I would like to propose that anyone and everyone who writes anything about the massacre in Colorado save their work and, when the next mass killing occurs, simply republish the article, plugging in the new names, dates, and places where appropriate.
This will not only save time and effort, but, since we’ve already read what pundits have to say and we know all the arguments by heart, we won’t have to read it again. Thus, the news-consuming public will be spared the angst-ridden diatribes against guns, or immorality, or our broken mental health system, or violence in the media, or how it’s the left’s fault or the right’s fault — even articles like this one that complain about pundits writing about the same subjects every time a mass shooting occurs.
The post-massacre media environment gives true meaning to the cliche “deja vu” — “already seen” according to Wikipedia. I challenge anyone to come up with anything original written by anyone in the last 24 hours that didn’t follow the now traditional meme-making and narrative-setting path that every major public bloodletting has followed in the last decade.
1. The immediate rush to judgment by right and left to set the narrative before all but the sketchiest outline of what happened has emerged. Social media has only exacerbated the problem, as what used to take a few hours to infect blogs and news websites now occurs in minutes.
2. It’s always a race between “immorality” and “lack of gun control” to see which meme will emerge first.
3. A connection to something a liberal or conservative commentator has said will be posited and promoted as “the cause” of the massacre.
4. Each side will blame the other for “politicizing the tragedy.”
5. Some will blame all the publicity surrounding the event — wall to wall coverage on the cable nets, thousands of articles and blog posts, and perhaps millions of tweets — which gives disturbed individuals the idea that they can become famous by taking out kids at a school, or a mall, or a movie theater.
6.The mainstream press, in editorial after editorial, will cement the memes advanced by pundits, bemoan the incivility in our culture that allows massacres to occur, and almost always recommend some form of gun control as a way to address the problem.
At the risk of sounding predictably banal, I must mention that if someone in that theater had a concealed-carry permit, Mr. Holmes would not have been able to kill 12 and wound 58 people. He probably would have killed and wounded much fewer and he’d be dead now.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess you haven’t been reading the details of the case, so let me fill you in;
1) Mr Holms threw not one but TWO tear gass grenades into the theater before he began shooting. I’m not sure if you are familiar with Tear Gas but it impairs vision making Aiming a firearm difficult at best.
2) Mr Holms was wearing Class 3 Body Armor, Leggings, Helmet, Throat and Crotch protection. Anyone with a Concealed Carry permit would have been a distraction, to be dealt with for sure, but would have LOST the exchange and been dead while the shooter would have been hurt, but NO WAY was the concealed carry holder going to kill him. In Fact with anything less than a .44 Magnum this guy was probably not going to even be off of his feet.
Face it, This guy was READY for a CCW holder, and it would have only differed in Who was killed and injured.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess you have never been in the military, or have any experience with tear gas or body armor, so let me fill you in;
tear gas does not incapacitate you, difficult is not impossible.
people are killed while wearing body armor all the time.
I dunno what kind or how strong that tear gas was (this matters!), but I WAS in the military. In boot camp, they have us test gas masks during boot camp with tear gas. My eyes were swollen shit, I vomited, and snot was running out of my nose like a faucet had been turned on. My lungs were burning and refusing to work. Perhaps a very experienced shooter could still have stood, fought through all of that, and fired back, but – based on my experience with tear gas – I know *I* certainly could not have.
I’m not sure where you developmed your concept of ‘body armor’, but bullets do NOT bounce harmlessly off; if you are hit, you will feel it, and unless the round is a .22, you will go backwards, and likely be knocked down. And a gas mask offers no protection whatsoever from even a .22 round
jd, can you provide a link to an authoritative source that describes the ballistic characterisitics of the shooter’s throat and groin protection and leggings? Do not assume they were armored without proof. Also, please review your assertions, and note that “Level III” refers to rigid plates that are typically 10″ by 12″ and are inserted into soft body armor vests to protect the vital areas of the torso from rifle fire. “Level IIIA” is the maximum level of protection offered by soft body armor used in groin or leg protection, and in most vests. A skilled and determined shooter might well have placed rounds in areas not covered by this (presumed) armor; but even if not, taking a hit from a major caliber handgun round on such armor is often incapacitating; think of a sledgehammer blow to the throat or groin. Return fire from a citizen’s handgun would have been more than a mere distration; at the least, it would have bought time for more to escape and would likely have disabled the shooter. We need more sheepdogs, fewer sheep; more heroes, fewer cowards.
New report that he did NOT have body armor.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/07/22/fox-no-body-armor-for-aurora-theater-shooter/
It is beginning to appear that the initial reports that he was wearing body armor are false. He recently bought a ‘Tactical Vest’ which is just a vest with pockets to carry extra magazines and such. That’s most likely what he was wearing and was mistaken for body armor by the uninformed.
Let me add to the banality. I have spend 30+ years in the defense and intelligence communities. I have a Virginia CHL and I carry both at home and out of the house. Let me explain something to you range cowboys out there.
There are many scenarios where an armed citizen can do good, i.e., Mr. Williams in Ocala Florida last week. However, this shooting isn’t one of them. The shooting took place in a dark theater with an obscurant in a chaotic situation. Unless you are right on top of the bad guy and haven’t been shot in the first round you will not have unobstructed shot to the shooter. His Rules of Engagement are shoot as many people as possible. You are only allowed to shoot him. There were several armed citizens at the Giffords shooting and none of them took the shot because they did not have an unobstructed line of sight or couldn’t ID the shooter. This situation was even more demanding. Only a trained SWAT or SOF guy with the skills of the fictional Leroy Jethro Gibbs could have carried it off.
This event was the equivalent of Star Trek;s famous Kobyashi Maru scenario. It is a no win situation. I was put through a no win scenario in 1991 by the game controllers at the Naval War College. It is very instructive. The only thing you can do is hope you get out alive but be prepared to die like a man.
So all you Walter Mittys out there should chill out.
TDIINVA:
I agree. I am a combat vet with a CCW permit who frequently carries a .357-Magnum and wouldn’t have taken the shot. Since I have a rural property I have set up a “backyard” range out to 65 feet where I shoot 500 to 1,000 rounds a month to assure I can hit what I aim at.
I know from my year in Vietnam that shooting paper “bad-guys” behind the barn is a far different thing that shooting a determined gunman shooting back at you. What with that never-to-be forgotten hiss of incoming rounds flying inches from your head, your adrenalin flooding every cell in your body and your heart pumping a mile a minute, the accuracy of your aim is going to be problematic at best. Add to that the cloud of tear gas blinding your eyes and pouring snot from your nose, and just hitting the guy, much less his neck or groin is probably not going to happen.
This guy may have been a nut-case, but he was a well-prepared nut-case.
The reaction you’re seeing is just emotional second-guessing, the way we fantasize a better outcome:
“If I had gone to the doctor before the cancer spread….”
“If I had swerved out of the way of that pedestrian….”
And now: “If there were an armed citizen in that audience….”
Just let it cool.
You know the best thing we could do at this point: Go on with our lives to show that this Holmes character didn’t damage the fabric of our society.
Let’s mourn and honor and remember those who died, let’s eulogize and bury them with appropriate honors.
And THEN, let’s clean up that movie theater. And all those who survived Holmes’s attack should go right back to that same theater to see the movie that this Holmes character disrupted.
“However, this shooting isn’t one of them.”
Uhuh. Neither was the crowded convenience store last week on Youtube, where the grandpa CCW shooter did just fine with patrons running across his line of site. Just about any scenario where the bad guy is distracted by good guys shooting back is a better scenario than him having time to draw a bead on a baby’s back.
The kindest thing I can say is, you are over thinking this.
What I’m actually thinking would probably get me banned from this website, you professionally conceited fools.
It was an internet cafe not a convience store. It was well lit, Mr. Williams had clear line of sight and he approached from an ambush position. My guess is that you don’t carry a gun.
My guess is you don’t, or at least you haven’t thought this through. At best, you have a snapshot towards the start of the whole incident stuck in your head, and you think if all but the first one or two killings can’t be prevented, that somehow it isn’t worth it.
Several things are presumably true of the CCW holder:
1) They shoot, they know this is real far more quickly than the people in the audience who think it is a publicity stunt.
2) They do not have the purpose of fleeing with the crowd, so merely by not fleeing they are soon clear of it.
The shooter now has a serious problem he doesn’t know about yet. He can’t mingle with the crowd, or he’ll be jumped and dogpiled, so he doesn’t. The shooter has a clear shot, and within seconds of the panic starting.
Put the shooter into any front corner, place the CCW holder randomly in the audience. Assume the crowd moves towards the exits and away from the bad guy, and you’ll see the CCW gets to empty the magazine just about every time.
Maybe the shooter kills the CCW right off, maybe the bad guy catches one in the temple.
Either way, there’s no downside to the CCW’s presence, and a strong liklihood they do some good.
Perk, the range cowboy speaks. You must be that SOF guy with Gibbs-like skills. Assuming you have actually fired a gun I suggest the following drill. Do suicides for 10 minutes to simulate the adrenline rush that you are going to get when the smoke and gunfire begin. Take your Glock, guys like must have a Glock, and see how many center mass hit you get at 7 yards then come back and tell how well you would did.
don’t hold the rest of the world to you sh***y standards. He could have been stopped relatively easy by one or two people with handguns. I too have been in the military / security field for 30 years.
Were you an SSO?
Michelle
you said:
So you assume there was no CCW holder anywhere in the theater because no one shot back at the guy? Am I getting that right?
No I did not say that, what I said was that sc gas and body armor are not insurmountable obstacles no matter what all the “experts” in this comment section say.
especially when the body armore was non-existent.
tdiinva
You are undone by your own example. The only person Zimmerman could have shot was Martin. FYI cops shhot thier partners regularly.
nonsense zimmerman was getting his head bashed in on the sidewalk, he could have shot all kinds of people , what? you never heard of stray bullets. the fact that cops are crappy shots is irrelevant to the argument.
How do you kill someone with a permit? And why do you assume no one was carrying in that theater? And how do you take it one step further that that imaginary gun holder would have only shot Mr. Holmes and no one else?
A permit is a license to defend yourself and others against lethal attack by a mutant fellow citizen or alien who has declared war on our society; a licence to be free, if you like that better, which I assume you don’t.
Stopping the killing of 12 and the wounding of 50 requires a quick type of arithmetic. Can you say ‘add them up’? If you could have stopped the murder of 6 out of 12 and the wounding of 25 out of 50, while striking and killing 1 and wounding another innocent, would it have been worth while? Well, would it?
Clearly my first question went right over your head. Sorry. You chose to ignore my second question. Your response to my third question ignores the circumstances. This happened in a dark theater, the assailant deployed tear gas, and it was over very quickly.
Your math wouldn’t have gotten its gun out of its holster and the safety off in time to complete your equation.
actually michelle, there is every reason to think that an intelligent , quick-thinking person with a concealed weapon on them could have prevented some if not all of this tragedy. body armor can be defeated, tear gas does not immobilize.
So you assume there was no CCW holder anywhere in the theater because no one shot back at the guy? Am I getting that right?
Only if you *knew* he had body armor.
In a darkened theater, with your eyes watering from that smoke/gas grenade he threw, you would not have known that. So you would have aimed your first shot at his chest somewhere. With, say, a .45, you might not even be able to knock him down at a distance. And then you’re in big trouble, because he’s going to retaliate with his rifle and shotgun.
We don’t train our soldiers to be a suicide squad. We train them to *evaluate the situation*, and determine if they can engage with a chance of success.
Michelle,
Its my understanding that this was a very “gun controlled” area.
No CCW permits, no guns allowed in the theater (gee, thats was effective huh?) not even allowed to have a loaded gun in your car (as in some areas, when, you if you HAVE a CCW you may be forced to leave it in the car to go inside a retail store that doesnt allow them?)
Responsible armed citizens defend themselves with guns over 2 MILLION times every year….but you’ll never hear of but a few from the Liberal Media, and even THEN it will primarily be used as a cudgel for political reasons (zimmerman)
FYI I shot a perp in the back many many moons ago…he walked past me while shooting at someone else in a bar. Pandemoneum insued with everyone running “away” but he had lots of people who ended up “behind him”, and one of us had a gun. It only took two rounds, but I had 15 more ready to go to load him up with Blunt Force Trauma or get head/neck shots if he was “Armored”.
I’ll tell you what..shooting up a room full of people where one or two are armed is might dangerous work, because you just cant guess where they might pop up.
Yup, its a crap shoot, but with NO DICE FOR YOU, your definitely going to lose to the other guy, EVERY time
Hmm, let me try again. There is no “permit.” There is a license to carry a concealed weapon. If you don’t accept that answer, please tell us what answer you would accept, since I feel your first comment was sarcastic.
Second, because you seem to know how long long it takes to: (A) Kill 12 people and wound 50 more and (B) How long it takes me or another trained person to unholster and press the safety off, how long does it take? Common sense clearly indicates that it takes significantly longer to do A than B. Now isn’t that right?
A dark theater? Have you ever gone to the movies?
Finally, is your name Amanda Marcott by any chance?
As opposed to sarcasm, my aim with my first question was for clarity.
No one as yet has any evidence that the only person with a gun in the theater was the shooter. Had you been in the theater with a gun and not been able to stop it, would you speak up and say so?
I do not know if any gunners were in the theater. I have tried to answer you. Now how about a few answers, Amanda? I.e.:
(1) “If you could have stopped the murder of 6 out of 12 and the wounding of 25 out of 50, while striking and killing 1 and wounding another innocent, would it have been worth while? Well, would it?”
(2) “Second, because you seem to know how long long it takes to: (A) Kill 12 people and wound 50 more and (B) How long it takes me or another trained person to unholster and press the safety off, how long does it take? Common sense clearly indicates that it takes significantly longer to do A than B. Now isn’t that right?”
(3) “A dark theater? Have you ever gone to the movies?”
(4) “Finally, is your name Amanda Marcott by any chance?”
I do not know if any gunners were in the theater. I have tried to answer you. Now how about a few answers, Amanda? I.e.:
(1) “If you could have stopped the murder of 6 out of 12 and the wounding of 25 out of 50, while striking and killing 1 and wounding another innocent, would it have been worth while? Well, would it?”
(2) “Second, because you seem to know how long long it takes to: (A) Kill 12 people and wound 50 more and (B) How long it takes me or another trained person to unholster and press the safety off, how long does it take? Common sense clearly indicates that it takes significantly longer to do A than B. Now isn’t that right?”
(3) “A dark theater? Have you ever gone to the movies?”
(4) “Finally, is your name Amanda Marcott by any chance?”
That’s not merely not true, it’s obviously not true.
The patrons could see well enough to run, most of them. So most of them could have returned fire, had even one of them been armed.
If even one of them was firing back, they would have occupied 100% of the bad guy’s attention, because if he did not engage that exact person, that person could aim for an unprotected area. The perp would have had to concentrate fire on that person, letting others have more time to get out of the area.
We already know from the statistics of other incidents, that the CCW shooter would have far lower odds of shooting the innocent than the police, and the only thing the police could have done if they’d showed up quickly was engage the shooter.
There is no downside to a George Zimmerman being in the audience.
That is just ridiculous. Imagine your “magic CCW” all you like. Shooting at targets is not the same as having someone shooting back.
Nothing, given what happened, points to another person with a gun in the theater making any difference.
Michelle, if it makes no difference, then why continue the ban?
Had someone else been shooting, even if he missed, the killer would have been distracted, allowing more people to escape.
Had I been there, I’d have let the mob clear between me and the shooter, and used the top of a seat to steady my aim. I’d probably miss, but even a slight chance of hitting is better than none. The smoke/tear gas released would not spread through the theater instantly. It would also obscure his vision as well as mine. He’d probably lose track of where the muzzle flash came from (a problem with all those seat backs looking alike).
We also have no reason to think that there’d be just one person returning fire.
Well, if you struck and/or killed my innocent kid while trying to save everyone else, I might sue you to kingdom come. Just saying. It’s not actually about numbers, sorry. Also, if your return fire kept first responders from entering the theater, I also might make sure you never came out of jail.
A police officer/SWAT person etc has the right to make a decision about risking the lives of innocents, but a bystander/concealed carrier does not. You can go to jail for that, and should.
“And how do you take it one step further that that imaginary gun holder would have only shot Mr. Holmes and no one else?”
That question is Bolshevik, plain and simple.
CCW Holders do not shoot the wrong person according to statistics. In fact, Police shoot the wrong person far more frequently than the fraction of one percent of the time a CCW holder does.
Your question shows your personal bias and in the way it was asked. The statistics nationwide support the belief if a CCW holder was in the audience he’d have shot only the perpatrator.
How do you know there wasn’t a CCW holder in the audience or the entire theater?
I’ll jump in here,CC holders would have obeyed the law and gone into the “gun free zone” theater unarmed… now they will have to live with the regret of subjecting themselves to an asinine law.
That’s what you say, but surely you must admit that anyone who might have had a gun in there would never admit to it.
Why are you so sure that target practicers are so law abiding?
Michelle, why do you keep asking the impossible?
Please try some rational thought.
DO I know, can I prove, that other Armed citizens WERENT present?
No. I cant. Same as I cant know which brand of tampons WERENT present in womens purses, or what brand cell phones WERE in pockets, or how many keys WERENT on rings among the people present. Its just a stupid avenue of question because:
It reveals you believe strongly in two things, neither of which is reasonable or can be proven.
1) Other armed citizens WERE there, and thus their lack of saving action CONFIRMS their uselessness.
2) This attack was “unstoppable”, by some divine power mere mortals armed could not possibly have thwarted, or lessened, should they even have tried.
Both of these are rubber-room qualifying beliefs.
A PRESENCE of something that CANT be confirmed, is PROOF that said presence, was useless… Really?
A single mortal person person, conducting as mass shooting of the unarmed, is somehow miraculously unstoppable, even if out numbered two to one, or set upon from behind, by OTHER, Mortal People, employing the same weapons? HE is Supremely masterful in his weapons skills, but NO ONE ELSE CAN EVER BE?
Sure, he had advantages…no one there KNEW a shooting was to take place but him….but you being in the camp that ensures no one BUT the criminal shooter may ever have the means of deadly force AVAILABLE, you only guarantees more of these mass shooting events will occur.
Notice how he didnt attack a police car, or military base, being all “armored up and unstoppable”
Its cause them guys have …GUNS
Michelle,
You are missing a very big point. Ask yourself why rational, pre-meditated shooters like Holmes pick places for their attacks like schools, summer camps, theatres and malls where they expect their targeted victims not to be armed as a matter of laws passed for their protection, and not police stations, marine barracks, FBI shooting ranges, etc. They don’t want their victims to be armed. For the government to pick and announce places where law-abiding citizens cannot be allowed to defend themselves, will automatically attract the nuts, about as counterproductive a rule as to make the sale of liquor illegal (which hands that business over to the mafia).
The rational answer then is that the Government should require the CCW defenders to arm themselves in such areas, for the public protection, and announce to the world that this is so, and then what are the Holmes of the world to do? Look how well it worked on airplanes (though yes everyone but the armed marshals is subject to search, but how many illegal guns are seized at the metal detector check points?)
Look. Holmes was certainly interested in his own safety. He certainly knew guns could kill (and when he felt he had garnered enough headlines he stopped and waited for the armed cops with his guns down). Of course the suicidal nuts are different, but they usually kill their loved ones, and not strangers).
So if everywhere was a legal CCW zone by trained gun owners who pass the test (like driving tests) or at least the government says that is a fact, then the non-suicidal nuts would have to assume everywhere is a danger zone for them, if it has enough people and young folks are present to be protected. Not a perfect solution (no such thing when dealing with the rational, self-protective nut) but it would reduce the body count for such events I am sure, which is the only rational goal for the intelligent critics of your position, who you are not listening to. Do you not agree?
For my part I don’t want a world where only the nuts are armed. I don’t know why you do. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, but liberty to you is a scary word I guess. Better that we surrender it to the Josef Stalins and Mao Tse Tungs of the world. Then the all-knowing government can decide when we die, and not some irrational nut.
You don’t need a permit to carry a weapon openly. So do it, chickens. Why are you so hung up on concealing them?
The reason that armed citizens, not just CHL holders, have a better track record then the police is that armed self defense usually takes place in a static setting. The guy who pulls a weapon on you on a deserted street or is roaming around in you house in the middle of night is an easily identifiable target with little chance of collateral damage. The police encounter more dynamic situations and therefore have a higher probability of shooting the wrong person. This shooting falls in the dynamic class, i.e., high probability of collateral damage.
All shooting events at or with other people, especially in self defense, are “dynamic”.
The only “static” shootings of human beings are execution style shootings of the unaware (sleeping, unsuspecting). The SECOND person intended to be shot in that scenario will become quite “dynamic” I assure you.
It is pretty hard to shoot the wrong person when there aree no other people prresent except you and your attacker/intruder.
nice generalities just not true.
I single person defending himself is in a lot more dynamic situation then cops with their partners backing them up. example: trayvon martin (spelling?)
You are undone by your own example. The only person Zimmerman could have shot was Martin. FYI cops shhot thier partners regularly.
You are undone by your own example. The only person Zimmerman could have shot was Martin. FYI cops shoot their partners with alarming frequency. Much of the blue-on-blue shooting is cop on cop.
“And how do you take it one step further that that imaginary gun holder would have only shot Mr. Holmes and no one else?”
so because something “might” happen I do nothing?
how do you function in life?
you never drive a car because you might get in a wreck?
you never go swimming because you might drown?
you never eat solide food because you might choke on it?
etc
Michelle, I would like to give you an answer to your initial question. First off, I have read your statement, and questions, as well as those who have responded to you. Here is my answer: I do NOT know if there were any individuals within the Theatre or not, who were permit holders. There is just as good a chance that there were, as there is that there were not. HOWEVER, every person that I have ever met & or known, who has taken the time and the initiative to obtain a “Concealed Carry Permit”, are actually law abiding citizens of these United States of America! Therefore, even if there were any persons there, who were permit holders, they NO DOUBT were also following the rules/laws of the state, and had left their firearm locked up either at home, or within their vehicle. You see, it truly is a FACT that those who carry out such “dasterdly” deeds such as this massacre, do NOT care about laws, rules, or regulations. They would rather go on and prey on the innocent victims who are unable to defend themselves. From personal experience, I have been in situations where I would have been fully morally and legally justified in pulling my pistol, and defending both my self as well as the innocent bystanders who were nearby. I chose NOT to pull at those times, because I knew that I could just as easily put down a rabid animal, as easily as allow these attackers to live. I stood my ground, I DID NOT back down! The fact that I was obviously willing and extremely capable of using my pistol, was at those times sufficient to cause these individuals to think twice, and back down and leave the area. Not all emergencies will work out this way, sadly! But the fact that a person is mentally ready, willing and able to do whatever is necessary to end a violent confrontation, can in fact end such encounters in a semi-peaceable manner.
Under the circumstances that played themselves out within this theatre, no one can KNOW what they would have done, unless they themselves have been under combat situations already, and or have trained themselves to react under such emergencies. We can “suppose” what we “would have done” if we had been there, but the point is, we were not there! And again, it is quite possible that there were at least one person there with a “CCW”, but, as a law abiding citizen, they were NOT carrying within an establishment that prohibited their legally carrying.
I submit to you a few questions for your consideration: Suppose that there would have been just one person within this semi dark theater, and this person sees this deadly threat about to take place, within those micro seconds, they go over all their options, and choose to draw their firearm, (which they broke the law and carried within an establishment that clearly had placed signs prohibiting the carrying of a concealed weapon,) and do what ever is necessary to stop the senseless loss of life. Let us say, for the sake of this question, that just as the violent person aims and begins to fire, this permit holder would have had a clear and perfect sight picture, takes aim, and fires. Who would have been the person that would have been taken into custody? The attacker? or the person that stopped this act of violence? Who would have been the one “crucified” by the press? Who would have had to go through months or perhaps years of courtroom trials as well as being hounded by the media, just because they were carrying where it was legally wrong to carry? You see, all permit holders are holders of said permits, because they choose to follow the law. This sad sick soul that murdered so many and wounded many more, this person had no thought or desire to follow the law. Just as terrorists and all other criminals do, they only think about themselves and their own selfish desires.
I hope that my answer does indeed address your question.
Because it was posted that no one was allowed into the theater with a CCW handgun, Michelle.
And why would a CCW holder suddenly be more likely to shoot at a innocent person in this scenario than any other, when in fact they do far better than the police?
Actual reason: he’s nuts. In America today, he has more rights to be nutty than you have to be sane.
Favorite media cliche, “We must see this never happens again!”
As if we can stop tragedy from ever occurring. How stupid are newspeople, anyway?
It would just be humorous except that idiots like Pelosi and Schumer say the same thing, and immediately need another government program to deal with the problem.
Which it never, ever will. Nor ever has.
In history.
Right on the money. Simple, concise, and spot on. There really isn’t a good way to predict who would be a likely candidate for such a heinous crime and those that think they can are only fooling themselves. This isn’t a safe world and if you aren’t prepared to defend yourself, you could become a victim.
Brings to mind something a friend mentioned to me years ago.
The newsies like to say, “The tornado was responsible for killing at least X number of people and putting power out in the area for days”. Yes, the weather becomes “responsible”.
I have had the unadulterated pleasure of talking to news reporters twice in my lifetime. Both of them together could probably learn to operate a toaster, if they had help. Their lack of basic knowledge of how things work, or even assumptions on how people react was beyond the sublime.
These are the people who sat next to you in math class who forget their pencil, every day.
The one thing I have come to appreciate about the onslaught of coverage is the fact that it feels like we are more inclined to treat such occurrences as what they are: tragedies.
When I was much younger, my mother & I witnessed a shooting-murder of a loved one. And at that young age, I was left to deal with it on my own. No help. Just “deal”.
But today when things like this happen, whether bigger or smaller, help in many forms appears to be readily available. People jump at the opportunity to support, guide & just plain old listen.
Things were not like that decades ago when I and my mother went through what we did. Sure; there were head-shrinkers & “therapists”. All you cared to pay for. The times I tried to talk to people about it, I was accused of lying of soon became the most avoided kid at school — by teacher, school counselor & student, alike. Today, there are groups & even just average people willing to just be there.
My point, the way so many make money off of others’ tragedies *is* sad. But the way it’s all out there these days makes these experiences and those who went through them that much more obvious. It’s not so easy to ignore & ostracize the victims of crime.
My thoughts are with them, all.
The one thing I have come to appreciate about the onslaught of coverage is the fact that it feels like we are more inclined to treat such occurrences as what they are: tragedies.
When I was much younger, my mother & I witnessed a shooting-murder of a loved one. And at that young age, I was left to deal with it on my own. No help. Just “deal”.
But today when things like this happen, whether bigger or smaller, help in many forms appears to be readily available. People jump at the opportunity to support, guide & just plain old listen.
Things were not like that decades ago when I and my mother went through what we did. Sure; there were head-shrinkers & “therapists”. All you cared to pay for. The times I did try to talk to people about it, I was either ignored, dismissed, accused of lying or I soon became the most avoided kid at school — by teacher, school counselor & student, alike. Today, there are groups & even just average people willing to just be there.
My point, the way so many make money off of others’ tragedies *is* sad. But the way it’s all out there these days makes these experiences and those who went through them that much more obvious. It’s not so easy to ignore & ostracize the victims of crime.
My thoughts are with them, all.
Except this is not a tragedy.
A Tragedy is a Plane Crash, a Tidal Wave, or an Earth Quake. No one is responsable for a Tragedy.
This was an Atrocity!
“A Tragedy is a Plane Crash, a Tidal Wave, or an Earth Quake. No one is responsable for a Tragedy.”
Then you may want to remove “Plane Crash” from your definition or specify, as many are the responsibility of those flying the aircraft.
And when attempting to correct someone, use spell-check. (It’s “responsible”, not “responsable”.)
There is no spell check on this thing!
And why should I take critique from someone who is ashamed of his own name?
Let me also add;
In 24 months working with the NTSB (while employed by the Boeing Company) on determining causation of either 1) Controlled Flight into Terrain or 2) Uncontrolled Flight into Terrain; I never found one instance regarding someone deliberatly causing the situation to occur.
And aside from September 11 2001 (which was also an Atrocity) and possibly Egypt Air 600 (a Dry Run for 911?) No other plane crashes have an individual deliberatly responsible for the occurance.
9/11/01 was not a crime, nor was Major Hassan’s attack on his military comrades. These were acts of war which, throughout history, are distinguishable from crimes. Even intra-country acts of war are distinguishable from crimes, e. g. the traitorous attack on Fort Sumter which led to 600,000 war dead and countless wrecked families. No, let us use a little crical thinking and distinguish war, from tragedy (e.g., earthquakes and auto/plane accidents)and crimes and atrocities (e.g., executing prisoners and genocide by government). OK, I will agree, some crimes are bad enough to be atrocities, and all atrocities are crimes (like Fast and Furious and the perjury and false claim of executive privilege to cover it up) but let each separate word retain its own separate meaning. Holmes acting out was not a tragedy or an act of war. It was a crime to gain attention for a brilliant guy who did not feel his intelligence had gotten him the full attention he deserved. OK he said, I’ll show them. It certainly is a tragedy for the victims, but a far different type of tragedy from a flood that washes away their home and some of their loved ones. This was a crime that resulted from perpetrated solely by human free will for reasons we might be able to discern, but which no rational person would believe would justify the result. Even for Holmes. Life in prison to share the reputation of a Manson? For a potential, future neurophysicist? OK I don’t get it, even though now we all know his name. He should have gone to Cheers and spent his life like Norm and Cliff. At least less people would be dead.
I agree
Public silence doesn’t seem to have any bearing on black attacks on whites or Muslim attacks on everybody else.
I just posted something to this effect on a local news site: Why do the media and the politicians ALWAYS follow the same script every single time something like this happens? Sometimes they start within minutes of the news breaking. Same questions, same opinions, same “solutions.” You’d think they’d have learned by now: We’re not in charge. Chaos is real. Shit happens. You can’t predict everything, you can’t prevent everything, you can’t control everything, especially things in which human beings are involved.
In a couple of weeks, after the cops have analyzed this guy, we’ll hear the talking heads reading their other script: “The man was obviously troubled, obviously a risk, why didn’t somebody catch the warning signs and DO SOMETHING?” We are not Skinnerian robots. We can and do make random decisions – or at least decisions based on factors so complex and so cryptic that we ourselves aren’t conscious of them. We wake up one morning and decide to go fishing. Or we wake up one morning and decide that today’s the day for that massacre we’ve been dreaming of for so long.
The trouble with people is, maybe they will and maybe they won’t. The guy’s mom supposedly recognized him as soon as she heard what happened. So why hadn’t she called the police before he acted? Because maybe he would and maybe he wouldn’t. In our society, people generally get the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think we should trade that principle for the illusion that we are safe from chaos. Unfortunately, that is exactly what some versions of the script say we should do.
Great comment. Thanks.
This is a perfect summation of how I feel.
Left/libeal Tourette Syndrome: Blame conservatives, guns and Bush (repeat)!
The attack dog media WILL use this for full effect to distract every American from the underlying atrocity about to engulf the United States if Obama gets a second, and final, chance to act out his scenario of destruction.
George Bush should be indicted for this!
and of course all guns should be taken from responsible citizens.
Very real evil exists in the world. When we act surprised or act as if it only comes from certain sources, countries or neighborhoods it is not helpful.
There is no light without shadow and there is no getting away from that and one can’t legislate it out of existence.
‘the culture itself would have to change.’
Perhaps, human nature might have to change as well?
As in the Arizona shootings, the great issue which is unaddressed is the world which has arisen from the single-minded efforts of de-institutionalization of the mentally ill. That this guy is nuts is not just a short form explanation, it’s a de-facto diagnosis which in this case should not have allowed him on the streets or able to procure firearms. Apparently the murder’s mother was not surprised at what her son had done. Charles Krauthammer also noted this on Fox News Special Report on Friday.
I am aware of the Libertarian issues involved. Those issues should be taken seriously. It’s complex issue in a spectrum which ranges from the homeless crazy who won’t take his meds to the sociopath who seeks an honor guard on his way to Hell. But status quo is not acceptable.
P.S. I’ll be damned if I’ll be inhibited from calling somebody “nuts” without a graduate degree. The efforts to allow only Psychiatrists and Psychologists to make Official Diagnoses with multi-syllable terminology is….nuts and has resulted in a public unwilling to recognize or express the plain truth when it’s staring them in the face.
Yes, a complex issue with a wide spectrum. I think probably there are points on that spectrum where the problem can be adequately addressed, but on the whole I tend to think it’s one of those predicaments, much like the problem of the homeless, that has no good, or acceptable, solution and will ever be with us.
Every problem potentially can be solved. The problem of illegal crossings at the southern border could potentially be solved by lining up snipers along the border and shooting everyone as they came across. Eventually (soon, I think), people would stop trying to cross that border. We could decide that certain mental conditions once diagnosed would result in automatic institutionalization and require that each citizen get periodic psychiatric evaluations to prevent anyone from falling through the cracks. Effective solutions, perhaps, but who the hell could live with them.
It’s a great balancing act and finding the line between too much and too little is difficult in the extreme.
The most important thing Moran says no one’s touched on. It’s probably fair to say that the people who commit such atrocities know they are going to be famous–or infamous. Everybody from the president on down will be aware of their existence and that level of notoriety will continue for years as the aftermath plays out.
If somehow we were able to get to the point where everyone who disseminates news agreed to report the basics of what happened and then stopped reporting immediately, the other disturbed people out there who might be contemplating similar acts would know that they wouldn’t become the focus of attention for millions of people. That might very well dissuade them from acting.
Of course, putting a lid on such an event in a free society is a pipe dream. But I wonder. If it could be done, if everyone agreed to shut the story down a day or two after it happened, would it make potential copycats think twice?
We’re not allowed to say that anyone is insane, crazy, nuts, – or, especially, evil in the case of progressive perpetrators. The best adjective we’re permitted under political correctness is “disturbed,” implying outside forces, not the individual, determined the aberrant action. Let’s face it, when the left took control of the language, they got the keys to the culture. We ain’t gettin’ those keys back my friends. If the culture was a house, we’d need to take a battering ram or a torch to it to take back the ground it sits on. Standing outside speaking Latin to the visigoths inside we will continue to garner ridicule and scorn. When we’ve had enough of them, or they’ve had enough of us, we will meet them at the gate and settle the matter in a historical manner.
“We’re not allowed to say anybody is crazy…..” Some years ago when I was teaching a university class, on the first day of the new semester I had a male student who refused to sit down and just kept roaming around the room. It was an evening class for teachers and teachers-in-training that met for three hours and so almost all of my students were women. The male student was about 6 ft 2 in tall and weighed about 190 pounds. His constant roaming around the classroom and weird staring at the women students unnerved them and me.
The next morning I went to the Chair of the department and told him that this “roaming” student had to be removed from the class. Something had to be terribly wrong with the student because he refused to sit down and he clearly frightened all of the women with his actions of coming up behind them and peering over their shoulders. The Chair said that according to regulations nothing could be done until the student actually committed some kind of illegal or violent act. I told the Chair that I was frightened of the man and refused to enter the classroom again–thus leaving the class without a professor–until the Chair did something about the situation. The Chair was a pretty good guy and ended up calling the “roaming” student into his office. The end result was that the student withdrew from my class. He did, however, end up in somebody else’s class for the semester.
I learned from this situation that it was essentially impossible to get anything done about a student who was clearly unbalanced mentally, It was only after I absolutely refused to go back and teach that class if the student remained in it that the Chair of the department did anything. It was only because I was willing to “cause trouble” that the Chair acted. But even after the Chair talked to the student, the student still remained in the university, simply ending up in somebody else’s classroom.
I noticed in the news reports about the shooting that the shooter was in the process of withdrawing from the graduate program he was enrolled in. It will be interesting to see why.
The young man from Arizona had bizarre behavior which resulted in him getting kicked out of a junior college but STILL no one did anything. His parents, apparently, didn’t take him to a mental health person.
Not crazy or insane – they are called Republicans. Expect more of the tribe to kill more and more innocent people. Conservatives cannot live in a world which PROGRESSES, they live in a world long gone (slavery, white superiority, male-baptist dominated society, etc..). The tribal loyalty is stronger than feelings for the country – and all because the south lost the civil war.
Bin to kollidge have we?
I’d lay off huffing out of that paper bag. Not good for you, and you’re already showing the clear signs of mental deterioriation.
Please stop projecting your inane beliefs onto others. Same old “oh yeah, you conservatives are poopoo heads” argument. Just a note Jumbo? When you parrot the same stale old self-serving drivel that your metrosexuals-in-arms have been spewing forever, it’s not cutting edge and clever, it speaks to lack of intelligence. And you shouldn’t name yourself after one of your pimples.
Genius, Republicans WON the Civil War. The Republican Party, the GOP, was born in opposition to slavery. They were abolitionists from the get-go. Democrats were pro-slavery from the beginning, and they still are, but now it’s just called “government assistance.”
Say the racists all switched from Democrat to Republican all you want. It sure is a convincing argument. To ignoramuses. (Too many of those, I’ll admit.)
This is what you have to offer to the discussion? Well, aren’t you a flaming piece.
Jumbo
Not crazy or insane – they are called Republicans. Expect more of the tribe to kill more and more innocent people. Conservatives cannot live in a world which PROGRESSES, they live in a world long gone (slavery, white superiority, male-baptist dominated society, etc..). The tribal loyalty is stronger than feelings for the country – and all because the south lost the civil war.
hey, retard the slavery, white superiority, male-baptist dominated society, etc. were the people in the south.
gun control was pushed by the people in the south so blacks could not have guns. KKK from the south. by the all from southern democrats. before you open your stupid mouth, make sure you know what you are talking about.
So how would you be enlightened by supporting a political philosophy which has experienced its only marginal successes at the level of family clans or very small tribes? You are not PROGRESSIVE. You only call yourself progressive because it sounds good to you. I say it is a misnomer. Try reading “The Fatal Conceit”, by F A Hayek, if you are able to, Jumbo.
The shooter in Arizona, who killed and wounded the congresswoman, the judge, the little girl, etc. has yet to be brought to trial. The 9-11 villains are on trial 11 years later, but the trial has been recessed in respect for the annual Ramadan Bombathon. The mass murderer Major Nisan, who shot up Fort Hood, has yet to be convicted. All of those killers should have been hung and long since buried. If American justice proceeds according to form, this killer will be with us for years to come. It’s too bad he didn’t shoot it out with the cops. Now, we’ll get to see what lawyers are always bragging about: America’s justice system is the best in the world.
Good points, Patrick. But I have always wondered about the Timothy McVay situation. The system didn’t horse around with Timothy. He was arrested, tried, and executed in almost record time. It was as if someone wanted him disposed of pronto. Quick, clean, and over with. I wonder why?
McVay attacked the Leviathan, the Federal Government, in retaliation for the great FBI tank battle against those pilgrims at the Alamo, er Waco that is. The Declaration of Independence gives the rationale for when attacking one’s government is justified, but Leviathan doesn’t care about that, or about the profiteering in the justice business, when it comes to its own self interest. Attack Leviathan and retaliation is swift. Attack some people, and the court and prison industry has another ATM to taxpayers’ money.
I agree w Mr. Moran. The premature reactions have been predictable, idiotic, and useless.
I’ve got a suggestion – instead of gun control nonsense, let’s make body armor and helmets illegal. Doesn’t that make just as much sense, and have about the same (non-existent) potential to accomplish anything? Hmmmm?
At least a few people are raising this question — my husband voiced the same thing last evening. (not that he meant to make illegal the sale of body armor, but why no one was calling that into
At least a few people are raising this question — my husband voiced the same thing last evening. Not that he meant to make illegal the sale of body armor (altho that does give me pause), but why no one was calling that into question, instead of the same stale, banal hoopla over gun control.
Even when it was revealed early on that our own overseas troops didn’t have enough protection, they were banned from buying their own better body armor (i.e. “dragon scales”). If they were killed and found to be wearing something not military issue, their contract (including burial & LIFE INSUR.!) was null & void. So why IS such high tech stuff avlbl to those not in literally in the direct line of fire?
and why should honest law abiding citizens be denied body armor? seems to me if some of those people had some they might be alive right now.
One other point to add:
The “If [fill in the blank] had been there/had happened, things would have been different!”, the armchair quarterbacking after the fact, is no better.
No one knows what would or would not have happened if someone else had fired back. No one knows!
xactly
From an emotional and common-sense point of view, Moran’s comments are fine. The problem with them is that they tend to defuse conservatives, who are more prone to listening. The Left will go on shrieking about TeaPartiers and the rest.
Nothing will change. The GOP cult members will still point their weapons at anyone not thinking they way they do. They will still murder innocent people (zimmerman, McVie anyone?). They will still feel persecuted because of the current man living in THEIR white house. Dems don’t have the backbone to challenge the whackjobs you folks seem to revere and honor, so it will continue.
Quick question: How many progressives walked into a public space and began shooting people? Name one. Just one. The sane world will wait while you figure out that YOUR side are the murderers. You are still quite p!ssed off that you lost the civil war. So you continue to kill and kill and kill.
He was a member of OWS, and was arrested in San Diego during a demonstration. Please explain how this makes him a right-winger.
Zimmerman was a registered Democrat. McVeigh expressed a hodgepodge of racism and extreme anti-government prejudices, hardly Republican planks. (No matter what people may tell you, Republicans are not racists, though some racists are Republicans as well as some being Democrats, and Republicans want smaller government, not no government.) Your own examples condemn your argument.
Steve-O = Jumbo.
If you’re going to try and puill the sock-puppet routine, don’t post so close together, and learn to alter your grammar and style a bit. Guess that fine point esacaped you, hmm?
Are you sure you’ve listed all of the stereotypes professor? Please go back to your volume of “Liberalism For Dummies” and pull up some more stale liberal tropes for our enjoyment. What a clown act your post was. I’m sure there are some mental exercise books you could have someone read to you to help with your obvious affliction. Meanwhile, we wish you well on your journey to puberty.
Jared Loughner, though his political thinking was seriously disorganized, is generally considered a pot-smoking liberal – or at least not a right-wing extremist. McVeigh and the militias happened twenty years ago.
Your guy’s best bud Ayers comes immediately to mind.
‘Are australians “disarmed” as a result? Hell no.”
Absolutely they are, and to no point whatsoever.
you need to get you facts strait. name one killer who wasn’t a proggresive.
Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו
בעקבות הטבח בעיירה אורורה שבקולורדו, שלחתי מכתב תנחומים לנשיא ארה”ב ברק אובמה בו נכתב:
PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s letter of condolences to U.S. President Barack Obama, following the massacre in Aurora, Colorado
“אני שולח את תנחומי ואת תנחומי העם בישראל למשפחות האמריקאים שנרצחו באורורה, קולורדו, ואיחולי החלמה מלאה ומהירה לפצועים.
כל הישראלים עומדים לצד העם האמריקאי האבל על טרגדיה נוראית זו אשר גבתה את חייהם של רבים כל כך. אנו מבינים היטב את הכאב והאובדן שאתם חווים”.
“I send my condolences and those of the people of Israel to the families of the slain Americans in Aurora, Colorado, and our wishes for a full and speedy recovery to the wounded
All Israelis stand with the American people as they grieve this horrific tragedy that claimed the lives of so many. We well understand the pain and the loss that you are experiencing
Netanyahu knows, all too well, what a terrorist act like this can do to a community.
Although, no one will publish a claim of responsibility and intent for this incident, to further torment the victims.
Can we add to that, the rush to blame both sides and equivocate?
one side was responsible for this one side was not.
What?
Holmes’ mother immediately knew it was her son. No doubt she’ll clam up once the lawyers get her ear. She clearly knows why he did it. Mental illness? Extreme anger? Politics. She knows.
I think you are right, Adam. Have they even gotten inside his apartment yet? What do we really know about his motivations? We know he had a hard time finding a job and played games on the computer. He claimed to be The Joker. All of that does not add up to why he was armed to the hilt, with a booby-trapped apartment rigged to decoy First Responders, and struck a soft target murderously and remorselessly. On the the eve of the Utoya massacre anniversary.
THe right is seems to be relieved that Holmes doesn’t appear to be a Breivik clone, and is satisfied with the “just a lone wacko” explanation. The left is quietly disappointed that Holmes can’t be used to bludgeon the Tea Party, so they default to “Gun Control”, and quietly join the right in the “lone Wacko” explanation, because they have a hunch what this murderer is really all about.
There is a Holmes manifesto out there, or maybe in his apartment, but it probably won’t show up until next year, if ever.
And I bet they’ll find “inglourious Basterds” in his video collection. Nothing like a little Hollywood gotterdamerung massacre of fascists in a theater to inspire a madman.
There is a great rush to judgment about this whole mess. Before demonizing the shooter, we should learn more about his background and whether he had shown signs of a mental diorder. Why did his mother immeddiately acknowledge that he was probably the shooter? It is not at all unusual for a young man graduating from an esoteric program to not get a job right away. IF he was very bright, It’s not unusual for him to have few friends. His abiity separated him from the general population…no wonder he thought the mania about the Batman movie was absurd. Why did he drop out of med school? I am not condoning what he did but I don’t think he should be called Sasatan etc. without knowing more about him. We can’t blame the mental health system if he was never referred. Mental health advocates have succeeded in closing most mental hospitals and freeing patients. Many can’t can’t care for themselves, don’t take their meds, and can’t get jobs. but some have caused damage in a society which chose to free them from supervision. The whole situation should be reevaluated. The demand for human rights by some advocates has deprived the rest of us of our rights.
@Steve-0
Lee Harvey Oswald had been to the USSR, the belt-way snipers were Moslems, and as I understand most of the others were just plain crazy. Neither party supports mass murder, and if we are going to accuse talk show host of “moral responsibility”, are Afro-American preachers and celebraties going to be blamed for Black on White violence?
Do not advocate rules that YOU are not prepaired to live under. This is advice to live by.
Well, the modern Pentagon procedure for making the unusual humdrum is Major Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter. Granted, such incidents of self initiated activity are not historically unusual in the Islamic tradition as acts of war against infidels during war, but in the American context psychologizing the major as just another joker going postal (radicalized) because of a multi-cultural adjustment disorder from diversity overload understates the banality. As usual, all of his professional peer group of psychologists apparently missed all of Hasan’s warning signs, chalking up his strange behaviors as cultural artifacts rather than a disorder, and thus not deserving of discipline for their not reporting Major Hasan’s bizarre culturally situated behaviors.
According to a report in the Daily Rash, Barbara Walters snagged the first interview with the 3-month old baby that survived the shootings. http://www.thedailyrash.com/barbara-walters-lands-first-interview-with-3-month-old-colorado-shooting-victim
And still no idea how this baby feels about Batman!
“I challenge anyone to come up with anything original written by anyone in the last 24 hours that didn’t follow the now traditional meme-making and narrative-setting path that every major public bloodletting has followed in the last decade.”
OK. I wrote something that I hadn’t seen on any of the news outlets or newspaper columns. (Please correct me if I’m wrong)
I tried to look at this phenomenon of spree shootings in other countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampage_killing
And I pointed out that any theory or proposal on how to deal with spree shootings has to account for the fact that they have occurred for a very long time (century or more), in many countries around the world–not just the U.S.
The worst spree shooting in the last 20 years didn’t happen in America. It happened in Australia, when a gunman killed 35 people in cold blood.
What about Anders Behring Breivik in Norway a year ago? Far more restrictive gun laws that the US and it certainly didn’t stop him. He killed 69 people.
I’m really having a good chuckle at PJM’s sudden “nothing to see here” attitude.
I’ll link these threads, and I’ll post those links the next time there’s a mass shooting (it won’t take long) and if there’s an obvious way to link that mass shooting to islam or the left or some democratic party policy. Wait and see.
But I agree that commentators should be learning faster. And I agree that commentators should stop seeing every mass murder as a political opportunity.
“The worst spree shooting in the last 20 years didn’t happen in America. It happened in Australia, when a gunman killed 35 people in cold blood”
It did, yes. Well, almost 20 years. And australia outlawed (and bought back / destroyed) assault and semi-automatic weapons as a result of that. I had a friend who had to turn in (I think) an AR-15 replica. That was 16 years ago, and nobody regrets it. After a student in melbourne shot two fellow students about a decade ago (that’s a mass-murder in australian terms these days) there was another drive to restrict handgun laws (which are mostly state-legislated). That’s the difference – we can change our gun laws when it’s seen as necessary. Are australians “disarmed” as a result? Hell no.
In terms of deaths, I think port arthur was more a factor of opportunity than some sort of vague “badness”. Port arthur only has one exit and it’s deliberately remote (it’s an old prison from our convict era – it’s very pretty, but it would have been a harsh place to live), so bryant had a pretty easy time finding victims and plenty of time to do it. If he’d tried it further north he would have faced the police much sooner.
you comment was total nonsense
” [the killer] had a pretty easy time finding victims and plenty of time to do it. If he’d tried it further north he would have faced the police much sooner”
Right you certainly are…if he tried it in the presence of some OTHER armed people, he would have had, as you say an “…easy time…and plenty of time” to kill for so long without resistance.
Ahhh “The Police”… that magical superhuman force-field that bends the laws of physics, time, and all mortal abilities…
In other words, you are ARMED PEOPLE could have stopped him, but ONLY if they wore…certain….magical….CLOTHES?
We have learned in this sad day of morning that it doesn’t matter whether the psychopath resides in strict gun control countries like Norway or Canada or comes from a gun regulated country like the USA they will prey on the defenseless which in this case was a gun free zone where law abiding citizens stand down. The UK websites asked the better questions than the large news networks that stupidly and dishonestly internet search the wrong person because it was politically convenient. The real journalists that can operate a toaster and deductive reason ask why the mother knew right away and with his lack of employment who was funding this rampage? Maybe we will find again like we did in Arizona the psychosis came from an opposing direction from what the major news media would like to blame. Again.
Look at all the ads for free tuition money from the Government financing the schools where democrats teach and vote. Well, I don’t know but it is possible with his record he collected some of that tuition money as part of a ruinous pile of loans, looked at the employment picture for neurophysicists, and decided, What am I doing with my life? I know what I’ll do with the money. I won’t flush it down the rat hole of the education mills.
Could be all wet or his parents could have sent him the money he needed. I do know that I don’t have %15,000 for ammunition in this economy. Very strange. His apartment and job at McDonald’s don’t match a guy with thousands to spend on weoponry. Or it could have been credit cards he knew he would not have to pay back. Money for that guy by way of loans was no problem in our society.
You can almost see the producer’s minions scurrying to the closet to find the VIP shooting/mass shooting balloons and placards during the first commercial break while the reporters line up for the interviews of the victims. This whole ritual seems sick, and I am tired of it. I am not watching TV news this week. I got the story in the first ten minutes. All the rest of it will just be the same old rehash we watch between the car and cat food commercials.
Here’s something a little different.
The threat of this type of shooting is something Israelis must deal with every day. Add to that the fact that when they succeed, the people who continuously threaten to kill Israelis are hailed as heroes by their leaders.
Then, to add insult to injury, the Manchurian-oops I mean American president tells the Israelis its their fault because they don’t make suicidal concessions to those who would kill them.
Tragic as this ordeal is, perhaps it should make liberals stand back and reassess their love affair with Islam and the “Palestinians.”
sinz54
You said
Only if you *knew* he had body armor.
In a darkened theater, with your eyes watering from that smoke/gas grenade he threw, you would not have known that. So you would have aimed your first shot at his chest somewhere. With, say, a .45, you might not even be able to knock him down at a distance. And then you’re in big trouble, because he’s going to retaliate with his rifle and shotgun.
We don’t train our soldiers to be a suicide squad. We train them to *evaluate the situation*, and determine if they can engage with a chance of success.
we also don’t train them to be a bunch of cowering p***ies and to use their head under stress. I always assume someone is wearing body armor and you act like it is impossible to defeat, it is not. This guy was not superman. He was blinded by a gas mask (and smoke from the cs gas) in a dark theater. A few armed calm people could have taken this POS out.
let me ask you something: why do you think none of these POS’s ever attack police stations? because they would be killed in second and not get the fame / attention they want.
Michelle you said
That is just ridiculous. Imagine your “magic CCW” all you like. Shooting at targets is not the same as having someone shooting back.
Nothing, given what happened, points to another person with a gun in the theater making any difference.
do you think that no one who has a CCW hasn’t actual combat / police experience?
equally: nothing, given what happened, points to another person with a gun in the theater not making a difference,
because apparently there was none there. you cannot prove a negative.
“That is just ridiculous. Imagine your “magic CCW” all you like. Shooting at targets is not the same as having someone shooting back.”
Sheep always come up with convoluted scenarios in which the gun would never do them any good.
Michelle you said
That is just ridiculous. Imagine your “magic CCW” all you like. Shooting at targets is not the same as having someone shooting back.
Nothing, given what happened, points to another person with a gun in the theater making any difference.
do you think that no one who has a CCW hasn’t actual combat / police experience?
equally: nothing, given what happened, points to another person with a gun in the theater not making a difference,
because apparently there was none there. you cannot prove a negative.
I’ve read the article and the comments, and responded to a few comments. what I see overall (I may have missed it) is a point not made.
The problem is we’ve turned our country into a bunch of feminized men, cowards and fat self-centered lazy slobs.
The simple fact of the matter is this azzclown could have easily been taken out by a couple of high-school linebackers, or any body else with some balls.
His vision was limited by a gas mask and smoke, he had to reload his firearm.
There were at least 70 people there. This dirtbag could have easily been over powered, his weapon taken from him and been beaten to death for all I care right there on the spot by a few courages men (OK – women too).
Would someone maybe get killed? Yup! Guess what somebody did get killed!
Instead we all cower, wetting ourselves waiting to die. It’s disgusting and pathetic. This sh**tbag should have never left that theater alive.
That would stop this nonsense.
At the Appalachian school of law a few years ago, a killer was stopped by two CCW holding students who actually ran to their cars got their weapons, ran back and subdued the killer.
You notice none of these maniacs attack police stations – they would be dead in a second.
They also do not try and rob a gun store where many patrons as well as the workers are carrying fully loaded weapons and if they try they usually end up DEAD very quickly!
I just watched part of ABC This Week, and Ed Rendell has decided that the only people that can have “assault weapons” are the Military, Police, and Democrat Party shock troops. Oops, I made some of that up.
The problem is as rational humans beings, we look for reasons behind irrational, inhuman acts where there are none. But in search to find meaning in these acts, we give the perpetrators celebrity status. There are some indications that this celebrity may become a motivating factor to future monstrosities.
I do not believe in government censorship of the Press, but in these cases I believe that the following self censorship would be proper:
I do not need to know the name of the killer, anymore than I need to know the name of the mad dog that bit someone. From this point forward, please use some moniker like IK2012c, indicating that this is third insane killer documented in 2012;
Do not bother to tell me bring me interviews from family and friends of the killer. I already know everything I need to know about the killer: it is an inhuman monster;
Do not bother to bring me footage of the trial, or show boaters protesting the inevitable death sentence: it only adds to the notoriety.
Do give me stories of the victims. They do deserve to be remembered and their loss mourned.
If the corpse of the monster is vivisected, do let me know if there was any organic component involved that may reduce the number of such incidents in the futures.
Thanks in advance.
Yes, but do give me a detailed account of what happened. Just as pilots study and learn from the NTSB accident reports. Some of us want to understand what happened in order to be better prepared should it happen again.
the captured suspect was not out to kill muslims
the captured suspect was not out to kill blacks
I believe the over all point that is being missed here in all the comments is the fact that this theater chain was a so called “Gun Free Zone”. This means that those with a license to carry a firearm had to leave their handguns in their vehicles.
So what protection was provided for those at the theater? Was there at least one armed police officer assigned to protect patrons at that business? If not then what is the plan in the event of just such a scenario…call 911 and wait for possibly an hour for help to stop it?
I think all those with a license to carry should start a class action lawsuit as well as push for legislation that states that if your business forbids armed carry that you are responsible civilly for any harm to those that could help to stop further carnage in an event like this one.
I have seen all the comments about the use a firearm and its possible outcome, regardless of the outcome with armed citizens that do indeed take it upon themselves it is far better to at least try to neutralize the situation even if you do hit and kill or injure an innocent than to stand by and let the shooter continue his episode, but without the presence of an armed citizen then the question doesn’t matter everyone in the “GUN Free Zone” except the shooter is a sitting duck with no option except to hope you are not killed that time!
How do we know no one took a shot at him? He left a trail of blood from the theater. There is a picture of his rifle with red stains around it and more leading from the theater. Where did that come from?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176377/James-Holmes-Colorado-shooting-Gunman-used-drugs-killed-Heath-Ledger.html
when you are in a crowd shooting people, blood splashes everywhere, including back on him.
Warriors: so last century. The real heroes were the ones who used their bodies to shield their friends and family. I’d never pick the guy with the gun.
better to have attacked the shooter, all shielding does is make the people you are shielding die second.
I think a whole lot of macho gun nuts in the comments section missed the entire damn point of the article. Just sayin’.