OT: Colorado shooting
 

A horrific shooting happened in Colorado at the midnight premiere of Batman. Please pray for the families and friends involved.

Terrible...
 

Saw it on the news this morning... I slept in because I went to the triple feature (all three dark knight movies) last night. Just a terrible tragedy.

When my wife I lived in Aurora we used to go that same theater. What a terrible thing to happen.

What a terrible tragedy!
JimB

The killer is so sick!! But I don't understand, why picked Batman and not Spiderman?

God Bless Colorado

I guess one of the characters in Batman wore a gas mask and riot gear etc, that's what the shooter chose? Idk, but sick indeed.

Just heard about it on the news today...really sickening...my prayers go out to all of the families involved.

terrible
 

What a horrible and sense-less tragedy.
It could have been at any theatre with anyone of us there.
Prays go out to all.
God Bless,
Bill Hedin

A Navy man from my hometown in Illinois was killed in this tragedy. This really hits home to me. What a senseless situation.

How does an unstable man like this acquire a huge arsenal of assault weapons with such ease?

How? By living in the USA.

Highly visible NYPD presence at the 6:30AM screening at Lincoln Center IMAX this morning.
--C.

God forbid this country should have a sensible debate about gun control. I bet the two presidential candidates don't even address it. This will quietly go away as it always does.

It's not about gun control, it's about controlling the insane and sick minded

Gun control
 

There will be time later to debate about gun control, but lets use this post only to pray for the victims and their family's at this very difficult time.

are you the one to identify the insane and sick minded ahead of time??
 

so who IS going to be the expert and identify the "insane and sick minded", since that's your proposed solution.... When you can buy 6000 rounds of ammo online, these things will continue to happen...
despite what the conservatives/right wingers like to say for their political purposes about liberals and gun control, most of us liberals do also support the right to bear arms. BUT shouldn't there be more difficulty in being able to buy the automatic weapons and 6000 rounds of ammo with such ease?? just sayin'

If someone wants to commit mass murder, no gun law is going to stop them. None are. However, I'm interested in the gun control debate not for the sake of random mass murders (which represents a drop in the bucket of overall gun related deaths). Rather, I'm interested in debating gun control on the overall toll they take on a daily basis. Unfortunately, to many, this overall toll is not sexy or sensational and not worthy of immediate debate. Gun control advocates also do not take into consideration a thriving black market which will take hold should such laws take hold.

Personally I thought the Bass Pro shop had a rather nice selection.

http://www.basspro.com/Guns/_/S-999045513

Barry, nobody on either side of the aisle wants to take on the NRA.

+1, sorry you are correct

I fully believe that every responsible American has the right to own a gun. I think even most people on the left agree with this.

But not an assault weapon. Not a weapon that shoots off fifty bullets in a minute. What possible reason could any private citizen need one of those? I understand there is a black market for pretty much everything. But Mr. Holmes walked into a gun shop and bought it legally. Why was it available to him, or anyone else? Maybe a soldier would need one, maybe a police officer. But not a private citizen.

I know Peter, the NRA is always depicted as too powerful to take on. Excuse me for being naive, but why? What are they going to do if you take them on?

He obtained the guns legally through the system. He had no criminal background or anything else that would have prevented him from purchasing them. I know that doesn't make it any easier, but given the laws what could have been done differently to keep those guns out of his hands?

What is your definition of gun control? It sounds like gun control means something different to you than it does to me. My version of gun control is to have the proper checks in place to make sure people with criminal backgrounds and/or are mentally unstable are not allowed to purchase guns and/or ammo. It sounds like your version of control is to take away all guns. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth and if I'm wrong then so be it. However, if that is the case, then please explain what gun control means to you.

The City of Chicago has gun control - some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. Yet their murder rate (by handgun) is among the highest in the nation. Bad guys will always find a way to get their hands on guns.

Maybe you're looking for answers. We all are. What makes someone snap and do something like this? Who knows? But this shouldn't be politicizd. Not now. ABC News tried to do it and it already backfired on them. I'll end with this. I pray for the victims and their families for strength and comfort in this time of tragedy.

Led by Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, who was paid $1.26 million in 2008, the NRA in the past two decades has spent more than $100 million on political activities in the United States, according to documents and interviews, including $22 million on lobbying and nearly $75 million on campaigns.

David- I know you and I are politically as far apart as two people can be. And frankly, there's nothing wrong with that. It's a big country, and not everyone thinks the same.

Like I said, Americans have the right to own guns. I know you own one or more, I saw the picture you posted with your hunting rifle and your dog. Perfectly fine, you have every right to do so.

But I'm willing to bet you don't own an assault rifle, and I bet you have no interest in owning one. So how about we start the debate with: why does a private citizen have a legal right to buy a gun that can kill dozens of people in a minute's time? My guess is he didn't buy it to hunt quail.

That's all fine Peter, but why doesn't anyone in a position of power have the balls to challenge them?

NRA vs. AARP. No politician would take either side.

Rawn

Politicians won't take on rent control or rent stabilization either...what's with these wusses?

Barry,

You actually clarified your comments as I was making that post. No, I do not own an assault rifle. Even though I do support gun ownership, I do feel differently about assault rifles.

Consider this though. He also had 2 Glock .40 caliber handguns and a Remington shotgun. He could have done the same amount of damage with those three even without the assualt rifle. Given the fact that 70 people were shot, it's really a miralce that more weren't were killed.

Of course not, it's all about getting elected, but you knew that.

I understand David that the other guns were perfectly legal and anyone can buy them. I guess in the end there is no explanation for why someone would snap and do something like that. And I also understand he could have gotten an assault rifle illegally if he couldn't buy one in a store. I admit I don't know what the answer is. But I still believe this is a teachable moment (please don't ask me what it teaches) and having a debate about gun control is okay. We probably will never come to a meeting of the minds but I hate the fact it's always swept under the carpet because nobody wants to take on the NRA. That's all I'm saying. Any topic is fair game.

How about after they get elected? How about if you're serving your second and last term and can't get elected any more?

Heck, Barry, the NRA is an American institution, just like, say, the Boy Scouts. Why would anyone take them on?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1115649

I'd keep my eye on those boy scouts too...slippery bunch.

That story is another can of worms. But we can leave it be for now.

I think that Barry is right about assault rifles - certainly, disasters like this would be 'not as bad' if we could keep the heavy artillery out of the equation.

But your question is the key. People tend to simply say that because this guy was ultra-prepared, that he was a sane, but extremely evil person, and should be injected immediately. Not saying that isn't true, but I can also cite examples of diagnosed mentally ill people who have done similar (e.g-guy here in Seattle who killed several people in a coffee shop in May). Treatment for such people is simply not funded well enough as we tend to fund the problems that personally affect us. More people are 'willing to admit' that they, or their loved ones, have cancer, etc., than mental illness.

So, "What makes someone snap and do something like this?" I hope we get the answer for this particular case, and that the result is that we try to stop it from happening again, as opposed to our normal reactionary solutions;e.g-the brilliant city of NY posting police outside movie theaters.

I'll start off by disclosing that I've never owned a gun, and I never will.

I'm going to agree with this statement. Many of these cases are undiagnosed schizophrenics. This illness typically is onset in a male around age 18. If this is true for this guy, that would mean he walked around for many years without anyone taking notice.

I deal with this on a daily basis, with a close family member. The treatments are terrible, there's no funding... I suppose it's not terminal so why should there be any, right?

I will also share that the time between onset and diagnosis of my family member was the most frightening time of my life. He couldn't tell the difference between the tv, radio, what I was saying or what was coming from the dog. The doctors later told us that the frontal lobe of his brain no longer functions correctly. Now we deal with him on a daily basis, on medication that only works sometimes. Constantly living in worry that he'll stop taking the medication and we'll have to start over... Which happens at least once a year. I can really, from expereance, imagine how this guy really thought he was in a movie. It's a damn shame. My thoughts and prayers go out to the families...

Matt

Barry, you've let the cat out of the bag. Here is an article written by LaPierre himself on the NRA website-- the title pretty much says it all: "Obama's Secret Plan to Destroy the Second Amendment by 2016."
http://www.nrapublications.org/index...dment-by-2016/

He thinks that Obama has not taken on gun control measures his first term simply because he is lying in the weeds for a second term where he will be unconstrained to just eliminate people's right to bear arms altogether. Yep you heard me right, he actually thinks and preaches this.

I respect gun owners individually but have nothing but disdain for the NRA, in large part because it is led by a paranoiac. Any group which allows itself to be led by such deluded, fear-mongering zealots will get no sympathy or support from me--loathing, maybe, but no sympathy or support.

My thoughts are with the families.

On the other subject, someone that is mentally unstable could use a 4000 lb projectile and run it through the middle of a parade. Sick people will never stop coming up with ways to do sick things. Hugs your kids a little tighter tonight.

Here's the problem with gun control in this case: the shooter probably looked very sane to an objective observer. He was a Ph.D student and probably looked like a good guy. Unless we invent mind reading devices or administer psych exams to gun purchasers, I'm not sure how "gun control" is going to help things.

And don't say "ban guns altogether", that's never going to happen.

I agree that in this situation gun control may have limited relevance or impact, although that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it. I also agree that the topic of mental illness should take on renewed discussion and importance, although many of the same people who say our abilities to diagnose and treat mental illness need to improve will also refuse to pay one red cent to fund programs for such purposes (unless maybe if we also grant additional tax breaks for the mythical job creators).

I agree, I just don't understand how there can be so much funding, charity, awareness, etc. for something like an STD yet there is generally no common knowledge or awareness among the American people on the subject of mental illness.

And the gun shop owner therefore concluded he was buying an assault rifle for a legitimate purpose?

I seriously doubt that the guy buying assault rifles for the purpose to commit mass murder looked perfectly sane. At least not to someone who knows what to look for...

I'm not sure why there is so much emphasis on the assault rifle. Take that out of the equation for just a minute. He still had 3 other guns with him - 2 Glock .40s and a Remington 870 Pump shotgun.

I, too, own a Glock similiar to the one he used, except mine is 9mm. The gun came with 2 clips, I purchased 2 additional clips. Each clip holds 10 rounds. I can discharge all 4 clips (40 rounds) in about a minute. It takes literally 2 seconds to drop the empty clip and replace it with a full clip.

My point is this. He didn't need the assault weapon to carry out the carnage that he did. Heck, he didn't even need the shotgun or the other Glock. He could have done as much damage with just one Glock as he did with all 4 guns.

Let's say for a minute that assualt weapons were illegal to purchase and he couldn't have purchased one. Do you really think that would have stopped him from doing this? Do you really think he couldn't have done the same amount of damage with 1 handgun and multiple loaded clips?

Let's quit focusing on the way he did it and focus on why he did it.

Perhaps his interest in buying an assault weapon might have clued someone in that something was not right. But let's not impinge on individual freedom, this is the US of A.

The 2nd ammendment doesn't allow you to judge the mental capacity of someone purchasing a rifle that meets all of the consitutional background check requirements to bear arms (no felonies, etc). Gun dealers aren't psychologists.

AR-15 and AK-47 rifles are sometimes used to hunt game. Why? Because there are plenty of military enthusiasts out there who enjoy firing the military style rifles. Just like baseball cards have historical appeal, the AK-47 rifle has a long documented history and there is a segment of the population who enjoys this sort of thing.

Now if you're advocating the ban of all military style rifles to anyone except police and military personnel, then I suppose it would have been much harder (or impossible) for the madman to purchase a weapon of this caliber. Right now that hasn't happened.

Well said, well said. I live about 25 miles outside Chicago, and my brother lives in a rough section of the Southside. When I visit him I hear gun shots going off in the distance all night long in the Bridgeport neighborhood and Mckinnley Park. And this is the city and the state that is toughest on gun laws. Chicago Police are apathetic and often mean. My brother tried to report an attempted homicide and it took them 4 hours to get there and they didn't do anything, didn't even clean up the blood trail. The stain is actually still there 2 months later. This is the city that is toughest on gun laws; however, the murder rate is through the roof. I get sick of hearing about all these murders in Chicago. In the city where gun control is the toughest, has one of the most homicides in the nation. Police do not protect the citizens in this city too, instead residents fear the Police.
Your other comments are correct too about him being able to do the same damage with his other weapons, especially a Glock functions as a semiautomatic, and 40 caliber bullets can do alot of damage.
The main issue with all these shooters lately, is that they all want attention. They love to get media attention because they are little weiner dork boy losers that nobody likes to begin with. The media definatley gives them tons of attention when they slaughter people senslessly. Then some time later another lame little dork will do another shooting to get his fame as well.
People are now afraid to see Batman or even go to the theater. This shows fear, Americans need to stand up to this kind of crap and not let it effect their daily lives. These "shooters" are not Americans, they are terrorists and I for one do not give in to terrorism, I am thinking about buying a movie ticket for Batman this weekend.
I think there needs to be less media coverage when these things happen so the little weiner shooters do not get their fame. Plus I think it would be best for the families of the victims to mourn in peace without heavy media involvement.

Whatever spin you want to put on this, the bottom line is it is very easy for someone to buy a gun in this country. And 99% of the people who do buy them are responsible and would never use them against another person unless they were in a life and death situation. But there is a tiny percentage of gun buyers who are unstable and shouldn't be allowed to buy them. In the case of Mr. Holmes, I don't think there were any red flags, as there was nothing in his past that suggested he was insane. But in the case of someone like Jared Loughner, who committed the murders in Arizona, there were any number of red flags. And yet nothing stopped him from buying his weapons.

Somewhere along the line some of these guys could be stopped in their tracks by a simple background check. Not saying all can, but even if one or two could be caught it would save countless lives. But when this idea is brought up the NRA goes ballistic (pun intended) and nothing ever really changes.

Nobody is hurt by making it just a little more difficult for citizens to purchase guns. If you have a clean record it shouldn't matter in the least, maybe no more than filling out some paperwork. But if just one idiot is stopped because of a background check, some lives can be saved. These are small concessions but the NRA makes no concessions whatsoever. It's their extreme approach to this issue that gets a lot of people riled. There is always a middle ground that can be achieved with a little effort.

Because sadly most of the people in power are focused on one thing, staying in power. I have become convinced that those on both sides believe in one thing, whatever it takes to be elected. The age of the statesman and civil servant has passed.

Barry, with all due respect, you have your facts wrong. When one purchases a gun (any kind) in the USA from a licensed dealer, they must fill out a form from the ATF (Form 4473) and undergo a background check. The shooter in this case purchased his guns legally and did undergo a background check.

I also agree here. There does need to be more background checks. The problem with Chicago is since it is such a greedy city, they charge citizens tons of money to own a gun and make them pay tons of fees, take courses that cost hundreds. The regular citizen can't afford the cost of the weapon and headache of getting certified and fees associated.
But cheap, and careful registration should be a must. I do agree with you there. And I am also glad no one ever talks about that Jerrod kid in the media anymore, he does not deserve any more attention. I almost forgot his name til you mentioned it LOL.

David- the shooter in this case had a clean record. What is so mystifying at this stage is that Holmes was a solid citizen who was working towards a PhD in neuroscience and showed virtually no antisocial tendencies at all. People who knew him had nothing bad to say about him except that he was quiet and a little standoffish. Hey, that's a pretty good description of me too.

But what about someone like Loughner? Are you telling me that he was properly vetted and nothing came up? Because that guy makes Charles Manson look like a solid citizen. He was an absolute psychopath. Exactly what does this form 4473 check out in a person's past?

The Form itself asks for basic information about yourself. Then you answer a series of yes or no questions. Then the dealer calls it in to the ATF where a background check is ran. I do not know how extensive the bacground check is. This is the first page. Then you sign and date the back page. I believe the other 2 pages are instructions on how to fill it out.

Edited to add: Although gun laws are different from state the state, this form still has to be completed by anyone purchasing a gun from a licensed dealer in the USA.

http://cdn.stripersonline.com/8/82/8...tach426370.jpg

Unfortunately, yes. Loughner also purchased his gun legally as well. Filled out the same form, went through the same background check.

I believe he used a single Glock 9mm and killed 6 people. That's what I meant earlier by saying that Holmes could have done the same thing even without the assault rifle.

That's a useful form. I am sure people purchasing guns with bad intent are careful to be truthful.

I guess it's easier to complain than offer solutions. How do you think it could be improved?

Here's some of my ideas:
Ban assault rifles
Ban high capacity clips
Waiting period
Serial numbers on ammunition that could be traced back to the purchaser

Also, forgot to mention there is a place on the back of the form that describes the gun(s) you are purchasing - brand, model, caliber, action, serial number, etc.

David, I agree with all those suggestions, I think those would be helpful. Although I don't know the facts here, I am also guessing background checks probably could be more rigorous than they are. I know the counterargument is that anyone who wants to kill someone will find a way to do it, but in America that seems to happen, with guns mostly purchased lawfully, with alarming frequency. It is at least worth the experiment to see if tightening the process helps.

The contemporary debate over what the second amendment really means notwithstanding (the latest interpretation with respect to private ownership unrelated to a "militia" being the result of a 5-4 SC decision that could very well change at some point), I have always wondered what the drafters would think it should mean now that firearms are no longer muzzle-loaded with a rate of fire of 1-3 shots per minute. Guns now are so relatively inexpensive (compared to 18thC cost) and produce a rate a fire (even if they are only semi-automatic) far beyond what those 18thC men ever envisioned.

As to the comments about the ineffectiveness of Chicago gun laws, of course they are ineffective - there aren't border guards at every entry point into the city. Any gun laws, if they are to be effective (and I admit that is a big "if") have to be national.

I am a so sorry for those who were harmed in Colorado...

Joshua

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How there is an unfettered right to own guns, unconnected to a militia that is now obsolete, eludes me.

Thanks David for posting that form. Bottom line is if somebody like Loughner can buy guns legally then we have to accept the fact that these crimes are not preventable. I guess it's not a matter of if, but when and where the next massacre will occur. And I don't have a solution either.

Peter, it's just a sad, senseless tragedy. But people try to make it into a gun issue and in my opinion it's not. It's a mental sickness that makes someone want to kill another person out of cold blood and they'll find any means to do it.

I don't know the numbers, but I bet more innocent people will be killed this weekend by drunk drivers than were killed in Aurora. So, do we ban alcohol? I really don't drink, I could care less. Maybe it's worth the experiment to see if it reduces the number of alcohol related fatalities.

I just don't understand that when a drunk driver kills someone, we don't blame the alcohol or the vehicle, we blame the person for not having the responsibility to control themselves. The situation in Auroroa should be no different. Let's quit focusing on how he did and and focus on why he did it and maybe we can prevent things like this from happening again.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving would certainly agree with making it more difficult for people to drive drunk, as would I. I believe some states have enacted some fairly tough dram shop laws in an effort to make this more than an issue about personal responsibility.

edited - wasted my keystrokes

David,
I find it difficult to equate vehicles with guns. Travel in vehicles is a necessity for many obvious reasons. It is hard to imagine modern civilization and economies without it (including private ownership of vehicles). Private ownership of weapons that produce a high rate of fire is not analogous to vehicle ownership.

As to DWI - there are very strict laws against it everywhere. The high number of deaths can be attributed to the fact that nearly everyone drives. In any case, banning alcohol did not work. As to whether much stricter gun laws would work, some countries surely do have them. It doesn't always prevent mass tragedies, but I would still consider that at least an open and very important relevant question.

My point is this. Yes, there are very strict laws against drinking and driving. Does that reduce the number of DWI fatalities? Nope. Same thing could be said about tougher gun laws. The criminals will ignore the laws and find ways to get guns, just like people who choose to drink and drive ignore the DWI laws. Criminals don't obey the laws. That's why they're criminals.

Edited to add: Just a question. If Holmes instead would have driven his vehicle through the movie theater at a high rate of speed with the intent to cause as much death and destruction as possible and in the process killing 12 people, would we be talking about vehicles instead of guns? If so, you prove your point and I lose my argument. If not, then I just won my argument.

I would imagine the strict drinking and driving laws does lower dui deaths. I suspect it lowers the number of people drinking and driving.

Vital statistics from the U.S. were compared to those from 22 other high-income countries with populations over 1 million people that reported causes of mortality to WHO for 2003. Researchers relied on The World Bank’s definition of a high income nation, which included countries that had a gross national income per capita of $12,276 or more for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011.

In addition to the U.S., the study included Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) and United Kingdom (Scotland).

Researchers determined that the rate of homicides with guns in the U.S. was 4.1 per 100,000 people; the same rate combining the 22 other countries was 0.2 per 100,000 in 2003. The rate of homicides using guns in the U.S. was 19.5 times the rate of the other countries.

Peter, let's be fair. What was the homicide rate as a whole (gun, knife, other weapon) for all countries compared to the United States?

In other words, are the homicide rates about the same from country to country? If so, that just shows that people are finding other ways to kill people.

I'll await your response.

Good question, I was wondering the same thing. I will see if I can find any information.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/murd...2000-2004.html

From lowest to highest, US ranks 78th out of 121, substantially higher rate than most Western European countries.

edited - wasted my breath on this topic

David:My point is this. Yes, there are very strict laws against drinking and driving. Does that reduce the number of DWI fatalities? Nope.

Me: In fact, the DWI fatalities are very much down since the advent of stricter laws and much more serious enforcement. (you can find this both nationally and for individual states all over the web - this has been in decline for a long time)

David: Just a question. If Holmes instead would have driven his vehicle through the movie theater at a high rate of speed with the intent to cause as much death and destruction as possible and in the process killing 12 people, would we be talking about vehicles instead of guns?

Me: No, because modern civilization cannot continue without vehicles. I think it could very well continue without private ownership of guns that have a large magazine capacity and a high rate of fire.

Mark, civilization could not continue, because as someone pointed out earlier, there is a segment of the population that enjoy firing military-style weapons, and we couldn't possibly deprive them of that pleasure.

How great is this, the Aurora guy bought 6000 rounds of ammunition online, and he had to go through the rigorous process of certifying that he was 18 or older, or perhaps 21 or older, depending on weapon.

To Purchase Ammunition Online:
Federal law requires that you must be at least 18 years old to purchase shotgun ammunition and 21 years or older to purchase handgun and rifle ammunition.

You do not need an FFL to purchase ammunition online.
We can ship ammunition to your door via UPS ground or air.
Ammunition may be shipped air with a hazardous material classification; otherwise it can only be shipped ground.
Ammunition shipments to Alaska and Hawaii must be by air.
Ammunition and firearms must be purchased separately.
For safety reasons, we do not accept returns on ammunition.
Always make sure you use the correct ammunition for your specific firearm.
Check your local laws for any other regulations before ordering.

After looking into the matter further, I do agree that gun control is very lax. There should be a lot more hoops to jump through before being able to purchase a powerful rifle for whatever recreational purpose it may serve.

Could ideas such as this be implemented?

• Mandatory psychological exam and waiver.
• Training and certification requirement.
• Longer waiting period.
• Requiring a license to own a military style rifle and make that license REALLY expensive.
• Make guns in general more expensive by taxing them.

I like the making guns more expensive to own idea because the Colorado shooter wouldn't have been able to afford a hypothetical $10,000 "assault rifle license fee." Perhaps take it a step further and issue the licenses like liquor licenses. Only a certain quota allowed per 100,000 citizens. That, plus long waiting lists should deter a mass murderer.

There I solved the problem. :D

edited - wasting my breath

Just some thoughts
 

Quite a few different issues here, and all seemingly related: second amendment, NRA, right to bear arms, etc. I'd just like to add another wrinkle to the thread.

I live in Wisconsin, and the elections last year put conservatives in the governor's mansion, and majorities in both state houses. One of the first things they did was enact an "open carry" law for the state. While there is a training session for those who want to take advantage of open carry, you have to show up with your gun to take it, which means you bought it legally through methods already described in this thread. Once you pass the training, you can legally carry your weapon in public. Most proponents of the bill insist it was passed in order to provide citizens with the right to protect themselves from gun-toting bad guys.

Can you imagine what might have happened if, say, a half-dozen other people in that full theater who were legally. openly carrying handguns that night decided to open fire in the direction of the shooter to defend themselves and others from the bad guy?

Open carry is now legal in almost all 50 states. Wisconsin was one of the last hold-outs, but the NRA spent a lot of cash in Madison (our capital city) and sadly, got its way.

So many layers to this problem we could debate it forever, but reading the comments here one gets a pretty clear understanding as to why they never get solved. Physical or emotional, turf is turf, and we all fight to the finish to defend our own.

First, I'd like express my deepest sympathies for those in Aurora, Colorado.

Now, as far as gun laws. C'mon. The people responsible for these acts aren't gonna be stopped because of harsher gun laws. Criminals and Psychopaths are known for "Breaking the law". Even if guns were outlawed, incidents like these aren't going to stop. If anything, it would only force them to change their methods. Maybe we should outlaw forks for making people fat.(no offense intended towards people of the larger variety)..

And while I agree that certain items should require a psychological examination, overall, I think the gun laws are fine. BUT certain purchases should be a perfect "tip off" as to when things like this could occur, and probably should require a bit of monitoring afterwards. Rather than a simple, "here ya go, enjoy your WMD's, and thank you for your business."

There are billions of guns (weapons) in the USA. There is no possible way that any gun restrictions in this country could ever work. I own guns and would never give them up. I carry all the time unless I am going into a building or state where it is not legal. I have never seen a theater that allowed guns. The people there had no chance at all. Thank god this guy was an awful shot. With the amount of ammo this guy used it could have been much much worse. They call the AR15 he had an asault rifle. Only because of the size of the clip. It was a Semi-Automatic rifle. In no way the same as our military use. There have been semi auto rifles made for the last 100 years buy many makers. Nothing new here. He bought the ammo on line. No big deal. He could have bought it in any store. I know many people hate guns and that is their right, but most gun owners have respect for them. I hate to see these things happen, but there are a lot of nut cases out there and you never know when one will pop up. The bigger problem here is that this guy will spend years of time draging this through the court system when they should just take him out to the nearest tree and HANG him in publick. Frank

That's about the process to legally own an actual "assault weapon" - IE, an actual AK47 or M16 capable of fully automatic fire. Those have been very tightly regulated since 1938. Last I checked there had been 0 crimes comitted with legally held machine guns since then. Very stringent background check, $500 tax to transfer(Maybe $1000? haven't checked in a while) on top of the price and sales tax. Very difficult license to get. And I think the background check is redone for renewal.

One of the problems with attempting to regulate what are currently called assault weapons is that they are functionally no different from many if not most hunting rifles. The only difference is cosmetics -they're built to look like the military guns.
Banning them by function means banning every semi automatic gun, which includes a vast array of legitimate rifles for hunting and target use as well as many shotguns used for legitimate sports like trap shooting. And while that might seem reasonable in urban areas it's totally unreasonable in rural areas where some people actually do hunt for food rather than for sport.

-------------
I don't own a gun, having ADD means I'd be the guy leaving it out on the coffe table, NOT the way to properly care for it or the people around you.
But I have done very occasional sport shooting.
I'm in favor of a higher bar to initial ownership, but less restriction as you prove yourself. Maybe bolt action for 5-10 years then semi auto. Some graduated system like with a drivers license. (But we have that here in Mass for pistol permits, and uneven application makes it a problem.)

I like the idea of easily traceable ammunition. It should be a trivial thing to number the cartridges during manufacture. There would be complications for a few circumstances like people who reload their own shells, and clubs that buy in bulk for events.


California bans them, initially by a list of models, then by a list of models and adding language about "or similar to" or something like that.