston]

78. see the above post

and maybe take a class in military history and 18th century word usage.

[LonePirate]

87. Military and linquistic history have no bearing on the average American's feelings on the 2nd Amend.

The high powered weaponry we have today was not envisioned when the Second Amendment was created but they're legal. What's the difference if someone wants to own a nuclear weapon, especially if they can find a way to condense to the size of a modern handgun?

Why aren't the gun rights advocates in favor of me owning nuclear weapons? Why is that wrong but owning\possessing something that is only a few inches in size but capable of killing dozens is perfectly legal? I see absolutely no difference here.

[gejohnston]

91. Actually it might have been

Tell you what, if you have the millions to buy it, go ask the NRC and the ATF. Comparing a pistol with a nuke is absurd. One takes out cities and poisons everything for years with one shot. The other propels a projectile in a specific direction.

[LonePirate]

97. The numbers are immaterial. They are instruments of death and both should both legal or illegal.

If gun owners or the NRA can draw the line at saying nuclear weapons should not be owned by average citizens, then why can't other citizens draw a different line and say these high powered firearms should not be owned?

[gejohnston]

100. these are not high powered, but

I don't think the NRA or I drew the line anywhere. Individual nukes are a non issue. For all I know, they might be perfectly legal. I doubt it occurred to anyone to ban their ownership, since not even the Kochs could afford one if they wanted.

[LonePirate]

103. Who's to say in 20 or 50 or 100 years that nukes won't be cheap and handheld?

Can I then attend a conceal and carry class in order to tote it around with me since the government will know about it and I will have been trained to carry it? People won't fuck me if they think I am carrying around a nuclear weapon on my person. What bigger crime deterrent is there than that? It will make me feel safe and manly! I might even buy a ten gallon hat to go laong with it.

Some people draw the line at nuclear weapons. Some people draw the line at much smaller armaments. Why is one group right and one group wrong?

This entire discussion proves nothing but the absurdity of current gun laws (or the lack of them) in this country.

[gejohnston]

106. let that be their problem in the future

in the meantime, a pistol propels a projectile in a specific direction towards a specific target. A nuke blows whole fucking cities. If you can't see the difference, I can't help you other than to say your example is common but still really fucking absurd.

No, the the entire discussion proves most gun control advocates have a difficult time defending their position using logic.

[LonePirate]

107. Why does 1 direction and target make a difference? The Second Amendment makes no such distinction.

besides, I can use my nuke once whereas you can use your pistol multiple times. If the basis of your argument is based on the number one, then my nuke position has just as valid argument with its one basis.

The gun rights advocates are the ones who cannot argue the slippery slope of their position. Life is life, regardless of how many or how quickly it kills.

[gejohnston]

110. I'm not drawing the line anywhere

besides, I can use my nuke once whereas you can use your pistol multiple times. If the basis of your argument is based on the number one, then my nuke position has just as valid argument with its one basis.

Because nukes are still ordnance and not small arms for the reason explained before, has nothing to do with size or portability. Since such technology does not exist, I doubt you could afford it if were, the issue is moot. Like I said, they may be perfectly legal, go ask. Who knows, maybe the Olympics will have a 3 mile nuke shooting event along with rifle, pistol, and skeet.
If you want a tank, here is a place where you can get one:
http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/

The gun rights advocates are the ones who cannot argue the slippery slope of their position. Life is life, regardless of how many or how quickly it kills.

Actually they can, it is called historical precedent.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_misrep.html
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/McClurgA1.html

[Clames]

126. It's called the Law of Physics.

There's no such thing, no ever will be, as a hand held nuclear weapon. You would know this if you had managed to stay awake in your physical science classes...

[LonePirate]

129. I think you are misjudging the amount of fissionable material necessary for a bomb.

That's not to mention the technological advances that might permit a hand-held device to generate such an event.

[Clames]

130. I think you are misjudging the level of sophistication and what it exactly takes to achieve...

...a criticality event that would result in an actual explosive device vs one that just gets extremely hot and irradiates everything around it. You need to do some research on this subject.

[LonePirate]

133. Compare the size and calculative power of today's computers with those from 50 years ago

Think of what an industrious weapons developer could devise in 50 years. It might even be a fusion reaction instead of a fission reaction. Your imagination is sorely lacking when it comes to man's inventiveness for destruction.

[Clames]

147. My imagination is fine. You're understanding of the science...

...involved here is what is lacking. Obviously didn't occur to you that even with the vastly more powerful computing power available today compared to 70 years ago when these weapons where developed that there are enormous challenges involved in even creating any functional device let alone a man portable one. The smallest ever developed still weighed enough to require two strong men to float it into position. You just don't know what you are talking about...

[LonePirate]

148. You seem to be forgetting that technology shrinks and improves over time. It doesn't stagnate.

I'm not sure why this concept is so foreign to you. Simply saying it is impossible does not make it so. I'm merely saying it could happen because that's what humans do - they improve things and make the impossible, possible. You seem to think the impossible never happens because evidently mankind simply gives up when it reaches a wall. When does that ever happen? Mankind always finds a way to scale that wall and move forward to the next one. It may not happen for another 50 or 100 years; but there will come a time when a massive destructive, killing agent will be handheld. You seem to be arguing that the magnitude of the death toll is integral to the laws we have or should have on the books. I merely think we need to focus on the far more important aspect - not the magnitude part but the death part. Maybe it's OK for you if a weapon can kill 10 people at a time but it's not OK if it can kill 10,000. For me, anything above 0 is problematic - and yes, I am aware that countless objects in this world have a potential death rate above 0, even if they are not as accessible or as fast and efficient as a handheld weapon.

[Clames]

149. You've made enough assumptions and false accusations in one post...

...to cover this entire thread. Your ignorance on this topic is staggering and amount of false assumptions on what you think I think will not change that. Point being, you lack the fundamental understanding of nuclear weapon design and the minimal understanding of what is required to initiate a catastrophic chain reaction needed to make these weapons function. Not everything you see on Star Trek is possible no matter how much you'd like it to be.

[LonePirate]

150. You seem to think because it can't be done now, it can never be done. Your ignorance here is galling

You do not know nearly as much as about human ingenuity (and I supect also nuclear\quantum physics and weapon design) as you think you do.

[alabama_for_obama]

161. It's because you need a certain amount of fissionable material

In order to have a criticality event that results in an explosion

As to your question, "why can't I own a nuke?" the simple answer is that area affect weapons are generally no available for legal ownership to civilians. I don't know anyone who disagrees with that notion of where we should draw the line, and I have met a whole lot of crazy people in my lifetime.

Once your weapon becomes indiscriminate in whom it targets you don't get to keep one at home for the most part, as it has less demonstratable use for valid defensive purposes.

Nukes will never be legal for individuals to own, just for the sheer fact that they cause so much long term environmental damage. Right to beat arms does not = a right to use them irresponsibly. And from what I have seen, there is no such thing as responsible use of a Nuke bomb.

Try not to say such absurd things. It's not helpful or conducive to civil conversations.

[LonePirate]

163. If environmental impact was a cause for illegality, then millions would be without power, cars, jobs

The Second Amendment makes no mention of environmental impact. So that argument bears no fruit here.

As for the indiscrimination part, what's the real difference between a nuke and a weapon which allows the user to fire countless rounds at discriminate targets? Anything above zero is intolerable. Yet you have some number in your head that makes the number of targets excessive for a nuke but not for a handgun or automatic\semi-automatic weapon. My number (0) is likely to be considerably lower than yours so why is yours acceptable but mine is not? Because your number is popular or widely accepted? Again I ask, what difference does it make? It is all a slippery slope. We just have our flags planted in different positions.

[Clames]

182. I know enough to run circles around you.

Considering you've obviously glossed over the entire available history of documented nuclear arms development. Star Trek wasn't based on reality. Understand that first.

[shadowrider]

93. Jeez

[LonePirate]

104. I appreciate your agreement with my point here. Thank you.

[shadowrider]

108. Jeez was "Holy crap, not this sh*t again", not an agreement n/t

[LonePirate]

109. You only think it's sh*t because it uses your argument to defend the indefensible

There is almost no difference between owning a nuke and one of these rapid fire guns with large magazines. One life is as valuable and precious as one million.

[rl6214]

140. Big difference, you just arent willing to accept it.

Modern rapid fire gun is to the foot soldier as a musket was to a 1776 soldier, a personal weapon they could carry and take home. Washingtons troops did not take their cannons home, you cannot take a nuke home.

[rl6214]

139. If you look at the termonology of "keep and bear arms" you need to determine what "arms" are

What did the soldier or militia member of that time "keep and bear"? A musket. They took their muskets home with them because they owned them. The musket was the weapon used by the militia member or member of the standing army. They did not take home their cannons. Fast forward to modern times and what is the weapon used or carried by the modern member of the army or "militia"? That would be the shotgun, Ar15 (M16) or pistol. They would not take home rockets or nuclear weapons.

Apples to apples.

[gcomeau]

60. NOBODY is "blaming the gun".

And NOBODY is saying its not the crazy guy's fault for wanting to kill a bunch of innocent people.

They are blaming the gun's *availability* for making it *possible* for the crazy guy to kill a bunch of people. Understand?

[shadowrider]

69. The *availability* of legal *fertilizer* and legal *diesel fuel* enabled McVeigh to kill 168

with no gun.

You understand?

[gcomeau]

79. I understand perfectly.

And as soon as you show me:

1: The NON killing people real, legitimate need for regular citizens to stock up on automatic assault weapons in their suburbs or downtown apartment buildings.

or...

2: The even remotely equivalent negative impact of not letting people buy *fertilizer* or *diesel fuel* on the ability of the nation to function...


...then I'll take your little analogy seriously.

[shadowrider]

85. There is no Federal Department of Needs. What someone can afford to buy is their

business, not yours or mine.

I didn't say they can't buy it, I said in small quantities it can be purchased to add up to bulk to make a bomb. Consider 3 co-conspirators, each buys 100 lbs. a month which is under the radar. 300 lbs. a month, 3600 lbs. a year. Helluva boom if you ask me.

[gcomeau]

136. ...

Baloney. The point is there are real, legitimate, completely non-killing-people practical applications of fertilizer and those applications are in fact 99.9999% of what they are used for. Same goes for Diesel fuel. Not only is there no particularly compelling reason to ban them, banning them would have *catastrophic* consequences on the nation in general. You can't take all the farmer's fertilizer away and you can't suddenly shut down all the equipment that runs on diesel without very very very bad things happening.

If you stop letting people own assault rifles...... nothing happens except people stop carrying around way more firepower than they ever need to do anything whatsoever (besides, you know, launch an all out assault on a crowded movie theater let's say)

[beevul]

105. What do "automatic assault weapons" have to do with it? N/T

[gcomeau]

137. I honestly can't even think how to appropriately respond to that... nt

[beevul]

142. You could start by explaining how guns that weren't used in the CO shooting are relevant...

You could start by explaining how guns that weren't used in the CO shooting are relevant to the discussion involving the guns that were.

That help you any?

[rl6214]

141. This guy did NOT have any "automatic assault weapons"

All of his guns were semi-automatic with the exception of the shotgun which was pump.

Automatic assault weapons are legal and are HEAVILY REGULATED.

[DainBramaged]

145. I'd call it trolling, wouldn't you?

[rl6214]

180. No, I'd call it completely ignorant

What you do is troll, you should recognize it.

[DainBramaged]

181. Bite my ass, how's that.

You folks won, get over yourselves.


Oh and PS, I put you on ignore, not because you're ignorant, but because you are stupid.

[wandy]

98. I'll agree with you here. I am not a gun owner; for my own reasons......

I have no problems with reasonable people owning reasonable guns.
It would be my bet that Holmes went over the edge very quickly.
Their is no way to tell what was going on in his head.
I think it's very possable that instead of believing he was the Joker in a Batman movie, he might have imagined himself to be Tim McVeigh in some twisted Smokey and the Bandit movie.
If the 'voices in his head' were compelling him to do harm, he would've found a way.

[shadowrider]

101. You aren't a gun owner and I support your decision

I don't think Holmes went over the edge quickly. I think he immersed himself in the Batman movies and came to believe he was actually a character, thus his "Joker" imitation.

Thank you for your reasonable response. It's appreciated.

[movonne]

71. Disagree...he should not of had a gun or guns or explosives....but he did and we

make is easy for them to get..we sometimes don't know that someone is mentally ill until it is to late..so making laws stricter go get these things is probably a real good idea...

[shadowrider]

83. His mom "knew" it was him when she heard of it

Why did she know that? Did she know he was/is mentally unbalanced? Why was nothing done?

I'll wait for the news to decide.

[liberalmuse]

76. Gun culture helped.

Well, of course the guns themselves aren't to blame, but we live in a culture that is largely obsessed with them to the point that gun ownership to many is a higher priority than education, or healthcare. With too many Americans, it's guns first, people somewhere down the line after that. We see a disproportionate number of guns in our everyday entertainment and media. The gun meme is deeply embedded within our national identity. So naturally, when a seriously mentally ill person decides to go off the rails, they are going to express that within the confines of the culture they live in. Our obsession and worship of guns and those who weld them throughout our country's history is something we probably should examine if we want a better society. I don't know that this nation is ready to go inward with the deep reflection that proceeds serious change. We're still projecting our shit 'out there', with a 'take no prisoners' attitude, so unfortunately, that will continue to be reflected back at us with more and more tragedies like this.

[gejohnston]

86. miss the larger picture

Well, of course the guns themselves aren't to blame, but we live in a culture that is largely obsessed with them to the point that gun ownership to many is a higher priority than education, or healthcare.

Kind of a false choice really, they are not mutually exclusive in themselves, although the current climate seems that way. I think Criminologist James Wright said it best at a 1995 congressional hearing:

And then, finally, my tenth observation is that guns are
important elements of our history and our culture. Attempts to
control crime by regulating the ownership or use of firearms are
attempts to regulate the artifacts and activities of a culture that
in its_own_way is as_unique_as any of the other myriad cultures that
comprise the American ethnic mosaic. This is what is referred to as
the American gun culture, about which many have written, and, I

And then, finally, my tenth observation is that guns are
important elements of our history and our culture. Attempts to
control crime by regulating the ownership or use of firearms are
attempts to regulate the artifacts and activities of a culture that
in its_own_way is as_unique_as any of the other myriad cultures that
comprise the American ethnic mosaic. This is what is referred to as
the American gun culture, about which many have written, and, I
believe it remains among the_least_understood_of any of the various
subcultural strands that make up modern society.
The existence and characteristics of the American gun culture
also have implications that are rarely appreciated. For one, gun
control deals with matters that people feel_strongly_about, that are
part of their background, and their heritage, and their upbringing
...and their_worldview._ Advocates for gun control are frequently
taken aback by the_stridency_with which their seemingly modest and
sensible proposals are attacked. But from the gun culture's point
of view, restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms amount to
the systematic destruction of a valued way of life, and are, in that
sense, a form of cultural genocide. Scholars, and criminologists,
and legislators, who speculate on the problem of guns and crime
and violence would, I think, profit to look at things, at least
occasionally, from the gun culture's point of view.
There are about 50,000,000 U.S. families who own firearms, and
hardly_any_of these families have ever harmed_anyone_with their
guns, and virtually none ever_intend_to. Nearly_everything_these
families will ever_do_with their guns is both_legal,_and largely
innocuous. So when we advocate restrictions on their_rights_to own
guns, as a means to fighting crime, we are casting aspersions on
_their_decency, as though we somehow hold_them_responsible for
the crime and violence that plague the nation. Is it any wonder
they object often loudly and vocifero
believe it remains among the_least_understood_of any of the various
subcultural strands that make up modern society.
The existence and characteristics of the American gun culture
also have implications that are rarely appreciated. For one, gun
control deals with matters that people feel_strongly_about, that are
part of their background, and their heritage, and their upbringing
...and their_worldview._ Advocates for gun control are frequently
taken aback by the_stridency_with which their seemingly modest and
sensible proposals are attacked. But from the gun culture's point
of view, restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms amount to
the systematic destruction of a valued way of life, and are, in that
sense, a form of cultural genocide. Scholars, and criminologists,
and legislators, who speculate on the problem of guns and crime
and violence would, I think, profit to look at things, at least
occasionally, from the gun culture's point of view.
There are about 50,000,000 U.S. families who own firearms, and
hardly_any_of these families have ever harmed_anyone_with their
guns, and virtually none ever_intend_to. Nearly_everything_these
families will ever_do_with their guns is both_legal,_and largely
innocuous. So when we advocate restrictions on their_rights_to own
guns, as a means to fighting crime, we are casting aspersions on
_their_decency, as though we somehow hold_them_responsible for
the crime and violence that plague the nation. Is it any wonder
they object often loudly and vociferously to such slander?

[Triloon]

80. The 1% are the real culprits

I haven't heard anyone mention the corporate profiteers that run Regal Cinemas as having a role in this tragedy. Why do they have ten kids out front shoveling popcorn and no one checking on the auditoriums? Why, when this shooter left the auditorium to get into his costume and get his weapons, and blocked open the emergency exit so that he could get back in, did no one come and shut that door?
This wasn't a random event. The shooter clearly had it all planned and I feel sure that he cased the theater at least once to see if his plan would work. He saw that no one watches the doors in this theater and proceeded.
The reason they dint watch the doors too closely to keep people from sneaking in and out is because they don't make much money on the admissions, the profits mostly come from concessions. So they don't bother to waste money on having some minimum wage usher keep an eye on the security doors. A simple alarm on the exit door would let them know someone had opened it and left it open and someone could have come to close it.
The shooter probably would have found somewhere else to do his deed, but these particular victims would have been saved if the 1% profiteers cared about anything other than making an extra $.

[shadowrider]

89. A rather *loud* alarm on the door MAY have stopped this.

These particular victims may have escaped the carnage, but then we'd be reading about another theater somewhere. It wouldn't have stopped him.

[Jenoch]

193. In my part of the country

those exit doors to the outside are used to exit the theater after the movie is done. They are not the 'alarm will sound' type doors.

[ileus]

111. because people want to blame their most feared object, not offend the shooter.

[Pamela Troy]

116. You can't blame both?

[ileus]

124. you can but like water off a ducks back

The gun doesn't take blame that much. It just kinda lays there...

[Pamela Troy]

169. Until it's picked up and used by a crazy person.

[pnwmom]

112. At the very least, we shouldn't be making guns so easily available to disturbed

and mentally ill people.

[freethought]

132. If the mother was aware of his state of mind

Why didn't she try to get the young man some help? If the mother stated "You've got the right guy" after being informed of his arrest following the shooting, what did she observe in her son's behavior that would automatically have her blurt out such a statement. Did she actually see something so disturbing in her son's behavior but not seek out any kind of aid or advice?

I have said this in another post:
-Holmes had no previous record, not even misdemeanors
-He had no history of violence or mental illness
-He may have been private, shy, socially "off", even not overtly polite to others but those personality traits are a far cry from being a mass murderer capable of great violence.
-Academically he was described as "very smart" or "brilliant"
-No history with terrorists, radical groups, or criminal organizations.

Right now all we have are questions, but no answers since the guy isn't talking.

[shadowrider]

146. Which is my point. Personally, I think the guy should fry in a big time way.

Given that, his mom knew his elevator didn't go to the top floor. Why wasn't something done previously that COULD have prevented this?

I think the guy is singing like a bird. He's proud of his "achievement", and if he believes he's in a movie, he's laying out the script for the cops. The cops aren't talking because it could be bigger than just the shooter. I understand there is a search on for another "person of interest". The level of sophistication in this tragedy is beyond this one person.

[freethought]

164. Probably "Not My Kid" Syndrome.

The mother may have been aware that something was clearly not right with her son, but probably couldn't get over that last mental hurdle that her son was capable of horrific violence, at least until he actually committed such an act. Despite instincts that may have been raising alarms, she may have clung to "My kid would never do such a thing, despite his problems." Later, he did do such a thing.

However this only speculation on my part. I'm no psychologist.

Everyone wants to think that their child is never capable of bad or deviant behavior, even when their child is an adult.

You may be right on the guy singing like a bird. A number or articles point to an accomplice. Time will tell I suppose.

One thing that did cross my mind was the fact the guy was withdrawing from graduate studies when sources describe him as "very smart" or even "brilliant". Not only that but he was studying neuroscience, hardly a subject for the faint of heart. One that would require a great deal of work and commitment.
I wonder about this because a member of my immediate family went to Cornell Univ. to study for a PhD in economics. More than once she called me up in anguish, sometimes even in tears that she couldn't do it anymore. She did successfully finish the degree, but for some the demands and pressure were to great and some students snap. I would hear about the occasional suicides that Cornell has, on average, every year. Cornell has a tainted reputation for this because students usually commit the act by jumping off of bridges that span over these gorges. Some are well over 100 feet deep and just a few minutes walk from campus. Similar things happen at other institutions like Harvard, Yale and MIT, but the incidents are kept quiet.

I can't help but wonder is something similar happened to Mr. Holmes. Articles point to him having struggled academically in his first year of graduate study. It seems as if his anger turned outward toward others as opposed to inward as deep depression usually does. Rather than commit suicide, he lashes out violently at absolute strangers.

[bowens43]

152. No need to read... I've seen enough justifications from the gun crowd

the root cause is the easy availability of guns and ammunition. Period. End argument.

The GUN IS THE PROBLEM.

If he wasn't able to get these guns this tragedy would not have occurred. All the gun apologists are blind. All you have to do is look at the statistics comparing countries with strict gun control to those who do not have strict gun control.

The guns are the root cause of the problem.

[shadowrider]

154. Whatever n/t

[oneshooter]

155. And your answer is to "ban them all". So how would you go about it?

[4th law of robotics]

162. Exactly. Just imagine if McVeigh had been unable to get a gun

all those people would still be . . . dead.

[Pamela Troy]

170. And if Seung-Hi Cho had been unable to get a gun?

Jared Lee Loughner?

James Huberty?

[DrDan]

176. there ya go . . . that is it!

[Jenoch]

184. Did you miss the part

about all of the IEDs James Holmes had in his apartment? He had the ability to blow up the entire movie theater and kill hundreds.

[jonthebru]

177. Think what you want, but he should not have been able to gain access to such lethal equipment.

The amendment says "a well regulated militia." What in this situation fits that description? Firearm supporters lose by being so intransigent. Eventually there will be fire arm regulation or chaos. This is a great example of the immaturity of our Government and way of life.
Under the circumstances given his planning and so on, no one would have been able to mount any sort of defense. Its not like some frickin' action movie scene where the actors and stuntmen get to go home and put their children to bed that night.

This nutter will be a poster child for firearm ownership "freedom." Yippee, just like that idiot who murdered Trayvon Martin.

[gejohnston]

178. complete bullshit

The amendment says "a well regulated militia." What in this situation fits that description? Firearm supporters lose by being so intransigent. Eventually there will be fire arm regulation or chaos. This is a great example of the immaturity of our Government and way of life.

a dependent clause means zip. BTW, we do have firearms regulation. There are five federal gun laws in addition to various state and local laws.

Under the circumstances given his planning and so on, no one would have been able to mount any sort of defense. Its not like some frickin' action movie scene where the actors and stuntmen get to go home and put their children to bed that night.

And your expertise is what?

This nutter will be a poster child for firearm ownership "freedom." Yippee, just like that idiot who murdered Trayvon Martin.

That is alertable bullshit. He won't. Zimmerman isn't, and he hasn't been convicted yet (not counting the electronic lynching by the trial by media)

[On the Road]

183. The Problem with the Argument "Guns Don't Kill People -- People Kill People" Is

that it is muddling together different types of causes.

Legal dictionaries distinguish between proximate and immediate cause. Aristotle described material, formal, efficient, and final causes. There are whole subareas of law and philosophy concerned with causation, and this this argument misses the entire area by a mile.

The point is not so much to attach names, just to realize that they are different. There are always multiple causes, and insisting on one is not denying the other. The individual as well as the type of weapon were both necessary for Aurora to happen as it did.

-----------------------

Spree killings have occurred as long as we are are aware of, and if recent history is a guide, they will continue to happen sporadically about once a year in the US (nine incidents since 2002). The death toll in Aurora would certainly have been lower with a more limited weapon. And if private acquisition of weapons with these capabilities continues unabated, there will be more fatalities.

This has nothing to do with taking away guns for hunting or self-defense. The gun used in Aurora was not especially practical for either purpose. Restricting the sale of these weapons would no more violate the second amendment than prohibitions on private ownership of tanks and artillery.

Guns are not a hot-button issue for me either way. But trying to derail a discussion of which weapons should be legal for private sale with this kind of reasoning is just silly.

[gejohnston]

188. couple of things.

This has nothing to do with taking away guns for hunting or self-defense. The gun used in Aurora was not especially practical for either purpose. Restricting the sale of these weapons would no more violate the second amendment than prohibitions on private ownership of tanks and artillery.

Actually, they were. Not counting the tear gas grenades of course, which I doubt was legally obtained. We can debate one accessory.

The AR style "assault weapon" is used in many target competitions. Variations are sold and used as hunting rifles.
http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-r-25/model-R-25-rifle.aspx
This is not a machine gun.

The Glock 22 and 23 pistols. Standard pistols used as standard side arm of many police departments including the FBI and US Marshall's service. Also used for target shooting and defense.

Remington 870 Express Tactical Shotgun
Not only used by law enforcement, but has been used for trap shooting and hunting since its introduction in the early 1950s.

Oh yeah, you can legally own a tank or artillery. Might have to register it as a destructive device, but only rich people can afford one anyway.

http://www.milweb.net/
http://www.mortarinvestments.eu/
http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/