I would urge all news agencies, all news sources, all news people, and everyone else, to never mention this evil cretin's name again.

He and his name should be shunned. Instead of using his name, it woudl be okay to use the term gunman, or shooter, or coward. That would be like letting the air out of his balloon.

No, likely he blamed the world for his problems and wanted to teach it a lesson.

By social convention let the psychotic idiots be stricken from the records.

Reasoning, by the same socal comvention that no one speaks the n-word.

spider-737231

The only one that seems to recognize the fact that all these people want is the notoriety is Mike Huckabee of FOX News.

He has publicly noted that he REFUSES to use the persond image OR name in his broadcast. Instead only refering to him as the Mass Murderer. Mike also apparently refuses to play into the insanity concept as he notes how long the planning took and the detail the perpetrator went onto.

Too bad all the other "news" media don't take the hint.

Spider, I agree...to a point. This guy was mentally ill. Mentally ill people may want "notoriety", or they may want to carry on a conversation with a cactus. Wallpaper their tricycle. Mentally ill people don't have a reliable frame of reference in which to form goals and accomplish rational tasks. In spite of all the psychiatrists, pharmaceuticals and treatments, there is no cure for mental illness. (I don't elevate mild neuroses to that level) One day off the meds, or out of the padded lockup, and they are chatting with the voices in their head and adjusting their aluminum foil hat.

He may have hallucinated he was "the Joker", he may be a sociopath who has no ability to empathize with the suffering of others, or he may have other serious problems. Schizophrenia (don't care what the politically correct term du Jour is) manifests itself in late teen-early 20's, and that is my guess. NO WAY this young man acted "normal" enough to fool the relatives, friends or college instructors. They were in denial, and partially to blame for this attack.

Then why are YOU talking about him if you don't want him to get so much attention??

I think we should be thinking of how to help the victims who are STILL LIVING. At least one woman is paralyzed and still in critical condition, she and her family need more than cards and well wishes. There are others who are still hospitalized who may need both physical and mental therapy to heal. I mean no disrespect to the ones who died, but there is nothing we can do for them..... you can reach out to their loved ones though. It would be nice for a bank to set up a fund where people could donate to help everyone from that heinous act.

As for the "carrying a gun and having a shootout" remarks, please DON'T follow that advice, unless you can deal with shooting and possibly killing innocent people yourself. People do not stay calm as such a time and someone could jump up to flee and be killed by YOU!!! Dead is dead, and it wouldn't be any better to be killed by someone trying to play "hero".

@Steve:

You have no clue about mental illness. You've lumped pretty much everyone who sees a mental health professional into the same category as a mass murderer. Only two percent of The Mentally Ill are violent. Compare that to the general population, or the prison population, and then get back with us about how dangerous The Mentally Ill are. Such stigmas as you are tossing around are WRONG, both factually and morally. Don't blame tens of millions of innocent people for the wicked acts of one killer.

And what are you?

I am leaving this comment to remember the victims in this SENSELESS act of murder. These wonderful people had their entire lives ahead of them and an evil, senseless person took that away from them. Let's not forgot to remember the victims and stop all the senseless arguing that I see on these posts. Don't you see that you are letting this horrible person win when you all argue amongst yourselves? These poor victims have lost their lives. They are gone forever and it was not their choice. You should be remembering them and channeling something positive out of this senseless act of violence. We should be coming together to live for one another instead of arguing and drifting apart. Remember the victims of Aurora, Colorado. They would not want us all to be fighting and acting senseless. Remember to share and spread the love as life is too short.

@jag&Steve Being evil doesn't mean you're crazy. You can be one or the other or both.

The terrible irony is that we know there will be another mass-killing again...it's just a matter of time, as we've had our share of mentally ill with guns go berserk in the Seattle area as well...

Perhaps it's the risk we take living in the US...you could be slaughtered anywhere in this gun-saturated land...

Wish the media would stop referring to this POS dirtbag by the name of the character in the movie.

The motive was clear although the media will not report it because it prefers ro pander to the OWS crowd. This lunitic was an OWS radical and had help. Someone, please anyone, explain how an unemployed Phd dropout with $90k in student debt acquires almost $20k in fireams and sophisticated tactical gear. Yet, ABC tried (and miserably failed) to throw a TP member under the bus. No personally, I am no TP supporter..but I can't stand it when the public trust is gutted by the media and government. This killers had NO internet connections other than a sex site less than 2 months old? Seriously, no one is wondering why it seems his public information seems to have been ommited from the internet? Lemmings!!!!

The motive was clear although the media will not report it because it prefers ro pander to the OWS crowd. This lunitic was an OWS radical and had help. Someone, please anyone, explain how an unemployed Phd dropout with $90k in student debt acquires almost $20k in fireams and sophisticated tactical gear. Yet, ABC tried (and miserably failed) to throw a TP member under the bus. No personally, I am no TP supporter..but I can't stand it when the public trust is gutted by the media and government. This killers had NO internet connections other than a sex site less than 2 months old? Seriously, no one is wondering why it seems his public information seems to have been ommited from the internet? Lemmings!!!!

I'd like to agree with you, whistle. As for reality, trying to stop the 24/7 coverage in our digital world of "I want to see it now" media, is like trying to stop all ocean waves at every landfall in the world.

It also would mean that the 1st Amendment gets trashed. At the same time, a small part of me may think that we(society) might be better off shielding the world from horrendous acts of violence.

Oh wait, that means no more "guy" movies or videos w/simulated mayhem with explosions, multiple murders, fast cars, faster women and guns, guns, guns! Most red blooded American males can separate the fantasy violence they see on TV or in movies or video games from the real world.

But there's a micro % of any population that are truly dangerous psychopaths like this guy that could be inspired and motivated by the commonality of violence in our society. The increased stress that Holmes faced in the competitive world of grants and scholarships and his ultimate failure after being super successful throughout his educational life probably set him on a path of vengeance. He was mad at the university and the world when he started planning this tragedy.

Once he set his plan in motion that fateful AM, Holmes was showing the world who was smarter.

Still can't help but wonder why he was "waiting at his car" in the parking lot when the police arrived.

Agreed, this appears to have zero to do with politics, not even remotely. If we look at his major, which was something like the biological basis for mental illness, there might have been a personal quest to his choice of field to pursue, possibly a quest that he became frustrated with. His obsession turned to violence, he trashed his studies and went amok. I get tired of people who have to inject politics into everything, too.

umbraobscura

Are you really serious? I hope your joking.

Floyd,

I know it's not what you want to hear, but it seems to make sense (and yes, I am kind of playing devil's advocate). What's to stop me from saying that blaming someone for being born violent (which may or may not be the case with this guy) is about as silly as blaming someone for being born with blonde hair or being born black? If it is the case that he was predisposed to violence (by way genetically caused insanity), then capital punishment, as some people have argued for, would not seem appropriate.

AK Sabin...do you think repeating a lie often enough makes it true? The victims have not even been buried and you feel the need to place your political, HATE agenda front and center!

Navigator,

So what's your point? I'm a liberal, too. And a product of public schools. Are you suggesting that I am a danger to society? Obviously, you pointing out correlation, not causation. Right?

It wasn't any where near $20k. At most $6k. Don't buy the hype the shotgun is about $300 the glocks are about $400-500 the ar maybe $1000 and 6,000 rounds all depend on the caliber but probably around $700 a bullet proof vest can be had in the $400 range.$3400 is what I sum up.

Not to say that this was a factor in this particular case at all, one thing that young people will often do that should be kept in mind by everyone who bears children is that when they're unhappy with life and/or upset with their parents, they often try to become some sort of 'bad' person because they know it will hurt their parents.

I see the most cases of young women doing it, quite often by transforming from 'respectable' young women into, uh, something other than that, and doing so with the expressed or implied message, 'Mom (and/or) Dad, you made me this!'. One of the most common examples is young women's poor choices in boyfriends, specifically made to upset parents. At least this is often grown out of. Young people who commit suicide often do it to spite their parents. More than one has enlisted because they knew their 'dovey' parents would absolutely hate it. This is behind a lot of juvenile delinquency, running away from home, criminal activity of young adults, with men, often just being a loser in general. Or, in extreme cases, it could be a mass killing or other atrocity that will be very high profile and thoroughly taint the family name.

Again, I'm not at all saying that that's what the case was here. What I am saying is that people need to keep this in mind when raising children. Don't push too hard, don't be too controlling, let them be kids for as long as they need to in order to develop at their own pace, but most of all, make sure they have some kinds of reasonable boundaries and be consistent. They should have a certain amount of 'fear' of you - known as 'respect' - so they will not want to disappoint you, but at the same time, they should have no problem coming to you when they have a problem. If they feel they can't do that, or that you, as a parent, ARE the problem, the end result may be that they do something like this for your 'sake'.

S..Williams... I think you are on to something. I've been fortunate in my life to have known a fairly good number of "brilliant" people. Some of their social skills and dress were off, as were their choice of haircuts and personal habits and mannerisms, but they were brilliant folks none the less and contributed to the intellectual advancement of society. I'm not doubting that Holmes didn't qualify for his grants and scholarships, nor did he dishonestly achieve his academic honors.

I think he may have discovered that his "brilliant idea" he was working on academically had a flaw, and probably for the first time in his life he had a major intellectual failure. I don't know, and I might never know, but it seemed so odd to me that his anger manifested itself in a Batman movie, and he identified himself with the Joker. A comic book character? That's a tantrum for an elementary school level child, at best, or to my type of thinking.

Holmes probably knew little of, nor experienced much of failure in his academic life. The reason I bring this up is because when I was in college ( decades ago ) an Indian PhD working on the chemistry of the pig brain hung around with a group of us "lower lives" on Friday and Saturday nights drinking beer and dancing to juke box music. He was working on his third PhD, because he knew that as soon as he stopped his studies he would have to return to India and marry some child bride his folks picked out for him by Hindu custom, and he didn't particularly care for their choice of his bride. As long as his studies proceeded, he could drink a couple of bottles of beer on the weekend and maybe one of "our" girlfriends would dance with him. He knew if he failed in his academic achievements... it was back to the cultural stone ages for him.

He was so smart, that we as college undergraduates didn't have much of a clue about what he was studying, other than it took 300 pounds of hog brains to get about a gram of this chemical he was researching. I'm assuming that Holmes was studying something equally as obscure in his own program. As a brilliant person, Holmes would assume that he was supposed to be smarter than hundreds of people combines, and therefore set his traps with that assumption, ( not being aware that law enforcement also has smart people working for them as well. )

I'm just confused on this, I admit, because of Batman and the Joker, which to me as a kid was a lower quality comic to begin with, TV program, early movie(s) and all. It didn't have any imagination, to me. If Batman could see a bat symbol lighted on the cloud cover, 30,000 other people could see it as well you would think and have their bat traps set. But no, stupidity prevailed for decades in the comics and they never got him.

As for Holmes, he's captured. I'm really impressed that the police do not want to compromise the evidence they have against him, and the "findings" will be found at Holmes' trial.

umbraobscura,

Termites were born with a genetic predisposition to destroy homes. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be exterminated. I don't give a damn if that POS has such a predisposition. He's still worthless and deserves to die.

Ken Tankerous,

Your statement reminds me of the time the Nazis tried to "cleanse" all of the mentally unsound people from the gene pool as part of the holocaust (not to mention Jews and other minorities). It's unclear yet if Holmes can be deemed legally insane, but your mentality seems to be that it shouldn't make a difference and all people who were born with "problematic" genes be exterminated.

Ken: "Oh you were born with autism? Well, we can't have that in our society." (sarc)

I'm not defending this guy's actions, but I am questioning his mental health and defending the insanity plea.

I notice all the people break out the crosses and turn up for candle vigils and night masses when crap like this happens in the world. But when government says they can't display the 10 commandments in a court house, or they can't have a moment of silence in school because god forbid someone might use it to pray, they are no where around.

Stuff em and their fair weather religiosity. Once had a priest explain to me when people who generally don't pray or aren't religious in the least start praying to god, it's like a phone that rings in heaven. But it doesn't get answered. Think that priest had it more right then most know.

Umbra, There is way too much in depth planning for him to be "mentally insane" This is just a ploy by his lawyers hoping to win their case. They do not care about truth they only care to do what they are paid to do "win their case" no matter what it takes.

Ask any Military officer or Law Enforcement Tactical Team Officer it requires a lot of intelligence and and knoledge to plan an action to come off like this. It took planning research revision of his plans, more planning and probably more revision. This is not the mind of a "mentally ill" person. Quit trying to defend someone who deserves nothing better then to lose his life the same way he stole life from so many deserving people who may have been on track to do important things in their lives, we may have lost the person destined to cure the common cold. Give him the punishment he deserves forefiture of his life.

Obama is going to milk this tragedy for all the photo op time he can get out of it.

NWNavigator, your post is a crock of @!$%#.

It surprises me that priest said that. presuming to know what god dose or dose not do, what prayers god dose or dose not hear is a sin unto it's self.

Another thing. Since prayer is generally a private matter that is not always shared, there is no way to know who dose ans dose not pray on a regular basis. Besides, you would think that god would want people to pray at some point in life, even if it where because of a horrible event like this. It might just start an awakening in some of those that pray for the first time.

Vary odd that a priest would ever say something like that. That sounds more like normal human behavior rather then one who is held to a moral and ethical standard far above the common man.

Zathrose, if President Obama did not visit them I'm sure you'd find a reason to criticize and/or condemn him. You need to get back to your flock before they miss you. Don't forget your tin foil hat.

For the people on here going on about not naming Holmes, and using hyperbole, EASY there, Cowboy - ease up on the emotions. To not be a foaming-at-the mouth emotional lunatic YOURSELF, does not somehow imply you approve of these actions!

It was horrible. Just as any killing of innocent civilians, all over the globe, is. It happens every day, yet we dont froth at the mouth with indignant outrage.

I have said it before, and I say it again. Its a boon to science that we have this guy alive. Very few of these people live past the act. They either take their own lives, or they commit "suicide by cop". The fact that he survived will provide us a couple of things.... some kind of closure perhaps, on WHY. What went wrong with this fellow? Alive, sooner or later, we will be able to make more sense out of what was going on in his head. Ans secondly, he can be studied.

After he has been interrogated up one side and down the other and shown multiple ink blots and interviewed ad nauseam, THEN perhaps he will have his date with a lethal injection.

But to call for savage and immediate death for this individual - is reacting with emotion devoid of intellect, and its what barbarians and ignorant people do. So chill out, and know that this guy isn't enjoying the "lime light" (I can assure you he wasn't brought the newspaper with eggs and bacon this morning, and he isn't watching Dancing with the Stars on tv tonight). He is being kept in isolated condition. He is being watched and analyzed like a captured alien life form. He is being kept alive with basic nutrients and access to a toilet, and thats about it, people. Nobody is pushing this guy on a swing right now.

@ umbraoscura.....have you heard anything on this POS???? Every Agency out there has clearly stated that a "insanity" plea will be VERY HARD to render! It took this POS months to compile, plan, organize, execute his plans. Just like 911, Ok City, Seattle, etc... This wasn't a person who had a moment of disillusionment, he had every opportunity to stop his planning....There is a difference between "Mentally Ill" and EVIL! A good portion of people who commit 'random' acts like this take themselves out before the Police can get to them, but this POS, he waited for the cops! He didn't hold people hostage, he didn't rant a bunch of demands. To call him a serial killer would make more sense to me then to call him mentally ill. No politcis, please. This is not Obama's fault, not Bush's fault, not the NRA's fault. It's HIS fault, period! His own Mother knew there was 'something' off about him.......doesn't make him mental! Not gonna buy it.

The police should check the radio station to see what he was tuned into...I will bet my bottom dollar it was tuned into a fat pill popping blob who spews hate and has been spewing a similarity of the villian and a company that gets negative news. Give you three guesses...i wouldnt be suprised at all. How can people hate another so badly?

why is the president wasting time for a local tragedy and not leading this country? what happened in colorado is a state thing, not national so i see no need for a president to waste more time pandering for votes as i know he is. he could have just said something to a mic or preferred not say anything at all because nothing he would have said will make any difference to anyone or anything. the colorado governor and aurora mayor are the only ones who need to be there with the people

this guy didnt just shoot up some people to make him famous and for people to be so quick to know what he was thinking is exactly why justice is never applied by the masses, they are too gullible and to emotionally attached. this guys action dont even make sense at all if you look at the whole. he prepared himself for a small war with the protections to live and yet after just shooting a few people he gives up easy. what was he really trying to do? he had over 6 thousand rounds but barely used any, he had full armor on but didnt use it, he planned this for years and he really didnt do anything to what its full potential was. at the best he was scared to go through with it to the end, at worst he was doing this to further some political agenda, being paid to do this. thats maybe why he suited up and surrendered to police without a fight. his planning and execution do not make any sense from a criminal perspective, he looked like an amateur trying to play pro and failed before he made it to the field.

seeking the truth is most important in a case like this because of the questions to his lack of actions in regards to his planning and what motive did he have for years of planning. unfortunately no one really cares about the truth, they want vindication and that is not justice.

this not something that is any worse than what happens in other countries or in our history. we just hear constant opinions 24/7 so it makes it seem worse. just another day in the world we live in.

hey just for all you people who wouldnt think this guy was insane when he was planning this. do you think a mental defect just appears for day then hes okay again? he could have been crazy for years and just because you plan something does not mean you are not crazy, mentally unstable people are not stupid you know. you people might be thinking of the 'temporary insanity plea' criminals use to get away with crimes. you can be insane and still meticulously plan someones murder so stop listening to people who manipulate information to suit someones needs.

What a senseless tragedy! My heart goes out to the family and friends of the victims. May they eventually find healing and hope.

Odummy said he was not going negative out of respect for the families that lasted a whole day just saw one of his hack job ad's this morning. What a worthless piece of garbage. Guess no one should be surprised by this total moron some of you call president.

This tragedy should have one closure, take the coward and shoot him think if they did this kind of stuff would stop. Any doubt who did it?

@ Swagganaut , I think it was Ralm Emanuel that said, "Never let a good tragedy go to waste..." Maybe that explains the "political posturing'......I think those who survive the victims ought to be allowed to grieve in peace....

Mentally ill doesn't mean unable to plan something. A sociopath is mentally ill. Those that display "evil" characteristics are often actually mentally ill. You don't have to be a drooling, unable to function mess to be mentally ill.

Where is Obama's concern about black on black murders which occur daily in most major cities. Had the shooter been black, I doubt Obama would have made any statements or even traveled to Colorado.

This is not a racist post, but I have never heard Obama comment except when the murderer is white.

Everything I have read and watched has had gun laws under scrutiny.. I don't think the gun laws are the problem I think that it is the punishment for using a gun to kill people are what is key to less violence that involves guns.

If they would create and use harsher punishments, as with this guy Holmes, and put him to death immediately, circumvent the usual judicial system of trial by jury, and just put them to death. That would make anyone even a dumb arse from this type of murder think before committing the crime.

I would hope that our law makers would see that there is another way to handle gun toting killers.

for Roger I'm a gun carrying(nut) .If you think the world is a is a safer place,feel free to ask Dr. Petite in Cheshire,Ct who lost his wife and two daughters to home invaders. As far as obama visiting the victims of shooting ,it's only for votes, he doesn't care about anything except getting reelected.his grandmother had a hip replaced 1yr before she died and he(obama) said it was a waste of money.he only cares for himself and no one else.

Haven't we learned anything from previous mass murders? Why are we jumping to the conclusion that the race or the mental illness of the perpetrator is at issue? The only mass murderer that I know of involving a possibly mentally ill person is the shooter here in Arizona in January 2010. As far as I know, with the exeption of Colin Ferguson who shot passengers on a train in New York, mass murderers have been young and white. You don't see old people or women killing large numbers of people. My point? I'm not sure, but wait until you know the facts to edify us all. It's a great tragedy, but there is no easy answer, or we already would have solved the problem or at least have a clue.

I've heard a lot of people use this argument. The guy threw tear gas and was covered in body armor. I'm just wondering how exactly someone who was carrying would have been able to shoot the guy without putting the lives of others in danger.

He was standing at front near the exit door by himself. One shot, body armor or not, probably would have knocked him down.

But no one knew what he was doing until he started shooting. You don't just shoot someone for standing at an exit door. He threw tear gas first. It doesn't seem like it'd be easy to shoot someone, let alone be able to see them in a dark theatre while you're choking on tear gas. I guess I just feel like it's easier said than done.

Dale - That isn't going to make us safer, it's going to make us less safe. It's the argument that has allowed more assault weapons on the streets and it leads to an increase in senseless death. The idea of arming yourself because others are out to shoot you first doesn't seem to me to be based on sound strategic thinking, and I would suggest that it wasn't why our forefathers wrote it into the constitution.

20 years in the military (honorable retirement), I have a carry permit and carry daily (and am a huge supporter of the 2nd amend, etc.), and I always carry to the movie theater when I go. That said, I'm not 100% sure if this scenario would have been a good chance to stop him. Dark, chaos, smoke, gas, and a shooter dressed like he is a SWAT team member makes for a very risky target ID. I'd have to see positive target ID, have good sight picture, and verify the background before shooting, and that wouldn't have been easy in this situation. Yes, I'd have done whatever possible, but this particular case would have been difficult. Probably 10% chance to successfully engage? Better to just tactically withdraw, covering your exit and trying to protect others and assist their exit.

@ Dale

One guy in the movie theater with a gun was enough don`t you think ? Just what we need, everyone going to the movies with a gun. Dale, if you are so paranoid that you feel you need to take your gun everywhere you go, you do not belong in a free country. This is not the wild wild west. You may have the right to carry a gun, but I also have the right to feel safe from idiots like you who carry a gun. Our jails are full of idiots like you who used their guns under the cloak of a concealed carry permit. Chances are, your next. Perhaps you can share a jail cell with Zimmerman !

Dale - it's idiots like you that give the responsible CCW folks a bad name.

For starters, that theater (as are most theaters in the nation) is not an authorized CCW location.

Secondly, far too many CCW licensed folks have no business owning gun as most training is far from being sufficient and as a result many have a false image of themselves and their ability to handle a situation like this. I have friends who have CCW that I refuse to be around if the carrying because they are clueless. I am quite certain that many I know - and I'm willing to bet that you would fall in this category - would have been wetting themselves and hiding in fear if they had been there. Funny how reality can take away all their bravado.

Fully trained police & military would have had a tough time under the circumstances - dark, smoke/tear gas, the loud noise/surround sound of the theater, people in chaos - to get a clean shot while avoiding innocents and getting one's self shot in the process.

I strongly feel that the CCW requirements should be tightened - with the right comes great responsibility - and we need to keep people who want to get one just to be cool from ever having one.

Dale Doelling-5726753

Dale, I carry all the time, and I'll be the FIRST one to tell you not very likely.

First, the individual used some kind of pepper spray or tear gas type device plus a smoke bomb. Then you have the pandemonium in the theatre. Who is the target? Can you get clear sight picture with burning eyes and/or difficulty breathing? What is your firearm? Many carry a .380 cal. It honestly won't do much good against the level of body armor available to civilians. A 9mm, .357mag, .40 cal, .45 cal or similar will likely only stun the assailant. And if he was as prepared as they note, he likely took this into consideration and added padding to further reduce any hit he might take. But, I'm sure he also knew the likelihood of meeting an armed individual, unless he/she was a police officer was minimal. Per CO law and the rules of the theatre, privately owned firearms are prohibited from that type of venue.

While many have said "If I was there" or "If someone there had a carry permit"... while it is a viable concept, in reality it isn't truly feasible.

BLS--So if guns were illegal, you think that this never would have happened? really?

There will always be guns--the question is whether you want to put them in the hands of responsible citizens who need to protect their property or if you just want the criminals to have them. Gun bans would make for the latter.

Police cannot always respond in time to stop a robbery or shooting. I like being able to make the choice to not be a victim should something happen to me. Just because ONE sociopath did something horrible does not mean you have to take away freedoms for EVERY CITIZEN. That's just ridiculous.

Yes, more than likely, had someone had a gun in that theatre, the outcome still would have been the same because of the tear gas--but we just don't know that for sure. It's possible that a quick-thinker with a gun in the front row COULD have gotten a clear shot at the guy and hit him in the neck or something (Not sure if his neck was exposed or not). I'm sure the friends and family of those killed would be a lot happier had someone taken the law into their own hands and shot this idiot where he stood instead of just allowing him to massacre innocent people.

And for the record, I am not a "gun nut". I simply don't feel that depending on others is necessarily the best call when my or my family's life is on the line.

I think we should be thinking of how to help the victims who are STILL LIVING. At least one woman is paralyzed and still in critical condition, she and her family need more than cards and well wishes. There are others who are still hospitalized who may need both physical and mental therapy to heal. I mean no disrespect to the ones who died, but there is nothing we can do for them..... you can reach out to their loved ones though. It would be nice for a bank to set up a fund where people could donate to help everyone from that heinous act.

As for the "carrying a gun and having a shootout" remarks, please DON'T follow that advice, unless you can deal with shooting and possibly killing innocent people yourself. People do not stay calm as such a time and someone could jump up to flee and be killed by YOU!!! Dead is dead, and it wouldn't be any better to be killed by someone trying to play "hero".

I was trying to respond to the post below.

As a gun carrying person , I can tell you this. You don't know who is friendly fire, or foe. You have to hide to see who is firing at you or away from you. You have to be sure who you shoot at is the perp. You could be the one going to jail for life. Just sayin'. Kill or be killed. Shoot first ask questions later.

I have a CCW and i am going to agree with XDm9mm on this one.There are too many factors in this case that would make it hard to draw my weapon and take on the shooter.As many others have stated it was dark,people running around screaming,some form of tear gas making vision even worse and a target with body armor and don't forget your out armed also.

My grandfather always told me when i was learning to shoot "Never take a shot unless you know you can make it"of course he was speaking of hunting then but i think it rings true with this event.

In a dark theater with people frantically running and jumping around, NO ONE with a concealed carry permit/license would, or should, even think of showing a weapon much less firing one. That would be very irresponsible! With such panic going on there is no way for someone legally carrying personal protection to be able to accurately predict someone would not run into the line of fire. There is a time to use, and a time to wait.

@Dale...

I agree with you, but even if there was was someone carrying in that room under those circumstances and being of course carrying a firearm a high responsibility; one needs to have a clean shot to stop him or have the shooter right on top and every one knows he was wearing armor which would have prompted whoever was carrying to draw; really the only right thing to do in that situation was to not draw; the bullets from the responding citizen would have hurt someone else too, even if it could have stopped the gun man.

One of the main rules conceal carry classes teachs everywhere is "be aware of your sourrondings at all times, and what is behind you before you shoot" since one is responsible for each bullet that leaves the barrel; in a split of a second and under that commotion there that would be almost impossible to accomplish by the average citizen no matter how much training one have and that is probably why the gun man got away with so many hurts; he knew these facts; he also knew there could be armed citizens in the audience and that is why he got armor on him and the tear gas to help him subdue the crow. He is a coward, no doubt but he was a well prepared coward too to carry out his evil plans.

I keep wondering why nobody responded him firing back and that is the best explanation I can find; or maybe there was really nobody armed in the audience but sometimes being armed does not mean one have to respond automatically to a shootout, after all the armed individual suppose to be responsible first, it is not about just carrying weight or packing heat but about being responsible how one uses it.. laws does not grant private citizens the right to shoot back with immunity like the police for example, that is why carrying permits holders are tight up in many situations unless it is a direct threat to oneself or a family member.. the one who follows the law, that is.

how many mass murders have there been at a gun show?

Apologies for my typos on previous posts; i tend to type hyper fast; first got some grammar errors and I meant to say the safest rule for everyone around there under those situations would be NOT to draw if armed, unless one can be absolutely sure nobody else is behind or in your line of sight but the target.

Somebody update me. BLS-744646 said a 100 round drum for an A.R. 15? Which is the equivilant of an M-16 in the military. I spent 28 years in the Army/retired, Since when did they come up with a 100 round drum? When I was in they had 30 round magizines. We used to tape them together in oposite directions for quick & easy change. And no BLS, you aren't going to melt down my weapons!!! Sorry but NO!

Concealed Carry Permits are largely prohibited in large public places such as movie theaters. I doubt that would have helped the situation.

Someone please explain to me why a legal gun owner would have to have an assault weapon, like the one this very evil person had. Assault weapons, really, the only reason I can see why one would need one is to kill, and I'm not talking animals, but people. Why not ban them? I'm not saying ban all guns just ones like these with their sole purpose is to kill..........

I agree having the Gun does not mean the situation is right to use it, being military that would not have been an easy place to get a shot and better to not shoot then cause more harm. Way too many variables as well for those who were not there to know what could have or culd not have been done. if you were not there do not suppose it would have been easy to stop "if only".

And for all those "get rid of all guns" people out there, remember England has no guns but hey they still have lots of Gun crimes by criminals, and the good thing is their cops do not carry either.....wait that does not seem to help the crime issue either. As with Dale your arguement is not sound either.

The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes. The response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second. Body armour or not, you're going down...

Laura, he didn't have an assault weapon. He had a semi-automatic rifle that looks like a military weapon. Only one bullet per trigger pull.

An assault weapon is a fully automatic rifle/handgun. One trigger pull will continue to fire until the trigger is released or the firearm runs out of rounds.

These semi-automatic rifles that look military operate no different than a semi-automatic hunting rifle, and are, for the most part, much less powerful.

Guns don't kill people....people with guns kill people. Cliche but true.

@grrboy

I am rather sick of this sad excuse to own a gun. Without guns, not many people are dying now days in movie theaters are they ?

Please cite an example of where someone dies in a movie theater without a gun being present. In this case, a gun was involved... Nuff said !

Somebody update me. BLS-744646 said a 100 round drum for an A.R. 15? Which is the equivilant of an M-16 in the military. I spent 28 years in the Army/retired, Since when did they come up with a 100 round drum? When I was in they had 30 round magizines.

Here's the update, best that I can give it.

Some years back, somebody developed a drum magazine that fit the well of an M16, and by extension, an AR-15 type rifle. It may have originated as a military experimental type of thing, perhaps an attempt to make an M16 into something along the lines of an M249...and it could be that the adoption of the M249, normally fed from a 100 round belt in a box but also capable of accepting M16 magazines, dropped the curtains on this development. I'm thinking the experiment may have been something like was tried with the M14, the limited result being, if I recall, the M14E2 or something like that. The idea was to turn a rifle into a Squad Automatic Weapon of some sort.

The AR drums I've seen to date have all been plastic and my understanding is that their reputation is terrible. They jam frequently and the durability isn't too good. They're expensive for what you get. I suspect they were probably made for the full-auto crowd who attend exhibition events such as the one at Knob Creek, Kentucky. Most of what they do with the registered full auto guns they have is blast away, often after dark and with tracers. They put on quite a show, which wouldn't be anywhere near as impressive if 20 and 30 round mags were all one had.

I do wonder if varmint hunters (i.e.: prairie dog) who use the AR 'platform' (.223 Remington is a popular varmint cartridge, so the AR-15 type rifles are a natural for that use) perhaps represent the largest demand for this product. Many times, they are hired to eliminate prairie dog colonies by ranchers so cattle aren't breaking legs in the holes. The job at hand is to dispatch as many of the pests as possible. They stick their heads up, and pop back down again. With a 100 round magazine, one could keep the muzzle pointed down range pretty much all the time and stay ready for a 'dog to pop its head up. Experienced varmint hunters will tell you they always seem to jump out when you're not ready for them, so the trick is to keep ready as much as possible.

That being said, the drums are known for frequent jams and failures, and this is no real surprise. The Thompson submachine gun had optional 50 and 100 round drums available and they're often seen in gangster movies and the like, but besides being heavy, they, too, were prone to jamming and not only were they hard to load (including winding a clockspring), once loaded, it took several minutes and what often seemed like three hands to fit the drum to the gun. The standard 20 round box magazines snapped right into place and dropped back out at the press of a lever. Most extended or extra capacity magazines of any type are absolute junk. There is a reason the gun didn't come with them in the first place and why the gun manufacturer does not make or offer these magazines for sale. The gun wasn't designed for them in the first place, and the aftermarket sources that offer these do a better job of parting fools from their money than anything else.

Heres an Idea.. why was the exit door that had no handle on the outside alarmed? I think that the door was intended for an emergency exit. At least in the Cinemas in my area that is what they are for, like in case of a fire? That door at any rate should have been watched by an employee to be sure no one was opening it to allow someone in without paying.. So that still leaves me with the question, Why wasn't it alarmed? No one could have used it the way this guy did and got away with it.

As far as the gun laws are concerned, it isn't the gun laws that are the problem, it is the punishment that isn't fitting the crime. In other words make the punishment for use of a deadly weapon so much more sever than they are now.

Actually, this is all conjecture as far as the scenario. Where you were seated would make a big difference. If you were near the shooter, you would have a decent opportunity to get a shot. If your in the front row and the shooter is in the back, you have no business shooting. A decent conjecture is this, that if there had been a decent number of theatergoers carrying that night, there is a good possibility that at least one of them would have had a chance to end this earlier than it did. However, there is no way of knowing, just conjecture.

@Roger-785733: I carry a concealed weapon all the time. This situation may not have been one where anyone with a weapon could have used it to eliminate the threat. That has to be factored in before the concealed weapon comes out, among a number of other considerations. BUT, carrying a concealed weapon, a legally concealed weapon, gives you options. If you don't have the weapon, then you have no options but to TRY and exit or wait it out. I saw on a post someone said we need to be aware of the surroundings first. That is so very true. And most of us don't train for a situation like this. So, I wouldn't have, most likely, tried to shoot at this nutbag since it was dark and everything else that factored in. But my pistol would have been unholstered and ready if the shot presented itself. I carry to protect me and mine and those around me who are in danger. You say our prisons are full of concealed carry idiots. I am not an idiot and one of us, since you apparently don't think it will ever happen to you and choose not to carry, may save you and yours from some idiot like this one day. And I KNOW you have no data to back that ridiculous statement up. You think the government can keep you safe? To me, that's an idiot's way of thinking. Did the "Gun Free Zone" at the theater work? Nope. It doesn't work anywhere. Why? Because law abiding citizens may obey it, but criminals won't. They don't play by our rules. So, I carry. Legally. And if it ever happens near me, I may be able to stop it or maybe not. But at least I have the option. You want to rely on someone else to protect your loved ones--go ahead. The police won't be there to help you. They are there to clean up, actually. But quit throwing statements out there that really can't be backed up. This idiot did this evil. I don't care what comes out about his childhood or anything like that. He is responsible for his actions. Not me. Not you. Not the weapons he used. What if he had just waited until the movie was over and ran people down with a car as they walked to their vehicles? I'm sure our prisons are just full of people who killed with a car under the cloak of a licensed driver. It's just a very sad situation and we all can agree on that.

@usafexcop

Your post seems to me more like rambling then anything of substance. All you are trying to do is rationalize carrying a gun.

Do you really think there are no people in jail who had a concealed permit and shot someone ? Is that what you want me to back up somehow ? Better think again about that. Are you saying all concealed permit gun owners can do no wrong ? We all know that is not entirely accurate. Just because you feel you are not an idiot does mean any other concealed carry gun owners are not. Look at George Zimmerman.

You think the government can keep you safe?

Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote and then quote where I said I felt the government would protect me. If they can and do, great. If not, oh well.

Let me leave you with this . . . Have you ever been shot ? Well I have... in the leg, I was 13 at the time. I am scared for life in two ways, you guess which two. The man who shot me I thought was a responsible adult . . . Wrong ! People who think they are responsible are really not when they put a gun in there hand and then think everyone else needs their protection. Until you have been shot, or worse yet have to shot someone, you might want to go back to rationalizing your flawed argument.

Just like Zimmerman, eh?

Yeah---it may have been a bit long, but it wasn't rambling. And you are right. I rationalize carrying a weapon. If I didn't, then I wouldn't carry one. And I did not say I thought everyone else needed me to protect them. But my family does. And if your family is around something like this, wouldn't you want someone who may be able to help? Sorry about your leg. But you don't say how you got shot. Could've been horse play or any number of things. And just who at 13 doesn't think every adult is responsible? I'm sure it was accidental. And that's not excusing it. Sounds like safety rules weren't followed. Not your fault. His fault and he should have been charged with something. I didn't quote you on the government. I was just taking it one step further and asking if you don't protect your family then who will? And "Oh well" works here, but not in the real world. And yeah I want you to back up the part about the prisons being FULL of concealed carry holders. I'm sure there are some, but full is a bit much. You do know what "full" means, right? And before you tell me I'm full of it, know that I thought the same about you. I have no want to play hero, either. I simply want to protect mine if need be. If someone else benefits from those actions, all the better. As a concealed carry permit holder, I'm as human as you. Never said we couldn't do any wrong. Zimmerman was told by 911 to break off the engagement. He didn't. And he's responsible for his actions. I make mistakes too. Which is why I train with my sidearm and it won't come out until I'm sure it needs to. And I'll leave you with this: as a police officer I've seen "shot dead" before. It's one reason I carry. Have you? I have rambled again. Sorry. Because I'm sure it's as wasted on you as my first post. Good luck to you out there. One day it may be the only thing you have on your side to protect yourself with.

Sorry but that makes know sense!! If he was using a gun as a paper weight then that solved his problem of keeping his paper in place, but the gun did not solve his problem in this case, the gun just killed the people, and I dont think he was worried about population control, so really the gun was not the problem..He was the problem..

Just sayin..

Same reason they use car bombs poison gas, poison in food supplies, and other means for mass murder. Terror, fame, hate, You name it. Evil will do that kind of thing. Sad but true

Someone please explain to me why people need to own assault weapons??? The only purpose I see is to kill mass amount of people, can't use them for hunting, so what its a ego thing, or what. I say why not ban assault weapons to the general public, their is no real reason to have them. I would appreciate a logical answer to this from someone who either owns one or no someone who does. I promise to have a open mind!

Laura, Technically it was not an "assault weapon" an AW is a "Selective Fire" Ie Safe/Semi/Fullauto or Burst. This was a Semi Auto only weapon it was not an Assault Weapon, please do not keep recycleing the same tired lack of knowledge.

Innkeeper...I never said I had any knowledge of of AW, I was going by what is being said in the news. Ok I was wrong to call it a AW, so why would anyone need a Semi Auto weapon, seems to me you can't use it to hunt, so what other use would you have for it?? Why would the average person need such a weapon, sounds like to me it belongs to the military, not the general public.

Innkeeper.... I just went and did a little research on one of the weapons Holmes use, AR 15 assault rifle, which from my understanding has about 30 rounds, but could get a clip with 100 rounds in. If that's not an assault weapon I don't know what is. Again I ask WHY would anyone need one of these? Seems like to me no one can answer this, because their is no real reason for an average person to own one.

@ laura

My guess Laura, the weapons are made for cowards like Innkeeper. With an assault riffle in his hands he feels invincible. Without a gun, no doubt a coward ! Wait and see, his next post is how tough he is without the gun, or he threatens to shot someone if they ever come to take his guns.

According to Scientific American Magazine, the universe should have been populated by at least one civilization by now. The fact that is hasn't is an extreme mathematical abberation. Statistically, it should have happened. Perhaps the destruction of the atmosphere by global warming explains this. We are on the same path. We will be wiped out by global warming before we can begin to start colonizing the universe.

Laura, It is called an assault weapon by groups like the news whom use words on purpose to cause fear and scare people.

The standard magazine is 20-30 rds they do make them as small as 5 and 10 rds and yes they make them as big as 100 rds the ones that big are garbage and more prone to jamming. Yes you can hunt with them, but I do not though I know some people who do. I actually use a .300wsm for hunting or a WWI British Battle Rifle called the enfield, the.300 holding 5 rds and the British 10rds.

As for why do people need them? I will cite the reasons in a moment but you may as well ask Why does someone who lives in the city down south need a Big 4 wheel Drive truck or SUV for around the city driving.

Now as for the use.....many people actually use them for Competition shooting, I personally shoot competitively and Use an M16A4, but I sign mine out of My Army Units Armory for practice and competition. We used to Shoot M14's which were the first Vietnam era Assaut Rifle. But for anyone who is not in the military they have to own an AR-15 which is the semi-auto version of the military's M16/M4 Rifle. And after I retire from the Military here in the near future I will either have to give up shooting competitively or purchase my own AR15. I have not decided yet, I am also Busy finishing up my teaching degree. Thank you for your politness in your responses.

Roger, why not learn to be polite in your attacks on people? I do own guns about 3 rifle 4 shotguns and 2 handguns, like I mentioned earlier none of them are Military Style semi auto's but it does not mean I will not own one in the future. I will be retired medically soon from the US army after 2 tours in the middle east, in the first of which I received the injury I will be retireing from. As well as 18months in the Far east and 3 trips to Germany, I do not need to act tough or talk tough just to make you justify your beligerent statements, I am more then willing to work protecting everyones Constitutional rights to say what they like, vote as they like, andmake their own choices as they see fit even if it is to talk trash to attempt to belittle others such as myself. I hope my brothers and sisters have helped you find a good nights sleep.

Just a question are you on the right line of discussion roosterboy?

Aren't you forgetting that he "armed" his apartment as well.. just how many people would have been killed if say the apartment manager and the police just entered his apartment? With the amount of explosives and incendiary devices he had in there it probably would have been most people in the general area of that apartment. It wasn't just guns that were his choice of murder weapons. Like I have posted before it isn't the gun laws that are the problem, it is the punishment for use of deadly weapons that needs to be harsher.

Joy, the punishment for all crimes need to fit the crime not just for crimes useing guns, but that is a whole different subject.

You can actually hunt with Semi-auto's in many states. Including AR's. As far as why anybody needs one, that depends. I want them, therefore I own them. I really hope I am never in a situation where I need them. I own a hammer also, but I am personally happier if it stays in the toolbox with no need for it. In a free society, need has nothing to do with many of our choices. But to outlaw those things for which there is no visible need, deprives a society of free choice. Even if you outlawed them, people like this seem to find a weapon to accomplish whatever destruction that they choose to commit. The truth is, that these kind of tragedies will always happen from time to time. Neither gun prohibition, more police, or more gunowners will stop all of it, and gun prohibition simply means that those who make destructive choices are more likely to have unarmed victims.

@Innkeeper: Thanks for your service, and your posts. Laura seems to be looking for answers. And you have given her good ones. I have an AR 15 and I shoot regularly with my dad and my son. I haven't yet, but will hunt with it this season. I'm an ex cop and I love range time. Weapons can, believe it or not, be a binding thread in families. I have pistols that my grandfather carried as a sheriff in the 1930s and 1940s. We are responsible gun owners. Most of my family is ex-military, so we also have been trained extensively in their use. But, Laura, the weapons aren't the problem here. It's the person. He is responsible for his actions. Not the guns. He must be held accountable. He knows right from wrong or he wouldn't have bought his ticket then used a back door to bring the weapons in in secret. And, yes, a 100 round mag is extreme and probably not needed, even on a battle field. But as David in Indiana said "...need has nothing to do with many of our choices." Well said. His whole post was well said. I don't need the truck I own, but I liked it so I bought it.

And, Innkeeper, Roger posts the way he posts because he doesn't have the ability to articulate his thoughts without dismantling someone's character.

Because they don't?

Because it really wouldn't make the news in LA, Chicago, or New York....

Yes but 95% of those are drug and gang related lol. Not mass murders.

I was born and raised in Chicago and I love that city. I makes me sad to see what is happening there in regards to gangs pushing dope and to the murders and shootings. The city worked much better under the watch of Richard M. Daley. Wish he would return and help clean up my home town. Strange too, because against all opposition he faught to not allow handguns. I understand that the NRA and others are trying to say that it is unconstitutional to not allow guns. Instead of people protecting themselves, I fear more guns will simply mean more guns for the gangs. Don't know the answer, but R.M. Daley knew what he was doing and had the guts to go against anyone who got in the way of his helping Chicago.

Exactly Michael! Why aren't the media and the president showing as much interest in the multiple murders in Chicago EVERY weekend? Why don't we see pictures of those victims all over the internet? Why aren't people mourning them???? Are those people less important than the ones in Coloroado???? I don't get it, something is terribly wrong with that.

JakeIAm

Yes but 95% of those are drug and gang related lol. Not mass murders.

A killing is a killing. Does it matter if it was gang/drug related or not? Of course not, innocent people can also be killed in these type of shoot outs.

More people have been killed in Chicago this year than all of the people killed in mass shootings for the last 20-30 years in the US.

Where is the media? Where is Odumbo?

The media talks about people being in fear of going to the movies, what about the people that live in fear everyday in their homes? I lived in Detroit for 30 year so I know what I'm talking about.

I think a 6 year old being killed at a movie with her mom and a gang related death during a drug deal or turf war are two entirely seperate things...

Pitborn- tell that to the innocent children gunned down and murdered in Chicago. (One teenage girl was shot twice on 2 different occasions, she amazingly survived.) The media and the president just want to sweep the dead Chicago bodies under the carpet. Chicago is a liberal stronghold warzone and that is exactly what the rest of America is going to look like if we don't get obama and his liberal agenda out of the White House.

German...we heard NOTHING from the president or his cronies when the 7 year old white girl was sitting on her front porch in Chicago on a Sunday afternoon in April and was murdered by a young black man. Where was the sympathy, where was the outrage like for Tyyron? Not there. Ignored.

Interesting numbers you posted in relation to murder/homicides compared to gun deaths....

homicides up 31%....

Shootings only up 6%...

ALL the proof you need that you do not need guns to kill people. Someone gets stabbed to death, beat over the head with a baseball bat we don't hear about them (Even though they are brutishly violent crimes even comapred to just shooting someone). Someone gets shot with a gun and it's all over the news as some atrocity.

Biased media anyone????

NorCalAmerican10, You sound like a senseless dumb bigot who is without any education, Did the President EVER mention GUN CONTROL following this tragic incident? It's people like you who fan the flames of hatred and bigotry and unfounded speculation. If you are nervous about your gun rights because of this incident, why not suggest Mitt instead, maybe he will etch-a -sketch to the other side on this one?

Sorry Stryker, my post was meant for NorCalAmerican. My apologies!

Stryker you sir need to grow up a little before you ever post on the internet again... really insulting people? With names?? lol grow up. Ah yes I present facts and yet I have no education... and yet in your argument you instult me and present no facts... typical.. For your family's sake I hope you open your eyes on whats really going on.

@MSNBCMFE ..... again personal attack against me and not about my post... Do you even know what Fast and Furious was? And no thanks I don't need to use Mind-Altering medicine.. never possess a firearm ... haha the amount of logic in these comments is really funny. I say two things that are backed upon facts and you two try to attack me with no facts or evidence... lol I will not waste my time with you two.

Stryker sounds like he has PMS.

If you come across some of his posts in the other conversations.. you can fairly make the judgement he is either an immature younge adult hiding behind his computer while insulting people.. or he's a little chap who got on mommy and daddy's computer without permission. I reached my conculsion just by reading his posts... lol

NorCalAmericano10

It was a proliferation of guns in the hands of the Nazi party members BEFORE it took control of the government that made the party's ascent possible. The Nazi party had its own party militia (the Brown Shirts, you may have heard of them) who terrorized their opponents. It would be like arming the Tea Party to harass Democrats and Republicans. It's one of the reasons why Germany has one of the strictest gun control environments. They don't want to repeat that experiment again.

B707320C

Thank you for the logical response, I respect your opinion on that matter. However my view on the Nazi rise to power is slightly a bit different than yours.. I do agree that guns did help them in terrorizing the public.. however if you look at the people who supported Hitler during his rise to power shows that even if they didn’t have guns, he was going to get into power. At the end of the day I do agree partially with you on the gun part. However guns protect the little guy in the argument. (This isn’t just to you, it’s for anyone who reading it) If you ask Americans what type of Government we are, the majority of them will say Democracy, when we are actually a Constitutional Republic… NO where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it ever state we are a Democracy… but in fact it says we are a Republic. Now the key difference in the two is in a Democracy… the bigger fish (Majority vote) always eats the littler fish (minority vote). In a Republic, the little fish has (guns) or the constitution to let their voice be heard. Guns are very important to this country and to the little guys (Minority) and when you have BIG Government that tries to watch over everyone.. the citizens themselves become the Minority. Agree to disagree, I thank you for your respectable response.

@ Stryker and others. One thing you can be sure of: This close to the election, no politician in their right mind will mention anything about gun control; as it could be political suicide. BUT !! You can bet you sweet "cheeks" obama is smiling over the people screaming gun control, behind closed doors. then again, there's Biden !! He just may be dumb enough. One more thing, don't discount Fast and Furious and the Manchurian Candidate posibilities.

NorCalAmerican10 -

One serious flaw to your argument re: (sic) the little guy needs guns. More People with more guns > fewer people with fewer guns everytime. Your proposition that a minority group of folks need guns to protect their rights against the majority (or the government) denies the simple numbers involved.

Further (in my opinion), it lessens belief in the legal-judicial system and actually encourages people to take the law into their own hands. A practical example of this belief is the case of Zimerman in where he chose to deliberately disregard the directions of the 911 operator and followed Martin. Would he have followed Martin if he was not armed? Unknown, but I believe it would be less likely.

Now personally I am in favor of the 2nd Amendment and believe that a nationally standardized gun purchase, ownership, and carry laws be written and equitably enforced. That helps to eliminate the straw purchases from one area where purchase laws are easier and then the guns being transported to another location for re-sale (example - Indiana guns being used in Chicago). I'm also in favor of a nationwide database on gun sales and the closure of the gun show loophole (which has also helped illegal and straw gun purchases).

The treaty Hillary Clinton signed this week with the UN should take care of gun control in the US.

B707320C,

Actually the main reason for the nazi's coming to powere was the vast disatisfaction of the German people in their then Government, who was more then willing to allow the horribly one sided treaty of Versaille to be signed and honored. The German people were pretty much saddled with the whole Blame of the first world war despite the fact they did not start it but were willing to support their allies Austro-Hungary. The French were also hopeing to get some revenge for their loss in the Franco-Prussian war and stuck it to the germans in the treaty this lead to the , huge unemployment, huge inflation and overall poor attitude and dissatisfaction of the German people in their Government....hence the ease of hitler and his cronies to take control of that when the time was ripe.

Coco, Hilary can not sign a treaty with the UN or anyone else, the Senate has to ratify all treaties which require 67 votes and then and only then May the president sign it which then makes it legal. So please stop spouting nonsensical conspiracy theroy information.

CoCo - that bogus fear-mongering talking point has been disproven. Please don't encourage people to wear tin foil hats.

http ://www .snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

http ://www. politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/09/chain-email/chain-e-mail-says-un-treaty-would-force-us-ban-con/

And one on the NRA distorting President Obama's positions and claiming that he is "taking away our guns": http :// factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

@Matthew

Well with any argument anyone can find a conculsion to make it flawed.. However when we look at the perception I was coming from, citizens against their government.. no matter how many citizens are armed... they will always be looked at as the minorities, hence the government tech. their power of propaganda, and their military strength. The Zimmerman case I wish not to comment on because that case had been tampered with already, thanks to Obama and the media trying to cause a race war... why else would Obama get involved. I mean a "white hispanic" ... I don't mean to assume but every Hispanic I've met would never call themselves that... they are too proud of their heritage/color .. at least the people I've met. When it comes to gun laws and buying them.. I do feel they should be watched by a non-corrupt organization.. (yeah good luck with that... my thoughts exactly lol)

@Innkeeper

Believe it or not but Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's testimony before Congress asserting that the United Nations and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the United States military, words which effectively declare Congress a ceremonial relic. Pretty much sums that up by saying That obama will now go to the U.N. regarding who to attack and then they will come "tell" Congress about their decisions... So if the U.N. wants to ban guns ... what do you think the obama administration is going to do... tell Congress to sit down and shut up... they have them all black mailed so they won’t do a damn thing. Here's a link to the video.

Inkeeper, you are right about the circumstances surrounding the failure to established parties in Germany to deal with the aftermath of the First World War. However, it was the general anger of young German soldiers still in possession of their weapons that allowed the Nazis to coral this disgruntled group to populate the Brown Shirts. The Brown Shirts terrorized their opponents to get their way. I respectfully disagree with NorCalAmericano. Ensuring that a well armed minority has the power to terrorize the Majority is a proscription for disaster. Violence or the threat thereof will not solve problems.

@B707320C

I really need to change/edit my account name lol its suppoes to say NorCalAmerican 10 but when u read it fast looks like it says Americano hahaha

And just to clear up the confusion... I'm in no way insisting the minority group in government debates or anything minority in that matter to rise up with guns and create violence.. I'm simply saying that Guns and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights simply make it to where the Majority simply can't slience or walk over the minority group... Never would I call for violence... a nice peaceful alternative would the Ideal but History has shown us that will never happen lol.

Opps sorry Innkeeper heres the link to that video if you were interested in viewing...

http:// www.youtube.com/ watch?v=hxT5xcfCQpI

NorCal, Not sure who is feeding you that line of hooey, but you should not believe any line like that, the DefSec can testify to Congress all he wants or someone can tell you he says that, but there is no way That the UN or NATO have any control over the US Military. The only exception to that would be if we are taking part in a UN or NAtO action and that would only count for whatever troops were being used in that action. I have served long enough to know better then to believe every bit of dribble I hear on the internet or from some conspiracy theorist, and any other educated person would know as well what you "heard" and repeated to us is not true.

B707320C, I can't say I agree with the minority/majority statement either, especially not after his SecDef statement, but I am also against indiscriminate banning of guns as well. The issue that needs to be looked at here is not Guns but the people who commit atrocities like this and then are allowed to get off due to legal technicalities or Lawyers defending with BS statements like "insanity" anything to get their client off even if they are guilty. Our Legal system needs to be toughened not loosened, and they need to worry more about Criminals being properly punished not howsomething in society made them feel like things were unfair so they should be forgiven for transgressions because they are not to blame but society is.

NorCalAmerican10 - I respect your opinion and your statements. However if a position is placed out for discussion then to me it needs to be looked at from more than one perspective rather than automatically accepted. As stated, I believe in the 2nd Amendment (and ALL Constitutional Rights for that matter) but I don't buy the "practicality" of your position.

Clarification - please note that in my discussion I was referring the minority as "the few" and not any specific group in order to parallel your position in stated terminology.

Concerning Mr. Zimmerman, I understand your position on the politicization of the situation. As you no doubt saw, I made no reference to that sort of thing, just my personal opinion on the "empowerment" that a gun can provide to some folks. I actually think the Castle Doctrine is not a bad thing in concept but not applicable in this case because Mr. Zimmerman disregarded the instructions of the 911 operator and left his static position to follow Mr. Martin, in effect "leaving his castle."

B707320C - I fully agree with the historical position you've taken on the Brown Shirts. However I will also add that they effectively had a "pre-established organizational system" (i.e. - the military) with cross communication that allowed them to more easily systematically terrorize and enforce their rule.

Innkeeper.. Agree to disagree...I wouldn't say Some one was feeding me that line... that video link I posted shows the SecDef (I like your abbrivation of that word, Don't mind me burrowing it) stating it from his own mouth... so should we just choose to ignore it?? The fact that someone in his position would even mention something like that is a bit troubling to say the least? However I truely do thank you for your service.

Have not checked the link maybe I will do that in the morning, but the problem with anything that shows up on the internet, you have no idea what may have been cut out of said speech. Just like I am sure you r familiar with nobody in the news agencies would ever report anything out of context or cut and splice anything to fit their own agenda. The SecDef saying soething like that is like believeing SecState can sign a Treaty for us with the UN, it can not happen and they day it can is the day the Military and the State Guards need to rise up and return the Government back to the people. Your welcome and thank you for your words.

God forbid that day ever come but if it does I hope your right on standing down. Thank you for this engaging conversation, (you as well Matt) But yeah InnKeeper I think you should check out that clip when you get the chance. I've watched many videos on it from different sources and it didn't seem to me that anything was cut out or left out in the clips that I watched. Thanks again guys.

Matthew, the Brown Shirts "coordinated" with the German military after Hitler was elected and made Chancellor. Before that they were a rouge terror group. In fact, once Hitler had control of the Army, he eventually disbanned the organization because it had a thuggish reputation that he no longer needed when he could instead control the more reputable German military. He had the head of the Brown Shirts, one of Hitler's most ardent supporters in the 1920s and early 30s, assassinated. In order not to sully the reputation of the army he moved the responsibility for political solutions to the SS.

Sadly, for the mentally ill, there are very clear and just reasons to do some thing like both the colorado shootings, and many others. They know what they do is just, and right. To the rest of us, the sane and well grounded ones, what they do is plain evil. That is what separates the sane from the insane.

@ Gooseman63......exactly! We do have the Death Peanlty, and as a Resident of Colorado, the LAST thing I want is for my tax $$ to go to is feeding, housing this POS. he will have to be kept in Solitary, more tax $$. He needs to be put down!

@Fred's Girl......really??? seriously???

"They know what they do is just, and right"

How do you know this? IMHO, if he knew what he was doing was just and right why did he wait for the cops!! He didn't run, he didn't fight. That is cold calculation of evil!

Fred's Girl, actually this guy is not mentally ill, and people who break the law need to own up and take responsibility for their crimes not have someone tell the court, "well he was not hugged enough as a child" or "society has not been fair to his" or he is 'mentally ill". They know what they are doing and they deserve to answer for their transgressions against the rest of the law abiding citizens of this country.

The second amendment permits us to "bare" arms....really"? Well, I guess I'm about to exercise my right to "bare" arms....I'm headed out to the pool.

Tank tops FTW.

Fred's Girl this event did not happen because of poor gun laws the shooter had a clean record and would have been able to pass just about any check for a weapon.The SCOTUS has ruled on the people's right to bear arms and they ruled in favor of the people so get over it.

1. If you need an assault rifle to hunt, then you are a p#$s-poor hunter and should find another hobby. You are not macho, you are an embarrassment and an insult to real hunters.

2. The pundits keep talking about how it's not a gun problem, it's simply the act of a mad man--duh. We've had mentally disturbed people since the beginning of time--and we will always have them. But we never had regular mass shootings until we started making assault rifles/automatic weapons available to virtually anybody. Why can't the NRA (and the politicians they've bought and paid for) connect the dots?

3. The whole theory of "if only everyone in the theater had been armed" is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan was surrounded by armed experts who were trained marksmen and who were constantly scanning the crowd for threatening people, and yet they couldn't keep him from being shot. But some politicians seem to think that a bunch of untrained, armed citizens in a crowded theater clouded with tear gas would've been able to take down a guy in body armor. Yeah, right, because untrained citizens are far superior to Secret Service agents. These politicians are just trying to look like "I'm a man of the people" because they know they're going to be called on the carpet to explain the brilliant logic behind letting the assault weapon ban expire.

4. When I buy Sudafed, I'm limited to like 10 pills and have to show my driver's license so my name can go into a database and they can keep track of how many pills I've been buying over a certain period of time--"hey, why does this person need 60 pills in just two weeks' time?". But I can buy 6,000 rounds of ammo for my assault rifle and nobody keeps track and says, "hey, who needs 6,000 rounds of ammo in just 2 weeks' time?" And yet I'M the one who's considered a threat to society and Holmes has his 2nd Amendment rights protected at all costs!!! (I wonder if the NRA is thinking, "well it's a darn shame, but at least no one's 2nd Amendment rights were abridged, and that's the important thing.")

5. The bottom line: When Coloradans get fed up enough, they'll INSIST on stronger gun laws. They're just not fed up enough yet.

What are Colorado's laws on buying firearms, ammunition, and/or other lethal weapons?

other lethal weapon's...it's also ok to buy knives,ice pick's,axe's,baseball bat's,pool stick's,butane in tank's,black powder,pipe's,wind up clocks,anti-freeze,car's,trains,air plane's,log chains,spike nails,finger nail files,pens,pencils,and the deadly pianos...waiting for the light show...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhJvSw99G1E

@fred's Girl..

Your interpretation of the Constitution's second amendment is just that; your interpretation. I would suggest you go back to Fred's arms and leave the real arms topic to people who have brains to do a better interpretations.

Back in the day when the amendment was written there was no such Government Agencies and branches as today so the part you fail to interpret is "a well regulated militia" MEANS the people.. the common, average citizen, your neighbor; yourself; NOT the government; the amendment is actually trying to prevent that very Government from absolute control; so it would not be tyranny AGAIN but you don't worry about all this; just stay on Fred's arms will you?

The only problem with REGULATION is that it ONLY regulates the "Law Abiding". NO LAW HAS EVER PREVENTED A CRIMINAL FROM BEING A CRIMINAL! NO LAW HAS EVER PREVENTED ANYONE FROM BECOMING A CRIMINAL!
Laws to NOT "Protect"; only conscious, reasonable, thinking protects.

Why can't you anti-gun-ownership bigots realize that if you RESTRICT 'guns', only the criminals will have guns! And, for me, it has NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment; I HAVE AN INALIENABLE RIGHT TO PROTECT MYSELF AND NO GOVERNMENT CAN TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME [at least not morally]. Every creature on this planet has the right to protect itself; WHY IS THAT NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION?

Fred's Girl

So if the guy blew up his apartment building like he intended to would you blame the gas and chemicals he used?

plain bob - that argument is a non-starter. Yes, everything from a 747 to a piece of stale toast can probably be used as a weapon.

However, an assault style rifle is designed for one primary purpose. To shoot people. And the use of this type of weapon is offensive in nature due to the size and usage. It's not a handgun you carry for self protection. It's not designed as a hunting rifle.

When you find instances of the average citizen using an assault rifle to successfully defend himself or his family from other people please post the links.

Oh, and if you find any cases, let's compare them to the number of times an assault style rifle has been used for killing people. Then we can get a true comparison of "own it for personal defense" versus "own it to kill people."

Freds Girl,

After The Revolution Was over the Army was Disbaned because the People feared a Government with a standing army, hence the 2nd Amendment has no connection with being intended to mean the Regular branches of the Military or Law enforcement. The next Standing Army was Washington's Legion formed in 1791 because of the need for a standing army to fight the Indian wars, this also was disbanded in 1796. The 2nd amendment is meant so that the people of our country can have weapons to protect our country from all enemies foreign and domestic, because those people with the arms are the United States.

"Can't believe that stupid kiddy movies like bat-man/superman can create these delusions"

My guess is that you are a sane well grounded person, for you, batman like movies would not create delusions. But, in people like Holmes, it can. That is why so many mental health professionls are so worried about violent compute games. It can change a young persons reality.

As for University brain experiments; good point.

Mental health professionals are not worried about computer games. They have studied it extensively, and there's no evidence it produces violent kids.

Its the morality hounds who go on about violent games and movies. Living in leave it to beaver land, isnt going to keep a delusional nut from acting out. Keeping them from getting assault rifles will save lives.

@Fred's Girl. OMG! That is as STOOOPID as blaming Ozzy for a suicide! Let's be clear for last time here....It was ALL him, the POS! This guy should have been on some one's radar, for sure. The guy with the Suafed example is perfect! What we should be worried about are the copycats out there! There is a guy right now on FB who has a red wig on and calling himself the Joker, go and flag that page! the page is "Holmes, James Holmes".

I've been watching too many "Bourne" movies, but read up on the Manchurian Candidate, which includes far more than the original movie of the early 60's. They have only refined the procedure since then.

Movies and Video games do not make people go out and do this kind of stuff, all people have free will and choice they choose to do this stuff of their own accord they should hence be punished for what they do. And Uni's are not brainwashing people do do these things grow up people.

Or more likely would have ended up with more deaths.

Problem is that CCW training is not sufficient and far too many CCW holders have no business owning a gun.

I agree and when predators feel they have autonomy that they will be facing defencless prey, they will be more likely to attack. That is the most basic law of the jungle and nature where there is less chance of failure.

We do not need nor want an armed battle in the middle of a dark theater, thank you kindly. This sort of thinking simply raises the body count. Logic dictates that more guns = more casualties. Remember, guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people!

basedInReality

Problem is that CCW training is not sufficient and far too many CCW holders have no business owning a gun.

Have you been through carry training? It doesn't sound like it from your statement.

Or maybe they should sue the gun seller, the gun maker, whoever made the 100 bullet drum. Perhaps they should sue the Constitution for allowing people to have assault rifles legally. There is a reason the are called "assault" rifles.

I beg to differ Rob. I am a CCW and I carry, even places posted. That crowded movie theater is no place for a "firefight". If there had been 15 CCW people there and they all discharged their weopan only 1 time each, the stats are that only one would strike the intended target and only 1 out of 7 that strike the intended target would be a critical or disabling wound. The other 14 rounds ... well , that would most likely only be 14 more victims.Your guess is as good as mine on the stats if everyone fired 3 rounds or 7 -10 rounds. This was a duck and run for cover event only.

Only if he or she had the training that would prevent other innocent lives from being taken. Even trained Police or military have to be sure of their target, and even then bad things can happen.

@ Erieite... ASSAULT is a NOUN not a VERB in this case. I can assure you when our troops are attacked they use an ASSAULT weapon as a defensive weapon. In search and destroy the use the very same ASSAULT weapon to do just that. Hence , the name is NOT a verb as you indicated. Do you really think I will not choose my ASSAULT weapon because of the name it carries to defend my home and family. Hope my next intruder makes that mistake.

Bensgpa - I suggest that the odds of a critical or disabling wound would be significantly less than 1 in 7. The shooter was in torso body armor which eliminates the main mass target. Further, the theater was dark and a smoke/tear gas bomb had been used to add to the confusion.

You do not understand the concept of freedom, Freedom. Did you see that the shooter was also making bombs from household chemicals? Will you also outlaw those chemicals because there are some liberal nutjobs like the unibomber who will kill to get their agenda's heard?

Freedom to kill people, thats a freedom we can do without thanks.

Heres a question, how about the freedom of the victims to not be gunned down in a movie theatre? How about the freedom of citizens to not worry about gun toting nuts everywhere?

Anything the limits the ability of nuts to kill many people fast, is a plus. And a freedom to live safely that everyone should have.

I dont want my family to have to worry about nuts and gun toting vigilantes thank you very much. Thats a freedom I plan to demand forever.

I dont give a rats ass about your freedom to own a gun, if the cost is this.

Many want to punish legal owners and operators of guns, through tighter gun control laws….. Well
let me ask you this…. If you are so worried about it, why don’t you push for law enforcement and sentences that fit the crimes…

This John Holmes, killed people, but when the police arrived, he just gave up, he was waiting at his car…… a coward….

But now we will hear that he is insane because his daddy did not play catch with him, or that his daddy did not bounce him on his knee, or his mother did not breast feed him…..

My answer to the cowards, after conviction, a strong rope and solid tree, and let him hang until he rots.
He planned it for months, not only did he kill the people in the theater, planned to kill the police entering his apartment and his neighbors….. well planned and executed….

Want to stop crime; stop protecting criminals…… actions should have consequences…….

And where do yo stand on Capital Punishment?

Punishment for criminals is fine, but I want prevention. And its not punishment of gun owners, its prevention. Sorry, but unless you can guarantee that all gun owners arent a nut, then gun ownership should be much better monitored..

Punishing criminals AFTER they do this, is not going to stop them BEFORE they do it. Punishment is not a deterrent.

Freedom4Everyone, you are sorely mistaken in your assertion that criminals will not have access to guns if new laws are passed. Have you ever been to a party where marijuana or other illicit drugs were present? I'm guessing you have, and those substances are unlawful to possess in our country. The fact is these drugs are everywhere, and the vast majority of them are IMPORTED, much like guns will be (and already are, to an extent). Also, a large number of guns sold on the streets are stolen from law enforcement agencies, not from everyday citizens. All the laws will do is assure that only those who have nefarious purposes in mind will own a gun, while the general law-abiding public will become sitting ducks. If you don't think this will be the case I know a guy in Ohio who can get you an AR-15 that's automatic (unlike the shooter's), and the serial is filed so it won't be traced. It was not bought legally, mind you.

Drugs can be produced easily, and clandestinely, and can also easily be smuggled in compared to guns. . And theres a high demand for drugs, making it profitable. Its also much harder to detect drugs, then it is a shippment of guns.

If people need to go to that much trouble to get a gun, then it will prevent 99% of the people from getting one.

That said, Im not for a ban, im for more control, much more control. Rules and tests up the ying yang basically. I want people to prove they are safe to own a lethal killing device.

Wasn't that big killing of 70 in Norway? They have some of the toughest gun laws in the world. And then there's Japan and their gun laws, so what did they use poison gas. This guy could have had 10 one gallon gas cans, jammed the doors and burned hundreds to death. Let's flip it around. What might of been the outcome if 25 responsible adults with weapons had stood up and blown the crap out of this guy??? Where'd you squirt that 99% figure out of....think we all know. If guns are so bad why do police and military carry them?

Switzerland requires everyone starting at 18 up to about mid 50 (or more) to belong to the military and to drill with their weapons and they have really low gun death rates. And they keep their firearms at home with the ammo.

Your first amendment (which you use here and everyday) is protected and guaranteed by the second amendment. The third one is enforced by the 2nd, and keeps someone from the government from booting you out of your home and taking it over. The fourth against illegal searches and seizures is insured by your rights to a weapon to defend against the government coming into your home and looking for whatever. And on and on with all of the Bill of Rights as well as the Constitution.

If you are willing to give up your 2nd Amendment what's the next right you're willing to loose??? We have dozens if not hundreds of laws against using weapons in crimes, restrictions on what they can be used for and still crimes happen. And, as for your statement about whom will have weapons, If guns are taken away from law abiding citizens I will tell you for sure citizens will not have the right or means to protect themselves. And even if it is two pieces of pipe or a car antenna (old type) or a pipe from Ace hardware full of matchheads, the criminals can still kill you and you want to give up the only means guaranteed by our founding fathers which in every case will at least give you a fighting chance.

When SECONDS count, the POLICE are only MINUTES away!!!!

They have some of the toughest gun laws in the world

Norway does, the shooter circumvented them by ordering illegal parts over the internet. Some ordered from the US.

Japan and Norway have a far better record then the US. And no one is suggesting theres a perfect solution. Its about limiting the carnage. If bringing in laws like they have in Norway, brings the death toll down to levels like Norway and Japan have, then you have saved thousands and thousands of lives. Live of kids in many cases.

If its a choice between your gun ownership and the lives of thousands of people, I choose life.

Freedom i have seen many of your post on blogs and your thinking that criminals get their weapons for legal sources is the most moronic thing you have ever said.Go ahead ban all guns and the criminals will still have them because they know where to get them illeaglly.

Hitler disarmed the people and history shows how that turned out.

The real problem is/was the man using the weapons. He had more than firearms. He apparently used tear gas, or some kind of smoke bomb, to control the people, darkness to hide his presence and intent. He intended the be fired upon because he was covered with tactical type protection from head to toe... even a groin protector. He thoughtfully and intentionally planned to purchase all these things over several months' time to avoid suspicion about his purchases. He manufactured lethal explosive devices with all kinds of materials, most are commonly available in any home, grocery store, or hardware store, with the intent of killing anyone who went through the door of his apartment, which by his own plan would likely have law enforcement first through the door after he gave himself up when he was done with his rampage.

Now, my big question: when his mother was contacted she is reported to have said "You have the right person." Obviously she knew something about his potential behavior and did not report it to anyone. WHY??? Other students observed his increasingly strange behavior over the past several months and took no action to protect themselves or anyone else. I've heard reports of other behaviors observed by neighbors that were suspicious enough to have been reported for investigation by... someone!

This guy has/had a clean record and he legally purchased all the materials to carry out his deadly plan. He didn't just suddenly change over night. This has been going on for a while, maybe a long while. He should have had a record preventing him from purchasing those devices and supplies, and he didn't, so all the laws in the world would not have stopped this from happening. If the guns were not obtainable, I can guarantee you he would have done something else, and something probably far worse taking out many more lives than he did.

The real issue, in my opinion, comes down to the terribly poor mental health care in this country. No one apparently wanted to take the initiative to report the alarmingly unusual behavior(s), so far discussed with reporters, in order to intervene, and prevent things like this happening. He was sending distress signals, but nobody bothered to 'read' them. In every mass destruction case in my lifetime that I can recall (Timothy McVey did not use firearms and look what he did!) there were clearly evident suspicious behaviors. What about our society is causing increasing destructive behaviors??? And when are we going to take action when we see these things brewing??

@Freedom 4 everyone...

Very well put name sir...

@AngryWhitemale...

well said....lets not forget this formula: Freedom4everyone + Liberalism = another dangerous stupid "concerned" citizen threatening real Freedom.

I am a hunter and have guns. BUT... I do not think anyone should be able to buy guns or ammunition over the internet or through a catalog. I buy mine in gun shops.

This is just my opinion.

Freedom4Everyone ???

That name is a lie. You dont' want freedom for everyone, you want the government to control everything for you, to protect you so that you are NOT liable or accountable for your actions and so others are not accountable foe their own actions. That is how the weak think, the ones that do not want to think for themselves, the real cowards.

Freedom is so very hard to get, and so very easy to give away.... people with your line of thinking are a very serious threat to everyones freedom.

The rabid gun nuts are always so fascinating to me. Statistics show that the U.S. has 30,000+ gun deaths per year vs. England's 6,000 gun deaths per year. So, essentially, what the gun nuts are saying is that their gun rights trump the lives of 24,000 people per year. I knew people were selfish, but this just takes the cake!

Why did you leave out the biggest domestic mass murderer? Oh, right that prize goes to the RIGHT wing nut, McVeigh.

One guy with a knife for several children vs one guy with an assault rifle with a 100 round magazine for very quick and efficient killing.

@Ericite

so the guy with the knife is ok by you..you passed him already did you?

Strange comment

Yeah, I agree

I have to agree with John128 in part at least. Around here they put Crosses on the side of the road, plastic flowers, Christmas tinsel etc. , and leave them until the termites get them or somebody else is killed there. They're just on the verge so I wonder why someone hasn't run into one and torn up the undercarriage of their car.

Our former coroner would paint a Cross (an X if you object to Cross) on the pavement for each road death. To me that is a reminder that one it is a dangerous spot and two someone remembered.

I think a special account to donate to the survivors expenses is much more reasonable. A Jewish friend told me once that his faith believes in "give me the flowers while I live and while I can appreciate the fragrance."

On another point does any one object as much as I do to the media showing people in their grief, tears all over? Is it to get ratings from people's loss?

Umm, Excuse Evandro Oliveir, we are in america and I pressed #1 for english can you please translate you comment..

WTF

He means...We are lamenting...the fatalities...one man out of control. It's Portuguese.

dmatthews3,

WTF? You don't speak portuguese? So easy to translate any language with a copy/paste to numerous websites.

@dmatthews33...

was thinking the same as reading your post was kind of funny; he meant literaly to say:

"Very sad. A fatality. An out of control man"

I agree as this is very sad no matter in what language it is expressed.

Make sure to bring enough plastic bags though if you're planning on going on a bagging spree in a dark movie theatre....

.... and DEMAND that those military guys hold still, while you put the baggies on their heads!

Shandril, it is the custom of the sitting President to visit the site of a tragedy such as this or a national disaster.

Ah heck... if the President had not gone to Colorado you'd say he was cold and indifferent... out of touch. If he'd sent someone you'd say he wasn't man enough to show up. Where's Romney... checking his Swiss or Caymen bank account?

I am in agreement with those that say the Media is at fault. A person, such as Holmes, should NOT gain any notority of any kind. He should be on death row and moved along quickly so the American public do not need to support him.

S Jones. You are nothing but a hate mongrol. People don't give a rat's a$$ of who, from the government went there. It isn't going to make the pain any less and they won't do anything to stop the next mass shooting. No one can forecast when someone will SNAP. As far as gun control, the government will never be able to control the guns from someone that wants to cause a criminal act.

Another campaign stop. Another chance to get the cameras in his face.

Obama totally sucks. Obama totally sucks. Hi-ho the Derry-o Obama totally SUCKS!

"lemur lady Shandril, it is the custom of the sitting President to visit the site of a tragedy such as this or a national disaster."

Lemur lady, Shandril is right - does anyone remember Obama visiting any of the families of the men who died on the BP oil rig? I don't... I don't even remember him even sending anyone. Their deaths were a horrible national disaster and in the news for weeks. Why now and not then?

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Election year antics, all for show in hopes thart Barak Hussein Obama will garner enough votes through favors, bribes, and publicity stunts to get re-elected!

He's disgusting and his showing up in Colorado is not only predictable, but DISGRACEFUL and DISIGENUIOUS!

Where was Obama when 13 military personnel were massacred and 36 others wounded at Ft. Hood, Texasby Major Nidal Hasan a psychiatrist who was shouting Allah, Allah, Allah while KILLING OUR SOLDIERS???

Obama was nowhere to be found and the media coverage was non-exsistent except for one station!

Let's all examine our hearts and minds and do what is right for America, not for any single person or party come this November!

At the very least, if you don't want to vote for Romney, then stay at home, do your civic duty any way by not voting at all!

May the souls of all the fallen rest in peace, and may God bless the wounded and the families of all involved!

@clint, Shandril, et al: Guess you missed the part where it said that President Obama was meeting with the families of the victims privately. In other words, no cameras, no reporters. The reason why he's there is because it was a national tragedy that touched many - nothing more, nothing less. Would you rather he pretend that nothing happened? Would that fit better into your *story* of an uncaring president?

I HOPE this is not another photo op like in Fort Hood where he did NOT even go to the hospital to visit the wounded. He had several photo ops and left. He did not talk to victims or families.