Mass Shooting at Colo. Movie Theater, 14 People Dead

[Michael_C]

What’s incredible is that this happened in a gun free zone.

Didn’t the shooter know this was a gun free zone?

Everyone must have been shocked that a criminal with guns would target a gun free zone.

 

[scipio337]

So, which one of our 2nd Amendment supporting foumers would like to take up the task of defending the legality of a 200-round magazine for a semi automatic assault rifle (or a 200 round magazine for anything)?

Not just that it can be legal, but why it should be legal in the first place.

Because of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

“Hunting” doesn’t appear in the text.

Perhaps one of our forumers who supports “reasonable gun control” can tell us the difference in lethality between an AR-15 ("assault rifle) chambered in 0.233 Remington, and a .22 Long Rifle round, and why one should be illegal, and the other not.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Because of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

“Hunting” doesn’t appear in the text.

Perhaps one of our forumers who supports “reasonable gun control” can tell us the difference in lethality between an AR-15 ("assault rifle) chambered in 0.223 Remington, and a .22 Long Rifle round, and why one should be illegal, and the other not.

Exactly.

 

[Cider]

I swear every time some nut case does something crazy people want to limit the rights of law abiding citizens.

 

[ringil]

I notice that folks here are speaking of mental illness.

Firstly, this isn’t established. Statistically the mentally ill are no more violent than the general populact.

Secondly, I believe that this guy, like many serial killers may simply be a sociopath, which isn’t a mental illness, but is a personality disorder- and does not respond to treatment.

A religious person might describe a sociopath as “evil”, not ill.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

I notice that folks here are speaking of mental illness.

Firstly, this isn’t established. Statistically the mentally ill are no more violent than the general populact.

Secondly, I believe that this guy, like many serial killers may simply be a sociopath, which isn’t a mental illness, but is a personality disorder- and does not respond to treatment.

A religious person might describe a sociopath as “evil”, not ill.

I don’t think a sociopath is necessarily evil. There are sociopaths out there that are non-violent and reasonably ethical people. They just make a decision to not act on certain desires that they may have because they understand that certain things are wrong, even if they don’t have an emotional “pang” about them being wrong.

A sociopath can decide they are not going to kill. Only the person that acts on their muderous urges would I consider evil.

 

[Kenny_Kamel]

I notice that folks here are speaking of mental illness.

Firstly, this isn’t established. Statistically the mentally ill are no more violent than the general populact.

Secondly, I believe that this guy, like many serial killers may simply be a sociopath, which isn’t a mental illness, but is a personality disorder- and does not respond to treatment.

A religious person might describe a sociopath as “evil”, not ill.

FWIW, I’ve been reading quite a few different articles about contributing factors to this incident. Mr. Holmes seemed to be intellectualy adept but socially inept and was failing in his young adulthood. This lead to him dropping out of a PhD program and delving into illicit activity (ie pornography addiction, bombmaking, stockpiling high powered weapons & ammo). I don’t want to get into an argument based in relativism but whether he is/was mentally ill or has a personality disorder, etc this is the primary reason that lead him to do what he did.

People that actually knew Holmes report that he was frustrated with how his life was turning out, quite common among males in their 20’s (I should know I just turned 30). We hate to reflect upon our failures and are often to prideful to see things clearly as well as strive to rectify our issues. If one becomes severely depressed they can spiral down until all they have is anger, hatred, and a vast slew of negative emotions. They may come to desire a release and unfortunately in this instance the outlet was this horrific occurance.

I’ll leave a link to an article I’ve come across that seems to tell as much as anything I’ve read about Mr. Holmes thus far:

latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-movie-shooting-james-holmes-20120722,0,2746583.story

 

[pepipop]

FWIW, I’ve been reading quite a few different articles about contributing factors to this incident. Mr. Holmes seemed to be intellectualy adept but socially inept and was failing in his young adulthood. This lead to him dropping out of a PhD program and delving into illicit activity (ie pornography addiction, bombmaking, stockpiling high powered weapons & ammo). I don’t want to get into an argument based in relativism but whether he is/was mentally ill or has a personality disorder, etc this is the primary reason that lead him to do what he did.

People that actually knew Holmes report that he was frustrated with how his life was turning out, quite common among males in their 20’s (I should know I just turned 30). We hate to reflect upon our failures and are often to prideful to see things clearly as well as strive to rectify our issues. If one becomes severely depressed they can spiral down until all they have is anger, hatred, and a vast slew of negative emotions. They may come to desire a release and unfortunately in this instance the outlet was this horrific occurance.

I’ll leave a link to an article I’ve come across that seems to tell as much as anything I’ve read about Mr. Holmes thus far:

latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-movie-shooting-james-holmes-20120722,0,2746583.story

I’d say he was most likely self-prescribed possibly over the internet or through a doctor, with prescription drugs and that put him over the edge. The columbine killers were both on SSRi’s and their personalities changed after taking the drugs.

 

[jenkiedad]

Apparently,he purchased a ticket,walked into theatre with everyon else. He then left through an emergency exit,unoticed,propped the door open,went out to his car to gear up and then reentered just as movie was starting.

I realize this thread has been going off on a gun control tangent, but this information about how the shooter was able to bring his weaponry into the theater hasn’t really been discussed in depth.

There are 2 items of information I picked up on:

1. The theater had posted a sign prohbiting patrons that have a concealed carry permit to bring a gun into the theater. Obviously, this only affects law abiding people.
2. The shooter was able to go out through a direct exit door to the exterior, keep the door propped open, go to his car, retrieve his weapons and then return through the same exit door.

If a theater is going to prohibit concealed carry permit holders, then the theater owners have a responsibility to monitor those that are entering the building. In multi-plex type movie theaters where I live, patrons are required to exit out of the theater through the lobby or at the end of a a long corridor extending from the lobby. The actual exit doors to the outside in each theater will work, but they are alarmed. If somebody opens the door, then an alarm goes off. If the door is propped open, then the alarm would continue to stay in alarm. I have heard nothing reported that would indicate that these exit doors were alarmed.

Normally, the security system for the theater would provide an indication to somebody in management that one of these doors had been opened and then lead someone on staff to investigate.

After each movie, during cleaning by the theater staff, it is normal procedure to make sure these doors are secure and unobstructed. Do we know if this was done?

Obviously, those that were harmed during this event should be receiving some explanation from the theater on just what protections they had in place and if they were working or not.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Training and the need for more armament than the normal citizen. You dont need an assault rifle. A Shotgun and a handgun should be more than enough firepower to defend your family from an attack that will never happen anyway. I managed to make it to my 60th birthday having owned or even shot a gun. The only thing I have had to protect my family from was MTV

1. I have more training than the “normal citizen”…whatever that is.
2. I don’t see a “need for an assault weapon” as a qualifier under the second amendment. In fact, a strict reading of the Constitution would indicate that the “normal citizen” should own at least on “assault weapon” so he could be part of the “well-regulated militia”.
3. The second amendment wasn’t written to protect citizens against criminals. It was written so that the “normal citizen” could protect himself against those who would try to take away his God-given rights…whether that enemy is foreign or domestic.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I swear every time some nut case does something crazy people want to limit the rights of law abiding citizens.

1. Was not Mr. Holmes considered a law-abiding citizen before the shootings?
2. You don’t know if he was or is a “nut case.” That hasn’t been established and the determination thereof could mean the difference between his being able to stand trial or not.
3. What proof have you that it is demented or “crazy” people who want to limit the right to carry a weapon? I am aware that there are some airport security and police personnel who would limit one’s right to carry a loaded weapon onto an airplane. Are they crazy?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

1. Was not Mr. Holmes considered a law-abiding citizen before the shootings?
2. You don’t know if he was or is a “nut case.” That hasn’t been established and the determination thereof could mean the difference between his being able to stand trial or not.
3. What proof have you that it is demented or “crazy” people who want to limit the right to carry a weapon? I am aware that there are some airport security and police personnel who would limit one’s right to carry a loaded weapon onto an airplane. Are they crazy?

It is not a stretch to say that a man who walks into a crowded movie theater with body armor, half a dozen guns, tear gas, and possibly a bomb…that maybe his elevator stopped going to the top floor.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

It is not a stretch to say that a man who walks into a crowded movie theater with body armor, half a dozen guns, tear gas, and possibly a bomb…that maybe his elevator stopped going to the top floor.

Agreed. But, prior to the incident, say the day before? As law-abiding as you and I - to such extent as we are law-abiding.

 

[curlycool89]

Because of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

“Hunting” doesn’t appear in the text.

Perhaps one of our forumers who supports “reasonable gun control” can tell us the difference in lethality between an AR-15 ("assault rifle) chambered in 0.233 Remington, and a .22 Long Rifle round, and why one should be illegal, and the other not.

You didn’t answer my question. I asked about why a 200-round magazine should be legal, regardless of what gun it’s used for.

 

[estesbob]

You didn’t answer my question. I asked about why a 200-round magazine should be legal, regardless of what gun it’s used for.

Could be a lot of deer out there-what if they attacked?

 

[scipio337]

You didn’t answer my question. I asked about why a 200-round magazine should be legal, regardless of what gun it’s used for.

And I responded:

Because of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. I’m not sure what other legal argument would be required. Seeing that the SCOTUS never reviewed the “assault weapons” ban, I’m not sure how you could argue under strict scrutiny, for a compelling state reason to ban them.

Perhaps you or estesbob can tell us the difference in lethality between an AR-15 ("assault rifle) chambered in 0.233 Remington, and a .22 Long Rifle round, and why one should be illegal, and the other not?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

And I responded:

Because of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. I’m not sure what other legal argument would be required. Seeing that the SCOTUS never reviewed the “assault weapons” ban, I’m not sure how you could argue under strict scrutiny, for a compelling state reason to ban them.

Perhaps you or estesbob can tell us the difference in lethality between an AR-15 ("assault rifle) chambered in 0.233 Remington, and a .22 Long Rifle round, and why one should be illegal, and the other not?

Exactly. What are the lethality differences between this

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...nPIYIXMQ0GOz_X1Y4muqU0pI89uDwTXszuDR-0PFWTZXQ

and this:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...4aAOSUQ3wSKrRh5F09vxtneIPPcwodSeb1N3q2QRfkQlA

 

[curlycool89]

And I responded:

Because of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. I’m not sure what other legal argument would be required. Seeing that the SCOTUS never reviewed the “assault weapons” ban, I’m not sure how you could argue under strict scrutiny, for a compelling state reason to ban them.

Perhaps you or estesbob can tell us the difference in lethality between an AR-15 ("assault rifle) chambered in 0.233 Remington, and a .22 Long Rifle round, and why one should be illegal, and the other not?

And that’s a cop-out answer.

I want to see a why, a full on defense why you need a 200-round magazine as opposed to a 100-round or 60-round magazine (I have no idea if these are real sizes, they’re just for the sake of argument).

Let’s say I was a lawmaker and put forth a bill to ban anything bigger then 100-round magazines. What’s your counter-argument besides “it should be allowed?”. I say that there’s no practical reason to need a magazine that large, what’s your response?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

And that’s a cop-out answer.

I want to see a why, a full on defense why you need a 200-round magazine as opposed to a 100-round or 60-round magazine (I have no idea if these are real sizes, they’re just for the sake of argument).

Let’s say I was a lawmaker and put forth a bill to ban anything bigger then 100-round magazines. What’s your counter-argument besides “it should be allowed?”. I say that there’s no practical reason to need a magazine that large, what’s your response?

Because there is no PRACTICAL reason to outlaw them.

 

[curlycool89]

Because there is no PRACTICAL reason to outlaw them.

I will count this as cop-out response #3.

I’ve yet to see a reason why they should be legal in the first place to have 200 round magazines.

If I’m a lawmaker who wants to ban this, you’re going to need a lot better then “Why do it?”. You need to give me a practical reason why you must have this 200-round magazine and can’t make do with the 100-round one or even the 60.