published Saturday, July 21st, 2012

Guns and U.S. violence

Attending a midnight opening of a blockbuster motion picture has become a pleasant ritual for millions of Americans. Most are unlikely to view the experience so positively after a heavily armed gunman wreaked havoc on a crowd packed into an Aurora, Colo., theater to see "Dark Knight Rises," the latest installment in the "Batman" trilogy. Before the early Friday rampage was over, 12 people were dead, more than 50 injured and the innocent joy of going to the movies shattered.

Whatever prompted one of the deadliest mass shootings in recent U.S. history, there can be no rational explanation for it.

The suspect gunman, who tossed a gas canister into the movie auditorium and then methodically began shooting into the crowd, has been identified by federal law enforcement officials as James Holmes, a graduate student who apparently was in the process of withdrawing from the University of Colorado-Denver at time of the attack. One federal official said Holmes, who apparently was wearing a gas mask during the attack, carried an assault rifle, a shotgun and two pistols. There was no word, as of Friday afternoon, about a possible motive or whether the guns had been purchased legally.

The investigation of Holmes is on-going. FBI agents and police were at Holmes' apartment on Friday looking for clues. Their task was complicated by flammable and explosive booby-traps, presumably armed by Holmes. Their presence suggests the possibility of premeditation on the part of the alleged gunman, who obviously believed that his dwelling would become a place of interest.

Worst since 2009

The shooting was the worst in the United States since the 2009 attack at a Texas military base when an Army psychiatrist opened fire, killing 13 and wounding more than two dozen. Friday's spree was the worst in Colorado since the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, when two students killed 12 and wounded 26 others before taking their own lives. Indeed, the mall where the Friday shootings occurred is not immune to violence. A woman was killed and two others were wounded inside it in 2005.

Emergency medical and local, state and federal law enforcement agencies reacted promptly and efficiently to reports of the early morning shooting. Those wounded were quickly transported to hospitals for treatment and the surrounding area searched for possible accomplices or dangerous devices that may have been left behind.

Words of consolation came from members of the alleged shooter's family — reports indicate they were as stunned by the event as everyone else — from President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, and from Americans from all walks of life. Local residents provided comfort and assistance to those whose family members, friends and neighbors were killed or wounded, or caught up in an unimaginable event beyond their control. It is a welcome American response — a gathering and sharing that eases the pain of the inexplicable, even if it can not explain it.

There is a chilling familiarity in the Aurora movie-house massacre with other, similarly horrific shootings — the Columbine and Fort Hood massacres, the shooting spree that crippled Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed others, the massive tragedy at Virginia Tech. In each instance, the attacker or attackers employed readily available guns to maximize death and injury.

Unfortunately, talk about the ubiquity of guns and the role they play in U.S. violence is muted by Americans' unwillingness to challenge false beliefs about the right to own and use guns, and by the highly effective politicking and expansive largesse of the National Rifle Association, perhaps the most powerful and certainly the most influential lobby in the nation.

Long-term objective of NRA

There will be some tut-tutting about the disturbing role guns play in contemporary U.S. life. Yet if the past is any predictor, that sensible conversation will be drowned out by the shrill shouts of those who believe that any talk that ties the ubiquity of guns, particularly handguns, to violence like that in Aurora is an attack on their personal right to own guns. It's the same crowd that tells the nation that the best way to guarantee public safety is to allow everyone to own guns. That's the NRA's long-term objective, and the organization is succeeding in reaching its goal. NRA-approved laws that expand gun-toting rights already have passed in many states and are pending in others.

As long as the national discussion about guns is dominated by the NRA, any talk about rational gun control that reconciles constitutional mandates with the need for public safety appears doomed. Much of the U.S. public now favors rational regulation of firearms, and the U.S. Supreme Court has provided guidance in that area. Even so, politicians at all levels refuse to heed the call to act responsibly. There's no way to prove beyond doubt that stronger gun laws would have prevented the Aurora and similar shootings, but it is almost a certainty that more stringent controls would reduce the amount of gunplay and the thousands of U.S. deaths attributed to it annually.

Until elected officials summon the guts to address the issue of guns and gun violence directly and without interference from powerful lobbyists, the toll of dead and wounded that arises from unfettered access to guns is likely to grow. No one knows where the next act of violence perpetrated by someone armed with automatic and high-powered weaponry will take place. Indeed, we can't protect ourselves and others from every possibility of violence.

Stricter gun controls probably would make such incidents less deadly, though. Lacking such controls or the will to install them, all the nation can do at times like this is mourn and pray for the dead and wounded, and hope that such a tragedy is not repeated soon.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

This editorial will provoke a storm.

July 21, 2012 at 12:18 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Unfettered gun ownership may offer very little real protection against an increasingly violent society, but inadvertantly, that same gun proliferation results a lowering of population growth. And the "feel good" effect of gun ownership can't really be measured. Guns give the powerless a sense that they can fight back against unknown threats. Even though statistics indicate that guns are more likely to kill or injure family or friends than protect us from external threats, we still take an irrational comfort in gun ownership.

The habits of a frontier society have carried over into our evolved metropolitan lifestyles making us a menace unto ourselves.

When the word guns walks through the door, rational thought makes an exit.

July 21, 2012 at 1:19 a.m.
jesse said...

Tim mcveigh kills somewhere on the order of 200 folks in the bombing! HOW many guns did he have?? A phycopath is gonna do his THING w/whatever is available! Guns,bow and arrow,bombs, samuri swords,spit balls or whatever! Human's in general are killers!Just a fact of life and trying to legislate sanity does NOT work! The shooter has been described as "a smart kid"!Maybe we need to outlaw "BEING SMART"!!

July 21, 2012 at 4:58 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Let's prepare ourselves for the same round of BS that we always here when these things happen: There will be shock and outrage and an outpouring of sympathy for the dead and the injured. We libs will make our case that there are just too damn many guns, with too easy access to the semi-automatics, and they need to be regulated strongly. The gun fetishists and the NRA will argue that if only someone in the audience had had a gun, this tragedy could have been averted. And they will push for laws to let us all carry guns to the movie theaters next. And several states will probably pass such laws. And there will be talk of at least tightening the loopholes that allow gun shows to get away with selling guns to virtually anyone without background checks, and the NRA and the gun fetishists will once again win that debate and see to it that nothing is done about it. And soon the shock and the grief will fade away and life will go on in good ol' gun-happy America...until the next psycho with semi-automatics or whatever weapons of choice decides to take out the next batch of innocent victims. Ah, life in Gun-merica. How sweet it is.

July 21, 2012 at 5:53 a.m.
anniebelle said...

More advanced countries, such as Australia, have addressed gun violence in their country. Consider what happened in Australia after a crazed gunman killed 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996.

The Australian federal government persuaded all states and territories to implement tough new gun control laws. Under the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), firearms legislation was tightened throughout the country. National registration of guns was imposed and it became illegal to hold certain long guns that might be used in mass shootings.

The gun ban was backed up by a mandatory buy-back program that substantially reduced gun possession in Australia.

The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total suicides and homicides) fell. Importantly, while there were 13 mass shootings in Australia during the period of 1979--96, there have been none in the sixteen years since.

In 1996, then-Prime Minister John Howard stated that the "whole scheme is designed to reduce the number of guns in the community and make Australia a safer place to live." The Australian attorney general praised the cooperation and responsibility of Australian firearms owners with the gun controls and buy-back, saying, "they have been paid cash for their firearms - giving our nation a welcome Christmas gift by removing unnecessary high-powered firearms from the community. As long as gun manufacturers see another dollar in their pocket, they don't care a wit about violence or the harm these high powered weapons cause to innocents. When our forefathers wrote about a well-armed militia, they were carrying muskets which took about 5 minutes to reload and get another shot off. So quit referring to these arcane rules, it makes you look stupid.

July 21, 2012 at 6:08 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Anniebelle, the arcane rules you speak of might seem arcane to you and me and most liberals, as we tend to think they were referring to the firearms in existence at the time. But this is what the conservatives and wannabe gunslingers see when they read the second amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms of all types, including automatic and semi-automatic weapons and whatever else the NRA deems fit, shall not be infringed."

July 21, 2012 at 6:31 a.m.
anniebelle said...

Just after 9:00 am EST, as most of the country was just learning about the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado, the National Rifle Association’s publication American Rifleman sent out a tweet that, in context of the day’s news, was very poorly received: “Good Morning, shooters. Happy Friday! Weekend Plans?” The message was widely circulated around Twitter for several hours this morning, before the organization first deleted the tweet, then nixed their entire account. Commenters also noticed the website appeared to be down early in the afternoon, supposedly for maintenance. A representative from the NRA’s publications division wasn’t immediately available to comment. By 2:30 pm, the website for the American Rifleman was back up, but links to the publication’s Twitter and Facebook accounts were removed, and the accounts themselves no longer exist.

July 21, 2012 at 6:31 a.m.
EaTn said...

Fact is this country has over 300 million guns and a powerful gun lobby group. This is not the time for a knee jerk reaction, similar to the one after the President Reagan shooting. I'm not a gun advocate but guns are here to stay, so maybe we need to focus more on both the security and shooter mentality issues.

July 21, 2012 at 6:54 a.m.
annisisbell said...

OMG don't anybody ever go to another movie theater! And if you go see a movie make sure its not Batman! OMG we have to get rid of all guns! Seriously?

  1. Our military is being made diverse because as we're told by liberals, its too White and male. (Translation: Our White children might be reluctant to turn their weapons upon us)

  2. Homeland Security has put the founding stock of this nation on its terrorist watch lists and identifies those who want to defend our borders and get rid of illegals.

  3. Obama has a hit list, drones that kill people and assassination squads.

  4. Now they are using an anecdotal situation to justify taking away our guns so we can't defend ourselves from our government or from the Travone Martins and black flash mobs.

5.You figure it out.

July 21, 2012 at 7:44 a.m.
timbo said...

Rickaroo and anniebell and people like them are spouting the BS.

I told my son yesterday that it would take about 8 hours for liberal media and politicians to start yelling gun control over the Colorado shootings. I was wrong, it took MSNBC 2 hours.

Yes, before these people were cold the liberals in this country just couldn't wait to USE THE VICTIMS to push their socialist, government control agenda.

First of all, these types of things are EXTREMELY RARE. There is more chance of you being killed by being struck by lightning than in a mass murder. Maybe we should outlaw lightning. 100 people being killed in a year in these kinds of things in a population of 325,000,000 is not a big threat. Yes our murder rate is higher than some other countries but it is because of our lax judicial system. We can't keep these people off the street. We have liberals to thank for that.

Bennett and Austin and the rest of you pinkos have no shame. The liberal media salivates over getting something like this to hype so some journalist can win a Pulitzer or they can push their stupid liberal ideals.

The bottom line is this; no government entity can protect you at all. Their were policemen on duty in the theater and they didn't stop one thing. They didn't even get off a shot or even subdue the suspect. What chance do you think they have of protecting you on the street or in your home? It is not the police's fault but the fact is all they do is come in and clean up the mess. You are just as dead.

One more thing, what if a couple of people had legal guns in the theater? They might have saved everyone. Just like guns protect the rest of us millions of times every year.

Shame on you Bennett, Harry Austin, and the rest of you cowering liberals that just want the government to control everything we do.

July 21, 2012 at 9:36 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Our murder rate is high because of the underground economy created by the war on drugs. The country went through the same thing during prohibition.

July 21, 2012 at 10:34 a.m.
Easy123 said...


"100 people being killed in a year in these kinds of things in a population of 325,000,000 is not a big threat."

There were 14,748 murders in 2010.

"Yes our murder rate is higher than some other countries but it is because of our lax judicial system."


"We can't keep these people off the street. We have liberals to thank for that."


"One more thing, what if a couple of people had legal guns in the theater? They might have saved everyone."

What if, what if, what if?

"Just like guns protect the rest of us millions of times every year."

Prove it.

July 21, 2012 at 11:18 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Timbo, in my first post above I was simply talking about how we're all going to be hearing the same old comments from both sides that we always hear whenever one of these mass shootings takes place. And sure enough, those very comments are already making the rounds. So how was I "spouting BS" there if what I said has already come true? In my second post I was just showing how you conservatives read the Second Amendment: you obviously think that the founding fathers had some omniscient visionary capabilities and were able to see into the 21st century and therefore they meant to include things like automatic and semi-automatic weapons when they spoke of the right to bear arms. No BS there, gringo. I'm just tellin' like it is.

As far as this "socialist, government control agenda" you and your teabagging buds keep whining about....we libs are just trying like hell to get back the sensible policies and regulations you trickle-down Rebublicans have succeeded in stripping away ever since golden-boy Ronnie came on the scene and Bush2 managed to make even worse. The only new "socialist" thing to come down the pike in a long time is ObamaCare and that is NOT socialist in the least. He left the insurance in the hands of private enterprise and even his mandate (which you conservatives created in the first place and were for it before you were against it) will only assure the insurance companies of increased sales of their policies. I would hardly call that socialistic.

But of course, it's all evil socialism to you. Unless you get everything 100% your way 100% of the time, then you throw your tantrum-fits and start in again with how those god-awful liberals are trying to carry out their "socialist, government control agenda." If you wanna talk about BS, meister timbo, look no further than your own piles of it.

July 21, 2012 at 12:09 p.m.
annisisbell said...

Guns don't kill people, minorities do.

July 21, 2012 at 1:57 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

" obviously think that the founding fathers had some omniscient visionary capabilities and were able to see into the 21st century and therefore they meant to include things like automatic and semi-automatic weapons when they spoke of the right to bear arms"

Dumbest. Argument. Ever.

By your reasoning, freedom of the Press would apply only to hand operated printing presses and hand written documents produced with a quill and ink, and would exclude automated presses, television, the internet, ball point pens, etc. because those didn't exist at the time of the founding of this nation. Right?

By the same "reasoning" the right to freedom of speech wouldn't apply if one is using a battery powered bullhorn because those didn't exist at the time either. Freedom of religion would only apply if one's choice of religion was one that was established before ratification of the Constitution. The freedom from unreasonable search and seizure would not apply to your computers, cell phones or automobile.

So Rick a doodle, do you agree with all the above, or are you just making silly arguments without actually thinking about where the logic of those arguments lead?

July 21, 2012 at 2:07 p.m.
annisisbell said...

Our forefathers could never have forseen diversity. They foresaw the problems that jews would cause.

"I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews. In whatever country Jews have settled in any great numbers, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within a state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal.

"For over 1700 years the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, they call Palestine. But, Gentlemen, should the world today give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some cogent reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other people not of their race.

"If you do not exclude them from these United States, in this Constitution in less than 200 years they will have swarmed in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land, and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives, our substance and jeopardized our liberty.

"If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them sustenance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, Gentlemen, if you do not exclude the Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves. Jews, Gentlemen, are Asiatics; let them be born where they will, or how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American's, and will not even though they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots.

"Jews are Asiatics, they are a menace to this country if permitted entrance and should be excluded by this Constitution."

July 21, 2012 at 2:14 p.m.
annisisbell said...

Our forefathers could forsee a government that became a threat to us. That is why they allowed for us to bear arms. To defend ourselves from a government that tried to take away our freedom, fail to represent our interests and took too much power to itself and taxed us to death.

Sound familiar? Homeland Security is the biggest threat to emerge recently and we desperately need to protect ourselves from the creeps and freaks in charge of it.

With all the aliens the gov is allowing in we need to be able to defend ourselves from them.

We need to keep our guns. We should never trust those who try to take them away.

White crime is very low, its blacks and hispanics who are always committing crimes.

Therefore those who wish to stop violence should start by getting rid of non Whites, not guns.

July 21, 2012 at 2:18 p.m.
SpookUSNret said...

A little honesty is required from the author of this editorial, and all other anti-Second Amendment folks. Not just a recognition that the National Rifle Association is a grass-roots organization of American Citizens, rather than some evil amorphous thing with hidden agendas; but an admission that, if they are calling for "gun control" when they exploit this sort of tragedy, that they are by extension calling for enough gun control to prevent this sort of tragedy from happening again.

That level of gun control would only be achieved by total confiscation of all civilian-owned firearms and ammunition. If you are going to call for it, do it honestly; and call for that, and absolutely nothing less. No half measures, no gradual, step-by-step restrictions at all - just total confiscation.

Go for it. Honestly.

July 21, 2012 at 5:05 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Yes, let's have a little honesty, shall we, Spooks? The NRA might have started out as a grass roots organization of American citizens but it is anything but that now. The fact is that it is indeed an "evil amorphous thing with hidden agendas." It has become a power-hunger monstrosity that is not the least bit concerned with sensible gun use or laws or regulations. It has its own agenda, and that is nothing less than to get as many guns into the hands of as many people as possible, regulations be damned. Tell me, when was the last time you saw the NRA support any gun legislation that called for tighter controls? I will tell you...NEVER. To the contrary, it keeps pushing and pushing and pushing for laws that create more guns in more places, and it strong-arms and bribes the politicians who try to stand in the way of those laws. I have several friends and acquaintances who are hunters and gun owners and they refuse to have anything to do with the NRA because they realize that it long ago ceased serving any useful, constructive purpose.

As for liberals and Democrats trying to incrementally phase guns out of existence, as you like to think they are, what new gun laws requiring tighter regulation have you seen Obama try to get passed since he's been in office? I can tell you....NONE...NOT ONE. There is no slippery slope leading to gun eradication, as you like to make everybody think. The only slippery slope we're sliding down is that created by the NRA and its fawning followers and bought-and-sold politicians who push for the lunatic laws that are aimed at turning everyone in the country into a pistol-packing cowboy, virtually everywhere we go.


July 21, 2012 at 7:16 p.m.
SpookUSNret said...

Interesting; you seem awful defensive when not attacked. Most members I know in the NRA keep up with what their organization is doing, they vote on the agendas, and pretty much agree with what is being done in their names. I certainly feel, like many in the NRA, that many of the regulations that exist don't do much - if anything - to control crime; they simply make it more difficult for honest, law-abiding gun owners to exercise their Civil Rights as codified in the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

I never mentioned "liberals", "Democrats", or "Obama" in my post. If you think a politician is "bought and sold", by all means vote against him. And if the laws are aimed at "turning everyone in the country into a pistol-packing cowboy" I want to know about it. Has anyone tried to force you to buy a pistol?

July 21, 2012 at 7:29 p.m.
timbo said...

Rickaroo....ScottyM answered you brilliantly.

I would only say one more thing..the founding fathers never envisioned an all encompassing, all powerful government which uses liberal and their bankrupt, antiquated, thoughts to put at risk our basic freedoms. The EPA, IRS, FBI, CIA, etc. etc. are more than enough power for the government. I have semi-automatic rifles that never leave my house. I don't even have them to protect my family or myself. I have them in case the government gets completely where you people are pushing it to go. A socialist society where individual rights and individual achievement are a crime.

To extrapolate on what ScottyM said about the press, I don't think that the government or police still use muskets so we have to at least have something that discourages this ever more insidious government from getting any more aggressive.

July 22, 2012 at 12:31 p.m.
Pass_it_on said...

Why is the liberal media focusing on guns? The problem is not guns and the subsequent gun-control laws. The real problem is mental health and it's lack of popularity among the politicians.

From the Ronald Reagan era to now, the biggest cuts have been in mental health programs. We are now seeing the results of that. With this deranged individual's knowledge of chemicals, this could have been easily done with an IED or truck filled with explosives. The devastation would've been much greater and the loss of life would've been horrific.

Law abiding citizens may possibly make a difference if they were allowed to have a firearm on their person. However, it is widely known they are not allowed in theaters, like several other places such as bars. Did not stop him to prop the exit door and go out to arm himself.

A crazy deranged person will not obey any law, regardless of penalty. So let's ban all firearms and let the crazy people proliferate and find more effective ways to gain fame. That makes sense ...

July 22, 2012 at 5:38 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Timbo, I don't waste my time arguing with fools and getting caught up in senseless tug-of-wars with the likes of you and your libertarian/neo-con pea-brained ilk, so I am going to offer this one response and then I will get back to making better use of my time. I'm sure ScottyM's answer seemed "brilliant" to you, given the lock-box mentality of the one making that assessment.

In case you haven't noticed, that "all encompassing, all powerul government" you are referring to - you and me. Last time I checked we still freely elect our representatives. The government is not some alien entity in the shadows just scheming and calculating to take away your weapons or your freedom. As long as you vote and participate in the democratic process (what's left of it anyway), you and I and all of us are part of this government elected of, by, and for the people. And those Republicans who keep yelling about how the government is too big and the government can't create jobs or shouldn't be in the business of providing health insurance...well, they themselves ARE part of the government, they HAVE government jobs, and they WILLINGLY ACCEPT their cadillac plans of governmment funded health insurance. You radical righties have been whining and screaming about "big government" for so long that you don't even know what you're screaming about. And you yell about the "evils" of socialism so loud and so furiously that you don't even know what socialism is. We are not even close to having a socialistic state in this country. The truth is that we are more nearly a fascist state, with our government being controlled by big business and the fat cats. And it is not government itself that we need to fear but the increasing power of the greedy, manipulative, self-serving bastards who are pulling the strings of the people elected to serve us. So if you want to fear something, then fear THAT.

As for your semi-automatic weapons... if having a few of those in your possession truly makes you feel safe and secure, well, more power to you, Rambo. I'm eager to see how long you last with those BB guns against a fully armed military. Or do you honestly think that a government/military takeover is going to come down to some kind of shoot-out in the streets or in the woods, and you're really going to be able to stand off the bad guys with your semis? Ah, the wild, weird workings of the mind of the paranoid, delusional right wing big bad government hater. Brilliant.

July 22, 2012 at 6:29 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Has anyone tried to force you to buy a pistol?" - Spooks

Nope. Has anybody from the government come knocking on your door, demanding that you turn over your guns?

The point I was making is that the slippery slope we are on is not even close to being one of a government working in incremental steps to the point of taking away everybody's guns; rather the slope is going the other way, with more and more laws on the books calling for more guns in more places. And the NRA is fully behind every one of those laws. I doubt that there will be a law requiring every citizen to own or carry a gun (at least I hope it never comes to that) but the point is that if we become a society in which guns are just part of the landscape, as prevalent as people wearing glasses or hats, then everyone will feel compelled to carry one, just to feel as ready as the next guy to defend himself. Of course, the gun lovers would love that - we would have come full circle as a society, devolving back to the days of the Wild West...only with more sophisticated, hi-tech guns.

July 22, 2012 at 6:48 p.m.
SpookUSNret said...

I certainly don't feel compelled to carry one; I am grateful that members of the group with the statistically lowest numbers of homicides or accidental shootings (legal concealed carry owners, not cops or criminals) may be standing beside me when something like this happens. The predicted bloodbaths that were supposed to come about with CCW licenses Have Not Happened. Actually, homicide has been dropping for years; the rate of homicide with gun dropping faster than homicide overall.

Look at what has happened just in the last week. In Aurora, IN A PUBLIC VENUE WHERE CARRYING GUNS IS BANNED - a nutjob was able to kill a dozen and injure nearly 60 more.

In Florida, a law-abiding gun owner successfully fought off two armed robbers in an internet cafe, perhaps saving a dozen lives or more. That is what did happen, speculations aside.

Would you rather that your family members were in the theater in Colorado, where the company banned all guns - or in the internet cafe, where only the criminals were injured? Your choice. I would want my loved ones to live.

July 22, 2012 at 9:54 p.m.
timbo said...

Rickaroo...Battering with a dumbass like you is a waste of time. I should know better than to argue with someone who is mentally ill (liberal).

July 23, 2012 at 3:15 p.m.

I once heard a story about criminals in Chicago who were so fed up with the laws against guns and robbery and murder, they gave up the business and became politicians where all of that is either legal or just overlooked because of their status.

True story. Really.

July 24, 2012 at 5:38 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.