12 killed, 59 hurt in shooting after The Dark Knight Rises premiere in Denver

[Don Vito Corleone]

Here is the raw footage from Holmes' court appearance today - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eeqvTh8vMFI

He looks very sleep-deprived and not to be taking this as seriously as one might expect, but he doesn't look completely crazy a la Jared Loughner.

 

[Phokus]

Are you really that stupid?

Obviously that weapon is legal for certain people to own. That video is in Louisiana where if you have the right licenses, you can own that weapon.

How do you think that guy in the Youtube got it, do you think he's breaking the law right there on Youtube by shooting it?

I was under the impression that it's very very difficult to get those full auto weapons. But anyway, you didn't answer the question.

 

[AMDZen]

No assault rifles were used in this incident.

Not to side with the anti-gun idiots, but do you even know an AR-15 is?

AR-15 is the same thing as an M4 (16" barrel) or M16 (20" barrel), AR-15 is the civilian model which comes as a semi-auto instead of full auto, and then all you need to do is google to get what you need to make it a full auto M4 or M16.

All of these are assault rifles.

 

[zinfamous]

Move to Mexico, then. Aren't gun laws more strict there? Maybe you'll feel safer.

Mexico has a highly corrupt and completely ineffective security/police force. There are bigger problems than just guns in Mexico.

 

[AMDZen]

I was under the impression that it's very very difficult to get those full auto weapons. But anyway, you didn't answer the question.

Your question doesn't make any sense. I don't make the laws in Louisiana and I couldn't care less what they do down there. They have the most loose gun restrictions of any state in the nation. Just watch Sons of Guns. Laws like that should be up to the state, as its not up to the Feds to govern accept by the constitution which is already in place.

That gun is illegal for a civilian to obtain in most places, including Colorado. However, do I think he would have done more damage with that then with the AR15? Possibly. But he could have obtained it illegally any way - regardless of ifs its legal for a civilian to own or not - they are here and available. He could have just as easily broken just one more law and obtained that gun if he wanted to.

I think he would have done the most damage if he didn't have access to guns at all and instead used his bomb making skills, which I already relayed upon several pages back.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Take him shooting, where? I expressed why it's a pain in the neck. Go outside in a field on a rainy day & tell me that it's not uncomfortable to have to put your gun on the ground to reload a magazine.

I probably wouldn't go shooting on a rainy day but even so, if I were to go shooting on a rainy day I don't see how reloading a 30 round magazine is any easier than reloading a 10 round magazine. You go through exactly the same motions, it just takes 3 times longer with the 30 round magazine.

So apparently you are talking about yourself since you were just talking about taking your kid shooting

I haven't accidentally shot and killed an innocent bystander while showing my gun to someone in church or shot up a theater, so, no I wasn't talking about myself. You will have to admit that these events don't bode well for people who promote private gun ownership though.

 

[AeroEngy]

No assault rifles were used in this incident.

Not to side with the anti-gun idiots, but do you even know an AR-15 is?

AR-15 is the same thing as an M4 (16" barrel) or M16 (20" barrel), AR-15 is the civilian model which comes as a semi-auto instead of full auto, and then all you need to do is google to get what you need to make it a full auto M4 or M16.

All of these are assault rifles.

Technically spidey07 is correct. The AR-15 is not an "assault rifle" as it does not have have selective fire capable of full-auto.However, I believe it does fall under the definition of "assault weapon" per the language in the now expired federal assault weapons ban. Subtle difference.

 

[William Gaatjes]

He is a crazy looking dude. He better get the death penalty. Bans will stop crazy people!
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...mes-holmes-appear-court-monday-111006043.html

If you look at this picture, it almost as if the guy is realizing for a moment about what he has done. Either he will feel a lot of remorse and end up committing suicide. Or he will loose it completely.
Speculating of course..

 

[vi edit]

Here is the raw footage from Holmes' court appearance today - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eeqvTh8vMFI

He looks very sleep-deprived and not to be taking this as seriously as one might expect, but he doesn't look completely crazy a la Jared Loughner.

Definitely looks like he just got drug out of bed after a terrible bender and having no clue of what he did the the night before.

His eyes when the judge talks about being charged with first degree bug out like "Oh F...yeah that's serious".

 

[spidey07]

Not to side with the anti-gun idiots, but do you even know an AR-15 is?

AR-15 is the same thing as an M4 (16" barrel) or M16 (20" barrel), AR-15 is the civilian model which comes as a semi-auto instead of full auto, and then all you need to do is google to get what you need to make it a full auto M4 or M16.

All of these are assault rifles.

Yes, I own many of them.

None of them are selective fire (automatic or 3 round burst), that is a requirement to be an "assault rifle". The AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle.

It's just a nit picky thing that folks (including media) call anything black and has detachable magazine an "assualt rifle".

Modifying it to full auto is also HIGHLY illegal, as in mandatory min federal crime 10 years illegal. I haven't read anything to indicate his AR-15 was modified to selective fire.

 

[lxskllr]

If you look at this picture, it almost as if the guy is realizing for a moment about what he has done. Either he will feel a lot of remorse and end up committing suicide. Or he will loose it completely.
Speculating of course..

I don't know what to read from that picture. I'm very interested in hearing his motivations though.

 

[AMDZen]

I haven't accidentally shot and killed an innocent bystander while showing my gun to someone in church or shot up a theater, so, no I wasn't talking about myself. You will have to admit that these events don't bode well for people who promote private gun ownership though.

You and I make up the LARGE majority of gun owners. People who haven't killed any innocents or go off like a crazy person a la James Holmes. So what point are you trying to make exactly by saying that gun owners are their own worst enemy? Basically you just admitted that this makes no sense as 99.9999% of gun owners are sensible people just like non-gun owners.

And of course, every time something like this happens all the anti-gun idiots show themselves. It certainly isn't the first time, and it certainly won't be the last time. Doesn't mean anything will happen.

As I also relayed several pages back, any seriously aggressive gun legislation in this country will only cause more problems, even up to and including another civil war.

 

[vi edit]

Question for Don Vito...

What happens if a defendent does the "silent treatment" through the entire legal process? Basically says nothing, gives no motive, gives no answers, not even as much as a nod?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Technically spidey07 is correct. The AR-15 is not an "assault rifle" as it does not have have selective fire capable of full-auto.However, I believe it does fall under the definition of "assault weapon" per the language in the now expired federal assault weapons ban. Subtle difference.

You can go through a full 30 round magazine in a matter of seconds even firing semi-auto only. The difference is pretty minor.

 

[JulesMaximus]

You and I make up the LARGE majority of gun owners. People who haven't killed any innocents or go off like a crazy person a la James Holmes. So what point are you trying to make exactly by saying that gun owners are their own worst enemy? Basically you just admitted that this makes no sense as 99.9999% of gun owners are sensible people just like non-gun owners.

And of course, every time something like this happens all the anti-gun idiots show themselves. It certainly isn't the first time, and it certainly won't be the last time. Doesn't mean anything will happen.

As I also relayed several pages back, any seriously aggressive gun legislation in this country will only cause more problems, even up to and including another civil war.

Nothing will happen. The gun lobby has politicians so scared to go up against them that they won't challenge. Obama sure as hell isn't going to do anything. He's on the verge of losing his job as it is and there is no way Romney will do anything.

Personally, I don't care if they ban "assault weapons." I'm certainly not going to join in a "civil war" type uprising over them.

 

[jlee]

Nothing will happen. The gun lobby has politicians so scared to go up against them that they won't challenge. Obama sure as hell isn't going to do anything. He's on the verge of losing his job as it is and there is no way Romney will do anything.

Personally, I don't care if they ban "assault weapons." I'm certainly not going to join in a "civil war" type uprising over them.

They already did, for ten years. IIRC there was no change in crime.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Question for Don Vito...

What happens if a defendent does the "silent treatment" through the entire legal process? Basically says nothing, gives no motive, gives no answers, not even as much as a nod?

I've never run into such a thing. It seems to me that for the most part the judge would have fairly broad leeway in dealing with it, like any other sort of disruptive behavior by a defendant.

If he won't even talk to his defense attorney, the attorney would have to file a motion to have him psychologically evaluated to determine whether he is competent to assist in his own defense. I have had to do this twice (not because my client wouldn't talk to me but because he or she seemed crazy or too depressed to make rational decisions), and in both instances my client was found incompetent.

In terms of routine day-to-day interaction with the court, the defendant can be found in contempt if he refuses to participate in the process by not answering questions about routine matters, such as whether he wishes to be represented by the public defender, and essentially held until he agrees to cooperate.

Obviously he can't be compelled to actually testify at trial, and in fact I would not expect he will, unless (like the guy in Norway) he has some wacky agenda he wants to air publicly.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

They already did, for ten years. IIRC there was no change in crime.

There was in fact a steady decline in violent crime during this time, though I don't think the AWB had anything to do with it.

 

[AMDZen]

Technically spidey07 is correct. The AR-15 is not an "assault rifle" as it does not have have selective fire capable of full-auto.However, I believe it does fall under the definition of "assault weapon" per the language in the now expired federal assault weapons ban. Subtle difference.

I guess I just assumed he had since ... why wouldn't you make it full auto? Its very little work.

You can go through a full 30 round magazine in a matter of seconds even firing semi-auto only. The difference is pretty minor.

Since it would be a lot less accurate on auto. It actually might have been better if he had made it auto. On single fire or burst, you would have a lot more accuracy and be able to take a lot more shots that do damage. You could make the argument that in this case, the semi might have done more damage.

 

[OverVolt]

What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve?

Nothing, because its very similar. The same as any other semi-auto rifle

Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes.

No, this is purely a function of magazine size. 100 round magazines tend to jam anyway, and as a matter of fact his AR-15 supposedly jammed, he didn't use it.

Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes.

It fires the same as any other gun with the same barrel length that fires 5.56x45mm. Would you rather everyone have shorter and easier to conceal barrels? All modern rifled barrels are more accurate than the person firing it.

Does it accommodate a more lethal payload?

Just depends on the magazine size. The AR-15 is obviously not technically superior than any other rifle, his jammed

So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

Its function is the same as any other rifle, it just looks like a military rifle. This isn't battlefield 3 or call of duty. The AR-15 didn't make him walk faster or decrease his reload time, its just a semi-auto rifle.

So really what you are saying is ban all semi-auto rifles & regular capacity magazines. Banning magazines is fairly moot, even if it were a 5 round magazine, the most time consuming part is loading the rounds into the magazine and swapping them takes ~2seconds, he could have just bought more magazines. Banning semi-auto rifles is fairly moot there is nothing special about them over any other firearm.

 

[jlee]

There was in fact a steady decline in violent crime during this time, though I don't think the AWB had anything to do with it.

Rephrase- change in relevant crimes involving banned weapons.

 

[AeroEngy]

You can go through a full 30 round magazine in a matter of seconds even firing semi-auto only. The difference is pretty minor.

I completely agree. I was only speaking to the definition of the "assault rifle" vs "assault weapon".

The Auto or 3-round burst setting on real assault rifles like the M4 have limited value except possibly in close range combat. They lack the accuracy to be very effective under most circumstances. I was taught not to use the 3-round burst setting because it was a waste of ammo. However, I was in field artillery and not infantry so perhaps training methods vary.

 

[OverVolt]

Since it would be a lot less accurate on auto. It actually might have been better if he had made it auto. On single fire or burst, you would have a lot more accuracy and be able to take a lot more shots that do damage. You could make the argument that in this case, the semi might have done more damage.

This isn't call of duty jesus. None of this matters, he could have fired in bursts or he could have sprayed around everywhere like a crazy person, it depends on the person not the weapon.

 

[AeroEngy]

I guess I just assumed he had since ... why wouldn't you make it full auto? Its very little work.
......
Since it would be a lot less accurate on auto. It actually might have been better if he had made it auto. On single fire or burst, you would have a lot more accuracy and be able to take a lot more shots that do damage. You could make the argument that in this case, the semi might have done more damage.

You seemed to answer your own question.

If he was smart he probably did not modified it to full auto because it is much less accurate ... and prone to jamming.

 

[zinfamous]

Modifying it to full auto is also HIGHLY illegal, as in mandatory min federal crime 10 years illegal. I haven't read anything to indicate his AR-15 was modified to selective fire.

serious question for staunch gun rights advocates: Is this type of regulation outright offensive to you? Can it actually even be argued as a "consumer rights" issue, meaning that you purchased it, it's your property, it's your right to do what you want? (thinking Sony and their removing Linux from the PS3 as ~comparison). That seems to me to be a strong Libertarian type of argument.

Or, does everyone tend to recognize that with weapons, there is not only a double-standard when it comes to defining your property, but there is also an acceptable level of regulation that everyone agrees is necessary?