The Aurora theater was a no-gun zone, too and it did absolutely nothing to stop the murderer.

I’m still waiting to be informed as to what signs he showed ahead of time that he was a psychopath and no one took steps to make sure he was treated or locked up.

As for the innocent public, they are considered colleratal damage and a necessary evil in the gun saga. We are the targests of any person at any time who wants to act out a fantasy. The targets range from presidents to infants and none of this carnage makes any politician or all of us want to stop it.

I live in a state that banned automatic weapons 20 yrs ago, and I asked my kids after the colorado tragedy if they feel safe going to movies here, even ones at midnight or if they ever felt danger going to school on any day. They looked at me and said of course we never feel danger, why would we?
That’s the answer you get when a state really looks to protect it’s children and not just talk about it like they do in most. I don’t know why the shooting death of a child is not considered a basic family value. I don’t know why all the religious leaders are silent.

that is the power of the NRA!

Does all violence involve photogenic gore? Aren’t starving kids in Darfur the result of violence – is that glorification we see from the media? The same media or state department dweebs that don’t want to rock a Saddam or Burmese junta’s boat?

After the WWII when this nation was staring down the Soviet threat(s) in Europe, Asia and the Caribbean; we had programs to offer military surplus weaponry to citizens for home/civil defense purposes. While the domestic threat eventually turned out to be non-existent, how many of those weapons were used for ‘bad’ violence – which I would define as resulting in criminal convictions? A few, I would dare say. On the other hand (and there is one) would you honestly say that the threat to an individual domestic citizen today, during this non-declared threat from Islamic extremism, is any less than the perceived threat during the cold war? Yes we do have a higher per capita percentage of police than we did then in those days of universal (male) conscription/military service; but does the fact of paying for more security make us more or less secure?

For myself, whether there are two or one cops for every 25 citizens, while statistically very significant, means very little to our perceived security as citizens. As a group we don’t have the training or the experience to defend ourselves (unlike in decades past) – nor are we encouraged to do so. Articles like this ‘blame’ our culture – as I would too, but from the opposite perspective. Few of us are capable (by virtue of resources or training) of defending ourselves in the face of ‘bad’ violence. If we were capable we might feel more secure and less likely to unknowingly blame ‘assault’ weapons or ammunition sales for the insane preconception that ‘good’ violence is the Hollywood special effects of an action movie.

While such movies may serve as a cathartic release, they actually inculcate very poor misconceptions of firearms and firearm use. So good for escapism, ‘bad’ for violence.