Friday, July 20, 2012


The Breitbartniks are complaining that ABC's Brian Ross, upon learning that the suspect in the Aurora theater massacre was named James Holmes, said,
There's a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now, we don't know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it's Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.
Well, I'll confess that I tried to find this guy online, and, searching "jim holmes aurora" in Google Discussions, I found messages at rec.guns (the one here that begins "(unknown) Hitech sells them") and alt.survival (click the second "no one" message here) -- but in both cases the messages are from more than a decade ago. The suspect is 24. I don't think he'd be offering to buy a bunch of weapons (as he is in the second message) as a middle-schooler. The letter to the editor here ("I am not surprised that a US attorney has been killed ... I am also not surprised that the media, who finds a darling stepchild in the anti-gun movement, repeatedly brings up his activities along this line as a likely line of investigation") is also from more than a decade ago.

I wouldn't be surprised if this gun fan is the Aurora tea party guy, but I bet it's not our shooter. The age is just wrong.

This won't turn out to be motivated by right-wing politics. A wingnut shooter would shoot up an indie film or a Sean Penn film or a film with Susan Sarandon or Rosie O'Donnell in it. Or something gay-themed or maybe sympathetic to Muslims. This is going to turn out to be just plain old American apolitical weapon-loving craziness. That's my guess.


Victor said...

He may not be connected, but does it matter?

The problem is way too many guns, and way too many in the hands of people who shouldn't even probably be allowed to have toy ones.

And how long before some NRA spokesperson, or some NRA-sponsored politician, after assuring us this was the work of a "lone nut," tell us that the problem was that either no on in that theatre had guns, or not enough people had them, to either stop this guy, or at least minimize the body count - in other words: A Shoot-out?
Or, will they be crass enough to try to come on TV today, and tell us that?
My bet's today.
Any takers?

Victor said...

Oh, and thanks for trying to look into this.

Any chance of the older one being the father, and the shooter, the son?

Victor said...

Also three - How long before some chowderheads think it's funny to bring in some fireworks or M-80's to showings?

If I'm the movie thzatre's, I'm telling people - you can bring in two things: Your keys, and a wallet.
NO purses or bags.

And you will be asked to show us your empty pockets before entering the screening.
If anything else is found, your ticket will be confiscated, your money kept, and, depending on what if found - the police may be called in.

Because, yes, Virginia, we have morons like THAT in this country

Never Ben Better said...

The "If only there'd been someone with a gun this would never have happened!" crowd are already busy with that in the comments to news stories online.

As a gun owner myself, I sometimes fantasize about heroic interventions -- but I know damned well they're just fantasies, and in the real world if I were insane enough to try that it would all go horribly wrong.

And anyway, my two weeny little .22s spend all their time with trigger locks in their cases when they're not at the range.

RowdyatHeart said...

Guns are an inextricable component of American society. They have been since we told the King to pound sand. Outlaw guns and you will create a black market that once law-abiding citizens will participate in. Ever heard of prohibition or the "War on Drugs".

America is decaying from within. We have lost our soul, our character, our way. We are the most addicted empire in the history of man. We have sold our national soul the the idol of greed. This horrific event is only a symptom of our disease. Outlaw all firearms tomorrow and sit back as the Crips, the Bloods and MS13 have a field day. Look at Chicago. The have the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and already this year there have been over 250 gun-related murders.

When you can guarantee me that no criminal will have a gun, you may have my guns. Recently, I was in an encounter where all possibilities were exhausted and 911 was called. It took the Police almost 30 minutes to respond. My life and the lives of some of my family members were in jeopardy.

The only explanation for this is evil. This man is a demon. We need to quit worrying about the motivation of criminals and focus on punishing evil. Within two years or less, this animal should be executed. No 15 year lag fraught with numerous appeals----get it done. Instead, this criminal will get notoriety and attention from every media outlet in the world. The attention should go to the victims. I don't care why he did it.

This man cannot win. We don't need metal detectors or strip searches at theaters. The laws are in place to punish crime if we follow them.

I will concur with the NRA though I am not a member of the NRA, the best defense in this case would have been a good offense-----a licensed, responsible, concealed carry recipient or multiple concealed carry permit owners.

It goes beyond self-defense for me. Members of my family escaped Vienna, Austria before they were arrested and deported by the Nazis.

Victor said...

Handguns in a lot of people's hands is a recent phenomenon.
Until recent decades, they were NOT common in households. Hunting rifles, yes - handguns, no.

The NRA's job is to sell guns of all types. They use fear to sell handguns.

I don't want to waste my time arguing with you, but needless to say, if this theatre was full of undisciplined gun owners, the body count would be WAAAAAY higher:
People shooting at who they think the shooter is - and other people shooting them, thinking they're the shooter.

This should be fairly obvious to anyone.

We're a nation. The US of A. Not the OK Corral.

Tommy said...

Do you really think more gun toting yahoos opening fire in a dark theater full of panicky people running for their lives would have lowered the body count?

Ten Bears said...

I grew up on a ranch out on the Eastern Oregon High Desert, herdin' cattle from horseback, and carrying a pistol on my hip for varmits and, notably, rattlesnakes. The idea, of course, is to shoot the rattlesnake before it spooks the horse - and I have - because I never did buy into the notion that while you're flopping around on or more the likely under the runaway horse with your foot caught in the stirrup and getting your head kicked in by flailing hooves you can pull the pistol off your hip and shoot the horse.

I'm not buyin' the armed attendee saves the day.

Davis X. Machina said...

And how long before some NRA spokesperson, or some NRA-sponsored politician...I had a robocall from Wayne LaPierre at 12:30 EDT this afternoon.

I hung up.

Never Ben Better said...

Further to the "if only..." crowd, there's this, from the CNN story:

"Oates said the man was wearing a ballistic helmet and protective gear for his legs, throat and groin, black gloves and a gas mask."

No mention of a ballistic vest, but I'd be surprised if that weren't present also. In either case, just how good a shot would a would-be savior have to be, in the darkness and gas cloud amid screaming panicked people, to get in a stopping round that took out the gunman without hurting anyone else? Don't forget, this whole thing went down in only a handful of minutes.

Steve M. said...

Guns are an inextricable component of American society. They have been since we told the King to pound sand.

Horses were an intrinsic component of American society for a long time, too. That didn't have to be eternally true, as it turned out -- we get along with a lot fewer horses these days.

Outlaw guns and you will create a black market that once law-abiding citizens will participate in. Ever heard of prohibition or the "War on Drugs".

I don't advocate outlawing guns. I'd like some laws adjusted -- but more than that, I'd like to see our attitudes adjusted.

A gun is a tool. It's not a religious artifact. It doesn't solve all problems. (Don't kid yourself that widespread individual gun ownership will protect you from the determined fascist tyrant who also controls the military and national law enforcement.)

People love guns, so they make them too easy to obtain. That's fine for the vast majority who don't want to do harm to the innocent, but you're making it too easy for nutjobs like this to obtain huge arsenals.

Every suggtestion of a small adjustment to our laws is described by you as Hitlerian fascism. So we can't do a thing. And this is what happens.

repsac3 said...

The "poor me" whiny wingnut victimization is getting entirely too thick. Brian Ross's problem wasn't a hatred of the Tea party types, but unsubstantiated speculation masquerading as news. (Same goes for the asshole(s) at the Breitbart sites speculating that the shooter may've been registered to vote as a though one's voter registration is somehow relevant. And no, their childish pleas that "they--that is, Brian Ross--did it first" in no way absolves them. If it's wrong to speculate, it's wrong to speculate, no matter who's "side" your speculation helps or hurts.) Malkin has a piece up crying about what a victim she is in all this, and the lower--tier bloggers are all following suit. (I even saw one ass blaming Steve for his quote of the Breitbart piece above and blaming him for the speculation about Tea Party involvement.)

I can understand discussion of relevant issues like US gun policy--whether one believes that there ought to be stricter laws for the purchase of guns or that if everyone was armed, shootings like this wouldn't happen or would result in fewer innocent casualties--but linking a particular shooter to one political party based on voter registration, especially in the absence of any obvious political motive, is evidence that the speaker is awful desperate to shill for his/her own political point of view, regardless of the facts. (I get more torn when there is a possible political motive. On one hand, I agree that crazy folks can just as easily be "inspired" by partisan political rhetoric as by "talking dogs" or the shapes they see in their mashed potatoes, but on the other, why is it considered any more crazy to kill folks over ones political beliefs than it is to kill in the name of greed or vengeance? At some level, there has to be something wrong with folks willing to murder others, no matter their reason, but I'm not so sure that folks who kill others in the name of their political or social beliefs are any more or less crazy than folks who kill their spouses lover out of jealousy or murder innocent people while committing a bank robbery. YMMV...)

Anonymous said...

To me this case sounds like a kid who started manifesting symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia, which tends to show up in the early adult years, it interfered with his life and work, and the paranoia and anger did the rest.

In other words, I think an apparently Nobel-potential mind was tragically destroyed from within.