Shooting At Aurora, Colorado Movie Theater (2 Viewers)

[Rayderr]

You didn't read the earlier discussions on this subject. If those people have been diagnosed by a psychologists as a threat to society, then yes, they should not be allowed to buy guns. Does that mean they can't buy one later after dealing with there issues and being cleared by a psychologists? No.

Except that at gun shows in many states, the sales of arms can be accomplished without ANY background check whatsoever. IMO, one of the more sensible gun control laws would be to eliminate this glaring loophole; yet every time it is proposed the NRA and it's supporters fight it to the death and behave like it is the first step of a slippery slope in which all guns are seized by a dictatorship government. It is maddening that these people are so paranoid; there seems to be no reasoning with them.

You've been told this is a myth. Every law that applies outside gun shows applies inside the doors. Stop it.

Per Wikiresently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Six states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.[16][17]

That's all well and good, but don't be using this incident as a reason to require background checks at gun shows.

 

[Dvorak]

You didn't read the earlier discussions on this subject. If those people have been diagnosed by a psychologists as a threat to society, then yes, they should not be allowed to buy guns. Does that mean they can't buy one later after dealing with there issues and being cleared by a psychologists? No.

Except that at gun shows in many states, the sales of arms can be accomplished without ANY background check whatsoever. IMO, one of the more sensible gun control laws would be to eliminate this glaring loophole; yet every time it is proposed the NRA and it's supporters fight it to the death and behave like it is the first step of a slippery slope in which all guns are seized by a dictatorship government. It is maddening that these people are so paranoid; there seems to be no reasoning with them.

You've been told this is a myth. Every law that applies outside gun shows applies inside the doors. Stop it.

Per Wikiresently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Six states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.[16][17]

Quoting the "Brady Campaign to Grab all the Guns" is not proof of anything. Every law that applies outside gun shows applies inside the doors, period. There is nothing magic about gunshows and firearms laws.

If you want to require background checks on all private, intrastate gun sales--state it as such. Otherwise, you are just spouting propaganda.

 

[timschochet]

You didn't read the earlier discussions on this subject. If those people have been diagnosed by a psychologists as a threat to society, then yes, they should not be allowed to buy guns. Does that mean they can't buy one later after dealing with there issues and being cleared by a psychologists? No.

Except that at gun shows in many states, the sales of arms can be accomplished without ANY background check whatsoever. IMO, one of the more sensible gun control laws would be to eliminate this glaring loophole; yet every time it is proposed the NRA and it's supporters fight it to the death and behave like it is the first step of a slippery slope in which all guns are seized by a dictatorship government. It is maddening that these people are so paranoid; there seems to be no reasoning with them.

You've been told this is a myth. Every law that applies outside gun shows applies inside the doors. Stop it.

Per Wikiresently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Six states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.[16][17]

Quoting the "Brady Campaign to Grab all the Guns" is not proof of anything. Every law that applies outside gun shows applies inside the doors, period. There is nothing magic about gunshows and firearms laws.

If you want to require background checks on all private, intrastate gun sales--state it as such. Otherwise, you are just spouting propaganda.

Why do you keep repeating this? It's simply not true. If you go to a gun store in several of these states, a background check is required. If you go to a gun show and purchase the gun from a private party, a background check is NOT required. That is the definition of a loophole.Also, your calling it the "Brady Campaign to Grab all the Guns" suggests that you have fully bought into the NRA paranoia. What does closing this loophole have to do with "grabbing all the guns"? Nothing. I think it is reasonable to have a universal background check for all ALL gun sales in this country. I have yet to hear a convincing argument otherwise.

 

[timschochet]

You didn't read the earlier discussions on this subject. If those people have been diagnosed by a psychologists as a threat to society, then yes, they should not be allowed to buy guns. Does that mean they can't buy one later after dealing with there issues and being cleared by a psychologists? No.

Except that at gun shows in many states, the sales of arms can be accomplished without ANY background check whatsoever. IMO, one of the more sensible gun control laws would be to eliminate this glaring loophole; yet every time it is proposed the NRA and it's supporters fight it to the death and behave like it is the first step of a slippery slope in which all guns are seized by a dictatorship government. It is maddening that these people are so paranoid; there seems to be no reasoning with them.

You've been told this is a myth. Every law that applies outside gun shows applies inside the doors. Stop it.

Per Wikiresently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Six states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.[16][17]

That's all well and good, but don't be using this incident as a reason to require background checks at gun shows.

I brought it up because it's been proposed here that certain mentally ill people should be prohibited from buying guns. If we're going to go that route, then we need to be sure to close all loopholes.

 

[Rayderr]

You didn't read the earlier discussions on this subject. If those people have been diagnosed by a psychologists as a threat to society, then yes, they should not be allowed to buy guns. Does that mean they can't buy one later after dealing with there issues and being cleared by a psychologists? No.

Except that at gun shows in many states, the sales of arms can be accomplished without ANY background check whatsoever. IMO, one of the more sensible gun control laws would be to eliminate this glaring loophole; yet every time it is proposed the NRA and it's supporters fight it to the death and behave like it is the first step of a slippery slope in which all guns are seized by a dictatorship government. It is maddening that these people are so paranoid; there seems to be no reasoning with them.

You've been told this is a myth. Every law that applies outside gun shows applies inside the doors. Stop it.

Per Wikiresently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Six states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.[16][17]

That's all well and good, but don't be using this incident as a reason to require background checks at gun shows.

I brought it up because it's been proposed here that certain mentally ill people should be prohibited from buying guns. If we're going to go that route, then we need to be sure to close all loopholes.

Well, we need to worry about that first loophole first.

 

[Dvorak]

You didn't read the earlier discussions on this subject. If those people have been diagnosed by a psychologists as a threat to society, then yes, they should not be allowed to buy guns. Does that mean they can't buy one later after dealing with there issues and being cleared by a psychologists? No.

Except that at gun shows in many states, the sales of arms can be accomplished without ANY background check whatsoever. IMO, one of the more sensible gun control laws would be to eliminate this glaring loophole; yet every time it is proposed the NRA and it's supporters fight it to the death and behave like it is the first step of a slippery slope in which all guns are seized by a dictatorship government. It is maddening that these people are so paranoid; there seems to be no reasoning with them.

You've been told this is a myth. Every law that applies outside gun shows applies inside the doors. Stop it.

Per Wikiresently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Six states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.[16][17]

Quoting the "Brady Campaign to Grab all the Guns" is not proof of anything. Every law that applies outside gun shows applies inside the doors, period. There is nothing magic about gunshows and firearms laws.

If you want to require background checks on all private, intrastate gun sales--state it as such. Otherwise, you are just spouting propaganda.

Why do you keep repeating this? It's simply not true. If you go to a gun store in several of these states, a background check is required. If you go to a gun show and purchase the gun from a private party, a background check is NOT required. That is the definition of a loophole.Also, your calling it the "Brady Campaign to Grab all the Guns" suggests that you have fully bought into the NRA paranoia. What does closing this loophole have to do with "grabbing all the guns"? Nothing. I think it is reasonable to have a universal background check for all ALL gun sales in this country. I have yet to hear a convincing argument otherwise.

Have you ever bought a gun? From a gun show? Both FFL & private sales? I speak from my own knowledge of the law and first hand experiences in all of these types of transactions. I don't need an ambiguous "gun friend" that I refer to on the Internet to score points.If I sell a gun to another same-state resident in my kitchen, a background check is not required. So, what difference does it make where the sale takes place?

You want to require background checks for all private sales? Fine, you are entitled to that stance. Just say so. Don't use Brady propaganda like "People can buy guns from Gun Shows without background checks! Loophole! Loophole! Loophole!" that is a half-truth and meant to influence the ignorant masses. It's dishonest.

Also, I don't see how that is going to be possible without banning private sales outright, so I am lead to believe that is exactly the desired outcome.

 

[timschochet]

Have you ever bought a gun? From a gun show? Both FFL & private sales? I speak from my own knowledge of the law and first hand experiences in all of these types of transactions. I don't need an ambiguous "gun friend" that I refer to on the Internet to score points.

If I sell a gun to another same-state resident in my kitchen, a background check is not required. So, what difference does it make where the sale takes place?

You want to require background checks for all private sales? Fine, you are entitled to that stance. Just say so. Don't use Brady propaganda like "People can buy guns from Gun Shows without background checks! Loophole! Loophole! Loophole!" that is a half-truth and meant to influence the ignorant masses. It's dishonest.

Also, I don't see how that is going to be possible without banning private sales outright, so I am lead to believe that is exactly the desired outcome.

Please don't give me this "Have you ever bought a gun" stuff. I'm quite sure you give your opinion on a whole lot of things you don't do yourself. Or perhaps you refrain from criticizing NFL quarterbacks because you're not one? The reason that gun shows are brought up is because according to statistics, that's when the private transfers of sales take place which could concern public safety. Obviously, I am less concerned with you giving one of your weapons to a brother-in-law than I am with some nutcase going to a gunshow and not having to submit to a background check. However, in order to make it more difficult for that nutcase, I may have to put you through a few hours of inconvenience. That I am willing to do in the interest of public safety.

Finally, regarding the bolded, why not? Let's say you did want to give or sell your gun to your brother-in-law. So you get on the internet or call a hotline which links to a national database and the sale is recorded. Your brother-in-law provides his drivers license or social security or date of birth or whatever and he is checked out. One of you pays a $20 fee. Why is this so difficult? Why is it impossible? Seems pretty simple.

Now, will there be some corruption as a result? Somebody lying to the database? Of course. But it still should provide a deterrent. And we'll have an easier time of catching the bad guys this way. I really don't see why we shouldn't try it.

 

[Dvorak]

You went from a simple background checks to a national firearm database and a transfer fee.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Paul Bremer]

Nurse Who “Saw Everything” At Hospital After Suspicious Batman Shooting Found Dead at 46

 

[Rayderr]

Nurse Who “Saw Everything” At Hospital After Suspicious Batman Shooting Found Dead at 46

The mass-shooting, which left 12 dead and 58 more injured at a midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises at Century theater, is widely suspected to have been a black operation (akin to Columbine or the Sikh Temple shooting)

wat?

 

[Eephus]

Nurse Who “Saw Everything” At Hospital After Suspicious Batman Shooting Found Dead at 46

The mass-shooting, which left 12 dead and 58 more injured at a midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises at Century theater, is widely suspected to have been a black operation (akin to Columbine or the Sikh Temple shooting)

wat?

 

[JZilla]

This is the same stuff Dave Mustaine reads. I don't know Paul Bremer but he seems to have popped up lately just for this topic. I was just thinking what we need around here is another nutty right winger who's only capable of posting links to fringe websites.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

This is the same stuff Dave Mustaine reads. I don't know Paul Bremer but he seems to have popped up lately just for this topic. I was just thinking what we need around here is another nutty right winger who's only capable of posting links to fringe websites.

I'm not sure why he's using an alias to post this in multiple threads.

 

[JZilla]

This is the same stuff Dave Mustaine reads. I don't know Paul Bremer but he seems to have popped up lately just for this topic. I was just thinking what we need around here is another nutty right winger who's only capable of posting links to fringe websites.

I'm not sure why he's using an alias to post this in multiple threads.

Oh, so it is Dave? HI DAVE

 

[Rayderr]

This is the same stuff Dave Mustaine reads. I don't know Paul Bremer but he seems to have popped up lately just for this topic. I was just thinking what we need around here is another nutty right winger who's only capable of posting links to fringe websites.

Given the real life Paul Bremer's involvement in the Iraq war, I'd say this one is a leftie.

 

[Raider Nation]

DENVER (AP) — Colorado theater shooting suspect James Holmes will be restrained during his trial by wearing a harness under his clothes that will be anchored to the floor, the judge said Thursday.Judge Carlos A. Samour Jr. also ruled the jury will not be sequestered during the trial, which is scheduled to start in February and is expected to take four months.

Holmes is accused of killing 12 people and injuring 70 others at a movie theater in the Denver suburb of Aurora in July.

He has worn heavy shackles on his wrists and ankles during pretrial hearings. His lawyers wanted him to be unshackled during the trial, saying the restraints would make him look guilty to the jury.

Samour said Holmes has to be restrained because he is charged with violent crimes. He said jurors won't see the harness, and the anchoring cable will blend in with computer cables at the defense table.

The judge ruled earlier that Holmes can wear civilian clothing at his trial.

Holmes pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to multiple charges of murder and attempted murder. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/expert-holmes-jury-pool-among-largest-ever-us

 

[SacramentoBob]

Two and a half years later, they're finally choosing a jury.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/20/jury-selection-to-begin-in-colorado-theater-shooting-trial/

 

[Mad Cow]

I have seen on Facebook that they are casting a pretty wide net for those jurors. My wife has a friend that got called, and that person had like 4 responses from their friends saying they all got summoned.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I have seen on Facebook that they are casting a pretty wide net for those jurors. My wife has a friend that got called, and that person had like 4 responses from their friends saying they all got summoned.

3x the size of the jury pool for the Boston Marathon bomber. Not sure why they are making this such a big show.

 

[Rayderr]

I have seen on Facebook that they are casting a pretty wide net for those jurors. My wife has a friend that got called, and that person had like 4 responses from their friends saying they all got summoned.

3x the size of the jury pool for the Boston Marathon bomber. Not sure why they are making this such a big show.

"Knock knock"

"Who's there?"

"James Holmes"

"James Holmes who?"

"Congratulations, you're on the jury."

 

[Fennis]

This turd lost his rights.

update?

 

[TheAristocrat]

Two and a half years later, they're finally choosing a jury.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/20/jury-selection-to-begin-in-colorado-theater-shooting-trial/

I don't know if you saw but we legalized recreational marijuana out here a year ago. Things take a little bit longer now.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I have seen on Facebook that they are casting a pretty wide net for those jurors. My wife has a friend that got called, and that person had like 4 responses from their friends saying they all got summoned.

3x the size of the jury pool for the Boston Marathon bomber. Not sure why they are making this such a big show.

"Knock knock"

"Who's there?"

"James Holmes"

"James Holmes who?"

"Congratulations, you're on the jury."

 

[Mad Cow]

I have seen on Facebook that they are casting a pretty wide net for those jurors. My wife has a friend that got called, and that person had like 4 responses from their friends saying they all got summoned.

3x the size of the jury pool for the Boston Marathon bomber. Not sure why they are making this such a big show.

"Knock knock"

"Who's there?"

"James Holmes"

"James Holmes who?"

"Congratulations, you're on the jury."

 

[QuizGuy66]

F that guy. I wish the media would stop showing his stupid picture.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Do we really need a trial here?

 

[Juxtatarot]

A 9,000 person jury pool? That's a ridiculous waste of time and taxpayer money.

 

[Kev4029]

F that guy. I wish the media would stop showing his stupid picture.

Except for this one.

 

[Mile High]

Guilty on all counts so far.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A 9,000 person jury pool? That's a ridiculous waste of time and taxpayer money.

I was just amazed to learn (if true) that the jury foreman was a Columbine survivor. ..... Who went to the prom with a victim of Columbine. --- ?

If that's true, the fact that they combed through a 9000 person pool to get to that is just incredible.

 

[Leviathan]

Guilty on all counts so far.

Goodbye, terrorist.

 

[Mile High]

Jury gives him life. No death penalty.

 

[Courtjester]

If you can't get death for this, you might as well just not even make it an option ever. :(

 

[Fennis]

If you can't get death for this, you might as well just not even make it an option ever. :(

I wonder if the jury reached some sort of compromise. They won't find him insane, but wont give him the death penalty.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What The Hell

 

[Hang 10]

Yeah this is stupid.

 

[Mile High]

In the long run it saves years of appeals. As the grandfather of one of the victims said in a interview "Maybe it will be taken care of in prison".

 

[GECKO]

Disgusting, what a weak jury.

But it most likely with be "taken care of" if he doesn't do it himself.

Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding

 

[QuizGuy66]

Eff this guy - may he be spoken of no more.

 

[rail]

Typical Denver jury.

 

[jamny]

I'm not even going to try and get in the heads of the jury. Makes no sense to me.

 

[Willie Neslon]

He's schizophrenic. That can happen to anyone. I don't understand how he wasn't found insane to begin with. They have him on so many anti-psychotic drugs he's completely devoid of any emotion. His crime was horrible but I don't understand why killing him would be appropriate. The guys that killed the doctor's family in Connecticut, now those are the kind of people who need to be executed.

 

[jamny]

He's schizophrenic. That can happen to anyone. I don't understand how he wasn't found insane to begin with. They have him on so many anti-psychotic drugs he's completely devoid of any emotion. His crime was horrible but I don't understand why killing him would be appropriate. The guys that killed the doctor's family in Connecticut, now those are the kind of people who need to be executed.

He should die to.

We need a discussion in this country about kids, mental health and prescription drugs.

 

[fasteddie_21]

According to one of the jurors, there was a single staunch anti-death penalty juror. 2 others on the fence.

Disgusting that this ####er gets to live. And to think, we almost went that night....

 

[cstu]

Disgusting, what a weak jury.

But it most likely with be "taken care of" if he doesn't do it himself.

Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding

He would never have killed all those people if he knew he was getting the death penalty.

 

[GilbertGrape]

Disgusting, what a weak jury.

But it most likely with be "taken care of" if he doesn't do it himself.

Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding

He would never have killed all those people if he knew he was getting the death penalty.

I'm guessing that's sarcasm.

 

[Daywalker]

What type of lockdown will he be in?

If I was a family member I'd prefer he be in a box 23 hours a day for the next 50-60 years. If that is the case.

If he's playing cards and fantasy football. Not so much.

 

[Willie Neslon]

What type of lockdown will he be in?

If I was a family member I'd prefer he be in a box 23 hours a day for the next 50-60 years. If that is the case.

If he's playing cards and fantasy football. Not so much.

He'll be playing schizophrenia.

 

[eoMMan]

What type of lockdown will he be in?

If I was a family member I'd prefer he be in a box 23 hours a day for the next 50-60 years. If that is the case.

If he's playing cards and fantasy football. Not so much.

He'll be playing schizophrenia.

Nah, he's going to turn to his lawyer in the next few weeks and start laughing like Ed Norton did to Richard Gere in that movie.

 

[Rayderr]

He's schizophrenic. That can happen to anyone. I don't understand how he wasn't found insane to begin with. They have him on so many anti-psychotic drugs he's completely devoid of any emotion. His crime was horrible but I don't understand why killing him would be appropriate. The guys that killed the doctor's family in Connecticut, now those are the kind of people who need to be executed.

Believe in colorado, not guilty by reason of insanity means that the person at the time of the crime could not distinguish between right and wrong. I don't really see how you can make the argument that he didn't know seeing as he planned out his attack, and the intended deaths of even more with the bombs of his apartment.