As the day has progressed, additional details about the tragic violence in Aurora have slowly come to light. Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates held a press briefing midday; here's the video.
Note, a total of 71 people were shot, 12 of whom were killed. James Eagan Holmes, the alleged shooter, was quickly taken into custody this morning, though he apparently made no effort to flee the police, and told local law enforcement about his booby-trapped apartment.
Local official said there appeared to be "very sophisticated" explosives or flammable materials in his residence, including numerous bottles containing an unknown liquid, and it may be days before the scene is fully dealt with. Police aren't yet close to even entering the apartment.
Holmes, a graduate student from San Diego with a degree in neuroscience, did not appear to have any accomplices. "We are confident he acted alone," Oates told reporters.
The gunman carried four weapons -- two 40-caliber Glock handguns, a Remington 870 single-barrel pump shotgun, and a Smith & Wesson AR-15 assault-style rifle -- all of which were reportedly purchased legally in May from local Gander Mountain Guns and Bass Pro Shop stores.
President Obama, meanwhile, issued a proclamation ordering flags to fly at half-staff until sunset, July 25.
Leave a Comment:
And already, the cries of "an armed populace would have stopped this!" begin. An amateur, in a darkened theater, suffering from tear gas, firing through a panicking crowd? We'd have even more people injured and dead. Claiming that more guns will solve these tragedies is like saying the way to cure lung cancer is to smoke more.
One individual bought all that fire power in a very short time frame and didn't set off one alarm. I'm a supporter of our right to bear arms, but does this make sense to anyone?
I recall the witness at Giffords shooting who had a gun, and was going to shoot -- the guy who was wrestling the gun out of Loughner's hands. He realized just in time.
Well...don't you see? If everybody in the theater had a semi automatic, then they can all draw their weapon and "take care of the problem". What can go wrong with 100 people starting to shot in panic inside a dark movie theater? Just like what can go wrong with legalizing bringing loaded arm guns to a bar?
So instead of over 70 injuries and 12 death, we'll have news that goes...."Everybody died!" Problem solve. What a wonderful movie, just like watching The Departed, don't you think? (Sigh!)
Bastard, at least they would stand chance instead of no chance at all.
Yes, a greater chance of killing more people. In an ambush situation, against a prepared attacker, the "extra chance" is minimal, and the extra danger to others much higher.
@Cindy: Really? Carrying a gun give you a better chance than not carrying one?
Just talking about this tragedy, THE ONLY person wearing a bullet proof vest and a mask in the whole theater is the gunman. Do you really think that give the rest of the people in there a chance even if they carry 10 guns?
Between the confusion, the adrenalin rush, the tear gas and everything else, it doesn't even matter if you are carrying a semi automatic weapon, only the gunman has the upper hand as he will be the only one come prepared. By the time anybody have time to react the damage would have been done.
If anything shooting back at the gunman (especially one that come this prepared) will just get yourself killed or you might even kill more innocent people as if everybody start drawing their guns, you wouldn't even know who the real gunman is.
Again.......SIGH!
Of course. In this particular situation, would you rather be just a sitting duck or give yourself at least a chance to survive.
Typical selfish attitude; "@!$%# everyone else, I've got a gun and I'm going to blindly fire in a reassuring manner at whomever I think is a threat." You know what the best chance to survive would be? Preventing the @!$%# from accessing high-firepower weapons in the first place. That way, EVERYONE lives.
Laws preventing access to high-powered weapons won't make any difference. The asian kid from the Virginia tech massacre only used P22 Walther pistol and he killed 32, wounded 25. What we need is a stand your ground law all over the country.
In this particular case, the gunman was fully armored.
JJFFMM, you are absolutely correct. The armed citizen in the Tucson shooting, instead of pulling his gun and blasting away at the guy holding a gun, had the good sense to refrain. He slammed the person holding the gun into the wall, then it was pointed out that the shooter had been disarmed and was on the ground wrestling with those that had disarmed him. The armed citizen later said he also had concerns about being taken for a second shooter.
The others who expressed the objection to "common wisdom" that says an armed crowd would have stopped the tragedy in Aurora are also correct. The shooter in this case was wearing body armor, including leggings! All added firepower in that scene would have accomplished is more people dead. The 'common wisdom' argument may be common, but it is utterly devoid of any wisdom. Until we disassociate guns with penis size, things will only get worse!
My God, what has happened to us here in the US? The most awful things are said in the media, both by pundits and by private individuals, and no one blinks an eye! Why are we not outraged by this? Where did all the hate come from?
Stand Your Ground all over, so that racists like Zimmerman can commit murder over and over again legally? Cindy, you are a complete tool.
Another tragedy shooting in America. Where is Congress when it comes to ending more senseless gun violence? A federal gun law crafted to ban the weapons of madmen is long overdue.
"Weapons of madmen?"
Which weapons are those specifically? Guns don't hand you a psych questionnaire before the trigger works and blanket bans on weapons tend to be arbitrary.
It is extremely hard to enforce a Federal law when the state laws are so inadequate. I live in Arizona where folks on welfare and no proof of income can purchase 100K in guns, walk out to the parking lot and sell them to whomever they wish. State prosecutors will not try the cases because that is LEGAL in Arizona.
So, once again, the folks on welfare are villains? Perfect, goodness knows they don't get enough crap thrown at them as it is.
And just how does someone on welfare purchase 100K worth of guns?
And just how does someone on welfare purchase 100K worth of guns?
As a straw buyer for those for whom it's illegal to buy guns, or who would be under scrutiny for doing so.
And, again, the folks on welfare are villains. Not like they have enough crap to deal with already, might as well demonize and scapegoat them too.
Indeed, how exactly does someone on welfare buy such weapons? Ignorant!
Misha, you are being naive. A straw purchaser will get the cash from someone who can't legally buy the guns. Then the straw purchaser hands the guns over to the person who gave him the cash. This is exactly what was going on in Arizona that the ATF was trying to stop. Unfortunately, prosecutors demanded more evidence.
But, by all means, let's rush to affirm our Second Amendment rights by running out & purchasing more assault weapons.
50 bucks says the NRA is already planning a major event in Denver.
One of the things that motivates disturbed individuals to go on killing sprees is the idea that they will be famous or they will be able to get their 'message' out - that by creating terrible headlines, they will be remembered - that by creating horror, they matter - that by upping the body count, they can inspire others.
They should never get that reward. We should mourn the tragic loss of life, but the villains that perpetrate these crimes should never be mentioned by name, nor should we ever see a picture of them.
They should be faceless and nameless forever.
What you have said here Gary is the same thing Marilyn Manson wrote in an article back in 1999. He said the media giving out the name and picture of the shooter turns them into celebrities. We need to make them faceless and nameless forever.
On that same note, the police said that the gunman acted "alone." What about the gun stores who didn't raise a red flag with all those purchases? What about friends, family, mentors: a Ph.D. candidate would have direct contact with professors who would have seen behavior difficulties. The trouble is, as the first article says, we are all to dissociated with each other to notice when something is going wrong.
But also, the police took a lot of care about the apartment, but immediately, without psychological evaluation of any kind, came to the conclusion that he "acted alone." Without an investigation. If they had done a very thorough investigation (for a number of days at least) and then concluded that he acted alone, I would tend to believe it, a bit. It's like the Oklahoma Federal building bomber, Timothy McVeigh, who "acted alone" even though he was part of a right-wing organization; but that lead was never followed. Those kinds of leads are important, and I wish that a small-town police department were not given the authority to make a call like "acted alone" until some major forensics, including psychological, could be done.
Oh God, here comes the gun-debate!
Seriously? Shoulders have already been shrugged on this. And all the brilliant minds and penetrating insight have determined nothing can be done. There will be no debate. None.
That's the problem - the NRA wants no sane discussion. Given that repeal the 2nd!
I agree with Main Street Gary. Taking away this persons agenda is the best punishment available. If people stopped glorifying these actions via the media, you would see less of this thing happening. As far as gun control goes, I believe repsonsible gun ownership is just fine. The Federal laws are extremely hard to enforce when state laws are always impeding prosecution, so do not go pointing the finger at the Feds, they cannot do there job if the state laws won't let them. I live in Arizona where someone with no evidence of income can by upwards of 100K in guns and not have to explain how they got the money for them.
Nice to know that the economy is strong and consumers are buying things, isn't it?
Sure is a relief to find out this lunatic acted alone, huh? That a lone gun kook can kill 13 people and counting and wound over 70 without even breaking a sweat due to America's desire to not disallow any lunatic go unarmed. Whew, ..., such a relief. Just think if he'd had friends.
I don't suppose the NRA would even consider the idea that it is time for the grownups to have an intelligent conversation regarding firearms, would it?
No they would not consider. Since they are insane nuts just repeal the 2nd!
!
The real question is how much longer are we as a country going to stand by and allow the gun manufacturers to profit of the deaths of our children. No one dares to talk about the fact that some one made money of the sale of these weapons to this lunatic therefore profiting from the deaths of these people. Ugly but true! The NRA is only as powerful as we allow them to be and the truth is we as citizens have an attitude of "those poor people". How many more children have to die before we take action? Columbine, Va Tech, Giffords, no action. Now Aurora, will we act ? My guess is probably not. There will be a lot of "WORDs" from prominent politicians but no real action because we as citizens have not said ENOUGH!
The second amendment is an anachronism. It was written when there were no police departments and there was a need for militias. The second amendment needs to be rewritten.
The whole Constitution has loopholes. "Society" is the victim of any crime; an actual victim is legally only a "witness." There are now 50 states, and each of these has 2 Senators and at least 3 Electors in the Electoral College, but the ten smallest states have less population than one average state. And if you want a "militia" to overthrow oppressive government, that militia had better have drones, tanks, missiles... it just wouldn't work, so it is ridiculous. I'm not against hunting, but guns can and should be regulated. (By the way, the lack of representation in government is the reason why so many people feel it is repressive, but mostly it is those small states with excess representation in the Senate and Electoral College that get all the Federal pork that complain the most.)
I'm dismayed that gun control always comes up when this sort of thing happens. There's no law -- either restricting guns or making them more plentiful -- that can stop a killer like James Eagan Holmes.
You don't think that if hadn't been denied an opportunity to buy an assault rifle at his local Gander Mountain wouldn't have reduced the carnage? Or if he had been limited to one purchase, not four, that this would have slowed him down?
Let's just say the "shooter" had been denied access to the AR-15. Judging from the "very sophisticated" explosives in his apartment, we know what his alternative would have been. I don't agree with the sale of assault style weapons, but let's face facts. No gun control law of any kind would have stopped this. Murder is illegal and carries the death penalty, but that didn't slow him down.
In America there are so many people with guns and the right wants less restrictions so the American people can "protect" themselves. But with lack restrictions and encouraged gun ownership, it is dangerous to live in the US. With stand your ground laws people are taking the law into their hands. In Germany however, most people do not own guns and the restrictions are very strict. And you know what? There is WAY less violence here. People aren't afraid. I can't help but see a connection.
Restrictions aren't really strict in Germany. They require licenses, have carry permits, allow hunters to carry without a license, etc. My brother lived there for years and only saw it as a minor irritation, but not 'restrictive'
Actually, Susan, no, the violent crime rate in Germany is NOT higher than that in the US:
US statistics from Associated Press:
Okay, let's do the math: Murders per 1.000.000 inhabitants in the US: 56,3. And in Germany: 9,7. That means the murder rate is nearly six times higher in the US than in Germany.
I think that by "here" she meant Germany. At least, that was how I read it.
Martin, your statistics are wrong....according to the FBI Crime report, the murder rate in the U.S. for 2010 was 4.8 per 100,000. Further, there were 16,740 murders in 2005 and 14,748 in 2010. I don't know where you got your data, but civil, logical debates can't be held when data is distorted to make a point.
Please don't even bring up the rhetoric on gun control. Even though he had a Glock and an AR, he also had a shotgun. I'll tell you, with three shotguns, he could have easily killed 12 people and injured 58 more in a tightly enclosed theater. Those guns didn't kill anybody, a madman did. A 24 year old man, who hasn't been in trouble with the law, graduated from one college and attending another, studying neuroscience, would have easily passed ANY qualification to buy a firearm. I'm a Democrat, and quite liberal, but own 16 firearms....2 shotguns, 7 rifles, and 7 handguns. Its not uncommon where I'm from. My arms have never killed anybody. If someone in that theater would have been carrying, they may have been able to stop him. You too many times look in the wrong direction for solutions to problems that really don't exist.
So true ... I mean just remember back to all those heartbreaking stories of massacres carried out with knives or baseball bats ... oh, wait.
Guns don't kill people .. what a fu king load of horse@!$%#. Excuse my rudeness but I'm UP TO HERE with this bull. No where else in the civilized world does this kind of thing happen on a regular basis. Because the rest of us have gun control and we're bloody happy that we do every time we hear about these tragedies in the US. Then we spend weeks shaking our heads in disbelief when people like you defend having an armed citizenry as if it's the only thing keeping you from anarchy. Guess what? You're already there. If having an armed citizenry keeps everyone "safe" then why are more Americans murdered every year by a gun than in virtually every other 1st world nation ... combined??
By definition, if you own that many guns, you are probably not a liberal. And I hate to say this, but guns kill people in mass, not people. Take the guns away like in every country of the world and the number of gun deaths will plummet.
And then you want people in the theater to have guns.
16 firearms -- sounds like you are overcompensating for some deficiency
I'm just saying, my 16 firearms have killed NO ONE, and unless you come into my home, won't. This was a horrible event, for each and every person involved, their families, their neighbors...... My first cousin, rest her soul, was slain with a concrete block, by a thug that wanted to rob her. If someone wants to kill, it matters not if they strap on dynamite, pour the theater full of gasoline and sets it off, blow it up with fertilizer, or whatever, they will still do it. It will still happen, no matter what laws are in place. Its been a crime to kill forever, and people still do it. Give me a break.
"16 firearms -- sounds like you are overcompensating for some deficiency."
OR-He could be a collector who buys firearms for the history they represent, like I do, or maybe he hunts various types of game, really its none of my business what he does, the key is he isn't hurting anyone, so why should he be punished, or have his beliefs questioned for not being a pure enough ideologue? As someone who teaches History and participates in living history programs, I likewise own a fair number of guns. That does not mean I automatically agree with violent right-wing nut jobs or that I agree with the NRA's "wild west" ideas about gun control.
We need to have a sensible, responsible conversation in this country about gun control, on that I agree ( I personally don't think anyone should be allowed to have an Ar-15 or AK-47 but cops and the military). What I do not agree with is the notion that we should use tragedies like what happened in Colorado as an excuse to penalize the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners in this country. Doing so would be just as much an assault on our traditional liberties as what the right are trying to do to take away women's reproductive rights or disenfranchise minority voters to skew the election their way.
It should be noted (others have previously stated part of this) that there are ways to help solve this problem without punishing law abiding citizens, just look at Germany or Finland, where gun ownership is as high, if not higher amongst citizens than it is here in the U.S, yet the murder rate is much lower. We should look at what is being done in these countries to try to find, effective, practical , and fair solutions to the problem of gun violence, not punish law abiding citizens. They tried it in the U.K, all its done is change the way violent crimes are committed, with no measurable effect on reducing overall crime.
Isn't it nice that consumers are buying stuff making gun manufacturers rich... or isn't that something we should be discussing right about now.
Thanks Robert... 16 firearms is actually a fairly low number, for folks here in West Virginia. We are a people that relish the bounties of nature. I hunt, my wife hunts, all three of my daughters like to shoot, I have two grandsons, etc. If my wife and I decide to hunt grouse, it takes two shot guns. I hunt deer in various types of terrain, where in some areas, a 30-30 is appropriate because of brush, but other areas where long shots are common and use a 25-06. If my wife dicides to hunt with me, as my daughters sometimes do, it requires additional rifles. None of those are for personal protection. I own 7 handguns, two of them are collectors, one for hunting, one stays in the nightstand, one I purchased to help out a friend, one stays in my truck, and one I carry. (yes, I have a concealed-carry license). Being a paramedic for 30 years, I have seen my share of crime, gun related and not....with the most memorable being a double murder of a mother and her 9 year old daughter.....WITH A KNIFE. Even though I have been around guns all my life (my father had a strong belief in guns, too), I'll be damned if my family is going to fall to the blade of a knife if I'm around. We live in a rural area and wouldn't have the luxury of having police officers 90 seconds away, like Aurora, more like 25-30 minutes. A lot can happen in that time. I'll take care of mine.
How dare the so-called "expert" on the run down drag star trek fans into this. Never have this person on this again. You need to get rid of Clint Van Zandt.
Why in the world was he allowed to buy an ASSAULT RIFLE? Just madness! This IS why we need stronger gun-control laws.
why would you be allowed to?
The NRA has blood on their hands. Repeal the 2nd.
I cannot say people should not have guns but i firmly believe there shoulb be background checks before anyone can buy them
I agree in general, but it likely wouldn't helped in this particular instance. By what is known so far, he'd have passed easily.
Even if you are in fully favor of the second ammendment, the idea that any individual can LEGALLY purchase an ASSAULT, repeat an ASSAULT RIFLE for private use is just insane! The fact he can obtain the ammunition to use in an ASSAULT RIFLE is equally INSANE! There is no reason for anyone to own an assult rifle since it's only purpose is to KILL and many people as possible in the shortest amount of time! The Founding Fathers had single shot muzzle loaders to consider when they crafted the second ammendment so ... ban every firearm that is not a single shot muzzle loader. Problem solved!
According to the FBI crime statistics, 352 out of 13,756 total 'murders' were committed with a rifle (all types of rifles) Are rifles the root of the problem? Out of those same stats, 1,828 with knives/cutting instruments, 623 by 'blunt objects' including rocks, hammers, and baseball bats, and 815 by hands/fist, feet, pushing. Seems more obvious to outlaw knives, baseball bats, and hands....than to jump on rifles. Just making a point.
You don't go out and BUY a rock just to kill someone, someone with a knife is not going to walk into a theater to assault 70+ and MURDERING 12, you buy an ASSAULT rifle for the express purpose of KILLING as many people as possible. BAN THEM and the AMMO! ASSAULT rifles are not intended for self and home defense, THEY ARE BUILT FOR ONE PURPOSE, TO KILL with MAXIMUM firerpower! How many more innocent people have to die needlessly, so you can keep your moronic right to buy and carry KILLING MACHINES! The same old tired NRA BullS*** doesn't work anymore!
I love it when the NRA pulls out statistics. Doesn't it make you love friendly organizations?
I'm not a member of the NRA. I just hate the hysteria. However, you are right....to the extent that guns are killing machines. Thats why I have mine....equalizers. We would be lucky to have a police officer in 25-30 minutes. The way I see it....if YOU believe that police and military should be the only ones able to have, what you call, assault rifles....then, if I live in an area without police or military protection, then, should I not be allowed to have whatever I would need to protect my family? Have any of you people ever been off the highway? There is a real world out there past the fence on the interstate.
How is that gun control working in Chicago? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/us/in-chicago-neighborhood-of-englewood-violence-hard-to-shake.html?pagewanted=all
So here is the problem with all of the talk about an armed populous would have stopped this... The alleged idiot that did this was dressed in ballistic armor from head to toe, all the way down to ballistic gloves. There is no way anyone in that crowd, most of which were teens, could hoped to have brought this man down. As many others have said the only thing that more people in that room having guns would have accomplished is a longer fatality list...
Double tap....one in chest, one in face.....done.....1.2 seconds
In a darkened theatre full of screaming people... who the hell do you think was watching the movie? Chuck Norris?
I had a friend who was a fifth-degree black belt... very good when practicing. But walking into the office he would read the newspaper without watching where he was going. Nobody is "on" all the time; people in a theater are there to watch a movie, and by the time there is a haze of tear gas, they wouldn't be able to see even if they were sharp shooters. Tear gas is called that because it makes the eyes tear; it isn't just a cloud, but makes the eyes close.
Gun control is working just fine in almost every major "civilized" country in the world. Gun control in the U.S. is a joke. Any fool can go to Arizona and by 50 AK47's at a gun show and take them to Chicago. Gun cntrol has to be nation-wide to begin being effective and it will never happen as long Democrats cower in fear of the NRA (aka Gun Industry Marketing and Lobbying Group).
It will never work because the gun industry makes money, and most people worship the almighty dollar, to he!! with the children.
Anybody seen "Shooter242?" Everybody does realize that name isn't about basketball, right?
All I know is ....if I'm ever in a crowd and some crazy guy starts shooting I want something to fill my hand with other than popcorn. But that's just me. The bad guys will ALWAYS have them....just just a fact. Expecting someone else to defend you will lead to your death in this situation....unless you're lucky. However, I don't want to go around packing all the time either. It's all tragic.
So basically , if you were there , you would have pulled your divine weapon , killed him , put your feet up and watched the movie , problem solved ?
I hear a similar arguement to what you said in every one of these situations , and yet , where are all you gun carrying heroes who talk like you are John Wayne when these things happen ? Nowhere , or face down on the ground .... Its pathetic , people who use guns are pathetic , cowards.
If you had been in that theater and drawn your gun , more people would be dead from you firing blind. Its not a fricken movie , you are not a supercop , its real life.
Tear gas makes the eyes swell and close; you wouldn't have been able to see the gunman in daylight. And if you didn't have tear gas in your eyes, and it was daylight, and you were sure who was shooting, then you would have had to be a sharp shooter and aim at his head, because the rest was covered in armor. And people might have thought you were an accomplice and killed you too.
There are lucky instances where a person is stopped during one of these tragedies, but usually it is somebody who jumps them from behind and knocks them to the ground.
This is only part of a larger problem: that violence is everywhere in our society. In video games, on TV, in movies, in songs. It is time to get violence out of our mindset. I wish I knew how; perhaps the industries can voluntarily reduce or eliminate violence in their products. I lived in the UK, which has gun control and no violence on TV.
Except that Japan is chock full of violent movies and video games... with a violent crime rate comparable to the UK.
Japan has a more structured society. We don't. But don't think that Japan stays calm forever; the Fukushima story isn't over yet, and when Japan explodes, it tends to be rather spectacular, which is why people there go out of their way to avoid conflict. They remember World War II; we don't.
As another article said, people here don't even go to their kids' P.T.A. meetings, or town meetings, or even entertainment, except movies.
In history, there was a time when people started reading horror novels and seeing horror plays, and soon afterwards there was a very turbulent time; I hope history isn't repeating itself.
Rach, while deplorable and unimaginably tragic, let's not let the debate on this get out-of-hand. Context is always the voice of reason. I'm a Democrat, and I carry concealed. Knowing I have that responsibility actually makes me more courteous, aware, and safe. There are a lot of ways to kill a lot of people at one time. Let's be prudent and remember the loss of life prevented by personal weapons. Above all, we need at least a reasonable background check, class, and fingerprinting for all weapons purchasers, not just Concealed Carry License holders. When I lived in Texas the CCL program actually worked. So many citizens carried that the typical bad guy had less than a 50/50 chance of accosting one. -Cheers
This is INCREDIBLE. Just because the police were allegedly Johnny-on-the-spot (one minute?) does not mean they got the right guy and make a credible report. Colorado welfare departments have long harbored and dispersed money to illegal claims made by Mormons in Utah; thousands. This could still be a political move created by Rush Limbaugh and friends.
I agree that the police are far too quick to say "lone gunman."
A thorough Federal investigation is needed, not a quickie cover-up.
In this day and age, this is reality.
I agree with Ron Reagan Jr. It's time to have adult conversations about keeping guns from hands of psychopaths, but how?
I am not generally anti-gun, but I am tired of having people say if only there were more people with guns. The guy was wearing armor in this case, so moot point.
Also tired of seeing photos of and learning about the shooter.