These tragedies don't really spur changes in laws. And certainly not in the current political climate.

1. Twitter RULED Friday the 20th. Absolutely ruled.

2. It's better described as an atrocity than a tragedy. The weapons didn't walk in an kill people, like an earthquake or a tornado. A human being did it, however morally incapable he may have been. See this wispy exchange between Balko and Cosh.

Alos keep in mind Loughner's familly pulled strings to prevent a number of arrestes which a few of which would have lead to his being unable to purchase weapons

Do you suppose that, during the height of his Fatwa fear, Salman Rushdie paid other men to defend him with guns?... Or did the world-famous novelist ask the guards to 'use their words,' as would a schoolmarm to quarrelsome children?

And when exactly did he decide to immigrate to this horribly violent nation?

One thing that irritates me is the automatic assumption that the aberrant person is associated with the right.

They were blaming Limbaugh's rants within minutes of the twitter posts.

Chart

Lots of comments about gun control after yesterday. But nobody is mentioning the legality of his explosives in his booby-trapped abode.

Dude has to be seriously messed in the head to do to what he did. Did nobody see the writing on the wall?

It's really easy to blame an object. That way, you don't have to take responsibility for anything.

I've given this subject much thought and come to the conclusion that no one should have a gun except me.

The debate, or rather knee-jerks on both sides, have been around for a while. As I often point out, the City of Rome had anti=weapon laws: even professional bodygusrds were allowed at most clubs - which did a guy named Caesar a whole lot of good.

It makes one wonder how an unemployable guy was able to BUY all this stuff. I had to splurge for a box of rounds for my antique Enfield. Like Oswald, was he working alone? I doubt it. I'd put money on this being (another) mind control project by our secrecy establishment.

Coming soon to your local theatre-- TSA Checkpoints.

Jim P.

One thing that irritates me is the automatic assumption that the aberrant person is associated with the right.

OK City. It saved Clinton's bacon, and believe me, the press took notice.

They've been trying - hard - to find the same narrative since. (DC Shooters, Zimmerman, etc.)

Michael Crichton explains why that works:

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.

But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

http://seekerblog.com/2006/01/31/the-murray-gell-mann-amnesia-effect/

Having been a gun owner since the 70s, I'm well familiar with it, and decently immunized. Most others aren't, sadly.

Also see Public Education, and the replacement of "Critical Pedagogy" in the place of "Critical Thinking" and....

TSA checkpoints wouldn't have prevented this, since James Holmes kicked in the emergency exit door. But then again, lack of effectiveness hasn't discouraged TSA to date, so, I don't see why they should be bothered by that fact now.

Come to think of it, TSA checkpoints will most likely be showing up in movie theatres now.

Dude has to be seriously messed in the head to do to what he did.

Just because it doesn't make sense to you or I doesn't mean it is insanity.

The ultimate in nihilism is to burn the entire world to the ground. This may have been this guy's version of lighting the match.

Sadly, on the radio I heard interviews of people and a lot were saying things like theaters should have metal detectors and stuff.

I had not heard that he kicked an emergency exit door...most those are pretty strong so that kind of surprises me.

I guess it depends upon the emergency exit door. I've seen a few flimsy looking ones in my time, which leads me to believe that all it requires is no outside doorknob and you're an emergency exit door.

I've also heard that he "opened" it. Whether that means he did something fancy with a credit card, I don't know.

But I don't imagine the fire alarm going off was any consideration.

Here's a webpage with tons and tons of pics of the events surrounding the incident.

http://photos.denverpost.com/mediacenter/2012/07/photos-shooting-at-aurora-theater/39867/#30

According to the account I read, he bought a ticket, then left through the exit door, propping it open for his return.

For anyone who might favor a "ban":

Keep in mind that bans are only for certain people. Vote for a ban, vote for your own disarmament.

And then watch as those who are not affected by the ban go on their merry way.

The genie is out of the bottle. There is a simple citation to illustrate the folly of supposing weapons can be eliminated...

it's the following trade or service mark:

Pietro Beretta and Sons - est. 1591

Radwaste:

I'm stealing that. Brilliant.

...So the theory here is that if fewer people were armed, this could have been prevented.

OK, lets think about that for a moment.

Lets imagine that instead of a theater in modern day America, this was instead a Saloon in 1880s anywhere America.

Man walks in with a few pistols intending a mass shooting spree. He draws...fires his first random rounds...

What do we imagine happening next?

A. He empties all of his rounds and kills a dozen people.
OR
B. He gets off his first round or three...and then is promptly riddled with bullet holes from the 50 patrons carrying weapons of their own.

See this is the fundamental problem with trying to restrict weapon access, if a person does not care about the consequences of shooting random moviegoers, why the fuck will any law prevent them or deter them from getting a weapon illegally in the first damn place?

The very nature of a criminal is that he does not really mind committing crimes or worry about consequences in any way except how to avoid them while still committing the crime.