Reactions To The Colorado Theater Shooting

July 23, 2012

- See all 164 of my articles

The events that occurred in Aurora, Colorado, are still being unraveled. All that we know for certain is that a single man entered a theater showing the latest Batman movie, activated a tear gas canninster and proceeded to discharge firearms with the intent to kill. He killed and maimed many as they tried to escape. We also know that he booby trapped his apartment to kill and maim anyone who tried to enter.

Plenty of questions can and have been asked. Where and how did he get the guns and ammunition? How did he get police issue tear gas and a bullet proof vest? How did he get into the theater through an emergency exit? Of course the most important question is: why?

Over the weekend almost every news show had something on about the tragedy. After interviewing as many survivors who were willing to be on air, the line of politicians was brought out. I appreciate the respect that was shown to the survivors and the relatives of the victims. I wish I could comfort each of them. I hope that each of the injured recovers and that the victims relatives and the other survivors can recover as well.

I am disappointed that so many politicians see this as an opportunity to extend their personal agenda. Some came out wanting to drive more gun control. Others came forth with more obscure suggestions. The benefit of these discussions is that the police are being given a chance to properly and completely investigate this crime. I have great faith that when give a chance the police can complete their job.


3 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. The Angry Squirrel
    Jul 23, 2012 @ 09:41:07

    My ‘favorite’ response is that why didn’t any break the law and have a loaded gun on themselves and shoot the guy.


  2. Martin Kelly
    Jul 24, 2012 @ 11:51:22

    Angry, I do not know the laws of Colorado on open or concealed carry (perhaps Squeaky can comment on that). If they are the same as Texas, unless the theatre actually posted a ban on firearms in their facility (as is their right as private property owner), then someone could have taken a gun with them and possibly defended themselves against this nut case.

    I personally do not believe that being armed would have helped with the confusion of the people trying to escape compounded by the tear gas canister and darkness of the theatre. In my town, someone tried to enter a theatre with a gun in an exposed holster and was denied admission even tho he had the right to do so. That theatre has posted fireams prohibitted signs. I think he was just being a jerk, trying to take advantage of a tragic crime to get attention, but that is my personal opinion.


  3. kosmo
    Jul 24, 2012 @ 13:57:25

    I’m definitely not a gun expert, but it seems like it would have been difficult for someone to bring him down with a shot. First, there’s the issue of the body armor, so you’re basically limited to a head shot. Then you have the issue of darkness. Not a problem for Holmes, since he has hundreds of targets, and it doesn’t matter which ones he hits – whereas someone shooting at Holmes wants to hit Holmes and ONLY Holmes. There there’s the fact that while you’re trying to get off a shot, people are stampeding all around you. Seems like there’s a lot of risk of someone colliding with you and spoiling your aim – or even worse, moving into your line of fire after you shoot.

    How much “collateral damage” is acceptable?

    It’s a bad situation, and I don’t know that there are any black and white answers.


Leave a Reply