"In 2010, he graduated with top honors from University of California Riverside with a bachelors of science in neuroscience, and then moved to Aurora to pursue his education at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.
Holmes was an honors student and Ph.D. candidate at the school's graduate program in neuroscience until he voluntarily withdrew from the program in June.
He was one of six recipients of a Neuroscience Training Grant from the National Institutes of Health, which funds pre-thesis Ph.D. students in the neuroscience program at the nschutz Medical Campus.
According to the university, the focus of the program is on "training outstanding neuroscientists and academicians who will make significant contributions to neurobiology."
He reportedly failed a preliminary exam before pulling out of the program, according to ABC News' Denver affiliate KMGH-TV. It is unclear if the exam was related to his decision to leave the program." ABC News
-----------------------------------------------
The slaughter in Aurora was so clearly a mental health issue that I discounted that as an immediate response and concentrated on the politics of this tragedy. I see that this was a tactical error. Many of you are a lot more sensitive to death and destruction than I. The political tirade is in full "bloom" with various gun control advocates calling for; smaller magazines, no semi-automatics rifles, shotguns or handguns, etc. As I have written, to the outrage of some, none of that will happen in any meaningful way. There is already federal firearms legislation that bans machine guns, sawed off shotguns, silencers, etc. Individuals can easily obtain federal licenses to own such things. Many do so. The Democrats are terrified of the votes of gun owners. The Republicans exploit the issue successfully. There will not be new law on "hardware." Bloomberg can afford to be a "tiger" on this issue. He is mayor of New York City, a citadel of enthusiasm for an unarmed citizenry. BHO is in a very different position. If he wants to be a one term president, let him speak on the issue. The damage to his chances "at the margins" would be impressive.
IMO the emphasis should be on ways to keep crazy people from buying guns legally. This would not be easy. The Va. Tech shooter had a mental health record, but present day privacy sensitivities prevented this record from reaching the police. Holmes, thus far, does not seem to have a psychiatric record.
How can you keep an adult with no psychiatric problems, criminal record or restraining orders concerning firearms from buying a gun?
Ban guns? That i not going to happen in the USA so get creative.. pl
http://abcnews.go.com/US/colorado-movie-shooting-james-holmes/story?id=16829552
The answer is... Leave it alone. These are isolated incidents and we will never find common ground.
The real issue is not legal guns. Its illegal guns. That is where we need to focus and come up with real laws. How about adding to the USC a mandatory. Get caught with an illegal weapon. Serve five years and a 10K fine. Do it again, serve ten years witha 20k fine and the third time? 25 years and a 50k fine.. Forget using one during a crime. Just get caught with one. Get caught using one committing a crime? Add to the punishment for the crime a double sentence and fine just for having it...
Posted by: Jake | 22 July 2012 at 07:06 PM
There have been a number of studies on movie violence in the US.
Here's a summary:
http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/tv.htm
No one has recommended censoring movie violence, though maybe to take an idea from a poster above, we should have a movie murder tax?
Posted by: Fred | 22 July 2012 at 07:08 PM
col lang
on this issue i may be a little loony myself
to para phrase ' from my cold dead fingers '
Posted by: Alba Etie | 22 July 2012 at 08:31 PM
That wasn't what I am saying. But I am assuming the guns and ammo are price sensitive. If you increase the price through taxation, few guns and ammo may be sold. Now, this person may just have made pipe bombs instead. (Hopefully blowing his hand off in the process.)
As for internet taxation, yes, I think that goods sold over the internet should be taxed. There is no reason the Col.'s books should be taxed at different rates depending on the method of sale. Internet sales should be taxed at the rate of the buyers location.
As for mental health care, that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
Posted by: Tigershark | 22 July 2012 at 10:17 PM
tigershark
"If you increase the price through taxation, few guns and ammo may be sold" So, your goal is to prevent ordinary people owning guns. Would you call yourself an elitst? pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 22 July 2012 at 10:44 PM
Col.
Elitist? Not at all. But if the objective is to sell fewer guns, raising the price should have an impact. From my visits to gun stores, they come in all ranges of prices and are price sensitive.
I was following your dictate to "be creative."
With pawn shops, gun shows, and the array of lower priced weapons available for sale, I doubt ordinary people would be prevented from owning guns. Maybe not able to buy the most expensive guns, but I cry for them no more than I would expect you or they would cry for me because I can not afford a Ferrari. Other options are available.
Mounted archer?
Posted by: Tigershark | 22 July 2012 at 11:04 PM
To all,
Body scanners or some other search procedure before entry?
Alot of these types prefer the indoors, with boxed-in targets. These circumstances will dissuade them.
Properly trained, armed, & staffed security?
These types are given too much time for drama. The private sector will understand this as the opportunity cost of doing business in such an environment.
Posted by: Paul Escobar | 22 July 2012 at 11:26 PM
tigershark
I call you an elitist. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 22 July 2012 at 11:48 PM
Col.
Never been called elitist in my life, but I will wear your "honorific" with pride.
Posted by: Tigershark | 22 July 2012 at 11:55 PM
All:
Is this indiscriminate shooting a post 1960s phenomenon in the United States?
I mean, many people were given small caliber rifles by their parents when they were kids; they did not grow up to become mass murderers.
So, were there mass-shootings before 1960 in the United States - against students, movie-goers etc.?
Could this be related to the drug-culture of the United States?
Does any one know?
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 23 July 2012 at 12:57 AM
Tigershark, "But if the objective is to sell fewer guns,"
Why would the objective be to sell fewer guns?
Posted by: Bill H | 23 July 2012 at 01:00 AM
It should be noted that there already is a manufacturer's excise tax on firearms and ammunition (see Internal Revenue Code section 4181)and administered by the taxation part of the old ATF (now called TTB). The tax was imposed by the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 and primarily is used for improving habitat for game animals and other conservation/hunting programs (such as hunter's ed).
Posted by: scott s. | 23 July 2012 at 04:03 AM
Colonel Lang; at another site, where there was a very uninformed discussion on the whole situation of guns and our culture, I offered some advice, which I will share with you and your readers, in your case I am merely telling you something you already know. A. While the Federalists Paper may offer insights into the nature of our Constitution; it is the "so called" Anti-Federalists paper that offer the greatest insights into our Bill of Rights. B. If you are going to discuss guns know WTF you are talking about--just because it looks like an M16 or one of its variants--does not mean it is an automatic weapon! Corollary they are magazines not clips.
Posted by: Hank Foresman | 23 July 2012 at 04:31 AM
Last year over in the USA over 8000 people were murdered with firearms. In the United Kingdom it was about one a week, ( 58 was the total).
SteveB said it was impossible to prevent the sale (I assume he means the LEGAL purchase) of guns.
Bullshit, of course it is, most countries on all inhabited continents do exactly that.
I would remind you all that the USA Constitution's second amendment states that an individuals right to keep and bear arms is legally allowable ONLY if he is part of a well regulated mitlitia, What well regulated miltia did Holmes belong to?
Or for that matter the host of this blog?
And why do you all think the founders of America wanted to avoid a standing military at all costs and use a citizen militia for the defence of the country?
They had a reason.
DaveGood
Posted by: DaveGood | 23 July 2012 at 04:35 AM
Fred,
Well sorry if I've made you think of me as a minor.
:)
The movie murder tax idea is original though.
Posted by: YT | 23 July 2012 at 04:42 AM
I suspect that this guy never put more than a few rounds through any of his weapons, knew nothing of immediate actions, nor any other drills, had no practice and never took a stone to the action or magazines - all for which we can be thankful; "His gun jammed" - thank God.
Does anyone know different?
Posted by: Walrus | 23 July 2012 at 07:07 AM
DaveGood
"the USA Constitution's second amendment states that an individuals right to keep and bear arms is legally allowable ONLY if he is part of a well regulated mitlitia," SCOTUS has ruled recently that the militia clause applies to all citizens whether or not in an organized militis. in other words ownership of firearms is an individual right in the US. Like the boor that you are you took this opportunity to insult me as a retired Regular officer. You were banned here. Stay gone. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 23 July 2012 at 08:42 AM
walrus
"never took a stone to the action or magazines" Not sure what that means... take the rough edges off? Yes, that M-16 variant had probaby never had more than a few rounds fired through it before the fatal event. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 23 July 2012 at 08:45 AM
Hank Foresman
Yes, the papers of the anti-federalists like George Mason are enlightening but there is a specific federalist paper, #46, that explains Madison's view as to why the citizenry must be armed. I agree that the level of ignorance of the law and of firearms in the furor over this tragedy is unimpressive. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 23 July 2012 at 09:08 AM
Late to this thread, but the only thing I have heard that was particularly rational was on a call in LA show, where the caller indicated that health insurance should do a better job covering mental health treatment. Without being particularly knowledgable, I suspect it is more pitiful than the lousy way our insurance system covers normal health problems (ie high copays and deductibles that cause most to forego treatment or medical visits).
Such a better "net" would catch more people like Holmes and get them the help they need before they go postal. It also would help people who decide to end their life through whatever (gun/non-gun) method - a sad tragedy that is a loss to all.
Posted by: ISL | 23 July 2012 at 09:22 AM
Seems to be a human condition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers
Posted by: SAC Brat | 23 July 2012 at 09:56 AM
YT, not thinking of you as a minor at all, just wanted to point out the study.
Posted by: Fred | 23 July 2012 at 10:50 AM
The part time McDonald's worker/grad school dropout appears to have been able to acquire several thousands of dollars worth of nice equipment, protective gear and explosives in a very short period of residence.
One wonders who assisted in the financing, supply and training. A rough, back of the napkin, estimate of the cost of his weapons, body armour and ammo supplies comes to over 6K; the chemicals he might have been able to save money on by sourcing from the college chem lab; at least until he quit.
Not ONE person fought back, lots tried to run; none tried to fight. A repeat of the Norwegian experience.
A few of the men tried to shield their dates. Successful for the dates; less so for the shields.
But the narrative and the topic has already been decreed, I doubt that questions of where acquired and how much spent and how the money was acquired will be given much consideration.
Posted by: CK | 23 July 2012 at 10:53 AM
Babak,
I think you answered your own question. There are millions of gun owning Americans who haven't become mass murderers. There is no evidence to link the perpetrator of this event to drug use or drug culture. He is certainly mentally ill. "I am the Joker"?
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/aurora-dark-knight-suspect-joker-cops/story?id=16822251
As to prior shootings, check the Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
Posted by: Fred | 23 July 2012 at 11:10 AM
I would imagine questions of financing the expenditures is being given a great deal of consideration by investigators.
Posted by: John Minnerath | 23 July 2012 at 11:20 AM