Vigil held after massacre at Colorado cinema

I want to say i am shocked but i think i have been desensitized to this kind of news. Instead of taking the time to let this story sink in, i dispose of it nonchalantly wondering when and where the next one will be? sad...

Does this guy look disturbed or what? Wow someone needs to smack that smirk off his face.

Let's see if he smirks while his fellow prisoners make use of him, or when the state finally slides that needle into his vein,

If guns are banned there are ways for bad guys to have access to guns. The majority of anti-gun on JT don't have an understanding of that. Look at the war on drug. It still happens everyday even though drug are illegal. All the anti-gun people only have animosity toward the NRA. There are hundreds of cases that have caused fatality which did not involoved a gun.

People should have a choice of owning a gun or not. Many of us don't have one because we choose not to.

@skipbeat

There's an enormous difference between "access" and "easy access".

If I want to shoot somebody in Japan, I've got to go out and start asking, "Where can I get a gun?". Presumably, I'd have to get in touch with the Yaks. Whatever, it would be a difficult, time-consuming process offering plenty of opportunities for me to change my mind, or indeed for someone to notice my suspicious behaviour and report me to the police.

In some parts of the States I'd just drive to my local gunshop, seething with rage, pick up the tool and go out and do the job. Or I might even have the weapon in my pocket to begin with.

Mass murders may be up slightly in the US but one on one gun violence has been trending consistently down, actually way down by 40% or so, for over 30 years. Firearm ownership, on the other hand, is at an all time high so obviously the crucial factors are not number of weapons or application of laws. I don't know that there is a mechanism to target group shootings for prevention in particular.

Look at the war on drug. It still happens everyday even though drug are illegal

This is a worryingly wrong and illogical argument. The crucial difference being people want to do drugs, they don't generally want to kill people.

Oh my, he wasn't on facebook. What a suspicious character.

Bet the movie theater has a "no guns" rule preventing legal, licensed gun owners from coming armed. These killers always attack where they know that law abiding gun owners will be disarmed by the rules.

Again!! I don't remember how many times I said it. It seems that America is cursed by guns to shoot each other. It will happen again and again as long as guns are there.

Ah yes, the "loner" story that gets trotted out every time something like this happens. Some people are just troubled and why that happens is beyond my reasoning.

As for smirks and whatnot, you folks don't have pictures of you doing the same thing? Christ, the guy is a nut but how silly do you look for commenting on a picture of him. Big picture folks, look at the big picture.

lucabrasi: In some parts of the States I'd just drive to my local gunshop, seething with rage, pick up the tool and go out and do the job. Or I might even have the weapon in my pocket to begin with.

It looks like there was a background check done on James Holmes according to the Washington Post.

Aurora, Colo., shooting unlikely to change gun laws, both sides say @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/aurora-colo-shooting-unlikely-to-change-gun-laws-both-sides-say/2012/07/20/gJQAdrO2yW_story.html

Two of the top priorities for gun-control advocates are a ban on assault weapons and an expansion of the requirement for a criminal background check to all gun sales, including those at gun shows — although those measures wouldn’t have stopped James Holmes, the alleged shooter in Colorado, from buying most of his firearms. A ban on assault weapons may have blocked his purchase of an AR-15 assault rifle, but he still would have been able to buy the two pistols and shotgun he allegedly brought with him to the movie theater. All four weapons were purchased legally after background checks.

In order to stop or help lessen the damaged caused by persons like Holmes is for everyone to be aware of their surroundings and the person behaviour.

Here's a 'novel idea' that should appease both gun owners and anti-gun advocates. Why not simply ban assault rifles, which serve no other purpose than mass murder. Let gun advocates keep their handguns for protection and reduce the threat of mass killings. But wait ..... methinks this has been suggested before!

oikawa: This is a worryingly wrong and illogical argument. The crucial difference being people want to do drugs, they don't generally want to kill people.

You misinterpreted it. The point was about having access to illegal drugs. If guns are banned there will be illegal guns on the streets. What a lot of people on JT are saying is banned guns because they kill, right?? Banning guns isn't going to make the problem go away.

This is not a "booking" photo. It is, as stated in the article, a photo released by the university he had attended. For some reason, local law enforcement has chosen not to release a "booking" photo.

Those who lose that inner voice saying "No". How many random potential nutters are there in the general population? One in a thousand? One in five hundred?

Because guns are legal in at least one large geographical area, gun manufacturers can continue to make millions and millions more of them and endless ammunition to feed them.

Surely that automatically increases the chance of random gun events.

Out come the gun apologists again. Guns are the problem here folks. Plain and simple. Sure, this guy was disturbed. But we will always have disturbed people and crime - recent stabbings in Japan and shootings in Canada demonstrate this.

However, if you cut down the opportunities for these crazy folks to access weapons of destruction, you cut down the chances of mass murder. Would this guy have killed with a knife or sword? Not likely. Bomb-making materials? Perhaps. But less likely.

Why do we have metal detectors at airports? Why do we restrict drinking and driving? To protect ourselves from people who can't function properly.

Easy access to guns in America translates into easy access for criminals. Restrict guns and criminals will have a tougher time accessing those weapons. Some might still get them, but it will be much harder.

This seems simple to most people around the world, but not Americans, unfortunately, who will continue to fall victim to crimes like this.

@ tmarie - It's not just the smirk, but the smirk in concert with what he did.

skipthebeat

oikawa: This is a worryingly wrong and illogical argument. The crucial difference being people want to do drugs, they don't generally want to kill people.

You misinterpreted it. The point was about having access to illegal drugs. If guns are banned there will be illegal guns on the streets. What a lot of people on JT are saying is banned guns because they kill, right?? Banning guns isn't going to make the problem go away.

No I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Comparing drugs to guns is fallacious because they are fundamentally different commodities.

Of course if you change gun laws in America now the problem you have is there are too many already in circulation so there will be a surplus of illegal guns, but if you started from a position of not having guns there wouldn't in fact be many illegal guns on the street. Either way, what is the reasoning behind wanting a gun in the first place? Why do Americans want guns so badly? If it is genuinely because of a sense of self-defense, 1) of course criminals will have guns if they expect home-owners to have them. You're digging your own grave, quite literally. 2) Is keeping that right really worth the number of people that die? And most importantly 3) If the home-ownership of guns (except for special purposes maybe, i.e. hunter's license) was made illegal do you think the number of deaths and injuries by firearms would go up or down? And that is really the crux of it.

This sucks, James Holmes purchased everything legally. I'm sorry but there should be a psyche test before he could be licensed to carry a fire arm.

Suspected Colorado movie theater gunman James Holmes purchased four guns at local shops and more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet in the past 60 days, Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates told a news conference this evening.

"All the ammunition he possessed, he possessed legally, all the weapons he possessed, he possessed legally, all the clips he possessed, he possessed legally," an emotional Oates said.

A total of 70 people were injured, most of them by gunfire but a "handful" during the ensuing chaos, Oates said. One person was hit in an adjacent theater.

skipbeat: "What's the point of banning guns if the bad guys still have access to guns?"

Most 'bad guys' (or gals) aren't technically bad guys until they commit the crime, are they, skipbeat? Point is this was just a regular guy until the massacre, and clearly stated in the article no one suspected it, as is usually the case. Had this man not had access to the guns this would not have played out as such, as with the three year old child who shot his father to death the other day, and the other near-daily US gun massacres. People snap, regardless of nationality, but WHEN they snap if they have access to weapons like guns they can and often DO do a lot more damage than, say, if they didn't. There is no way in hell this guy could have done the damage he did with anything but guns (save bombs).

Anyway, I didn't come on here to rant about the ridiculous gun-laws of the US again, I came on to say that people need to stop looking for excuses for why this guy did what he did -- there's simply no justifying such a heinous crime. the-grouch seems to think you could judge the guy by his photo, but if that's the case a whole lot of us should be locked up for bad grins and/or bad fashion. He was a loner? so are a lot of other people who don't go on killing sprees. No, you just can't in any way rationalize what the man did, and whatever reason he gives will not bring back the lives he took and will seem utterly meaningless.

The built down mechanisms we have in our brain is "do not harm another human being". It's one of the strongest mechanisms there is. It's very difficult for the military to overcome that mechanism to get young men to aim a weapon on another human being and squeeze the trigger.. But powerful psychotic drugs can reduce and eliminate the inhibitions.

“We are still trying to process this information and we appreciate that people will respect our privacy,” the family said, after Holmes’ mother Arlen confirmed her son was the suspected shooter.

He painted his hair red and told police, "I'm the joker" Do we really need to know anything more than that? He's a nutball @$$hole.

skipbeat: "Banning guns isn't going to make the problem go away."

It most certainly would in most gun-related massacres. People like Holmes aren't criminals until they carry out the crime -- it's not like he was a life-long drug-runner, bank robber, and/or killed people here and there. So yes, were guns banned this problem would have gone away -- or at least, if Holmes' had problems there would be a lot less bullet-ridden corpses.

How on earth can you actually believe the 'problem wouldn't go away' if guns were banned? Again, people snap, plain and simple, or get drunk and get angry, etc. If they have access to a gun in such situations, the potential for mass death and destruction goes up exponentially. And lest we forget all the accidents that occur, again like the kid shooting his dad to death, or the boy shooting himself in the head with an uzi at a gun show, etc. Were the guns not there, there would obviously be no problem.

Utrack, the guy was a graduate student in neurosciences.

Do you think he would have flunked an Elementary Psych I questionnaire?

Now if they had a ban on all Peter Parker wannabe lookalikes...

James Holmes mother was not surprised by this. When she got the call from ABC News that her son was likely the alleged culprit she said you have the right person. She knew he as off his rocker.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/aurora-dark-knight-shooting-suspect-identified-james-holmes/story?id=16818889#.UAoTz6CjSSo

This whole "blame it on the guns" thing is dumb. I dont like guns but I can definitely say that its not because guns are legal that this happened. This was because of some guy. The guy in the picture above. He has some issues. If there were no guns in america he would have found another way to do it. People are dangerous. Get off the gun laws, and stay on the point of this was some jerk that decided to be an idiot and he need to be caught and stoned, flogged, and dragged by a horse.

nandakandamanda

I hear you he is a smart fool.

As to the no gun attitude. Can you imagine if the theater were filled of gun toting customers, shooting in the dark. The numbers of dead and wounded would have gone way up. Ever fired a weapon in the dark? I have in the military. It is darn hard to hit anything not right in front of you, so I can just imagin gun play from a room full of civilian shooters,trying to defend themselves in panic. Hey it is real easy to get a gun in America, even kids can get them if they want them and most of the punks have automatic weapons. We would never even consider depriving our craziest people of all the weapons that they might want. Note as a result we have one of the highest violent crime rates in the world and the highest percentage of our population in jails and prisons. Even a coward can easily be a mass murder with an automatic weapon. It is the easiest way to suddenly become internationally famous. So this perp is lapping up all the media attention he is getting and the next one is already planning his attempt. Dozens more are thinking, I could do that. Now I would prefer this perp not get another second of attention, just disappear from the news besides a short note of the result of his trial. No attention, then no gain for the perp. But I don't expect the media will ever do this,it sells newspapers and gets audience time, meaning selling more commercials for more cash. So enjoy you endless diet of gore.

Mike DeJong: Easy access to guns in America translates into easy access for criminals.

Holmes does not have a criminal record. Background checks are suppose to eliminat people who have a criminal records from buying a gun.

Mike DeJong: Why do we restrict drinking and driving? To protect ourselves from people who can't function properly.

People still drink and drive even when they are intoxicated. The laws are not stopping people from driving while intoxicated. Many people are still using their cellphone for voice and texting where the laws say it is not allowed.

Mike DeJong: Out come the gun apologists again.

The majority of gun owners are not "gun apologists" when guns are used to commit a crime. They bought the gun for protection not to commit a crime.

It's insanity to let the general public have access to guns.

The pro-gun lobby always talk about the right to defend etc..

But the problem is the number of idiots, borderline mental cases and outright nutjobs who get their hands on guns. Not to mention criminals.

skipbeat: "The majority of gun owners are not "gun apologists" when guns are used to commit a crime. They bought the gun for protection not to commit a crime."

And yet, something as simple as a foul mood can result in the thing you bought for 'protection' becoming a tool for murder. That's how it usually works. Yes, people who defend ownership of guns are gun apologists.

Al Stewart: "This whole "blame it on the guns" thing is dumb. I dont like guns but I can definitely say that its not because guns are legal that this happened"

Perhaps not, but the scale of the massacre is definitely the result of guns being legal, and that you cannot argue.

Christopher Blackwell

You are absolutely correct, these kids can get AK 47's here in the US.

@Al,

This whole, 'guns don't kill, people do' argument is bankrupt. James Holmes could only have killed a fraction of the people he did, had he used a knife.

As for any legal justification, the flintlocks in use at the time of the 2nd Amendment were single shot weapons, not the assault rifles available with as many magazines as you can carry.

Why must the majority of Americans live in fear of a small number of anti-social inadequates?

oikawa: No I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Comparing drugs to guns is fallacious because they are fundamentally different commodities.

They may be fundamentally different commodities, but they share the same premis that people are prohibited from having them. If guns are banned then they become like illegal drugs that it is prohibited for people to posses, right?Illegal drugs are not sold out in the open. If guns are banned then they will not be sold out in the open.

smithinjapan: And yet, something as simple as a foul mood can result in the thing you bought for 'protection' becoming a tool for murder. That's how it usually works. Yes, people who defend ownership of guns are gun apologists.

There are two types of people buying guns one for protection, and the other one to commit a crime. You are confusing the two. You are saying a person who bought a gun for protection is saying it is okay for someone else to buy a gun to commit a crime, yes??? Does that make sense to you? Because it doesn't for me.

the debate on JT is that many people are anti-guns want to banned guns all together. I say no banned on guns because a majority of people owning a gun is used for protection. The guns laws should be tighten and be like applying for a job and do a background check with references like FB, Twitters, etc. Anyone who wants to buy a gun will have to go through a psychological test. Even with that a person who is very witted can still slip through the crack.

smithinjapan: Most 'bad guys' (or gals) aren't technically bad guys until they commit the crime, are they, skipbeat? Point is this was just a regular guy until the massacre, and clearly stated in the article no one suspected it, as is usually the case. Had this man not had access to the guns this would not have played out as such, as with the three year old child who shot his father to death the other day, and the other near-daily US gun massacres. People snap, regardless of nationality, but WHEN they snap if they have access to weapons like guns they can and often DO do a lot more damage than, say, if they didn't. There is no way in hell this guy could have done the damage he did with anything but guns (save bombs).

If guns are banned then bad guys regardless if they are criminal or not will have access to gun from the blackmarket.

If he didn't have acces to guns, then he would have used what is stated in bold by you or other means.

A person do not just snap instantly and commit a crime like this, a person snap because of things occurring over a period of time. Some people are better at hinding it then others.

To all the people saying to ban guns, that's going to be a little difficult. Most American households have them, and aren't willing to give them up. Even if they were, it would just leave them in the hands of criminals, with law abiding citizens unable to defend themselves. I understand a lot of people here don't like guns, and that makes sense. Guns can kill people. Most gun-related deaths are caused by handguns and other things, not rifles.

It's not the guns that are necessarily the problem. In this case however, him having that AR-15 and other weapons certainly made it easier than stabbing with a knife. However, I still believe it's possible to stab 12 people with a knife if someone wanted to, but I think the situation would have played out very differently, with one or two deaths at maximum. The solution isn't to ban guns, which would cause more harm than good. The solution is to increase security and make it so someone trying to do this would be stopped before they commit the evil act.

People will kill with anything they can get their hands on it they want to. Many Americans own guns because they are afraid of those who will do them harm. He could have done just as much or more killing had he thrown a hand granade into the theater. We are so lucky to live in a country that bans guns but then again, if you want to kill someone, you could use a brick or your car. Just count to ten before you explode.

Why are spree killings on the rise and what is making this trend grow. Easy access of deadly weapons is not desireable in a dysfunctional society like the US. The society is in collapse and more similar crimes will follow unless the government takes urgent action.

We are talking about a nation who don`t think much of preventative crime instead locking up a higher percentage of its citizens than any other. The nation has the worlds highest wealth gap between rich and poor and 45% of the population believe in creationism and that number is rising.

This is not the US that i saw and admired when growing up, it is become a backward thinking nation that is no longer looked up to. It is upsetting to me as a non American seeing what has happened to the place no wonder so many Americans are going nuts.

Selfish me me type needs to be put to sleep and then let's get on with our lives. I have no interest in learning this nuts name or hearing his manifesto (ahem, list of complaints).

skipbeat: "There are two types of people buying guns one for protection, and the other one to commit a crime. You are confusing the two"

Yes, there are people intent on committing crime and who buy guns for that purpose, but there are a WHOLE lot of people who OWN guns (supposedly for defense) and commit crimes all the same, be it that they snap, or some other 'heat of passion' reason. You seem to be suggesting that no one who ever bought a gun for defense has used it for anything else. Guns serve NO purpose but to kill other humans (outside of hunting). Argue that the guy could have done the same thing with a knife all you want -- heck, with a sandwich maker or cannister of play-dough! -- but the fact remains the same amount of damage cannot be done, and more importantly knives serve a function purpose (ie. they're not made for the purpose of killing).

"If guns are banned then bad guys regardless if they are criminal or not will have access to gun from the blackmarket."

But civilians like Holmes would not be able to obtain them legally, and would likely not have one, nor would people who suddenly get angry at a spouse or child be able to pull the gun out of the closet shoe-box and off them.

skipbeat, many (like me) do not favor a blanket ban on guns for reasons including one you've stated: self-protection is a fundamental right. Assault rifles, semi-automatic weapons and massive clips capable of holding 30 or more rounds do not belong in one's arsenal if self-protection is the purpose. Likewise, a national database of gun owners - one that connects each gun to its owner; a waiting period between purchase and delivery; expanding the reporting system to include ammunition: these too would in no way infringe upon the right of gun owners.

I'll hazard a guess that you oppose these common-sense steps. The NRA certainly does, and vehemently.

smithinjapan: but there are a WHOLE lot of people who OWN guns (supposedly for defense) and commit crimes all the same, be it that they snap, or some other 'heat of passion' reason. You seem to be suggesting that no one who ever bought a gun for defense has used it for anything else.

A majority of people who bought a gun bought it for protection and they are not the "WHOLE lot of people who OWN guns (supposedly for defense) and commit crimes all the same,"

Argue that the guy could have done the same thing with a knife all you want -- heck, with a sandwich maker or cannister of play-dough! -- but the fact remains the same amount of damage cannot be done, and more importantly knives serve a function purpose (ie. they're not made for the purpose of killing).

Holmes used 4 types of guns, if they were banned he would probably used what you suggested previously. This is scary on all level.

But civilians like Holmes would not be able to obtain them legally, and would likely not have one,

My point is that if the guns are banned. No, he wouldn't be able to obtain them legally. Guns were be sold in the black market which would allow him access. The black market would be a big problem for local, state, and federal government along with society.

Laguna: I'll hazard a guess that you oppose these common-sense steps.

Didn't I say the gun law neded to be tighten...etc. in one of my previous post??

Guns do not kill?? Only people kill?? What a load of BS! If this idiot fool had gone in there with say...only ROCKS, would he have killed this many innocent people?? NO!! Time to put metal detectors at all of these public places in the USA, because this was just one idiot white dude with some kind of death wish, now just wait for COPY CATS and terrorists who are saying to themselves, BINGO!! All you need is one determined fool with enough weapons and ammo and we will all be dead. Do hope this idiot fool gets his ass and head kicked inside and out while in prison,then that he BURNS IN HELL for at least all of eternity. RIP innocent folk out to see the new Batman movie.

If only more people would carry guns, just think how many lives would be saved!

Didn't I say the gun law neded to be tighten...etc. in one of my previous post??

If you truly believe so, vote Democratic. The majority of liberals - both voters and politicians - do not want to outright illegalize guns; they simply support common-sense reforms. A vote for the GOP is at best that for the status quo or quite likely a vote for further loosening a further mayhem.

This whole "blame it on the guns" thing is dumb. I dont like guns but I can definitely say that its not because guns are legal that this happened.

Al Stewart, you get the "guns don't kill people, people do" award for July 2012, but there was strong competition from numerous others putting forward this limp argument.

I expect that had he not been able to stroll into a store and buy 4 guns and 6000 rounds of ammunition he would have assaulted the theatre with a BB gun, a tin opener and a sharpened stick. As Laguna states above, there are many sensible ways to restrict weaponry without banning guns.

@japan_cynic

I was thinking the same thing. Pro-gun nuts often will claim that more guns means a safer society, because everyone can defend themselves. Like, if everyone in the theater had been strapped, someone could have shot the bad guy before he killed so many.

...Or maybe it would have just been a bunch of people wildly shooting in the dark resulting in even more deaths.

This is why I prefer living in Japan over the United States. In Japan, you don't even have to think about owning a gun to defend yourself. In the US, there are so many evil-natured people so you have to protect yourself.

30,000 odd people killed by guns a in a year in the US.

So just another day in america and will not change the yearly death average this year that much.

Product of the system, blood on peoples hands who create a system that allows easy access to guns...including access for nutters and killers.

That number of deaths a year wouldn't happen in many other developed countries.

If I want to shoot somebody in Japan, I've got to go out and start asking, "Where can I get a gun?".

@ lucabrasi: You can get a gunthrough legal means in Japan, it will just take a long time and you will be subject to the random inspections by the police. Even through all of the strict gun control measures here in Japan, if you decide to go on the "binge" and take out people like this guy did, you would still be able to do so. It would just take some time more than he had to wait in the US. Keep in mind from what I am seeing, he had this well thought out and planned. So whether there was a lenthgy wait procedure to get a weapon or not, he was going to do something like this.

You can't ban a product based on the mental stability of those who use it.

My prayers and condolences to the families of yet another tragedy in which a depraved individual takes innocent lives to satisfy the warped fantasies he had in his mind.

Laguna,

If you truly believe so, vote Democratic. The majority of liberals - both voters and politicians - do not want to outright illegalize guns; they simply support common-sense reforms. A vote for the GOP is at best that for the status quo or quite likely a vote for further loosening a further mayhem.

Just for the record:

Romney news release, July 1, 2004: “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Also:

I'll hazard a guess that you oppose these common-sense steps. The NRA certainly does, and vehemently.

in August 2006, Romney joined the National Rifle Association, which was and is strongly opposed to the ban. The Boston Globe described him then as a “former” advocate of gun control. But the fact is that Romney continued to take a public position at odds with the NRA on the federal legislation. He became a vocal supporter of the Second Amendment — but only up to a point.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/11/flipping-through-dnc-playbook-on-romney/

Someone says "Guns do not kill people and People kill". If so, before people buying guns, they all would have to be investigated very carefully by FBI with many documentations such as psychiatric examination, personal history, financial status, crime history, reports from adjoining neighbors, agreements of parents, brothers or sisters, etc and finally they would have to have permission from police department. After all passed, you can buy and own gun. This must be a good rule.

Even through all of the strict gun control measures here in Japan, if you decide to go on the "binge" and take out people like this guy did, you would still be able to do so.

Yeah, but you'd have to use a knife.

People can't get guns in Japan like they can in the States. Some people can get rifles for hunting, but it's quite difficult. What about assault rifles, pistols, and thousands of rounds of ammunition? Just takes a bit longer in Japan, but no problem really? Are you seriously trying to say that?

Your implication that gun restriction in Japan is meaningless in terms of preventing these kind of mass murders is really incredibly ridiculous.

Assault rifles, semi-automatic weapons and massive clips capable of holding 30 or more rounds do not belong in one's arsenal if self-protection is the purpose. Likewise, a national database of gun owners - one that connects each gun to its owner; a waiting period between purchase and delivery; expanding the reporting system to include ammunition: these too would in no way infringe upon the right of gun owners.

Here is the deal, there are over 230,000+ assault rifles that are legal in the US, the last time an assault rifle killed someone was in 1940 in the US I believe. I have to admit I'm getting sick and tired of people referring to AR-15's as assault rifles they are not. What type of action of gun is sufficient for self protection and how are you coming to that conclusion? Lever action? Pump action? Bolt action? What is wrong with semi-automatics? They are not clips they are called magazines, how are you coming to the conclusion that 30 rounds is too much for self defense? Especially against multiple attackers. Besides lets say you make it so that magazines only carry 5 rounds, how are you going to stop someone from carrying 6 or more 5 round magazines, how are you going to stop someone from firing 30 rounds or more from 5 round magazines?

Also if those things are not needed for self protection then why do law enforcement need them? Law enforcement is not an offensive force they are a defensive force.

How would a national database of gun owners reduce or stop gun crime? Can you show a single gun crime that was prevented or at the very least solved a gun crime by having the guns registered? You want it to include ammunition purchased? Do you have any idea how quickly that database would spiral out of control in terms of cost from just that alone? Look at the financial disaster the Canadian long gun registry was.

How long of a waiting period?

Readers, other countries are not relevant to this discussion.

You can get a gunthrough legal means in Japan, it will just take a long time and you will be subject to the random inspections by the police.

Alphape, you can get a hunting rifle but not (generally) a pistol, much less a semi-automatic. Not all guns are equal, and this is a very important point because not all gun restriction laws are equal. The NRA would have you believe that your right to a 45-round clip being revoked would necessarily lead to your complete disarming. This is patently false.

Sailwind - I agree that Romney exercised deep common sense as governor of Massachusetts, but as has been widely noted, that Romney has been most completely Etch-a-Sketched out. Consider this quote:

I don’t support any gun control legislation, the effort for a new assault weapons ban, with a ban on semi-automatic weapons, is something I would oppose.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/where-obama-and-romney-stand-on-gun-control/2012/07/20/gJQAwMpNyW_blog.html

Obama has done nothing to advance firearm restrictions, so perhaps Romney would present no change. However, as a lame duck with no concern about facing the NRA again, Obama might well make a push to achieve some level of legislative sanity. Romney, certain to face a challenger from his right should he deviate from the party line in the slightest, would offer no such opportunity.

I'll hazard a guess that you oppose these common-sense steps.

How are they common sense? How many people's lives would be saved by such restrictions? Keep this in mind, more then half of all cases of gun homicide, drugs were the motive. I have a strong hunch that ending the drug war, more specifically legalizing marijuana would have more effect on reducing gun crime then any of your so called common sense laws would.

30,000 odd people killed by guns a in a year in the US. So just another day in america and will not change the yearly death average this year that much.

You do realize that more than two thirds of those deaths are suicides right? You do realize that gun crime including gun homicides have been cut in half in the past 20 years. You do know that right?

What about assault rifles

Assault rifles are rare in the US, there are only 230,000+ of them, their average starting cost is anywhere between $15,000-20,000. In this movie shooting the attacker did not use an assault rifle.

Obama has done nothing to advance firearm restrictions,

That is only because it was not politically feasible for him, any move he made to create any new firearms restrictions would have been political suicide for him. Back in February of 2009 he stated or more like his AG representing him stated they wanted to bring back the AWB back. Considering his previous comments the year earlier about how people cling to their guns and religion and then you combine it with those statements he essentially handed a very powerful propaganda tool to gun rights organizations.

No citizen needs an assault rifle.

People who support 19th century gun laws belong in that century.

Laguna:

" A vote for the GOP is at best that for the status quo "

But of course. I thought to myself already "some zealot is going to turn this into a US political party propagand"... and voila, here we go.

Christopher Lowery:

" It's interesting that they caught him by his car, and there was no struggle. That's strange. He's a college grad. That's strange. Full body armor, a bit odd "

And why is all that more strange than the original shooting in itself? Clearly you are not talking about a sane person here.

sailwind: "Romney news release, July 1, 2004: “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Yup, he said that in 2004, and do you know what he said recently to the NRA in person when it became clear he wanted to run for president? He said "I am a guard for the second amendment", seeking to lessen his previous stance on 'not being a defender of the NRA'. He'll buy into their politics just to get the vote. Wouldn't be the first time he flip-flopped on issues, that's for sure.

No citizen needs an assault rifle.

Guess what Madverts the guy didn't use an assault rifle.

@smithinjapan

You do a very good job knocking the right-wing nutters on this site. Hang in there, my friend!

"Guess what Madverts the guy didn't use an assault rifle."

I didn't make that assertion.

Noliving: "Guess what Madverts the guy didn't use an assault rifle."

Guess what, Noliving, the fact that in this case one was not used doesn't change the fact they are not needed. I'd say nice try at deflection, but it wasn't.

Guess what Madverts the guy didn't use an assault rifle.

Gee, Noliving, you might want to open up your dictionary as well as your mind a bit. According to Wikipedia:

The AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56 mm, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle, with a rotating-lock bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas operation or long/short stroke piston operation.

Cool! But is it an assault rifle? Wikipedia continues:

The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States armed forces. ... The name "AR-15" is a Colt registered trademark, which refers only to the semi-automatic rifle.

This means that it is a semi-automatic rifle with exchangeable clips: the definition of an "assault rifle."

Mercury News notes:

In California, the state with the nation's toughest gun laws, you couldn't walk into a gun shop and buy the AR-15 military-style assault rifle used in the massacre early Friday at a Colorado movie theater. Fully automatic and military-style assault weapons that fire more than 10 rounds at a time, like the AR-15, are against the law in the Golden State. But the other weapons that the shooter used to kill 12 moviegoers and wound as many as 50 others are legal to sell and possess in California.

http://www.mercurynews.com/california-budget/ci_21122906/

Aside from Alaska, where they apparently use these to hunt wolves from helicopters, I see no purpose for these in America.

"assault rifles are rare in the US, there are only 230,000+"

oh the irony

yeah that's really rare!

Too bad the cops didn't shoot the bastard. Now he will plead insanity or blame it on drugs.

"Too bad the cops didn't shoot the bastard. Now he will plead insanity or blame it on drugs."

I agree it would have saved taxpayer coin and perhaps even helped the community knowing that this individual had been removed from existence.

Apparently the media think we'll get answers when he appears in court on Monday morning but I somehow doubt that.

But I do think an insanity plea is perhaps warranted, these would seem to be the actions of someone clearly insane.

No citizen needs a gas powered semi-automatic AR 15 assault rifle.

People who support 19th century gun laws belong in that century.

In fact I think it's fair to say no citizen really needs a Glock, let alone two.

Talk about gun legality. Talk about criminal rate in USA compare to another country. So obviously obvious, gun should not be legal. period.

I didn't make that assertion.

Really?

No citizen needs a gas powered semi-automatic AR 15 assault rifle.

That right there is you making that assertion, in fact that right there is you incorrectly calling an AR-15 an assault rifle. That is you claiming an assault rifle was used in this attack. Not only that is you right there also incorrectly stating that semi-automatic's are assault rifle. In order for a gun to be an assault rifle it has to be a machine gun.

So your going to tell me you didn't make that assertion based upon the above comment you made, yeah right....you were asserting that an assault rifle was used.

Guess what, Noliving, the fact that in this case one was not used doesn't change the fact they are not needed. I'd say nice try at deflection, but it wasn't.

Guess what smith its not a deflection because I correctly interpreted Madverts statement that he thought an AR-15 was an assault rifle, meaning my "deflection" as you call it was nothing more than me correcting him so it can't possibly be a deflection can it?

This means that it is a semi-automatic rifle with exchangeable clips: the definition of an "assault rifle."

In order to be classified as an assault rifle the gun has to shoot an intermediate power rifle cartridge, it has to accept detachable magazines and most importantly it has to have a selective firemode, meaning you can switch the gun from semi-automatic to fully automatic mode.

This is the definition of a an assault rifle:

assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39165/assault-rifle

According to wikipedia this is what an assault rifle:

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock); It must be capable of selective fire; It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle; Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt. And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

According to wikipedia this is what the AR-15 is:

The name "AR-15" is a Colt registered trademark, which refers only to the semi-automatic rifle.

The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle.

Notice how it said the selective fire version is called the M16, not the AR-15.

So again in order to for a rifle to be an assault rifle it has to be a machine gun.

My condolences to all of the victims. RIP

To all the gun-nuts who say that getting rid of guns is not the answer. Then what is? Because it seems that the only alternative would be to take away more freedoms just to keep the right to bear arms. Marshal law may have to be instituted. Imagine curfews set. Think about periodic mental and background checks being mandatory for all citizens. Wiretapping, more Internet surveillance, etc. Metal detectors in all public places. Beefing up the police force and giving them the right to arrest anyone suspicious, or with a bulge in their pants. The more senseless crimes like this happen, the more other freedoms will end up being taken away. But I guess the NRA would consider it all fine and dandy, as long as they don't take away their freedom to own a gun, rifle, or semi-automatic.

This idiot fool from San Diego goes out to middle of no where Colorado, and pulls this kind of crap?? I can not even understand why this idiot fool or anybody can by guns/ammo ONLINE?? This needs to be made ILLEGAL, if you really need a gun/ammo take your fat ass to a store, show your face, get an FBI background check etc..you do not pass, oh too bad! You do pass, your ass will be on FBI records,etc...who needs 6000 rounds of ammo???

My condolences to the victims' families.

Here's a simple question for all the gun enthusiasts. Why did no-one return fire, or tackle him, or in fact do anything? The simple answer is that everyone panicked and ran or dove for cover. I'm not criticising them, this is a good reaction in this position. Even if every single person in the theatre had been armed the result would have been the same, they would have panicked.

... and this is the major problem with the pro-gun lobby. Every gun owner sees themselves as Rambo, but when push comes to shove and some random nutter open fires at you then it turns out you're stunned and panicked. I've been in a real firefight, and I hit the floor so fast I couldn't even remember how I got there. My friend, who had a gun (I don't carry), didn't even remember he had it until the entire thing was over... and in the final analysis the cops said that was probably for the best, the criminals were better armed and would have mowed him down.

Wake up and smell the coffee gun enthusiasts, unless you have military training and experience you'll probably either shoot yourself in the foot or freeze up in a real situation. The only ones who are good with guns under pressure are people with extensive training (and even then about 30% of marines can't bring themselves to fire on a human target during their first real engagement) or complete nutters. So the only ones the pro-gun lobby are helping are ex-military and nutters. They're not helping the average citizen at all.

An AR 15 is npt an assault rifle an no citizen should have the right to own one.

Jesus man, 12 people have died and countless others have been wounded because any nut can pick up an arsenal in a matter of days in Colorado.

Get back to your 19th century cave defending yourself from other furred mammals already!

An AR 15 is npt an assault rifle an no citizen should have the right to own one.

I would strongly recommend that the mods remove this post by Madverts, NPT is a racial acronym.

AR-15's are not an assault rifle, in order to be an assault rifle it has to be a machine gun. AR-15's are not machine guns. M16's are assault rifles, AR-15's are not.

Here's a simple question for all the gun enthusiasts. Why did no-one return fire, or tackle him, or in fact do anything? The simple answer is that everyone panicked and ran or dove for cover. I'm not criticising them, this is a good reaction in this position. Even if every single person in the theatre had been armed the result would have been the same, they would have panicked.

Simple answer, the shooter was the only one in the room with a gun. There was no one else in the room with a gun.

Every gun owner sees themselves as Rambo,

No they don't, how many gun owners do you know personally that are friends or family members or just co workers that are gun owners that act that way?

I've been in a real firefight

Really which one? Was it in the news?

the final analysis the cops said that was probably for the best, the criminals were better armed and would have mowed him down.

In order to mow him down they would need fully auto matics, your saying these criminals had fully automatics?

(and even then about 30% of marines can't bring themselves to fire on a human target during their first real engagement)

This is an urban legend or popular myth. I would love to see you prove this Frungy.

Frungy:

" Here's a simple question for all the gun enthusiasts. Why did no-one return fire, or tackle him, or in fact do anything? The simple answer is that everyone panicked and ran or dove for cover. I'm not criticising them, this is a good reaction in this position. Even if every single person in the theatre had been armed the result would have been the same, they would have panicked. "

Actually, no. There have been numours incidents in Israel, the proverbial gun-toting country, where Arab terrorists opened fire and where promptly shot in return by members of the citizenry.

The facts do not support your prejudice.

Laguna: If you truly believe so, vote Democratic. The majority of liberals - both voters and politicians - do not want to outright illegalize guns; they simply support common-sense reforms. A vote for the GOP is at best that for the status quo or quite likely a vote for further loosening a further mayhem

Why would I vote Democrat when the majority of Democrats are for abortion. The majority of people on JT want guns to be banned. There are Democrats who owned guns too. Many of the people on JT are anit-gun owners, but are pro-abortion. MIllions of babies are killed each year, but not a peep about ending abortion from the left.

There have been numours incidents in Israel, the proverbial gun-toting country, where Arab terrorists opened fire and where promptly shot in return by members of the citizenry.

Where everyone has to do mandatory military service, "members of the citizenry" usually means ex-military with extensive weapons training and some kind of combat experience.

AR-15's are not an assault rifle, in order to be an assault rifle it has to be a machine gun.

Noliving: I care little for your semantics. Anyone who has looked at this weapon (a.ka. the M16) will see a military weapon designed to kill humans. It has no purpose as a self-defence tool (hardly something you can slip in your back-pocket). The M16 is designed to slaughter and has no place in a civilised society.

WilliBJul. 22, 2012 - 03:00AM JST Actually, no. There have been numours incidents in Israel, the proverbial gun-toting country, where Arab terrorists opened fire and where promptly shot in return by members of the citizenry. The facts do not support your prejudice.

In Israel the people deal daily with the threat of death. In the U.S. most people fear papercuts. After 9/11 most businesses closed because a large portion of the populace was too afraid to come into work. In England during the blitzkreig people walked around unexploded ordinance to get to work. Your comparison is odious.

P.S. Noliving, I'll bet you that there WAS someone in that theatre who had a gun on them, because there are guns in U.S. schools, post offices, libraries, etc, even when they're not supposed to be there. They're just not owning up because they don't want to be seen as a coward.

And yes, the criminals had full-automatic AK-47s, and were following the old maxim, "wild uncontrolled bursts!" to cause maximum panic and confusion. I'm pretty sure not even they knew where their rounds were going. And it made a local newspaper, but not national, because where I'm from this is pretty common.

Noliving: I care little for your semantics. Anyone who has looked at this weapon (a.ka. the M16) will see a military weapon designed to kill humans. It has no purpose as a self-defence tool (hardly something you can slip in your back-pocket). The M16 is designed to slaughter and has no place in a civilised society.

The AR-15 is not an M16. Ah its not semantics there is a big difference between an M16 and an AR-15. An M16 has a fully automatic mode that has a rate of fire of around 700-900 rounds per minute.

AR-15's can only fire one round per squeezing of the trigger.

So you don't consider a shotgun to be a defensive weapon? So only guns that you can slip in your pockets are defensive?

So your saying I can't use an AR-15 for defending myself in my house? Why?

P.S. Noliving, I'll bet you that there WAS someone in that theatre who had a gun on them, because there are guns in U.S. schools, post offices, libraries, etc, even when they're not supposed to be there. They're just not owning up because they don't want to be seen as a coward.

I'll be you there was not someone in that theater.

And yes, the criminals had full-automatic AK-47s, and were following the old maxim, "wild uncontrolled bursts!" to cause maximum panic and confusion. I'm pretty sure not even they knew where their rounds were going. And it made a local newspaper, but not national, because where I'm from this is pretty common.

Ok what paper and what day?

Where everyone has to do mandatory military service, "members of the citizenry" usually means ex-military with extensive weapons training and some kind of combat experience.

And what does that have to do with preventing them from going criminal? IE carrying out a robbery or killing someone they don't like or get angry with?

Where everyone has to do mandatory military service, "members of the citizenry" usually means ex-military with extensive weapons training and some kind of combat experience.

Ignore the comment at 12:21 that was for someone else. Quoted the wrong person.

Do you honestly believe that citizens that target shoot don't know how to use their gun? Do you honestly believe it takes extensive training to shoot a handgun or a shotgun or a rifle competently? Claiming that you need extensive military training with combat experience being necessary to be able to defend yourself or citizens defending themselves in public is absurd. Besides you can get combat training in the US if you are a civilian. Does having training help? Sure it does but if your going to argue that the odds of those citizens being able to defend themselves was because of their training then you are a fool.

Where everyone has to do mandatory military service, "members of the citizenry" usually means ex-military with extensive weapons training and some kind of combat experience.

How about lulu campbell?

It has no purpose as a self-defence tool (hardly something you can slip in your back-pocket). The M16 is designed to slaughter and has no place in a civilised society.

How about a savage model 110? Can I use that for self defense?

"...and who continued firing at the robbers' backs when they were running away. In any sane country that is illegal."

That's the kind of coward that needs a gas powered assault rifle to "protect" himself. No different from those bringing to the debate a defence of owning such arms, where twelve people who have been murdered by a nut with free access to the above.

Shame on you all, the victims are barely cold.

That's the kind of coward that needs a gas powered assault rifle to "protect" himself. No different from those bringing to the debate a defence of owning such arms, where twelve people who have been murdered by a nut with free access to the above.

Why are you still harping on assault rifles? The guy in cinema shooting didn't use an assault rifle even law enforcement says that. Why are you so obsessed with them? There is only 230,000 of them in legal circulation in the US.

Just a reminder for the 'if only there had been an armed, law abiding citizen in the theatre, the carnage would have been less'. There was indeed an armed, law abiding citizen in that theatre, JAMES HOLMES, and there is a great deal of difference between shooting at targets (no matter how realistic) in a controlled environment where you know what is going on and shooting at someone who is shooting his gun, likely to turn that gun on you, in an environment where you don't know what is going on, and in which your firing your gun is likely to make you a target for some other law abiding gun toter who'll assume that the two of you are from rival gangs and shooting without a thought for the civilians caught in the crossfire. Given that, according to what I've heard, it was less than two minutes from the first call about the shooter to police arriving on scene, one thing seems clear. If James had had to spend as much time reloading as he did firing, as he would have had to do if he'd had to reload after 5 or 6 shots, there would have been a lot fewer bullets fired, and a lot fewer people hit by those bullets.

If James had had to spend as much time reloading as he did firing, as he would have had to do if he'd had to reload after 5 or 6 shots, there would have been a lot fewer bullets fired, and a lot fewer people hit by those bullets.

That is false because he didn't reload, when one gun jammed or emptied he just grabbed another gun. 2nd it takes less than a second to put in a new magazine. Reloading with detachable magazines is trivial it takes no time or effort.

Reloading probably would have prevented one or two people getting shot and when you consider nearly 60 people were shot it really wouldn't have made any difference.