Well, no one else posted so I guess I will. First, here is a ridiculous comment from a Republican congressman. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1119282

I have a few questions:

(1) Do we do anything in response to this shooting. More security at public events (don't know that it can be afforded). Do we encourage people to pack guns in public? Do we come up with some restrictions on gun sales (maybe pyschological testing) Or we just ignore it because it is still extremely rare (though I think one of the victims had just survived another public shooting so maybe it isn't that rare after all)

(2) Maybe Fate can help me here, because he has some background, but why didn't the police get into the theater earlier? It seems odd to me that they would be clearing other theaters while this guy is shooting people. I am not criticizing, I don't have the expertise on how police approach these situations, I am just wondering

(3) How did this guy shoot people in a sold-out theatre and no one takes him down (particularly when he is reloading)? I understand that the first instinct would be to flee but the same kind of thing happened in the Virginia Tech shooting. In the Seal Beal Beach shooting construction workers nearby came right away into the salon and even saw him as he fled (they were ex-military) Maybe we need to be training people on how to response to these situations It could just be an unfair question.

It makes me angry that people frustrated with their lives decide to get their 15 minutes by shooting a bunch of people. And we can't seem to do anything about stopping the next occurrence.

freeman2 wrote:Well, no one else posted so I guess I will. First, here is a ridiculous comment from a Republican congressman. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1119282

I'm not really sure the headline reflects the interview fairly. At best, Gohmert made a negligible connection between the two. If you can draw a straight line, feel free.

I have a few questions:

(1) Do we do anything in response to this shooting. More security at public events (don't know that it can be afforded). Do we encourage people to pack guns in public? Do we come up with some restrictions on gun sales (maybe pyschological testing) Or we just ignore it because it is still extremely rare (though I think one of the victims had just survived another public shooting so maybe it isn't that rare after all)

That "other shooting" was in Toronto. I think Canada has more strict gun control laws, don't they?

I really wonder how he got the tear gas canisters. You can't buy them, can you?

(2) Maybe Fate can help me here, because he has some background, but why didn't the police get into the theater earlier? It seems odd to me that they would be clearing other theaters while this guy is shooting people. I am not criticizing, I don't have the expertise on how police approach these situations, I am just wondering

I've not read enough to know. I do know they would want to get others out of danger. If they're going to start shooting, they don't want innocent folks getting hit by fire, if possible. And, rounds can go through walls (especially from AR-15's like the suspect had).

They would want to have some idea of what they were facing before they went in. It's one thing to think cops should blindly rush in; it's another to be the cop, not know where the suspect is in a big theater, etc. If they had a description of him in kevlar and gas mask, they would have been thinking to the LA (North Hollywood) shooting of about 10-years ago. The suspects were nearly bullet-proof and handguns were nearly useless.

(3) How did this guy shoot people in a sold-out theatre and no one takes him down (particularly when he is reloading)?

I understand he threw in flash-bangs, which would stun and immobilize the moviegoers for 5 to 10 seconds. It would also disorient them and probably incite panic. From what I've heard, he was shooting everyone who tried to leave, so my guess is that most felt pinned down--hiding was the safest measure. It would have taken someone use to emergency situations to get his/her wits about them and charge him when they reckoned they had a few seconds--and it could be a very small window, maybe even too small to risk. If I thought it would take me five seconds and he could reload in three, that would be a really bad situation.

I understand that the first instinct would be to flee but the same kind of thing happened in the Virginia Tech shooting. In the Seal Beal Beach shooting construction workers nearby came right away into the salon and even saw him as he fled (they were ex-military) Maybe we need to be training people on how to response to these situations It could just be an unfair question.

Only been in one shooting and another life/death situation. I think it's something you either are geared for and trained for, or you're not. I don't blame the victims at all. It's a shame there was not an off-duty cop or fireman near him. I understand there were some service members in the audience. Again, it could have been a distance thing.

It makes me angry that people frustrated with their lives decide to get their 15 minutes by shooting a bunch of people. And we can't seem to do anything about stopping the next occurrence.

Like with the Giffords shooting, I think we will find out there were people who maybe should have said something sooner--or who did and were ignored. It's still too early to know.

Gohmert may have been wrong. I could not see it. I do know that Bloomberg calling for more gun control within a few hours was just as wrong as anything Gohmert may have said.

Let's look at it this way: if there were 300 people in the audience and 60 of them had weapons, the situation would not have been the same. It may have been worse. It may have been better.

I think we will see more security at theaters. It really doesn't have to take much. Ushers to check the doors at the beginning of a show, an announcement that exit alarms would be on, etc. My understanding is that he was either let in or that he was in and exited, taping the door open. If either case is accurate, the theater would know something was amiss as soon as the door opened.

I hate all these situations. I think the answer is not gun control. You can't stop people from getting guns. However, you can do better in identifying the mentally ill and treating them.

Let's wait and see what the facts are.

Gun control probably can't prevent this kind of incident, which was meticulously planned in advance by a psycho. It could maybe reduce the incidence of these attacks though if mentally ill people had a harder time getting hold of lethal weapons, and it would certainly reduce the number of spur of the moment shootings.

IMO it isn't distasteful to call for gun control in the wake of this kind of tragedy. I can understand why people might make the accusation, but ultimately every fatality is a tragedy to somebody, and those of us who favour gun control believe that ready access to firearms leads inevitably to many more tragedies than would otherwise be the case. Incidents like this one cut to the very heart of why many of us believe that guns are too easy to obtain.

Why can't we at least ban high capacity gun clips which enables individuals to shoot much more people than if clips were more limited? This article discusses Republican opposition to such bans, but really does not give a reason. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/2 ... 92810.html

Is there one?

As long as the proliferation of fire arms is tolerated incidents like this will have to be tolerated.
Why does anyone need to own a AR15 assault weapon? What essential freedom is limited if large capacity magazines are banned?

That "other shooting" was in Toronto. I think Canada has more strict gun control laws, don't they?

Yes. Legal ownership is very limited..
Most hand guns are smuggled in from the US and sold within gangs.. Including the one used in the Eaton Centre shooting that one of the Colorada victims Jessica Gwan was quite close to, but not directly involved in...
There was also a mass shooting last week, where someone pulled a gun at a block party and started shooting back wildly. It isn't clear yet, but most of the victims in this blocl party shooting were apparently shot by the fellow who was "defending" himself.
Both incidents were gang related.

fate

I do know that Bloomberg calling for more gun control within a few hours was just as wrong as anything Gohmert may have said.

Why is it wrong to call for gun control after a mass shooting?
In any other comparable situation, the call for a review and revision of laws to try and prevent other incidents is pretty standard. After a fire, or a building collapse, the authorities are immediatly called upon to review the fire code and building inspection. After a plane crash there's a standard procedure that includes tightening regulation if its found that it could help prevent another similar incident. After a traffic accident, if the local conditions contribute there's a hue and cry.
Only with gun violence, and particular mass shootings is it suppossedly off limits to talk about how loose gun laws contribute to the level of violence.
In this case, he was armed with an AR15 and an extended magazine... Its fair to ask why this is legal isn't it?

fate

I think the answer is not gun control. You can't stop people from getting guns

Certainly not without gun control.

At least the suspect was getting a good education, heavily subsidized by Federal "investment":

WNEW News reports that Holmes was awarded a prestigious grant from the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. NIH is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

It gave the graduate student a $26,000 stipend and paid his tuition for the highly competitive neuroscience program at the University of Colorado in Denver. Holmes was one of six neuroscience students at the school to get the grant money.

Meanwhile, one of the victims' relatives sets MSNBC anchor straight:

Jordan Ghawi, brother of victim Jessica Ghawi: Here's the thing, we can try to politicize this and make some sort of polarizing debate and make this a tenet of the election, but that's not what we're here to do right now. We're here to celebrate the lives of the victims that have been lost.

If somebody wants to do harm to somebody, they're going to find a way to do it. Whether it be with a weapon, such as a rifle or whether it be with any sort of means we should actually start to think about why people are doing this. And the reason why they're doing this is because they want their names out there.

The guy wired his apartment, apparently with enough stuff to level the building. Think he could not have done that somewhere else?

California has a 10 bullet clip limit. What is the argument against that being the case everywhere? In the Arizona shooting the guy had a 30 bullet clip; we were apparently fortunate in that th Colorado shooter's gun jammed at some point or the carnage could have been much greater. The NRA has locked itself in to this theory that they will not agree to any restrictions on guns for any reason no matter how valid (kind of similar to Republicans on tax increases) for fear that there will be further restrictions. Why can't we come up with limits that will at best minimally infringe on lawful owner's gun rights but will limit the carnage a deranged person can do?

So, amend the 2nd Amendment?

Was he in a 'well regulated militia'?

Doctor Fate wrote:At least the suspect was getting a good education, heavily subsidized by Federal "investment":

So, you quote a relative of a victim saying they don't want this to a politicised issue, and you post that at the same time?

In what way is his being given an educational grant related to his actions?

fate

So, amend the 2nd Amendment?

You don't have to amend the 2nd to restrict what kinds of guns can be owned by individuals. All kinds of weapons are illegal. (bazookas, and surface to air missiles)
Until a few years ago high capacity magazines were illegal. That law was never deemed unconstitutional.
How is it that owning a 100 round magazine is so essential to personal freedom that laws should not be passed to restrict ownership of such?
The arguement being made that a criminal could always find a way to kill...and could always find a weapon with which to do his evil. This is true. But why is it encumbent upon society to make it as easy as possible for this to happen? One resaon given that the carnage in Colorado was not greater is that his high capacity magazine jammed, and he had to resort to a shot gun and hand gun. Right there is evidence that eliminating access to high capacity magazines would limit the damage done by insane mass shooters.
If you Balance that restriction with the arguement that this is a restriction on everyones freedom, then tell uswhy that restriction is such a great burden ... Surely the minor inconvenience of a target shooter having to reload more frequently is not a collosal infringement on a basic freedom.

danivon wrote:Was he in a 'well regulated militia'?

I would encourage every Democrat to run on that basis. Maybe you should run a few campaigns for them?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:At least the suspect was getting a good education, heavily subsidized by Federal "investment":

So, you quote a relative of a victim saying they don't want this to a politicised issue, and you post that at the same time?

In what way is his being given an educational grant related to his actions?

Not at all, nor did I say it was. However, when the President talks about how vital such "investments" are, I think we have the right to examine our ROI.

rickyp wrote:fate

So, amend the 2nd Amendment?

You don't have to amend the 2nd to restrict what kinds of guns can be owned by individuals. All kinds of weapons are illegal. (bazookas, and surface to air missiles)
Until a few years ago high capacity magazines were illegal. That law was never deemed unconstitutional.
How is it that owning a 100 round magazine is so essential to personal freedom that laws should not be passed to restrict ownership of such?

No, but to avoid endless court arguments about what is/is not permissible, you have to amend the Amendment.

If he did not have that 100 round magazine, more would have died. It was the magazine jamming that stopped the carnage. Imagine he had a couple of semi-auto pistols and was all geared up with extra magazines. It would have been worse.

The arguement being made that a criminal could always find a way to kill...and could always find a weapon with which to do his evil. This is true. But why is it encumbent upon society to make it as easy as possible for this to happen?

Why not let people defend themselves? Why should we have to depend on government? Can government be everywhere at once? If we had the same gun laws and culture we had in the 1880's, that man would have shot 4 or 5 people prior to be ushered into the afterlife.

One resaon given that the carnage in Colorado was not greater is that his high capacity magazine jammed, and he had to resort to a shot gun and hand gun. Right there is evidence that eliminating access to high capacity magazines would limit the damage done by insane mass shooters.

Actually, it's evidence to the contrary. Those magazines are notoriously unreliable because of the pressure all the ammo puts on the springs.

If you Balance that restriction with the arguement that this is a restriction on everyones freedom, then tell uswhy that restriction is such a great burden ... Surely the minor inconvenience of a target shooter having to reload more frequently is not a collosal infringement on a basic freedom.

I favor letting people arm themselves. To do otherwise is to punish the innocent, leaving them subject to the whims of the violent.

Again, what would a complete ban have done to stop the suspect from blowing up his apartment building? Would that have been preferable? He was intent on killing. He had the knowledge to make it happen. Getting hung up on the magazine is missing the forest for the trees.

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

Was the gun related violence in Switzerland comparable to the US violence during the time prior to 2007 when government issued weapons and ammunition were in almost all homes? No, and that is the million dollar question.

Is it a culture issue? Is it due to affluence? I would think it is the culture, and that is what needs to be dealt with rather than the access to weapons. Access was everywhere in Swiss society, yet the violence was not even close to the US.

Why?