12 killed, 59 wounded at shooting during 'Dark Knight Rises' premiere at Denver cinema

If you own more than 1 gun, i think you need a straight jacket !!!!

Guns are for weak idiots.

this idiot bought 6000 rounds of bullets.

6000 bullets !!!!!!

In Colorado anybody who is mentally deranged or crazy can buy a military assault rifle ( 1 hour back ground check ) in the same day.

How crazy is that ?

Only in America!

" I was trying to make is in London guns are not readily available and yet they are still being used to commit crimes."

According to the office of national statistics the rate of gun crime in the UK continues to drop, despite the recession. Its always been a fact that the percent of population killed and injured by guns in the UK is minuscule in comparison to the US. With a few notable exceptions those that use guns are generally criminals, get them illegally and tend to use them on each other. There are failures and gun crime does exist but the UK is a great example of the success of stringent gun control.

Sadly for the US though, the genie is well and truly out of the lamp. Without a major cultural shift things wont change. We'll continue to see too many tragedies like this one as long as Americans believe the general threat and use of force somehow sets them free.

This will continue to happen periodically in the United States, unfortunately, for as long as people have easy access to guns. And with the number of gun obsessed nuts running around the the US, you'd probably get a civil war before people willingly hand over their beloved firearms. The United States' obsessions with guns is a national illness, but it is also a deeply rooted part of the culture. I have never seen a good argument as to why civilians should have access to guns - and most of the rest of the world is proof they are entirely unnecessary in a balanced society. But I doubt they will get banned in the US, sadly.

I wonder if the NRA will be stupid enough to hold a convention next week in the same city as they did right after the Columbine incident?

You really don't know what your talking about:

In a letter to NRA members Wednesday, President Charlton Heston and the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said all seminars, workshops, luncheons, exhibits by gun makers and other vendors, and festivities are canceled. All that's left is a members' reception with Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., and the annual meeting, set for 10 a.m. May 1 in the Colorado Convention Center. Under its bylaws and New York state law, the NRA must hold an annual meeting.

At Denver, the NRA cancelled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' voting meeting -- that could not be cancelled because the state law governing nonprofits required that it be held. [No way to change location, since under NY law you have to give 10 days' advance notice of that to the members, there were upwards of 4,000,000 members -- and Columbine happened 11 days before the scheduled meeting.]

The convention in Denver was scheduled years in advance, when columbine happened the NRA cancelled everything except the annual members voting meeting which they had to carry out by law, is it so hard for you to even get location of the meeting right? It didn't even take place in Columbine, it took place in Denver.

Why don't you actually take the time to do research Sandiegoluv. Do you still think the NRA was "stupid" for holding the "convention" the week and half after the columbine incident?

Was Batman that bad of a movie?

Hey, don't get it twisted. I am American. Not bashing my country. Just bashing the NRA.

This guy was studying neurological disorders. Seriously? I would call what he did a SERIOUS neurological disorder!

I wonder if the NRA will be stupid enough to hold a convention next week in the same city as they did right after the Columbine incident?

NRA = Non Rational Americans!

"warallthetimeJUL. 20, 2012 - 07:55PM JST Madverts what happened when you take away peoples right to lawfully own a firearm? Do criminals suddenly start adhering to the laws?"

Typical argument. Look at all civilized first-world countries--no country is insane enough to allow ordinary citizens to carry loaded assault rifles around--legally! Except of course the USA. Sure, hunting rifles, maybe a handgun, but military weapons gotta go.

In an election year.... neither Obama or Romney will get near anything about gun control.

I know I usually post the unpopular opinion on this site (go figure, look at the audience) but what the heck.

@Stephen. Yes, you are right. You will never get rid of the nutcases. But there is a huge difference there. But, you will be a hell of a lot safer if people don't have guns. They will use different means, yes of course, but it will be much harder, and most likely on a limited scale. Guns make it way too easy. That is why they need to be removed from the public.

Your point? Human nature stays the same, you can't change it no matter what scapegoat you ban. Even one person dying in an incident (stabbing, shooting, or otherwise) is a shame. To say "well could you imagine how it would be if we banned (or had) guns?" is like picking the lesser evil instead of trying to solve the real issue. All you're doing is using this fuzzy logic to push your anti-gun side of this argument.

Then there is the whole issue of letting other people decide what's good for you/us as a society. At this point, banning guns outright in the US (or anywhere else) will never happen. I'm for stricter control, no one should be owning assault rifles (or civilian versions of them). But even stricter controls won't keep them out of the hands nut jobs like the guy in Colorado who just wish to inflict harm on others.

We absolutely need some sort of "sensible" gun control! Go to a drugstore and try to buy an unusual amount of Sudafed, try to get a narcotic filled a day or two early. What happens? It throws up a red flag in the system, and the transaction is refused. We should be able to do the same in a situation like this. I believe the principle is the same. We may have the right to defend ourselves, but who needs thousands of rounds of ammo ( including canisters containing hundreds of rounds) and an inordinate amount of firepower?

I learned about this horrible news while listening to NPR radio over the internet, live, never ever heard such a sad tone in the voices of my favorite NPR radio announcers! What can help curb this senseless violence in the USA??? How about getting many LAW SUITS against that movie theater for letting this stupid evil bastard enter their theater, then going after all of the so called LEGAL gun shops that sold these weapons to this evil bastard, and also making lots of law suits against all the GUN MAKERS, AMMO makers, and the makers of the anti bullet vests etc...this dork was wearing, BIG American companies somehow are not to fond of being dragged in courts of LAW where they will have to pay millions and millions of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to all of their victims and their victims families. IMHO.

The truth is, thankfully, just like the rest of us, the majority of Americans are opposed to and repulsed by the idea of private gun ownership.

What do you have to back that up that they are repulsed by the idea of private gun ownership?

harkens, why with this fondness for people being able to have guns to defend themselves didn't anyone in or around the theatre shoot back?

The truth is, thankfully, just like the rest of us, the majority of Americans are opposed to and repulsed by the idea of private gun ownership. Of the remainder, one could imagine that they fall largely into three camps: the still repulsed, but scared; rural communities; and the 'scary'.

The 'scary' range from NRA gun fetishists through survivalists, common criminals, to the social misfits who pop up with frightening regularity.

A wannabe super-villain.

Some people should just not have access to TV....

Face it, this is just another horrible incident which will happen again and again and again! Won't be too long until this is forgotten and we have moved on to the next one where we all post mindless comments on sites like this. Guns can kill. That's what they are for. So until something changes.....nothing will!

12 and untold others were seriously wounded at a Batman film. This seems to get lost on these threads.

That is because someone on these threads always immedialtey based off of emotion calls for gun control/restrictions and gun bans and then demonizes gun owners.

Comparing a US ambush to a normal person is preposterous. Military personnel in a war zone are carrying their weapons and are expecting an ambush at any time. That is what they are trained for. That is what they are doing their. Looking for the bad guys. But normal people are not walking around with their weapons cocked. Like I said before, criminals don't come up to you and tell you that they are going to attack you at midnight, so be prepared. Plus, when you go to a movie you are not expecting someone to shot you either. Being in a warzone and walking around as Joe Public are seriously incomparable.

It is not preposterous at all. If a civilian has a gun on them they are carrying a gun on them...... If they, soldiers, are looking for an ambush and see the ambush before entering combat then its not an ambush. So in other-words, if a soldier is looking for an ambush and misses the enemy the ambush is going to have the same result as someone who is not looking for an ambush and that is the attacker gets the first strike unimpeded without the soldier knowing where and when the attack is coming from. Your right a criminal is not going to announce when they attack just like how people lying in ambush are not going to announce themselves before they attack the soldiers, if the soldiers miss the ambush the ambush then has the same result as a criminal attacking a civilian that is caught unaware. By your argument then soldiers that are caught in an ambush their weapons are effectively useless for fighting back with. Remember if the soldier see the ambush before the attack begins then its not an ambush. In order for your argument to work you have to claim that ambushes don't succeed in gaining the most crucial element and that is surprise. The truth of the matter is that US soldiers were ambushed all the time in Iraq and still till this day in Afghanistan, it was because they had weapons on them during the ambush that they were able to survive those ambushes. Do you honestly believe that US soldiers are not routinely ambushed in Afghanistan?

Ah yes normal people are walking around with their guns loaded and a round chambered. In fact it would be pretty hard to find someone walking around in the US with a gun on them that is not loaded and a round chambered.

The number of criminals killed by innocent people with guns and or policemen are so much lower than the number of innocent people who have been killed in robberies and other such incidents. If the policy of gun totting was working then their would be no robberies.

That is because most defensive uses of a firearm are people simply displaying or brandishing the gun to the criminal. Once the criminal sees the gun they usually end the attack and flee, once a criminal is fleeing you are no longer allowed by law to shoot the criminal nor are you allowed to pursue the criminal and shoot them if they shoot at you during the pursuit. Well by that argument then if the policy of having police or some form of law enforcement agency was working then their would be no crime whatsoever right? The idea of carrying a gun is not just prevention only, it is also to end an attack before it can come to a successful conclusion for the attacker. For example lets say you have a robbery in progress at a business and one of the customers pulls a gun out and the criminals flee that would be a successful defense of a gun that ended the attack. Also people who advocate guns for defense have never claimed it would stop all robberies from happening whatsoever or any other crime. I don't know where you got the idea that gun toting policies would end all robberies.

Most liquor stores and gas stations have guns, but guess which stores get robbed the most? Those very stores. If guns were that much of a deterrent then there would be a huge decrease in robberies, but is that true? Sorry, no.

No actually they don't, the vast majority of gas stations and liquor stores are chain stations and stores meaning corporate policy is to comply and put up no resistance. Any resistance is an instant firing of the employee.

Here is a question for you, why aren't police stations robbed? Do you have any idea the value of captured street drugs within a police station? Millions of dollars. How about the guns they have stored in the buildings? The average price on the street for a fully automatic m16 is $15,000. Heck their sidearms are worth anywhere between $500-$1200 bucks a piece. Not to mention their radios are worth just as much. So when you consider the value of goods a police station has why aren't they robbed all the time? Is it because they are armed and more importantly everyone in that police station is armed? Let me guess your answer, your going to claim its because the police officers are all scanning the area constantly for a criminal to surprise them in the police station correct? If that is what your claim is I can tell you you are wrong, anyone who has ever been in a police station will know that at most there is one officer on duty that watches the front door while all the others are distracted with their paper work, meaning if you approach the officer that is paying attention to the front door with your gun concealed you will have no problem of dispatching that officer and gaining the element of surprise on all the other officers.

Let's not compare military ambushes with civilian ambushes. They are worlds apart in every way shape and form.

No they are not, they are the same, in both cases the soldier and the civilian don't know where and when and direction the attack is going to take place and therefore in both cases the attacker has the element of surprise and first strike. It doesn't matter if the soldier or civilian are expecting to be attacked.

All the gun controls imaginable won't prevent these incidents from happening but they would surely reduce the chances to some degree, and anything is better than nothing.

What I'm curious about though, as someone not in America, is why with this fondness for people being able to have guns to defend themselves didn't anyone in or around the theatre shoot back? I have somehow, mistakenly it seems, got the impression that yanks are all armed to the teeth because Charlton Heston thinks it's for the best.

It is a shame: in the same page this massacre was announced as "breaking news", CNN posted "Opinion: Gun Control Won't Stop Murder". Are the vast majority of Americans so fond of their guns that not even a tragedy such as this one won't make them think of changing, even if a little bit, their laws?

The argument that if the audience was armed, this wouldn't have happened is completely wrong. He was wearing body armor over his legs, chest and on his head. Unless you pansies who are too afraid to walk around without a gun are packing a .50 cal, you are just wasting bullets and causing more "collateral damage."

NO. DEATH, not collateral damage. Lets call it what it is. DEATH.

The boy bought the guns legally. He exercised his Jeebus given 2nd Amendment rights to be armed.

I'm so glad his rights weren't trampled. What an injustice that would be.

As for the guys head, he told the cops he was "the Joker." As a comic book guy, that creeped me out mightily.

Mass murder is American’s primary problem and most fundamental shame. No prosperous country not riven by civil conflict has anything like U.S. in volume of mass killings. Nobody does a damn thing to try to stop it. Conservatives don’t want to make an issue of mass murder because then they would be confronted with the fact that nearly all of the massacres are committed by people using guns. Liberals don’t want to cry out about it because then they would have to address the fact that the violence of our entertainment in TV, movies, videogames makes killing seem like just another strategy for coping with reality.

Unfortunately, the US is in an unenviable situation - the country is awash in guns (held legally and by criminals) that there is validity to the argument that removing legal weapons will only make more victims (who have no ability to defend themselves with firearms) from illegal weapons.

At some point the USA has to have an intelligent and calm debate and try and establish when restricting gun ownership is warranted by the reduced death rate that will follow.

JohhnyGlitterball

Agreed. Your comment is well phrased. Nonetheless, by the sound if it you probably don't live in the US. As for me that I have a sister in the service. She is not pleased as how America is shaped. We do have a problem and it get out of hand more now than ever before. The problems need to be addressed in congress. The people are the only ones who can make a change. If the government bans guns, it will get worse than it is now. Harsh sentences for crimes are not a deterrent at all. Also please note that every state also adopts a different set of penal codes and laws. There are municipal, state and judicial laws that are put in place for the American judicial system to counteract. The federal law enforcement agencies like the FBI, ATF etc are not always there to help all the time. Sometimes they only complicate things and make it harder for people to find and apply justice. Sadly to say but true.

guns sure help "people kill people"

RIP.

Tigermothll

Thumbs up to your comment. I agree with you. For now all anyone can do is mourn the dead and search for peace within ourselves. There are to many angry people out there just at the brink of clicking, for trivial matter. A lot of comment posted tonight are educated, some are full of anger, few with love for the dead. Tonight a senseless act of violence occurred and nothing we say or do can bring these lost back. I know, I've seen the outcome of events like this with my own eyes. It's not something i can erase off my memory. However, I've learned to use it for positive awareness and when I'm out there defending my country and the cause, I can only pray for the folks back home.

Wow. They just played the police radio communication at the beginning of this incident. Pure chaos and police cars serving as amblances and transporting victims as quickly as possible instead of waiting. Proud of the men and women who have saved many lives, put their training into use while keeping their wits about them. Bravo.

12 died, sorry.

Someone studying to become a neurosurgeon apparently committed this unspeakable act of incomprehension.

Whilst I think allowing citizens to arm themselves to this extent is beyond stupidity, I regret this thread has descended into a rant about gun ownership.

12 and untold others were seriously wounded at a Batman film. This seems to get lost on these threads.

One of the people inside the theater said it was tear gas that Holmes through. He said it was hard to breathe. He and his brother took cover and not long after that they heard gun shoots.

"The suspect throws tear gas in the air, and as the tear gas appears he started shooting," said Lamar Lane, who was watching the midnight showing of the movie with his brother. "It was very hard to breathe. I told my brother to take cover. It took awhile. I started seeing flashes and screaming, I just saw blood and people yelling and a quick glimpse of the guy who had a gas mask on. I was pushed out. There was chaos, we started running."

Holmes booby trapped is apt. He meant for the police to set off the explosives, I think. But the police are not dumb. They looked through is apt. window first and saw the explosives and stuff.

Police Chief Dan Oates said today that police and bomb squads have found a large number of explosive devices and trip wires at Holmes' apartment and have not yet decided how to proceed without setting off explosions.

"The pictures we have from inside the apartment are pretty disturbing considering how elaborate the apartment is booby trapped," police said outside of the apartment complex today. The "flammable and explosive" materials could have blown up Holmes' apartment building and the ones near it, police said.

24-year-old James Holmes the shooting suspect was PhD student who dropped out a few months ago. I heard on the news it's going to take 3 days to clear all the explosive stuff from his apt. Holmes broke into the movie theater through the Fire Exit. He let off a smoke bomb in the theater and did the shooting. To the people who lost their lives RIP

A number of things. Of course it would be better if 0 people have guns, including the criminals, but that's not what society is, and those suggesting we simply ban guns and use this as proof only hurt the law abiding citizens, criminals won't give up their guns. An interesting statistic, 3-4% of all homicides are caused by rifles. Even if a rifle was used in this case, rifles are not the ideal weapon of choice of people going on a rampage (even though the DC sniper did) or just committing plain old murder. You would find that the vast majority of homicides are caused by handguns such as pistol.

I think this brief opinion article sums it up rather well. Both sides, pro and anti gun bring up meaningless points in this sense. A sudden, violent mass killer intent on his agenda will do what it takes, in spite of laws and obstacles put in place to stop them. As he states, it's one of the prices we pay for the freedoms we have. There is no reasonable accounting for insanity. And I don't see it could be argued otherwise that someone who plans a mass killing of innocent men, women and children could be anything but insane, and least in our definition of sanity.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/opinion/fox-mass-murder/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

@the-grouch

A common mistake people make is calling the person evil. People are not evil although acts they do are. It is far easier for us to wipe our hands off these criminals , label them and in America usually kill them As a society America needs to prevent these occurances, the sentence is no deterrent, of course.

Why are Americans doing this so often compared to the past.Society needs to fix the problem which is much harder than calling the man names.

How does not controlling the use of guns stop a criminal from breaking the law?

What a question! It's as simple as imagining this "in his constitutional rights" lunatic with, say, a knife; how many lives would he have claimed?

TO ALL... In this society, it is difficult to please everyone. Some people want guns off the shelf, some people want guns ON the shelf. In a country that has allowed guns in its society for the last 200+ years, it would be very difficult to get them all off the streets. It is not guns that kill people, people kill people. Guns just makes it easier to commit crimes at a grand scale. This case will be studied by so many for years to come. It is not about racial profiling, it is not about guns, it's about the government(s) increasing its own law enforcement to focus on tougher regulation. It already very difficult to own a gun in the US legally. The background checks are extensive. It is easier to get your hands on a gun, rifle or ammo illegally, it just costs more. The folks that own guns legally, have the right to own them. It is their own right under the second amendment to bear arms. Today's event is not an everyday event, it was maticulisly planned and set in to action by an evil person with sadistic and selfish demeanor. My prayers goes out to all the people who lost a loved one tonight in Colorado in this event.

I have not read all the posts but I see that there is a lot of wrong information already out there. I will go back and read everything but I am posting now because I am here in Aurora, CO and live just 5 miles from the theater where this happened. The three month old baby mentioned earlier has been treated and released. We have 12 dead and 59 injured. It appears the the gunaman, a white american Phd student (mentioning because of earlier speculations about the gunaman) , is in custody and refusing to talk and his apartment appears to be booby trapped with explosives. Specialists are working to gain access now. We have 250 first responders at both scenes. When the gunmans family was contacted, the mother told the authorities that they had the right guy, so obviously this individual was very disturbed.

This took place at the midnight premier of the movie, he had a ticket, he watched a portion of the film before releasing gas, then started shooting at the ceiling before taking aim at people. He then walked out the rear door with his hands up and waited to be arrested. This is all that has been reported thus far, right here where it happened. I was there just 12 hours earlier with my daughter so it does hit really close to home.

I grew up in Japan and Oakland, CA. I felt safe while in Japan as a child, saw violence in Oakland. We moved to Aurora for a safe place for our children. And it is safe here. This is a beautiful city and a great place to live. This incident will not change that.

I

Every reference to "automatic" weaponry in my previous post (2:10 am, JST) should be replaced with the word "assault". My apologies. Again, I reiterate, Why does any citizen, under any conditions need to arm himself with assault weapons? It is time for some sort of gun control, period!

I have just woke up with this bad news that happend in my backyard.

This is a tragic, horrible but isolated incident. This is a safe city,and this is a safe state. My deepest sorrow and condolence to these who were killed or injured senselessly. Many of my personal friends in med field (doctors, nurses and medical technicians) are currently busy working to treat many injured. What amazed me here is a speed of news how many of you who live in the other side of glove were already reacting while I live so close to this incident and did not know anything until this morning. Again, I want to emphasize this state will do everything to stop a violence.

Some reports have it that some sort of semi-automatic weapon was used. I ask, under what conditions does ANY citizen, under ANY condition, need ANY sort of automatic weapon?

JDB829- Good one. Who would need such a thing??? Just nuts.

SenseNotSoCommon - LMFAO. I do believe you are right. Good night. Now, it is time for me to hit the hay as well.

RIP innocent people gunned down for a stupid rule that was made 200 years ago that is still biting us on the backside. I bet those old dead guys would change that rule if they knew how stupid we were being and how manipulated people were today by companies and the NRA!

My point is, you can never fully get rid of all the nut jobs. Banning guns will not lead to all the crazies suddenly disappearing. They would just find other means to carry out their misguided rage.

@Stephen. Yes, you are right. You will never get rid of the nutcases. But there is a huge difference there. But, you will be a hell of a lot safer if people don't have guns. They will use different means, yes of course, but it will be much harder, and most likely on a limited scale. Guns make it way too easy. That is why they need to be removed from the public.

Some reports have it that some sort of semi-automatic weapon was used. I ask, under what conditions does ANY citizen, under ANY condition, need ANY sort of automatic weapon? Condolences to the victims of yet another American tragedy.

While I am no pro-gun nut, if you were to ban all guns in the US the headline would just read like something out of Japan.

"Lone assailant goes on stabbing spree in crowded theater"

My point is, you can never fully get rid of all the nut jobs. Banning guns will not lead to all the crazies suddenly disappearing. They would just find other means to carry out their misguided rage.

Guns made it easy in one aspect but there are other ways to kill. There is the old Molotov cocktail. This is not about guns but killing. Criminals do not care about laws and look at drugs. The criminal will always get what they want.

Yuri, Not exactly. Get rid of the guns and it becomes much harder to achieve this many dead. Makes it much more troublesome and there is always a chance that your Molotov Cocktail could blow up on you or be thrown back at you. Guns make the slaughter way to easy. Get rid of them.

You can not compare 8,000,000 people to 310,000,000. If they had 310,000,000 in Switzerland with that many guns, they would be making the news today as well. So, stop comparing two polar opposites. I know you think that you are being clever, but you are not. Same population, same amount of guns, same results and horror news stories.

Guns made it easy in one aspect but there are other ways to kill. There is the old Molotov cocktail. This is not about guns but killing. Criminals do not care about laws and look at drugs. The criminal will always get what they want.

warallthetime - Don't be insulting. Not slow one bit. You are comparing apples and oranges and it is not right, but is actually vile to do so. Plus the population and demographics of the countries are more different than anything.

sandiegoluv

Switzerland and the US are polar opposites on almost every issue. You can not possibly compare a population like Switzerland to that of the US's. Seriously, WOW! You are comparing apples and oranges.

You are extremely slow but you are getting there. What is it about Switzerland's population that allows them to own guns without all of the gun crime? What is it about Americans that they cannot handle the same rights as the Swiss? Seek and look for honest answers and the truth is out there waiting for you to discover it.

Switzerland is an example of a country who has a higher rate of gun ownership than most and also enjoy low gun crime. Guns and access to them does not turn people into criminal killers. Culture is a huge factor and modern American culture is vile.

@warallthetime,

No, that opinion is what is vile. Switzerland and the US are polar opposites on almost every issue. You can not possibly compare a population like Switzerland to that of the US's. Seriously, WOW! You are comparing apples and oranges.

smithinjapan

What's the gun-related death per capita of ALL OF EUROPE vs. the US for one year. Come on, bud -- think fast! And in the mean time, let's hear your excuses for this slaughter today -- it was his 'god given right' to have the guns to mass murder? I'm seriously interested in your defense of this man and how it was his right to kill all the people he did with the weapons granted him freely by your laws. Please try not to deflect and try to answer truly. I know it's hard, but give it a try.

You want me to defend a man by taking the stance that he had a "god given right" to kill people? When did I ever make such an assertion? Nobody has the right to murder another human being unless in self defense. You immediately tried to set me up by challenging me to defend his right to murder people which is silly. The right to legally possess firearms and the right to commit mass murder are not one in the same and I think you know better than that.

The amount of Gun related deaths per capita are irrelevant and if you look at Switzerland compared to the U.S. one can conclude that culture has way more to do with gun crime than access to guns do. The fact that I was trying to make is in London guns are not readily available and yet they are still being used to commit crimes. So in this scenario you have guns in the hands of criminals and victims of their crimes are at their mercy.

If it doesn't work how can you say it does work some of the time, if it works some of the time then it works. By your argument US soldiers that are caught in an ambush have no chance of surviving then.

The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of criminals that rob people people don't incapacitate their victims as a result the victims do in fact have reaction time to brandish a weapon such as mace, taster, blunt object, etc.

Noviling - I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. On purpose or accident, I have no idea. What I said was, "Yeah, you might be able to defend yourself a small percentage of the time, but in general, you don't have that chance.

Comparing a US ambush to a normal person is preposterous. Military personnel in a war zone are carrying their weapons and are expecting an ambush at any time. That is what they are trained for. That is what they are doing their. Looking for the bad guys. But normal people are not walking around with their weapons cocked. Like I said before, criminals don't come up to you and tell you that they are going to attack you at midnight, so be prepared. Plus, when you go to a movie you are not expecting someone to shot you either. Being in a warzone and walking around as Joe Public are seriously incomparable.

The number of criminals killed by innocent people with guns and or policemen are so much lower than the number of innocent people who have been killed in robberies and other such incidents. If the policy of gun totting was working then their would be no robberies. Most liquor stores and gas stations have guns, but guess which stores get robbed the most? Those very stores. If guns were that much of a deterrent then there would be a huge decrease in robberies, but is that true? Sorry, no.

Let's not compare military ambushes with civilian ambushes. They are worlds apart in every way shape and form.

Sorry Johhny to disagree but I think you are over simplifying the issue in all areas. Monster? Hardly. Just too much freedom. The US has done what it has done for national and international reasons. If you want to believe differently, then that is your right and that is cool with me. But remember, it is easy for others to lay blame when others do nothing.

There is a reason why crime is so high in America,

Yes and no. There ARE REASONS. Don't oversimplify things! The US situation is different than all others and there are so many reason why things are happening this way. But remember this. This is one issue. There are so many Americans doing very good for others. Plus you are just judging us from the negative issues and not looking at the good things that a lot of people do in the US. For example, who donates more money than any other country? US Citizens do. Rich and poor both. Sorry.

warallthetime: "The U.S. should adopt the same system the U.K. has. Oh wait that won't work. Despite being illegal gun crime is on the increase there. Now what?"

What's the gun-related death per capita of ALL OF EUROPE vs. the US for one year. Come on, bud -- think fast! And in the mean time, let's hear your excuses for this slaughter today -- it was his 'god given right' to have the guns to mass murder? I'm seriously interested in your defense of this man and how it was his right to kill all the people he did with the weapons granted him freely by your laws. Please try not to deflect and try to answer truly. I know it's hard, but give it a try.

Probably thought it was all part of the show... sad.

Chartlton couldn't answer a single question honestly, and when asked to talk about a little girl killed by gunfire the coward actually ran away.

That is because he wasn't asked. If you watch that scene again you will notice the camera trick

sandiegoluv;

Some may hate America or whatever because it is the trend or follow the media.

Sorry but almost all the wars America were involved in were self interest and not for the worldwide good. I am nit bashing US just disapointed that a nation that was great and looked up to is now awful. There is a reason why crime is so high in America, why so many feel like there is no point. It is much bigger than the gun debate it is why America has become this monster and how to stop it getting worse.

Here is the logic from the right; If I have a gun and someone tries to rob me, I can protect myself. Well, that is true some of the time, but people who are going to try to rob you or do you harm are not going to give you a warning now, are they? NOPE. So, it doesn't work.

If it doesn't work how can you say it does work some of the time, if it works some of the time then it works. By your argument US soldiers that are caught in an ambush have no chance of surviving then.

The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of criminals that rob people people don't incapacitate their victims as a result the victims do in fact have reaction time to brandish a weapon such as mace, taster, blunt object, etc.

Many other countries have higher gun ownership than America and far less crime. The country and many of its people tare in a mess, rather than denying Americans need to sort their country out. It used to be respected and admired worldwide, now mostly feared and reviled.

@Johnny. I think you should research that. I don't think that any country in the world has more guns in it than the US does just in its households. We have more guns that most countries' militaru's do. Please research that, because your statement is very erroneous.

It used to be respected and admired worldwide, no mostly feared and reviled.

I don't think that is true. If some countries fear the US, there are three reasons for it. One, US bashing is easy to do and sells papers. Two, it helps other governments stay in power by changing the focus of their own masses. Instead of focusing on their own problems they can use the media to demonize the US. Third, we have been at the forefront of wars for quite a long time while other countries just lavished in peace and did little to do anything to stop things like genocide and many other things as well. Fourth, George Bush. (Who are we kidding. That GUY didn't win us any popularity contests at all) Last, ignorance. Sorry.

Yes, we need to sort things out in America and this is just one of those very things. But I believe all countries have their problems. No country is great and without its fair share of stupidity and failures.

waralltheitme,

Do you suppose the same holds true of a tyrannical government? History certainly shows that unchecked power is almost always abused.

100% YES! I even gave you a thumbs up. Absolute power, corrupts absolute. No doubt in my mind. People having firearms is their hands is a deadly thing, because they know they have the power to end someone's day. And it goes to their heads. THUMBS UP!!

Great! Your right to own a gun just trumped 12 people's right to breathe. Congratulations to you and you only! What some old guys thought 200 years ago is something that we should follow now? WHY???? They lived in completely different times and were up against completely different dangers. Get rid of this nonsense

Would you say the same thing about freedom of speech/expression/press when it came to that pastor in Florida that burned the Koran? How about those Cartoons that made fun of prophet Mohammed? You do realize those incidents led to multiple people dying around the middle east region.

They are citing their right as granted by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

warallthetime - And? That is good enough for you? A bunch of old guy sat around and drafted some rules without knowing the consequences 200 years later and we should just stick to that? That is not a good enough reason. You change what doesn't work, and this is one of those things. No guns = nobody dies from guns. It is a simple as one, two, three.

What is sad is that some people have just got snuffed out for some other people's ignorant second amendment right. Your second amendment right should not snuff out my right to breathe.

Need protection in your home? Get a dog, an alarm, and a baseball bat. Come in my house? Batter up!

Personally, anyone who supports guns, you should be ashamed of yourself for short-sighted thinking. Guns equate gun violence and no matter how many rules you put on gun ownership, sad events like these are not going to stop. And most likely if you were in that theater you would be laying down right next to those other dead people. A victim of your own ignorance.

How many of those dead people would actually support gun ownership now? I bet not a one. I am an American and it is time for Americans to grow up and realize that the only reason guns are even allowed in the States anymore is because of the companies that sell those dastardly things in the guise of an old document in order to make MONEY.

@warallthetime The US constitution was written by highly intelligent men for a society of their time. Adhering to the values and morality of a constitution written in the 18th century is ridiculous, but not quite as ridiculous as adhering to the values of the Bronze Age.

How manly is it to go in the forest and pick of a deer, FOR SPORT? Sport? But I could see allowing people who wanted to have hunting rifles for the purpose of hunting in order to obtain food if they lived out in the boondocks and also needed to protect themselves from wild bears, alligators, crocodiles and mountain lions. But that would be it!

You do realize that it is illegal in the US and Canada to hunt game animals and not use them right? In other words your assumptions that people who kill these animals only kill them and let the carcass go to waste is incorrect. By hunting laws they are required to make maximum use of the carcass. Why are you so judgmental of people that you clearly know nothing about?

Ask the Syrians if it is a good idea to allow the public to own weapons. When Japan registers kitchen knives, the USA will register guns. Look at what happens in the public schools. Does anyone pay attention to the student and teacher death rate or the attacks by family members? If an insane person has planned to commit a crime, he/she will find a way to do it. In a society of 350 million the odds are more incidents like this will happen than in Japan. Imagine how many occur every day in China. These deaths are tragic and may not have been preventable. If an Army psychiatrist can murder military colleagues, how can a person like Holmes be identified?

sandiegulov: "I agree with you for the most part. And I could even go for a ban on everything but hunting rifles, but were they also used in this case as well as the Columbine case. I might be wrong here. I am not a supporter of guns for hunters at all either though."

You miss the point. In the US all of the weapons used in this mass murder and that of the Columbine massacre were table ready and clearly didn't need strict parental supervision. The gun-nutters on here almost seem to say it's part of the natural order to have a massacre a week, but they can never explain why without being uttely contradicted and ultimately walking away. You ever see the interview with Mike Myers and Charlton Heston (good riddance!)? Chartlton couldn't answer a single question honestly, and when asked to talk about a little girl killed by gunfire the coward actually ran away -- he literally, in his old age, stumbled faster than he ever had in his life to get away from the question!. He once said, "It'll be a cold day in hell..." I hope he's burning up nice and realizes how stupid his beliefs were. The only sad part is that morons like him are a dime a dozen, especially with NRA gun nuts in the GOP.

But hey, let's focus on this guy who easily got a gun and shot heaps of people! warallthetime and others will tell you how he could have done the same thing with a pillowcase full of eggplants.

smithinjapan

The second amendment, as with a few others, are relics that need to be changed. How on earth can the US consider itself a modern nation while it upholds and even forces laws from 200 years ago on the public? Grow up, but. Most nations have.

The U.S. should adopt the same system the U.K. has. Oh wait that won't work. Despite being illegal gun crime is on the increase there. Now what?

Here is the logic from the right; If I have a gun and someone tries to rob me, I can protect myself. Well, that is true some of the time, but people who are going to try to rob you or do you harm are not going to give you a warning now, are they? NOPE. So, it doesn't work.

Actually it does work because its called situation awareness. If you pay attention to your surroundings you can almost always see the threat coming. So it does work.

We don't need guns. If nobody has a gun then nobody dies from them. REALITY!

So I take it your for disarming all law enforcement and militaries around the world not just private citizens?

What the Americans need is a $100 tax on bullets. Then even an average person could get a few but they would be much more careful about using them. In Japan, the only people who have guns, essentially, are criminals. They don't start obeying the law because of tight restrictions, but they almost never use guns against average citizens. They don't have to. Average citizens don't have them. The same with police. They very seldom summarily execute an innocent person the way they do in the States, because they know that the suspect they are confronting is very unlikely to have a gun and very unlikely to use it if he does (because he's a gangster and the gang has not given him permission to shoot a cop or non gang member and bring a huge load of faeces down on the gang.) I lived in the States for a while. I was threatened by someone with a gun out of the blue. I can count at least a dozen people I know personally who live or lived in middle class areas of the U.S. who have been threatened or killed by someone else with a gun. In Japan, over a much longer time period, I know of no one. Many Americans are so bloody aggressive and assertive to begin with, they must have huge inferiority complexes over their manhood because they always feel the need to prove it with violence. Letting such people have guns is madness.

Noliving: "Why would no rules apply at all at a gun show? If you buy from a FFL at a gun show they are required to do background checks."

Ah, like the kid who shot his head off with an uzi because pop thought it would be fun? So 'regrettable', right? Could never have been prevented.

warallthetime: "Incorrect. They are citing their right as granted by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution."

The second amendment, as with a few others, are relics that need to be changed. How on earth can the US consider itself a modern nation while it upholds and even forces laws from 200 years ago on the public? Grow up, but. Most nations have.

sandiegoluv;

Many other countries have higher gun ownership than America and far less crime. The country and many of its people tare in a mess, rather than denying Americans need to sort their country out. It used to be respected and admired worldwide, now mostly feared and reviled.

serendipitous

Those who say that nobody has a right to take his/her guns away from him/her are just regurgitating what they hear the NRA say.

Incorrect. They are citing their right as granted by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Why do so many Americans feel so angry about life that they commit such crimes as this?

@Johnny, you are asking the wrong question here. And you are ignoring very important factors along the way. It is not as simple as that. You have a country with 310 million people who have pretty fairly easy access to guns and they are being used to settle disputes. Can you say that your country has that population and such an easy access to guns as we, Americans do?

Can you say that if your country had the same numbers and access to guns that your people would not be doing the same thing? I seriously doubt anyone can say that? I know a lot of people would love to say that, but it just is not true at all. If people have the power they abuse it. That is the problem.

So to summarize, the U.S. needs to eliminate the idea in people's minds that guns are a necessary part of life. Time to learn, move on, and evolve. It's a big job and considering the power of the U.S. propaganda machine (in the form of movies, advertising, gun selling campaigns, the general media and so on), a daunting task as well, but it is do-able. Those who say that nobody has a right to take his/her guns away from him/her are just regurgitating what they hear the NRA say. The U.S. needs a generation of kids who grow up without living with guns.

@Mathew,

This is not an America only issue. Do a search on the internet and you will find many killing sprees with firearms worldwide.

Thank you. It is not an American ONLY issue. This thing happens around the world. We just seem to do it more often (sad to say) and it makes bigger media sales as well. Hell, look at the guy in NORWAY. You can go and bash the dog snot out of the US, but that doesn't do anything but show that you don't like the States and will pick up any reason to attack it. Cheap! Oh and it helps to make yourself feel better about the country that you are from. But, once again, cheap and about as valuable as dog snot.

Information is trickling in that the shooter James Holmes was a leftist Occupy member. If this turns out to be true you can expect it to be grossly under reported in U.S. mainstream media.

@smithinjapan,

Well, that's something we agree on, at least. However, I would say that while perhaps not all firearms should be banned, anything but, say, hunting rifles should be, and those should be strictly registered. What on earth do you need a handgun for but to shoot a person? "The right to bear arms" is based on 18th century flint-lock guns in order for militia to arm themselves against a foreign threat, etc. Time for you guys to drop your pride and realize there is no need for you to carry an uzi and/or a rocket launcher because it's your 'god given right'.

I agree with you for the most part. And I could even go for a ban on everything but hunting rifles, but were they also used in this case as well as the Columbine case. I might be wrong here. I am not a supporter of guns for hunters at all either though. How manly is it to go in the forest and pick of a deer, FOR SPORT? Sport? Go and catch the damn thing yourself, that would be a sport that I would love to watch. But I could see allowing people who wanted to have hunting rifles for the purpose of hunting in order to obtain food if they lived out in the boondocks and also needed to protect themselves from wild bears, alligators, crocodiles and mountain lions. But that would be it!

"This is not an America only issue" This is the nation with a higher percentage of adults in jail than any other nation, the highest divide between rich and poor and also one where 45% believe in creationism. These are all linked BTW and show how backwards America has become in a few decades.

These are the times that I hate to wave my flag in the air. How in the world can gun laws make us safer? They can't! No guns, means no gun deaths.

Here is the logic from the right; If I have a gun and someone tries to rob me, I can protect myself. Well, that is true some of the time, but people who are going to try to rob you or do you harm are not going to give you a warning now, are they? NOPE. So, it doesn't work. The more guns there are the more chances there are for people to do dumb things like this.

Here is something else from the right: If those people had been armed then they would have been able to protect themselves and would have killed him. Yeah, maybe,. But most likely he wouldn't have been the only one to die. And then we need to go back to reality then, don't we? If nobody had a gun, then there is no need for anyone to protect themselves from one, because there isn't one. Duh!

Another thing from the right and the NRA. And this is my favorite one by far: It is my second amendment right to bear arms. Great! Your right to own a gun just trumped 12 people's right to breathe. Congratulations to you and you only! What some old guys thought 200 years ago is something that we should follow now? WHY???? They lived in completely different times and were up against completely different dangers. Get rid of this nonsense.

We don't need guns. If nobody has a gun then nobody dies from them. REALITY! Anything else is just true or realistic at all.

This is not an America only issue. Do a search on the internet and you will find many killing sprees with firearms worldwide.

The main thing people do not ask is "why are Americans killing each other so often with guns" and also "why are there so many American spree killings".

Of course easy access to firearms is one reason. There are others that most Americans ignore and put down to good and evil and other such outdated terms.

Why do so many Americans feel so angry about life that they commit such crimes as this?

Actually its 12 dead and 38 wounded (CNN) that's at least a bit of good news. Though still a horrible tragedy.

@smithinjapan A country in which a large part of the population is still held in thrall by a bronze age middle-eastern myth is hardly likely to accept that parts of its 200-odd year old constitution are out of date. It's the 21st century - time to put the right to bear arms into the dustbin where it belongs.

Jeeze, I was watching the film with my brother at that time. A few of the scenes were pretty graphic and I remember my brother saying how easy it would be to copy some of the violence in the movie, not so funny now. Doubt the movie had anything to do with it, more likely the person was looking for the largest group of people possible and found it in a theatre full of people just hoping to have a good time.

Time for you guys to drop your pride and realize there is no need for you to carry an uzi and/or a rocket launcher because it's your 'god given right'.

Point of fact, Denver has some of the most restrictive firearms control regulations in the country on both the weapons themselves and on ammunition. That would include the ban on any handgun with high capacity magazines which is likely what was used here. Open carry, car carry, and peaceable journey is also prohibited in the city of Denver. Basically if it isn't in you're safe at home it's illegal.

This was a terrible thing that was planned and comitted by the very worst kind of being. Firearms are tools of destruction and nothing more. That said I do not support any type of ban on the sale of such tools. All rights entail a burden, this one is especially heavy and weighed in human live but it must be carried by those responcible enough to understand its intention. The perversion of the right and obligation should and is subject to the worst punishments available.

However, I would say that while perhaps not all firearms should be banned, anything but, say, hunting rifles should be, and those should be strictly registered.

How does registering stop crimes though? There is no evidence that vehicle registration has ever prevented a crime, there is no evidence that I have seen where gun registration has ever stopped a crime.

But hunting rifles are pretty much outside of .50 calibers the most deadliest firearms in the world. I mean if I had a choice between being shot by a handgun or a hunting rifle I'm taking the handgun.

What on earth do you need a handgun for but to shoot a person?

Self defense?

"The right to bear arms" is based on 18th century flint-lock guns in order for militia to arm themselves against a foreign threat, etc

By that argument the freedom of press and speech only applies to speeches and pieces of paper, not videos, TV, internet, digital documents, etc.

The point there is that kids (and three-year-olds certainly are kids) will find a way into any cabinet, locked or not. They are smart and can see where parents may put the keys.

You don't have a lot of experience with gun lockers do you?

Again, the line of thinking that "If someone comes onto my property I need to defend myself with a deadly weapon" is part of the problem and people in the U.S. need to realize that.

It is only part of the problem if the belief is that anyone and I mean anyone who enters my property needs to be dealt with deadly force. The idea of needing to use a weapon, any weapon to defend yourself when someone illegally enters your property with hostile intent is not really part of the problem.

The real issue with the US is the culture of force as a way to right a wrong or to get what they want. IE you walk down the road and someone doesn't like the way you are looking at them or their SO or if someone budges in line a fight breaks out. This is why weapons laws won't work because even if you get rid of the weapons the culture of force still remains meaning your still going to get assaulted no matter what.

serendipitous Again, the line of thinking that "If someone comes onto my property I need to defend myself with a deadly weapon" is part of the problem and people in the U.S. need to realize that. The culture of guns and violence there is so wrong and the causes of these never-ending violent crimes need to be addressed properly and with conviction. Guns and violence are never the answer. Find another way to vent.

If somebody comes on your property with the intent to do you harm. What would you do? Sit there like an idiot while you wait for the police? I am not a criminal you seem to equate gun owner with criminal and are wrong for doing so. O.k. so this evening somebody breaks into your house with ill intent what do you do?

I know what I would do.

Heaps. How about less access to guns? My guess is this guy was not a criminal before he did what he did, and so he had easy access to purchase guns, and probably didn't need to register them. If he got them at a gun show, then heck, no rules apply at all!

How would registering have stop this crime?

Why would no rules apply at all at a gun show? If you buy from a FFL at a gun show they are required to do background checks.

How would you do less access to guns besides requiring background checks on private sales?

Point is, you guys make it seem like all these people who commit the atrocities were hell-bent on doing so since birth and so slipped through the system somehow

No the point that is being made is that once they decided to do what they did they were hell bent on doing it and so nothing would have really stopped them from carrying out the act. Not saying they were hellbent since birth just stating that once a person decides to do it there is really nothing you can do to stop them.

and yet the gun-nutters cannot bring themselves to admit that it's the guns that make it so much worse. If you don't think so, explain to me how this guy could have done what he did with, say... a stainless steel salad bowl. It's rhetorical, but give it a go all the same.

Do you think he could have done it with a car? Do you think he could have done it with a home made flamethrower using a super soaker, gasoline and a lighter at the end? He may not have been able to do it with a stainless steel bowl but he could have easily done it with those things.

Didn't a three year old kid shoot and kill his father the other day in the US with a gun the family 'respected'? Yet another case of how stupid the lax gun laws in the US are.

That is not really due to lax gun laws, that is more due to lack of proper storage.

Also I never proposed banning blacks from gun ownership.

You are correct there, warallthetime. In fact, what you suggested was much worse:

...the small minority responsible for the majority of gun crimes should themselves be banned?

I am with you on this smithinjapan!!!

warallthetime: "You won't hear me opposing to a more stringent application process to obtaining a firearm. I am however 100% opposed to banning firearms altogether."

Well, that's something we agree on, at least. However, I would say that while perhaps not all firearms should be banned, anything but, say, hunting rifles should be, and those should be strictly registered. What on earth do you need a handgun for but to shoot a person? "The right to bear arms" is based on 18th century flint-lock guns in order for militia to arm themselves against a foreign threat, etc. Time for you guys to drop your pride and realize there is no need for you to carry an uzi and/or a rocket launcher because it's your 'god given right'.

warallthetime

The point there is that kids (and three-year-olds certainly are kids) will find a way into any cabinet, locked or not. They are smart and can see where parents may put the keys.

Again, the line of thinking that "If someone comes onto my property I need to defend myself with a deadly weapon" is part of the problem and people in the U.S. need to realize that. The culture of guns and violence there is so wrong and the causes of these never-ending violent crimes need to be addressed properly and with conviction. Guns and violence are never the answer. Find another way to vent.

Yes, good example, warallthetime: falling! Here's another: old age. Reaching one's 70s or 80s is enough in itself to do in the vast majority of the population. And, just like gravity and DNA-programmed demise, the prevalence of semiautomatic weapons (as your Alaskan friend no doubt uses to hunt wolves from helicopters; I've learned from Palin) is a natural phenomenon that we must all just learn to accept - maybe even to enjoy. Ask those kids killed: would they have rather gone out at the peak of an enjoyable moment when they were still young and healthy or had to endure the indignities of old age? Kudos on making the situation more complex.

Then since we are ban happy we will find that a certain part of the population that represents just 13% of the total populace is responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun crime and we have ourselves and inconvenient situation. Could the case be made that the small minority responsible for the majority of gun crimes should themselves be banned?

Thank you also for bringing race into this while at the same time avoiding that horrible term, "black." You might remember the Columbine High School massacre, in which two kids embarked on a shooting spree leaving 12 students and 1 teacher dead. It was also in Colorado, but the kids were white! - Who would have guessed!

Still, you bring up an interesting point. I have no idea the veracity of your statistics, but that poorer people tend to commit crimes by simpler methods is common sense. Rather than banning blacks from firearm ownership, perhaps there should be an income threshold regardless or race - say, 130% if the national mean. At the same time, perhaps similar schemes could be devised to prevent white-collar crime. I am sure Romney would be most eager to address this issue, if at least to reduce competition.

Didn't a three year old kid shoot and kill his father the other day in the US with a gun the family 'respected'? Yet another case of how stupid the lax gun laws in the US are.

How do you teach a three year old to respect a firearm? Now you are just being silly. Was never like that in my house.

The youngest was six years old, but then the BBC link above says there was a three-month-old baby injured... erm, I may be out of line here but who on earth takes a 3-month-old baby to the movies?

As to the rest, it is hard to comment. There is something wrong...

You won't hear me opposing to a more stringent application process to obtaining a firearm. I am however 100% opposed to banning firearms altogether.

warallthetime: "We had a dozen or so guns in the house at all times and were taught to respect them."

Didn't a three year old kid shoot and kill his father the other day in the US with a gun the family 'respected'? Yet another case of how stupid the lax gun laws in the US are.

NoLiving et. al.: "What more gun laws would you like to see and how would they have stopped this shooting from happening?"

Heaps. How about less access to guns? My guess is this guy was not a criminal before he did what he did, and so he had easy access to purchase guns, and probably didn't need to register them. If he got them at a gun show, then heck, no rules apply at all!

Point is, you guys make it seem like all these people who commit the atrocities were hell-bent on doing so since birth and so slipped through the system somehow, but it's the system that allowed them to do the amount of damage they did, for in many cases no crime was committed by the suspects until the slaughter.

warallthetime: "I wonder how many crimes are prevented each day due to the mere presence of a firearm."

Concern yourself with how many people were killed today due to the 'mere presence' of a firearm. Then actually TRY to take a minute to question yourself if it would have gone the same way with no firearm. I bet you can't do it. These kinds of mass killings happen again and again in the US, pretty much weekly (although there's been a bit of a 'lull' of late), and yet the gun-nutters cannot bring themselves to admit that it's the guns that make it so much worse. If you don't think so, explain to me how this guy could have done what he did with, say... a stainless steel salad bowl. It's rhetorical, but give it a go all the same.

Some people collect guns, some are hand me down, some are for sport shooting, hunting, etc. If somebody came on my property to harm to me or my family I suspect once confronted with a firearm they would retreat. What would you expect I do? Sit there like an coward while a criminal does as they wish? I don't see how my mentality is under attack. I have never committed a gun crime. How on earth does it make sense to demonize me? This is baffling that a law abiding citizen would be referred to as not sane, and is responsible for the rate of crime in the U.S.

Oh and I just kind of threw the figure of a dozen out there. Now that I think of it we had more than a dozen in the two cabinets combined.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp the concept that people will still obtain firearms illegally when they disregard the law in the first place.

There are some states where it almost seems more difficult to buy a pack of gum that to purchase a gun. Don't you think there should be things like State Permit to Purchase, Firearm registration, "Assault weapon" law, Owner license required, Carry permits issued, State Preemption of local restrictions, NFA weapons restricted, Peaceable Journey laws in every state in the US?

Of course it will not completely get rid of the problem. However, I can't see not wanting to try and make things a bit more sensible.

warallthetime

Why can't gun-loving countries see how sad and ironic it is that people feel the need to be armed to protect themselves from other armed people? There is a way to get rid of guns. You just have to ban them outright and put in place ridiculously severe penalties if you are caught with a gun. Have an amnesty period of a year or two and the government could compensate owners for turning in their guns. Eventually it would work and there would be 28,874 more people alive every year. There needs to be a mental shift in the U.S.

Mt advice is avoid the country. More and more are distressed and going nuts with ever growing inequality. Many mentally ill avoid treatment due to lack of funds, weapons are easy to get hold of.

This incident is terribly sad and we will sadly see more as American society collapses more and more see no future and no hope.

28,874 is a high number and then you find out after some honest digging that suicides are included in that number. Then since we are ban happy we will find that a certain part of the population that represents just 13% of the total populace is responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun crime and we have ourselves and inconvenient situation. Could the case be made that the small minority responsible for the majority of gun crimes should themselves be banned? I wouldn't make that argument but perhaps you may feel comfortable in doing so.

Rubbish.Accidents and self-abuse have nothing to do with yet another nut going on a murderous rampage. Self abuse hurts the self (get it?) and accidents uhm.....happen by accident. Even with firearms. Try again.

I don't think the 12,000 people that are killed by drunk drivers would call it self abuse. Your still ignoring my alcohol statistic, are you in favor of more restrictive alcohol laws? Remember that more than of all sexual assaults, alcohol played a key role.

It is not a rubbish argument at all, again it is all about how common something is, the truth of the matter is that your purposely over exaggerating how common gun violence is in the US. I'm just putting it into context and telling you to calm down it is not as big of a threat as you are claiming it is. If gun violence like this was to occur only once a decade I don't think you would be calling for gun bans would you?

Because the guns easily cross state lines?

And how would a national ban work in the US considering how easy it is for guns to cross national lines in the world.

Well it wouldn't work because they had to be carrying gas masks as well.

Right....I doubt the entire theater was covered in suffocating smoke in less than one second...

Oh wow, yet another X is worse than Y so that justifies Y argument... Except that argument makes no sense.

No it actually makes perfect sense because those arguments are the arguments that are used by lobbies to ban things. The real point of the argument I'm making is that gun violence is not as common as anti-gun people claim it is in the US, in fact it is quite rare. If the numbers were 30 million people were dying per year in the US from falling to their death and 19 million were dying each year due to guns I would agree that argument wouldn't work but when your dealing with fatality rate that is not even a tenth of one one thousandth of one percent of the US population being killed by guns each year you gotta admit that guns violence is not as much of a threat as your claiming it is.

I noticed you didn't quote my alcohol statistic. I take it your not

@Noliving While I appreciate you bringing some sanity to this topic, you absolutely will not receive a well thought out logical answer to your question of :

"What more gun laws would you like to see and how would they have stopped this shooting from happening?"

"Madverts, the point of the comparison is to show how common or rare something is. "

Rubbish.

Accidents and self-abuse have nothing to do with yet another nut going on a murderous rampage. Self abuse hurts the self (get it?) and accidents uhm.....happen by accident. Even with firearms.

Try again.

I don't know where the disconnect comes from with certain people but making more laws only puts more restrictions on people who adhere to the laws in the first place. In my home town in the U.S. a couple years back, a man with an illegal firearm starting shooting at the staff in a mobile phone dealership. A customer in the shop had a LEGALLY concealed firearm and ended the confrontation right there and then by shooting the assailant in the head. According to your wishes, this scenario would have ended with the criminal who already disregards the law shooting and killing as many people as he could until the police showed up.

Madverts How does restricting the right for somebody to lawfully own a firearm dissuade an individual who disregards laws that are already on the books? I fail to see the logic in this. With the gun restriction laws in Chicago and D.C. why are these two places rife with gun crime?

Shame on the US for its lack of gun laws, and shame on this man for exploiting them.

What more gun laws would you like to see and how would they have stopped this shooting from happening?

You can't compare the murderous acts of a gun-nut to accidents or self-abuse. That's just desperation on the part of those clinging to guns and religion

Madverts, the point of the comparison is to show how common or rare something is. The truth of the matter is that gun violence is not as common, not anywhere near as common as people think it is in the US, because of that they go hysterical thinking gun violence is just exploding when in fact it is at very low levels and still dropping and more than half of it is related to the drug war.

Why wouldn't it work laguna? If you have an armed man opening fire what would you suggest to subdue the attacker?

Well it wouldn't work because they had to be carrying gas masks as well.

How does not controlling the use of guns stop a criminal from breaking the law?

Oh gee, there's another argument that doesn't work.

Elbuda Mexicano how would controlling the use of guns stop a criminal from breaking the law?

Laguna: "It is so terrible that it will be difficult for the gun zealots to deal with."

Not at all... they're right now thinking about arguments as to how the same man, with intent, could have done the same thing with scrambled eggs instead of a gun, and how if everyone else had a gun they could have stopped him, etc. etc. Bottom line is they'll never learn. Well, okay, sadly if there were some gun-nutters in there who just lost family they'll either have to shut down completely in denial or ACTUALLY question gun laws, but the NRA and people who just love guns will say it had nothing at all to do with the weapon and was 100% the man.

RIP to these poor people. The worst part, aside from the baby being shot point blank, of course, is that the people had no clue what was going on given the noise and action occurring in the movie itself, and this will replay and replay, and replay to absolute horror for the rest of their lives. Shame on the US for its lack of gun laws, and shame on this man for exploiting them.

We should all be ashamed! How in the hell can this stupid bastard, armed to the teeth enter a movie theater like this?? If this fool was American, then I would not be surprised because the American police are thinking more like some foreign terrorists, Muslim etc..would or can do this, but geez, if this idiot fool that killed so many innocent people does not fit the FBI, CIA, NSA racial profiles??? How long will it take for the USA to wake and start not only controlling the use of guns but also go after these nut cases that need to be hung from the nearest tree before they go out and hurt more innocent people?? Do hope and pray this evil bastard burns in hell for all of eternity, and if his parents are evil and stupid too, well let them burn in hell too! RIP innocent victims of one selfish idiot bastard fool!!

"If only others had been armed!" ad naseum - will not work here

Why wouldn't it work laguna? If you have an armed man opening fire what would you suggest to subdue the attacker?

But how many exceptions are you willing to tolerate for the sake of a boyish fascination with the principle of a citizen's militia?

I would say quite a lot considering more people fall to their death in the US than are killed by guns in the US. The other thing to keep in mind is that gun violence has been going down for the past 20 years, not just in per capitas but also in grand totals as well.

Look this is a terrible tragedy and thoughts and prayers go out to all the victims and their families but you can't run off of emotion as a reason to ban something. More people die by alcohol poisoning in the US than are murdered by guns in the US. Should we ban alcohol in the US?

This is terrible. A 3 month old child among the victims. Homegrown terrorism must be eradicated. You cannot have a dry eye thinking about the victims and their families.

Very sad, how disconnected from everyone must you be to be able to hurt people in that way, I can barely imagine punching another person let alone trying to kill them.

While of course the responsibility lies squarely and fully on the gunman without question, you have to wonder if and when anyone had the chance to see signs that this person was on a path that may lead to a situation like this.

How absolutely terrible for the victims, their families and the community.

The hell? What kind of a nut would kill people in a theater?

This was obviously very meticulously planned, the gun man would have known full well that a Midnight premiere screening of such a huge film would be completely sold out and no one could get out of the cinema hall. What a cold blooded evil behaviour from the perpetrator. I hear someone is already in custody so hopefully the evil one responsible pays dearly for this.

But as things are still very wild and not a lot of concrete evidence come through yet all we can do is wait and watch in horror.

Madverts what happened when you take away peoples right to lawfully own a firearm? Do criminals suddenly start adhering to the laws?

The usual NRA implied response to this sort of tragedy is that it's an exception, and that the majority of ordinary people don't generally cause problems with guns. That is undeniably true. But how many exceptions are you willing to tolerate for the sake of a boyish fascination with the principle of a citizen's militia?

It's simply too easy for people to go crazy, and far too easy for crazies to buy guns.

It is terrible, so terrible that it will take America weeks or maybe even a full month to get over it. (For the victims and their families, of course, it is a lifetime event.)

It is so terrible that it will be difficult for the gun zealots to deal with. The usual suspects - "If only others had been armed!" ad naseum - will not work here, so they'll have to revert to their crisis mode: Refrain from commenting at all "out of respect for the victims, gather comments from saddened populace that indicate anti-gun sentiment, then throw those back in the arena as evidence that evil liberals are intent on de-arming the populace (and go ahead and throw in UN-operated black helicopters and all that other embellishment here).

Thus, I'll throw them a bone. The "victims" here are actually "heroes!" Yes, their tragic deaths were not in vain: They have, however unwittingly, advanced the cause of that sacred Second Amendment and of keeping gun ownership in America as unrestricted as those broad, un-global-climate-change-affected plains! Why not go ahead and start making lemonaid out of lemons? It is either that or allowing this to be sucked into the NRA-funded memory hole that sucks in all memory of such events and rids them entirely of social consequence within a few weeks to a month of their occurrence.

"Witnesses tell us he released some sort of canister. They heard a hissing sound and some gas emerged and the gunman opened fire," the police chief said."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18921492

Before the gun-nuts hijack this thread about their 2nd amendment rights that have no place in the 20th (let alone the 21st) century, may I say shame on you once again.

I thought it was the title of a Syria thread when I first clicked.

WTF?

This is just awful. Rest in Peace to the poor victims of this cold-blooded killer. Of course, he absolutely must be executed. Reports are coming in that among the victims, he shot a poor baby at point blank range. C'mon, Americans - it is time for you all to stand up against guns and ban them all. Your people are destroying a nation that once was great.