The Ottawa Citizen reports
The biased spin doctors over at TTAG are all excited about the fantasy that young Mr. Lammars was heading to the theater BECAUSE it was a gun free zone and he'd be able to kill people like sitting ducks.
Nothing could be further from the truth. He himself admitted the reason, it was to imitate the Aurora Colorado shooter, James Holmes.
The real story here is that someone as sick as this guy was able to legally buy guns. He was a lawful gun owner, as was Holmes, who was so unfit to own them safely that the most basic examination into his mental health might have been able to raise red flags.
Licensing of gun owners, which would include an exhaustive mental health background check combined with a "may issue" policy, is the only way to weed out these dangerous characters. We can't depend on their mothers dropping a dime.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
A 20-year-old man is in jail in southwest Missouri on Friday on charges he planned a mass shooting at a theatre during the showing Sunday of the new movie Twilight.
Blaec Lammers told police in Bolivar, Mo., that he bought two assault rifles and 400 rounds of ammunition with the intent of carrying out a shooting that would be similar to one that killed 12 people and wounded 58 during a Batman movie premier in Aurora, Colorado, last July.
Police announced Lammers’ arrest on Friday. He was arrested Thursday and charged in state court with making a terrorist threat, armed criminal action and first degree assault, records show. He is being held on $500,000 bond.
Lammers’ mother alerted police on Thursday that her son and bought weapons similar to those suspect James Holmes allegedly used in the Aurora shooting, Bolivar police detective Dustin Ross said in a sworn statement to the court.
The biased spin doctors over at TTAG are all excited about the fantasy that young Mr. Lammars was heading to the theater BECAUSE it was a gun free zone and he'd be able to kill people like sitting ducks.
Nothing could be further from the truth. He himself admitted the reason, it was to imitate the Aurora Colorado shooter, James Holmes.
The real story here is that someone as sick as this guy was able to legally buy guns. He was a lawful gun owner, as was Holmes, who was so unfit to own them safely that the most basic examination into his mental health might have been able to raise red flags.
Licensing of gun owners, which would include an exhaustive mental health background check combined with a "may issue" policy, is the only way to weed out these dangerous characters. We can't depend on their mothers dropping a dime.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Because one person intended to do wrong, we have to adopt a policy of may-issue licensing just to own a gun? Name one other right that you would apply the same policy to. Your hope for safety at the expense of all freedom is the kind of thing that will never fly in America.
ReplyDeleteYes.
DeleteIt has in fact 'flown' in the past, and has 'flown' in plenty of other very free (thank you) other countries. You are not less free because prohibited people, like this guy, cannot easily buy guns. What you are is MORE FREE FROM HARM, FROM guns in the hands of the mentally ill.
It should be noted that this guy's family and mental health professional turned him in BEFORE he could act, but that appears to be the only thing that save people from even more carnage than James Holmes caused. He had intended to improve on the mistakes made by Holmes.
That will fly in America; it is clear from multiple polls and from the expressed opinion of pro-gun owners like Mark Kelly and his wife Gabby Giffords that there is plenty of support from the population, INCLUDING GUN OWNERS, to do so.
You are on the wrong side of history on this Campy, as are your fellow gun-lunatics. You have an utterly delusional and fetish relationship with your firearms that is unhealthy and marginally dangerous at best, more dangerous at worst.
In other words, you wouldn't want your proposals applied to rights that you care about. Dog Gone, rights aren't limited to the list that you approve of. To you, gun owners should be required to keep their guns disassembled except when at the range. Guns should never be used for self-defense--despite your having got a gun and a carry license for just that purpose
DeleteBut you still have two points that you are avoiding:
1. We've shown you time and again from credible sources that gun laws and violent crime rates don't correlate. Contrary to your magical thinking, the presence of a gun doesn't cause violence.
2. You consistently refuse to define the word, rare. Events like Aurora stand out because they rarely happen. Will you agree to limits on freedom of religion because of people like Terry Jones?
I find it troubling how often you call Greg dangerous. So with your idea of an "exhaustive" check, he wouldn't pass?
DeleteThat's exactly what she means, showing her to be a fearful person
Deletedog gone said:
Delete"there is plenty of support from the population, INCLUDING GUN OWNERS, to do so."
There is support from gun owners for some changes ... such as strengthening the NCIS system and enforcing existing laws. However, there is NOT widespread report for licensing of gun owners and govt registration of all weapons as mikeb dreams.
And once the specifics of various "common sense" gun laws are spelled out to the public, much of the current support will evaporate.
For example, it's one thing to ask gun owners if they support closing the "gun show loophole". It's quite another when you ask them if they support government approval for every gun transaction - including gifting to family and children.
You're right, there's a big difference between some of our gun control proposals. Some are more acceptable to gun owners than others. Your point was?
DeleteMy point was to look closely at the support you think you have for some of you 'common sense' gun control measures. Because surveys are misleading and unless you know what questions are asked, you won't get the support you think you will.
DeleteI am all for universal health care coverage for 100% population! UNTIL, I realize that it won't work and the quality of health care would plummet for everyone.
Its the same thing. You will NEVER get licencing of gun owners and govt registration of all guns. never never never. You might as well give that up because it is not a 'common sense' reform and it will have nearly zero impact on crime if you did. But you could get strengthening of reporting for the NCIS system - which actually could make a difference.
And if we could trust Mikeb's side, we could work together on improving the background check system. But we know that control freaks won't be satisfied with minor improvements.
DeleteWhat is an “exhaustive” back ground check? When they see his name isn’t on a list of prohibited people, they should look again?
ReplyDeleteNope, it is one that considers a broader range of potential indicators and sources than just the NICS, including plea bargained down domestic abusers, convicted stalkers, and others who have violent criminal histories that may not be felons, as well as those who may not have been adjudicated as mentally ill but who have a known pattern of police intervention (see Ian Stawicki's background as an example of known but not adjudicated dangerously mentally ill shooters).
DeleteWorks for me.
And a lot of that could work for me as well, but I know that you won't stop there. Your obsession with restricting the rights of good citizens makes you call for so much more.
DeleteGreg, our "obsession" is with restricting the gun rights of maniacs and lunatics, not good citizens.
Delete"Exhaustive" is just another gun control buzz word. Like everything else, the gun control proponents have no specifics.
DeleteMikeb, you say that, but then you accuse the majority of gun owners of being unfit hidden criminals and angry racists. I don't believe you.
Delete"Nothing could be further from the truth. He himself admitted the reason, it was to imitate the Aurora Colorado shooter, James Holmes."
ReplyDeleteAnd to be successful in this endeavor, he would want to be sure he wasn't stopped too soon ... now wouldn't he. So don't you think, when picking WHICH theater to perform his imitation, the question of others being present with guns would come into play?
No. He himself appears if you read more articles on the subject of this would-be shooter, believes he could improve on the mistakes made by Holmes.
DeleteNot that Holmes could have been stopped anyway by people with guns; in that situation it would have only caused MORE, not less carnage. The notion that guns would have stopped Holmes is ridiculous, and only advanced by people who are oblivious to the reality of that shooting, or so gun-nut delusional they believe everything this side of an appendicitis attack can be prevented by more guns - in other words gun LUNATICS. Are you another lunatic, Frail Liberty? Do you expect other lunatics to be entirely rational? Do you assume he expected, for example, to survive this event, even if theater goers were unarmed? NO.
Therefore others having guns whether police or not would not be a deterrent. I cannot think of a single situation that would make such a shooting worse, not better, than MORE guns -- especially making it worse for law enforcement.
No, FL. Why can't you admit that I have a good point about the spree shooters? Are you just too defensive and contentious about guns for that?
DeleteThey either go to the place of their grievance or, as in this case, choose their venue based on some other consideration. The idea that spree shooters calculatingly choose gun-free zones is a weak proposal.
Dog Gone:
Delete1. You got a gun and a carry license when you had a stalker. Your continual "I'm better than you" line is worn thin.
2. At theater distances, I'm a good shot. So are a lot of my fellow carry license holders. The idea that someone couldn't have stopped the Aurora shooter makes no sense. He was hunting for easy targets. When he was confronted by the police--people with guns--he surrendered.
3. But certainly, being unarmed didn't do the audience any good. That's the point that you can't get around, over, or through.
When confronted with facts and logic, you either tuck your tail and run, or you toss out insults.
dog gone said:
Delete"Do you assume he expected, for example, to survive this event, even if theater goers were unarmed? NO."
That is irrelevant. It is one thing to KNOW you will not survive at the end of you planned assault but you still get the result you seek - lots of people dead. It's another thing entirely to think you might be stopped BEFORE you have been able to kill enough people. If you don't think he (or Holmes) thought about that possibility - you are deluding yourself. They planned well enough to ensure they would kill enough people to be 'famous'.
And I love how you guys keep saying 'adding more to the situation would only make things worse' etc ... As if we add them by dropping them from the ceiling or using a Hunger Games style cornucopia of weapons turning into a free-for-all.
mikeb said:
Delete"No, FL. Why can't you admit that I have a good point about the spree shooters? Are you just too defensive and contentious about guns for that?"
They either go to the place of their grievance or, as in this case, choose their venue based on some other consideration. The idea that spree shooters calculatingly choose gun-free zones is a weak proposal."
No problem ... I admit (and I have done it before) that most workplace shootings or others with a specific point of grievance do exactly that.
But these so called random spree killings with the purpose of achieving fame are many times (most times) well planned. Lots of thought (twisted thought) goes into them and there is no doubt the gun free status has come into the process for at least some of them.
But even if you were right ... it still doesn't matter whether a location was chosen for its victim rich status or not. The body count still ends up higher when no one can defend themselves. Will you at least admit that?
No, I won't admit that. Loughner was the proof.
DeleteAnd yet you always accuse us of cherry picking anecdotal stories. So go ahead and ignore the many many cases that don't agree with your world view like you always do - like:
DeleteAppalachian School of Law
Pearl High School
Party in Edinboro, Pennsylvania
Courthouse in Tyler, Texas
Church in Aurora, Colorado
So yeah, you must be right - Loughner was the final proof.
Anyone want to take bets this guy is one more case of a male in this age bracket suffering from worsening schizophrenia? It is a mental illness that can be treated but that does not typically improve; you don't get over it like mumps or measles. It is more common in men than women, and often manifests at this age.
ReplyDeleteWe could save ourselves a lot of homicides if buying a gun involved mental health testing; this is a mental illness that can be detected before it gets this far.
Except there is no such thing as 'mental illness', Dr. Freeman.
Deleteorlin sellers
Dog Gone, there are 100,000,000 +/- gun owners in this country. How long would each of them get on the couch?
Deletedog gone pouted...We could save ourselves a lot of homicides if buying a gun involved mental health testing..."
DeleteYeah, because no attention seeking psychopath would ever think about blowing up a building, or making crude hand grenades and tossing them into audience, or block the exits and set the building on fire.
Actually, he didn't *do* anything wrong and this is just Obama's Brownshirts destroying America.
ReplyDelete"And a lot of that could work for me as well, but I know that you won't stop there."
ReplyDeleteOh, GOODY! Greggie is NOW for reasonable controlz on fuckheadz wit teh gunz? Whoo-hoo!!
Democommie, I haven't changed. My point all along is that any compromises with your side only lead to more compromises. Until we can trust you, there are no deals to be made.
DeleteCanada has a "may issue" policy for all firearms. Interesting coincidence, isn't it, that you rarely hear of cases like this one there?
ReplyDeleteSuch incidents are rare here as well. That's the part that you control freaks don't get.
Delete