Movie Violence

More on Batman Shooter: Joker Referenced, Fandom and Cosplayers Blamed

|

  • After surrendering, James Holmes is no longer talking to investigators. His apartment was booby trapped with jars of chemicals connected to wires. (It's not clear how or even whether these traps would actually work)

  • New York City's police commissioner claims Holmes had painted his hair red and called himself "Joker." Joker's hair is obviously green, but this unconfirmed report didn't stop Fox News from running with the whole tired "Does violent entertainment make people violent?" hand-wringing.
  • Other eye-rolling musings: Was Holmes a card-carrying member of comic fandom driven to a rage by The Dark Knight Rises' less-than-stellar reviews? Tip: If you say it's too early to speculate about motives, then just don't.
  • Slate's David Weigel speculates based on accounts of the craziness going on inside the Aurora theater that another armed person inside could not have stopped the murders. A gun trainer, though, responds with a bit more knowledge of how a gun-owner with skills might have succeeded.
  • It's all cosplayers' fault!: AMC has banned costumes and masks at their theaters.

NEXT: Spain Stumbles, GSA Blows More Cash, Regulations Screw Up Medicine: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Just pass out the guns, one per customer (over 12 years old of course) as they enter the theatre and then collect them again on the way out.

    1. Just pass out the guns, one per customer (over 12 years old of course) as they enter the theatre and then collect them again on the way out.

      Just put a box at the entrance to each auditorium for people to drop their guns in when the leave, like the boxes they have for 3D glasses.

  2. Slate’s David Weigel speculates based on accounts of the craziness going on inside the Aurora theater that another armed person inside could not have stopped the murders.

    Yawn-apalooza.

    No one knows what could have happened had someone in the crowd been carrying a weapon. But we DO know what happens when NO ONE is carrying a weapon.

    1. Exactly. All this armchair quarterbacking is utterly ridiculous.

      1. Dark crowded enclosed space makes me lean toward Weigel.

        1. Does Weigel lean back towards you?

        2. See, if I were in a dark enclosed space with Weigel I’d lean away from him, but hey, that’s just me. To each their own.

        3. Considering the shooter was able to kill people, and people were able to run away, and identify him in the crowded enclosed space suggests that something could have been done.

          But as I state above, we know what happens when the crowded, enclosed space being shot at by the gunman is weapons-free. We don’t need to speculate on that.

          1. It’s easier to shoot people randomly than it is to shoot a particular person. I didn’t see where people had run away, either; I read he was shooting anyone who tried to leave. And yeah, the guy standing by his car with a bunch of guns must have been real hard to identify.

          2. we know what happens when the crowded, enclosed space being shot at by the gunman is weapons-free.

            Do we in fact know that no one else had a gun? Given the alleged consequences to carrying in a posted gun-free zone perhaps others were armed and they are not speaking up. Waaaay to early to say.

            1. Swillfredo:

              This is a very good argument. Yes, it’s possible someone there was armed and we just don’t know about it.

              If it turns out that were true–thaat someone in the crowd were carrying, we could then conclude some valuable things.

              Primarily that concealed carry didn’t make the situation worse. Meaning that if there were people there with guns, while it didn’t stop the shooter– it would put to rest the idea that conceal carry by its very virtue is a bad thing in a situation like this.

              Tulpa:
              And yeah, the guy standing by his car with a bunch of guns must have been real hard to identify.

              So, you’re saying that if someone were conceal carrying, they’d have been able to easily identify the shooter. Not sure where you’re going with this, except to make my point.

              1. The point is, it doesn’t matter if they can identify him after the smoke has cleared in broad daylight while he’s waiting by his car to be arrested.

                Can they identify him in a dark smoky theater when a bunch of other people are also shooting?

                1. Can they identify him in a dark smoky theater when a bunch of other people are also shooting?

                  I have to take an aside to your imagery here, Tulpa: It’s not 1939… no one smokes in theaters anymore. 😉 Unless you’re talking about the smoke discharge from the shooters black powder Colt Walker.

                  1. I’m referring to the smoke from the smoke bomb he dumped into the theater before shooting. You know, the reason he had the gas mask.

                    1. I’m referring to the smoke from the smoke bomb he dumped into the theater before shooting. You know, the reason he had the gas mask.

                      Did that actually go off?

            2. In GA you can post a business “no guns” but your only recourse is to ask the armed person to leave. Not leaving is then misdemeanor trespass when the police arrive. Essentially the signs are meaningless.It’s always worrisome when I carry out of state because I don’t know what force of law backs up a “no guns” sign.

              1. The signs may allow them to sue you for civil trespass (since you trespassed with knowledge of your trespass).

                1. It’s not even trespassing until you refuse to leave. The only way a business can keep guns out is to screen with metal detectors or pat-downs.

                  1. It can be trespassing if you know you’re not supposed to go there and/or know that the owner does not want you to do something there but do it anyway.

                    1. But it’s not. The signs carry no weight. Only failing to leave when asked.

                    2. Not in KY or GA.

                      At least in KY, the signs are literally meaningless.

              2. Feel free to head south. The signs don’t carry any weight of law here in Florida either. It’s just trespassing if you refuse to leave after being asked.

            3. What are those consequences?

              In PA, the most they can do is kick you out and sue you in civil court.

              1. In KY, failing to leave when asked is criminal trespass.

        4. yes tupla, darkness makes you invisible when you fire a gun.

          1. ah, those new-fangled flashless guns.

        5. Dark crowded enclosed space makes me lean toward Weigel.

          During the trailers and commercial walk in front of the audience at a movie theater sometime.

          Looking at a theater with the screen to your back it really is not all that dark.

          1. They have more lights on in the theater during the trailers than during the actual movie.

            Having walked out of the theater while the movie was still going, it’s plenty dark.

            1. Having walked out of the theater while the movie was still going, it’s plenty dark.

              So after staring at a screen of blinding light for 30 min to an hour you had trouble seeing in a moderately lit room?

              Work in a movie theater and then come back and talk to me.

              1. Theater employees bring mini-flashlights with them when they have to do anything in the theater during the movie, so I’m calling bullshit on the claim that it’s easy to see in there.

                In any case, any CCW holder in the audience had been watching the movie too, so as you say it would be even harder for them to see in the darkness.

        6. Dark crowded enclosed space makes me lean toward Weigel.

          Who knows, you might get lucky.

        7. Speaking only from personal experience – that does NOT rule out an effective response. And Audy Murphy or Chesty Puller I ain’t.

        8. And what expertise do you or Weigal have in gunfighting? My guess is…None. So your opinions is about as useful as tits on a boar.

          1. Hey, now. Without hog tits, there would be no bacon. NO. BACON. Think about that.

        9. Dark crowded enclosed space makes me lean toward Weigel.

          This is ridiculous. You don’t even have to hit the guy to save lives. You just have return fire a few times. Then the psycho shooter has to worry about not getting shot himself rather than shooting other people.

          You probably save half the lives just from the fact that he knows you somebody else has a gun.

    2. Weigel “speculates” and that is accepted as gospel because, well, because it’s David Weigel. And he’s speculating. Which is just as good as knowing dead certain. Isn’t it….

      By the way, no one has ever claimed that an armed person can necessarily stop any murders from occurring, but that individual can certainly keep the body count down.

      1. Pretty much, more people should make this point instead of acting like if only someone would have been armed this would not have happened. Maybe someone gets a shot off before the guy kills anyone but probably not. Someone almost surely would get a shot off before he kills 17.

        1. Exactly ^^THIS^^

          Although in this case the homicidal suspect was wearing body armor.

          1. There are pistol bullets that are designed to penetrate body armor. Of course, they’re illegal for civilian use. Because apparently civilians are never confronted with situations in which they may need to use AA rounds…/sarcasm

          2. Also, if he had body armor it’s most likely he had soft body armor. Soft body armor stops the bullet, but doesn’t do a good job of stopping the kinetic energy, so getting shot while wearing soft body armor is like being kicked by a mule. Broken ribs are very possible with center of mass shots, which are the easiest to make.

            It is very unlikely that a 24 year old med student would be able to keep fighting after after the equivalent of being hit in the chest with a sledge hammer. Especially if there were multiple hits.

            1. And it doesn’t cover the face, legs, arms, or (in most cases) the groin. Getting shot in any of those places will probably make you think about not shooting other people any longer.

              1. I know I’m late to this thread, but I heard a report on the radio yesterday that he was wearing full military grade body armor (IBA), with throat and groin guards, as well as leggings and shoulder guards (Quadguard). Also a kevlar helmet, gas mask, and tactical gloves. If that report was accurate, then he was pretty well shielded from small arms everywhere except his face, which is a very small moving target in a crowded, dark, smoke-filled theater. If I had been there, I don’t know that I would have returned fire, or that it would have been effective if I had.

          3. This is why it’s so important to practice your Mozambiques.

            1. Amen brother. Problem is I can’t reliably hit the head shot past 15 yds or so. At least not in a hurry.

        2. Pretty much, more people should make this point instead of acting like if only someone would have been armed this would not have happened.

          FWIW, I’m not making this argument. In a mass shooting, the shooter is going to get some shots off, and probably kill, and definitely wound some people. But– as the article I read reports, “as the shooter calmly puts down his (now empty) shotgun and retrieves his rifle”, this is where the bloodtrail could stop.

          You end up with six dead and 12 wounded, instead of 12 dead and 30 wounded.

          1. as the shooter calmly puts down his (now empty) shotgun and retrieves his rifle

            Where is this information from? He had an AR15 for which gigantic magazines are available.

            1. First witness report I read this morning described him shooting a shotgun, and when it was empty he, “Calmly put it down and retrieved his rifle”.

              Read the articles… he’s reported to have a Remington 870 shotgun, two hand guns and a Smith and Wesson ar15.

              1. This is the part where Tulpa ignores what you posted.

                1. This is the part where Tulpa ignores what you posted.

                  What a terrible thing, to question an uncited report from among the scads of contradictory “eyewitness accounts” floating around.

                  1. You mean like the smoke bomb thing?

              2. I knew he was supposed to have an 870, but he’d be bonkers to start with that when he has an AR15.

                Well, I mean bonkers in a relative sense. Obviously he’s bonkers in general.

                1. Well, I mean bonkers in a relative sense. Obviously he’s bonkers in general.

                  This is why I still like you, Tulpa. You caught yourself on that one.

                  But yeah, all the early reports I read say he started with the shotgun, then went to the rifle. Whether that’s changed, I haven’t read any late breaking reports.

                2. The 870 is waaaay more lethal in a setting like a movie theater (on a per round discharged basis). But yeah, he could have had a 100 round beta mag/drum for his AR-15….

        3. There was a church shooting a few years ago in Colorado Springs Colorado. The security guard from the church saw the shooter before he could get a shot off, told him to drop his weapon, and when he didn’t shot him dead.

          He had already shot and killed four people in a church office in Ft. Collins.

          So yes, the armed guard certainly kept the body count down.

          1. I read somewhere that although media reports called the person a security guard, it was, in fact a parishioner with a concealed carry permit who was asked to come to church armed because of recent church shootings.

            1. I believe that is correct. I also believe that she was an armed security person at her day job.

          2. “There was a church shooting a few years ago in Colorado Springs Colorado”

            What the hell is up with Colorado?

      2. By the way, no one has ever claimed that an armed person can necessarily stop any murders from occurring, but that individual can certainly keep the body count down.

        Also knowledge that anyone in that crowd could be armed is a pretty good deterrent.

        1. There’s no deterrent for someone like this. He didn’t try to get away or anything, and he’ll almost certainly get the death penalty.

    3. Isn’t this just the reverse of the “do something!” attitude of statists?

      12 people got killed. It could have been a lot worse if half the people in the theater were firing at the other guy who was firing. Does that mean CCW is bad? Of course not. But it means it’s not a cure-all.

      1. 12 people got killed. It could have been a lot worse if half the people in the theater were firing at the other guy who was firing. Does that mean CCW is bad? Of course not. But it means it’s not a cure-all.

        When someone is perpetrating an attack like this one, doing nothing – just lying back and taking it, in other words – is always worse than doing something.

        1. I disagree. You should only do something if it’s plausibly going to save lives in that situation.

          A hero who gets more people killed than would have otherwise is no hero in my opinion.

          1. this is arguing a negative. There is no way to prove that an armed person would have hurt or helped the overall situation. I lean on the side of someone else being armed CAN, but is not guaranteed to, keep the number of dead from being as high as it gets.

            1. this is arguing a negative. There is no way to prove that an armed person would have hurt or helped the overall situation. I lean on the side of someone else being armed CAN, but is not guaranteed to, keep the number of dead from being as high as it gets.

              This is where I stand. I lean towards having the option, even if it’s not used, than to just be left to cower under my seat, hoping that fate (or the random, irrational actions of a wild-eyed crazy) passes over me and lets me live.

            2. Well as far as you’re going so do I. I have a LTCF myself, but there are plenty of situations like this where it would be unwise to use your firearm. How in the world can you be sure of your target and what’s behind in a smoky, dark, crowded theater?

              1. like this where it would be unwise to use your firearm. How in the world can you be sure of your target and what’s behind in a smoky, dark, crowded theater?

                As a mature, seasoned shooter, you might not, and therefore you might not take the shot.

                But now we’re just speculating on speculation.

                You take the shot if you have it, you don’t if you don’t. But wouldn’t you rather have the option to make that choice?

                1. Counterspeculation is not speculative.

                  1. jesus, Tulpa; you are arguing for in order to argue. No one has claimed all the deaths would have been prevented if another person had been armed or that such a person would have known what to do and been willing to do it.

                    We do, however, know full well what happens when NO ONE else is carrying. It has played out time and again. At some point, the speculative scenario will play out and, maybe, instead of 12 or 21 or 33 dead, the number of innocents killed will be far lower and the number of gunmen killed/wounded raised by one.

                    1. You are claiming fewer people would have died, as I understand it.

                      There are scenarios where a CCW holder opening fire decreases the number of deaths and others where it increases that number.

                    2. There are scenarios where a CCW holder opening fire decreases the number of deaths and others where it increases that number.

                      Not if they withhold fire in the latter situation.

                      If in doubt, dont fire. But if you have a clear shot, fire.

                      A guy had a gun at the Giffords shooting, but didnt fire because the group had him a hold of him by the time he had a clear line. So he didnt fire.

                    3. At some point, the speculative scenario will play out and, maybe, instead of 12 or 21 or 33 dead, the number of innocents killed will be far lower and the number of gunmen killed/wounded raised by one.

                      Here’s a few where mass shootings were stopped by armed people who weren’t cops. Not everything on that list qualifies, but a few do.

                    4. Didn’t this happen in the Gabby Giffords shooting? Where somebody with a CCW liscence showed up and got the guy before he did any more damage or finished off Giffords?

                  2. Counterspeculation is not speculative.

                    But you are the one leaning your mouth into Weigel’s lap.

                    Weigel speculated, you defended and added your own speculation, others countered that speculation and now you are claiming the mantle of counterspeculator.

                    Jesus Tulpa. I can see now how you argued yourself into supporting Romney

              2. “How in the world can you be sure of your target and what’s behind in a smoky, dark, crowded theater?”

                You cant but you can be fucking sure what will happen if you dont try. Jesus Tulpa, you are just being contrary.

          2. You can disagree all you like, but you’d be wrong. Personally, though, I think you’re just trying to be contrarian because you like the attention.

            Point is, I’m not saying that your average CCW holder is going to wield his weapon with surgical precision. But there is no course of action that is going to be worse than simply letting the bad guy shoot away to his heart’s content until he’s tired or runs out of ammo.

            1. I think you’re just trying to be contrarian because you like the attention.

              No, Tulpla is just that kind of idiot.

              1. Yes, a contrarian idiot.

      2. Not even close. You’re veering towards a straw-man argument here.

        The exact opposite (or reverse) would be the suggestion that people should be compelled to purchase and carry concealed firearms (which is now constitutionally permissable, by the way– it would be a tax).

        Yes, Tulpa, it could have been a lot worse of “half the people in the theater were firing”, but that’s not likely. In any crowd, there are usually very few concealed carriers. Furthermore, off-duty cops are often required to carry concealed. Had one been in the crowd, would it have turned out “much worse”? Still speculation, but I’ll bet it wouldn’t have.

        1. I wasn’t speaking to the exact legal opposite, I was speaking to the “anything is better than nothing” attitude of the OP.

          In any crowd, there are usually very few concealed carriers.

          You sure about that? If you vigorously promote CCW, you might not be able to assume that.

          1. You sure about that? If you vigorously promote CCW, you might not be able to assume that.

            I didn’t say “anything is better than nothing”. I postulated that a specific set of narrowly defined options might be better.

    4. No one knows what could have happened had someone in the crowd been carrying a weapon. But we DO know what happens when NO ONE is carrying a weapon.

      Nailed it. That sentence is the perfect rebuttal to anyone suggesting that a CCW holder trying to stop a violent situation is only going to make it worse.

      1. My response would be “what would you expect a uniformed police officer to do if he happened to be there?” I imagine that people would expect the officer to fire back at the killer. So why would it be bad for a CCW to be there?

        Now is the part that liberals would bring up “training” and other bullshit like that, but who would you rather have on “your side” in the situation:

        1. An officer who has to fire 25 rounds a year at a piece of paper before he has “finished” his weapons training (and if he misses he is allowed to keep taking the test until he manages to pass), or
        2. A CCW holder who is a gun enthusiast and is at the range every weekend, practicing his marksmanship.

        1. Oh, and I forgot to mention, the CCW holder has very real consequences if he starts blowing away innocents, even if he was trying to help. There aren’t any consequences for the officer, any bystanders the officer shoots go on the rap sheet of the maniac.

          1. Exactly right, RFID

        2. Considering that cops are apparently deathly afraid of golden retrievers and 80-year-old ladies, I’ll take the CCW holder.

        3. Aye. I was an average National Guard dude – between 2001-and my retirement last month I fired no more than any other Soldier under me or alongside me – and I bet I put hundreds if not thousands of rounds down range (or at people) more than any LEO. And I am just one of hundreds of thousands of folks in that situation. I knew some damned good LEOs wen I was still doing law enforcement stuff – but I would prefer the enthusiast you describe in such a situation.

        4. So you’re comparing a very poorly-trained cop to an unusually adept CCW holder. (not to mention that range shooting and “practical” shooting are very different situations).

          In PA you don’t even have to know how to fire a gun to get a CCW.

    5. Seriously, I’m not sure why Reason continues to plug for this asshole just because he worked here for a little bit. He doesn’t have a single libertarian bone in his entire body, and it’s not as though he returns the favor or anything.

      1. He doesn’t have a single libertarian bone in his entire body

        He does when Tulpa’s fucking him.

        1. Tulpa is the catcher dude.

    6. No one knows what could have happened had someone in the crowd been carrying a weapon.

      John has already done some compelling re-enactments though.

    7. We also know that the perp was clever enough to choose a theater where the management had prohibited their patrons from carrying weapons for self-defense, instead of a gun show.

      -jcr

  3. How would the NYPD police commissioner know anything about this case?

    1. He watches ABC News. NYPD is currently deploying a Tea Party Task Force to Colorado as we speak.

      1. and don’t more people get their news from ABC News than from any other source? The network wouldn’t be lying about, you don’t think. Being slaves to the truth and all .

        1. fusck off slavers? I am still a bit new here…

      2. Oh, Paul? That was f’ing top notch. Where do we send you internet you just won?

    2. My thoughts exactly.

      Unless Holmes was an NYPD-funded agent provocateur.

    3. Shackford has already pointed this out, but in big, bold letters…

      THE JOKER’S HAIR IS GREEN!

      1. The Joker is branching out into disguise space.

    4. How would the NYPD police commissioner know anything about this case?

      I keep wondering about this too. I wish one of these news outlets that keeps quoting him would explain why he’s a source in the first place.

      1. There is an answer here that makes sense.

        I watched the Police Chief of Aurora’s presser. He had a noticeable NY accent and was asked about the joker reports. All he said was that he formerly worked in NYPD and has discussed that case facts with some of his former colleagues there. So there may be a kernel of truth in it.

        1. Yeah, this is how I thought that happened.

          Seriously, people, live in Colorado and watch this stuff instead of work cuz it is the only thing people can talk about anyway today.

      2. outlets quote the NY Commish because they, too, are based in NY. You think he is going to turn down face time?

        1. That would make sense if the New York commissioner were frequently, or even periodically, or even ever, the source for other non-NY crime stories. But he’s not.

          Yet for some reason, he’s being quoted here. That’s not normal. The answer from Sudden, above, seems to explain it. It’s still kind of odd, though — certainly odd enough that news outlets should point out why a random NY official is their source for details about a Colorado crime.

  4. I hate how this guy’s face is getting plastered everywhere. I don’t want to see the crazy, evil fuck. At all.

    1. He’s the new Jared Loughner!

        1. At least Cho had the decency to pose for a cool portrait before his carnage.

    2. You better gouge your eyes out now, then, ProL. Go full Oedipus! Bang your mom too!

      1. Really, you need to read the classics more. You’re doing it backwards.

        1. I didn’t specify the order, ProL. Did you already gouge out your eyes or something?

          1. Sorry, but you have failed. Again. Go watch your video loop.

      2. ProL. Go full Oedipus! Bang your mom too!

        He’s gonna need to take a number like the rest of us.

        BOOM!

        1. Y’all doing this in neat numerical order or raffle-style?

          Also – you read Steven Pinker?

  5. I’ll be going to see that movie this weekend. I’ll have to eyeball what kind of shooting angles, sight lines, etc. we would have had.

    One question: what was the “smoke”? Was it just smoke? Some kind of tear gas? I can’t seem to get a straight answer.

    1. Essence of TeaParty.

      1. Tear Party gas?

        1. The fumes of 400 e-cigs all at once.

    2. He was cooking Cajun style chicken and it got out of hand.

      1. There’s no such thing as a “cajun style chicken.” All chicken bearing that label were victims of extraordinary rendition. And what was done to them is definitely a crime.

    3. Would such a smoke bomb even have been legal?

      1. And it’s illegal to smoke in theaters! Think of the health risks!

  6. I’m tired of this speculative nonsense…when do we find out to which TEAM he belongs?

    I’m already missing not being properly demonized!

    Oh yeah…. that most punchable face has weighed in on the matter! Enjoy!

    http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/…..-guns.html

    1. Odds are he is the 99%.

      1. No, more likely the “sub-1%”…i.e. the people who have rapid, severe schizophrenic-breaks in their early 20s.

    2. The comic in the article was actually unintentionally funny and spot on. People are going to protect their gun rights with….. guns!

  7. Patrick from Popehat weighs in. Millions offended.

    1. Ah dammit. I meant to include him in the links.

  8. If only you guys were this reluctant to speculate based on limited evidence in cop shooting threads.

    1. Not even close to the same thing. But you probably knew that.

      1. Remember: you don’t have to read his garbage. There can be an end to the nightmare.

        1. We call SWAT with an anonymous tip about drug possession? Can we at least kidnap his dogs first? They don’t deserve that.

          1. The dogs ran away when I brought rather home that one night.

        2. But it’s so fun! You’re just a big killjoy meanie. But you did expose me to that video so I forgive you.

          1. “BOYS, BOYS, BOYS”

            *vanishes to watch the video for 45 minutes*

        3. But they fill my Recommended Daily Allowance of Stupid, and I can get it here at H+R instead of watching MSNBC.

      2. Sure it isn’t. Because all cops are evil lying psychopaths or something.

        1. I blame the lie detectors modern cops have to beat in order to get their jobs.

    2. Just my analysis, but perhaps the attitudes expressed here are just attempt to counter the perceived pro-state/anti-individual bias in the media. Should we wait for evidence to gather in police shooting cases? Yes, but why advocate it when the vast majority of outlets are already on the side of the police?

      1. Right, the comments section of a fringey blog is totally important for balancing media coverage of a story that most people don’t give a shit about.

        People come here to spout off and argue and occasionally get laid. Not to balance the media.

        1. Oh, I was just pointing out that a lot people who come here a frustrated with what they see elsewhere. Like the NYPD commissioner’s quote above: What responsible news source would quote that as relevant information?…(checks links)…DERP, FOX NEWS!

    3. It couldn’t have anything to do with cops being agents of the state or anything. Or the fact that the cop shooting threads typically happen in the course of their job. When’s the last time a cop just went and randomly shot up a theater?

      And we never speculate about the cops political leanings, which is what most of the media does when something like this happens.

    4. I generally give the cops the benefit of the doubt. Until they kill an unarmed man, or shoot a family’s dog.

  9. HYPOTHESIS: So we’ve all heard about the 3-4 month year old that was injured (CNN just showed her and her mom crying on TV). Of course, we all thought to ourselves “wtf are you doing bringing a cry factory to a rated R movie at midnight?” But the more important question:

    Does this three month old grow up to be the next Dexter? Think about it: witnessed a bloodbath in early formative years (leading to fascination with blood) and said bloodbath committed by psychopath (justifying vigilante motivations).

    The Dexter of Denver. Can I trademark that one?

    1. As long as he gets adopted into a family with a hot sister.

    2. Newborn isn’t the worst of it – bringing a 6-year-old to a midnight showing of a dark and violent movie? That’s stupid. My 6-yo can’t even watch action scenes in the Disney movies she’s seen a thousand times. She gets scared watching Tangled, of all things.

      1. Newborn might not be the worst from a parenting perspective. But FFS, at least the six year old knows how to shut up and watch a movie. The cry factory doesn’t. That’s just obnoxious to your fellow movie-goers. If it weren’t for the shooting, they’d all leave the theater thinking that mom was the enemy.

        1. Yeah, a midnight showing is right about the time our newborn has his nightly meltdown.

      2. I don’t know if a 3 month old would know enough to be scared, my only concern would be, “COULD YOU SHUT THAT FUCKING HELL DEMON UP I’M TRYING TO WATCH THE BATMAN AND DODGE BULLETS HERE LADY! Some people.”…

      3. Tangled freaked out my 5-yo. She had to leave the theatre because she was sobbing so hard “The evil lady is going to catch them and hurt them” and then she does catch them, and hurt them. Darn you Disney, you just broke my daughter down into hysterics.

        The 3-yo loved it though, it is her favorite movie.

    3. NEEDS MOAR BLOOD

    4. Does this three month old grow up to be the next Dexter?

      I always hated that part of the show.

      If Dexter had been forced for years to be a child soldier sure i could believe that would turn him into a sociopath.

      One instance without any context then raised in a loving home….I seriously doubt it.

    5. Putting aside this particular tragic case, and even annoyance to other patrons from bringing a 3-month old baby to a movie theater to cry, aren’t these movies way too loud to subject an infant’s ears to?

    6. Of course, we all thought to ourselves “wtf are you doing bringing a cry factory to a rated R movie at midnight?”

      At least she’ll never do it again.

  10. AMC has banned costumes and masks at their theaters.

    Does this make any sense at all as a response to this shooting?

    1. Fortunately, since body armor, riot gear, and assault weapons weren’t part of either Batman’s or Bane’s character, those will still be permitted.

    2. It makes a small amount of sense – capes and such could be used to conceal long arms, I guess.

      1. So could a trenchcoat…

        1. I didn’t say it was a good idea, just that it wasn’t thoroughly senseless.

        2. A trenchcoat is already banned as a Commissioner Gordon costume, goddamnit don’t you know anything about keeping the nation safe?

        3. So could a sundress ….

          1. Yeah, but I look terrible in a sun dress till I shave my legs.

    3. They had to do something. This is something…

      1. You have what it takes to join the ranks of Top. Men.

        1. You’ll never prove a thing, copper, I’m just a part time electrician?bad is good, baby! Down with government!

    4. “Does this make any sense at all as a response to this shooting?”

      Makes at least as much sense as banning “Enter Sandman” from the airwaves in the immediate weeks following 9/11.

    1. Just go to the doctor, Hugh, and they’ll give you a special shampoo for that. It’ll be ok.

      1. This is my impression of dub step:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..ure=colike
        The only crime is that it doesn’t have 1 million hits yet…

    2. Here’s dunphy ragin’ out after cyclin’ too hard in preparation for the world power lifting championship.

      Does sloopy play xbox online?

      1. The question is did Holmes play MW3 online? Because if the answer is yes, and combined with the fact that he had an extended rounds drum mag, we all know he had to achieve a high level to get that perk.

  11. What would Weigel think about an armed off-duty cop in the audience (and we all know damn well what he would have, rightfully, done)?

    1. That’s different, cop bullets are magic and never miss their mark.

    2. But where was the cop supposed to find a dog to shoot in the theater?

  12. Fuck I wish I had some weed for this.

    Northern and southern lights as seen from space. Awesome.

    1. Fuck I wish I had some weed for this. Northern and southern lights as seen from space. Awesome.

      I hate to break it to you, but I don’t think they let you into space with weed.

      1. Who the fuck’s gonna stop you. Ain’t no tsa in space. It’s all libertarian and shit up there, dood.

  13. Radley Balko, former Reason editor…

    vs.

    Slate’s David Weigel…

    Heh.

    1. I noticed that, too.

      LONG off the reservation.

  14. didn’t stop Fox News from running with the whole tired “Does violent entertainment make people violent?” hand-wringing.

    TV news is violent entertainment. Explains most of its popularity.

  15. okay, I’m officially sick of this story. Yep – it was bad ‘n’ all, but life will go on. Politicians will ramble, hypothesis will be made, and in a few weeks no one will give a shit.

    1. Meh. I could see cops posted on opening weekends of big, violent action flicks becoming a commonality in some municipalities…(ahem) NYC, (ahem) LA.

      1. A lot of places already have cops hanging out at the theater because of those damn teenagers…

    2. okay, I’m officially sick of this story.

      I am kind of upset about it.

      A mass of reports showing a worsening economy, Obama saying business owners did not create their businesses, a complete failure to tie Romney up with Bain capital, and then an Obama campaign video claiming he did not say what he said…

      It was all vectoring to a complete meltdown of the Obama reelection campaign with uber-bitter tears that taste so so sweet….and then some fucktard steals the news cycle by shooting up a batman movie.

      Totally lame.

      1. Seriously, he could’ve at least done some good by doing it to that damn Katy Perry movie instead.

  16. Roger Ebert posted a New York Times op/ed on how we need stricter gun control laws, and how this guy shouldn’t have been able to get a gun (even though he had no criminal record). He calls US gun laws “insane” and suggests this:

    This would be an excellent time for our political parties to join together in calling for restrictions on the sale and possession of deadly weapons.

    He also posts this, apparently unaware that the theater didn’t allow guns:

    In theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07…..l?_r=2hp;

    1. Yeah, I really took apart his editorial when he posted it on his Facebook page. I really like Ebert’s reviews, but I just had to point out to him that for years Chicago had a ban on handguns and yet shootings were a common occurance proving that banning something doesn’t get rid of the problem.

    2. I really like Roger Ebert; he’s an excellent writer, and his knowledge of cinema is amazing. I’ll never understand how someone as thoughtful as he is becomes such an authoritarian lefty.

      1. He’s a top man, that’s how.

        1. If anybody anywhere ever had a “Top Man” complex, it’s Roger fuckin’ Ebert.

          And all those guys who murdered millions of people, too, of course. But mostly Ebert.

    3. I generally agree with his reviews, too. Except for that time he totally missed the brilliance of O Brother, Where Art Thou? Seriously, has there ever been a better comedy? And he gave it 2.5 stars.

      1. Ebert? The guy who gave “Kick Ass” a single star and claimed he didn’t want to know anyone who found it entertaining … and then gave three stars to a friggin’ Garfield movie? This is Earth Roger Ebert you mean, right?

    4. If only we just banned private ownership of guns, like Mexico, which, as we all know, totally eliminated gun violence there.

      1. I’m sure it would be a modern-day Eden if Eric Holder wasn’t running hoglegs into it.

    5. Ebert’s argument boils down to: “Some crazy people misuse this Constitutional right, and other countries don’t even have it, so everyone needs to give it up.” Umm, no.

  17. RE the speculation as to whether or not armed people in the theater would have helped: all told, 72 people were shot by this maniac. I just don’t see how armed people in the theater shooting back could have made it worse.

  18. One rotten apple spoils the barrel apparently…*sigh*…reactionary thinking, as usual.

  19. Mitt Romney as governor signed a law banning AR-15s. Now he says:

    “So trying to find more laws to change bad behavior isn’t the answer, the answer is to find that bad behavior the people who are inclined to bad behavior.”

    Agree? Disagree? Do we police access to machines of mass murder, or people’s brains? Or just accept that the occasional mass shooting is part of living in freedom? We’ve certainly seen that type of freedom a few times since the ban on assault rifles was lifted in 2005.

    Bonus question: do we check 59 injured people’s pockets for proof of ability to pay before we take them to the ER?

    1. Or just accept that the occasional mass shooting is part of living in freedom?

      ^^This.

      If someone is going to embark on a rampage – something you and I are as likely to be caught up in as we are a plane crash – he’s going to do it, period. No law you enact is going to stop him getting the weapon of his choice or from carrying out his attack.

      1. Don’t respond to it, dude.

        1. Is there an opening in Galt’s Gulch for the world’s most expert busybody crab?

    2. I think somebody has a secret crush on the mormon heartbreaker Mitt Romney. You just cannot stop talking about your newest interest tony!

    3. Sooo…

      Obama has been terrible on gun control.

      Does this now mean you are supporting Romney over Obama?

    4. You know how he could have made the body count larger? Bar the exits and set the theater on fire. Last time I checked, they run background checks on people buying gasoline, lighters, chain and padlocks.

      The fact of the matter is that we simply can’t stop people from going on mass rampages.

      1. Damn lack of an edit button. Should be *they don’t run background checks*.

      2. I wonder why he didn’t choose that option then. Could it be because of the ease and range a firearm provides? That’s certainly the reason gun-rights advocates give for advocating expanded access–for self-defense, they’re efficient machines. A fact that requires that they’re also specially efficient for killing people for other reasons.

        1. They’re more efficient for self defense than they are for killing mass amounts of people. That’s why the military doesn’t use the infantry as its sole offensive component.

          Mass murderers use them because they’re ignorant as to the alternatives, and they have no incentive to learn them. Personally, I’d rather not give them that incentive while retaining the ability for individuals to more adequately defend themselves.

          1. There’s probably a correlation between gun access and gun deaths–and high capacity clips, which used to be banned, were used in this incident as in the Giffords one. We’re stacking up the data.

            Though you guys are right in that there’s a reason the lone actor crazy person type of criminal is the most feared by law enforcement. I would just like to see some data on the efficacy of gun ownership as self-defense. Because I don’t buy it.

            1. Current statistics show that there are about 800,000 to 2.5 million cases of defensive gun uses each year. In the vast majority of cases, the presence of the gun alone is enough to deter the criminal; very few instances result in shots fired, let alone a dead perp.

              Firearms allow the weak to level the playing field with the strong. Without a gun, a 120 lb woman or an 80 year old grandfather has little chance against a 250 lb brawler. With a gun, their chances go up dramatically. Firearms are simply THE most effective means of self defense.

              On the other hand, if you want mass death, you have a lot of other options, many of them far more efficient than a firearm. Bombs, for instance. The ingredients used to construct the bombs for the Oklahoma City bombing are still readily obtainable. Bombs can also be easily made out of regular household materials.

            2. There’s probably a correlation between gun access and gun deaths–and high capacity clips, which used to be banned, were used in this incident as in the Giffords one. We’re stacking up the data.

              Of course there’s a correlation between gun access and gun deaths, just as there’s a correlation between car access and car deaths. Just as there’s a correlation between access to electricity and electrocutions.

              You’ve outdone yourself, Tony.

              1. So the only question is whether there is some practical purpose to proliferation of guns and high-capacity magazines to justify the negative outcomes. We make the tradeoff for cars and electricity. Since that is subjective, I suppose we have to take into account the never-relenting paranoid gun obsession of a good part of this country when talking about tradeoffs.

                Believe me the negative outcomes of banning guns, namely the explosive outrage of millions of rednecks, must weigh on my opinion in this matter.

                1. When the government gives up it’s weapons and battalions of men, I will consider giving up my weapons. But I want the ability to take a few of the bastards with me.

                2. When the government gives up it’s weapons and battalions of men, I will consider giving up my weapons. But I want the ability to take a few of the bastards with me.

                  1. So the right you’re asserting is not self-defense from government (as you seem to admit, a laughable proposition in this day and age), but the right to kill a few human beings as you go down just for the purpose of personal satisfaction. I hear a sucking sound on this rationale.

                    1. Self-defense against government is a laughable proposition in this day and age?

                      Funny, nobody told the Iraqis that.

                    2. ^This^

                      Iraq and Afghanistan are the best example of an armed citizenry in recent times (without debating morals and pros/cons of the war/s). No, a rifle won’t stop a nuke but no one seems willing to use a nuke.

                      Somewhat parallel to how the Black Panthers faced down the LAPD in the 1970s.

                    3. “Somewhat parallel to how the Black Panthers faced down the LAPD in the 1970s.”

                      Not even close. Those Maoist shitbags were also shooting fucking little old ladies at random.

                    4. ^This^

                      Iraq and Afghanistan are the best example of an armed citizenry in recent times (without debating morals and pros/cons of the war/s). No, a rifle won’t stop a nuke but no one seems willing to use a nuke.

                      Somewhat parallel to how the Black Panthers faced down the LAPD in the 1970s.

            3. High Capacity magazines have never been “banned” in most of the country. New ones could not be manufactured, but there was a seller’s market on pre-law high cap magazines.

            4. If high capacity clips weren’t available he probably would have said “Fuck it, I’ll just watch the stupid movie instead”

          2. That’s why the military doesn’t use the infantry as its sole offensive component.

            It should be pointed out skilled and motivated mass murderer don’t use guns either.

            Think Al Qaeda, suicide bombings in Israel, Oklahoma, Serin gas attack on Tokyo subway, etc.

          3. That’s why the military doesn’t use the infantry as its sole offensive component.

            It should be pointed out skilled and motivated mass murderer don’t use guns either.

            Think Al Qaeda, suicide bombings in Israel, Oklahoma, Serin gas attack on Tokyo subway, etc.

        2. They’re more efficient for self defense than they are for killing mass amounts of people. That’s why the military doesn’t use the infantry as its sole offensive component.

          Mass murderers use them because they’re ignorant as to the alternatives, and they have no incentive to learn them. Personally, I’d rather not give them that incentive while retaining the ability for individuals to more adequately defend themselves.

          1. fucking squirrels.

    5. TOKYO ? A lone attacker rammed a truck into pedestrians, then slashed his way with a survival knife through Sunday shopping crowds in one of Tokyo’s most popular neighborhoods, killing seven people and wounding 10.

      Police quoted Tomohiro Kato, 25, as saying he came to the Akihabara district, a canyon of computer and electronics stores, vowing to “kill people.

      After considering your question Tony, I suggest we ban the mass-murder machine. Your Wusthofs will be confiscated after the cops shoot your Bijon Frise.

      http://articles.latimes.com/20…..d/fg-stab9

      1. You want actually get to the root of the problem until you ban hands. Evil, evil hands.

        1. He can still push the gas pedal on the truck, we have to get the feet too! And imagine if he’d started practicing with his socks off with the knife, god the carnage…

      2. If I had a Bijon Frise, I’d want Five-O to bust a cap in it.

      3. Why quote that story? How did gun restrictions work out in Norway? 80 dead, that’s how.

  20. Have they found the manifesto yet?

    1. Have they found the manifesto yet?

      He’s a 50-something Tea Partier from Colorado. ABC said so. Clearly this was a race-based attack in protest of a black president. So no manifesto needed.

      1. Clearly since Jim Holmes is also a white hispanic, he was obviously stalking the blacks down because they don’t act white, but the white people got into the path of his gun. We know that he is a horrid racist, because his mother proclaim herself one in a loud fashion in the middle of an office in front of many people, but only the cousin, that he also molested when he was 7 and she was 6, seems to remember this.

  21. David Weigel speculates based on accounts of the craziness going on inside the Aurora theater that another armed person inside could not have stopped the murders.

    The question isn’t whether another armed person inside could have stopped the murders.

    The question is whether I would have wanted a gun to defend myself if I were inside that theater, and the answer is “yes”.

    1. Even that’s not the question.

      The question is whether someone would sit down and plan this kind of attack if they had no idea whether the first guy they saw would shoot them in the face.

      This guy didn’t go to the police station and do this. He went to a place where he knew there would be a large group of people in an enclosed space who were helpless.

      One guy – ONE guy – undertook this kind of attack at a facility where people would be known to be armed. Hasan. And that case had special circumstances.

      1. If were going to be a retard and speculate (here I go!), since he surrendered, I’m going to guess he did not want to die and probably wants to be famous for this. If that turns out to be the case, it’s entirely possible he may have specifically chosen a place that has a big prominent sign that says “no guns” towards that end.

        1. that has a big prominent sign that says “no guns” towards that end.

          If I were going to shoot up a place, I would specifically pick places where guns weren’t allowed.

          What, you think I’m going to swing by the gun range and start waving my pistol around? A man could get hurt doing that.

      2. One guy – ONE guy – undertook this kind of attack at a facility where people would be known to be armed. Hasan. And that case had special circumstances.

        Actually, he did the opposite. Soldiers weren’t allowed to carry on base (still aren’t, AFAIK), and, of course, Hassan knew that since it was where he worked.

        1. +1. The military is big on base gun control. Everything is locked up in the armory. IIRC, Bradley Manning had the firing pin removed from his weapon in Iraq based on the recommendation of the base shrink long before he started leaking classified info…

        2. +2. He did it at an SRP site, where it’s all paperwork and medical check-ups. He didn’t go out to the M16 range or the 50 cal range and do it there, and for good reason.

      3. What I’m saying is that I’m a little tired of having my rights circumscribed becasue of some top-down analysis.

        It’s always someone somewhere making choices on my behalf based on the percentages–as if my right to defend myself were somehow a worthy topic of discussion?

        I’ll take my chances. I don’t want anyone else making those calls for me.

        I don’t the Weigel making that call for me. I don’t want some politician making that call for me. I don’t want an expert gun instructor making that call for me.

        Whatever the chances are, I want to make the call myself.

        When I hear someone discussing my rights and whether I should have them, I don’t mind weighing in. So long as it’s with the understanding that casually discussing whether my rights should be violated makes whomever a world class jackhole.

        1. Well you’re begging the question since the question is the extent to which you should have a particular right.

          Shrugging and saying we can’t even talk about it because the universe hath declared access to assault weapons sacrosanct is not productive.

        2. Yep.

          Using this psychopaths murder spree as a justification for gun control is completely ridiculous on the face of it.

          In 2009 15,241 people were murdered in the United States.

          http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius20…..le_01.html

          And murder rates have been declining for a generation.

          But some psycho kills 12 people, 00.08% of the 2009 total, in a dramatic fashion and its OMG this proves how dangerous guns make ‘merica

          Fuck these ninnies.

          PS For that matter, I bet that more people have been killed by cops in the US this week than were killed by this nut job.

          1. It’s the same thing that happened during the War on Terror.

            The same Democrat voters there were who spoke out for our rights during the most anxious days of the War on Terror–are almost certainly the same Democrats who are now denigrating our rights because of this incident.

            …because the fear 9/11 inspired doesn’t justify the Bush Administration violating our rights, but this incident in Colorado changes everything?

            The only difference is that they see gun rights as a Republican issue, and their brainwashed little minds can’t comprehend anything unless it has some partisan ring to it.

            You know…

            Democrats good.

            Republicans bad.

            It’s like listening to Moonies.

      4. On the contrary – Hasan knew his victims would not be armed – just try and carry on post – to and from the range maybe, but NEVER any other time.

    2. Would the theater owners have the right to forbid guns on the premises?

      1. Sure. In the same way that they could forbid chewing gum or using cell phones.

      2. Of course.

        1. Notice that tony is all for freedom of association when it comes to banning shit he doesn’t like.

          1. How could he spend this much time on a libertarian website and ask whether libertarians think the owners of the property should be free to exclude people with guns?

            1. I’m fully aware that libertarians endorse dictatorial powers of property owners. Just wondering why the speculation about armed moviegoers when it’s clearly moot.

              There are certain basic freedoms I think are so useful that they should be allowed even under someone else’s roof.

              Is the right to preventive self-defense lower on the scale of basic rights than the right not to be physically assaulted? The former is, apparently, in the constitution, while the latter is merely statute. But the former is restricted on private property and the latter is universally enforced.

            2. I’m fully aware that libertarians endorse dictatorial powers of property owners. Just wondering why the speculation about armed moviegoers when it’s clearly moot.

              There are certain basic freedoms I think are so useful that they should be allowed even under someone else’s roof.

              Is the right to preventive self-defense lower on the scale of basic rights than the right not to be physically assaulted? The former is, apparently, in the constitution, while the latter is merely statute. But the former is restricted on private property and the latter is universally enforced.

              1. If you’re wondering whether the dictates of the Central State will be arbitrary and whimsical in Tonystan, wonder no more.

              2. I’m fully aware that libertarians endorse dictatorial powers of property owners.

                libertarian: You can’t bring that gun into my house.

                Tony: Dictator!!!

      3. Would the theater owners have the right to forbid guns on the premises?

        They were forbidden. Theaters are a place for families. Not gun-crazed lunatics dressed as the joker.

  22. Why did the guy say he was “the enemy of batman”? Because Nolan’s batman stands against the anarchist’s plans to purify the city by wiping it out whole. That is often the goal of the anti establishment folks.

    Batman is literally that 1% superhero. Villains almost always outshine the batman, especially in the second film. If a mentally unstable person wanted to imitate characters from the batman series, it should have been batman.

    1. People who identify with the 1% are mentally unstable, or are you saying someone who identified with the 1% who is mentally unstable should have imitated batman?

      I think you need to flush out some of what you wrote.

    2. I read articles in Salon and The Atlantic on how Batman is an enemy of the 99%. The stupid was quite breathtaking.

  23. Is it too soon to suggest that TSA should be in control of movie theater safety?

    1. Don’t even joke. That’s not funny.

    2. Hell, they wouldn’t even have to change the initials.

  24. I doubt the AMC ban on costumes was with the assumption that it would prevent another shooting, more likely they didn’t want anyone being reminded of the incident.

    1. While this may be true… it’s pretty weak tea.

  25. The irony-challenged Eliot Spitzer calls for a ban on all semi-automatic weapons and high capacity ammo clips.

    Yes, Eliot, because you above all know that when the government makes something illegal–like prostitution–it instantly becomes impossible for determined people to obtain.

    1. Not quite an apt analogy. Prostitution when legal and regulated leads to better social outcomes (same with intoxicants). Plus, you can’t outlaw vaginas. And, the point of sex is to have an orgasm, the point of a gun is to kill people. I think at this point all gun control advocates want is to treat certain extra-destructive types of weapons more seriously on a scale that goes all the way up to nuclear weapons. Guns can, in theory, be restricted (though it would be a big haul in this country). And the existence of weapons even you people support restricting access to implies that there is a line to be drawn, and the constitution or natural rights theory does not draw it for us. Anyway an appeal to basic rights is actually a flimsy thing on which to hang a preferred social policy.

      1. So if Harvard published a study that concluded that castrating gay men led to “better social outcomes” you’d be all for it, right?

        1. My utilitarianism is firmly grounded in a theory of individual liberty. Violating people’s bodies is certainly off-limits, but not necessarily their ability to engage in commerce. If you’re worried about people policing people’s genitals then go talk to the Christians.

          1. Ha Ha, just what I thought. Your authoritarianism extends right up to you and stops. Fuck everybody else as long as you get to have a good time.

            My utilitarianism is firmly grounded in a theory of individual liberty.

            As long as one’s definition of liberty doesn’t include freedom of association, freedom of speech, cognitive freedom, etc; right tone?

            1. No, not correct. I favor abortion rights, and I will never need an abortion. I favor equal pay for women, and I am not a woman. I favor equal marriage rights for straights, though again it doesn’t apply to me and I think it’s usually a bad idea.

              What I don’t support as constituent of freedom is a laissez-faire market with unlimited access to human-killing machines. I’m against state intrusions into thought, privacy, and harmless action. I’m for state management of the economy. That you guys conflate the two, typically in a fit of vapors, is what tends to make the conversation go nowhere.

              1. Seems pretty incoherent to me.

                1. I knew eventually tony would encapsulate his universe of liberty with abortion and gay marriage. That’s all there is to liberty for him. He finds those things unobjectionable so they are safe from his neo-puritanism.

                  He says that he’s against state intrusion into harmless action, but what is simply owning a firearm?

                  Your liberty to own a gun, ingest unpopular chemicals, engage in freedom of speech are subject to the whim of the majority. He cares not for the millions of poor that get thrown in jail by Obama’s drug war as long as the prez says he kinda sorta supports civil unions, and oh yeah fuck those brown people their lives are meaningless. And and and, isn’t sooo dreamy how Obama has a murder list he compiles every tuesday morning. *swoon*

                  Like I said, freedom for tony freedom is only for the region above the thighs and below the belt.

                  1. Even the abortion thing is incoherent. It seems that Tony is all for “unlimited access to human-killing machines” so long as the humans they’re killing aren’t political allies.

              2. What I don’t support as constituent of freedom is a laissez-faire market with unlimited access to human-killing machines.

                Unless they’re be used by abortionists.

                Then they’re cool.

              3. State management of the economy. Holy fucking Gods.

                You really are an idiot Tiny.

                1. But look how well it’s working out in North Korea, SB.

                  1. The Marxist-Leninist state utilizes a state socialist economy, based on scientific planning and democratic consensus…it typically replaced the role of market in the capitalist economy with centralized state management of the economy, which is known as a command economy

                    That is from Wikipedia, and it’s in the entry for “Marxism-Leninism” It’s the black-and-white definition.

      2. …the point of a gun is to kill people.

        All of mine must be defective.

        1. B, all you need to know is that tony thinks guns are icky so he’ll conduct a lot of rationalization as to why they should be banned. Tony is like that with just about everything. I think the only thing he doesn’t think is icky is jack-booted, baby burning federal agents out shooting dogs and imposing his warped neo-puritanical morality on the populace.

          1. First, I don’t have a strong opinion on this issue, as I find it tricky both empirically and practically. I have to rely on common sense, which suggests that restricting access to high-capacity clips might help prevent such high body counts without restricting anyone’s freedom to do whatever legal things they want with a gun.

            Forgive me if I’ve given the impression that I endorse all the police abuse documented here because I don’t comment on those articles–I tend not to comment where I agree with the overall sentiment. It might surprise you to know that I’m very much on the side of suspects’ rights compared to the police power status quo.

            1. I have to rely on common sense, which suggests that restricting access to high-capacity clips might help prevent such high body counts…

              Why do you believe that?

              What’s the difference between carrying 10 normal clips and a couple of high cap ones? Other of course than the high cap clips propensity to jam, which paradoxically could lead to a lower body count.

              Of course that was a rhetorical question on my part. The truth is that you are ignorant of guns and high capacity clips sounds scary to you and so becomes a useful rhetorical club.

              1. Other of course than the high cap clips propensity to jam, which paradoxically could lead to a lower body count.

                Exactly.

                See, tony’s common sense is supported by zero knowledge of firearms, but he thinks he’s qualified to make predictions based on this dearth of information.

            2. Tony is so suspicious of the police. You can tell because he wants them to be the only ones able to carry guns.

      3. Afghan goatherds can make AK-47s on charcoal fired forges. The average Sears hardware department has enough metal working equipment to mass produce firearms. There is no way to restrict firearms.

        1. Screw metal working equipment, I can make a decent 12-gauge with a little blackpipe, a hacksaw and a pipe threader.

        2. Oleg Volk makes this point with a nice photo:

          http://www.olegvolk.net/galler…..ewsIndex=1

      4. And, the point of sex is to have an orgasm, the point of a gun is to kill people.

        And the point of knives is to kill people. And the point of cars is to kill people, and the point of hammers is to kill people.

        Ban ’em all.

        1. You can drown in water. You can be burned by fire. Ban them.

        2. To be fair, those things have other purposes that they’re usually used for.

          The only purpose guns have besides killing things is shooting sports, and in many cases those are used as practice for killing things.

      5. Tony, you dope, the reason it’s an apt analogy is because Spitzer, being a shameless law breaker himself, should know that another shameless law breaker like Holmes would not have obeyed an ammo clip limit law anyway.

        It has nothing to do with whether guns are like vaginas.

  26. I really hate to be a dick about this whole thing (no I don’t) but does this guy not look like the love child of NicK Gillespie and Matt Welch? Since I’m already kneee deep in asswholeness I would like to say that “Get One” girl with the pinkie on the tongue is super hot.

    1. IDK where you’re getting Nick or Matt, he looks kinda of like an elf to me.

  27. He also liked to play Guitar Hero, so non-violent video games must be banned as well.
    http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/20/…..rk-knight/

  28. Now this:
    http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/20/…..enis-cops/
    While comical, it is better than the reporting of any of the networks…

  29. The only thing missing is bath salts. There has to be a way to fit bath salts into this story.

    1. His supposed sex site profile states that he perfer not to say anything about his drug use. So, !!!!BATH SALTS!!!!.

      1. He is the only guy on the entire internet honest about his penis size; that is weird.

        1. Oh, I’d be perfectly honest about my 15″ schlong, if it wasn’t in the way of the keyboard…

        2. Yup, red flag right there.

  30. Science without all of that pesky and bothersome science: Ultimate Guide to producing fraudulent data.

    Have fun kiddies.

  31. Yeah, it’s never the fault of the people who go out and commit these horrible crimes. It’s always Hollywood’s fault, or the video game’s fault.

    1. I blame you.

      Because you’re from Texas.

      And guns.

      Eliminationist!

  32. Can a simple beer with rice and barley malts and Czech hops be any good. I think the two pounds of black cherries, eight lemons and several thai peppers I’m adding says yes!

    Earlier in the week I made another brew with the addition two pounds of brandied peaches which I poured Bicardi 151 on and torched before adding to the oat stout mixture.

    1. Man, my thai plant is huge, it has like 500 freakin’ firecrackers on it. I’m sooo making some freaking thai chilli sauce.

      1. Mine died last winter 🙁 (RIP Tookie) so I had to borrow some from my bro-law.

        1. Do you bring ’em inside to overwinter?

          I’m thinking of doing that for a few of mine this year.

          1. I had it in the attic where it stays warm, and where there is screen that insures it got a decent amount of sunlight. The water bottle I was using to feed it nutrients and water broke but I was unaware of it until it was too late.

            1. I’m gonna plant them in front of a big window in the dining room. I’ll feed ’em when I can, but if it’s too much of a pain in the ass they’ll die and I’ll have to start again from seed.

              Did you cut them back or anything? I’ve seen people do that. I might try to bonsai one of ’em motherfuckers.

              1. It’s always a good idea to cut them back for winter months. The less the space they take up the less they need. And they tend to grow fast once Spring rolls back around.

  33. Whelp, gentlemen. I’m calling it a night. I’m going to go fondle my 13 round, high capacity mag for my Springfield XD .45, and be very thankful I bought it before the upcoming ban.

    1. and be very thankful I bought it before the upcoming ban.

      It won’t happen.

      If anything Obama might spout his mouth off about it and widen his impending defeat come November.

  34. This must stop. We need to incarcerate all atheist neuroscience PhD candidates and cease all funding of post-graduate education. Post-graduate education is the seed-bed of crazed killers.

  35. Blaming fandom and cosplayers for the shooting is like saying men who have consensual sex with their wives are responsible for all the rape in the world.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.