From Twitchy.com:
James Holmes has no known criminal record and previously lived in San Diego, CBS News reported. Oates said his only previous run-in with the law in Aurora was a traffic ticket for speeding.
He was a student at the University of Colorado in Denver until last month, said school spokeswoman Jacque Montgomery. She said he enrolled in the program in June 2011 and was in the process of withdrawing.
Montgomery said Holmes was studying neuroscience in a Ph.D. program at the university’s graduate school.
Is there a common sense way to make it harder for mentally unstable people to acquire weapons? Is it possible to at least reduce the amount of gun violence in our country? I'd like to know what you think.
I'll be monitoring comments closely. Stay on topic. Just answer the questions I've posed, or respond to Bob Schieffer's editoral commentary in the video below.
Thanks for posting this Dave. By now I would guess you have probably read Jason Alexander's "tweet" regarding guns. While I am sure many will dismiss his opinion as that of a lefty from Hollyweird, I thought he laid out some pretty rational thoughts about guns specifically designed to kill lots of people, and a plea for a more rational discussion from both sides. If you hadn't seen it - you can read it here. Worth the time http://www.salon.com/2012/07/22/jason_alexanders_amazing_gun_rant/
ReplyDelete--DS
From my facebook wall:
ReplyDeleteAlex Hicks:
I'd say ban guns that aren't for deer or pheasant hunting. (Thursday at 6:45pm)
Karl Oberjohn:
Having an open, honest discussion about the problem of gun violence is a simple but necessary first step toward finding a solution. I'm highly dismayed that after shooting tragedies such as Virginia Tech and now Colorado, the NRA aims to subvert the conversation by issuing statements saying, "This is not the time to have a discussion about gun control." On the contrary, this is the most appropriate time to have that discussion. And just because there isn't a perfect solution doesn't mean that we shouldn't bother to make an effort to improve the situation. (Thursday at 7:35pm)
Karl Oberjohn:
I support the Second Amendment and see it as a vital component of a citizen's right to defend him/herself. But Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky poses a fair challenge: "There is no legitimate reason for anyone to be able to buy military-grade weapons and high-capacity magazines capable of firing hundreds of rounds within minutes." The AR-15 rifle used by the Colorado gunman would have been illegal under the 1994 federal assualt weapons ban, which Congress allowed to expire in 2004. (Thursday at 7:55pm)
Nate Caouette:
I interpret the statement "now is not the time to have a discussion about gun control" as this: "now is not the time for president obama to use gun control discussions to deflect the negative light off of him and onto conservatives for a political gain in an election year." I tend to agree it is a necessary topic of conversation, but one among many. There is a need for prioritizing these topics. One out of how many people will purchase guns and weapons to carry out a mass murder? (a person like that will find ways to terrorize unsuspecting civilians with or without assault weapons) should the priority be that more people will die at the hands of mass murderers than will suffer as the US economy's worth crumbles into dust? How much more crime will there be when nobody has any money or opportunity for success? poverty invokes criminal behavior. If you dont prioritize correctly, you might have a problem with violence severalfold... (Friday at 10:27am)
More from my facebook wall:
ReplyDeleteKarl Oberjohn:
Bear with me for a minute. If one of your loved ones was shot in that theater, would you want to talk about how to solve the problem of gun violence, or how to fix the economy? And would you want to talk about it right now, or wait until after the election? Would you say that this isn't one of our country's top priorities, because mass shootings don't happen that often? Would you say that we shouldn't bother to reform our current policies, because there will always be somebody who finds a way to beat the system? (Friday, 8:00pm)
Anthony Elliot:
Karl, I like your take that "just because there isn't a perfect solution doesn't mean that we shouldn't bother to make an effor to improve the situation." Unfortunately in the state our political discussions are in, compromise isn't likely because the middle ground or rational discussion leading to compromise pleases only a few people (those wanting rational discussion and compromise and we aren't the squeakiest wheels and you can't count on us to vote for one party line or the other). Limiting gun access irritates the pro-gun crowd and less than a full ban isn't enough for the no-gun crowd. We have checks prior to purchasing a gun but none to keep the guns and you can buy all kinds of military type accessories once you've gone off the deep end with no checks at all. If you need a background check to by an AR15 why don't you need a background check to buy a high capacity magazine for one,or 1000 rounds for one, or verify with the authorities that the person has a registered AR15 for the extrra magazine. There is a growing list of carnage caused by the inability of our 2 party system to negotiate to any rational or useful result for the citizens of this country. (Friday, 8:00pm)
Nate Caouette:
The world doesnt stop turning every time a tragedy happens. Things gotta keep moving. Im sure i would feel a little more sensitive if it happened to someone close to me, but thats ok. Theres going to be people where this affects them deeply and they make it their mission to try to put an end to it. For other people, the economy has to continue to roll and its their mission to see that through. I'm not saying lets not look at gun control. I'm saying lets get organized and make time for that. I dont think its a good idea to stop the world's operations for every tragedy.
(Friday, 8:00pm)
A lot of discussion around gun control is built upon false premises; the key one being "if gun control were desirable, it would be achievable".
ReplyDeleteIgnoring the huge amounts of weapons already in the United States, being manufactured by the United States or flowing over the borders you can also make your own - the lower receiver is the only controlled part and there are now maker recipes for 3D printers that will create functional lower receivers.
So let's calibrate our expectations. Wait periods for purchase (if these weren't horribly broken) make sense; you don't want someone getting upset, purchasing a gun, and taking it out on someone.
But individuals who are determined to do harm and are willing to plan attacks? Good luck, I know of nothing except quality investigatory work that would protect against that...laws certainly won't.