Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

I saw a representation on TV news
showing an exposed throat and uncovered below it on his chest.
I don't believe that gas masks r bulletproof.


I dearly WISH that we coud see
into the murderer's mental pathology; very, very interesting.




David

I think you are getting two parts of the law confused.

Black power muzzle loaders can be manufacturer at any time and not be consider a weapon however any repeat any weapon that was build before 1898 including beech loading cannons firing explosive shells are legal.

Just as rifles and handguns using cartridges and even repeating rifles and for that matter even gatling guns are legal without all kinds of premissions if build before the year 1898.

See a lawyer who is an expert in this field of the law however before going with the above information but I am pretty sure I am correct.

By newton physic if a 357 bullet would knock someone it hit over the gun would knock the shooter over as well.

You're right about that.

Americans knowing so much about this subject (arms and ammunition) is a symptom.

I have a lot of respect for Newton's 3rd Law of Motion,
but what u said has not been borne out by actual experience
with guys in bulletproof vests getting hit with magnum rounds,
whereas the gunner actually is NOT knocked over backward.

I have seen little girls happily popping away with .44 magnum
and .5O caliber handguns; thay remained vertical.
Check that on Youtube.

Here 's one (tho this girl is an adult, or a teenager).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAx1Zu5xKJc
She is using my .44 Magnum, the Ruger SuperBlackhawk.
She did not get knocked over backward.

Here is another girl with her .44 magnum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=JW469V-5f9M

This idea is starting to grow on me. But let's separate "assault weapon" (harmless cosmetic features) from the issue of carrying rifles with AP ammo in public.

One question I have is, if people started carrying rifles slung over their shoulder everywhere they went in public, how would they stow them when they were seated (say, at a restaurant, or in a theater during a movie). It would not be quite the same as a handgun resting securely in a holster.

bombs need an explosive, accelerator and a detonator. The "Home made" bombs rely on "tricking out" two or more of these ingredients so that a "Bomb" woud really be moreof an"Flashbang" device with little overpressure.
The first "Chemical lab " bombs worth anything would be specific salts and oxidizers . At a university lab, taking out of amounts of say, red phosphorus, or [potassium chlorate would be only given out by the lab security and these chems are kept in secure storage, mostly administered by a professional staff, and dispersed in minimum amount containers.

You are saying then , that a perp would have to rely on theft to get chemicals . The security cams and assay reports would usuallybe compiled daily and with weekly summary amounts. If this guy ere caught on security and he were ID'd as someone "Using" say a pound of red phosphorus, I guarantee hed be pulled over before the weeks end

As far as REAL explosives. Certain companies have exclusive sales rights fr selling and record keeping of the explosives and the detonators (YOu could beat on ANFO all day and it wont go off) you need two more substances and reaction chains.

If he had been seen walking around the theater with two propane tanks with IED firingmechanisms I think hed be seen before the act.

As I said, terrorists who have made IEDs are always blowing their own asses up first (they usually use recipes of the internet and these recipes usually fail to divulge really important steps that prevent pre ignition.

Remember those two kids who were making napalm on their kitchen stove/ They didnt find much of one of them and the other was rendered a cooked vegetable

I had seen one hand gun chamber to use the same round as the standard AK-47 at a outdoor gun range!!!!!!!!

I was shotting my 357 when a cannon went off next to me and the man gun recoil had the gun pointed to the heaven.

On asking him what the hell he was shotting he told me that as AK-47 rounds was dirty cheap he had a gun smith produce this weapon for him.

****, forget it, Im just feeding into another mindless "My gun is bigger tha your gun" asswipe discussion.
We need to regulate guns better and I hope the US public gets steamed up to push back. This second amendment **** (as if it 's existence makes it right) needs change. We need to stop supporting an industry by an antiquated constitutional element.

I know Dave and Oralloy will disagree but thats only two , I see many more people disturbed over what weve wrought.
My "amendment to makeus eat brocolli" is more appropos here than in ACA

All of our rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. No right is absolute.

The psychotic nature of this crime is frightening. It is even more frightening that it was "meticulously planned."

There are also little assault rifles that are classed as handguns because they don't have a shoulder stock, so they get around the requirement for a 16 inch barrel.

Here is the M-16 variant (there is also a company that does the same theme with an AK-47):



http://olyarms.net/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.pbv.v8.tpl&product_id=19&category_id=8&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=5&vmcchk=1&Itemid=5



I am unsure that such a gun would be of use with AP ammo though (I'm thinking here of penetrating hard armor, not just Kevlar). Such rounds really require high velocity to work properly, and high velocity is usually achieved by having slow-burning powder behind the bullet as it travels down a long barrel. That short barrel looks like it just wouldn't produce enough velocity.



On the other hand, if you used non-traditional rifle ammo with fast-burning powder, you could get just enough velocity out of that short barrel to drive clean through Kevlar (and with a hunting bullet, to also do some really serious damage to flesh).

Special Forces use just such a round with their short-barreled rifles (it's what they used on Osama bin Laden).

If you loaded up one of those little "M16 pistols" with special forces ammo, you may not be able to deal with hard armor, but if the bad guys showed up in Kevlar you'd be all set.

If you don't see firearms as deadly, why would you carry one and own even more of them? Isn't their deadly capacity precisely the reason you own them and want them?

Explain to me why anyone would need to own an assault rifle, with a 100 round drum magazine, that has the capacity to fire 50-60 rounds in one minute, for either self defense, or home protection, or hunting? And what legitimate reason could there be for someone to purchase 3,000 rounds of ammunition for that assault rifle?

The discussion doesn't have to be mindless. I for one am thinking hard about how to defend when your attacker is wearing armor.





I do not agree that freedom is antiquated.

However, your statement is a little vague. What specifically is it about the Second Amendment that you believe is wrong, and what change do you think will remedy it?





Well, again, specifics matter. I don't know precisely if I will agree or disagree unless I see details of the proposal.

I guess it is safe to assume that I'll oppose any move to alter the Second Amendment in any way though.

There are more than just two of us however. There are more than enough civil-rights advocates to protect the Second Amendment until the end of time.

Thay can have gunnery lockers.
I remember seeing a piece on ABC-TV WORLD NEWS,
with Peter Jennings around the 1990s, of a school
in one of the North Western States, whose students
had trouble with predation from local fauna
who did not know that WE r at the top of the food chain.

Accordingly, in order to keep body & soul together,
the school enacted a rule that the students were required
to bring loaded guns (rifles or shotguns) to school each day, for safety.

Thay showed and interviewed the students, aged 8 to 12,
who indicated that each day thay came to school,
put their coats on the coatrack, put their hats on the hatrack
and put their guns in the gun rack and at the end of each day
thay took their stuff and went home. No trouble.

HOWEVER, I gotta say that this is a matter of personal taste & judgment.
For daily civilian use, I believe in handguns, for compact convenience.
Personally, I coud not & woud not carry a shoulder mounted weapon
thru the subways n buses, even in my youth; maybe on seldom
occasions for gunnery practice. In my life I only actively NEEDED
a defensive gun only once. I was driving my car at the time,
and a shoulder mounted weapon woud have been of no avail,
even if I had one in the back seat, as distinct from having
a 2 inch .44 special revolver in stainless steel mirror (visible at nite).

In my opinion, shoulder mounted weapons r awkward for daily civilian use,
unless u r intentionally going into combat (maybe a bear out in the country??).
NEVERTHELESS, from every mountainside, LET FREEDOM RING.





David

People are careless and no matter what system you had in placed it can be gotten around hell he could had gotten the job of keeping track of those materials as I question if that job would be done at any higher level then a graduate student.

Next people with one hell less knowledge and education then this shooter had produced very very large explosions so your claims that it is a hard thing to do seems on it face silly.

A farm boy level a large building for example and gun power confine in the proper manner work just fine if you are force to go low tech.

http://www.aristatek.com/newsletter/0512december/techspeak.aspx

Chlorate impact explosive. Meth manufactured by the “red phosphorous method” already has red phosphorous which has probably been obtained from match sticks or highway flares. If the red phosphorous is mixed with potassium chlorate to which a small amount of sulfur is added, a dangerous explosive is formed. The potassium chlorate is first ground and mixed with a small amount of sulfur and then mixed with water. Red phosphorous is then added. When the mixture dries, it is extremely shock sensitive. Sodium chlorate might be used instead of potassium chlorate.


Drug raid tip-off: red phosphorous filter stains from meth manufacturing, and/or broken match sticks/flares; sulfur; any chemical containing chlorates such as potassium chlorate; suspicious powders or crystals scattered about the floor or at various locations.



Nitrogen triiodide. Ammonium hydroxide (ammonia water) is added to iodine crystals and allowed to react. The nitrogen triiodide crystals are allowed to form and settle. Iodine crystals is also an ingredient in meth manufacture by the red phosphorous method. The nitrogen triiodide crystals when dried are extremely shock sensitive Even sunlight or the slightest shock may set it off. The crystals might be dispersed wet and allowed to dry at the time of the raid.


Drug raid tip-off: dark red-brown iodine stains or crystals; smell of ammonia



Nitrogen trichloride. There are several ways of manufacturing this dangerous compound. Ammonium hydroxide or anhydrous ammonia which is also used to manufacture meth is a starting material for this explosive. One method is to place a saturated ammonium chloride solution in an ice bath and connect two carbon or lead rods (from a battery) placed in the solution to a battery charger. The nitrogen trichloride forms as a yellow oil under electrolysis of this solution. Another method is to slowly bubble chlorine (generated from a bleach solution or swimming pool chemicals) into a ammonium nitrate or ammonium sulfate fertilizer. The final yellow oil is highly unstable and can explode on contact with almost any organic material or if heated. It is very shock sensitive.


Drug raid tip-off: Fertilizers with high ammonium contact; or ammonium hydroxide; hydrochloric acid; battery charger; chlorine/ammonia odors; yellow oil.



Acetone peroxide. Also called triacetone peroxide, tricycloacetone peroxide, or TATP. There are three forms of acetone peroxide with varying degrees of stability depending how it is made. When it explodes almost all of the energy is directed towards the blast and very little appears as heat. The explosive power is similar to TNT on a mass basis. Basically, a solution of 30% hydrogen peroxide is mixed with acetone and cooled to 5oC. A small amount of sulfuric acid (Sp. Grav. 1.84) is added while stirring. The mixture is allowed to sit, allowing acetone peroxide crystals to settle out. The crystals are filtered and washed with water or a baking soda solution. This procedure should produce mostly the cyclic form (tricycloacetone peroxide). The material has a shelf life of about 10 days. Its half life is about a month or two. A more dilute solution of hydrogen peroxide (e.g. 3%) or battery acid may be used but yields will be much less, and the monomeric form of the explosive will dominate. If the reaction is above 10oC, the unstable dicycloacetone peroxide will be formed (which can spontaneously explode). There are procedures available on the Internet for concentrating the hydrogen peroxide. Battery acid can be concentrated by boiling until white fumes begin to occur. At least 2 grams of the material must be present for acetone peroxide to detonate in an unconfined space, but someone walking on a crystals spilled on the floor can still be injured. One crystal decomposing violently can set off all the others on the floor. Trace amounts of metals (rust, iron, copper, etc. can cause the hydrogen peroxide to decompose violently. The shelf life of the explosive may be extended by dissolving in an organic solvent. If stored in a container with a screw cap, unscrewing the cap can cause the peroxide crystals to detonate. More technical details in Journal of the American Chemical Society volume 81, page 6261 ff, (1959).


Drug raid tip-off: Acetone, sulfuric acid or battery acid, and/or hydrochloric acid are commonly found at meth labs. The tip-off is also finding hydrogen peroxide, especially the more concentrated solution.



Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide. Similar to hydrogen peroxide except methyl ethyl ketone is used instead of acetone.

If any oxidizers are seen during a meth lab raid, the possibility that explosive materials are also being produced should be seriously considered.


HMTD. Also called Hexamethylenetriperoxidediamine. The raw ingredients are 27 or 30% hydrogen peroxide, powdered hexamine, and citric acid. The hexamine might be obtained from an army surplus stores as a solid fuel tablet used for outdoor camping, and might go by the name “urotropine’ or “hexamethylenetetramine”. Citric acid might be obtained from a food or drug store. The hexamine is crushed, mixed in with the hydrogen peroxide solution, and citric acid added while keeping the temperature below 10 C. The precipitate formed is filtered, washed, and allowed to dry. The dried precipitate is extremely shock sensitive and can detonate even in sunlight. The moist crystals might be spread around just before a drug raid. [see http://pyroteknix.freespaces.com/hmtd.htm ].


Drug raid tip-off: army surplus hexamine fuel tablets, hydrogen peroxide (might be sold as hair bleach), citric acid (might be sold as sour salt).



Pipe bomb. Black powder is a favorite of pipe bomb users. Ingredients of black powder include charcoal, powdered sulfur, and potassium nitrate (sodium nitrate might be substituted). Alcohol (rubbing alcohol) might also be used in the manufacture.





***********



Acetone peroxide (left) is a white, crystalline powder with a distinctive acrid odor. Three forms are commonly formed, the monomer, dimer, and trimer. The recipe described above (use concentrated chemicals, 5oC) favors the trimer form, also called tricyclic acetone peroxide, or TCAP). The other forms are less stable. TCAP will slowly sublime at room temperature. All forms are shock sensitive.




************


Of course, many of the chemicals which can also be used to make home-made explosives are found in ordinary homes. They are used for legitimate purposes such as furniture restoration, as disinfectants, scale removers, automotive finish restoration projects, solvents for brush cleaning and varnish thinners.


Copyright AristaTek Inc. All Rights Reserved

Dear heart if task with the job of taking out a movie theater full of people I would not use a firearm of any type to do so as that is the hard way to achieved that goal in my opinion.

There are a lot of tools that would be far more deadly then a firearm for that purpose so thinking that all you need to do is remove the 400 millions or so firearms in this country we would be safe or even safer in large scale gathering happen not to be true.

If for some emotional reason you would feel the need to do the deed in a personal manner putting together a flame thrower would be the route to go.

Such a weapon had been found to work wonder in cleaning out whole block houses and caves and would in a few second kill everyone in that theater beside setting the whole building on fire.

The trouble is, though, most gun control proposals are unreasonable restrictions.

Each specific proposal should be judged on its own merits, but any generalized non-specific "calls for gun control" have to be presumed to be unconstitutional.





Yes. Bad guys can be quite appalling.

Did anyone hear what happened with that guy whose 6-year-old daughter was killed and his ex-wife was injured?

He wanted to visit his ex-wife (with whom he still had cordial relations) but the hospital would not let him in because he made some sort of statement on TV (not even at the hospital) that he hoped the shooter would get shanked in jail. It seemed a terribly bogus reason to deny him entry, and I keep thinking about his delima.

If it were me, and if they persisted in denying me entry, I'd get a lawyer and sic him/her on the hospital.

I wasn't asking you about your preferred methods of committing mass murders--although you apparently enjoy indulging in such fantasies.

I was responding to your simplistic statement that firearms aren't deadly, it's the people who use them that are deadly.

And, I asked you two questions that you have yet to answer...

If you don't see firearms as deadly, why would you carry one and own even more of them? Isn't their deadly capacity precisely the reason you own them and want them?

Explain to me why anyone would need to own an assault rifle, with a 100 round drum magazine, that has the capacity to fire 50-60 rounds in one minute, for either self defense, or home protection, or hunting? And what legitimate reason could there be for someone to purchase 3,000 rounds of ammunition for that assault rifle?

Using the term "need" is already getting on the wrong track. If it is something Americans have the right to have, need is irrelevant.

Also, you are conflating two separate issues. Whether a gun is an assault weapon and whether it has a 100 round drum are two separate things.

Since an assault weapon is just a gun with certain harmless cosmetic features, there is no reason to ban it, and therefore such a ban is unconstitutional.


As for your question about 100 round drums, one possible defensive use would be fending off a large body of rioters in a city.

As far as hunting goes, it would make for more convenient varmint hunting (less reloading).

If a rifle were fired at a rate of 50-60 rounds a minute, it would seem like it would be pretty hard to aim at anything.





Maybe someone wants to do a lot of shooting. Target practice. Shooting tin cans for fun. A day of varmint hunting. Whatever. Or maybe they just want to have a good supply of ammo on hand for whatever comes up.

It wouldn't be of much use, since you're also giving those rioters the right to purchase such weapons and 100 round drum magazines.



Which would make it pretty difficult to control, and quite dangerous, even in the hands of the most skilled marksmen. Would you even want the police to routinely carry assault rifles with such 100 round drum magazines?