Tuesday, July 24, 2012

COLORADO - James Holmes Prelim

"As Colorado Shooter Appears in Court, More Details on How He Obtained Weapons" PBS Newshour 7/23/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: At a preliminary hearing, Colo. shooting suspect James Holmes remained silent and stoic. Gwen Ifill speaks with Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), University of Denver's Dave Kopel and the Pew Research Center's Mike Dimock on whether shootings influence public opinion on issues such as gun control and gun safety.

GWEN IFILL (Newshour): The world got a look today at the man who allegedly gunned down scores of people in Aurora, Colo., on Friday. He appeared at his initial court hearing as police pieced together what led up to the assault in a movie theater.

MAN: Please be seated.

GWEN IFILL: It was the first time he had been seen publicly since Friday's shootings, and James Holmes cut a bizarre figure, his hair dyed bright orange, his eyes dazed.

It was unclear if he was on medication, but the 24-year-old stared blankly or nodded off. And he never spoke as the judge explained the murder charges against him.

Afterward, District Attorney Carol Chambers said the state is considering asking for the death penalty. But she wants to hear from the victim's family.




Two significant excerpts

DAVID KOPEL, University of Denver: So if you had some kind of law that said, oh, every time somebody buys over 500 or 1,000 or whatever number you want to say of ammunition, that the federal government has to get notified, well, you wouldn't find anything of interest because that's such a common kind of thing to do.


REP. JAN SCHAKOWSKY (D-Ill.): I think most Americans do think that sensible gun safety legislation is important. But can you just imagine if those who were holding guns legally in that theater stood up, as some have suggested they should have, and started shooting at this shooter and we would have had a real shoot-out at the neighborhood theater?

COMMENT: So, Mr. Kopel, why would just reporting large ammunition sales infringe on anyone's rights? It would just alert law enforcement of a potential risk and give them an opportunity to take a close look at the purchaser

As to Rep. Schakowsky's comment, ABSOLUTELY correct.

NRA's Rule #1


No comments: