OT: Colorado shooting

[HOF Auto Rookies]

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

[t206hound]

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.

[CobbSpikedMe]

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

[E93]

What a terrible tragedy!
JimB

[jimross]

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

God Bless Colorado

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by jimross

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.

[UOFLfan7]

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

[bh3443]

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

[whitehse]

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

[barrysloate]

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

[GregMitch34]

How? By living in the USA.

[christopher.herman]

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

[barrysloate]

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.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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

[Babe3Ruth3]

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.

[forazzurri2axz]

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'

[Orioles1954]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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.

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.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Babe3Ruth3

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.

+1, sorry you are correct

[barrysloate]

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.

[barrysloate]

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?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

God forbid this country should have a sensible debate about gun control.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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?

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.

[barrysloate]

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.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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

[carrigansghost]

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

Rawn

[barrysloate]

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

[vintagetoppsguy]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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

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

[barrysloate]

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.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[barrysloate]

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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

What makes someone snap and do something like this?

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.

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

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

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

[nolemmings]

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

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.

[2dueces]

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.

[SetBuilder]

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.

[nolemmings]

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).

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

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 of course 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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

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.

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

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

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 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...

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

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...

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.

[zljones]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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.

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.

[barrysloate]

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.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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.

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.

[zljones]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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.

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.