Someone didn't like the new Batman movie

Some information on the shooter is already available. Amazing how fast the internet works at tracking information.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/colorado-shooting-james-holmes_n_1688996.html

And then retracted it. What's your point?

My point is apparent in the post.

I've never known a PhD that was quite "right in the head".

Maybe we should ban PhDs?

Another gem from Twitter: https://twitter.com/celebboutique/status/226369632154570752

Nice. Don't ever change, America!

Killer had an AR-15, two Glocks and a shotgun, to go with tear gas, body armor and a gas mask; plus an apartment full of explosives.

And he's walking down the street like this (or at least across a parking lot), and nobody notices?

Only in America. Or maybe Afghanistan or Chechnya or Somali...

As far as motives go, I don't think we'll get a rational one.

Would it be accurate to say that someone withdrawing from a doctoral program of this nature would be financially ruined, since you can't bankrupt student loans?

It was a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises with a bunch of geeks dressed up as Batman. Of course nobody noticed.

Oh, man. I'm guessing that would not have been the fun part of your job.

Of course. Why isn't Gunforge worried that "they" will start outlawing cosplay now?

Remember the ad campaign for the last Batman movie, with Joker "grafitti" on theater walls and cakes with bomb-looking wires sticking out mailed to teevee and radio stations? Coworkers here (one of whom is from Denver and has a brother who's a journalist there) say that some survivors have said they initially thought the attack was "part of the show".

Looks like the killer has the same name as someone in the CO Tea Party. Dumb mistake, but one of those things that happens in an up-to-the-second news cycle where you're up against blogs and Twitter to break scoops.

Unfortunately, I don't possess the means to communicate with ghosts.

The only problem they keep doing that this isn't the first time someone in the Media has tried to blame the Tea Party for a shooting..they did it with the Gifford shooting and there's the Hood shooting which really pissed them off when the shooter turn out to be Muslim,one talking head even said she wished the guy was white.

Had this happened here in The South, half the people interviewed would say "I thought someone was shooting off firecrackers" because that's what I imagine someone would be doing in a movie theater.

Much like they ignore the oncoming tornado because "it sounded like a train" except all the nearby tracks were torn up during the Civil War.

Not read the whole thread because, well, couldn't be bothered. Not going to jump on the lefty bandwagon, but this is yet another incident of a nutcase easily buying guns and going crazy. This does not happen in the rest of the world to the degree that it happens America. Surely, therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that those who see no need for any regulation at all, and fall back on the constitution, are in denial that there is a American centric problem?

I am not suggesting that the US removes the constitutional right, but why is it a crime to regulate that right with checks and balances, namely to try and reduce these incidents of nutters going wild (and no, I am not saying that regulation will cure the problem entirely)?

Stricter regulation would not have accomplished anything in this case. The shooter was of sound mind as far as anybody could tell.

Good, because you would be completely off your rocker to suggest it.
This is AMERICA. We will find ways around every regulation - that's what we do.

The last centurian!

I do salute you sir!

That's illogical bullshit, because every law is a regulation, and that means the constitution itself is a regulation.

So, in essense, you should be against the constitution and be in favour of a completely rule free utopia, no?

I'm not advocating regulation per se, rather throwing the question out there.

If the United States has a problem with these incidents well above all other western countries, surely that at least suggests a debate is worth having?

You'd think so, given that it seems like we're having mass shootings about once every couple of months.

But anyone who even tries to start that debate gets drowned out by the accusations that they're a gun-grabber.

Doesn't make sense to me. I mean, preaching "no guns" is one thing, but why is a debate a scary thing?

Sure, raise the question, but don't expect it to go anywhere.

1. America has 200 million guns already here.

2. We share over 7k miles of border with two third world shitholes, not to mention another 12k of coastline. Very easy for more to come in.

You can't attack the supply side, all you can do is lower the demand (harsher penalties for gun crimes, decrease the criminal class as whole, etc).

There have always been guns in America and there always will be. Criminals have them if they want them and always will. The only question is how hard is it for the Law Abiding Citizen to acquire one?


...

So a buddy posted this on my wall last night, and I was going to start a thread on it today but there are enough gun threads already so it'll go here:

http://gizmodo.com/5927379/the-secret-online-weapons-store-thatll-sell-anyone-anything

Yeah, overpriced as hell, but DAMN!

Not what I meant at all. If the average common sane sensible citizen (that would be me in this case, and everyone in my circle of family and peers) thinks something is a straight-up bullshit law, they will try to circumvent it. Generally anything that cuts into traditional freedoms while providing no tangible positive result is a bullshit law. I don't expect you to understand - it's not in your wiring.