The overly defensive gun-rights fanatics have been insisting that James Holmes specifically chose the theater of his shooting because it was the only one which prohibited guns. First of all, I seriously doubt that, in spite of the many repeated tellings. Secondly, and most obvioulsy, being a complete lunatic, he could have chosen the venue of his massacre for any number of reasons. Maybe he liked the popcorn best at this one.Accused Aurora movie theater gunman James Holmes bought his movie ticket 12 days before the shooting, it was revealed in court today during the emotional first day of a preliminary hearing.
The first day of trial produced a plausible explanation. He had already bought the ticket. Perhaps he had bought the ticket even before he planned the shooting.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
What do I think,
ReplyDeleteI think he picked a "NO GUNS ALLOWED" theater as he planed the shooting, 12 days in advance.
"Maybe he liked the popcorn best at this one." That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Do you actually believe the crap you write? He chose the only gun free theater in the area so he could kill the most people, if you believe anything else you are living in a make believe world.
ReplyDeleteI know you've got a lot invested in this bogus theory that they choose the gun free zones, but just look at the list of mass shootings. Most of them went to the place of their grievance regardless of it's gun free status.
DeleteIn this case, a total whack-job like Holmes could have had many different motivations for what he did. Twelve days before the shooting he probably just wanted to see that famous movie like everybody else and bought a ticket. When he flopped out, he went were the ticket would let him in.
Lighten up on forcing every situation to fit what Uncle Wayne told you it has to fit.
"... he went where the ticket would let him in."
DeleteThat is a silly assertion. First of all, the attacker entered through an emergency exit to the room where the movie was showing. You don't need a ticket to enter through an emergency exit. Second of all, he was carrying a semi-automatic rifle, a shotgun, and a handgun. I'm certain he could have marched right pass the usher collecting tickets and into any room of his choice with that much hardware.
Here are some actual facts. Several theaters were much closer to the attacker's apartment. And all of those theaters were concealed carry friendly theaters.
I don't believe that. You're repeating a lie that was invented on the internet and repeated hundreds of times.
DeleteCan you prove other wise Mike, you claim it's a lie but just google map it and it's not hard to figure out.
DeleteOh, yeah? Does Google Maps show which theaters have a no-guns-allowed policy? No, it doesn't. And the first person who wrote that bullshit didn't know either. But, boy it sounded good.
DeleteSomeone couldn't call the theaters or check their websites?
DeleteSee my additional comments at the end.
DeleteIt was a John Lott post -- not going to repost his link, because he's a terrible "scientist" and "statistician" that doesn't appear to understand causality vs. association -- that popularized the assertion.
There were 2 theaters closer to Holmes' house:
A Latino Cinema with 8 screens
A dinner theater only slightly closer, that's more expensive, sells out, and is more popular with families
Besides pure chance (1/3, for John Lott's sake), the other theaters had clear disadvantages rather than the "Gun-Free" zone: both are smaller and are more likely to notice a solo person poking around, reconn'ing the place. Simply put, both places would be more awkward for a single, white person to go alone.
It's simply less likely that he would have become familiar with those other theaters instead of the big 16-screen one that everyone goes to. (There's one other option slightly farther away, requiring a slower driver up Peoria Ave instead of getting right on the freeway).
Mikeb wrote, "Perhaps he had bought the ticket even before he planned the shooting."
ReplyDeleteIn order for that to be true, the attacker (I refuse to type his name) created a detailed plan, figured how to make explosive devices, and figured out how to booby trap his apartment in less than 12 days. That is pretty fantastic and quite unbelievable.
You're probably right. I just don't buy the idea that he selected that theater for its gun free status.
DeleteBut Mikeb, why can't you at least admit that the wacko here may have chosen the theater because it was a gun-free zone? That's possible, isn't it?
DeleteMikeb will never agree with you Greg...despite the fact that the killer bought weapons and bomb making materials over a 2 month period..to say he didn't scout his targets is absurd.
DeleteNo, actually, I do admit that. He may have done exactly what you guys say, which would make him an atypical example of the mass shooter who goes where his passion pulls him regardless of the gun-free status.
Delete"suspect took photos of theater hallway and exits 2 weeks before shooting" just saw that on the Today Show...
DeleteAnd later on down this page, you admit to exactly what we've been telling you for a long time. Mass shooters who want to make a name for themselves plan these things out, including often going to gun-free zones.
DeleteMikeB,
ReplyDeleteYou actually have one thing correct for once, that a person with a grudge will often go to the place of their grievance. And those events often result in more than one person wounded/killed.
It is also correct that almost all of the murder events that result in dozens of wounded/killed happen in locations that criminalize citizens who want to carry firearms for defensive purposes.
Either way it doesn't matter. What we see for certain is that lunatics intent on murder can and do strike anywhere. Locations with large body counts include colleges, schools, malls, restaurants, churches, post offices, pretty much anywhere there is a large concentration of people.
The only way to stop a violent lunatic is with fast, violent force. As unfortunate as it may be, the best way to deliver fast, violent force to a violent lunatic is with a firearm. And since police take several minutes to respond to an event, the fastest response is from the citizens who are already at the event when the lunatic starts.
Even if it were possible to prevent criminals and lunatics from getting firearms, policies to accomplish that would disarm most citizens in the process. And that just insures that mass murderers will have a plethora of venues and opportunities to live out their delusional fantasies unopposed.
Remember, a firearm is just one of a multitude of options that a lunatic could employ to harm people. Cars, gasoline, fertilizer, chemicals, poisons, compressed gas cylinders (e.g. propane), swords, heavy objects, and other horrific possibilities will always be available.
This just in from NPR: According to the prosecution, the wacko here was preparing for as much a two months before the incident.
ReplyDeleteHe bought the rifle at least a month before the movie came out and well before he bought the ticket. I know John Lott likes to harp on this a lot, but it's a relatively plausible explanation. Holmes was a pretty smart guy, despite all the delusions he may have had, the planning was relatively meticulous (well, aside from a cheap rifle and magazine that jammed). It seems like his initial plan had been to blend in with SWAT and slip out that way, Joker style. It would certainly foil the plan if someone had shot back it him (since none of his gear was actually ballistically rated, despite initial media reports).
ReplyDeleteIt seems like his initial plan had been to blend in with SWAT and slip out that way,
ReplyDeleteOfficers found Holmes standing next to his car. At first, Officer Jason Oviatt said, he thought Holmes was a policeman because of how he was dressed but then realized he was just standing there and not rushing toward the theater.
In my blog (retiredmustang.blogspot.com) I talk a bit about spree killers. There, I base my analysis of spree killers somewhat on my own clinical experience in mental health, but I also verified my thoughts with a PhD in psychology whose focus is on serial killers and mass murderers (of whom spree killers are a subset). It's important to recognize that while they often do go to the place against which they have a grudge, that is not universally true. Remember, spree killers seek to make a point. They are not the weak, disturbed and powerless people others view them to be. They are powerful and people to be reckoned with and they will prove it by one horrific act of violence. That planned out act of violence (and spree killers always plan out their rampages) may be directed at at one or more individuals or their representatives...including the children of the society that has treated the killer so poorly or failed to recognize his amazing brilliance and talent. It may be appealing to pretend otherwise, but very seldom does a spree killer pick plan his attack at a place or time that is likely to result in his immediate demise. Here's an article that does a decent job of describing the spree killer: http://www.lawofficer.com/article/leadership/spree-shootings-involve-predic
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment, RT.
Delete" It's important to recognize that while they often do go to the place against which they have a grudge, that is not universally true."
I never said the always go there. I said most and usually.
I also have a problem with the idea that they "always plan out their rampages." I don't see that when I look at the list recently put out on Mother Jones. You probably have even more cases to look at through you academic work. Aren't some of them work-place shootings which really were explosive spur-of-the-moment things? Aren't some of the others guys who just cracked?
Spree killers, by definition, plan out their attacks. Now, in some workplace cases, it looks like his (the killer's) plan was to only kill "Earl", but when he arrive at work that morning he realizes that to get to Earl he's going to have to kill several others first. How convenient that in addition to the one pistol and magazine he brought for Earl, he also brought other weapons (an example of the killer's madness...he only planned to kill one guy, but brought multiple weapons). So, to answer your question: No, spree killers are not spur of the moment killers. Remember, they are a subset of mass murderers. The other thing to remember about spree killers is this: Multiple people are going to be injured and likely die regardless of the weapon the spree killer uses. Firearms are convenient, but not essential, to a spree killers last desperate attempt to prove himself a person of significance.
DeletePlease pardon the typos in my last post.
DeleteFine, I acquiesce to your obvious expertise in this area. Thanks for your comments.
DeleteFrom what I've read, it's fairly obvious that he had been planning and preparing his attack for longer than 12 days. He purchased three firearms, a bunch of ammo, and the components to make explosives which was shipped to the university to prevent any suspiscions regarding shipping dangerous chemicals to a home.
ReplyDeleteHe also set up a very complicated set of boobytraps in his apartment. With all this preperation, I find it doubtful that he didnt pick the theatre just as carefully. It's very possible that it was picked because it was a gun-free zone. The fact might be released at a later date as the trial progresses.
Yes, you're right. The comments have added a lot to what I was thinking at the time of writing the post.
DeleteMikeb, found your comments online and appreciate it, as I've been frustrated with this "theory."
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that he specifically chose this, being gun-free theater? Sure. But I think it's unlikely (at least as far as being the primary factor), and it reveals a sloppy level of thinking among the people who immediately jumped to this conclusion. It's a sad reflection of other aspects of general debate in which people latch onto a single theory without actually thinking about coincidence and likelihood.
It's not about what's "possible," but what's "most likely."
I go to that school; I live in East Denver/Aurora; I've been to that theater.
I haven't been to any of the other "closer" theaters, with the exception of the dinner/beer one, which is more expensive and smaller. For seeing a popular movie, the theater he picked is the one that would come to mind for most people in the area, and students. It's big, there's lots of restaurants, etc., and it's easy to get to from that part of town, with easy parking: Colfax to I-225, and just off the freeway. I've gone there with friends from school, and it would be likely that, if he went out at all, he would have been there at some point. Oh, it's also the closest/easiest Super Target, for getting groceries and stuff.
The other theaters and parts of town are, frankly, ghetto. Look up "East Colfax Ghetto" and you'll see I'm not alone. You want to get away from that area. If you're going to drive anyway, the location of the theater is nice, new, and "safe."
Most likely scenario: he had been in the area before and was familiar with it. Maybe he had a date there or something and that led to feelings of a grudge, but that's it. I think it's just simple familiarity. Maybe he noticed the "guns not allowed" sign and considered it a bonus to his plan, but I am highly skeptical of people jumping to conclusions without any realization of the "reality on the ground."
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I agree with you.
DeleteListen, since you're in the area, why don't you do a little research for us? A photo of one of the other theater's guns-not-allowed would be too much to hope for, but see what you can see for us.
It is a fact that at least three people who normally carry, weren't, because of that sign.
ReplyDeleteAnd even if you assume, as has never happened before, that all three of them drew their weapons right after the shooting started and shot half a dozen people each, each of them killing at least one, and caused this dude to run away, the result would have been better than what happened.
Hell, I wager that if even one of them had had a high lumen flashlight on his weapon the dude would have run away. Spree shooters shoot until someone confronts them, then they commit suicide or surrender. I can't think of one case where the gunman has entered into a gun battle with anyone, at least not the most recent publicized ones. The cops show up, the gunman dies. Or as in the case of the mall right before Sandy Hook, someone flashes a gun, the gunman dies.
There is no evidence indicating he chose the theater because it was a "gun free zone". He wore body armor, so he obviously thought someone might shoot back. He was a psycho. He might have chosen that theater because his dog told him to. Anyone who says they know why he chose that particular theater is, at this point, just making shit up.
ReplyDeleteHolmes was wearing a tactical vest made of ballistic nylon. Basically a nylon mesh vest with pockets for carrying extra magazines and such. Think a fishing vest with different shaped pockets.
DeleteHere is a link to a copy of the receipt for the vest.
http://www.stltoday.com/tacticalgear-sales-receipt-for-james-holmes/pdf_d886da6e-d2dd-11e1-a574-0019bb30f31a.html
You're right John. The poor gun-rights fanatics are so beleaguered these days they have to make shit up and stick to it no matter what.
Delete