off topic Century 16 Movie Theater shooting in Aurora

[Iron Crotch]

The AR-15 he had is capable of 800 rounds per minute if it is Fully Automatic. That's about 13 rounds per second. It may have been a semi-automatic which would mean he'd be able to shoot as fast as he can pull the trigger, so 1-3 rps isn't unreasonable on an old assault rifle with a long squeeze.

 

This is correct. It is a relatively easy modification.

 

And, I agree 100% with DeLuca. There is absolutely no reason for assault weapons to be sold in Bass Pro Shop, Gander Mountain, or the the general citizenry for that matter. In fact, we did have a ban on assault weapons, which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1994. It was a 10-year ban, which expired in 2004. Given the change in regime and political climate at that time, no one wanted to take on the powerful gun lobby to reinstate the assault weapon ban. And, Obama won't touch it (even though it was one of his pre-campaign pledges). Have we gotten so fearful of the NRA that we can't pass laws based on common sense? I have no problem with hunting rifles and shotguns... I have no problem with hand guns for self-defense... I have a big problem with some angry kid easily buying multiple assault weapons at Bass Pro Shop and Gander Mountain... 4 guns in less than two months... and 6000 rounds of ammo via the Internet...

[Weave]

This is correct. It is a relatively easy modification.

 

Someone fed you bad information. AR's (the weapon used in this attack) are most definitely not easy to convert to full auto. The parts for a full auto version do not even fit in the receiver of the semi auto version. They are designed very explicitly to not be convertible to full auto.

 

And, I agree 100% with DeLuca. There is absolutely no reason for assault weapons to be sold in Bass Pro Shop, Gander Mountain, or the the general citizenry for that matter. In fact, we did have a ban on assault weapons, which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1994. It was a 10-year ban, which expired in 2004. Given the change in regime and political climate at that time, no one wanted to take on the powerful gun lobby to reinstate the assault weapon ban. And, Obama won't touch it (even though it was one of his pre-campaign pledges). Have we gotten so fearful of the NRA that we can't pass laws based on common sense? I have no problem with hunting rifles and shotguns... I have no problem with hand guns for self-defense... I have a big problem with some angry kid easily buying multiple assault weapons at Bass Pro Shop and Gander Mountain... 4 guns in less than two months... and 6000 rounds of ammo via the Internet...

 

The Clinton ban only banned certain outside features like pistol grip stocks and bayonet lugs. Firearms with the same action, barrels, and magazines were still allowed to be made, imported, and sold to the public.

 

 

Lots of misinformation here.

[spndnchz]

Balling my eyes out

 

http://t.co/tt0max38

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Balling my eyes out

 

http://t.co/tt0max38

 

This interview is sick. How do you put this person in front of the camera if you have any sort of decency?

 

Sick world......and I'm not talking about the shooting.

[SwampD]

This interview is sick. How do you put this person in front of the camera if you have any sort of decency?

 

Sick world......and I'm not talking about the shooting.

Yeah,.. there is no way I'm watching that.

[spndnchz]

This interview is sick. How do you put this person in front of the camera if you have any sort of decency?

 

Sick world......and I'm not talking about the shooting.

 

I thought that at first but you could tell she wanted to go on and tell everyone what a wonderful man he was.

 

People want to talk about the shooter. People need to talk about the victims too.

[PASabreFan]

This interview is sick. How do you put this person in front of the camera if you have any sort of decency?

 

Sick world......and I'm not talking about the shooting.

 

I've always wondered why loved ones want to go on camera after something like this. Or how they can go on camera, and often look so good and be so articulate. They've vulnerable I guess, and the media comes swooping in. I have to believe there's an element of Your 15 MInutes of Fame, too.

[Iron Crotch]

Someone fed you bad information. AR's (the weapon used in this attack) are most definitely not easy to convert to full auto. The parts for a full auto version do not even fit in the receiver of the semi auto version. They are designed very explicitly to not be convertible to full auto.

 

The Clinton ban only banned certain outside features like pistol grip stocks and bayonet lugs. Firearms with the same action, barrels, and magazines were still allowed to be made, imported, and sold to the public.

 

Lots of misinformation here.

 

Perhaps you are the one spreading misinformation. You are wrong about the wording of the 1994 assault weapons ban. I will give you that "easy" is perhaps not the best choice of words for an AR-15 modification, but it can be done with a little bit of cash and know-how.

 

The 1994 bill specifically banned 19 different types of military-style semi-automatic guns (AK-47s, Uzis, TEC-9s, etc.). The ban made it unlawful to “manufacture, transfer

or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon” made after September 1994, as well as large capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The AR-15 used by this kid in the theater shooting would have been banned.

http://home.comcast....jd/rkba/awb.htm

(The actual bill is a monster, so I don't expect anyone here to actually read it.)

 

To be clear, the point of bills like this isn't to eliminate such weapons, it is to make them harder to obtain and it also gives the police more jurisdiction to confiscate certain high-powered weapons without researching the legality of ownership.

[waldo]

This incident was not about: the tragedy inherent in the loss of life in this manner or on this scale; one insane evil man committing a random act of violence; the unwillingness of police officers to once again enter a building while a mass shooting was in progress; the true rarity of these types of events in our society ; the prey response of every young male in a theater full of people under attack and the societal norms that produced them; the change in public policy in the late 1960s and early 70s that dramatically altered the way in which our society interacts with the criminally insane: the public policy and social stigma that created an environment within which not one of the 200+ citizens assembled were armed; the failure of family ,friends, neighbors or the college to intervene ; the technology that depersonalizes our relationships, desensitizes us to violence and blurs the lines between reality and fiction ; the delirious effects of our twenty four hour news environment and their propensity to sensationalizes every act of violence and provide notoriety for the killers; the development of a system and technology to identify the dnageously insane or the willingness of our politicians to subvert the truth and use a tragic random act of violence by a madman to further their political agendas before the bodies are even buried.

 

This is no longer about a madman, the victims, or the tragedy of it all, it is now , once again, all about gun control and the availability of high capacity magazines, semi automatic weapons, shotguns, pistols, bullets , Kevlar and that pesky second amendment. Everybody knows it was the availability of those items, that darn outdated constitutional provision and our free society that caused this incident to happen ,not evil and the act of a madman. If he had used his intellect to construct a bomb , or a gas that of killed evetbody in the theater instantly would we be talking about banning firearms.

 

For a politician, it is just another distraction and opportunity to tell the uninformed that he and his ilk can protect us from all of lifes random, harmful events .

[wjag]

"Theaters ban masks."

 

There we go.

 

Thank goodness we have finally got to the core issue.

[LoveAndWarrener]

WRT Waldo's post - can't it be about all of these things?

 

Honestly, I don't see mental illness being given short shrift in the discussion. In fact, the gun lobby is going to see to it that it becomes a more primary topic of the discussion. Not that, you know, health care policy that might lead to more preventive care is something that gun advocates have been on the front lines fighting for.

 

I do think your points are well taken, and there is a LOAD of context that most reporting outlets will ignore, and that some print and online written media will explore in more depth.

 

However, while these attacks are random, they aren't as rare as they should be. Someone is popping off and killing a lot of people every year. The nature of our news cycle and our attention span is that we don't remember that very well, either. Consider that the Eaton Centre and the Norway attacks were REAL anomalies while Americans don't need to dial back very far to the last mass-murder, to say nothing of the regular gun violence here that kills people every day.

 

I think the right to bear arms is important, but I don't think our founding fathers had any concept of the kinds of firearms people own today. Owning guns for hunting or self-defense is one thing. Owning guns that are made to kill many people in a span of seconds is quite another. I am not a gun person, but I don't see the difference between owning a semi-automatic and owning a bazooka. Both are made to commit maximum harm/damage in minimum time. One is off-limits to the public, and the other is easier to obtain than a driver's license. We do draw lines, and I think we need to reconsider where we draw them.

 

We can argue all we want that bad people will find ways to do bad things no matter what - and that is true. However, the law is there both to minimize their chances of success, and to deter them from doing max damage. Therefore, we should always consider ways to make sure that bad people have a much harder time doing harm, and that they do minimum damage when they are successful. That includes enforcing current gun laws, not weakening them; making sure that those entrusted with enforcing them have the resources to do so; and re-considering current legislation to determine where those lines that I referred to earlier should be drawn.

 

That's not politicizing the conversation, it's the same thing that we do when a bad flood hits - re-evaluate our planning so that the same thing doesn't happen next time.

[deluca67]

This I agree w/. Americans should always be allowed the right to bare arms, but a drawing should be established. There is no reason for a civilian to have an automatic weapon.

 

Deluca was making reference towards automatic guns. He wasnt saying remove our right to bare arms.

Arms available to citizens should be limited to manually loaded single fire weapons. No weapon needing a clip should be legal. That still leaves shotguns and a number of rifles and hand guns for those that desire to own one. .

 

Another tactic the Federal Government should take is to heavily tax the sale of gunpowder. a 500% tax on gun powder would help.

[waldo]

WRT Waldo's post - can't it be about all of these things?

 

Honestly, I don't see mental illness being given short shrift in the discussion. In fact, the gun lobby is going to see to it that it becomes a more primary topic of the discussion. Not that, you know, health care policy that might lead to more preventive care is something that gun advocates have been on the front lines fighting for.

 

I do think your points are well taken, and there is a LOAD of context that most reporting outlets will ignore, and that some print and online written media will explore in more depth.

 

However, while these attacks are random, they aren't as rare as they should be. Someone is popping off and killing a lot of people every year. The nature of our news cycle and our attention span is that we don't remember that very well, either. Consider that the Eaton Centre and the Norway attacks were REAL anomalies while Americans don't need to dial back very far to the last mass-murder, to say nothing of the regular gun violence here that kills people every day.

 

I think the right to bear arms is important, but I don't think our founding fathers had any concept of the kinds of firearms people own today. Owning guns for hunting or self-defense is one thing. Owning guns that are made to kill many people in a span of seconds is quite another. I am not a gun person, but I don't see the difference between owning a semi-automatic and owning a bazooka. Both are made to commit maximum harm/damage in minimum time. One is off-limits to the public, and the other is easier to obtain than a driver's license. We do draw lines, and I think we need to reconsider where we draw them.

 

We can argue all we want that bad people will find ways to do bad things no matter what - and that is true. However, the law is there both to minimize their chances of success, and to deter them from doing max damage. Therefore, we should always consider ways to make sure that bad people have a much harder time doing harm, and that they do minimum damage when they are successful. That includes enforcing current gun laws, not weakening them; making sure that those entrusted with enforcing them have the resources to do so; and re-considering current legislation to determine where those lines that I referred to earlier should be drawn.

 

That's not politicizing the conversation, it's the same thing that we do when a bad flood hits - re-evaluate our planning so that the same thing doesn't happen next time.

 

I understand your position. It is typical of most people from metropolitan areas, or non gun owners living, or individuals living in rust belt states.. You are entitled to it. I do not mean to demean your response but if you think you can regulate the availability of 300,000,000 firearms 5,000,000,0000 rounds and 5,000,000 large capacity magazines in this country good luck.

 

Fact .. These kinds of events are as rare now as they have been for the last 60- 70 years . There are more than a few studies you can find and you can check the fbi stats for the past thirty years or so. What has changed is 24 hour media sensationalismn . A two day regional story now goes national for a week.

 

About half of modern weapons sold are semi automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols. They are not capable of killing anyone,their technology is is exacltly the sme as the technolgy used in an ar15 and they are not made to inflict maximum damage , that takes a crazy person.

 

Believe me when i tell you there is a significant difference between a semi auto rifle and a bazooka.Although they are both inefficient if killingis the task ( a historical persepective). .

 

This guy was smart enough to kill everybody in that theater had he chosen to do so. Had he selected a bomb or a gas.. The 100+ people that survived , did so because he selected a small caliber rifle and pistol for some warped reason. Had he used just the shotgun, which is capable of putting 64 38 caliber rounds down range in less than five seconds, (a faster rate of fire than your semi auto ar and a larger projectile from a hunting shotgun), the death toll and kill rate would had been much higer.

 

But you see we are talking about weapons, which is exactly where they want to take this conversation. We should be talking about mad men, how to find them and neutralize their behavior. Some of lifes little liabilities cannot be removed.Like lightening. Laws have little effect on illegal behavior.

[SwampD]

Arms available to citizens should be limited to manually loaded single fire weapons. No weapon needing a clip should be legal. That still leaves shotguns and a number of rifles and hand guns for those that desire to own one. .

 

Another tactic the Federal Government should take is to heavily tax the sale of gunpowder. a 500% tax on gun powder would help.

What a great way to make sure only the rich have guns.

[deluca67]

I don't really feel like getting into this. The focus should be more on how to fix those broken human beings rather than on the tools they might use to harm.

 

Now, if there was an Executive Order declaring that no news outlets could cover the event more than just a cursory report with no video, I think that would go a lot farther in detering it from happening in the future and I would be all for that.

There are always going to be "broken humans." There will always be people who want to other harm people. What needs to happen is to make it as difficult as possible for them to do so. A good way to do this is to eliminate automatic and even semi-automatic weapons. They serve no purpose, unless you are a United States Solider in the field of battle.

 

What a great way to make sure only the rich have guns.

You'll probably hate my other idea of having each individual bullet contain a serial number which must be registered. If the bullet is used, the shell casing but be returned and reported to the Federal Government with an explanation of it's use.

[SwampD]

There are always going to be "broken humans." There will always be people who want to other harm people. What needs to happen is to make it as difficult as possible for them to do so. A good way to do this is to eliminate automatic and even semi-automatic weapons. They serve no purpose, unless you are a United States Solider in the field of battle.

Sorry, I just disagree. Who's to say this guy wouldn't have become a serial killer or just got in his car and mowed over the people waiting in line to see the movie, maybe killing more people?

 

You'll probably hate my other idea of having each individual bullet contain a serial number which must be registered. If the bullet is used, the shell casing but be returned and reported to the Federal Government with an explanation of it's use.

Not the idea, just the implementation. Who in the world is going to pay for the millions upon millions of shell casings being recorded that were used for target practice or competitions.

[LoveAndWarrener]

I understand your position. It is typical of most people from metropolitan, or no gun owner livingrust belt states.. You are entitled to it. If you think you can regulate the availability of 300,000,000 firearms and 50,000,000 large capacity magazines in this country good luck .

 

Fact .. These kinds of events are as rare now as they have been for the last 60- 70 years . There are more than a few studies you can find and you can check the fbi stats for the past thirty years or so. What has changed is 24 hour media sensationalismn . A two day storynow goes on for a week.

 

About half of modern weapons sold are semi automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols. They are not capable of killing anyone, and they are not made to inflict maximum damage , that takes an operator,

 

Believe me when i tell you there is a significant difference between a semi auto rifle and a bazooka.Although they are both inefficient formass murder purposes. ( a historical persepective). .

 

This guy was smart enough to kill everybody in that theater had he chosen to do so. Had he selected a bomb or a gas.. The 100+ people that survived , did so because he selected a small caliber rifle and pistol for some warped reason. Had he used just the shotgun, which is capable of putting 64 38 caliber rounds down range in less than five seconds, (a faster rate of fire than your semi auto ar and a larger projectile from a hunting shotgun), the death toll and kill rate would had been much higer.

 

But you see we are talking about weapons, which is exactly where they want to take this conversation. We should be talking about mad men,

I'll leave the questions on the choice of firearm to an expert - I don't know about that. I would argue that the start to finish process of using gas or materials to make a bomb, then transporting them into a big area, is probably a lot harder than just bringing in lots of loaded weapons and ammunition. But again, not my realm of expertise. This guy was obviously a madman.

 

Why do you think it is that someone in a metropolitan area has different feelings, though? And I'm not looking for a blanket declaration about people here vs. there. I'm more interested in what you view as the source of this mentality. Don't you think that in the city, there should actually be a greater desire for self-defense, with the increased population density lending itself to higher concentrations of crime? Yet, you're right, there is less call for them among residents of the city. Personally, I think the shared space and close proximity has negative and positive consequences, but I wouldn't feel more comforted knowing a neighbor had lots of firearms, because the likelihood he would protect our neighborhood with them is at least equal to or lesser than the likelihood they would be stolen and used unlawfully.

 

Sorry, I just disagree. Who's to say this guy wouldn't have become a serial killer or just got in his car and mowed over the people waiting in line to see the movie, maybe killing more people?

I think we do have to focus to some degree on the tools. It's the same reason we try to prevent terrorists from getting a nuclear weapon, because a bad person will do more damage with one than with other means. No one is saying we should focus on one at the exclusion of the other - at least, I am not.

 

And there sure is a limit to the damage a guy can do mowing people down with his car compared to the much more in-control situation of hand-on-trigger. Unless you are talking about a car loaded with explosives, which still is plenty difficult to pull off and is almost certainly a suicide mission. We don't know yet whether this guy intended to die in his pursuits, but that's a distinction to be made nonetheless.

[Iron Crotch]

Fact .. These kinds of events are as rare now as they have been for the last 60- 70 years . There are more than a few studies you can find and you can check the fbi stats for the past thirty years or so. What has changed is 24 hour media sensationalismn . A two day regional story now goes national for a week.

 

 

The FBI data are based on self-report measures from law enforcement agencies. These measures are somewhat questionable since a reporting agency has a clear incentive to under-report violent crimes that took place in their jurisdiction (although that shouldn't necessarily effect trend data since they may just systematically under-report year-over-year). Many of the other studies either were generated from pro-gun or anti-gun groups, so they are obviously questionable. For my money a reasonably unbiased source (to the extent that there is such a thing) is the Firearm & Injury Center at the University of Pennsylvania (http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/), which combines data from multiple sources. One of their core findings is that the correlation between firearm availability and rates of homicide is consistent across high income industrialized nations: where there are more firearms, there are higher rates of homicide overall. I don't think they separate out mass killings, per se, and I'm sure the rate is more or less constant year-over-year as you say.

 

I respect that there are multiple opinions and sides to every debate. And I agree that a crazy person who is hell-bent on killing will kill... and, I also should point out that I have a Glock sitting in my night stand at home so I am not anti-gun. But it seems clear to me that our gun-crazy culture certainly plays a role in the over 30,000 handgun deaths per year in this country. And, I have a hard time accepting the "that's just how it is" argument. To me, if banning certain types of high-powered weapons saves even one life, then it is worth it.

[...]

Someone sick in the head doesn't need a semi-auto weapon to kill lots of people. Guns don't force people to shoot with them; the shooting is a choice.

 

You can get in any car and take out a dozen people if you planned it out. You can take a shovel and kill a few before you run into resistance. Having a surprise party? Poison the food!

 

So, are we going to ban cars, shovels, and surprise parties because of the potential chaos and death a person can cause with them? I guess we are if people want the logical conclusions of their arguments adhered to.

 

"The right to bear arms" always brings out the ignorant and short sighted. The reason that is in the Bill of Rights is to give the people a way to protect itself from a rogue government (and we're pretty much knocking on that door now). The "it'll never be necessary" crowd don't understand history or human nature... period. Frankly, we should be allowed to have what will help protect us from whatever firepower the gov't can unleash on us...which is at the very, very least armor piercing ammo and full auto canons. Right now we're only allowed the technological equivalent of squirt guns.

[TrueBlueGED]

Someone sick in the head doesn't need a semi-auto weapon to kill lots of people. Guns don't force people to shoot with them; the shooting is a choice.

 

You can get in any car and take out a dozen people if you planned it out. You can take a shovel and kill a few before you run into resistance. Having a surprise party? Poison the food!

 

So, are we going to ban cars, shovels, and surprise parties because of the potential chaos and death a person can cause with them? I guess we are if people want the logical conclusions of their arguments adhered to.

 

"The right to bear arms" always brings out the ignorant and short sighted. The reason that is in the Bill of Rights is to give the people a way to protect itself from a rogue government (and we're pretty much knocking on that door now). The "it'll never be necessary" crowd don't understand history or human nature... period. Frankly, we should be allowed to have what will help protect us from whatever firepower the gov't can unleash on us...which is at the very, very least armor piercing ammo and full auto canons. Right now we're only allowed the technological equivalent of squirt guns.

 

So stinger missiles should be publicly available defense weapons? Face reality: if the government wanted to put down a rebellion, no amount of AR-15s with modded to full auto with extended clips is going to do you a damn bit of good.

 

And if the freedom of speech can be curtailed (which it can), which is the single most important freedom in the entirety of any democracy, then the right to bear arms can have some sensible limits placed upon it. Not going to really say anything else on this, not worth it.

 

I think part of what is getting lost in this gun debate, is the quality of parenting debate. WTF is a 4 month old doing at the midnight screening of a new movie? Somebody? Anybody? That's selfish, crappy parenting at its finest.

[darksabre]

I want to know in what world the US government actually becomes something we would take up arms against? When does this become an issue ever?

[K-9]

So stinger missiles should be publicly available defense weapons? Face reality: if the government wanted to put down a rebellion, no amount of AR-15s with modded to full auto with extended clips is going to do you a damn bit of good. ...

 

You think the government would have any chance of putting down a rebellion against all the well-organized militias that will magically materialize in response to its repression?

[SwampD]

I want to know in what world the US government actually becomes something we would take up arms against? When does this become an issue ever?

Take away everyone's guns and you'd find out pretty quickly.

[darksabre]

Take away everyone's guns and you'd find out pretty quickly.

 

Suuuure.

[...]

I want to know in what world the US government actually becomes something we would take up arms against? When does this become an issue ever?

 

I think the British were thinking the same back in the day.

 

I bet the peasants of North Korea would like some weaponry about now. Or the peasants of Rwanda, for that matter. Oh, but none of these are the USA. I guess I don't have an argument, then, since we all think such things can never happen here, in our time.

 

We pass these rights down generation to generation just in case. One day these rights will mean everything...just because we may not be alive to see it doesn't mean it isn't necessary. Thank God you think you don't need those rights.