October 18, 2017
Nation Latest News | Poll Questions | Haunted Maine | Obamacare | Anthony Sanborn

Comments for: 12 killed, 59 wounded in Colo. theater shooting

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    So tragic, 
    condolences to the victims of this atrocity. 

  • Anonymous

    wow, unreal.. what a sick minded person to pull a thing like this, the mind of a terrorist i’m sure. i hope colorado has the death penalty, or public hanging’s.. we as a country need to pull together and stop playing games with these criminals. what a terrible headline to read today, condolences to the victims and their family’s..

  • Anonymous

    Just waiting for a comment from the NRA-head reminding us of the value of automatic weapons for self-protection, and to assure us that had he been in the theater, he would have taken the situation into his control.

    • Anonymous

      guns dont kill people..people kill people! know your facts…in states with right to carry and no permit necessary to carry concealed, crime rates and violent acts are far less than states with more restrictions. criminals are going to carry regardless of the law but by all means please lets not let the law abiding citizen have a right to defend himself. it must be nice up on that high horse. get your head out of the clouds (or that dark spot under your wallet)

      • Anonymous

         Guns don’t kill people.  People with guns kill people.

        •  Bangorian. So you are telling me that because I own guns, I’m going to kill someone? I think not. Even if the person who caused this did not have guns, I’m sure he still would have found a way to murder innocent lives. That is what messed up people do. It does not matter if they have guns to do the job or not.

          •  No i think what he meant was someone without a gun can not shoot anyone. Doesn’t stop them from stabbing, choking, drowning, etc anyone tho does it. A gun can’t shoot anyone without a finger to pull it.

          •  ahh

          • Anonymous

             No Tristan – that’s not even close to what I said.  What I said was that I’m tired of people who own guns telling us that we are somehow safer because they’re carrying.  I don’t care if you or anyone else owns a gun, but let’s not for a moment pretend that doing so has any benefit to anyone. 

          • Anonymous

             It benefits the person carrying! Whether or not they would use it to help save YOUR life would be questionable!

          • Anonymous

            Don’t people carrying guns sometimes misuse them, or have them taken away by aggressors?

          • Anonymous

            Tell me the last mass murder not involving a gun.I’ll put that incident up against the thousands of annual gun deaths.And about those people who go on and on about gun owners all  being responsible-how many of us know at least one person who shouldn’t be trusted with a gun but yet has one due to connections or otherwise being protected?

          • Anonymous

             Rwanda! Last time I checked, you can’t shoot a machete.

          • Anonymous

            Weapons that are most efficient at killing lots of people quickly:

            bomb (illegal)
            poisonous gas (illegal)
            gun (LEGAL)

          •  bomb easy to make,  poisons easy to make,  gun regulated and harder to buy.   Making things illegal does not stop criminals only stops honest law abiding citizens

          • Anonymous

            I would love an example of someone killing 12 people and wounding 59 without a gun. 

          • Anonymous

             You are so right, no one ever died before the gun!

          • Anonymous

            Based on all of your super-serious and thought provoking comments sprayed all over this post, I bet you can do it!  Give me an example of a single person killing 12 people and wounding 59 (or comparable numbers) without a gun.  I believe in you!

          •  fine here you go bombing of marine barracks in 83 299 killed with a bomb,   Killing can be done with most anything  

          • Anonymous

            Thanks Brett!  I agree with you that we should regulate guns the same way we regulate explosives.  That’s a fantastic argument.  I will use that going forward.

          • Anonymous

            I think the point about a bomb is really important.  For instance, if everyone gets a gun, won’t the killers just move to bombs.

            Another point:  if killers have bombs, does that mean we should make bombs legal for everyone?

          •  guns are regulated the same as explosives for the most part, same organization the ATF same rules apply,  same back ground checks,  the problem you have to understand is easier to make a bomb then to get a gun,  only about 200,000 websites about how to make anything go boom.   Regulation is not the problem there are over 22000 gun laws in the US alone.   the problem is criminals dont care about the laws so regulation is not going to stop them.  And if you totally ban every firearm in the world the criminals could still make bombs and then civilians that obey the laws would have no way of protecting them self’s. 

          • Anonymous

            Timothy McVeigh.

          • Anonymous

            No one needs the arsenal they he had acquired except for our military. 

        • Cars dont kill People that drive cars kill.  so ban all cars. 

        • Anonymous

           People with guns only kill people too scared to be armed themselves! Cowards never stopped anyone from killing their intended victim!!!

          • Anonymous

            You seem to be arguing here that when someone gets shot it is their own fault.  You’ve stooped to a new low.  It’s really insensitive and frankly pathetic.

      • Anonymous

        Doesn’t seem to be much correlation between restrictions/lack thereof and crime:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

      • Anonymous

        Source please. Hand guns are fine. No American other than the military need the kind of weapons that he legally acquired.

    • Anonymous

       Does the perpetrator here really seem like someone who is concerned with gun laws?

      • Anonymous

        Not to jump the gun (no pun intended), but do you think that someone with a history of mental or emotional problems should be allowed to own a gun?  How about someone with a history of domestic violence?  Just asking.  This isn’t an either/or issue; at least I don’t think so.

        • Anonymous

           As a matter of fact, the federal requirements for purchasing a firearms stipulate that if you have been adjudicated mentally defective, or convicted of domestic violence, you cannot purchase a firearm.  Now that isn’t to say that someone couldn’t steal one from a relative or even a store, or purchase one illegally.  But then again, those law breakers are the ones who are… well… breaking the law!  So more laws will not stop them.  Great questions lecole.

          • Anonymous

            Especially true if there are no regulations re private sales or gun shows (i.e., background checks).

          • Brett Kirschbaum

             oh you need to correct your statement  gun shows are not loop holes even at a gun show are licensed dealer must run 4473,  private citizens can sell their firearms to anyone that is true but then it will trace back to them if used in a crime.   Stop blaming the way guns are sold and blame the crazy’s.  I dont see people blaming the car manufacturer for selling cars to drunks , the item is  not the problem it is the user we  must be worried about

          • Anonymous

            How about *both*?  One doesn’t preclude the other.  

          • Anonymous

            Yes it does! You could lay a gun on any city sidewalk, and it won’t do a thing until a PERSON picks it up! So is it the gun, or the person?

          • Anonymous

            The point is:  having a gun changes a way a person  behaves.  Power corrupts.

          •  that is an assumption that is wrong,  i have carried for years and yet actually have gotten calmer and more careful about how i act because i have no desire to use in a wrong moment and spend 20 years in jail.  Absolute power corrupts but CCW does not give us absolute power it give us options.  Remember if i use my weapon in defense i still must face possible criminal actions so i have to know what i am doing is the correct. 

          • Anonymous

            No American should have the type of weapons that he acquired other than military.

          • Anonymous

             WRONG! You’ve never bought a gun, have you!

          • Anonymous

            And have you bought a gun in all 50 states?  As you know, regulations differ from state to state.

          •  the 4473 is the same in every state  and federal laws dont change from state to state.  

        • Anonymous

           I think that if someone is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, then they should not be trusted to walk the streets. Domestic violence? I think if someone is intent on killing their “baby”, I don’t think any amount of laws will stop them. When you really get down to it, laws and restraining orders are just pieces of paper.

          • Anonymous

            That would argue that we should have no laws whatsoever, given that someone will always violate them.  Surely that’s not an argument you mean/want to make.

    • Anonymous

       The very vast majority of gun owners would be, and are, the first ones to stop nuts like this guy dead in their tracks. I think it’s safe to say that the perpetrator doesn’t care about breaking the law anyway. The bad guys are always going to have guns, not just in America, but everywhere else in the world as well. Is there any doubt that less people would’ve been killed and wounded if someone (or a few) in the theater had handguns on them? 

      • pbmann

        I would think that if more people had guns in the theater, more people would have been wounded or killed because most people in that situation panic and if they had a gun would start shooting at anything or anyone they deemed a threat.  Which may or may not have been the original shooter.

        • Anonymous

           I think that’s a lot of generalization and assumption where, in either scenario, takes the choice away from the victims.

        • Anonymous

          Or…. they could be a responsible firearms owner and concealed carrier, and assist other people appropriately.  But no… no one would ever be able to do that… it would take a young mind, and a strong body, with years of training…. oh wait….http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2175170/Harrowing-moment-elderly-internet-cafe-goer-guns-robbers-chases-door.html

          • pbmann

            How many people who carry guns would assist people appropriately when their adreneline is sky high?  I’ll bet not many,  especially without the proper training.

            And yes it takes intensive training to react correctly in a high stress situation, especially involving firearms.

          •  you mean like the the police training where most officers shoot less then 100 rounds a year to qualify and 70 percent of all officers have never drawn their weapon.   I shoot 200-300 rounds a week at least  and yes while stress and fear will affect you you can train for that just like anything else by practice.

          • pbmann

            First you are under the assumption that police officers only fire their weapons for qualification or in a emergency, which would be incorrect.  Most police officers shoot their guns for training purposes but also for efficiency and fun just like you do and they may shoot thousands of rounds a month.

            Second the training of when, where and how to shoot are much much more important than just live fire practice shooting.  You would know that if you had the proper training.

          •  yes the when and where is very important but so is the practice.  And by the way the 70 percent number came from the FBI  I know many officers shoot for fun and practice also but to assume only officers have the training is crazy was my point.   There are many people that are not officers they may have the training whether it is military, shooting schools, private security,  personal security training,  or others.   I trust the cops to respond but to assume they will be there when you need them is a mistake as they are a responding force, so they must wait for the call. 

          • pbmann

            Sevety percent is the number of police officers who never pulled their gun in the line of dutty.  It has nothing to do with whether they were correctly trained on wehen to pull out their weapon.

          • Anonymous

             Don’t lump all of us into YOUR category! Maybe YOU couldn’t handle the responsibility, but a lot of us can and would!

            You are obviously NOT a CWP holder, or you would know better!

          • Anonymous

            Your rage and irrationality make me pretty concerned that you carry a concealed weapon.

          • Anonymous

            Best.Comment.Ever.A million likes

          • pbmann

            You have absolutely no idea how ou would react in a violent situation.  I’ll tell you how you would react statistically.

            You would do one of two things, fight or flight with flight being the first instinct.  The most likely emotion you would be feeling would be fear compounded by panic, two emotions that when combined make making the correct decision almost impossible.  That is why the military and police train for those types of situations, to minimize the amount of thinking first required.

            And lastly being a CWP holder does not make you a super crime fighter and if you do believe that you have been watching way to many Dirty Harry movies.

          •  how do you know they are not ex military,  or ex officer,  you are making judgments based on things typed on a computer screen.  You are correct in assuming most people will flee but are wrong in saying that only military and police train to  overcome it.   I have not read anything on here saying that anyone of us with a cwp thinks we are better crime fighters what we have said is that have a firearm opens up options other then just getting shot and killed.   Life is all about having options and hoping you never need them but if you take away all  of our options you are in affect sentencing us to death if the case were to come up and you dont have that right ether.   What started this is that the people in that theater had all thier options taking away from them by a crazy man and policy that  not only forbid firearms but all weapons.  No pepper srpay not that it would have helped, no asp, no knifes nothing they had one option run and that is  something that should not have happened.

        • Anonymous

           Nice liberal view of your fellow citizens! What about LEO’s? Had they been int he theater, do you think they would have held their fire? NO!

          • pbmann

            Again, you have been watching way too many CLint Eastwood movies.

            If there had been Law Enforcement Officers in the movie theater they would not have opened fire in a dark crowded smoke-filled room with hundreds of innocent people trying to escape.  That is a recipe for many many more injuries and fatalities. 

            If you had actually read the article you would have known that the shooter was wearing some form of body armor making bringing him down much more difficult.  Or do you wear body armor to movies as well?

            The fact that you think it would have been ok to open fire in a crowded darkened smoke-filled movie thieater just proves that you, at least, should not be carrying in that situation.

    •  and in case you dont understand no one is using automatic weapons,  their has not been a single case in the united states of a person using a legal automatic weapon in a crime.    This person was using what we think was a semi-auto pistol and semi auto rifle.  For you semi-auto means that one round is discharged with each pull of the trigger.   Buying semi-auto  takes some money and simple 4473  buying a automatic weapon or for you one that will fire multiple round as long as you hold the trigger  is a case of  at least 3 months waiting, full background, 200 tax stamps from federal government,  not to mention getting any automatic for under 3 grand is unlikely right now.    Also the NRA has never said  automatics are used for defense they have said that we have the right as law abiding citizens to own the guns we want just as you have the right to own what ever car you want as long as you follow the laws.    Stop blaming the NRA, The Guns, and or The Gun Owners for the crimes of crazy people and blame the crazy people. 

      • Tom Brown III

        Good points. However worth mentioning no legally owned machine guns have been used in crime since 1934 prior to that they were legal to own and were used in commission of crimes! Then they were banned/regulated and the mob continued using them in commission of crimes haha!  and 3 grand for a class 3 full auto is bottom barrel stamped cold war era sub machine guns. A m16a1 goes from 15000-30000. Its a rich person’s hobby.

        Also non-FFL holding citizens can only own full auto if made before 1986 which really limits supply.

        •  thanks for the add on,    i always forget to throw in the pre 1934 ,   and yes 3000grannd is the bottom but can be done and i figured if i quoted 10k plus someone would post one cheaper  and call me a liar. 

    • Anonymous

       Because we all know that legal gun owners never use their rights to help others…

      Oh wait…

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2175170/Harrowing-moment-elderly-internet-cafe-goer-guns-robbers-chases-door.html

      • Tom Brown III

        one of them looks like trayvon martin.

        I like how the robber was quoted in the article “I was down, he should have stopped shooting” He should be saying “I am a dumb punk and lucky this geezer didn’t ice me.”

    • Anonymous

      I think it is amazing that your criticism of the NRA has so quickly drawn such a harsh and defensive response.  The culture of gun-loving in this country is extremely entrenched.

      • Anonymous

        Guns helped give you the freedom you so dearly love.

      • Anonymous

         I think it is spectacular that your criticism of the NRA has so quickly
        drawn such a harsh and defensive response.  The culture of freedom/liberty-loving in
        this country is extremely entrenched.

  • Anonymous

    Hollywood’s incessant praise of sick violence is surely to blame, and yet so is our gun-worshiping culture.  The decline of the American Empire is sad to watch, both on the economic front and also our glorification of violence.  There’s so much greed and hate.

    • Anonymous

       Oh please. Aside from special effects and production quality, is it really any different than the old westerns?

      • Anonymous

        Again, What about Columbine?  What about all the other mass murders in schools and other places?  How many times did this happen during the days of Matt Dillon and Gunsmoke?

        Why are you afraid to admit our culture has become sick?

        • Our culture has not become sick, these types of people have been around for ever. Someone who kills without reason, or even enjoys killing used to be elevated to high positions of power. Genghis Khan and the Knights of feudal times come to mind. So basically people haven’t changed, and because society no longer puts up with these types of people, the culture has become more civilized, not less.

          • Anonymous

            Seriously, things like this didn’t happen in American in the days of
            Gunsmoke and Matt Dillon.  I can think of only one mass murder shooting back then, at a Texas
            University.  But now we have dozens of mass murders perpetrated by men, mostly young, with semiautomatic weapons.

            Show me the equivalent of Columbine and all the rest in the 60’s, in the days of the old westerns.  Go on. 

            Our culture has changed.

          • 1960’s:
            Charles Manson
            Richard Speck
            Zodiac

            1950’s”
            Charles Starkweather
            John Gilbert Graham
            Countless mass murders in South Korea

            1940’s:
            Martha Beck and Raymond Fernandez (The Lonely Heart Killers)
            Howard   Urhuh

            This is not new, it is just easier for news to spread nation and world wide now

          • Anonymous

            How many mass murders with guns since Columbine?  It took you three decades to come up with a list that includes far less than all the American gun-shooting massacres since then.

            By including “countless” mass murders in South Korea, even you seem to be including culture and country as a relevant factor.

            What if Charles Manson had Columbine as an example, he might have used guns and killed far more people, right?

          • Oh ok, so you don’t mind the mass murder, it is the manner in which the mass murder is done. Gotcha.
            Charles Manson did grow up with Columbine-like examples. He read adventure books about Custer and his slaughter of entire Native Villages, men, women and children, and being called a hero for it. The only difference was the form of media, books instead of television.

            P.S. That list was in no way complete, it was a quick check to show you how wrong you were.

          • Anonymous

            I still see no example from you of so many young people using guns in a short time–12 years since Columbine–to commit so many mass murders, and in places like schools, churches, and theaters.

            You have given absolutely no precedent.  And it is pretty obvious that our culture must be involved in the problem — given, again, so many gun-using massacres by young mostly white males in just a 12 year span.

            Show me anywhere else in American history where a student shot up his school.  Even if you find one, you won’t find the grouping of school shootings we’ve seen recently.

            You seem upset that I’m focusing on gun violence, but that’s my point–the wave of GUN violence.  A huge unprecedented wave of gun violence.

          •  Billy the Kid… they didn’t call him “The Kid” for nothing. Those who rode with Custer were 15-20 (enlisted men anyway), and during you precious “Gunsmoke” years, most of our young people were in Vietnam… and what were they doing there I wonder…? Oh yea, killing people with guns. Men, women, and children. Killers are killers, take away guns and they will do it with knives, pipe bombs, or their bare hands. Media has nothing to do with it. Guns have nothing to do with it. Jack the Ripper didn’t use a gun, would he been worse of a person if he did? The Papacy has had 50 million people put to death as heretics since the inception of the Papacy, would any of those Popes been worse people if they carried a gun? Your argument is invalid at its core. There have always been youth willing to kill. For good or bad, throughout human history young people have taken lives. Alexander the Great started killing at age 16, and within 15 years was ruling the world. Joan of Arc was killing in her teens. The mighty Spartans had the best killers in history, and they would go into battle as early as 12 and 13.

          • Anonymous

            You’re pulling from thousands of years of history across various cultures, and, still, none of it fits the pattern of school, church and theater violence in the US in the last 12 years.  I never have seen anything like it in the USA before, and I’m pretty old.  It’s new, it’s a change, and somehow our culture is at least partially guilty, all the glorifying of guns and violence.

          • Anonymous

             And Liberalism!

          • Anonymous

            People died today in Colorado, does that bother you?  You seem to deviate a lot from the topic at hand, which is the shooting.

            So again, about that shooting, let me ask you:  isn’t it strange that it occurred just 15 miles from the Columbine shooting, which was only 13 years ago.  And what about all the shootings in-between?  Seems like a sickness in our culture to me.

            I would advise you to stop using this forum to bash on liberalism instead of focusing on the shooting.  It makes you look callous.

          •  so you dont care about mass murder you just care if people use guns.  

          • Anonymous

             Stop shooting yourself in the foot! You are wrong, and all your childish rantings won’t change that fact. Gun violence has been around since the invention of the firearm, some 500 years ago! Would a list of all multi-victim shooting throughout history pacify you>

            Probably not!

          • Anonymous

            Your argument:  gun violence has always been around, therefore it doesn’t vary in frequency or intensity

            Counterargument:  This is just terrible critical reasoning.  It’s like saying disease has always been around, so there are never any plagues.

            Honestly, your ranting isn’t helping your cause.  I call it ranting because your arguments are so bad, yet you seem so self-assured and smug.

          • Anonymous

            Jack the Ripper – 1888

          • pbmann

            Back in the 1050’s guns were more expensive, compared to today and most guns owned by gunowners were not semi-automatic handguns and rifles but instead 5 or 6 shot pistols or bolt action type or winchester type rifles.

          •  please check your date,  not sure if you are talking about 1800’s, 1900,s or before that so hard to depute or agree with your facts

          • pbmann

            Sorry about the typo meant 1950’s instead of 1050’s but that should have been somewhat obvious as I was responding to the above post about this not happening when Gunsmoke was on.

            So there were a lot of cheap semi-automatic handguns and rifles in the 1950’s and ’60’s?

          • Anonymous

            Not sure of the price ranges of the 50’s and 60’s (I have been told guns were cheap then) but half of my semi-auto handguns pre-date the 1950’s.

          •  yes here were actually more then now because troops brought them home from ww2 the 1911 was very prevalent and many other rifles that carried multiple round.  heck untill 1934  you could own full auto machine guns, 

            as for typo no worry’s just was confused because you were talking about revolvers and such  made in the late 1800’s   

          • Anonymous

             What gets ignored by the media are the individual deaths in every state in America every week by misused guns.

          • Anonymous

             And misused cars, and misused knives, and misused bathtubs, and misused stairs, and misused lawnmowers!

          • Anonymous

            When is the last time someone used a bathtub to kill a theater full of people?

            How many men use staircases to kill their wives and children compared to men who use guns?

            And so on.  Step up your arguments.

          •  Actually prior to the legalization of abortion, the staircase fall was a very widely used option.

        • Anonymous

           I’m not denying that, I just don’t think it’s because of guns, which have been part of American culture since it’s founding, or Hollywood.

        • Anonymous

           Hundreds! You have all day to play on the computer, look it up!

    • Anonymous

       Hollywood didn’t do this, guns didn’t do this, our culture didn’t do this. One single monster did this. Did this psychopath have some outside motivation, or did he wake up that day and decide to commit mass murder? I don’t know, and honestly, I don’t really care.

      • Anonymous

        What about all the other mass murders in high schools and other venues?  All isolated “monsters”? 

        How many times did this happen during the days of Matt Dillon and Gunsmoke?

        • Anonymous

          The secret phrase of the day is “Matt Dillon and Gunsmoke”

        • Anonymous

          I think it has more to do with upbringing than pop culture.

        • Anonymous

           Yea, you’re right. Forms of mental stress and breaks only happen to one person and then they never occur again, very medical of you.   You should google mental sickness, it actually affects a large group of people!! WHOA!

        • Anonymous

           Matt Dillion and Gunsmoke? Seriously? You do realize they are make believe? (Sorry to burst your bubble.)

          Here’s a revelation for you; There are BAD people out there! This nut thought he was the Joker! You can either run and hide from them, or you can show a little backbone and stand up to them.

          But you can’t run and hide, then criticize those of us willing to stand our ground and refuse to be a victim!!!

          • Anonymous

            My point is that, in the 60’s, there wasn’t a series of school, church, and theater shootings by young white males. 

            Are you denying there is a pattern in the violence of the last decade?  Please try to stay focused and use some critical reasoning skills.  They would strengthen your case. 

    •  Had nothing to do with Hollywood or Batman, or anything else. This guy wanted to kill people and he knew there would be a lot of people at the opening of the movie. Blaming the movie for this is akin to blaming a woman for being raped.

      • Anonymous

        There are dozens of these mass murders–in schools, theaters, churches, and so on–popping up everywhere.  Show me where this happened in the 60’s, during the days of Gunsmoke?

        Are you denying that culture affects people in general?  And why are you twisting my words and using ridiculous analogies?

        • The hero’s of the old west were mass murders too. Billy the Kid, Wyatt Earp, and all the rest were stone cold killers.

        • Anonymous

          Mass Murderers;
          -Albert Hamilton Fish (May 19, 1870 – January 16, 1936) was an American serial
          killer and cannibal. He was also known as the Gray Man, the Werewolf of Wysteria
          and the Brooklyn Vampire.
          -Albert Henry DeSalvo (November 3, 1931 – November 25, 1973) was a serial killer
          active in Boston, Massachusetts, United States, in the early 1960s. Dubbed the
          Boston Strangler, DeSalvo confessed to the murders of thirteen women in the
          Boston area

          Edward Theodore Gein (August 27, 1906 – July 26, 1984), was one of the most
          notorious murderers in U.S. history. The necrophiliac nature of his crimes
          shocked the world, even though it may never be known if he committed more than
          two murders. Besides the death of his brother in 1944 under mysterious
          circumstances, six people disappeared from the Wisconsin towns of La Crosse and
          Plainfield between 1947 and 1957.

          -Herman Webster Mudgett (May 16, 1860 – May 7, 1896), better known under the
          alias of “Dr. H. H. Holmes,” was an American serial killer. Holmes trapped and
          murdered possibly hundreds of guests at his Chicago hotel, which he opened for
          the 1893 World’s Fair. He confessed to 27 murders, though only nine have been
          confirmed.
          There are several more.
          What does today’s culture have to do with any of them??

          • Anonymous

            Look, the phenomenon I’m pointing out is that young people–in the last 12 years, dozens of young people–have taken guns and shot up their schools, churches and similar places, like theaters.  This is unprecedented in American history.

            Showing me that serial killers have always been around does not explain this wave of gun-involved massacres in places that previously NEVER experienced this level of violence from students.

          • Anonymous

            We’ve also never had this level of media coverage either.

          • Anonymous

             Prove they didn’t happen before! You make the accusation, now prove it!!!

          • Anonymous

            Just as I thought, you’ve got nothing. I strongly advise you to work on your critical thinking skills

          • Anonymous

            Spruce, never argue with a Conservative. They are naturally gifted to avoid arguing facts and twisting it into a typical Hannity talking point.

          • Anonymous

             My goodness, what’s with the “prove it,”  “prove it” mentality?  are you older than 12?

          • Tom Brown III

             covert serial killers are different then mass shooting murderers.  It was legal to own machine guns until 1934. I mean real full auto machine guns… grease guns, tommy guns, BARS, browning machine guns. Private citizens did own them too. how come there are very few if any cases of mass homicide of this fashion? I mean there were instances like bonnie and clyde but that was killing related to robbery not just killing for the sake of killing (though they were both ruthless murderers)

        •  notice how all the murders keep popping up in gun free safe zones,   funny really how criminals know where to go where no one can defend themselves.

        • Anonymous

          Charles Whitman-1966- Killed 16 and wounded 32 at the University of Texas at Austin with an M-1 Carbine, a bolt action rifle, & a shotgun. As an ex marine, he was an exceptional shot. But that is beside the point, you are decrying human nature, at no point in mankinds history has there been a period when humans have not killed each other in relatively large numbers. Take away the guns, they’ll use machette’s, take away the knives they’ll use sticks, take away the sticks they’ll use rocks. I don’t like it, but it’s human nature.

        • Anonymous

          Explain then why all the places you listed are gun free zones!  Yes this happened in the 60’s! Does the name Charles Whitman mean anything to you, or are you too young to know history? That was 1966! When I went to school, 1966 was in the 60’s!

          The major change in culture since the 60’s has been the cancerous rise of Liberal Progressivism! Are you blaming that?

          • Anonymous

            Your argument:  I have one example of a mass shooting in the 60’s, therefore the 60’s are no different that today in terms of mass shootings

            Counterargument:  One example is not enough to establish a pattern.  There are enough examples in the last ten years to establish a pattern of young white males shooting people in places like schools, churches and theaters.

            Therefore, you’re wrong.

            Again, I’d advise you to work on your critical thinking skills, including sample selection.

          • Anonymous

            I know you enjoy facts so here are some for you to think about –

            1) “Mass Murder takes the reader on an informative journey through the 20th century by
            exploring 909 cases of mass murder that occurred in the United States between 1900 and 1999.” That is 9 mass murders per year

            2) “Most importantly, findings generally indicate that, although qualitatively different, there were two mass murder waves during the 20th century.”

            3) “In fact, contrary to popular belief, the mid-1960s did not mark the beginning of an unprecedented mass murder wave; rather, the U.S. experienced an earlier wave of mass murder that occurred in the 1920s and 1930s in the U.S.”

            4) “Duwe characterizes the period of 1966 to 1999 as the second wave of mass murder. This period is marked as a turbulent time in American history; a period specifically characterized by racism and extreme poverty and heightened social activism.”

            5) “Duwe outlines the influential relationship between media and politics with a discussion of gun control in the late 1980s and early 1990s. More specifically, although rarely the weapon of choice in mass murders, gun control proponents used the incidence of high-profile mass public shootings to secure a ban on assault weapons.”

            6) “The primary strength of this study is in its well-rounded approach to the phenomenon of
            mass murder. More specifically, Duwe not only delivers an excellent historical analysis of mass
            murder in the United States, but also provides an informative study of the relationship between
            news media and the social construction of crime.”

            Source – “A Review of Mass Murder in the United States: A History,  Author: Grant Duwe
            Publisher: McFarland & Company, Inc. Year: 2007

            http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol15is1/Bratina.pdf

          • Anonymous

            I appreciate the reference, and there’s some good stuff.  He does see patterns of violence, with some time spans being worse (I don’t know why you claim there are nine mass murders per year).   But the book stops at 1999, and so doesn’t analyze the school-shooting phenomenon.

            His definition lets in a lot of drug-related killing and even family violence:  “For the
            purposes of his study, mass murder includes incidents that occur within a 24-hour period and that involve a minimum of four victims.”

            It’s the pattern of school mass murders in the last ten years that is disturbing and indicts our culture.

        • Anonymous

          And somehow it always comes back to Games, Music, Movies, etc. It all starts with upbringing.

    • Anonymous

      You cannot pass blame off onto Hollywood, music, television or anything else.  People are responsible for their own actions.  For every one person like this guy, there are millions that are responsible gun owners, that listen to rap music and don’t beat women up, that like Marilyn Manson and don’t shoot up schools, that watch action movies and don’t beat people up/shoot people…  This individual clearly had something terribly wrong with him.  

      People should accept responsibility for their actions and it is our duty to hold people responsible for their actions.  Without accountability, you have nothing.  It’s like people that blame McDonald’s because they’re fat.  McDonald’s never forced anyone to order two Big Macs and some apple pies.  If people are too stupid to understand that fried foods are not healthy and that portion control is important, then they deserve to die of a heart attack.  

      • Anonymous

        Perfect!

    • Anonymous

       That mentality is a perfect example of the problem! You praise the loss of freedom, but decry the decline!  Conflicted much? Or is it just bipolar?

      • Anonymous

        How did the freedom of Holmes to legally buy a gun enhance the freedom of the people he killed at the Aurora Theater?

        Please try to stop insulting me.  It doesn’t help your case.  Try reason.

  • I wonder if this is somehow connected to the incident on the Rotten Tomatoes website?

    •  Those were geared towards people reviewing the movie.

  • Anonymous

    Hollywood praise of violence.  You got to be kidding me.  Nature is wayyyy more violent than Hollywood so is that to blame as well? 

  • Anonymous

    People like Bangorian apparently prefer to have someone else protect them instead of doing it themselves.  So therefore guns must be evil and of course without them society would be so peaceful.  (heavy sarcasm in case it is missed)

  • Brett Kirschbaum

    some sad facts here this is another gun free zone, thus no one carrying a legal gun for defense, no security other then hired rent a cops unarmed.   Response time was long enough to allo0w many injured and dead.   This is why i dont go anywhere with out being able to defend myself, we have the right to defend ourselfs from a crazy man whether he is carrying a gun, knife, or anything else dangerous.   It is not the item that kills it is the crazy person.    We dont know for sure but if there had been one or two people with their personal carry weapons they may have been able to stop this tragedy before 12 people died.   We as people must take responsibility for our own protection and stop asking others to do it for us.

    • Anonymous

       Preach it.

    • Anonymous

      The problem with more and more people carrying guns is that it increases the likelihood of death in general.  Statistically, some of those extra guns are going to kill people who didn’t deserve to die.  Also, even more guns will trickle into the illegal market.  Pretty soon, everyone will have a gun.  And, let’s face it, people do stupid things all the time, like get drunk while having a gun on them.  All the time.

      Not only that, what if someone with a gun has a moment of weakness.  All it takes is one, just one, moment of weakness at the wrong time in the wrong place–and if the gun is there, Boom.

      America already has about 30,000 deaths a year from guns

      ——–

      Firearms are the second leading cause of traumatic death related to a
      consumer product in the United States and are the second most frequent
      cause of death overall for Americans ages 15 to 24. Since 1960,
      more than a million Americans have died in firearm suicides, homicides,
      and unintentional injuries. In 2003 alone, 30,136 Americans died by gunfire:
      16,907 in firearm suicides, 11,920 in firearm homicides, 730 in unintentional
      shootings, and 232 in firearm deaths of unknown intent, according to the
      National Center for Health Statistics. Nearly three times that number
      are treated in emergency rooms each year for nonfatal firearm injuries.

      http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/phil.html

      • Anonymous

         Criminals are going to have guns regardless of what the laws are. Of these 30,000 deaths per year, how many of those involve gangbangers shooting each other, domestic violence, and the like? As far as someone with a gun just “losing it” and shooting someone over something petty, think about the places in America where that is actually common place. Do I want EVERYONE to carry a gun? No, I just want more decent, responsible people to. If you don’t want to own or carry a gun, that’s absolutely your right. I don’t want to force anyone to do anything. Just so long as you don’t try to tell me what I can and cannot do.

        • Anonymous

          My view is that criminals and teenagers and others who shouldn’t have guns will have less access to guns if there are less guns around, which can be accomplished by stricter regulation.

          When I was a kid, I remember the police in Great Britain didn’t even have to carry guns.  And the sherrifs in my city carried .38 revolvers.  This was only a few decades ago.  I think our culture has changed to one of extreme fear and violence-glorification.

          •  funny guns are banned in many countries but yet the criminals in those countries still have guns.   Regulation does not stop any criminals from breaking the laws.  22000 plus gun laws in the united states and yet still many gun crimes.   As for teenagers shouldn’t we be holding parents responsible for the actions of their children.   Sorry regulating guns from honest people does not and will not stop criminals from breaking the laws already on the books.

          • Anonymous

            EXACTLY!!

          • Anonymous

            You know Mexico has only one legal gun store, and look at all their problems.

          • Anonymous

            You could always go back to Great Britain. The murderer’s, thieve’s, drug dealers and rapist’s will always have guns. The public certainly needs to protect themselves and their loved ones. If you don’t want a gun, don’t get one. Simple.

          • Anonymous

            I’m just saying that things were less violent in the past and the police were happy carrying nothing but .38 revolvers, and kids didn’t shoot up schools, theaters, or churches.  It’s pretty obvious, I thought.  But I’m getting attacked and mocked in here.  Just makes me want to speak the truth more. 

          • Jonathan Smith

             In the past it was less violent EVERYWHERE. We have a problem of moral decay – not firearms. A lack of parenting and nameless government entities who think they can properly raise a child. There are moral absolutes. People may mock the Ten Commandments but God established a moral set of laws for a society to function on.

          • Anonymous

            There is a moral decay, but it’s pop culture not the government.  We need to stop blaming government for everything and expecting government to fix everything. 

            The problems of today include violence on TV and movies, which is just too much and out of control; social media, which allows loners to be even more alone; violent video games; and, the internet in general, which is rotting everyone’s brains.

            Add to the mix easy access to guns and this is what you get.  We need some gun control, but that’s not the problem.  It’s guns and a pop culture that glories violence like the Batman movies.

          • Anonymous

            The decline in moral standards, the moral decay, became a social factor when both parents had to work just to survive.  Unlike when I was a kid in the 50-60’s, both parents are working these days so no one is at home to raise the children.  So the kids are left alone to develop their own set of social mores without an adult to guide and show them what is acceptable and what is not.  As to why there has been a decline in earning potential over the last half century, a decline that forces middle class people to have both parents working just to get by, well I leave that to you to figure out.

          • Anonymous

            I understand where you are coming from, but in the past even “our generation), our parents taught  us to use guns properly and the safety of guns. We could have guns in the truck when we went to school, we never had to worry about the stuff that goes on now. If the kids now were taught these things when they were little, it would be a much nice place to live. My kids are not the least bit curious about guns, they were taught what they are for and how to use them safely. It does all start at home, parents won’t take the time to teach them and for that, we pay. If every person in the state carried a gun, these punks would think twice about what they do with theirs. Right now only the “bad” guys are carrying. I say teach your kids and always carry a gun.

          • Anonymous

            And yet gun crime in Britain continues to increase. As they say, “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” If someone is going to commit murder or rape, I doubt they’ll care if having a gun in their possession is illegal.

            I carry every day. I hope I never ever have to use my gun against another human being, but I’m not going to be carried out in a plastic bag and neither are my loved ones.

          • The same LEO’s that bought Thompson Sub-machine guns to combat organized crime, knowing the criminals we out arming them? Criminals will always have access to better arms given the lack of any regulation on illegal things. On the other hand, LEO’s and the public will be outgunned or one step behind as we have to meet countless regulations and justify everything with data. Sadly it takes violent crimes to produce the statistics the anti-gun lobby wants the ‘pro-firearms’ people to produce. Worse yet, no one wins. And dead from a .38 is no different than dead from a 9mm.(damn close all around)

          • Anonymous

            Which is a reflection on the decay of the family and society, NOT guns.

          • Jonathan Smith

             And have you seen the violence statistics for Great Britain? Gushing over Europe or Britains lack of civilian firearms ownership is foolish. The level of organized crime is ridiculous over on that side of the pond. I am thankful I live in a nation where I can still defend my family. The Brits ruined their nation – it’s a cesspool now overrun with violent criminals. But fear not – no legal guns – just the criminals

      • Brett Kirschbaum

         so by that logic since in 2006 there were over 42000 deaths in car accidents  then we should ban all driving.  The problem you have is you want to blame an item not the people behind the items.  Those statics you quote are all gun deaths not legal gun’s  go look it up when counting legal owned firearms and you might be surprised.   I am not forcing anyone to carry a firearm all i am saying is stop trying to force me to live how you want me to because you think you are right.
        If i am safe enough to have a drivers license and a concealed carry permit then i should be safe enough to carry where i choose.  If you dont trust the issuing body’s of theese two license then why trust them for anything. 
        P.s. since you are counting suicides those should be removed because having a gun or not having a gun does not stop a suicide and if that is all it takes ban every thing anyone has used to kill themselves because that would save many life’s.

        • Anonymous

          I never said to ban all guns.  I have been trying to make the point that our culture is sick, based on all the school, church and, now, theater shootings.  Many dozens of them since Columbine.  I am trying to indict our culture as part of the problem, because I do feel that culture influences who we are and how we behave.  If you glorify violence, then statistically a certain number of people are going to increase their violence.  It just seems like common sense.  Keep in mind, I’m not just talking about adults.  Teenage boys, who are involved in a great deal of gun violence, are affected by culture too.

          To address some of your points:  I think comparing a military-style semi-automatic assault rifle, which was designed for one purpose, to kill human beings in numbers quickly, is very different than a car, whose purpose is transportation. 

          As for suicides and guns.  Guns as highly efficient killing machines and once you pull the trigger there is no second chance, no extra time to think.  I am certain that people pull triggers impulsively all the time, for various reasons, resulting in accidental or ‘heat of the moment’ tragedy.  Less triggers around means less heat of the moment mayhem.

          If you want to let people who have no criminal record buy whatever kind of gun they want, I think that is reckless.  A lot of citizens have addictions.  A lot of citizens are under great stress.  A lot of citizens have serious tempers.  A lot of them could be in the wrong place at the wrong time and feel the wrong amount of anger–and once you pull that trigger, on impulse, it’s all over

          •  i do understand your point but what you are saying is that we as a nation should control what people can and cant own based on what they might do.  I have a huge problem with that.   I think if you go and look at the numbers very few people that have concealed carry use their firearms in a wrongful/criminal manner.  I am not saying it do sent and wont happen just not near as common as the news wants to play out. 

          • Tom Brown III

             that is why the media is latched on to the george zimmerman case they want to crucify a CCW permit holder and vilify us all as a bunch of looney gun toting cowboys. 

          • Anonymous

            I know how you feel, those pesky constitutional rights.  Who needs them? I mean, only criminals ever use the 4th amendment or the 5th.

          • Anonymous

            I’m not for banning guns.  I think our culture is sick and there is plenty of evidence from all the school, church and theater shootings.

          • Anonymous

             Not to mention all those still supporting obama, even after the 4 most disastrous years in the country’s history!

            Yup, a sick culture indeed!

          • Anonymous

            “4 most disastrous years in the country’s history” wow………..

          • Anonymous

             It is what it is, and what he promised.

          • Anonymous

            It was under George W. Bush that the economic was destroyed utterly, sending China on its way to #1.

            But back to the shooting in Colorado, did you know that he bought all those guns legally?  Does that bother you at all?

          • Anonymous

            So if he purchased all the weapons legally how would you have prevented him from buying the weapons legally?

          • Anonymous

            It’s called a penal code.

          • Anonymous

            Spruce the only contact the killer in this case had with any law enforcement agency prior to the shooting was for a traffic violation.

            So I will ask the question again, if he purchased all the weapons legally how would you have prevented him from buying the weapons legally?

            It’s a serious question so I will ask it a different way. If he met the qualifications to purchase a rifle, a shotgun and two handguns how do yo deny him the right to purchase those or any weapons that are legal to own?

          • Anonymous

            One of the guns was the assault rifle, the Ar-15 which is the civilian version of the military M-16. It holds 100 bullets and a single bullet can kill 2 by passing through the first. This gun is legal to own in the U.S. Maybe a civilized discussion can be had whether this gun really should be legal. To me, this gun takes way more lives than it saves and hence ought to be banned.

          • Anonymous

             First off IT doesn’t do anything. Look at the nature of governments in the 20th century alone. Seems to me like government regulation of what we can and cannot own is like the fox guarding the hen house. Plus, if we can’t have them, then neither should police or a politicians security detail.

          • Anonymous

             I dunno, I think 1861-1865 were probably the 4 most disastrous years in our Country’s history.   Very sick culture then also.

          • Anonymous

            Well, what is your answer to a “sick culture” Ban the media?
            As far as atrocious acts, the Rwandan did just fine killing thousands with machetes.
            To bad the 71 year old man from Fl wasn’t there to shoot back, then those people may have stood a chance.

          • Anonymous

            You know, that pesky first sentence in the 2nd Amendment makes it a little less clear cut than many would like.  It was clearly designed to protect citizen militias in the days before the United States had a standing army, not to make sure that every crackpot could get their hands on multiple military grade semi-automatic assault weapons incredibly easily.

          •  funny who  are you calling the crackpots,  the people that have to have background checks to buy the guns, pay the money which is usually 1000’s of dollars, pay for the ammo at anywhere from 9- 100 bucks a box, find a place to shoot,  not to mention the bags, holsters, sights, and so fourth.
            i dont concerned myself a crackpot but i do enjoy shooting and having the right to own any gun i want as long as i am doing it within the set laws,  just like i would never tell someone buying i dont purse, shoes, cars or any other object that they shouldn’t be allowed to own it just because it can be used and have been used as weapons.      The thing you have to remember is laws dont stop criminals they are called criminals because they dont care about laws. 

          • Anonymous

            A citizen militia is just that, a group of citizens. Back in the day the militia was a group of locals that banned together to surpress an army. Remember Lexington and Concord the British was going to disarm the citizens. A matter of fact the entire Revolutionary War had the militia (armed citizens) playing a major role in it.

            Also military grade semi-automatic assault weapons is a naive statement. Oh by the way the militia way back when was using the most advance weapons for the time.

          • Anonymous

            Riiggght…I know my history. My point is that it’s not relevant now.  We have a standing army, its where about a 1/3rd of your federal tax money goes.   The first line of the 2nd Amendment is not applicable in any way to the 21st Century, except in some people’s wet dreams.
            To clarify, I am not saying we should ban gun ownership.  But making it a little more difficult for people like the crackpot in CO would probably be a smart idea.  It would save lives, that’s for sure.

          • Anonymous

            At the time of the Revolutionary War we were under the protection of a standing army and most of our tax went to that army. Of course it was the British Army, makes sense since before the war we were British subjects.

            What other Amendments do you think are out dated. Who needs the 3rd, really only criminals use the 4th and what do law bidding citizens have to worry about.

          • Anonymous

            So…..Another history blurb that is barely tangentially relevant to what I was saying, then changing the subject?  I don’t understand your point.  Are you saying that the American Military and what they do is comparable to the late 18th Century British Army?  We did not get to vote for or against those policies in the 1760’s, we do now.  That was the colonist’s main beef.
            This subject relates to the 2nd Amendment, so that is what I am talking about.  Your second question (Which really was not a question was it?  More of a statement) is irrelevant. 
            “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.
            -Thomas Jefferson

          • Anonymous

            My main point is that the 2nd Amendment (as written) still applies today as much as the day it was written. My comment about the British army was because of your “We have a standing army” comment. During the time the militia was used the most,  we had a standing army, we just happen to be fighting that standing army. ” Are you saying that the American Military and what they do is comparable to the late 18th Century British Army?” Yes and no, I really didn’t intend to compare them but I did and at their basic purpose they are similar, protect the nation. That was the point of bring up the British army, the Founding Fathers saw that a citizen militia is needed even when we have a standing army.

            The second part of my earlier post was a question (sorry i put a . not a ?) If you feel the 2nd amendment is out dated and needs to go, why wouldn’t you want to change/get rid of others. The last part of my earlier post was a statement.

          • Anonymous

            Fine, fair enough.  Nothing like what you described regarding the relationship between the colonists and the British Army Pre-Revolutionary War exists.
             
            After the war, the army was disbanded (so I can’t glean where you are getting at regarding what the Founders thought about a standing army….they did not believe in one, period…they disbanded after 1783…this is why the War of 1812 was not a particularly glorious moment).
             
            I think we can enact stronger barriers to gun ownership without “getting rid of” or even going against the spirit of the 2nd Amendment.  I did not talk about getting rid of anything.  Not once.  That was your language.

          • Anonymous

            I disagree with your first two paragraphs but like you have said before they are a bit off topic. To address your last paragraph, the 2nd amendment has already been stretched, twisted, and at times, outright banned. We already have “barriers” to regulate gun ownership. Also what is the spirit of the 2nd Amendment in your eyes?

            I do confess that when someone talks about add restriction on gun ownership I conclude they want to ban firearms. For assuming you are for that, I do apologize. But with the 2nd amendment being the most regulated and sometime banned amendment, can you blame me?

          • Anonymous

            I believe that the 2nd amendment was included so that citizens would be ready to take up arms against outside threats to the sovereignty of the United States government during a time when a full time, professional standing army was very rare, even in Europe.  I also believe that the Bill of Rights is a historically extraordinary document that can be re-interpreted to fit modern realities.  Some of the good folks who wrote it also wrote that slaves should be counted as 3/5ths of a human being.  It’s ok to change 
            I think that nobody is ever going to come take your guns away.  I think that there is a strain of paranoia in this country that is very detached from reality.   I’m a pretty liberal guy with plenty of liberal friends.  Don’t know anyone who wants to “ban guns.”   I’m sure those people exist, but they are quite rare.
            Also, many conservatives (not saying you are) would say that the 10th amendment is the one that has been usurped the most. 

          • Anonymous

            “I think that nobody is ever going to come take your guns away”. A few months ago people on this site was screaming that the police should search a man’s home to take away guns he was accused of having because he was accused for stalking his ex girlfriend. I just wanted to point that out, no real reason for that example.

            Feel free to call me conservative, I am one.

          • Anonymous

            “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
            security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
            shall not be infringed.”A condition is clearly being positioned next to the right to own a gun.  It’s obvious.

          • Anonymous

            Here is something for you to chew on spruce…

            The Second Amendment as passed by the Congress:

            “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
            security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
            shall not be infringed.”

            The Second Amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

            “A well regulated militia being necessary to the
            security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
            shall not be infringed.”

            Which one has the force of law?

          • Anonymous

            Thanks for entering the debate. “A well regulated Militia” so anyone that has filed their selective service card should have the right to own any firearm they want.

          • Anonymous

            Thanks for admitting that there is a condition.  What it means is a matter of debate.

          • Anonymous

            And those “stronger barrier to gun ownership” would be what? You have done a great deal of posting about how the 2nd Amendment is no longer applicable in today society, that don’t want to ban gun ownership and that we need “stronger barriers to gun ownership” but have done very little posting about what those changes and measures would be.

          • Anonymous

            Something along these lines.
            Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms License and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.
            Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit to Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued.
             
            Will this get rid of gun related crime?  Of course not.  It’s the random massacres that concern me and that are becoming more and more common in America.  Other countries have one or two of these and adjust.  We keep letting it happen.

          • Anonymous

            Let me start by saying I am not attempting to start an argument with you. Since you were good enough to answer my post and being civil I will try to do the same in return.

            “Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms License and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18.”

            Does the person seeking a Firearms License need a “reason” for wishing to possess or use a firearm?

            What, other than age would there be any other issuing limitation?
            ~~~~~
            “Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.”

            Already required in most states. Owners of firearms can be held criminally and civilly liable for access by children, etc…
            ~~~~~
            “Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit to Acquire.”

            Who or what is the issuing authority?

            Does the person seeking the permit need a reason for the permit?

            What are the limiting factors for not issuing the permit?
            ~~~~~
            “The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued.”

            28 days? That seems a bit arbitrary. Why not 7, 14 or 21 days? What is special about 28 days?

            Is the permit a “must issue” or can the issuing authority drag their feet because they don’t agree with private ownership of firearms? (that does happen and is actually very common in Massachusetts. Maine CWP currently are taking 100+ days to issues when they are required by law to be issued or denied within 30 days)
            ~~~~~
            “It’s the random massacres that concern me and that are becoming more and more common in America.”

            Well in that statement you are flat out wrong. Between 1900 and 1999 the U.S. experienced 9.1 mass murders (as defined by 4+ deaths within 24 hours) per year by firearm. Here is a link that backs up this statement http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol15is1/Bratina.pdf

            Again, thank you for your civil response. I hope you have found mine civil also.

          • Anonymous

            bradygirl2, now everytime I purchase a firearm I must have a FBI background done (if buying from a dealer). Also to buy a long rifle I must be 18 for a handgun I must be 21. I have never done the paper work for a class III firearm (I don’t own one) so not sure of all the paper work there but I have been told its alot. Also to my understanding a dealer can refuse you for about any reason.

          • Jonathan Smith

             The Supreme Court says you are wrong

          • Matthew Desmond

            A standing Army isn’t going to be there to protect you when someone goes ape in a theater like this guy did.  Look at the guy down in Florida last week that stopped the armed robbery of an internet cafe.  Two young punks came in and they had a hand gun and a baseball bat looking to rob the place.  They went charging out faster than they went in after an old man with a concealed carry permit and a .380 handgun got off a few shots at them (and even wounded them!)  I don’t think that would have stopped the guy in Colorado unless someone was in very close and managed to hit a spot where he wasn’t wearing ballistic armor.  My question is why weren’t the red flags going off at these stores where the guy bought all of this stuff?

          • Anonymous

             In the 20th century alone, far more people have been murdered by governments than by individuals. About 14 to 1.

          • Jonathan Smith

             Not according to the Supreme Court or numerous lower court rulings. Firearms ownership is an individual right regardless of how you want to spin history.

          • Tom Brown III

            There is no such thing as an assault
            rifle. Assault is an act potentially committed with the weapon.
            Therefore anything can be prefaced with an intent… Therefore if I
            attack someone with a stapler or merely intend to attack someone with a
            stapler it becomes an evil assault stapler. The term assault weapon and
            assault rifle is left over brady campaign 1990’s anti-gun rhetoric. A
            tactical carbine is the correct technical term for the commonly refereed to assault rifle such as ar15/m16
            and clones AK47 clones SKS ruger mini 14 and other semi automatic
            intermediate cartridge carbines. 

            The original intent for the design of the first gun ever was a better way to kill someone sure any intelligent person doesnt argue that. Today the civilian models of military small arms are capable of great destruction in the wrong hands. However, weather something is built for transportation or for battle (car vs gun) in the wrong hands so many things become dangerous. We cannot regulate intent plain and simple. Because the natural progressive instinct is to regulate when there is a problem… we have to regulate the objects used in the problem.

            The other issue is if we ban all guns and only let the military and police have them to protect us who protects us from them? The second amendment isnt really about owning guns for hunting or personal protection. It is a power check against a central government becoming intrusive, corrupt, and  tyrannical.

          • Anonymous

            They’ve been called assault rifles for decades, for instance the AR-15, though supposedly named for ArmaLite, we all knew it referred to assault rifle.   

            I’m not against banning all guns. 

          • Anonymous

             You actually come up with this stuff? Amazing!!!!!

            Proof once again that Liberalism is a brain disease!

          • Anonymous

            I don’t identify with either party, I choose to see things as they happen rather than be pre- judgmental. Here is why.

            Each has a rabid, self-righteous anger in defense of their beliefs.
            Each has a filtered, biased view of the other side.
            Each feels we would be better off if there were more if not exclusive power on their side.
            Each shows pride in proclaiming to be lifelong members of their side (which to me is like proclaiming to have never considered an alternate viewpoint).
            Each admonishes the other for not compromising by refusing to move towards the middle, or rather closer to their viewpoint.In short, each has a simplistic view that they are right and the other side is wrong. All of this has little to do with actual position and more with attitude.

            So why are you Conservative? When did you first identify with being a Conservative, Republican, etc.?

          • Anonymous

            Easy, when I received my first paycheck at age 15! As to why, because I believe in a hand up, not a hand out! Because I believe in lifting others to achieve their own personal best, not penalizing the successful so everyone is equally miserable. Because I believe what I earn is mine, not the governments to redistribute to those that didn’t earn it in exchange for their vote!

            If you don’t understand the difference, then explaining any more would be futile.

          • Anonymous

            If you’re against using your money to pay to protect my right to life, then you are effectively a traitor who is against the basic ideas of the Founders.  So what you earn is not yours, not all of it, right?

            But back to the shooting–why do you think there are so many shootings like this in America today, but there were never any like this before.

            You know, mass murders but young white men in their own schools and churches and theaters.

            Surely it has something to do with a flaw in our society.

          • Anonymous

            Each has a rabid, self-righteous anger in defense of their beliefs.

            Each has a filtered, biased view of the other side.

            Each admonishes the other for not compromising by refusing to move towards the middle, or rather closer to their viewpoint.In short, each has a simplistic view that they are right and the other side is wrong. All of this has little to do with actual position and more with attitude.

          • Anonymous

            Spruce I actually agree with you that culture is playing a large part in what is happening in this country.  Lt. Col Dave Grossman pointed this out in great detail in both of his books on the subject and every time I hear about something like this happening I shake my head and shiver a little in wonderment as to what we’re doing to ourselves.

            That being said, firearms are not the problem.  I had a great uncle who shot himself with a shotgun, didn’t die, and walked back into the house for another round to finish the job.  He made up his mind that he was going to die that day and the gun was a tool not the cause.  Along those lines, I also had a friend nearly die a few years ago because someone intentionally drove into his lane and tried to use him to commit suicide. (A note at home apparently verified the intentions).  My point is that there are bad people in the world and in today’s world most of the cops I know wouldn’t feel comfortable carrying a .38.  I know from my time at the range and in discussions that a .38 isn’t a strong enough load and so do the criminals.  

            Today was an extremely sad day for our country and I can’t begin to express how awful I feel for the victims, their families, and friends but the fact remains this was carried out by a single individual hell bent on destruction.  It’s time we put the onus on the perps and not on the tools they use.

          • Anonymous

            Thank you for your intelligent, heartfelt comment.

          • Jonathan Smith

             Our culture is sick but again blaming firearms is foolish. The media portrayal of firearms in movies and video games is disturbing though. There needs to be more training and less of the garbage out there. There needs to be responsibility. Also – every kid needs a mom and a dad active in their life. Letting the kids be raised by their peers and not controlling what they see or do is very dangerous to them in the long term. A parent is supposed to lead – not be their child’s best friend. Our entire country has a leadership vacuum.

          • Anonymous

            Wheel lock firearms were designed to kill people, so were bolt action rifles. The classic Winchester repeater was often dubbed the rifle “you could load on Sunday and fire all week”. It’s all relative. Please do not restrict my rights because of what some lunatic does.

      • Tom Brown III

         traumatic cause of death… come on… death is death. gun related death is so far down the list. I think suicide is like 10 on the overall list and gun deaths only account for something like 30% of that.

        We should ban smoking drinking, driving, being outside during thunderstorms, sugary snacks, soda pop, coughing, going to work sick because those are choices we make that lead to deaths which out pace gun related deaths.

        • Anonymous

          They are NRA statistics, not mine.

          • Anonymous

            No spruce that are “NRA statistics”. The link you provided takes you to a site owned and maintained by a group called Violence Policy Center. The link further list two “studies” conducted and published by VPC, not the NRA.

            VPC is trying to pass off THEIR research as NRA research which it clearly isn’t if you take the time to read it which you haven’t bothered to do.

      • Anonymous

         Please supply facts that aren’t directly from the most radical,  left-wing anti-gun organization in existence! Thy FBI statistics, or CDC statistics!

        Oh, but they both would contradict you absurd assertions.

        Never mind.

        • Anonymous

          Um, those are NRA statistics.

          • Anonymous

             Um, as a Life Member I can assure you and everyone reading your posts that they ARE NOT NRA statistics!

            You posted the link to http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/phi… THAT IS NOT THE NRA!!!!!
            VPC IS one of the most rabid anti-gun organizations out there!!!!!

            Nice try! Some may think you speak the truth, but you are called on this one as a flat out lie!

          • Anonymous

            Well, it says NRA info on the web page.  Are you assuming something?

            Anyway, just give me the link to the NRA’s own death statistics with guns … Wait a minute, do they even have any?  Why not?

      • Anonymous

        How many of these 30,000 deaths  are caused by people with carry permits?Remember guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

        • Anonymous

          A good question is:  How many of those guns were purchased legally.  The killer at the Aurora Theater, apparently, bought all his guns legally.

      • Anonymous

        The problem is the media. If they stopped reporting these kinds of things, other sicko’s would not get the ideas. Of course, its probably too late now, but that is the worst thing they can do is publicize, that is just what them kind of people want.

        • Jake_OO7

          fox news has been reporting about it 24-7, start there. 

    • pbmann

      I have never felt the need to have a gun on me at all times to feel safe and I am almost 50 years old and spent time in Fresno and Las Vegas (not exactly the safest palces).  If some feels they need a gun to protect them at all times, I have to wonder what they are so afraid of and why all the time?

      • Anonymous

         Do you wear a seat belt in a vehicle?

        • pbmann

          Most of the time and totally irrelevent.

          • Anonymous

             Does that mean you’re afraid or are planning on being involved in an accident?

          • pbmann

            Wearing a seat belt does not make you afraid of anything.  There are many reasons to wear a seatbelt and fear is not one of them.

            While there are may reason to own a gun, it does seem that fear is a big part of why many people own guns.  It is well known that scared or fearful people hardly ever make the correct decision, especially when their safety is involved.

          • Anonymous

             I would like to post a logical response opposing your statement… but I would like to start by saying that your statements are purely your opinion and are not a indication of reality.  But I support your right to express your feelings.
            You want to know what I fear?  That my family will face an uncertain fate, and that I will not have the tools to deal with the situation.  I own a firearm and have a concealed carry permit for the same reason I have home owners insurance and automobile insurance.  Because $%&# happens!  You don’t know when, you don’t know what, and you don’t ever expect it.  I would be a failure as the head of my household if our home was damaged by a falling tree, and I had not had the foresight to plan ahead and cover our property with insurance.  In the same way, should the need ever arise, I will also be prepared and have though ahead enough to defend them from harm from an unexpected harmful source.

          •  well said

      • Anonymous

        I carry almost all the time. I see a firearm as a tool, just the same as the pocket knife I carry. I may never need either but its nice to have it if I need it.

        • pbmann

          I use the greatest tool anyone can use to be safe.  It is called the human brain and if used intelligently will keep you safe 99% of the time.

          Having a gun and feeling safer because of that gun will render the carrier’s brain less effective at keeping safe and may actually increase the odds of getting into a dangerous situation. 

          It is a proven fact that gunowners are at greater risk than non gun owners of dying from gun violence.  I believe that is because guns make some people “braver” than their brain can protect.

          • Anonymous

            By now, I realize that I’m not going to change anyone’s mind. If you choose not to carry or own a gun, absolutely your right and God bless ya, I hope no one here ever needs to use one. I get that some people like guns, others not so much, but as long as we can all respect each other and leave one another to live as they please, I’ll be just peachy.

          • Do you have stats to back up that last paragraph because I believe it’s bologna!

          • Anonymous

            To each their own I guess. I would like to see your proven fact that gun owners are at greater risk than non gun owners of dying from gun violence.

          • pbmann

            “Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts. ”

            The rest of the study

            http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

          • Anonymous

            That “study” was seriously flawed. You did see where the study showed being a renter you are 4.4% more like to be murdered.

          • Anonymous

            Here is a nice review of Dr. Kellermann’s studies. Please pay particular attention to final 7 paragraph’s under “Kellermann’s published studies on gun ownership” as they point out some series ethical lapses in furnishing ALL data points and conclusions drawn from the data not published. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann#cite_note-10

          • Tom Brown III

            is this study of only legal citizens legally owning firearms in accordance with federal state and local laws?

            I highly doubt it.

            1 in 4 people own a gun and of those people many own more then one. Maine for instance people own a lot of guns do to hunting and shooting sports being popular around here. Why arent there dozens of homicides every week/month/year hear in maine? I havent seen stats on this my criminology courses in college around 2007/2008 but maine averaged something like 18 homicides a year %50 where commited with firearms which is pretty on par with national trends but  I think it was around .7 gun homicides per person.

            Anyone can throw stats around to make their argument look scientific. I have never even seen an NRA rebuke of this study but I bet a big part of it aside from what I previously listed also stated gun related death vs homicide.  I know it says murders in their study summary but this could include accidental homicides as well.

            Guns and alcohol don’t mix if you are a violent drunk and have loaded weapons around yeh someone is probably going to get hurt. Maybe we should ban the alcohol instead… oh wait.

          • Anonymous

             EVERYONE seriously attacked Kellermann’s study! Not only was it seriously flawed, but he’s an anti-gun zealot who fudged the data to get the results he wanted!

          • Anonymous

            Did you know that children find their parents guns all the time and play with them?  You realize that’s true, right?

          • Anonymous

            A level headed parent would NEVER make a gun taboo, they would do proper teaching and the kids would have no reason to ever play with a gun

          • Anonymous

             And I easily found 6 sites that refuted that BS. You can pick and choose what you want to believe if you want, but most of us know the truth. It’s up to you is you choose to believe it. Guess you don’t.

          • Anonymous

            Did you know the Columbine shooters got their guns?  Here’s how:
            ———-
            Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from unlicensed sellers. Because Anderson purchased the guns for someone else, the transition constituted an illegal “straw purchase.” Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark
            Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol,
            but nevertheless sold it to them for $500.

            http://www.vpc.org/studies/wgun990420.htm
            ——

            The penalties should be harsher for illegally selling, don’t you think?

          • pbmann

            Show me the sites and if they are not pro gun sites but in fact scientific sites then you have an argument otherwise not.

            My study was not a partisan study.

          • Anonymous

            “I use the greatest tool anyone can use to be safe.  It is called the human brain and if used intelligently will keep you safe 99% of the time. ”

            I’m sure the victims at VT thought the same, until that one time.

          • Anonymous

             Are you sure yours is working? Ever stop to think and forget to start again?

            What about the other 1%? Guess then you just bend over and kiss you but goodbye?

          • Anonymous

            Did you know that Ronald Reagan sold missiles, under the table, to Iran?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
            ——

            But back to the shooting–Isn’t it a strange coincidence that the Dark Knight movie had scenes with a killer in a gas mask, and that Holmes wore a gas mask?

            Do you see any connection between this movie, how it sensationalizes evil, and the mass murder at all?

          • Anonymous

            So I guess every movie should be an animated Disney film now?

            Movies have a rating system. If parents were responsible and didn’t bring 4 year olds to see violent movies or if they took the time to teach their kids how to deal with emotions in a healthy fashion, maybe it wouldn’t be such an issue.

            Hollywood didn’t have your kids, so why is Hollywood responsible for their proper upbringing?

          • pbmann

            I would hazard a guess that mine works much better than yours does.

            And do you stay inside behind locked doors because of the 1% danger?

          • Anonymous

            “I believe”…that means you don’t know.

      • Anonymous

         If you have to ask, then you aren’t capable of understanding.

        • Anonymous

          Your argument:  If someone asks a question they can’t understand

          Counterargument:  People often ask questions and learn from them.  Therefore, you’re wrong.

          But anyway, back to the shooting in Colorado, which you seem not to care much about (judging on the limited attention given in your discursive comments):

          Why did Holmes claim he was “The Joker” if indeed the movie and our violence-rich media didn’t affect him?

          See any cultural problems with violence in America yet?

    • Anonymous

      I expected that someone would have this kind of  comment posted but didn’t expect it to be top rated.

      Can you imagine what would have happened if others had been packing?  An even worse bloodbath, that’s what.

      • Anonymous

        if someone else had been “packing” then lives may have been saved.

        after all, who do you call to come take care of criminals? The police.
        Why do you call them?
        Because they have guns.

        it would have meant more guns firing between each other anyways.
        so empower the citizens to defend themselves, because when precious seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

      •  i really wonder when people post comments like this what they think the police do,  how many people have been shot by officers in Maine,  Calling the police is no different then having an armed citizens other then the fact armed citizen will go on trial and the cops will get a pass by review board. 

      • Anonymous

         Prove it!

        • Anonymous

          Your argument:  if you can’t prove it, you’re wrong

          Counterargument:  you’re committing a classic form of poor reasoning.  An example of this  flawed form:  “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist, therefore God does exist.”

          But anyway, back to the shooting in Colorado–you do remember that, right?–

          Didn’t Holmes seem to think he was The Joker and doesn’t that suggest that our culture of violence has something to do with this rampage?  Say, haven’t there been other shootings where the young white men identified with pure evil–and doesn’t our media culture glorify pure evil, in the form of supervillans?

      • Anonymous

        If someone had been carrying a gun, there would only be one dead–the gunman himself. Not a dozen dead and 50 wounded.

    • Anonymous

      He was wielding three weapons (assault rifle, shotgun, sidearm), covered in battle gear, and disoriented the theatre with gas/smoke. Any conceal carry weapon would have probably not been very effective. 

      • Anonymous

         Even in all that gear, being repeatedly shot would have seriously interrupted his murderous spree, maybe giving others a chance to stop him! Unarmed as they were, everyone was running away form him. He wouldn’t have stood a chance if everyone had run to him and piled on!

        • Anonymous

          Your argument:  if everyone has a gun, murderous sprees might sometimes be stopped.

          Counterargument:  if everyone has a gun, there will be many more murderous sprees.  Plus with all those guns everywhere, there will be more accidents and heat of the moment violence.

          Also, you said MIGHT.  Whoopie.  If everyone has guns the killers will just make sure they get the element of surprise, or maybe switch to bombs.  Do you think everyone should have bombs?

          •  Well counter argument if you ban all guns they might switch to bombs and then instead of 12 dead i might have been 200.  Might is a bad way to argue but for you to assume that concealed carry holders are wild and crazy and will randomly shoot at people because we carry is false.  I would bet many people you know carry but you just dont relise it.

      •  there is a reason that i practice and train to shoot to the head gas mask wont stop a 9mm slug to the head,  and maybe the first few rounds would have been stopped by the vest but since i carry 3 mags i doubt if i put 52 rounds center mast he would have still been standing.   And worse case sceneror  my cold steel tanto will go right threw the vest if need be,  You see i would gladly sacrifice my life to try and save the life’s of others.  These people did not have a chance because they were in a gun free safe zone, didn’t work out to  be to safe and gun free.

    •  People that support gun free zones support and condone the murder of innocent people.

    • Jake_OO7

      It won’t be the crazy person you see, it will be the one behind you that won’t see coming.

    • David A Sawyer

       Yes, lets throw more guns into the problem. I can just imagine if audience members had personal hand guns on them that they would use them wisely in a panic situation. NOT! I bet even more people would have died along with Holmes being shot himself that audience members would also be shooting at each other out of terror. A lot of them were avoiding bullets that were bouncing around ricocheting. Someone in a panic state might turn around and see yet another audience member with a gun and think the bullets were coming from them and start firing. That person in turn would start firing. A 3rd person with a gun would see one of the first two firing their weapons and assume one  of them is the original shooter.  What we need are better security guards that are well trained and placed at all possible exists and entrances. If there was a guard at that fire exit in the first place Holmes would never got back in with his own weapons. Or if the emergency alarm had gone off like it had supposed to on the emergency side exist Holmes would have been caught. There are lots of things we could do better but just don’t but handing guns out to more and more Americans is just plan wrong. I for one don’t think most people are rational enough to handle them in the first place.

  • Anonymous

    I am as appalled by this senseless act of violence as anyone. Even if I had a gun, I don’t know that I would want to carry it into a movie theater. That is where people go to enjoy themselves and escape into fantasy, not to recreate the gunfight at the OK Corral.

    • “Even if I had a gun, I don’t know that I would want to carry it into a movie theater. That is where people go to enjoy themselves and escape into fantasy, not to recreate the gunfight at the OK Corral.”

      That’s all the more reason to carry your legal weapon.  criminals are usually opportunistic.  they are going to find victims that they believe wont be able to defend themselves.  That’s why places like these are chosen.  Rumor has it, that this complex was posted as a “gun free zone”  As a rule, I will not patronize a business that has signs up banning legal weapons on their property.

      • pbmann

        What is it like to be afraid all the time?

        And don’t say you aren’t afraid because if you were not you would not feel the need to carry at all times.

        • Anonymous

           It’s not fear so much as the understanding that lunatics like this guy exist. Most of the patrons at the theater probably never thought anything like that would ever happen to them. They probably were not afraid, they became afraid. If you wear a seat belt, does that mean you’re afraid? 

          • pbmann

            I do not wear a seatbelt because I am afraid. If I was afraid to be in a car without a seat belt I would most likely avoid being in a car as much as possible.

            I wear a seat belt for many reasons, one being that it gives me better control in an emergency situation where I may need to use evasive driving tactics that would move me around if not for the seatbelt.

          • Anonymous

             The vast majority of those who carry guns do not live in a state of fear either, they just don’t want to see things like this happen to them or their families.

          • pbmann

            If you need to carry a gun everywhere you go to feel safe then, yes you are fearful, either that or you are going places with your family that you really shouldn’t be.

          • Anonymous

            the problem is that criminals carry guns, everywhere.
            maybe not so much here in maine, but it happens.
            Gun free zones are not safe. Columbine, virginia tech, the westroads mall shooting, the ohio university shooting, the toronto mall shooting all prove that gun free zones don’t work.

            you have a right to defend yourself, and since criminals don’t follow the laws then that means it’s your responsibility to protect yourself and your family wherever you go.
            so therefore, you have and keep the tools necessary to do so (a gun)

          • pbmann

            Sorry a gun in not necessarily the tool to do the job. 

            If a thug gets the drop on you and has his gun out before you even know your in trouble, what good is your gun going to do other than get you and your family hurt?  Or do you walk around with your gun drawn all the time?

            As for most of your examples do you really think having guns in the hands of untrained personel in schools or malls is the best option? 

            If someone starts shootin up a mall and others pulled their guns “to defend themselves and others” how would they know who the bad guy(s) are  and who the good samaritans are?

          • Anonymous

            “If a thug gets the drop on you and has his gun out before you even
            know your in trouble, what good is your gun going to do other than get
            you and your family hurt?  Or do you walk around with your gun drawn all
            the time?”

            To answer your questions I would direct you to Massad Ayoob who has written multiple books and articles about concealed weapons and shoot don’t shoot situations.
            ~~~~~

            As for most of your examples do you really think having guns in the
            hands of untrained personel in schools or malls is the best option? 

            No, anyone who is going to take the responsibility of carrying a weapon either concealed or open carry needs to be trained. In fact you cannot obtain a CWP in Maine without a basic training course that includes live fire.
            ~~~~~
            “If someone starts shootin up a mall and others pulled their guns “to
            defend themselves and others” how would they know who the bad guy(s) are
             and who the good samaritans are?”

            That goes back to shoot don’t shoot situations and you only learn that through training.

          • Tom Brown III

            It isnt a matter of fear dude. It is a matter of understanding how the world works. I think the seat belt analogy is great. A seat belt is a little extra insurance in case a crappy driver veers into your lane. At least then you are prepared for the worst case scenario. Thats what CCW is. We choose to carry because we know that the threat of violence is real. Not constant but real. There are people out there who will kill you just because they can or because you have a nicer cell phone then you. If you don’t choose to carry thats ok. I also encourage responsible firearms ownership, knowledge, and safety. However I am not dogmatic about it. It is a choice we as individuals make.

          • pbmann

            I have know quite a few gun owners who have CWP and they are fearful of quite a few things. 

            I am not saying all people are but a good percentage of gun owners own guns because they are scared and feel safer because they own a gun.  That is the wrong type of person to own a gun because they are their own worse enemy and would most likely use their firearms incorrectly or at the wrong time causing more harm than good.

            And a lot of people that own guns think target practice equates being trained to use a gun. I had a good friend who thought she was well trained with her .357 because she could hit a still target with it most of the time.  I tried to tell her that she was wrong to think that was all she needed to know or that trying to hit something that was shooting back at her woudl be as easy as shooting targets.

            And she had never taken a true gun safety course. 

          • Anonymous

             Two questions pb:

            1) Does you female friend that owns the .357 hold a CWP?

            2) Does she live in Maine?

          • pbmann

            Don’t know about the CWP but she does live in Maine.

          • Anonymous

            IMHO anyone that wants to own a firearm should be required to take and pass an NRA basic safety class.

            I did in order to obtain my CWP even though I didn’t have to as I held an old CWP that I allowed to expire.

            It is a painless class and demonstrates that you want to be a responsible firearm owner.

          • pbmann

            Most gun owners would disagree and the NRA, if they were consistant and not in it for the money, would cry about the infringement on the 2nd amendment right to bear arms with no regulations.

            I do, however, agree with you that ALL gun owners should have to take madatory firearms safety classes and have to retake them either yearly or no more than every 5 years because we all forget things.

          •  actually again you are wrong most of the gun owners i know are more then glad to take courses because it increases are knowledge and lets us learn from people that know more then us.  You can never stop learning, practicing and getting better.  

          • Anonymous

            Not so sure the NRA would fight it. They have a very active firearm safety program now. They even have a program for youths.

            In Massachusetts you have to show proficiency prior to obtaining a CWP (which you need in order to purchase a handgun, no CWP no handgun) to the Chief of Police in the municipality  where you reside. The issue many gun owners have in Massachusetts is “proficiency” is not defined in the law and is left up to the Police Chief. So if you have a Police Chief that wants to limit the number of permits they issue they could require a perfect 10 ring with every shot. That’s not right that it’s so arbitrary.

        • Anonymous

          I’m not afraid, and i carry everywhere i go.

          Are you afraid of fires in your house?
          why do you have a fire extinguisher then?

        • Am I afraid that someone may try to hurt my children?  Yes.
          Am I afraid that someone may try to rape my daughter? Yes.
          Am I afraid that someone may try to rape my wife? Yes.
          Am I afraid that someone may try to burn my house down with my family inside? Yes.
          Am I afraid that someone may try to do other physical harm to my family? Yes.
          Am I afraid that someone may try to rape the wife or daughter of another person? Yes.
          Am I afraid that someone may try to threaten another person with deadly force? Yes.
          Will I hesitate for even a second to defend my family, myself, you or your family in the unfortuate event that someone seeks to do you harm?  NO!

          The sad fact is that I am better prepared and more willing to help you and your family than you are.

          • pbmann

            The sad fact is that you have watched way to many Clint Eastwood films.

            And you are no better prepared to defend yourself or your family than I am.

          • I assure you that I am.

      • Anonymous

        Exactly.  Criminals will pick the easy targets.  The whole point behind having a carry gun is to protect yourself, your family and even people around you that you don’t know in case someone tries to do them harm.  

        I encourage everyone to take a firearm safety course, learn how to safely handle them and then purchase a firearm for self defense.  The background check process for a conceal/carry permit is pretty rigorous.

        • pbmann

          Criminal pick targets they percieved to be vunerable. 

          They use body language to determine whether you are an easy mark or not.  If they perceive you to be someone who can/will defend themselves they will leave you alone and go to the next person.  Carrying a gun does not change your body language from being a victim to not being a victim, your natural self-confidance does that.

          • Anonymous

             I just gotta jump in.  You need to cut back on the CSI marathons PB.  :P

            But to quote you from earlier…  “I wear a seat belt for many reasons, one being that it gives me better
            control in an emergency situation where I may need to use evasive
            driving tactics that would move me around if not for the seatbelt.”

            One might also say,  I carry a firearm for many reasons, one being that it gives me better
            control in an emergency situation where I may need to use heroic measures that would would not be possible if not for the firearm.

            And your post was well thought out, even if I disagree with most or all of your points about firearms.

          • pbmann

            First, I can’t stand CSI.  Absolutely no real science in any of the episodes but I agree with you that too many people watch CSI and other shows and have a misguided view of reality.  Like being able to easily hit a moving target with a handgun while being shot at and not hitting innocent bystanders, for example. 

            Read up on studies showing how inaccurate even trained soldiers and police officers are in a combat situation.

            Speaking of TV shows, I heard a real good definition of a hero in the movie Serenity,  “A hero is someone who gets others killed.”

      • Tom Brown III

         this is no rumor its a fact.

        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/07/robert-farago/cinemark-theaters-no-legal-firearms-allowed/

        this cinema franchise is all gun free.

    • Anonymous

       It wasn’t a gunfight, it was a slaughter. At least in a gunfight, the good guys are shooting back. As far as we know, none of the patrons were armed, and they certainly didn’t have a good time.

      • Anonymous

        You are missing the point that I was trying to make. I did not say it was a gunfight, I was trying to say that a night at the movies should not become one!!!

        • Anonymous

           My only point is to ask the question of, would you rather that a few of these patrons had been armed?

    • Anonymous

      Bath school disaster (Bath township, michigan)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster 
      “The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927,”

  • Anonymous

    Serioulsy, things like this didn’t happen in American in the days of Gunsmoke.  I can think of one mass murder shooting back then, at a Texas University.  But now we have dozens of mass murders perpetrated by young white men with semiautomatic weapons.

    Show me the equivalent of Columbine and all the rest in the 60’s, in the days of the old westerns.

    • Anonymous

      And what did you see when someone was shot on “Gunsmoke” or “Adam-12” or “Dragnet” or any number of TV shows and movies from the 1950s and 60s?

      Nothing. The person shot grabbed there chest and fell over. No blood, no guts, no brain matter, no nothing.

      Fast forward to the 1990s, 2000s, etc…and what do we see we someone is shot? Blood dripping down walls, guts and brain matter splattered on the faces of bystanders, etc…I remember one movie set in Boston called “Blown Away” (1994) where Lloyd Bridges was blown to bits. It was a disgusting scene but we keep going back to see these movies…why?

      What about video games? Same thing except you get to “die”but really you get to live and fight another day.

      Spruce you know that I have spent 25+ years in public safety and I hate horror movies? Why, because I have seen things that are far more horrible in real life. But what do kids want to see? They want to see the latest “slasher” movie and the more bloody and disgusting it is the better they like it and the more money it makes.

      Halloween used to be goblins, witches, ghost, etc…Now it’s Freddie Kruger, zombies, etc…

      IMHO one of the reason (and it is only one of many reasons) is we as a society have successfully desensitized our youth to violence. They see it day in and day out on TV, in the movies and on there home video game consoles. We have also allowed violence to become a way of settling disputes, i.e. “rage in the cage”, “fight club” videos on YouTube,  etc…

      And this “person” (really a monster in the truest form of the word) after his killing rampage and arrest told the police he had bobby-trapped his apartment. Why? Remorse? Did his killing spree sink in and he found the killing “different” from a movie or video game? Did he decide that he had butchered enough innocent people and didn’t want any one else to die for nothing?

      When we take the “shock” of killing away via movies, TV, video games, etc…we are teaching our young people that killing is just another way of settling scores and ending disputes. Again, just my humble opinion.

    • Maybe, just maybe, a few things have changed? The population is slightly up? The value of human life is slightly down? We now have access to everything at our fingertips, when before if you wanted to avenge you brother’s death you’d have to hear about via Poney Express first? Not to mention getting your idea of how people died from Hollywood is like voting for whoever Clooney says. 

  • Anonymous

    This is a horrendous event indeed. I have an observation and a question. If you have a gun you or someone you love is more likely to die from a gun. Why were small children at the opening of a violent movie at midnight?

    • Anonymous

       The idea that you and your family is in danger with a firearm around is only true if you’re a violent criminal or a complete and utter jack@$$.

      • Anonymous

        Some utter jack@$$s just dont believe in $tatistics.

        • Tom Brown III

           please cite and link these so called statistics.

          • Anonymous

            Pull up HEALTH .  Pull up Dr. Erik Steele. Read his op-ed of March 29,2012 Math and
            Myth of Guns and Safety.

          • His opinion now serves as proof? Read all the comments and you’ll find many holes in Steele’s opinion. Anyone can use the numbers they find and want to use while excluding those that don’t make their argument as Steele did there.

  • M’i giong ot bmlae htis psot no ym kyebaord.

  • Anonymous

    It’s clear, after reading some of the posts, that some on here understand that personal protection is up to the individual. Some see it as a personal responsibility. Others would rather cower and hope for the best. Fine! That’s their prerogative.

    Every society has heroes and cowards. Heroes usually just go about their lives, until extraordinary measures are called for. Cowards usually just go about their lives demeaning, degrading and making fun of heroes, because they lack the cohones to take care of themselves or their loved ones.

    I believe it was Jeff Cooper who said, “There are sheep, wolves and prickly men.” A lot on here are sheep! In Colorado, we see the actions of a wolf! I would rather be a ‘prickly woman’ than a sheep, thank you!

    • Anonymous

      So, once again, you seem to be blaming the people who are shot because they are “cowards.”

      That’s sad.

      • Anonymous

        No Spruce, that is not what see is saying. Try rereading the post. The comments are directed at the posters not the victims in Colorado.

    • Anonymous

      You’re more like a troll.

  • Anonymous

     So sad God bless the victims and their family’s>>This man ,the Shooter, even looks evil and crazy didn’t the person who sold him the gun see his Manson eyes???

  • Anonymous

    There is no need for automatic weapons to be legal in the u s Absolutely none. People armed in a  smoke filled theatre could have caused a much worse disaster. The problem is the gun laws in this country, the glut of guns, the ease with which a gun can be obtained and the type of guns available. The bad guys can have guns and the good guys can’t the gun advocates say about gun regulations. Well the good guys are the ones that make all of these legally purchased guns available to the bad guys.

    • Anonymous

      There were no automatic weapons involved in this case.

    • Anonymous

       Well said!

      • Anonymous

        Why are you agreeing with someone that is posting inaccurate information? No automatic weapons were involved in the shooting.

    • Jonathan Smith

       Actually, the US Justice Department gave thousands of AK-47’s to Mexican drug cartels in Fast and Furious so explain that one.

      • Anonymous

        That has been debunked but even if true a fraction of legally bought guns by criminals in the US and sold to criminals in Mexico to reap mayhem and murder. This country has lost its civility and a better plan would be an infusion of money and education to start to get back on track. I am a teacher and would quit my job if I knew my students were packing, I would not pack to defend myself.

        • Anonymous

          Well you might want to ask your school board to install metal detectors then because students ARE packing. Not all of them but some of them most certainly do.

    •  fine then there is no need for alcohol, or cars  all back to the horse and buggy.  Give me a break a legal owned automatic has not been used to commit a crime int he states since 1934.   Automatics are way to expensive for the normal person to get and use,   read post on first page about cost and license process to get one.    And for those of us that can we should be aloud to collect and shoot what ever we want as long as not affecting other people. 

  • Anonymous

    PLEASE tell me that Colorado has the DEATH Penalty.

    • Anonymous

       Yes, they do!

  • dporter8462

    I wish people would stop posting his g**d**n picture and his name and anything else about him. Assign him a friggin number, give him a trial and hang the piece of s**t. You are making this nobody a somebody. You are giving him a voice. You are putting him on a stage and making some macarbe celebrity out of him. He should be stripped of his identity, silenced, and culled from the herd.

  • dporter8462

    I wish people would stop posting his damn picture and his name and anything else about him. Assign him a friggin number, give him a trial and hang the piece of crap. You are making this nobody a somebody. You are giving him a voice. You are putting him on a stage and making some macarbe celebrity out of him. He should be stripped of his identity, silenced, and culled from the herd.

  • Anonymous

    Thoughts and prayers out to the victims and their families. All that needs to be said. It’s a tragedy, stop exploiting the deaths of others to push your agenda. 

  • Jonathan Smith

     This guy was drawn in by the sociopathic behavior of the Joker in the last Dark Knight film. I had a bad feeling then that Heath Ledger’s role (though brilliant acting) would make some people think that such behavior was okay or acceptable. The problem here is not firearms. We have a society the glorifies violence, murder, and rape in the movies we watch and video games we play. No one talks about right and wrong – well, few do any more. There is evil in this world and there must be consequences for evil behavior. We need capitol punishment and we need to educate our kids and raise them up right. People scoff at the Bible and God’s commandments for living and look where this nation has come in fifty years since removing all traces of moral living from our school systems.  Teaching children that we are evolved and that we somehow make our “own” morality sets the precedence for some to justify acting like animals. When they do act like animals, we now tell the murderer that he is a victim of some childhood trauma. We need to punish those who hurt others. Our justice system is a joke – do you think this punk is really worried about the death penalty or being shot when planning his attack? He wanted to live which is unusual with serial killers and he will probably play the court to his twisted view of life.

  • David A Sawyer

    Pretty sad that this had to happen but  everyone seems to be blaming this crazy kid 100%. I’m guessing that it was a combination of nature vs nurture that caused him to snap. This was obviously someone at one time that was a logical rational human being. Like all of us are told that if we work real hard we will get somewhere in life. Then he ends up working at McDonalds after working is butt off in Neuroscience.  I’m also wondering what his upbringing was like. His mom is a Psych Nurse or something like that. I’m wondering what sort of parenting did this boy get? I think what he did was sick and twisted but at the same time everyone seems to be placing blame for his mental breakdown 100% on him. I think as a society we should look at such incidences as a “wake up call” and ask ourselves how we are treating each other in our culture. Sure I understand that he may have had pre-existing mental conditions but not everyone with such pre-existing conditions actually snap. Of course no one is ever going to tell the truth if he was either bullied at school, treated unfairly by his university simply because he didn’t fit in, or if his parents were the overly pushy “Prep Kid Parent” types, or whether he was abused by someone. Usually in these cases the bullies pull back into the shadows and people cover for each other, saying things like “no one picked on him” or “everyone liked him” when it wasn’t true. I’m not saying that I’m totally sure which one of these scenarios happened to him but I’m betting that we are seeing such an increase in this craziness because our society is helping to produce them. And until we can take responsibility for our actions we are just going crank out more people like him. Again, I think what he did was terrible and should never have happened but it’s obvious (crazy or not) he was given a reason to lash out even if it was at the wrong people. But that’s not to say he should have lashed out at anyone.

  • Anonymous

    To Jonathan SMith who replied to my comment that automatic weapons are not necessary with the comment that I am spreading misinformation because no auto weapons were used in the shooting.

    From the NY Times 7/21/12
    “He had in the car an AR-15 assault rifle, a Remington 12-gauge shotgun, and a .40 caliber Glock handgun, said Chief Dan Oates of the Aurora police, and all three were believed to have been used inside the theater. Another Glock .40 caliber handgun was recovered inside the theater. Chief Oates said that “many, many” rounds were fired, but that there was no count so far.
    In the last 60 days Mr. Holmes had purchased four guns at local gun shops, Chief Oates said. And through the Internet, he bought more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition: more than 3,000 rounds for the assault rifle, 3,000 rounds of .40 caliber ammunition for the two Glocks, and 300 rounds for the 12-gauge shotgun. The guns were all bought legally, a federal law enforcement official said.
    Mr. Holmes also purchased online multiple magazines for the assault rifle, including one 100-round drum magazine. “With that drum magazine, he could have gotten off 50, 60 rounds, even if it was semiautomatic, within one minute,” Chief Oates said. ”

    This is INSANE and it is this that makes you and yours unsafe not some imaginary criminal that may break i nto your house. Every mass murder in the US has been committed by people who have bought guns legally, no checks, even though some were known to be off the wall.

    You are the one talking with NO information but will defend your position as sick as it may be no matter what..

    •  none of those are automatic,   they are all semi auto those he still must pull the trigger one time for each round.    It is not the items that made him dangerous it was the fact he was crazy and knew where the gun free zones were.    He was already breaking laws so do you think more laws would have stopped him  or just encouraged him to maybe use bombs instead like he did in his house.     Criminals do not care about laws why must people keep blaming the items and not the people.  Should we ban all planes because someone might highjack one and fly it into a building?  how about all fuel tankers i mean a semi full of fuel could kill many people if driven therw a wall into a theater?   We must not live in fear of items  for if we do the people that would use the items to harm us have already won.

    • Anonymous

      Buzzard, there wereNO automatic weapons inside the theater. None. Not One. Zero. Nada. Zilch. So to keep posting using the word “automatic”, being called out for it and complaining about it is really rather silly.

      This was a serious event and if he didn’t have access to firearms and wanted to commit mass murder he sure seemed to have the “smarts” to make an IED or similar explosive device since they found “sophisticated” explosive devices at his apartment!

      From what I have read about this nutcase, he was a loaner, smart, keep to himself, stayed away from trouble, came from a white middle class family, played sports in school bus his teammates didn’t “know” him, withdrew from a PhD program that was his first failure academic failure, had difficulty finding employment. Do you see anything from is background that would have screamed Mass Murderer?

  • Anonymous

    OK Everyone in the theatre is legally armed to “defend” themselves. There are other shooters in the theatre with Holmes not just the one. The theatre is filled with gas and the multiple shooters start firing from different points in the theatre. Everybody pulls out their weapons and start firing back in defense but all one can see are muzzle flashes because of the gas. Conclusion; everybody dead or wounded in this incident.

  • Anonymous

    To those who object to my use of the term automatic weapons I will revise my comment to state; There is absolutely no need for SEMI automatic weapons such as those purchased by this lunatic etc even though he could have legally purchased a machine gun at a gun show had he wanted to. Sorry for my mistake although it seems that with the drum he purchased he could have and may have gotten off 60 shots per minute.

    • Anonymous

      I agree,   You can bet  this will not to talked about this election.. Both parties get a lot of money from the NRA.  

    • Anonymous

      The reason for the objection Bob was the inaccurate information you were putting out there.

      The S&W AR15 was the only weapon with a “drum” magazine as described in a news article I read. The shotgun hasn’t been identified by make or model yet and even the Glocks are only  generically identified as .40 Glocks.

      Should we as a nation be selling “drum” magazines capable of holding up to 100 rounds of ammunition? I would have to say I see no legitimate purpose for 100 round “drum” magazines.

      The shotgun only holds so many shells and is not easy to reload. It really doesn’t matter if it was a pump or semi-auto shotgun when it was out it is out. From the reports I have read this nut case started with the shotgun and switched to the S&W AR15 when the shotgun was empty.

      As far as the Glocks are concerned. I haven’t read any press accounts that they were used at all. One was found in the theater and one was found in his car.

      So, in your opinion what firearms should be legal for everyday citizens in the U.S.?

      • Anonymous

        jd,
         The facts are out about the weapons now, the ammo he bought over the internet and the drum he bought for the AR-15. As for which guns should be legal I don’t know the answer to that but do think 1. Gun shows should be illegal as they are conducted today. 2. Citizens who want to own guns should be vetted. 3. Citizens who purchase guns should be educated as to how to safely use them; mandatory. 4. Trigger guards should be mandatory. 5. Ammunation should be traceable. 6. Multiple arms sales should be suspect and  illegal. 7. Arms dealers and manufacturers should be held accountable

        As I mentioned I feel that the gun lobby has distorted the reality of gun ownership in the US  and as another poster mentioned the drafters of the 2nd amendment couldn’t imagine the advances in  technology that have occured to enable the killing of people. I have been around awhile and have seen the politics of this and like all politics of late it has gotten ugly.

        I  grew up with guns and as I said in another post read the Stoeger Arms Catalogue every year. I have owned guns in the past but choose not to now because they are extremely dangerous. I am not against gun ownership but am against what has occurred to the meaning of it.

        There was a survey done a couple of years ago of shopkeepers in NYC that killed robbers  and holdup men and every single one of the people interviewed (I think it was 10) save one expressed extreme regret for having taken a life over protecting their goods. All of them save that one have relinquished their guns and wished that they could take the moment back.   When I go to the theatre next I will try to go with an optimistic and enthusiatic attitude not one of dread.

        Finally, I think  it is the proliferation of guns that is the reason that 87 people die in the US everyday by gunshot (a hundred or more are wounded). Many of these are legally bought guns in domestic dispute cases.  As for the good guy bad guy scenario; the legal purchase of  guns by unscrupulous people  is largely responsible for the ease of purchase on the streets that put the guns in the hands of the “bad guys” who scare you “good guys” The pandoras box has been opened and we are definitely in a very bad situation gunwise.

        • Anonymous

          bob the problem was not the weapons used…he started with the one with the greatest limit of rounds, the shotgun. The problem was the magazine used in the S&W AR15.

          There is a site on the internet where you can purchase 1,000 rounds of almost any type of caliber you want. I have looked at it myself and I am seriously considering purchasing .40 in bulk so I can become more proficient with my Glock 23. I purchased 100 rounds at a local Bangor gun shop for $46.00. I can buy the same ammunition from this online retailer for between $28.00 – $36.00/100 rounds. I could even purchase 1,000 rounds for as little as $265.00. That’s is a huge savings and while I am sure you don’t care about the savings think about this for a minute…the reason the PD was able to trace the source of ammunition so quickly was because it was purchased online!

          But let me be clear by making the following affirmative statements in response to your points in the first paragraph of your post:

          1. Gun shows should be illegal as they are conducted today.

          Guns shows are not the problem. You cannot purchase a firearm at the BDN gun show without completing and passing the background check. I know, I did once and I couldn’t walk out the door with it either. It had to be transferred from one Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealer to another FFL dealer for me to pick up.

          2. Citizens
          who want to own guns should be vetted.

          We are. My recent purchase of a handgun was fully vetted. I completed the same paperwork and the FFL dealer had to call whoever they call and provide the information. I passed and walked out the door with the firearm. From everything I have read to date the nut case in Colorado passed the same background check I passed.

          3. Citizens who purchase guns
          should be educated as to how to safely use them; mandatory.

          No argument from me on this one. You have to pass a class to get a learner’s permit that leads to a drivers license. I see no issue with a mandatory firearm safety class. I am sure the NRA safety instructors would love the added income.

          4. Trigger
          guards should be mandatory.

          Every single firearm sold today comes with some sort of disabling device. But like seat-belts they are only good if you use them. We also have laws in place today that makes the owner of a firearm civilly and criminal responsible if they do not properly secure them from children and the child uses them and hurts themselves or others

          5. Ammunation should be traceable.

          Do you mean the individual round or the fact that John Jones purchased 100 rounds of .40 ammunition today? If you mean the later, keeping records of ammunition purchased while a burden on the shop owners seems like a reasonable idea.

          6.
          Multiple arms sales should be suspect and  illegal.

          Not sure how you are going to enforce that. Currently records are purged from the database so no permanent record is maintained. There is a fear that a permanent record could be used at a later date to confiscate firearms from legal gun owners (reasonable or not that is the fear). The other issue I see with a permanent record is what happens if the list is hacked and falls into the wrong hands? Please don’t say it cannot happen because we see errors like this at the government and business level on a very regular basis.

          7. Arms dealers and
          manufacturers should be held accountable

          This is one I don’t think you will ever see and this is why…it is a backdoor method of gun control. Now please do not stop reading because in order to make a manufacturer accountable you have to show that they knew 1) that they made a dangerous product and 2) that they knew they made a dangerous product. Once a product has been declared “inherently dangerous” you cannot manufacture it as no insurance company on the face of the earth will issue a policy to cover the liability.

          Reasonable limits on gun ownership should be something we all can agree on. The problem is (and this is the case in everything in politics today) each side of the political aisle takes the matter to the extreme and cannot move to the middle on common ground. That’s why nothing gets done….on this or anyother matter.

          • Anonymous

            If we take the money out of politics something might get done. This is the fault of a dysfunctional political system The NRA is a hugely political organization and is part of the problem because of all the hate and rhetoric they espouse. jd I can go south or west of here and get as many guns as I want by paying a legal resident to front for me in  a gun shop and get whatever I want at a gun show just by walking in of which there are many. By the way, your arguments are well thought out and articulated and I feel that we have had a reasonable conversation because you are not trying to change my opinion nor am I trying to change yours and I appreciate that we have come to some common ground. I am a person that goes by my instinct, I know something is wrong, something needs to change and if we can’t get our lawmakers to at least discuss the issue and discover what needs to be fixed, if anything, we are lost which I am afraid we are.  Back out now. See you.

    • Anonymous

      Bob, There is noe need for an 8 cylinder car either, or any car for that matter because people like this lunatic drive them and kill people. If semi-autos are banned they will be easier to get than ever.

      • Anonymous

        Yes we have let the genie out of the bottle and have certainly put ourselves in another (one of many) very bad position.

  • Anonymous

    This appears to be a no brainer. The NRA has gotten the USSC to distort the meaning of the 2nd amendment, we are in the 21st century where obviously we need to at least roll back to some gun control, the NRA, gun manufacturers, gun dealers and some corrupt citizens, and members of congress are making a killing (pun intended) and putting us all in danger. I grew up  in a gun family, read the Stoeger Arms Shooters Bible religiously (pun intended), am not against owning a gun, but think that the distorted positions of the aforementioned are unreasonable. If you need a Glock or AR-15 to protect your family you probably are putting them in more danger. One should have to prove proficiency by taking a class before ownership at the very least. I wonder how many of the posters who are defender of the family advocates actually had occasion to have to?

    • Anonymous

      How has the 2nd Amendment been “distorted” bob? Please cite the cases and distortions in your reply.
      ~~~~~
      People are afraid bob and there is no getting around that. Between the economy, home invasion, car jackings, drug issues (by the way with the demise of “bathsalts” crystal meth is making a strong comeback in the Bangor area) people are afraid. I live in the country with limited police protection. That is my choice, no that is not the right word….It is my RIGHT to protect my home and my family from people that would do it harm. I own a Glock 23 (maybe the same model this nut case owned), a Ruger P85 (9mm) and Mossberg 12G pump. All of them I would not hesitate to use if necessary.
      ~~~~~
      And my family is not “in danger” by my ownership of these firearms. I know who comes and goes in the middle of the night and I know enough to identify my target before pulling the trigger setting up a chain reaction that cannot be stopped.
      ~~~~~
      I agree that one should have to show proficiency prior to ownership. I have demonstrated that proficiency many, many times. I have completed the Mass State Police combat course for municipal officers. I used to qualify yearly back in the day. I have held CWPs in two different states and while I didn’t have to do it, took the NRA basic safety class to obtain my CWP again here in Maine (I let my old one lapse and didn’t feel like searching for it or asking town hall for a copy). Is everyone like me? No, but I take my RIGHT to carry a firearm very seriously and that RIGHT extends to purchasing the weapon of my choice within reason (full auto is not a weapon of choice for me. I have fired full auto and muzzle rise is an issue in keeping the weapon on target.

      • Anonymous

        jd You, in my opinion, are a responsible gun owner and I wish all others would follow your lead. I too would protect my friends, animals and family if I had to but really don’t  choose to or should I say want to think that way. I have been here for 42 years and never been threatened. Maybe by thinking positively I am putting out good kharma :) Another thing is that I had a beautiful old Winchester 38/55 that I loved for its aesthetics and it was stolen from my house. I wouldn’t even know where to hide a weapon and don’t want to worry about it so I will continue to take my chances. Yes, things are messed up socially around here and what terrifies me more is running into some of these people while I am driving. I DO think that every other driver out there IS trying to get me and it has saved my butt a few times. Nice talking to you jd I am going to go out to enjoy this beautiful day so will be signing off. Adios amigo!

    • Jonathan Smith

      Your idea that a family does not need a Glock or AR15 to protect themselves is naive and foolish. As a veteran, I have left Maine long enough to see parts of the world where life isn’t like Narnia. Get outside of your bubble Bob. Every police officer I know realizes the need for self defense by citizens. You are the one distorting the 2nd Amendment and I take offense to that as a gun owner, veteran, and responsible citizen. Who are you to tell us what we can or cannot own? Perpetual Nanny state for sure. Let us be adults. I am responsible.

  • Davida Willette

    wonder if he was on drugs especially bathsalts 

    • Way to much planning for a salts user, their ability to string enough thoughts together to put on body armor, get guns and bring ammo is thankfully not likely. 

  • When seconds count, the police are only minutes away! I suggest a good many of you take a trip into the bathroom and look right over the sink, the person you see is most responsible for your safety from anything and everything. Before looking for outside answers, ask that person if they’ve done everything in their power to keep you safe?

You may also like