It has nothing to do with the NRA. Law abiding citizens have the right to own firearms.

This was an awful act. But taking away guns from folks that obey the law leaves only the criminals with the guns. If guns were outlawed, guys like this would still find a way to obtain the weapons he needed to carry something like this out. That's what you anti gun rights folks fail to comprehend.

Gun control will NOT STOP ACTS LIKE THIS.

Fewer guns and more control will certainly work towards stopping this insanity. This idea that if guns were oulawed only criminals would have guns is pathetic. Matt Mosher how would you feel if one of your loved ones was gunned down.

"Gun control will NOT STOP ACTS LIKE THIS" Gosh Matt, I guess this is a fact that every other major country in the world has failed to grasp. There's just no amount of stupid you have failed to absorb is there?

Stop? No. Reduce? Yes. Sadly even if guns are banned it would take decades to have any real effect since there are already millions of guns in circulation and it would take time before enough get confiscated in crimes to make a real difference.

Blame the movie industry!

If gun ownership activists don't step up to the plate and take an active role in coming up with a solution, then they leave it in the hands of politicians and the feds. And these events are going to run their course with additional legislation and more severe restrictions.

We are all sick and tired of gun killings and mass killings. I don't blame gun owners... I own several firearms. Of course people kill and guns don't DUH!!

Gun ownership and protecting the right to bear arms falls squarely in the lap of its proponents. This is more the about protecting rights. Its also about solutions. Do your part.

We had 'gun buy back' scheme in Australia after the horrific murders of 31 people in Tasmania, it stopped the sale of guns for a year or two or three, today, 21 years after, the guns are still available.

Why does any person need such armery ??. the guy had FOUR guns, just sit down and think, do you really need a gun?. if your constitution allows it, your mind controls it, it's a sick state of your union, and spreading rapidly.

You can blame Islam, the movie industry, just look at a sick society that you live in.

Stephen,

No offense intended. This is about our constitutional rights. Until the constitution is amended or laws are changed... prohibiting guns sales is a pipe dream. And this is a democracy. There can be no comparison to Australia.

We do not want more government control. We want less. I think we all want a solution.

The problem as I see it is that our citizens do not get involved in making proposals for solutions. If anything, we spend more time complaining and protecting rights. Thats where I criticize the NRA. But, the NRA knows that stirring the pot is more about raising funds to sustain itself than finding a solution. Its the American way...

I don't believe its a question of how many guns you own. Its about responsibility. If America was founded as a colony for criminals and outcasts... then we might have a different discussion.

Guns don't kill people, they just make it a whole lot easier.

Matt: So far there has been no indication of this killer being other than a law abiding citizen and yet he committed this atrocity. He was a brilliant student with no prior record (too date). The common man does not need assault rifles or even automatic handguns. But as I've said before, the strongest gun laws will not stop these acts. The only way to change behavior is to change the thought processes that control our actions. We must learn that violence is not the answer. As long as our society condones violence as an answer to a problem, these kinds of massacres will occur.

LG-267159: Several of the original colonies were founded to benefit the misfits from Europe, such as Georgia being founded by displaced criminals and Massachusetts being founded by those hounded due to their religion. This acts are not specifically about our rights to own guns, being that the reason for the 2nd amendment can and still is being debated. It is about the survival of civil law and not returning to the rule of "natural law" and the might makes right syndrome. The concept of civil law and the body politic demands that we do what is necessary to stop these atrocities, even if it means understanding the true relationship between freedom and violence. Even if it means having our access to guns restricted. I would suspect that many Americans need to change the thought process that indelibly equates freedom with violent action.

So lizard, just exactly how does one go about teaching non-violence to a derranged person?

We all need to face the facts, that taking guns away won't stop this any more than Prohibition stopped alcohol. Prohibition made it worse! People get off on doing the "bad stuff" even more when they are not supposed to. The answer to this situation is Judge Roy Bean!!!!! Why waste millions of tax payers dollars to even feed these MONSTERS ONE DAY. Get rid of them one by one. If the consequences were stiffer things might improve. How much money has been spent for 43 years feeding Charlie Manson?? He butchered innocent people, yet we continue feeding the monster. Instant retribution would change things more. Execution on the spot. he's not innocent until proven guilty; HE's GUILTy. Instant execution, and rid the planet of these monsters and do us all a favor in society.

Stephen, I like you remember Martin Bryant's massacre in Tasmania, We ,my partner and I, were there 1 week before he went berko, luckily he did not decide to do it sooner. My sympathies go out to these families involved in this shooting but as you say gun laws would not have helped. How many deaths have occured in Oz since the "Buy back scheme" and how many "Illegal guns" are on the streets here now since then. America has probably millions more since they had gun reforms brought in than we have here.

Taking guns away WILL stop this, but it will also be the last nail in our country's coffin. We won't be America anymore.

As for this guy. I was reading in another thread, how many mass murderers aren't mentally ill. They're just isolated. A "Failure at life" and tend to blame others for their bad life. Of course, their personal failure is to blame. But also, society does share part of the blame.

That's because Our society has a bad habit of isolating people. Homeless, LGBT, criminals, sex offenders, on and on. We are constantly marginalizing people for various reasons and then we run around screaming and crying like chickens with our heads cut off when something like this happens. Bullying doesn't stop at HS. Hiring managers, judges, police, politicians, anyone in position to decide another's fate; they often are the forbears of this process.

I'm not defending what Holmes did. But I do understand what he was thinking. Until we become a more inclusive, sharing society, guns or not, we will continue to have mass murders at our current and probably a increasing rate.

It is because of all the anti-gun lobbists, anti-gun propaganda, and anti-gun regulations that not a single person in that movie theatre carried a gun. They were all obedient sheeps who followed order from the relentless anti-gun propaganda.

Had just one person in that movie room carried a fire arm, the "Joker" would not have been able to slaughter so many victims so easily -- the 'Joker' would have been dead or wounded. If just two persons in the movie room had used their guns to protect the audience, the Joker would have been so busy contending with two hostile cross fires that the casualty would be much lower.

If more people had the freedom to carry guns, this mentally deranged gunman, " The Joker," wouldn't be the only one having access to guns that night. And the decent people in the audience would have put him his 'place' quicker than he can pull the trigger.

@Wallstfatcat

Don't you think one man in the movie theater with a gun was enough ? Add the fact he used tear gas makes your argument worthless. Imagine if law enforcement came in and saw two, perhaps three or more people with their guns out, all shooting at one another. They all would have been shot.

It almost sounds like you are making an argument that the audience was at fault by not carrying weapons.

I really hope one day you have to fire your gun at someone, or better yet you get shoot. Then perhaps you will understand why guns are a bad idea.

Recluse is a good word, people that don't fit in aren't family orientated and or cant create their own fun, only then to start hating people, any people, and keeping it locked in..

Love thy neighbor as thyself takes work, work that a reclusive person doesn't desire.

You also shouldnt be able to purchase weapons or ammo via the internet and a red flag should be automatic through drivers ID for certain purchases and amounts..

Funny in away. When a tragedy like this happens so many people want to blame everyone else for it and not the poor perpetrator of the crime. You want to blame the NRA, the people who want to enjoy the little bit of freedom they have left to own and use fire arms, you want to blame republicans, big business, movie and game producers, Bush, and our fore father's who wrote the constitution, but not the one who caused the tragedy.

You would think that something like this would unit the people of this great county, but no lets play the blame game and devide us even more than we already are.

@WallStFatCat: You do realize that Holmes was wearing armor on almost every part of his body right? Bullet proof vest, helmet, neck guard, groin protection, and leg guards. So if anyone else had a gun, they'd have to hit a very small target area to actually stop the guy, which would be difficult or impossible in a dark theater filled with tear gas and panicked crowds. It wouldn't stop him, because he doesn't care who he hits. It might stop you though, because you do. You have to hit him because if you don't you might hit someone else, which is extremely likely in this scenario. Instead of helping you'd be more likely just to add more bodies to the toll.

Concealed carry would have done nothing to stop this guy.

Assault weapons kill more people in a shorter time than simple hunting weapons. So why do our legislators resist banning these insidious killing machines? Answer: NRA lobby, political contributions and their constitutional scare tactics.

OK, crazy people in gun-controlled countries, start shouting non-sense, pull off their hair and occasionally pull off a knife and kill or wound 1 or 2 people, until they are overpowered by the crowd or the police. Crazy people here have access to heavy guns and kill dozens every month. So, guns don't kill people, but it makes it a lot of easier.

Romilio, are you referring to gun-controlled countries like Mexico?

texasbob Mexico, what a joke; I was thinking real gun control, like Cuba.

People who want a gun for a legitimate purpose, like hunting, sport, or home defense, do not need a military assault weapon, and they sure as hell don't need high capacity magazines. Those things serve only one purpose- to kill large numbers of people very quickly. Civilians should be limited to bolt or lever action rifles capable of holding no more than five rounds, shotguns that hold no more than three rounds, or six shot revolvers, that can not be reloaded with speed loaders. That would preserve everyone's right to have guns for legitimate purposes, while preventing these mass slaughters like this one.

@mattmosher and the rest of the gun whackos: This is just another case of a LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER who got tired of the law, got tired of abiding, and flipped out.

How stupid do you have to be to keep repeating the same old BS? And don't give me any second amendment crap. You do not know what the amendment was actually for (it was not to prevent tyranny, except from the King of England) and if you think it gives you the right to own any gun you have a craving for, you don't know what it means.

OldSarge's solution, in 1.26, will at least reduce the number of senseless killings our laws encourage and is in keeping with the second amendment, despite the ravings of fanatics. And just to be liberal about it, I'd even go with five shot shotguns.

Oh, yeah, and I realize guns don't kill people: they just make it very, very easy. So we might say: guns kill a lot of people.

@OldSarge,

Didja know that you can now buy both semi-automatic military pistols and rifles on the internet with no check and no reporting to anyone? And its all perfectly legal.

Several points:

1) The Old West and the Old West Mentality that keeps being referred to never really existed. The old west of movies was an invention of the movies. In the "real" old west about 70-80% of the cowboys spoke little or no English --- they were mostly Spanish-speakers of American-Indian (from Central America) extraction. The next largest group were African-Americans who were runaway slaves, freed by the American Indians, or were freed Blacks. The smallest ethnic group was English speakers --- though in parts of California and the Pacific Northwest there were more Chinese than English-speakers. All you have to do is to look at the language --- riata, rodeo, lasso, etc --- and you will see that it wasn't English.

2) In the old west there were few "six-shooters" that took metal cartridges. If a cowboy has a weapon, it was likely to be a black powder shotgun that shot rocks. While powder was pretty cheap, lead was not. And if he had a pistol it was likely a ball and cap relic left over from Civil War surplus. The ball-and-cap pistols had a couple of interesting characteristics --- a) they didn't work well in damp or wet, and b) the longer they stayed loaded, the less likely they were to fire. Indians were much more likely to have modern weapons than the calvary --- less paperwork.

3) I have lived in both Japan and England where private ownership of non-hunting weapons is tightly restricted. I never heard a person there say that they lacked some sort of rights. But you never worried about being shot there either. And, as an aside, I carried a weapon (or was supposed to) all the time I was in both countries --- doing so cost me a lot of home-cooked meals. And both countries were overrun with weapons at the end of WWII, but within five years had collected them and taken them out of circulation.

4) I have weapons and I would use them to defend my life or safety. But I also had training in their use and I hunt. So you can't say that I am anti-gun or that I don't think there are any situations where firearms are not appropriate. But the idea that they were an effective defense against even armed people in general was a stupid assertion when the military said I has to carry one (purely because of my AFSC) and the assertion is still stupid today. Over 80% of people who are shot in this country know the name of their shooter. This is because most handgun deaths are from a relative, sexual associate, or friend, not from random strangers.

5) If you consult the "Federalist Papers" and the "Anti-Federalist Papers" (both sides of the argument) you will find that the Second Amendment was SOLELY intended to provide the individual states with the ability to have standing militias to offset a standing Federal army. The phrase "for self-defense" was actually included in an early draft, but was knowingly and intentionally removed. That a 5-4 decision foiund this to not be the case is not the final word --- the Dred Scott decision was unanimous.

Roger:

The Joker's body armor may protect him from bullet penetration but will not suspend the law of Physic: the transfer of moment. Putting the Joker to the ground and thereby buying time for the audience to flee is essential to saving lives and limb even if you can't kill him.

In an on-going fierce combat 'fight fight' in close proximity where the enemy has you out-numbered and out-gunned, any Marine will tell you it is very unhealthy not to fire back, and instead, hope that the enemy doesn't see you.

Your survival as well as your platoon depends on 'subpression fire,' that is keeping your enemy's head down, bogging down his advances and flanking manuevers. Of course, you're not going to win the battle because you're basically fighting a rear guard action. But you are buy time for your buddies to evacuate the wounded as well as themselves in some semblence of an organized manner.

If you are armed with a light hand gun whereas the Joker is heavily armed and protected by Kevlar, you have only three choices:

1) play dead and hope and pretend he will never see you and the kill you

2) take your chances rushing for the exit like everyone

3) provide suppression fire that may injure the Joker while buying time for the fleeing audience.

In my book, when confronted with a premediated killer like the Joker, it is better to go down with guns blazing than be slaughter like lambs.

Chris:

While the 'wild-wild west' as dispicted in Hollywood movie is an exaggeration of life in the western frontiers, it is accurate in that both Federal and State government had little to no control over the vast territories or the frontier's men.

Theft, burglary, gambling disputes and dispute between claim-jumpers were settle the old fashion way: violence and murder. The legal system simple did not exist or were too far away to be of any use. In semi-arid Southern California, ranchers resorted to using guns to enforce water rights. And with predictable results.

The 'old' west did not stay stagnant when adopting weapon technology. While not everyone could afford a first class Repeater, owning less costly rifles and handguns were essential to maintaining peace or discourage crime.

There were certain native American tribes in Arizona that had a fondness for borrowing horses indefinately or other chattels. And there were the 'Pale Face' who had an equal fondness for other people's cattle or real estate. When there's a dispute between the Big Guy and the Little Guy, Mr. Colt was fond of saying the gun is the great equalizer.

@Wallstfatcat

After reading your first post, I was thinking you were an idiot. Now I know for sure you are. I do not go to the movies thinking I am going to engage in combat. Your argument is beyond laughable. I think you must have spent to much time watching the old t.v show Combat.

Roger:

Instead of name calling and personal attacks, let's hear your argument or persuasive thesis.

There are NO ANSWERS for stupid or CRAZY...only victims.

it doesnt take a brainiac to know why eric and dylan did what they did. easy, bullying. they snapped from all the torment their peers caused them. they chose to go down a horrible vengeful path to get back at the people who bullied them instead of seeking authority and help.

Mister Fids: There are always answers and they are of vital importance in our quest to solve the reasons for atrocities like these. There isn't always the drive to find them because it is easier to just throw up our hands and claim it is our constitutional right to be armed.

All of you people for or against gun control are barking up the wrong tree (as usual). The problem is mentally ill people not recieving proper or adequate treatment. This guy's own mother knew he was off. Did his parents try to get him help? How was it mom knew he had problems, but he had no prior criminal record? One doesn't just wake up one morning and decide to turn psycho. He has had mental issues for years, that went ignored. Sweeping mental illness under the rug doesn't make it disappear.

Getting help for people doesn't work anymore.

We privatized our mental health institutions remember? Now it costs A LOT to get 'help'. Most people just can't afford to get their troubled ones help.

BUT, even when society keeps asking "why doesn't someone do anything?" they will suddenly balk if you mention it might cost THEM something. God forbid. That's socialism. I guess mass murders are also part of a healthy free market economy, huh?

You can bet he has a story to tell or a manifesto he wants the world to read. If he didn't have a message, he wouldn't have worn all that armor to ensure his survival. This got him the attention he wants, now the world waits to hear why, and he's got something to say, no doubt about it. It'll be crazy, yes, but it'll be an answer.

cirnobyl wrote: "I guess mass murders are also part of a healthy free market economy, huh?"

To answer your question based on a long lifetime's worth of evidence: yes.

I wouldn't necessarily blame the entertainment for creating a mass of violent people. Sure, it has an effect on some people, but growing up with four brothers and having myself played first person shooters, etc, it's more of a parenting thing and probably also a lack of imagination that led to these terrible events. The lack of imagination is reinforced with the idea that none of my family members have reacted violently to the things they watch on television or play on the computer. We know it's fake. We know this isn't how the world really is because driving around the country and looking at true art and such things, there is so much to see and so much to enjoy that such violent things become obsolete. I pity the man's sanity, but it in no way, shape, or form excuses him from these heinous crimes. My heart aches to read this terrible news, as I was barely old enough to even know what happened years ago, but that doesn't make it any less tragic.

I blame the shooter. I blame the statistics that say we will have so many sociopaths per million in our population. The guy is a stone killer, no remorse. Also has sophisticated bombs at home. No gun, no problem, probably even more victims. No such thing as a legally registered bomb, yet he has them. Making more laws to punish the sane majority will not have any effect on the next mass murderer.

well for all u gun activist people are so retarded, you think by taking guns away its gonna keep people from killing each other. it dont have anytthing to do with if it was one of my family members ive had family members killed with guns but i still own them there is no way i wouldnt, if someone comes into your house with a gun to rob you or assualt you what are you gonna do to fight back. nothing as soon as you go to head for them you will be shot. but if you have another gun then you have a better chance of living, like i always say guns dont kill people stupid people that has no respect for guns kill people. i am a proud member of the NRA and you will have to pry my firearms from my cold dead fingers. so please before you go bashing the NRA or anyone else who bears arms think twice the next time you go to bed and hear something at the door. it may just be one of those stupid people coming in to take yours and your families life.

Brian Jones-6426400: It is your "retarded" and vitriolic attitude that restrains any true solution for problems like what happened in Aurora today. I can guarantee you that simply having a gun does not mean that one would fight back. Statistics show that even in war, the majority of combatants will not fire their weapons at another human being. They instead attempt to hide and stay out of the line of fire. You have to be trained to actually attempt to kill another human, barring mental problems that actual lead to situations like these.

"Cold dead fingers" is such a brilliant statement and tells me that you value your weapons even over your own life. Highly intelligent.

Why on earth would this be a "knock" for the concealed carry supporters? First of all, the guy wasn't concealing all these guns. And secondly, if a law abiding citizen in that theater HAD been carrying, this whole tragedy could have been averted. Gun rights aren't about arming criminals.....it's never been about that. Making guns illegal would not be any more effective in keeping criminals from getting them as making drugs illegal has been for addicts and dealers. Gun rights have ALWAYS been about arming good people to defend themselves (and others) from the bad guys. Period. I'm a wife and mother that carries a gun.....yes, even in movie theaters....and practices with it regularly. I'm a crack-shot, actually. And I wish more than anything that I could have been there when that lunatic walked in. I know I could have saved some lives.

Roonie, I'll repost here what I did in the thread above. This guy was prepared for people with guns:

You do realize that Holmes was wearing armor on almost every part of his body right? Bullet proof vest, helmet, neck guard, groin protection, and leg guards. So if anyone else had a gun, they'd have to hit a very small target area to actually stop the guy, which would be difficult or impossible in a dark theater filled with tear gas and panicked crowds. It wouldn't stop him, because he doesn't care who he hits. It might stop you though, because you do. You have to hit him because if you don't you might hit someone else, which is extremely likely in this scenario. Instead of helping you'd be more likely just to add more bodies to the toll.

Concealed carry would have done nothing to stop this guy.

Nevertheless PaleBlueDot, she would have occupied him and thrown him well off when the attacker became the attacked. Tear gas doesn't necessarily incapacitate either depending where things happened. Lives would likely have been saved.

And your solution to what happened is what? Ban all weapons everywhere?

I agree the tear gas would have complicated things, but I would never take a shot unless it was clear. And body armor or not, the force of a bullet hitting you is incredibly powerful....especially successive shots like I would have fired. In an ideal setting, more than one person in that sold-out theater would have been legally armed, trained and prepared to defend others. I'm all for gun rights, but I will concede that some defensive training should be required before being allowed to carry. In Arizona, we don't have any requirements (other than a cleared background check), but I'm responsible enough to have pursued training on my own. I'd like to think most people that conceal-carry would be the same way. Choosing to be a protector is a serious and heavy burden.

@Mr Fids

Wow, talk about a knee jerk, asinine response. Get your facts straight. I am sure that Colorado will appreciate not having another idiot move to their state.

The killer was also not from Colorado. He was from California.

Buh bye and please don't come back. Remember spell check is your friend.

You're no big loss Mister Fids. Colorado has no room for small minded people. Please stay away!

I seriously doubt any of those states will miss you.

What an idiotic statement. When you stereotypically lump everyone into a group, you only demonstrate your own inadequacy in dealing with reality.

You forgot Florida in your rant.

Can't stop crying over this tragedy. I lived in CO for 24 years, and I'm sure these people don't care if you ever visit there again. But I sort of understand the reasons for your comment. After being there during Columbine, and seeing another massacre again not that far away, it just makes you wonder about lessons not learned by those in power. 13 years and 3 months later, it makes everyone wonder why this type of massacre couldn't have been stopped before it even started.

Mister Fids: If there was "a gun in every hand" this guy would have barely gotten his first shot off.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is wrong with you. A terrible coincidence to be sure, but to paint all the good people of Colorado with the same brush is lunacy in itself.

Aurora is just like any other big city....

Now you know how I feel when you classify all mexicans as "illegals".

Doesn't feel nice when people profile or making ignorant biased remarks, does it?

You should be the first to be examined.

Still, something is amiss in the big CO.

Seriously? Nothing is "amiss" in Colorado and we're not "crazy" and we're not "evil" and it has nothing to do with "altitude." I hate to inform all of you that MANY states have had mass murders: Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, Oregon, Washington, Ohio, New York, Alabama, California, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Nebraska, Arkansas, Arizona, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Utah, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Nevada, Missouri, and Iowa.

So Mister Fids, where exactly are you going to live? And FYI most of these states I listed had more than one mass murder in their history. So...maybe you could not live in America any longer? But wait, every single country in the world has a history of mass murder, most of them very recent, so...gee-whiz! I guess you'll never be able to live anywhere. Sorry! But good luck!

Have you seen their airport?

You're really into stirring the pot, how childish! Grow up!

Who are the gins?

Gins are male genies, if I recall my "I Dream of Jeanie" trivia.

I do agree with Toph though. Society needs to get rid of organized religion, which is the root cause of this and every other massacre of late.

So...... Your God did this? My God would never do this......

My God allowed this...who is your God?

Who is your God?

"my god allowed this"

"my god would never allow this"

You people make up false idols. You humans cannot speak on HIS behalf. You have absolutely NO idea.

Do tell Duckie................ Since you know it all. Please!!

Natural disasters have been happening since long before there was a "God" to turn away from. Floods happen when it rains too much. Fires happen when it rains too little. Tornadoes happen every spring in the US, and the cause is geography not divine intervention. In some cases we are making these things worse through our disregard of the planet or mistakes we've made in the past (eg; early fire suppression tactics). If we experience that disasters more acutely than in the past it is simply a function of how many more people exist today than in the past. You can't add 1 Billion humans to the world in 13 years (6 billion in 1999, 7 billion in 2012) and expect that all of them are going to be safe from natural harm. Once upon a time, a village might have been on a hilltop to avoid the floods in the valley. Now the village is a city that covers the hill and the valley and all the hills around it, and when the floods come the ones in the valley are submerged.

As far as this relates to the issue at hand, there are a certain percentage of us that are more likely to simply go nuts than everyone else. Psychopaths, sociopaths, etc. Eventually one will snap. Even despite the tragedy of this, we still live in a much less violent world than in the past. Murders are down, wars are less likely, and when wars do happen fewer people die. The difference between now and the past is that we can hear about ALL the violence EVERYWHERE, instantly. If the world seems to be more violent, it's because the news carries the violence to your doorstep at the speed of light.

God and organized religion are the root causes of this and every other recent tragedy.

If this young, intelligent, motivated male could have legally hired a prostitute, perhaps he would not have done this crime. If organized religion did not tell us that prostitution and being human were wrong, we could make prostitution legal.

Every crime, be it 9/11, Columbine, Paducah, Jonesboro, Oklahoma City, etc. was about young, intelligent, motivated young men who could not get laid.

Tax organized religion/churches now! Legalize prostitution! End the violence!

Sounding a bit crazy there Captain Jack! Third or fourth time you've posted that crap!

Your analogy is way off base. Cars are for transportation and baseball bats are for hitting base balls. Guess what guns are most noted for. Good try to defend your guns.

In basic training you quickly learn how easy it is to kill with a gun compared with a bayonette, knife, or your hands

Compare guns to bombs. This guy, apparently knows how to make them.

Please don't. Cars and fertilizer are not produced specifically to kill. Guns are, especially the assault rifles you gun advocates believe we should all be armed with.

What will a common man (other than military and police) do with high power assault rifles and guns? Go on a rampage like this one? How about making rockets and other weapons available to the common man? Where is this lax ways of handling gun issues are leading this country? NRA must be stopped in its tracks and strict gun control laws should enforced immediately. Otherwise this country is in danger of a civil war or chaos....it's only a matter of time.

"I'm all for being able to buy machine guns and high powered rifles. We just need rules. We need regulations."

What does anyone have any business with buying "machine guns" and "high powered rifles" ?

they enable the mentally deranged to go buy automatic weapons at will

Reality Fail.

Only if you live in the Fox News-based "reality" that isn't actual reality.

Doug...

Really... Wow...

THIS country must repent before the Almighty God and mend its ways! NOW! Too much blood letting has been going on both internally within the country and abroad taking thousands of lives in the process. How long will this go On?Why are people condoning these acts?America worships Guns and Gun culture and clings on to the Old Wild West even today. Agreed that guns were used to exterminate the Natives without a thought when the European settlers arrived. However that same attitude must not persist in the Modern Era.This is all due to the Weapons Industry trying to sell Guns and more guns to whoever wants them. Guns are MURDER Weapons PERIOD. There is no other useful outcome to it save for hunting animals. Government should take immediate action to STOP the Free flow of guns of all types to Citizens and make it mandatory to take training and license them. When Car Drivers need license and pay Taxes, why should not the gun owners have licenses and pay Taxes? Govt should TAX gun owners. Are the politicians so dumb and naive to recognize this situation and mandate new laws and enforcement?

And the Government should tax your church!!! timsw1

Truth is bitter eh?

Moral of the story..... We have plenty of gun laws. The people who have the power to use them, don't.

Moral of the story: you don't know what you're talking about. First of all, if someone had been concealed carrying, it would have added to the confusion and death toll to have another confused, disoriented person shooting a weapon in the dark.

Second, the gunman legally got high powered rifles and handguns, that's how he performed the crime. If he couldn't have gotten them, it never would have happened.

Third, we don't have plenty of gun laws. We have extremely lax gun laws and extremely lax enforcement of those laws. As I said before, I love guns and I love shooting for fun. But it's simply too easy for nutjobs to get high-powered, dangerous firearms, and commit crimes like this one.

But, go ahead, keep living in your fantasy world. The blood of everyone who dies to gun violence is on the hands of irresponsible wannabe cowboys, like yourself.

The moral of the story is that laws will not change our society's behavior. Only changing the way we consider and think about violence will change that.

It's going to be hilarious when they confirm that this guy is a right-wing nutjob. Oh, wait, they won't. Because the media doesn't want to piss off the right-wing nutjobs.

He massacred many people. It really does not matter what his political affiliations are. There are many right wingers that believe in gun ownership and believe it or not, there are also many liberals that do also. The problem is when violence with guns is uncontrolled.

Politics will never produce real, meaningful change, so leave it out of the equation.

Sorry, People with GUNS kill people. Guns are murder Weapons PERIOD. Guns were invented to kill people (and animals) with the least effort. When will you EVER learn? If NRA is telling you to buy more guns, it is terrorizing people of the scenarios. That's propaganda for the weapons Industry. America is the Worlds premiere Weapons manufacturer and needs markets. If you need guns to protect in the common areas, well then you have declared it a WAR Zone. I think it is the Karma that is haunting America. - America goes around the world shooting up people, so its own citizens are afraid of one another now and need guns to protect them from each other? Crazy I tell you!

Hey dummy...I've lived in Aurora Colorado and Denver CO for 15 years....originally from Baltimore MD....and I can guarantee you that there was a gang banger that WAS armed in that audience. I still live in Denver, and we don't go to that theater because it's in a BAD PART OF TOWN!! And yet, some WHITE nutjob opened fire on a unsuspecting movie audience. I'll tell you that the reason why he had body armour from neck to foot is that he KNEW there were gand-bangers ARMED in that audience!!! I will tell you now that there were people in that theater that could have fired on him and taken him down...he knew it...it's why he threw smoke/tear gas prior to opening fire and why he was covered neck to foot in body armour. Nice try on your post...but you're a moron. NO ONE could have stopped this guy cause he's a WACK JOB that meticulously planned his attack. Automatic weapons SHOULD NOT be available to average citizens to mow down innnocent people. When the 2nd Ammendment was passed these guys were loading muskets...so get bent!!

BTW my post was for John C. Mayer....

adge38: but they didn't. So the argument that arming ourselves to the teeth is still ludicrous.

Yeah...I know...that's what I'm saying. All the Concealed Carry Weapons (as the NRA likes to call it CCW) in the world doesn't protect you from crazy sh!t like this. That's my point!!

John C. Mayer was trying to convince us that if the audience was armed it would have turned out differently...I disagree. I believe...nay...KNOW that there were ARMED (legally or not) people in that audience. And they couldn't do a THING to stop the guy with the automatic weapon. You and a I are on the same page piglizard420. All the LEGAL guns in the world wouldn't have stopped this atrocity.

adge38-You claim to be a Navy vet, but you sure don't know much about guns! Body armor will not stop the momentum of a high caliber handgun at close range. That momentum will knock you on your butt and most likely knock the wind out of you which would have allowed an armed citizen to walk calmly up and finish this guy off with a headshot. Did you even know one person in the audience? Just because you claim to live there, that doesn't make you an expert on whether anyone there had a gun!

Same old arguement again, which has been disproven by experiment.

I'm throwing the B.S. flag on you pal....I'm from Baltimore and am a Navy veteran and have lived in the Denver/Aurora area for close to 15/20 yrs. now. THERE WERE ARMED PEOPLE IN THAT AUDIENCE!! This nut had a semi-automatic weapon and smoke/tear gas. No clear shot without harming innocents and he bought a semi-automatic weapon IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD with no problem. My best friend has a concealed carry license and will freely admit he's not sure if he could have got a clear shot on this guy. You're full of it and have no IDEA what you're talking about. These nut jobs that can purchase automatic/semi-automatic weapons at will can then turn around and KILL innocent people (including military members....the reports are a U.S. NAVY member was KILLED in this incident). Stop pretending that owning a semi-automatic weapon is AWESOME. When the shooter is better armed than the police....we might have a problem.

Hey...guess what?... this incident happened LESS THAN 1 MILE from a police station. That's why they were on the case in less than a minute...and yet...71 PEOPLE yes HUMANS were injured and at least 12 (INCLUDING A MILITARY MEMBER...U.S. NAVY) were killed. Guns don't kill people...semi-automatic weapons kill people.

U.S. NAVY Veteran from Denver/Aurora COLORADO...thanks for playing....

@John C,

"A great day for the NRA." ???? Is this tragedy a great day for the NRA? Is NRA a Terrorist Organization to gloat over such tragedies? Are you NUTS!!! If the majority of Americans think the way you think, soon this country will slide into a Terrorist Nation!!! Is that what you want?

@Ed "Same old arguement again, which has been disproven by experiment"

Which Experiment? Same old digging-your-head-in-the-sand syndrome! The facts are clear...America is reeling under Gun violence. Need statistics? Here you go....

In 2005, 11,346 persons were killed by firearm violence and 477,040 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm. Most murders in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns.

In 2006, firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 42 percent of robbery offenses and 22 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.

www DOT nij DOT gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm

I'm full of it?? I am praising this nut had a semi-automatic weapon and he is cool?? Where do you get this from my post? I love you trolls that make up statements from posts and lump people into specific groups. What I am saying and clarifying is this: Cops would never have stopped this. They are just like you and me. They have families and they aren't going to rush into a situation like this and get slaughtered. They will show up, assess the situation and dig in for reinforcements (ie. SWAT team). There will always be nuts and they will always do stuff like this for their own pathetic glory. Limiting guns didn't work in Norway to prevent their tragedy. They limit gun ownership to have to have a reason to own a gun (i.e. hunting, sports shooting). Is that what all the gun limit advocates want?? Again, the only way tragedies like this will be lessoned is if we have more armed citizens that get in these situations and have the courage to act and try to not be a victim. As far as statistics go, more guns are being sold each year and gun crime statistics, as well as most crime statistics, are going DOWN! We can argue that police agencies are assigning more police in known high crime rate areas or you can argue the criminal has to think twice because the person he is about to mug may be packing! I would like to think it is a combination of BOTH! If this makes me a "terrorist", then praise ALLAH!

Forgot to add this: For all the gun limiting advocates out there remember Tim McVeigh? He didn't need a gun to cause tragedy.

@Suzie,

These Crazies must be made "accountable" for their actions. Gun is NOT a tool it is a MURDER Weapon PERIOD.

timsw1 - I just borrowed a .22 with a scope from a budddy from high school and recently had the satisfaction of pluggging a ground hog that had been molesting my organic garden. How's that for a stereotype?

LOL @ Ronald Hussein Reagan!

He's from California......

Ed-2874315...........you got your head screwed on straight or what.....?