Fourteen Dead - Fifty Wounded In Movie Theater Shooting

More details have been released:

http://www.toledonewsnow.com/story/19071381/gunman-opens-fire-on-packed-theater

I must admit that crossed my mind when I heard that one of the victims was 6 years old. After the shock and horror I felt about the shootings, of course.

Clearly the parents couldn't have anticipated this and in no way am I blaming them for the child's death.

But in general...yeah, completely inappropriate for the kid to have been there to begin with.

Who takes infants, toddlers and/or elementary school-age kids to the midnight premier of a movie that is almost three hours and is in no way appropriate for children in that age range?

The same type of parents who...

1.) ...text message/take phone calls throughout the whole goddamn movie (usually holding up their BIG BRIGHT phonescreen).

2.) ...bring their kids to nice adult restaurants and allow them to scream/carry on/run around with no punishment (or, heaven forbid...leaving because they're causing a disturbance). Yeah, that romantic date I'm on shouldn't be a concern to you, Tex...

3.) ...bring their kids to your party--even though you said adults only--because "little Fauntleroy is so good --and besides, babysitters are expensive. "

4.) ...are raising future discipline problems because they themselves have no discipline--on anything. Excercise, finances, workplace, relationships...zero. So why should "bedtime" be any different

5.) ...are trailer/ghetto trash.

--------

Hay, that's only five. Bottom line is this: they the type of people without any clue or care about their kids or your comfort. Your are nothing; their needs are primary and screw you if you don't like it. In sum, they are selfish, stupid pricks.

This in no way blames the parents for what happened last night. What a tragedy. I am only commenting on the direct question by RBancroft.

Your are nothing; their needs are primary and screw you if you don't like it.

Pretty much nails it.

What worries me is that this might be the start of something and we'll have a series of copycat killers. Then the Brady Bunch will use this tragedy to promote their own agenda.

We have a winner! Someone was going to say something stupid, and here it is:WASHINGTON -- Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said Friday that the shootings that took place in an Aurora, Colo. movie theater hours earlier were a result of "ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs" and questioned why nobody else in the theater had a gun to take down the shooter."
The know, the Judeo Christians in this country just can't get a break.

Some prudent advice for Rep. Gohmert and also for the ideological pals of Progress22.

Shut Up. (Please).

"Sometimes mass murder is just mass murder - and that's horrible enough."

I assume the theater had idiotic "no guns" signage that means nothing to mass murders.

While its truly tragic let's see how many politicians call for more gun bans for law abiding citizens.

Those signs do mean something to guys like this. They guarantee a target rich environment where nobody will shoot back.

And ABC is the winner of the jackass political conclusion award.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/07/20/abc-news-admits-incorrectly-linking-tea-party-mass-murder-colorado#ixzz21BO7R8kU

Brian Ross has been and remains a biased hack. Terrible. He has been running hit pieces on the Tea Party for years. Nah...no agenda there.

However, he wasn't the only one hacking this morning. Here's a pretty good roundup from the Wonkette blog site:

--------------

Wonkette: ABC NEWS SHOULD FIRE BRIAN ROSS, AND OTHER NOTES ON BEING TERRIBLE

Here’s how things went on Good Morning America, as people were just waking up to get the news about a massacre at the movie theater:

---

George Stephanopoulos: I want to go to Brian Ross here, because Brian you’ve been investigating the background of Jim Holmes and you found something that might be significant….

Brian Ross: There’s a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea Party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.

---

Jesus fucking Christ on a hotplate. Brian Ross and his BLOTTER INVESTIGATIVE TEAM googled for a few minutes and didn’t bother trying to confirm anything and wow, huh, look at that, he was wrong.

Editor’s Note: An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.

Tea Party people on the Internet are furious over this, and they have every right to be, because it’s an egregious, early error that will color the impressions of people no matter how frequently or aggressively it’s retracted. Can Brian Ross! Put him in the goddamn street. He is constantly wrong at reporting on national television.

Breitbart.com has been busy hammering ABC News all morning, but not so much that it didn’t have time to post its own typically shitty false reporting as well. We’d call for a firing at Breitbart.com, but it is wrong about every story, and so… they get away with it? Ha ha, incentives.

---

EXCLUSIVE:

James Holmes, the suspect arrested in connection with the mass shootings at a screening of the new Batman movie early this morning in Aurora, CO, could be a registered Democrat, according to documents obtained by Breitbart News.

---

Uh huh. (checks wrist watch for a few seconds)

---

Update (12:49 EDT): Newly-released information on the suspect’s birthdate (which, as indicated in our initial report, was a slight mismatch), combined with new details Breitbart News has obtained about the suspect’s likely addresses, together suggest that the suspect may, in fact, not have been registered to vote.

---

The dumbest member of Congress also has some thoughts. We’d rather not get into it.

I'm surprised some idiot didn't ask if it's the same Jim Holmes as the porn star, John Holmes.

Crime in Chicago 2012
crimeinchicago.blogspot.com/
10 hours ago – NUMBER OF HOMICIDES IN CHICAGO IN 2011 441. NUMBER OF HOMICIDES IN CHICAGO AS OF June 30, 2012 272. NUMBER O

I don't want to make light of the fact that at least 12 people were gunned down last night and many more wounded in a senseless attack,but I saw these numbers for murders in Chicago and I was shocked what the statistics showed.2011 had 441 murders and 2,217 people shot.As of June 2012 there were 272 murders and 1,267 people shot.

I'll back your point buckeye278 if anyone jumps on it. It's not about citing grim stats for the sake of one's own interest but making a point to people who are "grieving today." It's a relevant perspective for reflection.

Rather than spend a lot of time trying to figure out what made this guy tick, who he was, why he did it...let's focus on the people who lost family members. Make a donation today in the name of one of the victims to your favorite charity. Do something positive.

I'm on vacation and staying with family in Colorado Springs. Yesterday we drove to Denver and drove by that theater in Aurora (it's right on the expressway). They have an electronic marquee and advertised the Dark Knight Rises premiere at midnight. We had our kids with us, and I joked we could drop them off at my sisters and go see the movie at midnight. When we heard the news this moring, we were shocked and felt really, really eerie.

Oldhometown...you are a good dude..as Sam Kinnison said in "Back to School" to Thorton Mellon, "I like how how think. I am going to keep me eye on you."

I hate the MSLM bias. Diane Sawyer in the morning used to make me want to puke.

Oldhometown...you are a good dude..as Sam Kinnison said in "Back to School" to Thorton Mellon, "I like how how think. I am going to keep me eye on you."

I hate the MSLM bias. Diane Sawyer in the morning used to make me want to puke.

I guess I should make my donation to the NRA. One of my early thoughts is that there should be some kind of sound detection that would turn on the lights when loud sounds were heard in a movie theater. Thought some more and realized that would not work.

The shooter had some intelligence. He chose a target rich environment where he could be shooting downhill, and he would have to be targeted uphill with targets all around him. This event will be turned into a training scenario for terrorists. They will learn a lot from this guy, and improve on his methods. He chose about the best possible venue (lots of targets, dark [could have had a night scope], and little likelihood of someone shooting back). We might have some copycats who will act rather than plan, but he will be the one who will be studied. I wonder if this guy got some of his ideas from the massacre in the movie theater in the film "Inglorious Basterds"?

The fools at Rave theaters post no guns signs at Westfield despite the presence of "hip-hop" baggy pant types all over the place. Carry ALL the time. Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

It was my understanding that the shooter took a position in the front of the theater, to the side of the screen. He would have been shooting "uphill." The audience was facing him and could see his silhouette. They fled up, and away from him. He fired up, into the seat area.
Perhaps I misread the reports that I saw.
BTW... is there a reason that you need to refer to

Not sure where you got the "downhill"

It was my understanding that the shooter took a position in the front of the theater, to the side of the screen. He would have been shooting "uphill." The audience was facing him and could see his silhouette. They fled up, and away from him. He fired up, into the seat area.
Perhaps I misread the reports that I saw.
BTW... is there a reason that you need to refer to

Not sure where you got the "downhill"

.....people as "targets?" (Bumped enter while typing)

Hey dumbfuck, they're inside a mall, and unless I'm completely wrong (because I go to the mall maybe twice a year if that) that is MALL policy first, not Rave's. So start your attacks with Westfield management first.

You know AC, you'd probably be able to shorten the list of people who want to see you motionless in the middle of I-75 if you'd begin your diatribe with something other than "Hey dumbfuck".

While the theater does have its own set of anti-freedom signs the Westfield mall is much more culpable. There are security problems at Westfield and most go completely unreported by commercial media. I'd like to see Westfield change their policy, but unless the law in Ohio changes I don't think I'm likely to see that change in policy.

The idea is that if a person is carrying their pistol they at least have a chance to fight back. Maybe not much of a chance, but something is better than nothing.

I agree with you about the 'keyboard commandos' who would have done this or that and sent James Holmes to perdition where he'd be a lot less trouble for everyone. Most of these people can't shoot well at a target range, let alone in a chaotic combat situation.

This terrorist planned well and dressed the part, so anyone shooting him would have very likely pissed him off. The only way to actually stop him is to tackle him and tie him up.

It has been reported that there were a few military members in the audience.

Given that they may have had firearms training under hellacious conditions, I'd guess they might have been the only ones who might have had a realistic chance to fight back with any success.

I'd love to see, businesses that post "no gun" signs and force the law abiding to be unarmed be held legally responsible for the safety of their patrons.
I don't see that happening, so I just avoid those places.

Justread, it was an assumption on my part (probably wrong) that he was to the back of the theater. Some (maybe older) theaters have the front part of the audience sloping up to the screen, and the back half of the theater sloping away from the screen (like a shallow u). I thought I read somewhere that this complex was built in 1975.

Madjack, I would assume that an armed citizenry would have added to the body count (like the "mushrooms" that gangbangers kill in Chicago). Though I am not against CCW I am realistic about the collateral damage.

I have to wonder at the audience reaction when they saw someone go out the rear exit. Maybe they thought he was letting in some friends, and decided it wasn't their business to prevent such a theft of "seats".

Since I believe there is no way to prevent such acts from happening short of frisking every patron at the doors (and a crazed gunman might still get in) maybe it is time to say goodbye to the cinema. It has been in decline for a while now, and maybe the safest place to watch new releases is in your home. I used to go to the movies a couple of times a week, and now (with cable and more patience) I might go to a movie theater 3-4 times a year. We might see Brad Pitt playing the role of panhandler with a tin cup in his hand.

If there is a decline in patronage because of this incident (plus the copycats that might act in the next couple of months) I wonder how this would affect our economy. Movies could still be made (look at the films on cable that never go in movie theaters), but not likely the big money "blockbusters". The Brad Pitt-type money makers might disappear. Could "legitimate" theater also become targets for these bright (but unbalanced) people. Or maybe we will adjust to it. Haven't incidents like this occurred in India (and yet they have a large patronage for films)? Maybe we will just meld this into our daily lives, and accept this as part of the "excitement" of going to see the opening of a film.

I should not have used India as an example. I could not find any incidents from there except a riot against a film about lesbianism (different peoples, different cultures). Most of what I found seems to come from the U.S., http://www.pajiba.com/seriously_random_lists/the-10-most-horrific-incidents-of-offscreen-movie-theater-violence.php.

Can someone tell me how I quote another post?

Star 56 posted:
The fools at Rave theaters post no guns signs at Westfield despite the presence of "hip-hop" baggy pant types all over the place. Carry ALL the time. Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Two points:
- the suspect is a white male, not a black gangbanger.
- as stupid as you think Westfield and/or Rave are for prohibiting concealed carry, that is their decision. Either encourage them to change their policy or don't go. But in the meantime, respect their decision. To carry even though it is prohibited shows you don't care about private property rights.

It still hurts like a bitch if you get shot with body armor on. My buddy volunteered to get shot with a non lethal round while wearing body armor in his law enforcement class and it still damn near knocked him out.

I also had a cousin that was shot "over there" in his vest and it did save his life but it still busted 3 or 4 of his ribs and knocked him out of action from the pain.

:: clicks the + for historymike's comment
:: watches it get the magic green box of goodness

As HM calls him, Mr. Sickfuck is a sick fuck.

I'm thinking schizophrenia. He's in the right age range.

There's a lot of medical stats to show why you don't hear this sort of thing happening with a female shooter....

My buddy volunteered to get shot with a non lethal round while wearing body armor in his law enforcement class...

Ha!
Ha!Ha!

Oh, man alive - and he didn't know what was going to happen? Has he ever volunteered for anything else?

When President Reagan was shot by John Hinckley, Reagan was wearing second chance body armor. So a talking head decided to do an impromptu reenactment of sorts. Mr. Head put on a second chance overcoat and had the sound guy shoot him with a .22 - he immediately went into the Fuck!-Shit!-Piss!-Damn that hurts!!! dance on TV.

I'm told it feels like getting hit with a hammer, which is probably about right. The good news is that you're alive, and the bad news is that time seems to slow to a stop for you while your own personal concept of pain is redefined.

I'm thinking schizophrenia. He's in the right age range.

Yeah, and his actions tend to support that theory. The symptoms should manifest themselves over the next few days.

Just so long as the people who are carrying are held responsible for voluntary manslaughter/murder if they have an "accident" with their weapon that kills someone else.

Madjack,

He actually had to get sprayed in the face with Pepper spray and he said that sucked a lot. They told the class it was so they knew what it would feel like if they ever had to use it and got it on themselves in the process.

Then he also volunteered to get hit with a Taser. He said after getting hit with the projectiles the only thing he remembers is waking up on the ground drooling on himself.

Westfield does NOT have any no-guns postings on any door of the mall. The code of conduct is old and does not meet the states posting requirement. Most CHL holders carry at the mall.

You see dumb fuck coward, it IS Rave that posts no gun signs on the THEATER doors NOT the mall.

Back to sucking your thumb anony coward.

Americans do a great job of proclaiming our collective shock and outrage when some nut for the gazillionth time opens fire on a crowd of innocent bystanders at a movie theater, a college, a high school, a museum, or a post office, but at some point, if we aren't going to do anything about it, maybe it's time we stopped the charade of pretending we actually care.

Sensor what should we do? Disarm all the citizens?

I was wondering the same thing. What could be done to prevent a situation like this from ever happening?

I don't have the answers You'll never be able to everyone's guns and besides that would be unconstitutional. Maybe we could make a bit harder for the crazies to get guns however.

We create new laws all the the time to make it harder to vote when there is no/little evidence of voter fraud. How about making a few more laws to weed out or slow down a crazy or two...

You cannot legislate away the actions of the crazy or the compelled. People with such proclivities are like natural disasters and are inherently unpredictable.

At best we can minimize our risk by being hyper-vigilant, but the tradeoff is that we spend an inordinate amount of time not enjoying life. Unfortunately, even the best prepared folks sometimes cross paths with a tornado, an earthquake, or a James Holmes, and other than locking ourselves in bunkers, we have to realize that life can be quite deadly sometimes.

Better to enjoy what you have while you have it.

You can't do that, everyone has a right to be armed to the teeth at all times, even if they are batshit insane. Second Amendment! DON'T TREAD ON ME! HERPTY DERP DERP!

I was thinking about the 6,000 rounds Holmes accumulated. It might have been possible to track purchases but if he bought in small quantities he might not have been found. He had the 100 round magazine that might have been tracked (who needs a 100 round magazine, though I bet it would be fun to rip off 100 rounds at a range). And a lot of people do not want to be on the government's radar for whatever reason (even if it might keep the rest of us safe).

I noticed yesterday at Westfield that some stores had no gun signs allowed in their windows but the main doors to the mall did not have the signs

July 19, 2012 Gizmodo story titled The Secret Online Weapons Store That’ll Sell Anyone Anything

Holy hell. That writer conveniently ignored the fact that TOR is also used by activists and journalists in dangerous countries.

More from the gizmodo story:

Going p-word so I'll use small font. I predict AZ Sen John McNut and his friends will propose over-reaching legislation to regulate Internet activity in the name of safety.

Start educating the populace about mental illness. Have the government fund treatment for mental illness instead of, say, the US military.

I've realized that "discussing" guns is a fruitless effort. People get so worked up that it is impossible to have a rational discussion. I seem to remember having an argument on TT with the notorious GuestZero (where's he been?) wherein he posited that he thought that no one (not even felons and the mentally ill) should be prohibited from owning any type of firearm they want, including machine guns and rocket launchers. I gave up at that point.

That is a little nuts, felons and nut cases should not be allowed to have a weapon.

[iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8QjZY3WiO9s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen]</iframe>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

Interesting but you can hear the bias in the reporters voice.

When are you going to surrender your weapons, then?

Going p-word so I'll use small font. I predict AZ Sen John McNut and his friends will propose over-reaching legislation to regulate Internet activity in the name of safety.

I have this certificate here for you for Today's Captain Obvious Award, jr.

Seriously. We'll have a big push for the reinstatement of the "assault weapons ban" AND something that makes SOPA, PIPA, PATRIOT, and DMCA look like a bill for a leash law in comparison. And if it happens to take place under Mitt "NO PORN!" Rmoney, you can throw in the Communications Decency Act to it as well.

I sure hope you don't even have a sharp stick Coward. You sound more and more like the crazy guy in the house at the dead end of the street that children are told not to go trick or treating at on Halloween.

I'd rather be Boo Radley than you, Bob, I mean Liney.

I think people need to be more aware of who is around them and what they're up to.
I don't care if the people next door have a basement full of guns. I do care if they catch animals and torture them on a regular basis. Not normal and could lead to something worse.
I also think that if you cross that mental line where you think about hurting a bunch of people, no matter what the reason, you'll find something to do it. Whether it's a gun, acid, a bomb, whatever. You'll get it and you'll do it.
If more people knew this guy and maybe heard he was "nuts" or angry about something, or whatever, they might have reported him. Then again, what can anyone do to someone who "hasn't" committed a crime yet? Nothing. Like domestic violence. You can get an order of protection against someone, but until they actually do something to you, nothing much is done to them. Then it's too late.
Sad tragedy.

I have an interesting neighbor. Retired from teaching due to disability. The disability was that he was deemed a danger to others by qualified psychiatrists as a result of displaying hostility and paranoia while teaching. Made threats regarding the administration and some other teachers. This neighbor tells this freely about himself. He knows everything there is to know about guns. Owns countless weapons of all types. He makes his own ammo. His house is an unpenetrable fortress (lives alone). All the windows are covered. Won't use a cell phone or discuss much in the way of private matters on a land line because he's convinced others have the ability to evesdrop on his conversations. Went to lunch with him one day and on the way there he made his hand into a gun and practiced shooting at drivers who were in his opinion driving discourteously. One of these days.....................

yep, sorry to say that he will be in news for some reason and it won't be for citizen of the year

Holland - "Owns countless weapons of all types."

so I'd have to assume these weapons were illegally obtained because all the times Ive bought firearms, the form I have to fill out asks questions about psychological issues and things like that. if that's the case why not turn him in?

Went to lunch with him one day...

I'd guess he bought lunch and Holland is hoping for a repeat.

If he lives alone in his very own fortress (or not) why don't you suggest he get a nice dog? That might even him out a little. Otherwise he hasn't broken any laws, has he?

Sure, the purchase forms and CCW application ask you if you have mental health issues, billy, but as madjack pointed out, there is really no mechanism to verify much of this due to HIPPA regulations. You could be batshit crazy and purchase a firearm just so long as you are cognizant enough to check the box marked "nope, everything is just fine in this brain, sir, and there are no voices telling me to slaughter innocent bystanders."

Actually, it is just ____ Yes and ✓ No , but you get the point. :-(

Here are the relevant sanity questions asked on the Ohio CCW application:

• Have you ever been adjudicated as mentally incompetent or mentally defective?
• Have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
• Have you ever been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital or facility for purposes other
  than observation?
• Have you ever been adjudicated as mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated as
  incompetent to manage your own affairs or ever been committed to a mental institution?

Madjack raises an important issue: it is one thing to be paranoid, but if Mr. Loner just wants to be left alone and is not breaking laws, there is not much that can be done, especially if he is otherwise competent in demeanor and appearance (keeps his yard up, practices hygiene, does not greet visitors with a loaded Remington Model 887 Nitro Mag shotgun, and so on).

Also, pestering the loner is like pouring water on a hornet's nest: you might stir up a situation that would otherwise just be stable all by itself. Heck, even a loveable curmudgeon like me has days when door-to-door salespersons, religious zealots, or other unwanted visitors who cannot read (or choose to ignore) the "No Solicitors" sign incur my indignant wrath. I cannot imagine how weirded out a really private person would get with strangers showing up at the door.

The fact that he was forced to retire on disability due to being a danger to others is a little concerning though, wouldn't you think?

I don't think holland's concern is only the way he lives, but also the fact that he has been evaluated as a potential threat to others.

Guess I don't blame holland and her husband for having a friendly enough relationship with the guy to go to lunch with him...perhaps it will help spare them if he ever snaps?

(^ A little tongue in cheek, but there is probably some truth to it.)

So most of us agree that felons and the mentally ill shouldn’t be able to buy guns. So how do you pass sensible laws that keep them from buying?

For others, letting every nutjob in America load up on automatic weapons is inimical to the “security of a free state.” For me, people can’t be free if they are constantly at the mercy of an armed nut. Ironically, the reaction to the tragedy in Aurora isn’t to limit the ability of crazies to purchase arms. Instead, theaters are going to limit the freedom of patrons to wear costumes. Let’s be clear: costumes. Costumes didn’t kill people. A nut with a semi-automatic assault rifle, killed people. But we apparently can’t limit the ability of nutjobs to buy guns, so we’re going to limit the ability of free people in a “free state” to wear costumes. Some underpaid usher at a movie theatre is going to decide whether or not your pentacle, or your Goth make-up, or maybe just your beard renders you unable to see a movie. Because we can’t keep nutjobs from buying automatic weapons. And you can now surrender your bodily freedom and allow, again, some underpaid usher at a movie theatre to grope you in order to allow you into the theatre.

The TSA and the underwear and shoe bombers want some words with you.

"So most of us agree that felons and the mentally ill shouldn’t be able to buy guns." - I am of the OPINION that non-violent felons should have their firearm rights restored to them at some point. Because you made one mistake in your life you should not be punished forever.

The term "assault weapon" is a scare tactic. All guns are "assault weapons", they are all designed to deliver hot lead at lethal speeds. I do not own any "black rifles" or anything that Toby Hoover would call an "assault weapon", nor do I feel that I need to have anything that would hold a 100 round magazine defend my family or tag a tasty bambi. The issue in labeling a gun an "assault weapon" is that once you do that any gun that the Brady Bunch doesn't like magically slips into the "assault weapon" category so it can be demonized. Those groups have no other goal but to rid private firearm ownership, that's no hyperbole. I could careless about owning a AR-15 as it's not worth the money for something to shoot at the range, they are in excess of 1,500 dollars, but if American gun owners where to make a compromise the Brady Bunch moves the goal post again and again. I heard one of their talking heads on CNN this weekend saying there was no need to own a 12 gauge shotgun.

The fact that they have no goal but complete removal of personal firearm rights ala Chicago style is the issue. There are sensible gun owners but we will not give up ALL our rights.

I don't know the exact year my neighbor retired. I first met him in 1990. He had been "retired" quite sometime before that date. I doubt if he has a CCW, but I can't say for certain. The local police are well aware of this individual, his fortified house and extensive gun and ammo collection. They maintain a dialog with him. He freely shares that information. He does attend local Council meetings from time to time. My husband has been allowed to see some of the collection.

I know that he frequents gun shows. But I have no idea how he goes about obtaining his guns, except that he does buy from private individuals. He advised my husband on the purchase of an antique rifle just recently. My husband is not a gun afficiando or collector by any means. But an old friend was in need of money and offered him the rifle in exchange for quick cash. Our neighbor established the value and authenticity of the weapon.

As far as feeling he's a threat? Well, yes, the potential is high. He's not a complete hermit. He does socialize, mostly with other gun afficiandos. But there is always that paranoia coupled with the hostility, mostly about the government, that is a concern. We don't shun him, although it would be easy. He's always been very nice to us. I think the intersting thing is that he has some self awareness about his hostility, but not as much about the paranoia. He can be quite likable at times.

Suddenly I feel as though I dont live in a peaceful country. That I should be hypervigilant, always watching around me, looking to mentally note exits and avoid being boxed in because I might come under fire. Its like what I imagine living in a war zone might be. This is no way to live.

The extensive gun and ammo collection doesn't bother me in the least. The targeting gestures at other drivers is a sign to me of an easy ability to dehumanize and disassociate. This bothers me. That's a sociopathic trait that can't be explained like living alone or being a little wary of the government might be. Heck, I live alone. I wouldn't trust the government with my lawn mower. But I don't make little guns with my hand to aim at people.

holland, the thought crossed my mind about whether I need to warn my kids about what to do if they are in a situation like that.*

It would have been unfathomable to me that I might need to prep my kids about how to behave in case of mass gunfire.

(Sure, my kids wouldn't be at a midnight showing of a PG-13 movie, but who's to say that a similar incident couldn't happen at a daytime screening of an animated kids movie? <shudders> )

Hard to balance teaching a kid proper precautions vs. making them afraid of their surroundings.

Yeah, I have to admit that the finger-gun behavior is a bit weird, justread, especially in dealing with idiots on the road. Heck, I rarely even give the one-finger salute anymore; I find it funnier (and less likely to exacerbate a potential road rager) to pull up next to them at the light and sarcastically smile & clap, or make the universal hand motions for cell phone use or drinking, depending on what it appears the the errant driver is doing.

Or (more likely these days in my mellower late middle age) just ignore the road idiots, since: a) lousy drivers are everywhere; b) no real damage was done except to my self-righteousness; and c) life is too short to stay mad at some moron on the road.

As far as feeling he's a threat? Well, yes, the potential is high.

Why don't you read what you've written a few times and listen to yourself. You are vilifying a neighbor who is a whole lot friendlier than I'd ever be and who has helped you and your husband out with the purchase of a firearm. What are you going to do for an encore here? Circulate a petition asking the man to make you feel more secure?

Here's a reality check: Your feelings are not someone else's responsibility.

If this man, who has broken no law, gets tired of living with a group of spiteful, neurotic paranoids and decides to move, please send him to Sylvania Township. I would hope that he'd fit right in.

I rarely even give the one-finger salute anymore...

Which I did last night to an idiot who was tailgating me. The fool went absolutely bat shit ballistic, screaming at me to pull over and pounding on the ceiling of his car, then punching the dashboard. I went about my business, unworried.

I did, however, shoot him a few times with my deadly finger gun. .44 magnum with exploding bullets.

I used to drive about 60 miles a week and was easily bothered by the idiots on the road. As if I could fix them or something. Then I switched jobs five years ago and I drive 600 miles a week. I fairly quickly lost interest in the idiots, lost the feeling that it had anything to do with me, and lost the willingness to turn my commute into a rage. There's just too many idiots and the daily exposure is too great. Once in a while one will do something soooo stupid that I can't help do a little somethin. Like a few weeks ago when a couple of biker dudes became (I guess) offended because I accidentally broke up their parade of 3 or 4 bikes and a trike on I-75 in Michigan by trying to do 70mph in the fast lane. When being followed by a couple of overheated biker dudes, a good windshield washer pump is a wonderful biker countermeasure, come to find out.

Instead, theaters are going to limit the freedom of patrons to wear costumes. Let’s be clear: costumes.

After reading/watching some of the hysterical overreactions in many parts of the media universe on both sides, I think I'm done.

So here's my solution: I'm to the point where I think we should get to the real root cause of this tragedy: superhero movies. Ban them. Ban them entirely. Obviously, they are a trigger to the mentally ill and must be curtailed. The evidence is all around us my friends:

This Colorado nut thinks he's "The Joker".

How many children have (allegedly) jumped off a porch/roof thinking thinking they are Superman and could fly?

You have people running around Seattle as 'superheroes' fighting crime in costumes.

Hey, how's this--a World Superhero Registry with a custom costume makers and a (completely hilarious) blog!

-----

With the right training, properly equipped and supported, the Real-Life Superhero community could truly become a thorn in the side of evildoers worldwide!

The Real-Life Superhero community also faces a lack of organization and verification. We need common goals and a screening process to separate the wannabees and jokers from the serious crusaders.

-----

Serious crusaders...uh-huh. Not to mention the obviously mentally ill who converge on ComicCon every year. I mean, holy shit--look what they wear. Obviously ready to go off at a blink of an eye and drop 20 people...

Oh yeah. Since all the solutions I see in reaction to a completely insane guy doing a terrible insane thing are "ban this, regulate that, outlaw more things (as if there weren't laws on the books about shooting people, booby-trapping an apartment, etc.), turn over more of your privacy, blah blah blah".....I say just go to the source and quit making these movies that obviously exacerbate mental illness. No fun for anyone because a completely insane guy did an insane thing.

Yeah, seems about right...and there are people in this country who would line up behind that completely stupid idea right now in the vainglorious hope of "safety".

Did you see the photo of him in court this morning? He looks like Ronald McDonald.

The bright red 'fro was not what I was expecting to see, based on the photos of him as a dark haired man this weekend.

Wonder if the hairstyle change was all part of the planning process, or just a coincidence?

OHT It is time that this country has a conversation about gun violence. It seems like the pro-gun types feel that there is nothing to talk about - because of the 2nd amendment. It seems that many of them feel that "The right of the people . . ." and therefore there is nothing more to say.
But 12,000 people die every year due to gun violence. No other country is even close. I'm not proposing that you all turn in your guns, but at what point are we as a country going to recognize that this situation is completely out of control and explore the options before us in order to make improvement?

Progress 22

I agree with you.

My husband, a lifetime NRA member, agrees that a ban on assault rifles with clips of 100 or more bullets, have no use for the hunter or skeet or trap shooter. That could be a start.

Progress - 1.2 million people around the world die from drowning, please ban pools as it appears they are more of a public safety risk.

Lots of reasonable firearm owners would not be opposed to coming to the table and discussing the firearms laws and culture in our country. The problem being we are met at the table by Toby Hoover,Jesse Jackson and Mayor Bloomberg who are for total dismemberment. They don't wish to hear any answer but "ok we surrender". How can you not expect the pro-gun side to not as far to the right as possible when they is the only answer they hear from the other side.

BTW I do not support the NRA with my dollars.

Can we talk about violence in our culture? Or does it have to be "gun violence?" Because I don't really see it as a gun problem. For the first time in history, Amish people are jumping each other and jacking their beards. Is this "scissor violence?" When a group of kids drag another kid into the bathroom at a public school, hang him upside down over a toilet is a "Swirly violence?" It is violence. Sociopathy. A hardness of the heart. Knives, cars, baseball bats, fists, guns, poison... whatever. The problem, IMO is an increasing population of people who have no compassion, a break down of family units, desensitization of kids to violence through popular culture, games, movies, the glorification of violence in gang and ghetto culture, the increase in the number of people with nothing to lose, and a crisis of parenting and behavior modeling. The availability of guns is not as new as the rest of the list.

You will only ever succeed in disarming the people who play by the rules who are not converted to criminals by your rule change.

Magazines larger than 30 rounds are already illegal in a few places, including Ohio. Next suggestion?

I'm not proposing that you all turn in your guns,

I do not own a single firearm, nor have I ever. Not my thing.

...but at what point are we as a country going to recognize that this situation is completely out of control and explore the options before us in order to make improvement?

How many more gun laws do we need? And things "aren't getting worse"--statistically, they are relatively constant over the past 30+ years. Even with all the gun control laws that have been passed in that time:

Deaths by Firearms, 1979–2003

Current data also hovers around 30,000 gun-related deaths per year. However, realize these figures also include suicides, which in most cases would happen with or without a gun...and account for about half of the figure. Hell, most European gun control havens have a higher suicide rate than the U.S. Point being--saying in effect "it's so much worse/'out of control' NOW" is not accurate.

It seems that many of them feel that "The right of the people . . ." and therefore there is nothing more to say.

There isn't. Sorry the Constitution impedes your worldview. If you'd like to change the Bill of Rights, here's the process in Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

Yeah, it's hard to do. The Founders intended it that way.

We have gun control laws deemed constitutional (as, for example, "time, place, and manner" restrictions on speech are constitutional under the First amendment). We have state gun laws, local gun laws, federal gun laws...in fact, a whole federal bureaucracy (ATF)...and you are seriously telling me that more is necessary for a situation that is "completely out of control".

But those laws apply to law-abiding citizens. Criminals gonna be criminals whether they have a gun, a knife, a samurai sword, switchblade, beer bottle, ballpoint pen, ballpeen hammer, stick, spear, ninja throwing star, poison darts, big fat hands suitable for strangling someone, or a particularly thick volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica. And you don't need to wait three days to get the majority of those items. In other words, blame the criminal.

Ok here are some changes I propose –

• The sale of high capacity clips would be illegal nationally.

• To buy a gun you can’t be on a “do not buy list” To be on the list –
  + Convicted of non-violent felony in the last 6 years.
  + Convicted of a violent felony in the last 15 years
  + A Psychiatrists puts you on the list (two years - renewable).
  + You must be a US citizen or permanent resident
  + A citizen would be able contest their presence on the list and challenge it in court.

• These rules would apply to anyone selling/buying a gun regardless whether it was a private transaction or through a retailer.

No additional specific or types of guns would be band.

Convicted of non-violent felony in the last 6 years.
+ Convicted of a violent felony in the last 15 years

I thought non-violent or violent felons already couldn't legally own firearms? Is that not the case?

No additional specific or types of guns would be band.

...banned.

Dude...you've gotta get that iPad under control :)

But those laws apply to law-abiding citizens. Criminals gonna be criminals whether they have a gun, a knife, a samurai sword, switchblade, beer bottle, ballpoint pen, ballpeen hammer, stick, spear, ninja throwing star, poison darts, big fat hands suitable for strangling someone, or a particularly thick volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica. And you don't need to wait three days to get the majority of those items. In other words, blame the criminal.

Agreed.

I am so totally not a gun person. (Never used one, don't want to use one, don't want one in my home.)

But a nut like this guy from Colorado probably would have figured out a way to cause some type of mayhem even if he hadn't been able to get his hands on a gun. (Bombs, arson, etc.)

Scary stuff. :(

There are already laws against murder, yet those laws didn't stop James Holmes. I'm not sure he would have paid a whole lot of attention to different gun laws either.

(Yes, I understand the argument that making it more difficult for a person like him to get a gun might slow him down or keep him from following out his plan. That argument sounds logical...the problem is that these types of people aren't exactly logical, rational thinkers either.)

Norway has fairly strict gun control laws, at least by U.S. standards, but that did not stop Anders Behring Breivik from shooting up/blowing up a bunch of people in Oslo and Utøya last year. Laws make people feel good, but when a lunatic wants to kill, even Draconian weapons laws are useless.

"There isn't. Sorry the Constitution impedes your worldview."

See, that's the problem. We've wrestled as a nation with every other amendment (and the 2nd as well). The amendments are not the gospel (if you believe in that sort of thing).
Btw, it seems that many folks can have a reasonable discussion. But when people use statements like "that ain't never gonna help" or something to that effect, it does not add value to the conversation; it ends it.

People can get their hands on whatever they want, and criminals will be willing to supply it. This is not new, and it is not limited to guns. How'd that whole prohibition thing go?

There are 20,000 gun laws on the books now.

The problem is apathy, sociopathy, and violence in our culture. You would have a better chance making kindness compulsory than selectively removing weapons from the very people who shouldn't have them.

Villify? That's a laugh madjack. I have simply reported and described his behaviours, life style and had lunch ( actually on more than one occaision) with him. It was trained psychiatrists who, upon evaluation, deemed him a serious enough problem to allow him to retire on disability rather than have him in the classroom. All this he self reports. Its not unreasonable to conclude he could be a threat. Professionals already have.

Perhaps you have some hypersensitivity because the description hits a little too close to home?

But when people use statements like "that ain't never gonna help" or something to that effect, it does not add value to the conversation; it ends it.

I think it may be more helpful to figure out ways to prevent/identify/treat mental illness than coming up with more gun laws.

(As an added bonus, it might help catch the individuals who's weapon of choice is something other than a gun.)

What if we can't actually control everything about our world and the people in it? What if free will is the order of the day, and people who may seem reasonable enough for years one day exhibit the manifested symptoms of serious mental illness and turn violently anti-social? What if there are naturally bad/sociopathic people, who for whatever reason decide that abject evil and selfishness is the order of the day, the more dead the better? What if no laws can really prevent the Charles Whitman from climbing the hypothetical stairs of their own hypothetical Texas clock tower? When somebody no longer cares about the ramifications of their actions, legislation is irrelevant. In a week it will have been 46 years since the first modern day mass shooting. 46 years later, what is the final solution to a psycho with a gun? A sane person with a gun, sometimes wearing a badge.

Holland: What did you mean by "one of these days....." Did you mean one of these days he will get rid of all his guns? Or was it slightly more, well... villifying?

justread, I agree that we can't control every single person. No matter what measures are taken, there will be a few individuals who slip through the cracks.

But, perhaps by providing better care for the mentally ill, it could prevent at least some harm.

Not even just talking about mass murder situations, but also situations like the UT student who was stabbed while walking down the sidewalk in broad daylight.

How many times after a murder occurred have we heard the perpetrator and/or the perpetrator's family say that they asked for...even begged for...mental health treatment, but were denied access?

It's sad when the people who are actually asking for help can't always find it. Especially if there end up being tragic consequences.

Of course, as you said, none of that will stop the person who snaps and reacts immediately with no prior symptoms.

Frankly I meant that one of these days I would not at all be surprised to hear that his hostility and paranoia, coupled with his intense gun hobby, caused him to act out using a gun or guns. If that's vilifying I'm guilty.

Btw, it seems that many folks can have a reasonable discussion. But when people use statements like "that ain't never gonna help" or something to that effect, it does not add value to the conversation; it ends it.

I can't tell if you're aiming that statement at me, but I'll play. I wouldn't want to "end" the conversation (you know, simply by stating that the Second Amendment exists).

First, I never said it couldn't be discussed. What I did say is that the Second Amendment says what it says and guarantees what it guarantees--the right of the citizenry to bear (fire)arms. If you'd like to change that, there is a constitutional process in Article V. Gather the support necessary, change the minds needed, and get it done. If not, pound sand. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about this.

However, you ended the conversation by your answer--suggesting that anyone that disagrees with you that the "situation is out of control" and, essentially it has never been this bad is simply unreasonable. That is false. I'm willing to discuss how we enforce the laws currently on the books. I'm not sure "something has to be done" other than enforce what's already there, given the statistical evidence of zero growth of firearms deaths/injury over 30-40 years and in (hyper)reaction to one lone nut (holy shit, did you see that guy in court today???).

So, 12,000 deaths per year, and yet...

1.) How many more gun laws do we need, considering the amount we already have on the books?

2.) How many laws do we have against murder, mayhem, rape, terroristic threatening, stalking, etc. and how well do those work? At last glance...they don't prevent horrible things from ever happening--yet I'm sure they deter. It seems like people want 100%--and laws don't guarantee that. Once you have so many laws, you do reach a point of diminishing returns.

3.) Responsible gun owners have licenses, get training, and usually can spot who is an irresponsible owner. This shooter, "gangsta" shooters, and other criminals don't give a shit about any of this. What part of your discussion is going to affect them by passing more laws or "doing something"?

How many tax laws are there and how many tax cheats exist? How many regulations govern _______ (name the area), yet how many violations are found every year? My point is--how much is enough? Enforce what is already on the books if you want. But more? A waste of time, because there is nothing particularly novel about this crime or many crimes committed by guns. They are perpetrated by criminals, plain and simple.

Holland: No biggie, not trying to be adversarial. But I did get a sense that you thought it was only a matter of time before he snaps. Hopefully it is just a combination of concerns rather than a foregone conclusion, of course.

"Gun control" laws are the epitome of stupidity.
HistoryMike said it correctly, "You cannot legislate away the actions of the crazy or the compelled"
You can't stop someone who doesn't care about law, with a law.
How many guns were used in the Oklahoma City bombing?

That's vilifying, and yes, you are guilty. If you're telling the truth here, then your behavior is more than a little two-faced. You treat the man in a friendly fashion, have lunch with him and your poor husband gets firearm advice from him. Then you make insinuations and snide comments behind your mask - anonymity being what it is. If you don't like him or don't trust him, then don't hang around with him. He's probably a live and let live sort who would cheerfully ignore you given half a chance.

How many times after a murder occurred have we heard the perpetrator and/or the perpetrator's family say that they asked for...even begged for...mental health treatment, but were denied access?

It happens much more often than the public hears about. In a situation like this one the commercial news media howls to high heaven about the tragedy and whips both side of the gun control crowd into unrest. We haven't heard much of anything about the devastating fires out in Colorado or our government's inability to put out a large fire due to lack of equipment and manpower.

Many families ask for help for their mentally ill family members, but the funding isn't there and neither is the help. Then something happens, and it's too late. And worse, the media doesn't give a damn.

madjack

Mental health has taken a beating from lack of finances from the federal government down to the city level. Way too many people do not realize mental illnesses are real and hurt more than the person who is ill.

I will vote for the Mental Health levy when it comes up this fall.

I have family in the mental health field and I can tell you there are more dangerous people out there needing treatment than I've ever heard of before.
I'm talking about those who are legit scary to hear about. Those types of people need to be on meds and kept on meds. Angry, intelligent, resourceful people. I am surprised that we don't hear about more violent crimes from those who have been unsupervised due to cuts. Mental health won't become a major topic until someone famous loses a family member due to a crime committed by one of them. Sad, but if a politician's family member would have been in that theater, there would be bills being introduced today for funding of mental health. Instead of Obama spending all the money to fly out there with secret service, press, etc., the government should have taken the money and given it to a mental health program.
We need to not only have programs to supervise these mentally ill people, but also punish those who commit the crimes. Not make more laws about guns, knives, etc.

I will vote for the Mental Health levy when it comes up this fall.

So will I.

...there are more dangerous people out there needing treatment than I've ever heard of before.

Truth. However, I'd like to point out that the dangerous mentally ill are the ones you never see or hear about until it's far and away too late in the game. That dangerous segment of the mentally ill population is actually some small fraction of one percent. The rest of the mentally ill population are society's most vulnerable. They can't defend themselves and very few people will take up their cause. These are the people like David Eberflus, who was horribly abused by eight boys because they were bored. David was mentally ill and he couldn't fight back.

Most of the mentally ill population are like David, but then there are the very few that are not. And, since crazy ain't stupid, they know how to navigate society pretty well.

Even with my interest in recreation, I'd rather see the mental health levy pass than the recreation. BTW, I'm not voting for the recreation levy or any recreation levy until someone produces an expense and cost report on where the money goes and for what exactly. As far as I know now, it's another department filled with waste fraud and abuse and no one is held accountable.

BTW it's not only "backwoods whites" who carry firearms and appreciate their nature. Gun owenership has crossed party and the Mason Dixon line more than most people realize in the last 20 years.

Ice-T Defends Gun Rights: "The Last Form Of Defense Against Tyranny"

Ice-T: Well, I'll give up my gun when everybody does. Doesn't that make sense? If there were guns here, would you want to be the only person without one?

Krishnan Guru-Murthy, anchor, Channel 4 News: So do you carry guns routinely at home?

Ice-T: Yeah, it's legal in the United States. It's part of our Constitution. You know, the right to bear arms is because that's the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It's to protect yourself from the police.

Anchor: And do you see any link between that and these sorts of incidents (Aurora)?

Ice-T: No. Nah. Not really really. You know what I'm saying, if somebody wants to kill people, you know, they don't need a gun to do it.

Anchor: It makes it easier though, doesn't it?

Ice-T: Not really. You can strap explosives on your body, they do that all the time.

On anti-gun laws: "That's not going to change anything. The Untied States is based on guns, you know."

July 20, 2012 - Forbes - Using Twitter To Identify Psychopaths

Cornell doc: Hungry like the wolf: A word-pattern analysis of the language of psychopaths

Upcoming DefCon talk: Can Twitter Really Help Expose Psychopath Killers' Traits?

Do you think petty tyrants like Bashar al-Assad could have their way with their populace if the people where armed? You think teams of hit squads could walk liberally through through their towns if the people could shoot back?

No they couldn't stand up to bombing raids and strafing fire from helicopters but to do either of those makes worldwide headlines pretty quick these days. Big brother can only kill little brother for so long when little brother can fight back.

"Magazines larger than 30 rounds are already illegal in a few places, including Ohio. Next suggestion?"

Not illegal to own, not illegal to sell. I have several. Clelands sells high capacity mags over 30 rnds.

Illegal to use. So my Glock, loaded with a 15 rnd clip, sits right next to the fully loaded 33 rnd mag.

If we are going to be all technical, the law states "in excess of 31." Functionally, they are illegal. Clelands may sell large cap handgun magazines. Go in and ask for a Thompson replica with a 100-round drum magazine. Tell me how that goes. You can't use it. What is the point? It's just gonna be another charge if God forbid something bad happens. I'd rather defend myself with a legal setup. While I don't agree with the law, I would not choose to load a magazine that I know will make my firearm illegal the moment that I click the magazine catch. Just one of many preferences. Like not holding my handguns sideways when firing, not leaving weapons unsecured, not calling magazines "clips," etc. Maybe I just think that if you need 33 rounds of 9mm, you are in the wrong line of work or you really need to work on your skills. Those poor people in Cincinnati must have to go to the range every week. They are limited to only 10 rounds.

jr

Using similar criteria to roughly filter posters on TT might be interesting.

I'm chuckling over the fact that using periods is a possible sign of a psychopath.

Yeah... well... we don't think those headshrinkers are all that bright anyway, just because they have a degree doesn't make them smart. Just look who Main Lady goes out with on Friday night!

Okay, maybe that didn't come out right. But you know what I mean! Admit it!!