Mike wrote:
These had low cholesterol, therefore there is a relationship? Of the 79677 remaining how many also had "below the median" cholesterol, yet did not meet the criteria for criminal violence?

These "meatless Mondays" recommended by USDA might be viewed by some as healthy eating but the risk taken by America with all these armories around could be the cause of the multi-kill sprees. Therefore you could recommend an increase of cholesterol, meat consumption, to reduce the criminal violence stats.

Perhaps obese America would be the safer option then gun shops would be irrelevant?

Article quote;
"One simple way to reduce your environmental impact while dining at our cafeterias is to participate in the "Meatless Monday" initiative," the USDA newsletter said. "This international effort, as the name implies, encourages people not to eat meat on Mondays."

Kyle wrote:
No change

Kyle wrote:
I was not there, so I only know what I see on the news. If this guy is found guilty by a jury of his peers, and they convict him, this guy should be executed by Christmas

Quote;
Referring to Holmes psychologist said...
"He may be a longtime psychopath who turned to violence to show the world he could make a lasting mark, she said. Or he could have suffered a psychotic breakdown as recently as this spring, triggering his decision to drop out of graduate school, start buying weapons and launch his attack amid paranoid delusions, she said.

John Yurich USA wrote:
I plan on amassing a firearms arsenal. By the time I am done I will have amassed over 20,000 firearms including military style firearms, rifles, pistols, shotguns and every other kind of firearm that has been manufactured.

Mike wrote:
There are few monkeys with access to firearms in this area

"We merged one-time cholesterol measurements on 79,777 subjects enrolled in a health screening project in Varmland, Sweden with subsequent police records for arrests for violent crimes in men and women aged 24-70 at enrollment; and with information on covariates. We performed a nested case control comparison of cholesterol in violent criminals - defined as those with two or more crimes of violence against others - to cholesterol in nonoffenders matched on age, enrollment year, sex, education and alcohol, using variable-ratio matching, with a nonparametric sign test.

RESULTS: One hundred individuals met criteria for criminal violence. Low cholesterol (below the median) was strongly associated with criminal violence in unadjusted analysis (Men: risk ratio 1.94.
Age emerged as a strong confounder. Adjusting for covariates using a matching procedure, violent criminals had significantly lower cholesterol than others identical in age, sex, alcohol indices and education, using a nonparametric sign test.

Kyle wrote:
It was his right to buy the gun. He was not exercising any right when he used it for murder. Why can't you make that distinction?

Mike wrote:
This sounds similar to "solution"s accusation about fighting for the right to shoot people. Makes just about as much sense.

Perhaps y'all could factor into the early demise of someone the proximity of a gun shop combined with the incidence of criminal insanity in the population, as well as cholesterol levels.

"Community cohort studies and meta-analyses of randomized trials have shown a relation between low or lowered cholesterol and death by violence (homicide, suicide, accident); in primates, cholesterol reduction has been linked to increased behavioral acts of aggression (Kaplan J, Manuck S. The effects of fat and cholesterol on aggressive behaviour in monkeys"
"RESULTS: One hundred individuals met criteria for criminal violence. Low cholesterol (below the median) was strongly associated with criminal violence in unadjusted analysis...."
(Department of Medicine, University of California)

ALL legal and above board, isn't that nice and apparently, judging by the posts, supported by the local Christians.

Holmes over the last couple of months was able to arm himself with military style hardware and freely use "HIS RIGHT" to go and slaughter 12 people and maim 50 odd others.

And some Christians are fighting hard to maintain this quote "RIGHT"

Strange I just can't find this "RIGHT" in the Bible. Where in the Bible does God give us the RIGHT to kill unarmed people in public places? And come to think of it where does God advise us to maintain local arsenals in the shopping mall?

Mike wrote:
It is a right here, and it shall remain so. It is in the lands where it is believed angels have been found in the form of kings that ordnance belongs only to officialdom.
btw, you have your Hungerford and Cumbria shootings, too, don't you? And with such limited access. Tsk tsk.

I don't ever remember seeing or hearing of guns and their availability in our town and locality.

John UK wrote:
Sol, if you are concerned about the cause of deaths, why not focus on the "Sad, Mad, Diet" in America, which kills hundreds of thousands every year.

2. "medical profession", whose main treatment is to fill God's creation with damaging drugs.

"Drugs" - No problem!! The NHS is wise (cheap) and wonderful. Be therefore happy with your lot.

__________

Mike wrote:
Only particular deaths in particular places interest him

Mike wrote:
There are thousands of deaths, and tens of thousands of injuries on UK highways annually. Highway carnage is completely and utterly unnecessary in any "civilised" country. Close the car dealers and reduce the highway death rate.

If stats are what you want then
Aurora 12 dead
Tucson 6 dead
Ft Hood 12 dead
Blacksburg 32 dead
Seatle 6 dead
Columbine 12 dead

Neil wrote:
And how, pray tell, do you "remove too-easy access to lethal weapons" w/o gun laws??

Neil wrote:
Canada is a good example for "solutions" argument that gun shops in unsettled areas are OK

Neil wrote:
1) Causal Fallacy, which you didn't address. Do you even know what this is?
2) Victorian England
3) We already have laws limiting availability of military-grade weapons. Study American law before criticizing it
4) Ad Hominem

Neil wrote:
Several problems:
1) gun laws
2) Was the UK a crazy "Wild West" back in the Victorian era
3) An unstated appeal is being made to philosophical pragmatism: laws are justified

Rufus wrote:
The problem, in this scenario, is not that one man had multiple guns in a theater but that multiple men in a theater did not have one gun.

When I have observed a gun shop on tv news They look as if they are decked out with every imaginable type of gun like a military arsenal. I have never in my life actually been into a gun shop even though I have been over to the US.
But it is completely alien to my thinking to have such a shop in my home town. We just don't go there.

Mike wrote:
1) there are millions of firearms owners who never live down to your expectations.
1a) I suspect you have a notion that a firearm somehow demon-possesses the owner into committing murder.

2) a mall where you could buy any weapon just because you wanted to

3) What control do you recommend that would help in the situation of the thousands of knife victims a year in the UK?

1a) Now who is exaggerating???

2) Diminish the number of gun shops - diminish this specific crime.

Probably within the next twelve months there will be another multi death event in America like this, underscored by the simple fact of easy availability of deadly arsenals in the local mall.

Gun control is not a solution in America. What is required is for Americans to address the question, Why make it as easy as shopping for pathological killers to arm themselves with M16's, AK47 and the like???

Mike wrote:
My 22 has yet to leap up and go shoot someone. Your argument is emotion based, not thought based nor fact based, which is why you overreact. Here's a question for your consideration- why are the states with the strictest gun control laws, such as NY, among the states with the highest crime rates?

If there wasn't gun shops spread all over America's shopping centres, then Holmes would not have so readily been able to kill. Fact. Twelve people would still be alive. Fact. Even Columbine just up the road would have likely never happened.

This is not an emotional response it is pure pragmatism since I live in a Country with NO gun shops. Thus we don't have a regular annual massacre.

Don Randolph wrote:
12 people died because of a single man with a twisted mind, not because America wants anything of the sort. 12 families are mourning because of the death of a loved one, not the ease or difficulty of gun purchases. So, take away all the guns? Great idea. Remove the gun shops so criminals will be the only people to obtain guns. Just because Mr. Holmes obtained them legally does not mean he wouldn't have obtained them by other means if he already had a plan to do this. BTW, 99% of the population who do carry a gun do it to protect themselves and others, not to kill

H B Stowe wrote:
If a gun free zone is all that is needed to stop violence, then this event would not have happened. The Theater was a gun free zone and it didn't stop the criminal it only denied law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves.

Mike wrote:
It's interesting how it's always the liberal who seeks control over non-criminals when criminals works out their crimes

Twelve families mourning because it is too easy for the criminal and the pathological to buy weapons at the local mall??

Whats the point?

"Gun control laws" ??? No!
What Americans need to do now is THINK!!!
Why make murder and mayhem so easily accessible in what passes for civilised society?

Remove all the gun shops since over 99% of the population do not need to carry a gun to kill people with.