If Holmes didn't have guns I bet he would have done a Tim Mcveigh.

[dkf]

Let's face it...the guy had the smarts to do even more damage than he did. The only way he could have been stopped is the way we stop terrorists, intense surveillance.

You may be willing to give up a supposed right to own a gun but are you ready to give up your privacy and let the government spy on all of us?

[brewens]

1. It sounds like he may have tried to do both. He may have thought the

autmatic booming techno music would cause someone to call the cops, the cops to break in and set off the bomb/s. Hard to say why he tipped them off to the booby traps.

[dkf]

2. Just think if he tried to use the explosives as the prime weapon. Where would it have had impact?

Restricting his access to guns would have been no solution.

And maybe he tipped them because he felt he had already caused enough mayhem to make his point, whatever that is.

[rocktivity]

7. But there's a small flaw in that theory -- he left the door unlocked

so anyone who entered that apartment would have detonated it. That doesn't suggest that Holmes was specifically targeting the cops -- I think he would have been just as happy with an angry neighbor.


rocktivity

[brewens]

17. Yeah, I heard that after my post. That girl was lucky she didn't open the door. n/t

[graham4anything]

3. Yes I am, my constitutional rights are being violated by terrorists/extremists/anarchists

I want MORE cameras.
I aint doing nothing wrong, and the capability of this can be stopped before it happens.

Years ago, doctors couldn't cure infections. Guess what, now they can.

Use any and all means.

You cannot yell fire in a theatre, yet one idiot can fire a gun in a theatre and kill anyone or everyone.

If need be, fluck it, get drones with 3d imaging and stop this before it happens.

And I am a liberal democrat.
there is nothing that allows this person or those like him any right at all to do what he did.

Audit the NRA and see where the money is.
Last I heard their threats to candidates who go against them sounds like blackmail to an average joe, isn't it?

last I heard, that too was illegal.

[permatex]

10. Dude

your in the wrong place here. FreeperVille is down the street and to the right.
I don't believe the crap coming out of your mouth.
BTW, you can yell fire in a theater if theres a fire, you can even yell fire if there is no fire if your willing to suffer the consequences.

[graham4anything]

12. I disagree, and I am a liberal NYC democrat

I am as anyone who knows me knows, a liberal democrat from the great NYC

Going against the NRA is not a rightwing thingy, now is it?So calling me one is IMHO silly.

IMHO Guns don't protect you, there isn't one bonafide example of a gun saving anyone from any of these events.

Oklahoma City? We will never know the true story as Timmy died.

However, we do know the result of what a gun did regarding the issue of a woman's right to privacy in Kansas and their constitutional rights, now don't we?

And we do know what the NRA backed Zimmerman did to Trey Martin in Florida.
etc,etc,etc.

thanks to legal ownership of guns.
Showing the lie that "criminals will always be able to get an illegal gun" and guns are needed to protect from those criminals with illegal guns. These guns are legal (same with the evil ones from Columbine).

And saying that other methods would have been used, well, security now is prepared for those events like they were not back when McVeigh did what he did.

By the way, I am proud never to have owned, or fired a gun, and never will own one.
(and when I was a kid in summer camp as NYC kids without immediate access to lakes and swimming did, when the Y camp offered rifle shooting, and a note was sent to the parents to sign their consent, they signed NO consent, that it was not the correct way to have fun.

And though my Grandfather's brother committed suicide with a gun instead of leaving as the Nazi's were pounding on his door in Austria, because he was a Jew, not one person in my family ever believed the lies that were spewed if only they were armed and none of them had a gun including the generations that followed (kids and grandkids)
From a NY/NJ liberal democrat. That is MY opinion.
And my viewpoint on cameras has as they say evolved, because we are not in the 1960s/1970s anymore, this is a different time and place.

And speaking of guns, I would like Daryl Isaa to work a timeline for the walking of the guns this person used.
(this said sarcastically).
While his head was buried in his no-scandal he is investigating, 12 people died and scores were injured, on Daryl Isaa's watch.

[beevul]

18. Ask and you shall recieve.

"IMHO Guns don't protect you, there isn't one bonafide example of a gun saving anyone from any of these events."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Life_Church_(Colorado_Springs,_Colorado)

The active shooter at the new life church shooting had over 1000 rounds and was stopped well before using them all.

[graham4anything]

19. except Rachel & Stephanie are not here today

so how did a gun save them?(or their families?)

[beevul]

22. My but those goalposts must get heavy.

This:

"IMHO Guns don't protect you, there isn't one bonafide example of a gun saving anyone from any of these events."


Is what you said.

Note that used the word "anyone", not the word "everyone".

[Higgs boson]

21. Let's just shitcan the whole damn Bill of Rights while we're about it...

right?

[graham4anything]

23. wrong

wrong.

nowhere does it mention assault rifles and weapons of mass destruction(a gun) in the Bill of Rights.

The main right is the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and there is also the right of peaceful assembly.
All rights that were violated two nights ago, and all people in any theatre now just think are they sitting in a death trap about to explode in gunfire just to see a movie.

The constitution and ALL the amendments, don't say an extremist can dictate policy.

The first thing the government has to provide is safety to the people so they can pursue their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Banning guns or bullets or some guns won't harm anyones right.
In no state can one drive drunk the wrong way on a highway and claim they have the wording in the constitution to do it

Yes, we need Superman and Batman (otherwise known as Nannies) to look over and protect us.
Nothing wrong in that.
(i.e.-we need an ability to permanently stop a LEGAL gun from being used to kill someone
No parent would want their child to do what someone's son did the other day.
All this talk about rights being taken away just leads to more and more senseless deaths and my rights being taken away.

Maybe finally (though not til after the election) the motivation happened to finally move things along. ( FORWARD)

4.3 million members of the NRA
86 million voters for Obama in 2012

[Higgs boson]

32. It doesn't mention computers either.

I get it though, you care about YOUR rights and to hell with those of people you disagree with.
I see that a lot around where I live...the hatred for gay people is palpable.

[graham4anything]

35. What about Veronica Moser's right to life?

a computer has no rights, you are correct.
and on a private site, there is no right to say anything
If the head of any site says no, any post is deleted or hid.
Same like the radical right radio people hang up and mock any Obama lover that calls them.

there is no free speech except for the person writing, and freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose as Kristopherson wrote, everyone is one day closer to having the internet shut down.

America worked better though before the internet, didn't it?
Because they adapted to life better. America is still an infant to the internet, and living life
and working with the internet instead of the old way. (Is it necessary to actually attend school or physically go to 1/2 the jobs out there? Is it cost productive or the opposite?
Wouldn't it make sense to work at home and school at home?

Life gotta change somehow.

But I don't see how getting rid of bullets infringes anyones rights, and you can try to convince me it does, but you will lose that argument.
(and if you use the argument that well, they will use fertilizzer or something else, then you make the argument that guns won't save you at home either, will they?

So how are your rights violated by getting rid of bullets?

John Heillerman of New York magazine had the right idea. Tax,tax,tax bullets, so they are as expensive as cigarettes, raise the price so that most people can't afford more than a few which is way enough for killing one of God's most graceful creatures, the Deer.
There aren't enough deer in the forest to need all those bullets.

And why would someone want to bring a gun out to dinner or a bar? Yikes, what a horrible date a gun is.

[LAGC]

4. Exactly.

People don't realize that when a psycho like this snaps and decides to go on a killing spree, THEY WILL FIND A WAY, regardless of the weapon (guns, bombs, etc.)

These mass-killing sprees are just the price we have to pay to live in a free society.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd rather suffer a few random mass-shootings every once in awhile than live under a police state with heavy surveillance and tight controls on what law-abiding people can own.

[Zalatix]

25. Oh stop being silly. Next you'll be posting those Soviet Union myths.

It's always the same thing over and over again, the first nutjob balks at a police state and then someone always has to bring up the USSR and China.

Which is okay, because by those rules I am a nutjob, too!

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security." - Benjamin Franklin

That said, I still feel we need SOME controls on the ownership of firearms. You have to get training, a license and a background check to drive a car... and some cars are not street legal. Why not apply the same rule to guns?

[moondust]

5. Or not.

Holmes was role-playing. Big time. Fertilizer bombs and IEDs don't involve role-playing. McVeigh was targeting his perceived enemy--the federal government. Holmes apparently wasn't targeting anybody in particular. And I think it's harder to get large quantities of fertilizer now although apparently his apartment is basically rigged like an IED.

[dkf]

6. Well when we see his apartment we may find out what other things he considered.

I doubt he would have been stymied by an inability to get fertilizer, just like I doubt he would have been stopped if there were no guns available.

[HooptieWagon]

14. I think you're on to something.

He WAS role-playing. A quote from a ex-girlfriend(?) said he would cheer for the villian in the movies, always. Villians were his heros. So, for his grand statement, he was going to be the ultimate villian.

[Edweird]

8. That's generally how they do it in other places. I'm surprised we haven't been seeing more of that.

[HopeHoops]

9. You're more likely to die texting while driving than you are to get shot randomly.

I'm not justifying his actions in any way, but that is the reality. As Benjamin Franklin said (variously quoted), "Any country that would sacrifice a little liberty to gain a little security deserves neither and will lose both."

[graham4anything]

13. NY and NJ have banned texting, and rightfully so

I don't know about the other states offhand, but they should follow NY and NJ and ban texting and other things while driving (and seatbelts are mandatory in NY/NJ and other states).

I could see a wide open area with few cars on interstates, but in big cities with traffic and stop and go, it really is logical, is it not?

[HopeHoops]

28. PA banned texting, but it doesn't have any teeth. MD bans all handheld phone use.

[HooptieWagon]

15. You're more likely to die from lightning

than from a mass murderer. You take precautions, but you don't avoid the outdoors. The risk cannot be eliminated, but you do whats possible to reduce it.

[99Forever]

31. Nonsense.

I don't text while driving.

Fail.

[HopeHoops]

34. Neither do I. Actually, I don't text at all. So yeah, that does skew the odds a bit, eh?

[Motown_Johnny]

11. 5000 pounds of ammonium nitrate would he harder to get and use than

the assault rifle with the 100 round magazine and ammunition.

[HooptieWagon]

16. Yes, probably in his case.

People would have noticed him loading fertilizer and diesel into a truck at an apartment house parking lot. Plus, I suspect he wanted to be present at his moment of "triumph", and to survive it.
However, the next looney toon may live in a rural area where large quantities of fertilizer are readily available, and have access to a barn where he can build his bomb. Or a chemist builds mustard gas bombs.
This is why we need to do better in identifying these nuts and getting them in to treatment, before they go on a rampage with whatever is the easiest weapon for them to procure.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

20. Anecdotal. nt

[Drunken Irishman]

24. OBJECTION!

ha!

[Warren Stupidity]

26. You all have blood on your hands.

[pinboy3niner]

27. I c what u did there

[rucky]

29. The solution should take us in the direction of a more open society

but the knee-jerks will always react to the latest incident with an untested, ham-fisted restriction designed to make people feel safer - until the next kook come along.

[99Forever]

30. Well...

... he might also have become The Easter Bunny and had monkeys fly out of his butt too.

[Ikonoklast]

33. But he did.

Let's face it, no amount of trying to deflect from the facts of the matter are going to change the reality of it.

Holmes Used Firearms To Commit Mass Murder.

I know it pains you to read that.