.
Mass shootings: Can they be stopped?
James Holmes, 24, was identified by law enforcement officers as the man who opened fire during a screening of "The Dark Knight Rises" at an Aurora, Colorado theater.
July 20th, 2012
06:46 PM ET

Mass shootings: Can they be stopped?

By Barbara Hall, CNN

(CNN) – The early-morning shooting inside a suburban Denver movie theater Friday is now among the deadliest in recent history. Authorities say the suspect, 24-year-old James Eagan Holmes, was studying neuroscience in a Ph.D. program at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

Retired FBI profiler Jim Clemente says the perpetrators of these types of mass killings are typically disenfranchised young adult males who feel alienated by society. Clemente says their homicidal motives seem to be a product of genes and the environment:

[2:01] "Genetics loads the gun. Your personality and psychology aims it. And your experiences pull the trigger."

Hundreds of people have been killed in mass shootings over the past 30 years. But do these mass shootings represent a disturbing upward trend? Florida State University Criminologist Gary Kleck says no:

[3:19] "It's kind of absurd to talk about trends in events that occur maybe two or three times on average a year. So, there really isn't a particular, stable pattern to the frequency of mass killings."

Former profiler Jim Clemente believes there's very little society can do to put an end to all acts of senseless violence:

[4:01] "The more we are sort of careful with other people's feelings, the more we are sort of inclusive as a society, it's going to help avoid some of these situations. But some of them, I think, are bound to happen anyway just because people are going to fall through the cracks."

Share your thoughts on this story. Join the conversation and add your comments.

soundoff (694 Responses)
  1. Jim

    I see two sides to the argument, one blaming guns and one blaming games/media violence. Both are wrong. In the end, as long as you have disenfranchised people you will have violence. This just sounds like another case of a loner who got rejected and decided to turn to violence when he realized whatever was causing him to get rejected couldn't be fixed. There are lots of socially awkward, are you going to issue a ban on firearms to anyone who was picked on because they might become a mass shooter? Ridiculous.

    July 22, 2012 at 12:48 am | Report abuse |
  2. Noyfb

    Only a low iq liberal such as a CNN leftist would would ask such a dumb question. There is Nothing any of you delusional liberals could do to stop anyone from going on a killing spree no matter how many laws are made or threats are made. If someone decides they want to kill a bunch of people then they will do it and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it unless they have been posting and telling people their intentions for a while. If someone is off the Internet radar and has no run ins with the law and they wake up one day and decide to go homicide maniac, your best defense is not being there when it happens and hope it's not a white man because they are the only ones who seem to know how to shoot.

    July 22, 2012 at 12:42 am | Report abuse |
  3. jdoe

    Both sides miss the point. One side thinks that guns should be outlawed, and the other side doesn't want this. We're talking about gun control, not outlawing them. The 2nd Amendment does not limit the type of weapons people can have. And yet civilians can't buy machine guns, grenade launchers, howitzers, battle tanks, or thermonuclear devices.

    So the fact is there is already some control in place, to prevent people from acquiring weapons that can do a lot of damage very quickly. Even in countries with stricter control, people can still buy hunting rifles readily. It comes down to where to draw the line, not the extremes of banning everything or anything goes.

    July 22, 2012 at 12:37 am | Report abuse |
  4. Chappyshirt

    I am all for legal guns... So long as they are just like the guns that existed when it was written that we have the right to bear arms. Five feet long, fired straight-ish, and took a minute to reload. Let's keep those guns legal!

    July 22, 2012 at 12:37 am | Report abuse |
  5. MK

    We need a ID to buy a cold medicine in this country, but can buy a gun very easily. This will be old news in couple of days. In couple months another mentally sick (or he will call him, mentally sick after the shooting spree) kills more people, we will be shocked and that will become old news too another one happens. But we do not even try to avoid it. We do not even think it is a problem. We think it is just unfortunate incident. It is always just one or two bad guys. Why do anyone need assault weapons is beyond me. Why don't we ban semi and automatic weapons? If someone is sick and have only access to a knife, how many people he can kill? With a gun how many will be killed? With an assault weapon, how many will be killed? With a dirty bomb how many will die? Just think about it. Still, we just argue and do nothing to avoid it.

    July 22, 2012 at 12:35 am | Report abuse |
  6. SDGPaul

    Have, any of you actually read this thread? The crack shot logic is befuddling...

    The only way to "hinder" (not stop, cause it's not possible)...guns ending up in the wrong hands is pre-screening consumers, prior to gun purchases. Force them to register with the Gov, and make their "carrying" presence known. Then have them go through a series of psychological test questions (all with hidden agendas) to expose their true intent.

    For the guy with the 1+2=3 analogy....the math is just that simple:
    (1) No training....+....(2) No pre screening....=....(3) NO GUN!

    THIS WILL NOT END ANYTHING....but rather hinder the ease with which spontaneous criminals attain weapons.

    July 22, 2012 at 12:33 am | Report abuse |
  7. James R. Ruston

    Let's face it. The gun nuts have won.

    July 22, 2012 at 12:28 am | Report abuse |
  8. cjacja

    They have very strict gun control laws in Mexico – It does not prevent shooting. My opinion I don't give a hoot if they are banned or not. it will not change anything one way or the other.

    Should we worry about this? No. Traffic accidents kill TEN TIMES MORE people every year than died in the 9/11 attack. And few people really care, they continue to drive. If you want to save lives don't waste time talking about guns and bombs on airplanes, spend more on traffic safety.

    July 22, 2012 at 12:27 am | Report abuse |
  9. Fubarack

    I'm in a room full of guns right now, some are loaded, none of my guns have ever attacked me or anyone else. I also choose not to drive my truck into a crowd of people at 100 mph, or any number of other ways one could harm people.

    July 22, 2012 at 12:20 am | Report abuse |
  10. Kris

    It's funny how people blame the NRA. The NRA is a group of people who PAY a membership to belong to. We do this to give the NRA the ability to protect our right to own firearms. The only way anybody in government will listen is to have a powerful lobbyist. The NRA is my lobbyist. None of the firearms that I own have ever harmed anybody.
    I AM THE NRA!

    July 22, 2012 at 12:16 am | Report abuse |
    • todd

      your argument is irrational...dumb ass. i hope your balls get blown off and your paralyzed. i am one who will pray it really happens to you ignorant man and dumbass republican. die asshole please cause i hate you...

      July 22, 2012 at 12:23 am | Report abuse |
      • Raven33

        It sounds like you are the perfect example of why people with mental health issues should be banned from owning a firearm. Part of the problem is some States have prevented people from being committed to a mental health institution witout their consent. From what the mother of the Aurora nut said, it sounds like he should have been committed himself. Now we know he should have been. BTW, I'm not some left wing nut. I have my own gun business in Alaska called Veteran 4 Veterans. I just think we have to keep guns out of the hands of nuts like Todd!

        July 22, 2012 at 1:31 am | Report abuse |
    • clarity6

      The NRA cares about the profits of gun manufacturers, not the second amendment. Your comments jus show how duped you are.

      July 22, 2012 at 12:33 am | Report abuse |
  11. Jeff

    Ask the 12 people that died if they would like stricter gun control laws.

    July 22, 2012 at 12:10 am | Report abuse |
    • whta

      Why ban the guns of the people who didn't do anything? Betcha he'd not have walked into that theatre if he knew someone (or multiple someone's) was carrying a gun. But thanks to a no-gun policy 12 people died. That is gun control for ya.

      July 22, 2012 at 12:18 am | Report abuse |
  12. Billy Raven

    There are no guns in prison.

    July 22, 2012 at 12:04 am | Report abuse |
    • dennis

      @ Billy; you are right, and they still kill each other with sharpen instruments.
      @ Jeff; I see your point and I also see that many wonder why none was wearing a concealed weapon. Many wonder if a few lives could have been spared if a few concealed weapons holders would been there.

      July 22, 2012 at 12:14 am | Report abuse |
  13. Craig Adams

    Mass murder/shootings have been the new norm in America for a decade or more– get used to it. Odds are it won't happen to you. Until we get real gun control laws the guns will be in the hands of the losers. We will never get real gun control thanks to the Repub's so - thats it.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:59 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Neal

    Ahhh of course the genetics are involved. Any scientist knows that acquired characteristics and the lamarkian(sp?) type thinking is correct.

    I'm so happy to know that acquired characteristics are true, I'll start learning how to make more money so that my kids can have my knowledge.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Billy Raven

      So it's not the shooter. It's the gun? Really? Let's use that same logic then and say it's not the gun, it's the bullet. Because actually, the gun didn't hurt anybody right? Neither did the shooter, right? No, it was definitely the bullet. The bullets killed the people. Those dang bullets. Bad bad bullets. (See how stupid this is)? As far as I'm concerned a terrorist did this. We are at war with terrorists. Therefor he gets no due process. Shoot the monster. Cut him up. Stone him. Feed him to fire ants. PUT HIM DOWN!

      July 22, 2012 at 12:18 am | Report abuse |
  15. guitarken

    More guns, bigger guns, a chicken in every pot and a gun in every pocket. See how well it's working? Even my roommate, who owns about 10 guns, reluctantly agreed that only the military and police should have assault weapons. Here in FL, there are gun shops on every corner. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", What a crock. This country is insane. In peacetime nations where there are not three or four guns for every man, woman and child, these mass gun murders do not take place. There is no way this guy or anyone else should legally be able to have anything but personal protection. Why would anyone buy an assault weapon? For any reason other than killing massive amounts of people or paranoia? They should be outlawed, but won't be because the gun industry will make millions off of this disaster, only fueling the fire, and donate it to every politician on both sides of the aisle. We are an insane society. There WERE people armed in the theater, by the way.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • jessie

      This tragedy is just an example of what's wrong with america. We dont start thinking about the other side's view until something happens that shocks us or affects us. There has needed to be changes in gun laws for years, but idiots get stuck on one issue with one party and instead of looking at all they stand for, we just want to make sure they stand for one thing we agree with. The conservatives will not touch the nra because they are gutless, which means that anyone who votes for them is voting for the nra.

      Crime is not black and white. Last week it was the black kids killing each other in canada and a flash mob in florida. Today its some studpid white kid with an agenda. So to answer the premise of the article, no they cannot be stopped until we change.

      July 22, 2012 at 12:04 am | Report abuse |
    • andres

      Huh? You either have a selective memory or are just ignorant. England with the strictest gun control laws still has murders and even some mass murders. That blows your theory.

      Now please define an 'assault weapon'. By some definitions my hunting rifle would be considered an assault rifle.

      As for leaving the 'assault' weapons in the hands of only the police and military, you really trust them with guns? Most police shoot once a year to qualify and never train. I train to know when and how to use my guns in self defence of myself and familiy, but never to use to protect property, that is what insurance is for.

      July 22, 2012 at 12:06 am | Report abuse |
    • Cyrus

      Like Norway?

      There are an estimated 500 million guns in the United States. A ban would work as well as Prohibition or the War on Drugs. Make 100 million responsible gun owners criminals with the stroke of a pen, and do nothing to reduce the criminal nature of murderous psychopaths. People who sell illegal guns don't conduct background checks.

      More idiocy from the nanny goats on the Left. Even if the Bill of Rights was a mere roll of toilet paper like the Left seems to think it is and a gun ban was possible, where are 500 million guns going to go? Turn into rainbows? Will they just vanish?

      July 22, 2012 at 12:20 am | Report abuse |
    • Just Sayin'

      So you want to be shot with a non-assault weapon?

      What exactly is your definition of assault weapon?

      Personally, I'd rather not be shot by a "sporting" hunting rifle, shotgun, high quality competitive target pistol or any other gun.

      July 22, 2012 at 3:21 am | Report abuse |
  16. Think Again

    Paul - There are tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in the world. Only two caused the damage in Japan. Does that mean that nuclear weapons are not dangerous? Strange logic indeed.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Paul Marshall

      Nobody said they weren't dangerous. Guns have a legitimate purposes; hunting for those who choose to hunt for their food, and last-resort-self defense.

      I don't believe guns should be employed for any other reason than as that last resort. If it's you, or me, it has to be you. That's simply a base, animal defense mechanism. I'm not foolish enough to believe that stricter gun control will lower crime rates, or gun violence. I posted it once. I'll do it again. The facts refute the notion that strict gun control lowers gun violence. Here you go. No agenda. Actual, legitimate facts. Do they paint a positive picture of guns? No. They do not. But, they *do* clearly show that legally armed municipalities are factually safer than those who rely on only law enforcement agencies to "protect."

      Here you go: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

      It's a long read, and I seriously doubt many who're reading this will actually take the time to look it over. Too many people want to spout uneducated, uninformed opinions, because they just like seeing their posts on a CNN website.

      The reality is; Guns are here to stay. Prohibition does not work. There is a middle ground regarding gun legislation. And, although it pains me to quote him, Charlton Heston's statement to Fox News in 1997, is actually reasonable.

      "There's no such thing as a good gun. There's no such thing as a bad gun. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a very dangerous thing. A gun in the hands of a good person is no danger to anyone except the bad guys."

      It's not about guns. It's about individual accountability. I don't know how much clearer it needs to be. We, in America, cannot seem to take responsibility for our actions. We're always looking to blame someone else.

      There are hundreds of millions of legal gun owners in America that didn't kill anyone today. Many of them may live right next door to you. You don't even know they're there. And you won't. That's the way it works. I cannot tell you how to keep your family safe. You will never be able to tell me how to keep mine.

      That's freedom.

      July 22, 2012 at 12:13 am | Report abuse |
      • clarity6

        Thay website you mentioned was set up by the NRA. Why would anyone need an assault weapon? How many more people have to die for people to change the law and contro guns?...

        July 22, 2012 at 12:29 am | Report abuse |
        • Paul Marshall

          I don't think anyone *needs* any weapon. But, if they're qualified, they should be allowed access.

          July 22, 2012 at 1:30 am | Report abuse |
        • Of Sain Mind

          Clarity you reall need to change your name to clouded!!

          July 22, 2012 at 8:19 pm | Report abuse |
  17. Paul Marshall

    The estimates for the number of privately owned guns in America range from 190 million to 300 million.

    1 guy, with 4 guns did this. That leaves a whole lot of legal gun owners who didn't kill anyone. If one guy kills people in a drunk driving accident, we don't ban cars.

    Let's not be ridiculous with the "ban guns" nonsense. And it *is* nonsense. It's never going to happen.

    Let's focus on the *real* issue. This was one, deranged man, with an agenda.

    Nothing prepares, or prevents the random act of violence.

    Nothing will.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • hoosier1234

      Uh oh. I'm a guy with four guns - and I've had 'em for many years, now. But, ya know what? My guns have never killed a person.

      Betcha the DOJ can't say that!!

      July 21, 2012 at 11:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • dennis

      @ Paul Marshall; You are right. We have a constitution for a reason and if we ditch our countries constitution, we will loos ourselves and our identity. We don't ban alcohol and cars because drunk drivers kill peoples.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nancy

      I am soooo tired of the comparison to cars. There's a big difference between cars and guns. Guns are made for one purpose only–to kill. Cars are built for transportation. The bit of beef that accidentally chokes someone is meant for nourishment. The bathtub in which someone slips and dies is meant for cleanliness. Guns are meant to kill. Period. Give up the faulty analogies, pleeeeeeese.

      July 22, 2012 at 12:04 am | Report abuse |
      • Of Sain Mind

        No nancy guns are also made for hunting! Just like bows were made for hunting! Knives were made killing but we use them for cooking too! You people need something to blame so you can put it behind you and move on. Instead of the individual taking responsibility for THEIR actions! We are free people. We are free to make a choice! You're probably one of those people on the left that are for genetically modifying humans and taking out aggressive genes to make them more docile, better to control!

        July 22, 2012 at 8:26 pm | Report abuse |
  18. Think Again

    Isn't it odd that those folks who piss and moan that they need own a gun to protect themselves from government, are the same ones who argue that the government needs to spend more on defense - more tanks, warplanes, and missiles?

    God save us from these idiots.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • andres

      So wrong you are. I own guns and train with them to protect myself and family. I also believe that one of the reasons we have not had a military coup is the number of guns privately owned. Now I firmly believe that our military is too large, that we should not have invaded Iran and ought never have tried to nation build in Afghanistan.

      Our military is used too often, it should be reduced to the bare minimum, not only to reduce the incredible financial burden on us, but to make waging war much more difficult.

      We are a war mongering country, we have been at continuous war for over ten years and in the preceding 40 years sporatically, I think that it is due to the country having a large standing army and having to find a place to use it.

      That blows your stereotype of the typical gun owner. When you stereotype you limit your view of the world.

      July 22, 2012 at 12:00 am | Report abuse |
      • jessie

        I dont agree that guns should be outlawed either. I own three, but only intend to use them if someone is threatening my home or family. Besides, I think its good that I can protect myself and or someone else. However, there are just somethings that are unnecessary. Sometimes we have to be saved from ourselves.

        July 22, 2012 at 12:09 am | Report abuse |
  19. Peter

    Sure, these kind of mass killings can be stopped. However, it would take a massive cultural change, on a level that neither Occupy nor the TEA party could begin to fathom. There are things that are so wrong in this country, that it would take a tragedy 100 times worse than this to plant the seeds of change. Every last one of us is responsible, yet, not a single one of us is willing to do anything about it. Stop placing blame, and start accepting it.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • bbqummhmm

      Dahmer, Sandusky, Bundy, BTK Killer, Holmes, Klebold. What do these names generally have in common? Until they became infamous, they were generally considered by most people around them as "normal" (if not "saintly" in a couple of the cases). What is the possibility that we have a collective blind spot in our definition of "normal"? And what if that blind spot involves external appearances?

      July 22, 2012 at 12:25 am | Report abuse |
  20. Bob

    Individuals who become schizophrenic and do these things will never be found prior to the performance of their destructive acts. The way to prevent this kind of loss of life is to ban the possession of assault weapons by private individuals. This ban would in no way infringe upon the second amendment rights of individuals. It would just limit the damage done by homicidal maniacs. This ban, however, will not occur until citizens and politicians recognize the problem and stop lying down and bending over for the NRA

    July 21, 2012 at 11:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • andres

      So instead of using a high capacity clip in the only gun defined as an assault weapon (the rifle for those uniformed) he would have been limited to the 2 hand guns and the shot gun. Don't see how your proposed ban on assault weapons would have made much difference.

      You assume that this whacko would have stepped out of his insane ways to examine the laws pertaining to what kinds of weapons are 'legal'. The law didn't stop him from killing 12 and wounding 59, it made no difference and that is where the gun control nuts fail the logic test. They assume that by simply making certain guns illegal that the whackos wont' use 'legal' guns.

      July 22, 2012 at 12:12 am | Report abuse |
    • andres

      As for the NRA, they are mindless pawns of the gun industry. I used to belong as they said that they would protect my 2nd ammendment rights, they did, but their unreasonable stance on any issue related to guns is too much to take. Not only do they harp for the gun industry, but they seek to line their pockets and do anytime an issue comes up.

      If only the ALCU thought that the second ammendment was worth defending, we wouldn't need the NRA

      July 22, 2012 at 12:16 am | Report abuse |
  21. hartzog86

    One person with a concealed to carry permit could have minimized the deaths and injurys plus saved the state a fortune on jail fees and millions on costs of prosecution.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:28 pm | Report abuse |
  22. dennis

    For all the antigun groups, please read: http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html

    This is proof that a armed society is a polite society.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:27 pm | Report abuse |
  23. agFinder

    One gun in the crowd returning fire would have caused the shooter to dive for cover, and two would have stopped the whole thing in its tracks by either pinning him down, killing him outright, or causing him to flee. Two guns. Not even big ones. And this whole thing is stopped. Remember that the next time you think the actions of criminals ought to dictate the rights of law-abiding citizens.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • dennis

      I agree.... He might have take 2 or three lives or even less. One of it would be his by a law biding citizen ..

      July 21, 2012 at 11:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Peter

      The guy was wearing enough body armor that a concealable weapon would have been ineffective. Considering the tear gas, heroism was out of the question.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:39 pm | Report abuse |
  24. dennis

    I believe that a few things need to be done.
    First, we all should have the right to bear arms and be allowed to carry or licensed gun from state to state.
    Second, education needs to start at home of each family. Teenagers need to value life again. (don't get me wrong, this will only cover a few percentage of the trouble makers)
    Third, I believe that economy and domestic wealth plays a role. At the end quiet a few bad guys rob and kill because they don;t have what the other have.

    I'm sure there are a few other points which I don;t have on my mind right now, but I believe that a variety of approaches would help. However, stricter gun laws would not help because, if you really want a gun, you can buy one at anytime from some thug. You would punish the 65 millions legally gun owners. Picture a thug now. out of a 90% chance that a household would have a gun would drop down to 30%.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:24 pm | Report abuse |
  25. Alois

    Here we go ,the first thing every simple minded fool does is, blame the "guns" again. For one, It's not the NRA's fault you fools, they are there to protect our 2nd amendment rights,against corrupt government like the one we have now.. In the constitution ,we have a "GOD GIVEN RIGHT",in the second amendment right,period .Just beacuse you anti gun simmple minded ,dibbics don't agree with that amendment ,doesn't mean that your opinion is law.Crimes involving death will always be an unfortunate reality with or without guns.In fact ,the deadbeat obama admistration is the biggest lawbreaker allowing guns to go across the border without being tracked,ie,Fast and furrious.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • WTF is Going On?

      Alois – please give us the coordinates of your Militia Farm Compound so we can pass that on to the proper mental health authorities

      July 21, 2012 at 11:25 pm | Report abuse |
      • agFinder

        I understand the liberal handbook says to attack the person when you have no cogent argument (a tactic which is thus used, of course, very, very often), but I have to question your basic understanding of what America actually is if you truly believe it's crazy to quote the Constitution and exercise one of its rights.

        July 21, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Report abuse |
      • dennis

        NRA has nothing to do with it. The NRA want to ensure that all citizens have the rights of the 2nd amendment. You can't blame the NRA for ensuring that all americans continue to have this right with out limitations. Think about it. At the end of the day it is the individuals responsibility to protect their homes and their families. The law enforcement most of the time arrives after something happened. If guns are banned, then individuals who wants to mass murder find another way. Either homemade bombs, poison foods, gas, or even just start wildfires to burn down a complete neighbor hood.

        You have to understand, in the world of today we as americans face a variety of enemies. Look at all the bomb attacks against our ships, embassies, buildings domestic or international. Now, we even face psychopaths like he is. What can we do to protect us? I can guarantee that if guns would be banned tomorrow, and I would have to give up my guns... I will be able to get one from a thug of the street. Then, I can do whatever and guess what ... I would not hesitate to break in someones home.... no one there to shoot back....

        July 21, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • dennis

      I agree; A armed society is a polite society. Read this article about the well armed switzerland http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html

      July 21, 2012 at 11:26 pm | Report abuse |
  26. Terry Brookman

    The United States, Russia and China are the biggest exporters of guns and other weapons all you have to do is watch the news. Washington was just caught giving guns to the Mexican cartels so I believe it to be more than a little hypocritical for them to deny a citizen here a gun. I guess I could move to Mexico and get guns and drugs for free, all I need to do is mule the guns to Mexico and the drugs out. Please do not doubt that that sort of thing does not happen because I was offered a job doing just that. That was a long time ago and I would have been working indirectly for the CIA and the reason I passed is because I did not know the principal above me and would never know. If you do not have a name and a number in the agency you work for you are totally expendable and subject to sacrifice. So I ask you, who is the government to tell me if I can own a gun or not. If you would welcome the fourth Reich then anti gun laws are just right for you but you better be prepared to defend yourself you will find yourself taking a train ride with a hole in the ground waiting for you. Remember that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:21 pm | Report abuse |
  27. Jennifer

    Its really not any different from the suicide bombers over in the Middle East, or those planting the roadside bombings to kill our soldiers. It's all evil. Plain & simple. Evil.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:19 pm | Report abuse |
  28. dennis

    To be honest,... the government can restrict all possible weapons and tools but if someone has the plan to mass murder then they will do it one way or the other. We might think that restricting handguns would solve it but it will not. It will take some time until someone vids another way to effective tool, such as gas, poison or other. Look at Switzerland; every switzerland soldier is allowed to take their weapon home, and every home has at least one rifle and you don't hear of any mass murders or mall shootings or other. In WWII, hitler did not wanted to invade switzerland because of the fact that it would be hard to fight those guys. Why? because everyone was armed. Families and children grow up there with guns and rifles and you see as many practice ranges as you see McDonalds and BK's here in the US. Even if people don;t believe ti but a armed society is a polite society. I own two handguns and have a concealed license, I also carry concealed at all times. Not that I'm trigger happy. Its because I love my right to bear arms in a world where extremist can do really stupid things. Look around, teenagers don't value life and rob and shoot someone for $5; islamist extremists trying to kill as many americans as possible; then psychopaths are planning to mass kill. Don;t get me wrong, I hope that I never have to use my guns but I swear if anyone will harm my family or my fellow americans, I will not go down without a fight. Here is a good link about the Switzerland gun law, take a look: http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html

    July 21, 2012 at 11:17 pm | Report abuse |
  29. Eric

    Why did a theatre have an emergency exit that didn't set off an alarm when the shooter first exited? You would think every kid in Aurora would have sneaked in through such a setup, and with such a history of sneaks in the industry, you'd think the theatre company would have plugged that security breach long ago. It's time to point the finger at the theatre chain and bankrupt them.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • cyclonus11

      Those exits are used as normal exits when the movie is over, particularly if there's a good-sized audience. They aren't ONLY used for emergencies, which is why they do not have alarms.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • andres

        I'll bet that within weeks, theaters will have alarms on the exits and we will no longer be able to easily leave the theater through them as well. But they will also insanely put in metal detectors and ban guns in the theaters in the mistaken belief that it will make its customers safe. Watch and see.

        July 22, 2012 at 12:29 am | Report abuse |
  30. Larry N

    Really hard to believe no one in that theater was armed or took action to stop this tragic event. I strongly believe in personal protection and carry a weapon 24/7. Thankfully I have never been in a situation that required use in public, but I would use it instantly if needed. I am not A NRA member or "gun nut" I am however a marine veteran of 6 tours to the middle east and personally have been fire fights too numerous to mention. I pray I never have to draw a weapon in defense of my life again but I will always be at the ready should the need arise. Alot of brave talk on here. To all you would be heroes, killing is not something to be proud of or brag about. It haunts you to the core of your soul.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • WTF is Going On?

      Larry N – I'll bet the farm that you end up shooting a friend or a friendly by accident before you ever actually take down a legitimate criminal in the act. I give it an 80/20 chance...

      July 21, 2012 at 11:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • Just Sayin'

        This guy has been through hell to protect YOU.

        You didn't deserve it.

        – LN, thanks for your service.

        July 22, 2012 at 3:09 am | Report abuse |
  31. James

    Why word so much about foreign terrorism when guns for mass killings are so readily available. The Founding Fathers did not foresee the harm that guns can do when they agreed to put in the Constitution the right to bear arms because the firearms available then were for hunting and could not inflict such casualties. The NRA through their powerful lobby and support of the GO are sadly blocking all efforts for gun control and therefore must take some responsibility for these tragedies.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • TheLooneyLeft

      They take no more responsibilty than you do with global warming when you fill up your car gasoline. Shut your face about the NRA, fool.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:17 pm | Report abuse |
      • sandy

        I drive a CNG car

        July 21, 2012 at 11:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • craig

      Actually the guns they had back then were the exact same guns used by the military private citizens were as well or better armed on the small arms level check your facts

      July 22, 2012 at 1:02 am | Report abuse |
  32. Pam

    Guns are not the problem. Anyone can and will aquire them regardless of laws against them. One of the side effects of many, maybe all, psychiatric medications is homicide. Columbine, Virginia Tech, the Omaha mall shootings and many more all have in common that the shooters were on psych drugs. There's too much money in big pharma for anyone to see the government address that as a cause, though. I bet we'll find out this shooter is on them as well...

    July 21, 2012 at 11:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • JJ

      It is not the psych meds that make these people psychotic...it's the underlying psychiatric disorders they have that cause them to do these things. If anything, the meds are supposed to help them stay sane. It is usually when they stop their meds that they act out.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:31 pm | Report abuse |
  33. Karthik

    It is the work of Evil. Why there are too many violence and crime in the world? This are due to more liberal society. It is in the media which promotes the violence. It needs to be controled world wide. Video games, movies, songs, Television every where there are violence. There must be control on media. If this grows then it will become a common news. We need to protect our soceity. It could happen to us tomorrow. So please respect the freedom and help each other and protect the innocent lives. Everyone need peace and happiness.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:08 pm | Report abuse |
  34. mastersam2000

    As long as our affinity to violence exists in our culture, mayhem such the one in Aurora will revisit us again and again to our disdain.Why is the surprise- we like violence. Guns are not our problem! what is being put in our heads is, and what it is worse is the entertainment that we indulge ourselves in is dangerous, the sickening .killing and assaulting in our favorite TV shows, movies and brutal video games is detrimental. the more of it and the more original it is, the better it sells .Our country the USA that is ,is the biggest melting pot in the history of mankind we ought to be careful where we're heading .We are more susceptible to animosity and dislike among ourselves than any other nations. Personally I am not a pacifist nor religious, but i am older than most of you and i am guilty as charged i have learned to enjoy violence like anybody else. We were taught well by movies like Batman, but i know i was taught incorrectly like most and it was not by my parents but by the society i grew in ; it takes a village to raise a child. I wish our society the American society that is which leads the world culturally will take the first step and lead the world in eradicating violence from our curriculum not through punishment but through awareness like we are accomplishing with witheradicating cigarettes smoking( which by the way was brought upon us by the silver screen), i wish we could start now so your and my grand children would have it better so they could walk the street at any time day and night knowing no harm would come to them. Wont that be better than hearing these kind of horror stories everyday in different parts of the world, not only in America.It is not going to be easy because we are blueprinted. What we know, it is going to be as difficult as the campaign against cigarettes if not more difficult. Boycotting and legislating to name a few methods. It will be hard to change our way of life and probably impossible ,but we must first agree that the human race is having a problem "affinity to violence". just ask the grieving families.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • WTF is Going On?

      I've watched violent movies and shows my whole life and never want to hurt a fly. I'm so tired of the lemmings in our society that can't ground themselves in reality. Unfortunately, it all comes down the thousands of different formulas parents use to raise their kids, some fully abstaining from all that is viloent only to see a 20 year blow a gasket in college, or a complete saturation of violence beginning at 10 from parents who could care less which creates bullies. Either way, I don't think entertainment is going away without some major McCarthy type maneuver by the Govt - so I say we focus on the weapons.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:15 pm | Report abuse |
  35. Joe

    How many more deaths before the American people wake up. I have no issues with anyone wanting to protect themselves in their homes. There is no need for people to carry guns while outside and interacting with the rest of society. This is the 21st century and not the wild west. The only guns needed are pistols for your home (if you choose to) or rifles for hunting only. Automatic weapons should not be allowed, period!!!!!

    The overwhelming majority of the population does not want to see guns on the streets. Why do we have to suffer because of the lobby of the NRA, profitting gun companies and the sick people who get a kick out of killing innocent people.

    Its time to stop this NOW before more innocent lives are lost. Think of the cost of gun violence to the healthcare industry too.

    We need to bring back common sense and enact gun laws that protect the ordinary citizen as well as take guns off the streets.

    July 21, 2012 at 11:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Voice of Reason

      Actually, if anyone in that theater was carrying then this wouldn't have been nearly as bad as it was. What you're saying is the opposite if what makes sense. If I were a criminal i'd be fearful of people who have guns, not people who don't.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      Automatic rifles are already banned, have been since 1922.
      Don't post something you are ignorant about.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • trenton

      He wasn't using an automatic weapon, he had a semi-automatic rifle, which like a pistol requires you to pull the trigger each time to fire. Fully automatic weapons are illegal and can only be owned by special Federal license.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • buddter

      if you think guns are the problem you are wrong. You will hear over the next few weeks at least three people say that they knew there was something wrong with this guy but they just did nothing. Until people learn to speak up when they see strange behavior these things will always occur. And do you honestly believe this guy would have obeyed a law that said you cannot carry a gun? Please join the real world.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Laplata01

      So if more gun control laws would have made an effect, why didn't the laws against explosives and tear gas make any difference? Funny how I don't remember after the OK City bombing how people started talking about banning rental trucks and fertilizer?

      July 21, 2012 at 11:48 pm | Report abuse |
  36. citizen4

    IMHO, America is losing it mind because it has already lost its soul When you just draft your own moral code to suit yourself and everybody else sits back and applauds, what result would we expect to get?.

    July 21, 2012 at 10:59 pm | Report abuse |
  37. Think Again

    This argument that everyone should be armed is bogus. Look at the facts: Colorado requires no state permit to purchase a rifle, shotgun or handgun. And getting a permit to carry and conceal the weapon is easy. In other words, gun ownership in Colorado is easy - even for the good guys. What good did it do them?

    The problems is not that too few people are armed, it's that too many are armed. Any jerk with a pulse can get a firearm.

    July 21, 2012 at 10:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • RIP

      No matter what policy or ban is in place, the nut jobs will exist and get access to some sort of destructive device. I'd rather have the option to arm myself and not be just a hapless victim.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • Pepou27

      When are people going to realize that we need strict gun control in this country? Columbine, Gabrielle Gifford, and others. I would like to see Obama and Romney for one challenge the NRA and stop playing politics with our lives.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • Voice of Reason

        Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Do you also blame fast food for making people fat?

        July 21, 2012 at 11:14 pm | Report abuse |
        • wtf

          We do blame cigarettes for killing people. You should call your self voice of NRA!

          July 21, 2012 at 11:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Voice of Reason

      It's been proven time and time again that guns obtained LEGALLY protect more than hurt. Do you really think most criminals go through the proper process to get guns. Come on now, use your head.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • sandy

      keep on promoting this idea, you are on the right tract and sooooooooo many more people need to hear this, sooooo many in society have been mislead to believe that if they carry a weapon they will prevent a tragedy. This is soooo unrealistic. Thank you for your voice of sanity.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jane conway

      Someone has to do something about gun control in this country. The fact that anyone lunatic can legally go and buy all those guns and ammo is just nuts. Yes it's true that guns don't do the hurting, it's the people that shoot them and all that crap. But it's not the drugs that cause people to become addicted, but the people's action of taking them that do. Nor is the tobacco itself that causes cancer, but the smoking of it that causes cancer, Nor is it the alcohol that makes some peopel's life a horror show, but it's the people that abuse it that do. Enough of this! When the second amendment was written, people had to hunt to feed their families, scare off intruders, etc... Now we have home alarm systems, grocery stores and armed, organized police . How many times does this have to happen until someone with any kind of power does something real to prevent it from happening again? We are not living in the late 1700's anymore, Get a grip. The NRA lobbbyist should be ashamed of themselves.
      There are home grown terrorists in the US, they are called gangs. They thrive on instilling fear in others and yet they are allowed to continue to exist.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • buddter

      Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the country. Check out this year's record murder rate.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Laplata01

      The movie theater was a "gun free zone", posted on the front door. Law abiding citizens could not carry a gun in. The bad guy saw the sign too. Do you think that helped him pick his target?

      July 21, 2012 at 11:50 pm | Report abuse |
  38. billbo62

    This is a mental health issue and a gun monitor issue. Since we as a society protect a person's individuality with our Constitutional amendments, there needs to be another way to foresee something like this happening. The common link(s) to these massacres?......mental instability and weapons. Since we can't do much about the first as I stated above, perhaps its time to do something about the second. NRA and gun control aside, one big data point leaps out at me about this latest massacre. The individual purchased these weapons on FOUR different occasions according to the authorities. Maybe if he had been in a gun purchase database linked to all gun shops nationally the first time he bought the first gun, maybe that would have raised an alarm somewhere after his second purchase.. Of course, if he had bought them illegally, all bets are off.

    July 21, 2012 at 10:55 pm | Report abuse |
  39. Tam

    And - does the NRA really have that much support? Or does it just have rich funders for the lobbyists? Don't blame the President, blame Congress - raking in the $$$ for the NRA's support.

    July 21, 2012 at 10:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jon

      That's the problem.. congress needs to be uprooted and ensure it doesn't happen again

      July 21, 2012 at 11:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Voice of Reason

      The NRA is huge and support by millions upon millions.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • sandy

        The NRA is not that huge, only 5% of the population belong to the NRA. It is like the far right wing, they just have great lobbying. They need to be reigned in.

        July 21, 2012 at 11:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      try ~ 5,000,000 members who are single issue voters.
      We pushed Gore out of the race.
      We are an important block in a close election.
      And we all right checks.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:28 pm | Report abuse |
  40. Tam

    The legality of weapons is absurd. How and why does one person need all this? For a "good" cause? That second amendment thing has gone too far. I guess a supporter would have no problems if his child or spouse died at the hand of another nut - all for the "principle" of the right to bear arms?! Bizarre.

    July 21, 2012 at 10:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • D

      My husband and I are proud NRA members. We love to hunt and target practice. If conceal carry had been legal inside perhaps someone would have been able to stop him.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:13 pm | Report abuse |
      • sandy

        hunting and target practice, fine, wonderful. I support this. But the NRA has gone way to far in allowing far too many people to carry weapons. Please help them to become more reasonable.

        July 21, 2012 at 11:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Voice of Reason

      Why do people "need' anything. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not important or useful. I'm sure you spend your money and time on plenty of things that are useless to others. Shooting and/or hunting is popular to millions.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Laplata01

      The "legality of weapons is absurd"? So you honestly think a society can remain free when all physical force is entrusted in the hands of the police and military? The second amendment is the insurance policy to whole remainder of the constitution. You want to know what ensures that this country has a governmnet of the people, by the people, and for the people? The 300 million privately owned firearms.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:56 pm | Report abuse |
  41. clarke

    When it comes to guns of any kind, anyone can get them. There isn't much on gun control because the NRA says so. This will be an issue for ever, and nothing will happen. The NRA just needs to look at sensible gun control, better back round checks. I really have no answers. Some how, some way, some twisted being will get there hands on what they want.

    July 21, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • sandy

      It doesn't have to be this way, things can change. Join the Brady campaign. Write your congressman. Write to the president. The NRA has way too much power, for the size of their population. Things can change. It just takes a voice. Be that voice.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:33 pm | Report abuse |
  42. Karsim

    Answer: OF COURSE NOT!!! as long as any lunatic without a criminal record still is able to buy M-16s as if they are buying a DVD.

    July 21, 2012 at 10:47 pm | Report abuse |
  43. Think Again

    Terry, American society embraces that exact philosophy - that everyone can and should be armed to protect themselves. How well is that working? Hmm, 16,000 murdered every year in America. Just look around and ask yourself if your paranoid, angry "every-man-for-himself" philosophy is working. It really isn't.

    July 21, 2012 at 10:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • paul

      And how many of those killed were armed with a weapon to defend their lives?

      July 21, 2012 at 10:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Wilben Dahl

      You say that arming the citizens is not the answer? If someone other then the deranged murderer was armed, far less people would be dead. If he expected conceal carriers in the audience, would he have done this in the first place?

      July 21, 2012 at 10:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • bchildsdixon

        So with chaos all around, in a room filled with smoke, someone else with a gun can be expected to take down 1 guy who covered himself in Kevlar? Really? What if those who may have hypothetically been armed weren't very good shots, and ended up killing a few others while trying to hit the main shooter? Tell you what – let's sell only 18th century style weapons, which is what the writers of the Constitution knew about when writing the 2nd Amendment. I'll get on board with that. But when anyone can buy as much ammo as they want, no restrictions, these senseless massacres will continue, and having everyone packing (concealed) heat, with paranoid itchy trigger fingers, things will only get worse. Assuming anyone who wants to carry weapons will be responsible, well trained and level headed in a crisis is simply folly.

        July 21, 2012 at 11:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • ohreally

        Oh what a bunch of bull. If someone had been armed in there besides the shooter. That is such a ridiculous premise. When Gabby Giffords was shot. There were two people there with guns and neither of them got a shot off. One was actually mistaken to be with the shooter. Trained professionals have a hard time in those kind of situations and you want everyone to believe that a couple Clint Eastwood wanna be's would save the day. They are more likely to get themselves shot or shoot an innocent. Keep your Hollywood fantasies to yourself.

        July 21, 2012 at 11:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • Keith

      Gang members with weapons kill too many. Put out a bounty on gangbangers of $1000 dead and five cents returned over to the police. That will help a great deal.

      July 21, 2012 at 10:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Merv

      How well is that working? Let me know when you don't have gun control laws in many, manu municpalities. All that does is insure the bad guys have them and the good guys don't. But I am all for my background checking and longer waiting periods.

      July 21, 2012 at 10:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • RIP

      12,000 are the darkies wiping themselves out over the drugs. The rest of society is quite sane and safe. Take the black crime stats out and we are safer than Switzerland. The breakdown in the African American community is the real crime in this country.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Voice of Reason

      16k in 311 million is a pretty low number.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:17 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jane conway

        Yeah until one of those 16k is someone you love.

        July 21, 2012 at 11:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • trenton

      Half of those are suicides or accidents. The majority of shootings are gang bangers who will get the guns anyway. In addition of all shooting crime "assault" weapons (which includes shotguns) were only 1.6% of the total. They are heavy and hard to conceal. Over 100,000 people die in this country from Hospital error and another 40,000 from auto accidents. If you really want to save lives, get after the doctors.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:44 pm | Report abuse |
  44. Matthew Kilburn

    "My question is: out of all the people in a full theater – no one was carrying? In today's world, I find that hard to believe."

    Apparently, the theater had a no-weapons policy. So much for that.

    This guy was a skilled bomb maker, if he wanted to kill people, he was going to. And for all those who are talking about making it harder to buy guns....neither waiting periods, nor background checks, would have prevented this guy from executing his plan.

    July 21, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Report abuse |
  45. Jim Weix

    Since you can get a Right to Carry Permit in Florida, as we just saw in a recent bank robbery in Florida, the shooter most likely have been killed when he started shooting.
    It is not the NRA's fault. The fault is with the hundred or so other people that did nothing to stop the shooter.

    July 21, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Report abuse |
  46. Terry Brookman

    Has anyone ever noticed that the police get to the murder only after it has been committed. There are a lot of police departments that display a lie and it is to protect and serve. You tell me how many times the police ever stopped a crime or served you before you went into the ground. Ninety nine times out of a hundred there is a body on the ground by the time the police get there. Your protection depends on you, it is your responsibility to protect you and your family, sad but true and it has always been that way.

    July 21, 2012 at 10:30 pm | Report abuse |
  47. GDM

    This person is very sick. This is a mental health issue.

    Sadly, all the laws in the would not have stopped him. He was set on killing many people. (Take for this premise that all guns are regulated/banned/what ever). This person would sought out other types of devices that would cause mass mayhem.

    July 21, 2012 at 10:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • sandy

      Yes, but it may have been more difficult and someone may have noticed and stopped it. However, it was very very easy for him to do what he did.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:36 pm | Report abuse |
  48. richard

    The police respond NOT prevent crimes...its each individuals responsibility to protect themselves, if one can't then trained armed ciitzens can, there ain't enough police.....

    July 21, 2012 at 10:25 pm | Report abuse |
  49. Think Again

    Yes, Terry, you can do the same thing with a bomb or a really big knife. That's why it's illegal to walk around with bombs and really big knives. Sorry, but your own example disproves your point.

    July 21, 2012 at 10:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Terry Brookman

      I could hide fifty pipe bombs on my person without anyone knowing and a ax could be carried under a rain coat with ease. I have a .45 and a tactical twelve gage shotgun and I could walk right next to you without you being aware of them. When the police responded to the attempted rape I walked up to them and said I was the guy with the gun and showed them my license. When they asked what kind of weapon I had I pulled it out, I was wearing a T shirt and jeans they jumped and said holy sh!t I did not see that. The real point is that if you wanted to kill a lot of people it is easy to do and the ways to do it are many.

      July 21, 2012 at 10:44 pm | Report abuse |
  50. Corey

    I own several guns including an AR15 in which I use for hunting and recreational shooting. I've never killed anyone, nor ever will.

    If they outlawed guns, only the criminals would have them.... just as narcotics..

    July 21, 2012 at 10:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • JSR

      Might it be possible to stop the manufacturing of guns and bullets and eventually these criminals that get their hands on guns will have no ammo and the gun becomes obsolete?

      July 21, 2012 at 10:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • Wilben Dahl

        OH Yes That type of thinking worked well in the 1920s. Ban guns – no more gun killing. Ban automobiles – no more accidents.

        July 21, 2012 at 11:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • Voice of Reason

        Ammo can be made out of anything, in the pioneer days they manufactured it out of almost anything.

        July 21, 2012 at 11:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • sandy

      You might kill someone accidentally, please never say never, or you could become deranged, or you could kill yourself so much more easily than anyone without a gun would.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Report abuse |
  51. Terry Brookman

    He could have done the same thing with a bomb or a real big knife. Walk into a crowded theater and start swinging a double bit ax, you could kill quite a few people in a minuet. If you wanted you could get a recipe for nitro and the chemicals needed on the web, it would be easy to make pipe bombs that are much more destructive than a gun. The truth is there are more illegal guns on the market than legal ones, anyone who wants a gun can get one in less than a day. I have two and a license to carry them, when I go to certain places you can bet I will have my .45 on me and home invasion would result in someone going to the morgue. If they pass a law against me having a gun I will just hide them and make a police report on losing them some how. I have stopped one rape on a neighbor and three assaults on myself when a knife was displayed and threats were made. I did display the .45 and got on my cell and let 911 listen to me telling the person to back off. I guess looking down the barrel of a .45 is a deterrent because I have never had to shoot anyone, they either ran or went to jail.

    July 21, 2012 at 10:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • ted

      this is why guns should be banned, you idiot.

      July 21, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • Brian Eberle

        Drugs are banned, yet people still seem to get their hands on them.? People fail to realize that where there is a will, there is a way, and if you cannot comprehend that, then you shall continue down a path of ignorance.

        July 21, 2012 at 10:40 pm | Report abuse |
  52. DJL

    The NRA is SCUM!

    July 21, 2012 at 10:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jared

      Parenting skills are non-existant

      July 21, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • scranton

      Please educate yourself before you post.

      July 21, 2012 at 10:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • Voice of Reason

      Ignorance is bliss. It's somehow the NRA's fault as always.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:21 pm | Report abuse |
  53. Chris

    We were never safe and we will never be safe. Its true that the things that are most likely to kill us have changed over time, but rose colored glasses consistently do us a disservice here.

    Yeah, I agree that the NRA is unreasonable. If someone wrote a law to make it illegal to posess nuclear arms, they would fight it and win on Constitutional grounds and that's just not right. But it's also a sign of a culture of violence.

    We've got to figure out a way of depopularizing violence. I'm not claiming I have a solution – but it is so prevalent in Hollywood, in gaming, it's everywhere. You cannot escape it. Kids start out bullied and their heroes solve problems with super weapons.

    The denser our population gets, the harder it will be to prevent these sorts of incidents from happening.

    July 21, 2012 at 10:11 pm | Report abuse |
  54. Bigg B

    This has nothing to do with availbility of guns and gun laws. The kid was crazy and would have run over people in his car if guns were not availble. This tragedy and all related can be traced back to the #1 problem in society, the family unit that raised him. I'll bet he spent his youth in his room alone playing video games while his parents were thinking it was "normal' for him to be alone like that. The same problems has lead to the growth of gangs. Until parents start raising their children and not leaving that job to tv, video games and aunts, uncles and cousins things like this will continue to happen. Spend quality time with your children people!

    July 21, 2012 at 10:08 pm | Report abuse |
  55. Think Again

    Good point, Dan. Let's have an all-out gun fight in a crowded theater. That's what we need to be safe.

    God save me from these fools.

    July 21, 2012 at 10:07 pm | Report abuse |
  56. Dante

    White males are extremely scary. This trend of severe mass shootings only seems to be increasing. If a minority or illegal would have done this, everyone would be screaming armageddon. Maybe the time has come for security to start checking white males for weapons in public events and venues.

    July 21, 2012 at 10:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jared

      The Virginia Tech shooter wasn't white. Stop being a racist, you're part of the problem.

      July 21, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Max

      You know there was a shooting in Chicago, 3 killed 18 wounded the same night. He was a African-American male, how about Virgina Tech? He was Asian-American, I could go on and on, so your theory that only white males conduct mass shootings in retarded.

      Don't be a Racist!

      July 21, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • HR Manager

      I screen applications at a mid-sized company. If I saw a name like Dante on the app, I would slide your application right into the trash or 'lose it,' because I can tell there is a 99.5% chance you are black. We have blacks that I have passed on for interviews, but they had normal, assimilated names that didn't stick out like a sore thumb. Stop naming your kids Dante and LaWshanda, and assimilate already!

      July 21, 2012 at 10:40 pm | Report abuse |
      • j

        Weird. I know three men named Dante and they are all white.

        July 21, 2012 at 11:46 pm | Report abuse |
  57. Dan

    If you have more TRAINED civilians with concealed weapons permits this is much less likely to happen... Bad guys will always get guns in our country so even the playing field. REMEMBER BAD GUYS WILL GET GUNS NO MATTER WHAT LAWS WE HAVE SO DON'T POST STUPID SHIT ABOUT GUN CONTROL.

    July 21, 2012 at 10:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joe

      Let's see. A dark theater, shots firing everywhere and a bunch of crowded people rushing. Are the shots echoing off the walls? How many gunmen are there? One? Three? What happens if someone with a CCP misses and shoots an innocent bystander trying to rush out the theater? What if someone else sees the person with a CCP and mistakes him for the shooter?

      Tons of things can go wrong in this scenario.

      July 21, 2012 at 10:44 pm | Report abuse |
  58. Paul Marshall

    Even this thread is rife with misinformation. Here are some actual facts. Feel free to read. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

    July 21, 2012 at 9:55 pm | Report abuse |
  59. Seth Hill

    The Constitution says "...a well armed militia..." So pass a federal law that if someone wants to buy a gun, they have to join their local militia first, and the leaders of that militia have to certify that person is trained in handling weapons, is sane, etc. That should satisfy both the NRA (would increase their base and give them even more power) and gun-control nuts like me.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Brian Eberle

      The supreme court has already ruled on such an issue, and has stated an individual has the right to own a gun for traditional protection purposes, and that right is distinct from any requirement to serve in a militia. Any law such as the one you propose is facially unconstitutional.

      July 21, 2012 at 10:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • Seth Hill

        Thank you for shooting down my idea so quickly. I though it was a good idea, but you instantly proved me wrong!

        July 21, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Report abuse |
      • JSR

        But the Constitution can be amended. As they repealed the 19th, they should repeal the 2nd. Amendment 28!

        July 21, 2012 at 10:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • oldvet10

      And the DOJ would go after them as radicals

      July 21, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Report abuse |
  60. Think Again

    The FBI profiler says: ".. homicidal motives seem to be a product of genes and the environment". Oh good, at least he narrowed it down.

    We can't do much about genetic tendencies, and we seem to be unwilling to change environmental factors. That leaves the only thing we can truly influence - the availability of guns. Other countries have gun control, and most have nowhere near the number of mass killings as we do. This NRA garbage about "guns don't kill people, people do" is as sensible as saying "nukes don't kill people, people do". Yeah, let Iran have the atomic bomb, because people kill each other anyway. What a stupid argument.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:51 pm | Report abuse |
  61. Paul Marshall

    Guns are a last-resort measure of self-defense.

    The police do a job that very few of us can do. They are overworked, underpaid, and vastly under appreciated. But, they are under *no* legal obligation to protect you. That’s not meant as a slam. It’s simply the cold, truth. When you understand this fact, it illustrates why, although I am not what I consider a gun proponent, I am in favor of being allowed to protect my family by their use, if necessary. Reading the uninformed opinions both pro-and-con regarding guns that’s spewed forth in both the mass media, and social media, is disturbing. Every time something like what happened in Aurora goes down, the white noise from both sides is deafening.

    Let me try to put it in the easiest way I can:

    The tool is not responsible for the act & The law abiding, should *never* pay the price for the criminal.

    Further gun restriction will not stop gun crime. Taking away the rights of those who could have defended themselves in that theater, saves nobody. Properly-trained, (and I cannot stress this enough, IF YOU MAKE THE DECISION TO LEGALLY CARRY A GUN, YOU MUST BE PROPERLY TRAINED!) citizens employ guns to prevent violent crime every day in the US. That’s not to say getting your gun license is a free-pass to become a vigilante. I point to the stupidity of George Zimmerman for a prime example of what happens when people take the law into their own hands.

    Bad things happen.

    However, restriction of the right to self-defense is *not* the answer. Neither are restrictions on assault weapons. I don’t think anyone *needs* to own an AR-15. You’re not any more dead when shot by one than with a .22. But, just because *I* am opposed to ownership, doesn’t mean we should not have access if the need to defend ourselves from superior firepower arises. I look to Syria for my reasoning. If the masses are repressed by superior firepower, then restricted access to equal firepower, is the first step toward potential repression. I don’t think we’ll ever need it. But then again, I also didn’t think 19 men with box-cutters could take down the WTC buildings.

    It’s not the tool used. It’s the mentality employed. It’s also a matter of understanding responsibility. Just because you have access, doesn’t mean you must acquire. I hope to never have to use any weapon, edged, blunt, firearm, or bare hands to defend my life, or my family. But, knowing that I can, and am protected under law to do so, only if absolutely necessary, is something that I cannot fathom *anyone* advocating the restriction of.

    Criminals don’t follow the laws currently established. More restriction, only limits those who may someday require the need to use deadly force to defend themselves at the movies.

    Prohibition doesn’t work.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • lam62sw

      Well said Paul Marshall.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kris

      Hear, hear! This is most concise explanation on this subject I've ever heard!I It scares me to read some of these opinions from people who are "locked and loaded", so to speak. And when you need the police, "they're only minutes away"...sigh... I know they hate us citizens to hold weapons, but I feel the need to be able to protect me and mine, if necessary. Rather "be judged by the twelve, rather than carried by the six", etc. The only feelings I've ever had about killing anyone would be a pedophile...oops...or someone who would try to break in to my home and try to hurt my family.
      I certainly never want to be in any of these situations and definitely would never go looking for one. And gee...I think I'm pretty liberal in my politics, but there are certain things that I think I have rights to...like the 2nd amendment. As for the guy who says the law was written because we were under threat of war...we are!

      July 22, 2012 at 1:57 am | Report abuse |
  62. Terry

    The NRA has every politician at the Local, State, and Federal Levels of Government scared to death. I spent the day checking out all of the sites that sell ammo, tear gas grenades, body armor, kevlar helmets, and tactical assault gear that most police agencies cannot afford. I support the Second Amendment, but not to the extent that 6,000 rounds of ammo, tear gas grenades, body armor and assault gear are sold and not one of the companies is required to report the sales to State or Federal Authorities. But who are we kidding? This happened near Columbine, so it tells me that the NRA controls Colorado politicians. My suggestion, get this story off the front page and move on until the next mass shooting. What an absolute joke! Check out the donations made to every politician's campaign by the NRA.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:51 pm | Report abuse |
  63. SDGPaul

    There is no scientific data to support that "genes" causes people to commit murder. The FBI investigator who suggests that, is a mis-informed....and there is a reason he's a cop and not a scientist.

    That said, if you really want to decrease the likelyhood of stuff like this happening...implement stiffer policy on consumer gun purchases. Pre-screening for PTSD, or psychotic tendencies should be the norm for gun purchases. Allowing Mr. Disgruntled to walk into a store and purchase guns was the first mistake. Any psychologist on the planet would have reviewed this guy's life history, seen right through his plans, questioned is intent or previous firearm experience, and revoked his right to purchase in a heartbeat.

    Obviously psychos will find other ways to kill...but the least we can do is make it more difficult for them.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • SDGPaul

      Just because a guy has a clean criminal record...doesn't mean he should be considered "good to go"...when he wants to spontaneously purchase an arsenal of weapons.

      Additionally, this job I suggest, of Pre-screening...could create millions of jobs for aspiring psychologists. Maybe if I type OBAMA...my post will get noticed?

      July 21, 2012 at 10:05 pm | Report abuse |
  64. Jeff

    I say just give everyone a gun. Then when these things happen, you can have a hundred people with no training and bad aim firing blindly into a chaotic and frightened crowd of people. That will make us safer!

    July 21, 2012 at 9:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Seth Hill

      This is a wonderful idea! Everyone in the theatre would jump to their feet and start firing! Smoke, bullets, death everywhere! Hundred of people would fall! Blood running in the aisles! Death! Death! Death! Give me more guns! More guns!

      July 21, 2012 at 10:08 pm | Report abuse |
  65. Jeff

    Gun lovers love to think that they would have been able to stop this guy. They would have been under the seats and running away like everyone else. If they did come to their senses, they would have pulled their gun with hands shaking and likely shot some other innocent person that was trying to escape.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Eric

      There were victims that were in the military in that theatre. Why not require active duty military to carry a sidearm? They're not untrained. Listening to that blabbermouth that dragged his infant to the theatre, he claims to have had paragraphs and paragraphs of thoughts going through his head as it all went down. Listening to the woman that looked down the shooter's barrel and lived, she seemed together enough to have ducked behind the seats, pulled her gun and shot him once she regained her bearings...If these people would have had sidearms, I believe someone would have been able to shoot Holmes. But then you wouldn't have been happy, because you want a sideshow of a trial and a dog and pony show, which could not be if the shooter were dead.

      July 21, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mr. Wizard

      and you know this because you have personal experience. First of all every one of these incidents were where the criminal knew the risk of running into anyone carrying concealed was very low. These types are cowards so they bet on disarmed innocents to help run up the body count. Criminals always choose the most helpless or most vulnerable victims because success is almost always guaranteed. And BTW when a citizen chooses to carry it is a serious decision that seldom is without a lot of thought. I had a license for 30 years before I started carrying mine. But a gun in hand is always in every case better than a cop on the phone.
      Remember every time he pulled the trigger, smoke, teargas or not it gave away his location. A practiced citizen would have been able to track him down well enough to do some harm. It's the moment you train for but pray never comes. It is the entire reason why you don't let anyone know you have got it. Security is everyone's job.

      We have the right to carry so that we can take back control if the government gets out of hand, a fact many in Washington have forgotten. Remember that's how this country was founded. Ask those that suffered and died under Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin how being disarmed worked for them? Guns are hardly the issue. Mass murder is committed in countries with restrictive firearm possession laws. Criminals will always have access don’t forget it is one of the biggest businesses in the world. The US sells tens of millions of weapons every year.

      The real issue is our general attitude for violence. We are way too comfortable with it and that is a serious problem.

      July 21, 2012 at 11:15 pm | Report abuse |
  66. Ok I've Had it

    Homeland security needs to initiate a new program. WE need to get Theater Marshalls. They'll blend in with the theater crowd and armed just like Air Marshalls. I'll be the first one to sign up for the position.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Report abuse |
  67. riamb60

    People with guns kill----not guns without people

    July 21, 2012 at 9:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Seth Hill

      Correct. But people with lots of big guns can kill a lot more people quickly.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:49 pm | Report abuse |
  68. rob

    The NRA and the Republicans should get a little of their own shooting medicine instead of innocent people all the time.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bchguyx

      If you do not like our constitution, here is how you change it:
      There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

      The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

      The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about

      July 21, 2012 at 10:00 pm | Report abuse |
  69. Jeff

    These shootings only happen in states where people love their guns. They can expect them to happen more.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bchguyx

      Like Norway? There are no guns in Norway, yet the had a mass killing. Everyone (male) is required by law in Switzerland to keep a machine gun in their home, yet no murders. Why not?

      July 21, 2012 at 10:02 pm | Report abuse |
  70. josetoyou

    Fewer people would have been injured and killed if there were a few theater patrons with a legally concealed weapon, and the skill to use it. Gun "control" is NOT the answer....

    July 21, 2012 at 9:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • hubert39

      If more people had guns the murder rate would triple in the USA. Look at the people who own weapons. Would you want them as a neighbor? Or for one of them to marry your daughter?

      July 21, 2012 at 9:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • Porchdog

        One of them DID marry my daughter...and I sincerely feel she is safer as a result. Get real...stop being a sheep.

        July 22, 2012 at 12:06 am | Report abuse |
    • Jeff

      You really think some part-time theater employee carrying a pistol is going to run toward a madman with an assault rifle? You are ignorant.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ha! HA!

      you're right, ammo control is the answer

      July 21, 2012 at 9:41 pm | Report abuse |
  71. frank

    Will sharks ever stop biting people...noooo but humans can avoid the shark invested waters...it's sorta like fall out 3 the video game where u got to look both ways,duck and cover,run and hide if u can or be lucky to survive when danger arrives...terrible...what's the neighbors doing...didn't someone know the dude and know what he was planning?

    July 21, 2012 at 9:33 pm | Report abuse |
  72. David Feldman

    My modest proposal: put a price tag on the damage done with each make and model of gun - in a fair way add together all the medical bills, funeral expenses, life insurance proceeds, lost income, cost costs, legal bills, law enforcement expenditures, etc. - then divide that by the number of such guns out there and tax those gun owners yearly enough to cover the whole cost to society. Let the people who advocate flooding society with guns pay the real cost. Make stockpiling weapons beyond all reason prohibitively expensive. Put the people who make the guns that cause the most mayhem out of business. Give gun owners a financial incentive to work at preventing gun violence.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • GVC

      I vote David Feldman for President!

      July 21, 2012 at 9:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • SickAG02

      Good call, David. We should make mentally restarted people pay more money to have babies because they'll clearly cost more for all of us to insure medically. Oh, and charge ppl in Colorado and New Mexico more for homeowners insurance than me because they're knowingly building in an area at high risk for wildfires which drives my insurance cost up. Same goes for the ppl who want to live in New Orleans – they're an Natural Disaster away from costing me TONS more in insurance. You're an idiot.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:38 pm | Report abuse |
      • David Feldman

        Actually, that is how homeowner's insurance gets priced – by region and risk factor.

        Calling people "idiot" just makes you look bad.

        July 21, 2012 at 9:43 pm | Report abuse |
        • SickAG02

          Only in flood plains – specifically. Quit commenting on things you have no idea about or do your homework. You're a HUGE idiot.

          July 21, 2012 at 9:58 pm | Report abuse |
      • David Feldman

        From Wikipedia:

        Most insurers charge a lower premium if it appears less likely the home will be damaged or destroyed: for example, if the house is situated next to a fire station or is equipped with fire sprinklers and fire alarms; if the house exhibits wind mitigation measures, such as hurricane shutters; or if the house has a security system and has insurer-approved locks installed.[2]

        So no, if you shop around, you can buy a home insurance without paying for the risks other people take.

        And it was you who didn't do the research. As for me, sorry, but I've worked in the industry.

        Be polite! It makes no sense to advocate for guns impolitely. Firearms and rudeness are a lethal mix. If you crave an armed society, then you better crave a very civilized society. Start by setting an example.

        July 21, 2012 at 10:36 pm | Report abuse |
        • SickAG02

          I crave nothing but justice for the afflicted and mercy for the egregious. Unfortunately, society literally cannot afford to accommodate both so I choose the former. Further, I believe there's a higher being that will deal out the latter. David, I admire you're rose colored view of everything, but it's that exact perspective that fosters a victim mentality in our society. Americans make great victims because we all believe someone else will do something about our problems – like police, firefighter, EMS, etc. The reality is those brave men and women end up cleaning up the mess the vast majority of the time. It's not their fault, they can't be everywhere all the time – nor do I want them to be. It's not about what I crave – its simply the law of averages. An armed law abiding citizenry is key to a safe society. Don't be a victim, David. Train and arm yourself. You may be called upon to defend yourself or someone else. I pray it never happens, but it might.

          July 21, 2012 at 11:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • yesiree

      OR you can make a law that makes each bullet cost 10,000 minimum and require 1,500 signatures from your neighbor.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • josetoyou

      And then, only the criminals will have guns... Gun control does not work! The crime rate in Switzerland is miniscule, because so many households have a weapon, and they know how to use it.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mary74

      David Feldman'st plan is excellent. Unfortunately, the only way the proliferation of assault weapons will be stopped is to make their ownership financially and economically prohibitive.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • rmac

      I agree. Let's do the same with automobiles, planes, knives, forks, food containing fat, ones thumb, shovels, staplers and rope. We need to put in a provision to cover any inanimate object that could, is or was used as a weapon to kill someone. Then we would all be safe.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Report abuse |
  73. Larry

    We don't need to ban guns – just the damn assault rifles. I see them for sale in sporting goods stores – they are people killing rifles that belong in the military and police inventory ONLY.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • josetoyou

      We may need those assault rifles to use against our own government one day... Our founders wrote the second amendment for a reason....

      July 21, 2012 at 9:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • DarthCO

        josetoyou writes, "Our founders wrote the second amendment for a reason...."

        Yes, because we didn't have a standing army and needed to be prepared in the event of an invasion. Precisely why the first thirteen words of the 2nd amendment are "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

        July 21, 2012 at 10:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • Shawn H.

        This man did not have an "assault rifle," he had an ordinary semi-auto rifle that has been available for nearly one hundred and fifty hears. Very few people in the U.S. can posses what is technically know as an assault rifle; nearly all of them are law enforcement with a very few Class III federal weapons permits added on top. Most of us cannot afford a class III licenses, they are expensive and the guns cost more then my car. By definition a real "assault rifle" must have a select fire switch that enable it to fire in burst or automatic mode. I can't buy one of those and neither can you. (unless you are law enforcement or posses a Class III Firearms license). The thing you are calling an assault rifle is strictly cosmetic. It's black, it looks mean, OMG it's an ASSAULT RIFLE, no it's not. It's like thinking me in a suit driving a Mercedes is okay but me in a leather jacket and ripped jeans on a Harley Davidson is scarey. There is no difference between me in a suit and me in leather; it is still just me. There is no real difference between your grandfathers old wooden stocked hunting rifle and an AR-15, they are both semi auto rifles. Learn what you are taking about before you make assumptions. Because most of you are just wrong.

        July 22, 2012 at 1:29 am | Report abuse |
  74. Prince A

    GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. BULLETS KILL PEOPLE
    GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. BULLETS ARE THE PROBLEM. BAN ALL BULLETS.
    DO NOT BAN GUNS. BAN BULLETS.
    Prince A

    July 21, 2012 at 9:25 pm | Report abuse |
  75. lesterland

    Guns aren't the issue. Mental health is. But you'll never make all of us perfectly healthy, mentally or otherwise. If no guns are available, it would be easy enough to come in with a couple gallons of gas in glass jugs, toss them, then toss a match or firecracker. I bet more than 12 would be dead.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:25 pm | Report abuse |
  76. don

    ...disenfranchised young adult White males...

    July 21, 2012 at 9:24 pm | Report abuse |
  77. bryan andrews

    I only wish someone in the theater that night had a conceal carry permit !!!!!! We would be talking far less people shot had injured and dead . enough said.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jon Durham

      Absurd statement.

      How about this: You go look up for us how many people get shot accidentally with a CW and then try to justify it against any crimes foiled by such. Like... the 3 year old girl who shot herself in the face with grandma's CW in Sam's Club a while back. Do you count those incidents in your CW logic?

      July 21, 2012 at 9:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • Yeah sure right

      that would only be true if the person with a conceal carry was in the first row and wasn't shot first. With people running for the door, a good line of sight to the target would be difficult at best

      July 21, 2012 at 9:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jon Durham

        Exactly. This scenario has been tested under controlled conditions with law enforcement officers in training. They pick a few to carry paint ball type weapons around all day during training and during a class, someone burst in and starts "shooting" the other students and teacher. NOT ONE of these people ever got a round off before multiple kills. And these were people who knew something was coming. CW's almost never come into play to stop anything. More often than not, they start something.

        July 21, 2012 at 9:37 pm | Report abuse |
        • Mr. Wizard

          Yea well the reason is that they didn't have a laser on the gun. When you are faced with a life threatening situation you can not take your focus off of it to sight the gun. I live near a police target range. They fire hundreds of thousands of rounds yearly there. Yet in a fire fight police can't hit the target hardly at all as point out because they can't sight the weapons knowing they are in a life or death fight. With a laser the weapon is sighted at the target and under those circumstances their aim is deadly.

          July 21, 2012 at 11:28 pm | Report abuse |
        • callum asiseeum

          In that scenerio, the CW students were in the first row of two, and the 'suspect' focused on the CW students immediately. And yes, in one instance, a CW student's gun got hung-up on their shirt, and the other examples shown had limited success. But, actual armed villains are also under duress during stressful situations.
          I would like other potential villains to know that I will do my best to rely on my training to protect my family, self, and others, while they are fumbling to reload – if for some reason, I couldn't fire any effective rounds prior to that.
          So, maybe the better solution is to ensure that more people have access to the necessary training required to be a responsible CW Carrier.
          Right now, it seems as though villains believe that they can have free reign...

          July 22, 2012 at 12:53 am | Report abuse |
    • bill

      Yeah, adding more bullets to a dark, smoke-filled room is a great idea. Love how every conceal carry person is a flawless, crack shot hero in theory.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:40 pm | Report abuse |
  78. Heya hey

    Bill of Rights allows Americans the right to own guns. Period. Don't even try to argue that. Make it impossible to get ammo instead. Specifically, ammo is not a protected item. That'd learn em.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • Yeah sure right

      Well in that case, why not just wait til there are suprome Court Justices that will make a ruling that the "Arms" part in "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" actually means upper limbs of humans instead of Guns.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:30 pm | Report abuse |
  79. If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

    Cain didn't have a gun .. he just killed his brother Abel with a rock. Even since the fictional beginning of time brother has been killing brother.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jon Durham

      ..with so much less speed and accuracy. Also, it takes a little more guts to bash someone's head with a rock than to pull a trigger.

      There is reasonable gun control, like assault weapons ban. No one needs an assault rifle or a 100 round magazine.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:34 pm | Report abuse |
  80. bummed

    People have been killing other people for all of time. Nothing can stop this. I don't think more or less guns will help. Its a mentality of humans and someone will always find a way to act it out (stoneing, burning "witches", IEDS, or guns). Its sad to see these things happen. Maybe if we all start acting more like a team and not just working for ourselves we can stop some of these disasters.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • SickAG02

      A well armed and prepared citizenry can and WILL stop these events from spiraling out of control. Google the elderly man who shot the 2 armed suspects at an Internet cafe in Florida on July 13th.

      http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=youtube%20elderly%20man%20stops%20robbery&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CFcQtwIwBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DrGFZDhCjvj0&ei=tlULUJvXBvSA2AXU79wx&usg=AFQjCNGWhglltpSQ4u-Yq-drxmSwdiDo7Q

      July 21, 2012 at 9:25 pm | Report abuse |
  81. Donald in CA

    Not as long as the nra exist. Nothing ever changes after these things happens. Just check the record.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • GVC

      We should be ashamed.....when the Olympics starts we will have a great team but we can't ban together as a country to solve the crime and guns that we have in the big cities (ie Chicago is a good example where guns/homicides are on the rise).

      Where is Donald Trump when you need him....can't he solve this with his apprentices?

      July 21, 2012 at 9:17 pm | Report abuse |
      • Tinman

        Any members of each country there will be armed during their participation in the shooting/marksmanship events.

        July 21, 2012 at 9:38 pm | Report abuse |
  82. The Voice of Reason

    Ban all guns, take away everyone's rights, put the entire country on lock-down, and you still will not stop violence.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • TexasChemist

      No, but tracking purchases of rifles, handguns and assault rifles, requiring in depth background checks, psychological evaluations yearly and 6 month revolving training courses will create such a net for the psychos to fall into, that the chance that one of these guys gets to do this again is diminished exponentially. Also, creating a punishment so sever that one slip up ends a life of freedom will make many think really hard about robbing a bank or car jacking someone.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:30 pm | Report abuse |
      • Tinman

        There is already a statute that requires additional years be served for using a firearm in a crime; this additional time is rarely added....why?

        July 21, 2012 at 9:40 pm | Report abuse |
  83. Harrison Bergeron

    Kill all humans, that'll cure the problem for sure .. also, pollution, many animal extinctions, global warming, etc.. get rid of humans and save the planet.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:10 pm | Report abuse |
  84. gdaym8

    Share

    Comments (274 comments)
    Permalink

    Mass shootings: Can they be stopped?...REALLY!!?? How about: "Stupidity: Can IT be stopped?" Answer to both:No.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • gdaym8

      I think the answer to this whole issue is very simple................................................think about it for awhile. Still don't see it yet?.....It's right in front of you......See it yet?..........It's very hard to see, yet, very simple. You see it now, don't you? Now, go out and make it happen. Change it.

      July 22, 2012 at 1:07 am | Report abuse |
  85. lam62sw

    Over three thousand people where killed on September 11, 2001 and no guns were involved. On April 19, 1995, 168 people where killed in Oklahoma City, how many guns were used? People kill people, not guns! The media and political sides need to stop using tragedies to argue their political points and look at the actual issue. Better surveillance and security might help, I don't believe our society and stop irrational people from being irrational.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • GVC

      We can't get rid of airplanes as they serve a purpose, we can't get rid of trucks as they serve a purpose. We CAN get rid of guns as they serve no purpose.

      I agree with you that we also need to increase the amount of money that we put into health care and behavioral health as well as research Thank You

      July 21, 2012 at 9:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • Daddy Hawg

        As an avid shooter and hunter I disagree with your view obviously. firearms used in a safe and controlled manner can be a very relaxing endeavor. Not only is shooting clay pigeons fun and challenging, the camaraderie and friendships developed with other shooters is awsome. hub=nting put meat on the table and can help in feeding those less fortunate as in the Farmers and Hunters feeding the hungry in my state. So, before you go lumping all gun owners into one category, take a moment and think about the good guns can do in the right hands.
        Thank you

        July 21, 2012 at 9:39 pm | Report abuse |
        • GVC

          then at least lets get rid of the automatic weapons. Thanks

          July 21, 2012 at 9:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • Tinman

        The fact that I may have a gun does serve a purpose. The purpose is a deterrant to atack by a stronger person and it serves everyone not only the one indeed having a gun but those that do not as well since the "attacker/robber" does not know if the victim has a gun or not.

        July 21, 2012 at 9:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • TexasChemist

      1+2 = 3. You remove the 1 or 2, you do not get 3. Gun + person = victim. You remove either gun or person, you do not get death. What seems easier to you? Removing all people that may potentially commit a crime or remove the instrument that could be used to commit the crime? And by that logic, nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people. So let's all go get some nuclear bombs! The logic doesn't work. But then again, most gun advocates buy guns to compensate for lack of logic...amongst other things.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:41 pm | Report abuse |
  86. bob

    Have the liberals blamed Bush, Sarah Palin, or the Tea Party yet? I've already seen 1/2 dozen articles on the need for gun control. Shouldn't be long now.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jose

      You are one pathetic individual. This doesn't have anything to do with liberals or former president Bush. Why must stupid people like you inject politics into every discussion?

      July 21, 2012 at 9:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Daddy Hawg

      ABC did, but they apologized......

      July 21, 2012 at 9:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • TexasChemist

      Have you blames the Black man in the white house yet?

      July 21, 2012 at 9:41 pm | Report abuse |
  87. GVC

    Sorry, but making guns less accessible is the answer. Just take a look at other countries...ie Europe, the Netherlands specifically.

    Our sporting good stores offer guns, our clothing stores offer guns....I don't purchase from stores that sell guns (ie Wallmart, Dick's Sporting Goods, etc.) How can these sporting goods/clothing stores continue to carry guns in good faith? I hold those that sold the guns responsible.....we CAN control gun sales.....we can not always control someone's actions.

    We can not continue to tolerate people who purchase or carry guns.

    My deepest sympathy to all.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • AJ

      Can you be more specific when you say make guns less accessible. Do we not control gun sales now? There isn't a background check and waiting period? Or have I missed the gun vending machines that are apparently everywhere.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Eric

      Bombs kill faster than guns and can be bought from Home Depot and put together in 15 minutes. Guns are just easy (and fun), this is the only reason these wackos use guns. In other countries they just make bombs and blow themselves up. Get a brain if you think no guns would equal less evidence. Also, anyone with a lath can make a gun in their basement, it would go black market in about 5 minutes.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • zeke

      How do you control the sales of stolen/smuggled guns on the street? Criminals will get their weapon wherever they can, however they can. Criminals and mental deviates don't obey the law, that's the real issue.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • rmac

      If a law can fix the problem, why don't we just outlaw murder? That would cover it all, including firearms. Wait, we have that law. Doesn't help. Criminals break laws. Maybe we could outlaw criminals.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • Just Sayin'

        Well, then we need another law.

        July 22, 2012 at 3:29 am | Report abuse |
    • lesterland

      One of the areas of "sporting goods" is guns and other weapons for hunters et al. Somehow I don't think those stores care if you go to them or not.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • SickAG02

      So much for the whole European Gun Control idea. You ban the guns and only the law abiding citizens will comply. If criminals want guns, they'll get them.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

      July 21, 2012 at 9:29 pm | Report abuse |
  88. NoTags

    Now the knee jerk reaction starts again wanting to ban guns.

    A question for the anti gun folks; By banning guns, how do you solve a problem with a person like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy who each killed 30+ people and never used a gun? Or, on April 19, 1995 Timothy McVeigh used a rental truck with a fertilizer bomb and killed 168 people in Oklahoma City. Unfortunately, we will always have mentally disturbed people amongst us and there is little we can do to prevent these kinds of attacks.

    In both of the above instances a gun ban would have been useless and accomplished nothing.

    July 21, 2012 at 9:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • summerbloom

      Well I've got an idea.. ban firearms.. bombs,guns and all. How come other 1st world countries don't have as much violence as we do? Blaming the crackheads isn't going to help... do you think other countries don't have crackheads like we do? they don't have access to firearms!

      July 21, 2012 at 9:05 pm | Report abuse |
      • lam62sw

        maybe they should ban crackheads from using cnn too

        July 21, 2012 at 9:08 pm | Report abuse |
        • summerbloom

          Hope you and your guns can prevent massacres someday...cause at the moment it doesn't seem to be helping!

          July 21, 2012 at 10:30 pm | Report abuse |
  89. lam62sw

    Guns are not the problem. Guns don't kill people. Guns are a tool people use to kill other people. That tool could easily be a knife, an IED, blunt object, a vehicle, a swimming pool, fire, ...

    July 21, 2012 at 8:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • RasPutin

      People would be unlikely to kill 12 and wound 59 others with a knife or blunt object.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:05 pm | Report abuse |
      • nothanksimdriving123

        In 2010, two men in separate knife attacks 2 months apart in China killed a total of 15 children. No guns. And for you rapid execution fans, the perpetrator of the March attack had already been executed before the May attack. Irrational is not swayed by rational.

        July 21, 2012 at 9:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • rmac

        You could kill 12 and wound 59 with a car, we should ban cars. How about planes, alot of people got killed with planes on 9/11, better ban those too.

        July 21, 2012 at 9:24 pm | Report abuse |
        • ted

          go back inside your hole

          July 21, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • nameuser

      guns are made to kill, by humans for humans

      July 21, 2012 at 11:57 pm | Report abuse |
  90. AJ

    If we ban guns does that apply to police and military too? I think probably not. So then if weapons can't magically disappear, just ban murderers. Can't believe no one else thought of that. Wait – banning things does make them magically disappear, right?

    July 21, 2012 at 8:57 pm | Report abuse |
  91. Bud Glass

    Many have commented that if other perople were allowd to have concealed weapons in the theater, this tragedy possibly could have been averted. I doubt that. there could have been more victims. The theater was crowded and darkened. A person needs very much practice, ability and skill to be able to accurately aim and fire at his target, who is moving in a crowded, dark theater. and while his target is shooting back at him. These incidents occur suddenly, without warning. A person must be able to think fast and have quick reflexes to be able to grab his gun from his jacket or pack, aim and fire; all within a very few seconds. Other people could easily be hit, accidentally.

    Too many people watch too many movies and think that a movie-style gun fight will solve the problem.

    July 21, 2012 at 8:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • BeadlesAz

      Bud – amazing isn't it? All these people with visions of "if only someone had had a gun, they could have taken him out." Yeah right, the guy was wearing tactical unit protective gear. My question is: out of all the people in a full theater – no one was carrying? In today's world, I find that hard to believe.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:21 pm | Report abuse |
  92. summerbloom

    Of course it could be prevented. GUNS AND VIOLENCE is killing the American youth. People say guns are kept for safety. where's the safety in that? A gun is just giving you the access to kill someone. The person could be a lunatic and he has access to gun, so what does he do? goes around killing people. If this lunatic didn't have a gun, he could possibly just killed 2 or 3 or 4 with a knife .. not 12! These type of massacres are becoming more prevalent day by day. But what the heck nobody will do a thing!

    July 21, 2012 at 8:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • 2tor

      I know it's hard for you all to think past yourselves, you all being gun ban advocates. The man has his apartment rigged with all kinds of home made explosives. You think he would not of used an explosive if he couldn't get a gun? He had an agenda, no law will stop that. Just think a little harder.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Steve

      Or he could have used a bomb, and killed everyone. So in an odd sort of way, they got off lucky. Also, for what my opinion is worth, as much as I don't agree with the people who are calling to "ban guns", I doubt someone having a concealed handgun in the theater would have made a difference. Not with the smoke (or teargas) and all the mayhem that was going on. Someone trying to help would have more likely shot the wrong person by accident.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • rmac

      We should make a new law. Every home in america is required to have a sign in the front yard stating if they own a firearm or not. I would feel safer immediately.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:27 pm | Report abuse |
  93. Yup

    No one ever talks strategy when things like this happen. So what if you people don't have a gun. A big movie theater here, front clearance is no more than 10 or 15 feet. Best strategy when there's a shooter at front with a full theater is for everyone to rush him. If enough people act fast enough at the same time, then you can get the shooter with minimum casualty. If everyone runs the other way then it's shooting fish in a barrel. A single body charging the shooter forces the shooter to take the defensive. Multiple people rushing means If one falls then another closes the gap further and then another and then another. 5 rushers increases the success, 10, 15, 20 rushers at the same time forces the shooter to fend for his life exponentially. Yes, the Vanguard of the rushers will more than likely die, but gives others the chance to get the shooter. Selfless sacrifice saves lives. 99.9% of adults run the other way. During a breach and clearing of rooms when your point man falls, you press forward, not back. Gives a better chance of killing the SOB shooting at you instead of giving the shooter a chance to nail you when you run out. Took one in the vest one time, but my guys behind me got him seconds after. Course this doesn't work if he's got a bomb.

    July 21, 2012 at 8:53 pm | Report abuse |
  94. Kha noon

    To gun lovers,
    Guns do not kill people, people kill people.Let 's just give nukes to Irag,Iran,North Korea,Taliban......Why do we ban these countries,organizations from obtaining nukes?
    Nukes do not kill poeple,people kill poeple.LOL!

    July 21, 2012 at 8:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Daddy Hawg

      A gun or a nuke will not do anything unless some person pulls the trigger or pushes the button. In your example of the nukes, Iran will use them and they have been ideb=ntified as being unstable. Nidal hassan was identified as being unstable but none had the balls to call it. Jerrod Loughner was identified as unstable, but no one had the balls to call. Holmes mother stated she was not surprised at this and did not call it. How many times do we have to relive these tragedies because of political correctness?!

      July 21, 2012 at 9:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • Kha noon

        Who will make the decision that this country or that country is "unstable"? Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
        The big question is why do a regular gun owner need assault rifles? because the criminals have them? O.K then you get a bigger gun,then the criminals get bigger gun than yours.Then you get...

        When is this going to end?

        Let 's say we all allow to carry guns and the crimainals know that, do you think they now would let you have a chance to use it. NO! they now kill you first then take your wallet (there will be no question like "give me your money or I will kill you!") Read the story,this suspect came ready before shooting (Bulletproof vest, mask.....)
        Are you wearing your Bulletproof vest and carring gun 24 hrs?

        July 21, 2012 at 11:01 pm | Report abuse |
  95. Neco

    No we won't be able to stop these mass killings. For one the NRA won't let us, and second, society has become reactive rather than pro-active. God forbid we ask that people are only allowed to own ONE GUN, so their rights are protected. NO, we demand that, and the NRA steps in and says no, people can have AK47s, machine guns, all the ammunition they can affrorf to buy. Then this is the result, Colombine, Arizona, Colorado, etc. We'll just now wait until we wake up one day to hear the next mass murder scene somewhere in the USA where some of the pople that cry every time someone wants to have gun controls that work, cry foul, hopefully, some of the casualties on the next massacre woon't include thier infant child, a brother, sister, mother. brother, or father.

    July 21, 2012 at 8:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hanny

      Personally I feel all full and semi automatic weapons be outlawed.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • fred

      It would be fine to give nukes to Iran, Taliban and North Korea as long as we have guns to protect ourselves. LOL

      July 21, 2012 at 10:05 pm | Report abuse |
  96. abbydelabbey

    I would wager that we will find out that this shooter has a serious mental illness, but put that aside for a moment and answer this simple question: why do we allow weapons, ammo, and body armor sold ONLINE?

    How flipping crazy is that?

    July 21, 2012 at 8:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Eric

      Really, you don't think armor and bullets should be sold online? Seriously? Go move to some communist country if you want to be restricted on what you can buy and own. What a fool.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • rmac

      We could outlaw mental illness. That would solve the problem.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:30 pm | Report abuse |
  97. squab

    Anyone thinks more gun laws will be affective....I've got some magic beans to sell you. There's tons of laws for drugs and immigration....how's that going?

    July 21, 2012 at 8:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Devided States of Walmart

      hopefully and I say this sincerely that the next mass shooting happens near you and your family so you know what it feels like to lose some one in gun violence.

      July 21, 2012 at 8:58 pm | Report abuse |
      • Eric

        You should advertise to criminals that you don't own any guns in your house. Please put your address in your next post and I guarantee you will be robbed. The fear of a homeowner shooting the robber is the ONLY deterant from a criminal walking in your front door in the middle of the day and robbing people. You sir are totally clueless, go back to your couch and watch TV or something.

        July 21, 2012 at 9:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • rmac

        Hey (unable to spell) Devided States of Walmart, hope you get syphillis.

        July 21, 2012 at 9:34 pm | Report abuse |
  98. Strapped

    Can we prevent these types of killings? No. We can't tell when some nut is going to pull out a gun and start shooting. It's sad to think this way, but I feel lives could have been saved if someone else had a gun on them for protection, because you just don't know what's going to happen when you are out just to enjoy your evening. If I was at that movie,
    I would have taken him out with my weapon when he started to take innocent lives. People may still be alive today.
    Are we going to have to go back to the old west when everyone carried a gun just to keep order?

    July 21, 2012 at 8:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • squab

      M.A.D. (Mutual.Assured.Distruction) Hey it worked in the 80's with Russia and U.S. I agree.

      July 21, 2012 at 8:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • BeadlesAz

      You are truly scary.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:23 pm | Report abuse |
  99. djpk69

    The fricking NRA has nothing to do with this. You could have banned guns and this WOULD have happened. LOOK at social patterns and sico's before trying to tell this country that we should NOT BEAR ARMS. Then look at WHY we are AMERICA........the FREE. Then go talk to a VET who protected you and me !! D U H

    July 21, 2012 at 8:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dirk335

      You ever hear of mass knifing's or mass beatings that take 12 lives and injure dozens more? If everyone carried a gun around on their person the odds stack against "protection", but for more violence. It's simple math. The right to bear arms is an archaic right; let's move past it and take the guns off the streets!

      July 21, 2012 at 8:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • Alan_Shore

        To Dirk335 who asked, "You ever hear of mass knifings that take 12 lives or injure dozens more?"

        Yes Dirk. On September 11, 2001.

        July 21, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Report abuse |
        • gdaym8

          Good one.

          July 21, 2012 at 9:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • gdaym8

        It'll never happen. Sorry. It just never will.

        July 21, 2012 at 9:05 pm | Report abuse |
      • Eric

        Um, you can make deadly bombs from common household chemicals. Guns are only more fun for criminals, bombs are far cheaper and more effective if killing a bunch of people is the goal. Any guy with a backpack bomb can walk into a theater and blow the WHOLE room away.

        July 21, 2012 at 9:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Devided States of Walmart

      The NRA has EVERYTHING to do with this, they have opposed EVERY sensible gun control there is, every one of them, they allow guns to be sold in gun shows without any background check, so in fact they are making it easier for criminals and terrorists to obtain military style assault rifles with unlimited ammo to be sold to anybody through these week end gun shows. I am surprised that the mass shootings don't happen more often, it's so easy for terrorists to kill people in this country thanks to the NRA and the bush administration who lifted the ban on this type of assault weapons in 2001.

      July 21, 2012 at 9:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • Pepou27

        You are absolutely right. It's about time the NRA is challenged and stop endangering our lives with their opposition to the slightest gun control.

        July 21, 2012 at 11:08 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3