12 killed, 50 wounded at Aurora movie theater

[K-II]

I think they said it was an AR15, which is technically an assault rifle, but the version he bought as a civilian probably wasn't capable of automatic fire (without modification).

 

[Ansciess]

I don't believe the shooter had an assault rifle.

AURORA, Colo. (AP) — The semiautomatic assault rifle used by the gunman in a mass shooting at a midnight showing of the latest Batman movie jammed during the attack, a federal law enforcement official told The Associated Press, which forced the shooter to switch to another gun with less fire power.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to in order to discuss the investigation, said the disabled weapon had a high-capacity ammunition magazine. Police have said that a 100-round drum magazine was recovered at the scene and that such a device would be able to fire 50 to 60 rounds a minute.

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-source-assault-rifle-jammed-colo-attack-121634899.html

 

[das_nut]

AR-15 is civilian version of the m-16, and is a semi-automatic. The confusion stems from the fact that "AR-15" was the development name of the M-16. But it was only ever sold as a semi-automatic under the "AR-15" name.

Supposedly, you can convert some guns into full-automatic mode. It's not as easy as swapping out the parts with the M-16, since the ATF got a tad paranoid when the AR-15 went on sale, and the dimensions of the parts are different. If one was going to make the conversion, bear in mind that any time a member of law-enforcement hears about it, you're going to go to federal prison. It's a felony, and since law-enforcement really doesn't like to be outgunned, you are facing up to a decade in prison and a massive fine. Unless you are registered to own such a weapon, in which case I believe (but look this up first before doing it) that the kit costs about as much as a good, pretty new used car ($10k - $15k).

Considering the clips available to the public, a full-automatic AR-15 may be more bark than bite - you'll run out of ammo too quickly. Although in this case it may have raised the death count. Speaking of which, this is supposedly an intelligent (PhD student) who planned this attack. He has proven himself (allegedly) of being willing to make bombs. If he decided to make a few bombs for the theater, I suspect the death toll would be higher. Especially if he set a few bombs to go off once the rescue workers arrived. (This is a well-known terrorist trick used in such places as Iraq in order to maximize casualties.)

I think this guy was crazy. His target was clearly non-political in nature, which puts him outside the realm of a psychopathic but sane killer (such as the unibomber). Odds are he's about as crazy as Jared Lee Loughner, but smarter. If he didn't have access to guns, odds are he'd have killed many people through some other means.

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-source-assault-rifle-jammed-colo-attack-121634899.html

I know this is a logical cop-out, but I don't really trust the media when it comes to identifying types of weapons. The media often gets it wrong.

According to Wikipedia: "He then fired a 12-gauge Remington Model 870 shotgun, first at the ceiling and then at the audience. He also fired a Smith & Wesson M&P15[11] semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which jammed.[11][12] He then used a .40 S&W Glock handgun.[13][14] A second Glock handgun was found in the suspect's car.[15] First he shot to the back of the room, and then toward people in the aisles.[8] Some bullets passed through the wall and hit people in the neighboring Theater 8, which was screening the same film."

That doesn't state he used a weapon capable of full-automatic fire, and hence could not be an assault rifle.

By the way, are 100-round magazines legal? Not sure about that. (ETA: I found one company that will not ship 100rd magazines to Colorado due to what they claim are conflicts with state or local laws. According to this a 100rd magazine is definitely not legal in Colorado.)

 

[Ansciess]

If he didn't have access to guns, odds are he'd have killed many people through some other means.

Well that's speculation, because he didn't. He chose an assault rifle (that's what the AP is currently reporting, so I'll go with that for now) because that's what he had available. Let's try some more gun control and see if there's suddenly a flurry of bombings. In countries that have put in more restrictive gun control laws, like Australia after the Port Arthur massacre, I don't think that there's been a huge increase in bombings.

 

[das_nut]

Well that's speculation, because he didn't. He chose an assault rifle (that's what the AP is currently reporting, so I'll go with that for now)

This article reports his "semi-automatic assault rifle jammed". Which seems to indicate that it was not an assault-rifle, but a semi-automatic rifle that may have fallen under the assault weapons ban.

 

[Ansciess]

This article reports his "semi-automatic assault rifle jammed". Which seems to indicate that it was not an assault-rifle, but a semi-automatic rifle that may have fallen under the assault weapons ban.

Holmes bought the other Glock on 22 May from Gander Mountain's Aurora store and the AR-15 on 7 June from its Thornton outlet, law enforcement officials told the AP. But the company refused to say if they had sold Holmes any guns, despite acknowledging that the store did have that information.

A statement read: "Gander Mountain fully cooperates with law enforcement in criminal investigations like the one regarding the tragic events in Colorado. We operate in strict compliance with all local, state and federal laws regarding firearms ownership and are fully cooperating with this on-going investigation."...

Shotguns and handguns have always been readily available in Colorado, but until eight years ago Holmes would not have been able to buy the AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle he was carrying quite so easily.

The manufacture and import of AR-15s and similar weapons, such as AK-47s, were banned in the US in 1994. There were also limits on the size of magazines that could be fitted, limiting them to holding no more than 10 bullets.

Those prohibitions fell away 10 years later, and attempts to revive them have failed in the face of objections from the powerful National Rifle Association allowing Holmes not only to purchase the powerful weapon but also to fit it with the magazine drum holding a large number of bullets.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gives Colorado a score of just 15 points out of 100 in assessing adequate gun control laws. It criticises the state for not restricting bulk purchases of weapons, for failing to record identification of weapons so they can be traced, for failing to require any permits to buy a weapon and for permitting large magazines of the kind used by Holmes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/20/james-holmes-ar-15-semi-automatic?newsfeed=true

 

[das_nut]

I'm not sure what your point is. It's still a semi-automatic, not an assault rifle. An assault rifle is capable of selective fire.

Just because something is in print doesn't make it true. Journalists get technical definitions wrong, as can be seen here, where they call a semi-automatic an assault rifle.

 

[Ansciess]

The point of the post was really about the expired ban, not so much about what the gun is called.

 

[AspireToExpire]

What?

To simplify even further, a little part of you lives on from every person you come in contact with. Subconsciously your traits imprint within them over time.

 

[K-II]

Well that's speculation, because he didn't. He chose an assault rifle (that's what the AP is currently reporting, so I'll go with that for now) because that's what he had available. Let's try some more gun control and see if there's suddenly a flurry of bombings. In countries that have put in more restrictive gun control laws, like Australia after the Port Arthur massacre, I don't think that there's been a huge increase in bombings.

You can get banned weapons here anyway. Of course you don't want to get caught with one, but if you're going to kill a bunch of people, why not break a few more laws? The locals here just don't seem quite as intent on mass killings (and/or it's because of the lower population).

 

[uno]

Let's not forget where this took place. Banning weapons here in sweeping legislation will not go over well. this country has loads of guns and it's a large part of it's culture. It's not terribly realistic to see a gun ban happen. so, if that's not the case, then what??

 

[FortyTwo]

To simplify even further, a little part of you lives on from every person you come in contact with. Subconsciously your traits imprint within them over time.

No offense, but how is that science? Obviously people have influence over each other, but to say that a piece of their "soul" sticks on...?

 

[Forster]

Let's not forget where this took place. Banning weapons here in sweeping legislation will not go over well. this country has loads of guns and it's a large part of it's culture. It's not terribly realistic to see a gun ban happen. so, if that's not the case, then what??

I really don't think a gun ban can realistically happen in the US. Guns in and of themselves are not evil, sure they can be used for evil purposes as can many things. The question is how can we identify individuals that capable of committing murder and stop them from doing so ahead of time. I don't think we can, especially when no prior act or mental health records exist until they actually commit murder.

I have absolutely no doubt I'd be instantly labeled an extremist and insane (by a huge swath of the populace and the media) based solely on what I own, I am neither. Nor does the NRA represent me or my views. I do believe in the core values of marksmanship, safety and protection of 2nd amendment rights but boy have they strayed and turned into a lying vitriolic political money making machine. They've "Fox Newsed" the gun rights movement into a political shill for the right. It disgusts me. That being said I don't think much more of the extreme left on this issue, though I think their motives might be a little more noble in that I do think many of them truly think violence and murder can be curtailed by a gun ban... IMO a little misguided maybe but at least I understand their motives.

So the question is how do we as a society balance (what many, myself included) to be considered an innate human right to self defense of ones person with the cost that comes with protecting that right?

 

[K-II]

Let's not forget where this took place. Banning weapons here in sweeping legislation will not go over well. this country has loads of guns and it's a large part of it's culture. It's not terribly realistic to see a gun ban happen. so, if that's not the case, then what??

Ideally I would say it might help if some research was conducted into why people do this kind of thing fairly often there, and then the response would be based on that. But I don't know if that's any more likely to happen than just making more of what he did illegal.

 

[uno]

I really don't think a gun ban can realistically happen in the US. Guns in and of themselves are not evil, sure they can be used for evil purposes as can many things. The question is how can we identify individuals that capable of committing murder and stop them from doing so ahead of time. I don't think we can, especially when no prior act or mental health records exist until they actually commit murder.

I have absolutely no doubt I'd be instantly labeled an extremist and insane (by a huge swath of the populace and the media) based solely on what I own, I am neither. Nor does the NRA represent me or my views. I do believe in the core values of marksmanship, safety and protection of 2nd amendment rights but boy have they strayed and turned into a lying vitriolic political money making machine. They've "Fox Newsed" the gun rights movement into a political shill for the right. It disgusts me. That being said I don't think much more of the extreme left on this issue, though I think their motives might be a little more noble in that I do think many of them truly think violence and murder can be curtailed by a gun ban... IMO a little misguided maybe but at least I understand their motives.

So the question is how do we as a society balance (what many, myself included) to be considered an innate human right to self defense of ones person with the cost that comes with protecting that right?

agreed.

and the million dollar question.

 

[AspireToExpire]

No offense, but how is that science? Obviously people have influence over each other, but to say that a piece of their "soul" sticks on...?

That is sort of the idea behind science isn't it? People do experiments and test theories while other people sit back and say they think it's junk science etc.

Obviously, you are you and no one else will be exactly you but I believe you are you because of things you've seen, traits you've picked up speech patterns, habit etc. I don't know that I believe in the whole soul thing. I think it's more about billions of neurons zapping around that create you and you aren't quite as original as you would like to believe because we've all seen, think and express many of the same things. I suspect what makes you uniquely you are the memories you form and over time even those can become distorted and change. The brain is fascinating.

 

[mlp]

I don't think that whether something meets the technical definition of "assault rifle" is really the issue.

To me, the question is, "Why does anyone (absent the military or law enforcement) "need" any weapon other than something that requires 6-8 bullets and then must be reloaded like a revolver? If you can't get the job, in terms of self defense or hunting, done with something like that, you probably shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun anyway.

Limiting civilian access to these kinds of guns would at least decrease the body count a bit.

Also, as I said earlier, I'm at a loss as to why body armor is available to anyone other than the military and law enforcement.

 

[mlp]

That is sort of the idea behind science isn't it? People do experiments and test theories while other people sit back and say they think it's junk science etc.

Obviously, you are you and no one else will be exactly you but I believe you are you becasue of things you've seen, traits you've picked up speech patterns, habit etc. I don't know that I believe in the whole soul thing. I think it's more about billions of neurons zapping around that create you and you aren't quite as original as you would like to believe because we've all seen, think and express many of the same things. I suspect what makes you uniquely you are the memories you form and over time even those can become distorted and change. The brain is fascinating.

I think that everything we experience and do becomes part of who we are - so, yes, the people we encounter become part of us, through our interactions with them.

 

[uno]

I don't think that whether something meets the technical definition of "assault rifle" is really the issue.

To me, the question is, "Why does anyone (absent the military or law enforcement) "need" any weapon other than something that requires 6-8 bullets and then must be reloaded like a revolver? If you can't get the job, in terms of self defense or hunting, done with something like that, you probably shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun anyway.

Limiting cicilian access to these kinds of guns would at least decrease the body count a bit.

Also, as I said earlier, I'm at a loss as to why body armor is available to anyone other than the military and law enforcement.

I have a handgun that has a clip with 15 rounds. but, that's me.

i think you also have to remember that not everyone trusts our government/governments. think Waco and all the other situations where the gov't did some pretty heinous things to its citizens. That mistrust combined with a strong fear from 9/11 and the temporary (at least tottering) feel of gov't instability during that time keeps my weapons in my home.

 

[K-II]

Technical detail: a 'clip' is something used for loading certain weapons, or in some cases (like the M1 Garand) it is inserted into the weapon along with the ammunition (the M1 spits it back out when it's empty). The little rectangular thing that contains bullets and attaches to the gun (in the case of an AR-15, M-16, Kalashnikov series, etc.) or fits inside the grip (for handguns mostly) is a magazine.