Sheepshead Bites dedicates this week’s open thread to the 70 victims of the Aurora, Colorado, shooting – 12 of whom were mortally wounded.

A complete list of the victims can be found here, complete with biographical information reminding you that these were people, not numbers.

This unthinkable violence, senseless in every way, is a national tragedy that weighs on the hearts of all of us, and our thoughts are with the families and friends of the victims.

Related posts

  • Kon

    The Sheepshead Bay UA sucks. Why do people still go there? I saw Dark Knight Rises at the Lincoln Square IMAX and their screen is phenomenal. It was 70 feet tall, and they ran the 70mm film. The Sheepshead UA should tear their fake Imax screen down, and build a real Imax room. 

    tl;dr Fuck the UA.

    • ShadowLock

       Yea…… or atleast rename it to IMAX(Crap)

    • Alex

      They have no competition. 

    • Arthur Borko

      Because it’s the only theater with reasonably comfortable seating and clean floors and screens in South Brooklyn? It has parking and is off the Belt Parkway. Who wants to shlep on the train to Court Street or Manhattan? Who the hell wants to walk 3 flights of stairs in Prospect Park..

      Nobody.

      • Kon

        It’s dirty. It’s always full of disrespectful teenagers. The screens are small. The projectors are lousy. The staff is incompetent. 

        • Arthur Borko

          Every/Any movie theater in a populated area is going to have that happen, especially at a very busy time. I tend to go to the movies Mondays and Tuesdays between 1 and 6pm so It’s always quiet and clean and I don’t have to deal with the scum of the earth.

      • ES

        I sat in the Court Street theater last night and my butt and tailbone are still screaming from those spinal curvature-inducing contraptions that pass for seats.

    • Flatbush Depot

      At least it constitutes a reason to run a good amount of bus service to Plumb Beach. There has been much more B44 service than B4 service for many years and the B4 has always been in need of much better frequencies. The theater could be a crucial player in improving the frequency of the B4 at some point after that bus line is restored, especially if they do something about the theater’s noticeable problems. A revitalization is needed and political action should be sought.

  • ShadowLock

    Sooooooooo Gun laws…… you know if someone had a legal gun in that theater none of this would have happened….

    • levp

      Not biting.

      • nolastname

        How’d you get so freakin’ smart?

        • levp

          By arguing on the Internet a lot… :)

    • Local Broker

      Yeah but the problem is that theater company has a no gun policy. If you want to read some interesting takes on what could’ve went down check out ttag.com

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

         Your site is down.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

      Not quite. I’ll guess that there were several people with legal guns there. Guns are not uncommon in Colorado. But only a foolish person is going to enter a situation like that.Most people do not have the training needed to bring the violence to a close. Additional people might be hurt, hitting the “right person” In a crowded theater is not as easy as you might think. That’s why no one in the theater took their weapon out.

      • ES

        You read a confirmed report that at least one theatergoer had a weapon?

        • nolastname

          “I’ll guess”……not. 
          Shadow, do you have data to back up your statement? 
          It’s all in the words.

        • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

           Have you ever lived in Colorado?

          • ES

            No. I was just asking a question.

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

            OK, some years back I had a partner who decided to relocate in Boulder. I had considered relocating there but the sheer number of guns made me feel that this is not a place I’d feel comfortable. Denver is not much better than that. Nevertheless, people are usually not that stupid. There are situations where having a gun is not going to change the outcome for the better. What we can say is that most people are not stupid enough to risk making a bad situation worse. A crazed person may not cease if someone pulls a gun on him. So, are you going to use the weapon? If you do, what will happen if your target refuses to be a clear and stable one? He moves, an innocent person is shot.

            Heaven help us if there is one person foolish enough to try playing hero.

          • ES

            I appreciate your opinion. I was just wondering if there was a confirmed report of another person in the theater possessing a firearm, since your earlier comment seemed to indicate so.

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

            Erica, I just made an educated guess because having been to Colorado I know that even where guns are “prohibited” people still carry them.

      • levp

        Here are the only facts we need to judge this theory:

        “Holmes [...] was dressed in black with a gas mask, ballistic
        helmet, vest, throat guard and crotch guard, Oates said.”
        http://www.cnbc.com/id/48266574

        Assuming that he wore some kind of boots with this outfit, his entire body was well protected.

        Then:

        “Officers [...] arrived on scene
        within 90 seconds of the first emergency calls”(same source).And:

        “Holmes is also believed to have hurled two gas canisters into the theater before opening fire. [...] Oates did not specify the type of rifle but said that experts told him with that drum magazine, he could have gotten off 50 to 60 rounds, even if it was semiautomatic, within one minute.”

        http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-colo-shooting-suspect-bought-guns-legally-16826588

        To summarize advantages on both sides:

        Him:
        Dark enclosed space, element of surprise, gas, protective gear, high-capacity magazine, 50 rounds/minute weapon, other weapons to supplement.
        You:
        Monday-morning quarterbacking, literally.

        • Local Broker

          Read my comment below. As for the cops getting there 90 seconds after the first call. To bad they werent there to protect people 90 seconds earlier since they are the only ones allowed to protect the public and you just have to sit there waiting for them. Yeah i would much rather have a gun and take my shot than sit there and die. By the way it was dark but muzzle flash coming from any gun he used would have given away his location in a second. Even with body armor return fire would absolutely slow him down.

      • Kool4Coney

        Lis… you should add “hitting the RIGHT person in a dark theater filled with teargas and in utter chaos”  but even in the perfect scenario another gun would have had absolutely no effect on the mass murderer, HE was wearing Military grade protective clothing from head to toe.

    • NSF

      Are you out of your freakin’ mind? If you’re going to offer ridiculous scenarios, what if the shooter’s assault rifle jammed in the first place, maybe no one would have been killed.
      In your scenario case, it might have turned into an OK Corral-style shootout with many others being senselessly killed or wounded.Let’s mourn the victims and sympathize with their families, not offer ridiculous conjectures. 

      • Local Broker

        Its like those scenarios you hear about when someone dies in a car crash and you find out they were not wearing a seatbelt. Maybe that person would be alive if they were wearing one that day. Ridiculous scenarios. 

    • GreatGooga

      Yup. If someone had a legal gun at Ft. Hood, none of that would have happened either.

      Oh, wait…

      • Local Broker

        I bet you didnt know that all the soldiers there were disarmed When the shooting happened. He chose that location on base because he knew no one had a gun there. Check your facts.

    • Kool4Coney

      Shadow…someone DID have a LEGAL Gun in that theater… the mass murderer did.

      If you are saying that IF someone else had a gun the shooter would have been stopped, you are 100% Wrong about that,  the Shooter took precautions in case someone else had a gun, he wore Military grade protection from head to toe, another gun would not have penetrated that protection at all.

  • ES

    Nicely stated. An absolutely, like you said, “senseless” tragedy that hits way too close to home, especially for anyone who has ever sat in a movie theater. Peace upon all those lost, and the grieving souls left behind.

  • levp

    As seen on the Intertubes:
    “An uninsured critical #Aurora victim has $2 mil med bill. I’m glad the killer’s gun “freedom” is saved while we oppose universal healthcare.”

    “Caleb is now in the ICU, on the ventilator, the surgeon told us he will be in the ICU for one to two weeks if not longer, and is fighting for his life. He has been to surgery twice already, has received over 4 liters of blood, and must go back to get his right eye removed and the pellets from the shot gun removed. Caleb is a friend, a husband, a son, and about to be a father. Caleb and his family have no insurance, and these hospital bills are going to be well into the hundreds of thousands if not millions. Caleb and Katie will be struggling with these hospital bills for the rest of their lives.”
    http://www.reddit.com/r/Assistance/comments/wzdo4/my_best_friend_caleb_was_shot_in_the_face_during/

    • Flatbush Depot

      Just another one of the backwards modi operandi of the US, though that is not to say that other countries have their problems.

      A very upsetting tragedy.

  • Henryrollinsrocks

    This was so horrible…

  • bagels

    One has to ask how is it possible for any one in this country to legally buy an assault rifle with a 100 round clip? Why can’t these weapons simply be banned?  It’s obvious that the gun lobbyists and their fat bank accounts keep the politicians quiet on this issue. Everyone refers to the 2nd amendment but that was written when men carried muskets. 

    • Local Broker

      I agree, there is no reason for a civilian to have a 100 round “magazine”. But in this case it was probably a good thing because he was firing so fast without stopping that the rifle jammed. If he would have had to reload it probably would not have jammed and kept going. Its not an assault rifle its a modern sporting rifle. Just because it looks like a military rifle doesnt mean its the same thing.

    • Kool4Coney

      there WAS a ban on owning Assault Weapons… it expired in (I think) 2004 and the Republicans in congress refused to allow even a debate on extending or reinstating it.

      the NRA ‘donates’ a lot of money to politicians to make sure that no sane GUN legislation even gets discussed

  • Kool4Coney

    when someone refers to the 2nd amendment as a way to claim there can be no constitutional regulation of guns they do not know what they are talking about… this is called the ‘original intent’ defense and it is BS…. the original intent of the 2nd amendment was have every American own a weapon so that when THE NATION needed to protect itself gov could call up the “well regulated” state militias (who were to be self armed) because the founders did NOT want America to have a standing army !!  and THAT is the only ‘original intent” of the 2nd Amendment…  but the NRA has perverted the meaning of the 2nd amendment and makes A LOT of donations to politicians to make sure no sane gun laws ever get even discussed, let alone passed.

    • Neptune

       It also meant that you couldn’t be arrested for having a rifle in your home

      • Kool4Coney

        exactly Neptune, but the 2nd amendment makes it clear WHY “the right to keep and bare arms can never be infringed upon” … in order to have “a well regulated militia” instead of a standing army, which the founders were afraid would turn into a tool of government and turned ON “we, the people”   aka ‘original intent’ of the 2nd amendment  :) 

        • Local Broker

          “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
          State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
          infringed.”
          Where exactly do you see the words “in order to have”? and why would you take the last part and put it before the first part? Its crazy that anti gun people always talk about guns with absolutely no facts backing up their arguments. All of these comments about the guy wearing tactical gear and being unstoppable. How about the 4 swat cops on Nostrand ave that were wearing all the same shit and had a shield every one of them was shot by one guy with a 10 round mag. Just because you read it in the news and they blow it out of proportion that no one could’ve done anything doesn’t make it fact.  

          • Kool4Coney

            answers to your questions…

            1) you DID notice the quotation marks… and that they did not include In Order to have  :)

            2) forgive me for typing in conversational form

            3) if you would like a constitutional history lesson on the 2nd amendment I will offer this, for starters …

            The first half of the Amendment echoes the Articles of Confederation and concedes the
            necessity of the old State militias (“A well regulated Militia, being
            necessary to the security of a free State”).

            The second part is a
            concise restatement of the fuller text of the Articles as a fundamental
            right (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
            infringed”). The key phrase “to keep and bear Arms” is simply a
            descriptive pointer to the status quo, the militia system
            as it had existed during the Articles of Confederation.

            NOW IF you want to see what the framers were talking about when they
            referred to militias, there is considerable detail about this in the
            Articles of Confederation:

            for instance….   “[E]very State shall always keep up a well-regulated and
            disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall
            provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due
            number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms,
            ammunition and camp equipage.”

            So, at the time the Constitution was being written and debated, and at
            the time the Bill of Rights was seeking ratification, a “well-regulated
            militia” was something “kept up” by each state, including adequate
            weaponry. (Note that in some states, weapons were privately owned, and
            in others, they were provided by the state.)

            When the states joined in a Federal union the right of the STATES to maintain their militias was enshrined with the Constitution :)

            and THAT is the real “original intent’ of the 2nd amendment…

          • nolastname

            I keep it simple. An individual has the right to keep and bare arms to protect his/her home,family and property. 
            The state must make sure there is a supply available to the individual who wishes to purchase these goods. A person does not have to enlist to have the right to protect his/her own land. Enlist, protect your country and ya’ get a weapon for free. Yay. 
            I guess I look at War and self preservation differently. 

          • Kool4Coney

            nola, I would agree with you and believe that right came before both the constitution and the Articles of confederation ;) but the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution specifically speaks to the right of the State aka ‘the people’ not individual persons  :)

          • Local Broker

            I think that states are made up by individual people. I also think Militias are made up by individual people they are the people. You say thats the original intent like you were there when it was being discussed and written. The intent was very simple, for individuals to be able to protect themselves from criminals and tyranny. How would you feel if you were told you have to get a permit to talk like outside your home? How would you feel if the police or any govt. agency were able to just walk into your home anytime they felt like it without any recourse? Why is it you think 2A is any less important to an individuals rights? Guns dont kill, people kill. What if this nut job bought a semi truck legally then drove it into a crowd of people in time square on a Friday night, would you want to ban trucks? When Max Gelman killed a few people with a kitchen knife no one questioned the object only the person. Did you know a couple months ago in Aurora, Co just a couple miles from the theater a gunman walked into a packed church and got off a few shots killing one person but there was a concealed carry holder in the church and shot the shooter dead before he could kill someone else. The media hates covering stories like that. If that guy with the permit wasnt there who knows how many more would have been killed. There are no stats on defensive gun uses in the country but the estimate is about 1.5 mil a year and most are just by brandishing a gun without firing a shot which is enough to get you out of a bad situation.

          • nolastname

            Too funny. 
            Did you just let everyone get the impression you have a permit? WTG. 

          • Kool4Coney

            the discussion was about Original intent….as it pertained to the 2nd amendment.  you seem to just dismiss historical evidence that the 2nd amendment was clearly speaking to the STATE right to keep and bare arms aka their pre constitution militias  :)  if you would like to discuss private GUN ownership that is a different discussion and the 2nd amendment actual is silent on that issue…   but the NRA is not… the NRA perverts the 2nd amendment for their own purposes, especially Wayne la Pierre (sp) who’s personal pocketbook gets over 1 MILLION Dollars a year taken from NRA dues…  as I have already stated, the NRA gives out BIG political campaign donations to those people willing to always vote NO to any and all gun legislation – right NOW the NRA line is that to pass ANY regulation of gun and or ammo is to restrict OUR freedoms -  funny thing is that the NRA funded politicians have no problem with restricting our freedoms when the issue is NOT about guns…

            NO ONE needs a gun that can expel 100 bullets within a minute… but the NRA claims that to limit the number of bullets that can legally be in privately owned gun restricts our freedoms….  

            IF, as you claim, your argument is based on the need for personal protection then it is specious… if you cannot protect yourself from an intruder with a 10 bullet clip YOU need to go learn how to actually AIM a gun.