14 killed in mass shooting at Batman screening

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Consider this your warning: Personal attacks are not welcome in this thread, of all places. I've deleted a bunch of comments, infracted some, and won't hesitate to do it again or lock this thread.

And of course this shooting will be politicized. Guns are an inherently political thing. You can talk politics here, but please do it respectfully with a mind that people died here and the bodies are still warm. And at the same time, let's not all rush to feign outrage over others' political beliefs to score points -- none of you are running for office, and none of you are PR gurus. Give it a rest.

[Keystone Phil]

A thread about a massacre and you were just posting something "for fun?" But I'm supposedly the vermin. What a world...

Try not to take yourself too seriously pal, this is the internet and you're not a plastic news anchor or candidate for higher office.

...says the genius that said I don't talk about politics enough on here. Wow.

Kid, listen, you can't have it both ways. Like usual, you've been thoroughly owned. You're dismissed.

[Oakvale]

Stay classy gun control nuts.

This kind of sentiment is the kind of the thing that could easily go in the things that are f'd up about the US thread. In any other (supposedly) civilized country in the world a tragedy like this might actually lead people to reexamine their bizarre gun laws - or lack thereof. When a maniac massacred sixteen people in Dunblane in 1996, there was a near-unanimous consensus that the UK needed to tighten its gun control - and they did, with universal public support.

Only in America is the reaction to things like this a horrified panic at the very idea that there might have to be the slightest scrap of extra regulation on guns, because, lest we forget, it's a God-given right to allow lunatics to own the kind of tools that let them murder people with wild abandon.

I can't believe you have the gall to accuse people of "politicizing" this - as if this doesn't inherently have political ramifications and, more to the point, as if your very post wasn't a sleazy and political attack on those of us who think the sheer amount of violent firearms massacres in the United States might - just might - warrant a re-examination of the law.

The same goes for Sanchez and Sanders - spare us the phony outrage. Please. The idea that this incident can be shrugged off as "huh, it was just some nut, what you gonna do?" as if it's merely a sad but predictable and even acceptable event in a healthy society. This isn't normal.

[bgwah]

Stay classy gun control nuts.

This kind of sentiment is the kind of the thing that could easily go in the things that are f'd up about the US thread. In any other (supposedly) civilized country in the world a tragedy like this might actually lead people to reexamine their bizarre gun laws - or lack thereof. When a maniac massacred sixteen people in Dunblane in 1996, there was a near-unanimous consensus that the UK needed to tighten its gun control - and they did, with universal public support.

Only in America is the reaction to things like this a horrified panic at the very idea that there might have to be the slightest scrap of extra regulation on guns, because, lest we forget, it's a God-given right to allow lunatics to own the kind of tools that let them murder people with wild abandon.

I can't believe you have the gall to accuse people of "politicizing" this - as if this doesn't inherently have political ramifications and, more to the point, as if your very post wasn't a sleazy and political attack on those of us who think the sheer amount of violent firearms massacres in the United States might - just might - warrant a re-examination of the law.

The same goes for Sanchez and Sanders - spare us the phony outrage. Please. The idea that this incident can be shrugged off as "huh, it was just some nut, what you gonna do?" as if it's merely a sad but predictable and even acceptable event in a healthy society. This isn't normal.

Oakvale, many of them (not necessarily dead0) know that if we discuss these kinds of issues then we'll come to conclusions that they don't like. Their best defense is to stop the discussion from happening, period.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Does anyone know what the motive was here?

Some men just want to see the world burn.

I don't want to legitimize humor in this thread, but yes, this is probably the most appropriate quote possible, especially given the context it's in.

[opebo]

The shooter was James Eagan Holmes, 24, a graduate of UC, Riverside and a Ph D candidate at University of Colorado Medical.  Wow.

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

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Bless those whose lives were lost today and their families.

I understand Wiz's position on this, but I don't think that bringing up politics in a thread like this (especially immediately after the incident) is exactly the classiest thing to do...

If we only talked about gun policy when there wasn't some sort of gun tragedy no one would care. That's like saying we shouldn't have talked about the levies in New Orleans after Katrina, until sufficient grieving time had passed. No, we should talk about it now.

Besides, this is a political board. Clearly I am upset about the victims' pain and suffering, hence my desire to point out that politics is a way to deal with gun violence, and a good portion of this board and the country at large refuses to talk about it, behaving as if it's a settled issue and these deaths are just part of price of "freedom". If we want to avoid these tragedies in the future, we need to address a lot of underlying issues that aren't being otherwise discussed.

I don't see how the time of when an issue is discussed means people simply aren't going to care, and I never meant to say that this incident can't be used as an anecdote for why some gun laws are necessary, but today, emphasis should be on the victims whose lives were lost.  I do not oppose talking about gun control or getting to the underlying causes of these tragedies (in fact, I believe that certain gun regulations are necessary), but let's remember what this thread is about- the massacre, itself.  And today, I think most of the anger should be directed at the fiend who's responsible for this.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Stay classy gun control nuts.

This kind of sentiment is the kind of the thing that could easily go in the things that are f'd up about the US thread. In any other (supposedly) civilized country in the world a tragedy like this might actually lead people to reexamine their bizarre gun laws - or lack thereof. When a maniac massacred sixteen people in Dunblane in 1996, there was a near-unanimous consensus that the UK needed to tighten its gun control - and they did, with universal public support.

Only in America is the reaction to things like this a horrified panic at the very idea that there might have to be the slightest scrap of extra regulation on guns, because, lest we forget, it's a God-given right to allow lunatics to own the kind of tools that let them murder people with wild abandon.

I can't believe you have the gall to accuse people of "politicizing" this - as if this doesn't inherently have political ramifications and, more to the point, as if your very post wasn't a sleazy and political attack on those of us who think the sheer amount of violent firearms massacres in the United States might - just might - warrant a re-examination of the law.

The same goes for Sanchez and Sanders - spare us the phony outrage. Please. The idea that this incident can be shrugged off as "huh, it was just some nut, what you gonna do?" as if it's merely a sad but predictable and even acceptable event in a healthy society. This isn't normal.

Oakvale, many of them (not necessarily dead0) know that if we discuss these kinds of issues then we'll come to conclusions that they don't like. Their best defense is to stop the discussion from happening, period.

My issue is with the immediate "ITZ THE GUNZ PPLZ FAULT" response. We can debate this issue...tomorrow, or in the coming days. I look forward to hearing your responses on the issue. I look forward to the debate.

You know, I could have made the point that if someone else in the movie theater had a gun, maybe casualties would have been lower. Or, they could have been higher...I don't know, but I look forward to hearing your opinions on it. This forum is not only a place where I go to debate, it is also a place where I learn. My views have been changed here before.

It is too early to tell the motive. It is too early for Louie Gohmert to be making idiotic statements. It is too early for Alex Wagner to be demanding the repeal of the 2nd amendment. It is too early for Alex Jones to be calling this a "inside job".

You don't immediately throw blame around during an ongoing tragedy. You do in the aftermath. Just the other day, Iran was blamed for the barbaric boming in Bulgaria. But did they do it? Do we really know? Was it really Hezbollah? Or could it be an Al Qaida attack? Immediately the issue became Iran, and a hysteria about it almost started.

I think it is simply too early to be starting a major political debate that will dominate headlines in the coming weeks. My outrage is not "feigned".

[Holmes]

Casualties would have been higher had other attendees had guns with them. He set off a smoke bomb. Having two or more people firing guns in there would have been a lot more serious and dangerous than it already was.

[Beet]

Yeah, I'm angry at the shooter, of course. But the shooter knew what he was doing, and turned himself in voluntarily. The punishment doesn't phase him. Anger at him seems- impotent. Hence the search for other things that we could have done to prevent or at least mitigate this kind of thing, hence the turn to guns.

The fact of the matter is, the assault weapon (AR-15) the guy used would have been covered under the AWB of 2004. Whether, without this weapon, casualties would have almost certainly been less than the 40. The AR-15 is a very powerful weapon, the civilian equivalent of the M-16. It was by far the most powerful thing in his arsenal.

[John Dibble]

Yeah, I'm angry at the shooter, of course. But the shooter knew what he was doing, and turned himself in voluntarily. The punishment doesn't phase him. Anger at him seems- impotent. Hence the search for other things that we could have done to prevent or at least mitigate this kind of thing, hence the turn to guns.

The fact of the matter is, the assault weapon (AR-15) the guy used would have been covered under the AWB of 2004. Whether, without this weapon, casualties would have almost certainly been less than the 40. The AR-15 is a very powerful weapon, the civilian equivalent of the M-16. It was by far the most powerful thing in his arsenal.

Of course, if he didn't have access to that gun he may have just used his explosives as well or just found another powerful gun. It's hard to say how access to one particular weapon would affect what would occur.

This guy was 24 - I doubt whatever mental illnesses he's like to have started just this year. I think it would be better if our schools were better equipped to detect and deal with people who have mental illnesses so we can head this kind of thing off entirely.

[J. J.]

Yeah, I'm angry at the shooter, of course. But the shooter knew what he was doing, and turned himself in voluntarily. The punishment doesn't phase him. Anger at him seems- impotent. Hence the search for other things that we could have done to prevent or at least mitigate this kind of thing, hence the turn to guns.

The fact of the matter is, the assault weapon (AR-15) the guy used would have been covered under the AWB of 2004. Whether, without this weapon, casualties would have almost certainly been less than the 40. The AR-15 is a very powerful weapon, the civilian equivalent of the M-16. It was by far the most powerful thing in his arsenal.

He had some bombs at home.

He used tear gas, not a smoke grenade.

[Simfan34]

The shooter was James Eagan Holmes, 24, a graduate of UC, Riverside and a Ph D candidate at University of Colorado Medical.  Wow.

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

I'm not dead.

In most other countries, an event like this would force an introspective reevaluation of gun laws. In ours that introspection is denounced as insensitivity. It is unfortunate, and wait we should, but this is inherently a political issue.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[J. J.]

The shooter was James Eagan Holmes, 24, a graduate of UC, Riverside and a Ph D candidate at University of Colorado Medical.  Wow.

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

I never suggested it did, just that he seems to have been quite brilliant.  That would make him dangerous.

[Simfan34]

Good God, we've managed to inject antintellectualism in this debate.

[Dereich]

Does anyone know what the motive was here?

Some men just want to see the world burn.

This seems oddly prescient, as CNN is now reporting that the guy is describing himself to the police as "the Joker".

[Keystone Phil]

Does anyone know what the motive was here?

Some men just want to see the world burn.

This seems oddly prescient, as CNN is now reporting that the guy is describing himself to the police as "the Joker".

Of course. Look at his target and how he was perfectly calm when he was arrested. I thought he was trying to be a villain once I heard about this.

[J. J.]

Good God, we've managed to inject antintellectualism in this debate.

No, merely stating fact.  He is less likely to make mistakes, and that makes him more dangerous.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Yeah, I'm angry at the shooter, of course. But the shooter knew what he was doing, and turned himself in voluntarily. The punishment doesn't phase him. Anger at him seems- impotent. Hence the search for other things that we could have done to prevent or at least mitigate this kind of thing, hence the turn to guns.

The fact of the matter is, the assault weapon (AR-15) the guy used would have been covered under the AWB of 2004. Whether, without this weapon, casualties would have almost certainly been less than the 40. The AR-15 is a very powerful weapon, the civilian equivalent of the M-16. It was by far the most powerful thing in his arsenal.

     On the other hand, he could have gotten an analogous weapon with equal ease if the AWB still existed, because it didn't actually do anything of nontrivial effect. The AWB is probably the best evidence that gun control advocates don't actually know what they're doing.

[memphis]

Many people are shot in this country every day. This incident isn't even a drop in the bucket. Yes, it's very weird, random, and senseless, but people are acting like gun violence isn't an everyday fact of life in the United States. And I'm not saying that I have a solution either. Though I think we must consider what we can do as a matter of public policy to change this fact. I just don't understand why people who have no connection to the victims are so shocked. 

[milhouse24]

When I first watched Heath Ledger in Dark kNight, I thought it was the most violent and psychopathic movie ever.  Nolan tried to make the movie feel real.  In doing so, he made the killing of innocent civilians of Gotham in the movie realistic and plausible by an insane mad man Joker. 

In Dark Knight, the Joker kills innocent people in hospitals, on boats, in buildings, and just about everywhere.  Ledger was a great actor, but the Joker character was just disgustingly warped, like he had no ounce of humanity and was obsessed with killing as many innocent people as possible for no reason, other than to kill people. 

It was just a sickening movie, and I can easily see how a mentally unstable person can watch the film repeatedly and get a feeling that humans are the worthless bodies shown in the movie.  Its just a traumatic movie.  In seeing the previews for the 3rd batman movie, the callous death of football players in the stadium is just sickening.  I just get a really violent vibe from the films, and it glorifies mass murder. 

[All Along The Watchtower]

Many people are shot in this country every day. This incident isn't even a drop in the bucket. Yes, it's very weird, random, and senseless, but people are acting like gun violence isn't an everyday fact of life in the United States. And I'm not saying that I have a solution either. Though I think we must consider what we can do as a matter of public policy to change this fact. I just don't understand why people who have no connection to the victims are so shocked. 

Because it was a mass shooting in a public place, with many victims. How often are dozens of people shot in a movie theater-especially by someone they don't know?

[Holmes]

When I first watched Heath Ledger in Dark kNight, I thought it was the most violent and psychopathic movie ever.  Nolan tried to make the movie feel real.  In doing so, he made the killing of innocent civilians of Gotham in the movie realistic and plausible by an insane mad man Joker. 

In Dark Knight, the Joker kills innocent people in hospitals, on boats, in buildings, and just about everywhere.  Ledger was a great actor, but the Joker character was just disgustingly warped, like he had no ounce of humanity and was obsessed with killing as many innocent people as possible for no reason, other than to kill people. 

It was just a sickening movie, and I can easily see how a mentally unstable person can watch the film repeatedly and get a feeling that humans are the worthless bodies shown in the movie.  Its just a traumatic movie.  In seeing the previews for the 3rd batman movie, the callous death of football players in the stadium is just sickening.  I just get a really violent vibe from the films, and it glorifies mass murder. 

The villain isn't the one that's glorified, the hero who stops him is. Just because something happens in a movie, a television show, a book, or any other form of media, doesn't mean it's being glorified. Oy.

[milhouse24]

Not exactly the kind of news I want to hear about as someone who works at a theater.

Isn't it funny comparing Romney to a Murderer in your photo?  

Not.