14 killed in mass shooting at Batman screening

[Senator Sbane]

Reducing magazine capacity seems to be the way to go.

[dead0man]

Aye, and I can see that happening again.  Like I said, I would be against it, but can understand and accept it.

[opebo]

I suspect that there are few things more likely to push a man over the brink than being a PhD candidate.

True enough, but generally we don't have the time (or energy left, of course) to plan this kind of thing, let alone carry it out.

One suspects that he simply neglected his 'research' for a while, knowing that he wouldn't face evaluation, but rather prison (a lesser torture, no doubt).

[WhyteRain]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-on-the-colorado-shooting-the-gag-rule-on-guns/2012/07/20/gJQAt4gPyW_story.html?hpid=z2

Spot on.

You don't notice any problem with Dionne's argument?  Let's look at it as reasonable people:

 

Anyone who dares to say that an event such as the massacre at a Colorado movie theater early Friday demands that we rethink our approach to the regulation of firearms is accused of “exploiting” the deaths of innocent people.

This is part of the gun lobby’s rote response, and the rest of us allow it to work every time. Its goal is to block any conversation about how our nation’s gun laws, the most permissive in the industrialized world, increase the likelihood of mass killings of this sort.

First, the gun lobby goes straight to the exploitation argument — which is, of course, a big lie. You can see this because we never allow an assertion of this kind to stop conversation on other issues.

(Emphasis added)

I think those three paragraphs are the essence of Dionne's claim, right?  What's missing?

For Master Sanders, IDS Legislator:

A longer response was eaten by this lemon of a laptop I recently bought.

The short answer is that

(1)  Dionne makes claims about "the gun lobby's argument", but
(2)  He never quotes it.

Without the readers being able to see exactly what he's talking about -- the "gun lobby's response" -- then his characterizations of it, as "a rote response" or an "(anti)-exploitation argument", are meaningless.

As it is now, the article is worthless for understanding the post-massacre debate.

[bore]

An interesting link from a few years ago about the media aftermath of another mass shooting, we can hope, for all our sakes, that someone pays attention, but I won't count on it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8rMYyegT5Y

[milhouse24]

Its odd that the alleged killer has the last name Holmes, which is similar to Katie Holmes who was in the first Batman movie.  I wonder if they are distant relatives.  It probably has nothing to do with his motives, but it is an odd coincidence.  And Katie Holmes was removed from the 2nd Batman movie which upset many fans.  She also recently divorced Tom Cruise and left Scientology so I'm sure some conspiracy theorists will find a way to blame the mass murders on Scientology. 

[Frodo]

Unfortunately for our gun control advocates on this thread, what support they do have in Congress is actually shrinking -not growing.

[Joe Republic]

Unfortunately for our gun control advocates on this thread, what support they do have in Congress is actually shrinking -not growing.

Another entry for the 'Things that are f[inks]ed up about the US' thread, it seems.

[Lief]

Unfortunately for our gun control advocates on this thread, what support they do have in Congress is actually shrinking -not growing.

Unfortunately for people who don't like being shot, too.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Unfortunately for our gun control advocates on this thread, what support they do have in Congress is actually shrinking -not growing.

The post-mortem reports of the gun control "movement" were written long ago.

Even if there is a major spike of crime, I don't see this being an issue again.

[opebo]

Unfortunately for our gun control advocates on this thread, what support they do have in Congress is actually shrinking -not growing.

No one seriously believes there will ever be gun control, Frodo, we're just pointing out that these slaughters are, given that fact, inevitable and unsurprising.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Unfortunately for our gun control advocates on this thread, what support they do have in Congress is actually shrinking -not growing.

No one seriously believes there will ever be gun control, Frodo, we're just pointing out that these slaughters are, given that fact, inevitable and unsurprising.

I think dead0 predicted a 1 in 4 chance the (D)s would enact a comprehensive assault weapons ban in 2009.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

Why do these things happen in the United States more frequently than in other countries?

Pace the advocates of gun control here, I actually do think that anyone in Europe sufficiently determined to commit an act like this can access the sufficient levels of explosives and firearms. Andres Brevik being a particularly prominent example. So I think the law and access to fire arms is a red herring here (though neither do I believe that greater access to firearms decreases crime like the gun advocates seem to claim, it is idea too silly to take seriously). More important to ask is why so many people in the United States seem to tie up the notion of gun ownership with that of individualism, an idea which is very alien to this European (living in a country where the police are not armed - this though is more common on the continental mainland - I could probably count using my fingers the amount of times I've actually seen in the flesh a firearm here). Answer that question and perhaps then we can move on beyond the tiredness of this debate. Not that I imagine that the conservatives are rather interested in answering this (why wonder about truths you hold to be self-evident even if others don't?)

Actually if you wanted me to sum up a personal 'position' (as if such a thing is necessarily desirable) on this situation is that owning a gun is like wanting to be president of the United States or a Millionaire property investor. Anyone should be allowed to own one, except for those that actually want to have one who should of course be banned by law from ever doing so.

[J. J.]

Holmes is no dummy.  Graduated college, a reasonably hard one, with a hard degree and with high honors.  Phi Beta Kappa.  In a hard doctoral program.  I don't understand what made him do it.

I also have no doubt that, with his apartment rigged, he probably could have devised another weapon, or weapons.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Guys, all of our problems would be solved if there were more guns. Clearly that would stop shooters like Lovelle Mixon.

[They Played The Wardrum Out Of Time]

Unfortunately for our gun control advocates on this thread, what support they do have in Congress is actually shrinking -not growing.

[gunnut]

Guys, all of our problems would be solved if there were more guns. Clearly that would stop shooters like Lovelle Mixon.

Ah so you've changed your policy from decreasing the mag size to not having SALWs whatsoever. Very interesting. Seems we have ourselves a true Commyfornia politician. Might I remind you all of an incident in a Colorado church 5 years ago consisting of an armed man who was confronted and halted by an armed female security officer, saving many lives. I do mourn for the families and wish such an incident at the movie theater never happened as do all of you, but how many liscenced gun owners didn't kill anyone that day?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Guys, all of our problems would be solved if there were more guns. Clearly that would stop shooters like Lovelle Mixon.

Ah so you've changed your policy from decreasing the mag size to not having SALWs whatsoever. Very interesting. Seems we have ourselves a true Commyfornia politician. Might I remind you all of an incident in a Colorado church 5 years ago consisting of an armed man who was confronted and halted by an armed female security officer, saving many lives. I do mourn for the families and wish such an incident at the movie theater never happened as do all of you, but how many liscenced gun owners didn't kill anyone that day?

Yeah, well the Lovelle Mixon incident destroys the argument "if only more bystanders had guns". All of the 4 cops he killed were armed, and two of them were members of the SWAT team who knew that they were going into a dangerous situation with a cop-killer.

[gunnut]

Guys, all of our problems would be solved if there were more guns. Clearly that would stop shooters like Lovelle Mixon.

Ah so you've changed your policy from decreasing the mag size to not having SALWs whatsoever. Very interesting. Seems we have ourselves a true Commyfornia politician. Might I remind you all of an incident in a Colorado church 5 years ago consisting of an armed man who was confronted and halted by an armed female security officer, saving many lives. I do mourn for the families and wish such an incident at the movie theater never happened as do all of you, but how many liscenced gun owners didn't kill anyone that day?

Yeah, well the Lovelle Mixon incident destroys the argument "if only more bystanders had guns". All of the 4 cops he killed were armed, and two of them were members of the SWAT team who knew that they were going into a dangerous situation with a cop-killer.

Ah but look deeper into the facts. Lovell's Mixon was a convicted felon, and purchased his firearm illegally. No registered legal firearm owner has ever fired at a police officer. Taking firearms away would be absurd. I remember reading in More Guns Less Crime by John R. Lott Jr. that an elderly man fired at a man trying to rob his house and actually got him in the leg while he was coining over the fence. This elderly man was a liscenced firearm owner but there was not enough evidence to prove the man he fired at guilty (aka this wasn't in Florida with the Stand Your Ground law). The elderly man's firearm was taken from him. About a month later, the elderly man's house was being robbed again, and this time, police found the homeowner was no longer with us.

[gunnut]

*going not coining. Lovell not Lovell's. Stupid kindle spell-check

[The Mikado]

Actually if you wanted me to sum up a personal 'position' (as if such a thing is necessarily desirable) on this situation is that owning a gun is like wanting to be president of the United States or a Millionaire property investor. Anyone should be allowed to own one, except for those that actually want to have one who should of course be banned by law from ever doing so.

I'm imagining a draft for venture capitalist positions that drag out Franciscan monks and Buddhist monks and others who have taken a vow of poverty and drag them, kicking and screaming, to Wall Street.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Actually if you wanted me to sum up a personal 'position' (as if such a thing is necessarily desirable) on this situation is that owning a gun is like wanting to be president of the United States or a Millionaire property investor. Anyone should be allowed to own one, except for those that actually want to have one who should of course be banned by law from ever doing so.

I'm imagining a draft for venture capitalist positions that drag out Franciscan monks and Buddhist monks and others who have taken a vow of poverty and drag them, kicking and screaming, to Wall Street.

With the exception of the monks, I do tend to think that sort of thing would be better for most people. A bit like a Celestine V story.

[State Comptroller Atkins]

I've read quite a few comments on the internet claiming that politicians will use this as an excuse to enact more gun control. Yet AFAIA neither Obama nor Romney have uttered the term "gun control" since the tragedy, and, as was previously noted, the support for gun control in Congress is shrinking.

[Vosem]

I've read quite a few comments on the internet claiming that politicians will use this as an excuse to enact more gun control. Yet AFAIA neither Obama nor Romney have uttered the term "gun control" since the tragedy, and, as was previously noted, the support for gun control in Congress is shrinking.

Well, people get worried because whenever this sort of thing happens leftists in journalism write op-eds praising gun control. Ultimately, politicians are smarter than that; polling right after the tragedy showed 72% of the country against gun control and 68% with a positive opinion of the NRA. You don't get on the wrong side of that.

[Likely Voter]

Gun Control doesn't have to be all or nothing. Bottom line is that we already have gun control, the question is: is it enough, or too much?

While "gun control" may not be popular, I also dont hear people asking for the repeal of the ban on automatic weapons.  On the other hand there isn't much call for banning all guns, so the question is, where to draw the line. I think with this latest tragedy and with Tuscon it is not unreasonable to start talking about banning extended magazines, which were banned for a decade untile the assault weapons ban lapsed in 2004.

THis is what the CO killer used...

Here it is on video: http://youtu.be/e3KOKS_HwQU

I'm pretty sure most Americans would agree that these kinds of military weapons shouldn't be available to civilians, certainly not so easily available as they were in this case.

Will banning these kinds of weapons or extended clips stop mass shootings? No. But it will give future victims more time to run or get to cover or fight back while the next a##hole who goes on a shooting spree has to stop to to reload