In this messed up country we are willing to go to war if ONE service man is killed in some faraway outpost but we just grin and bear it when 12 innocent people are killed by a nut with semi-automatic weapons in a movie theatre. We don't want to take those semi-automatic weapons off the shelf because "it is a slippery slope" that the evil Federal Government will pursue. Next thing ya know "they will take all our guns away". The second amendment is what it is. If laws are passed and challenged for their constitutionality why can't we take a walk down that path with gun restrictions? Let the Supreme Court sort it out. Why is this country being held hostage by the NRA? Really, what are they afraid of? This Supreme Court?

This insane person used a rifle probably obtained illegally from Attorney General Erik Holder's fast and furious debacle. It was an AK-47 not available at your local Walmart. This argument over our constitutional rights is another liberal assault on what they view as a bad blueprint for America i.e the U.S. Constitution! These same writers and politicians also wish they could shut the airwaves down to voices they disagree with. Never waste a good crisis, they say, so here it comes from all over the liberal media. It wasn't the driver who crashed his vehicle, it was an "SUV" that did the deed. It wasn't an insane man who killed, it was a "GUN". Your logic is not only flawed, it is tragically being invented to pursue a liberal dream of controlling everyone and everything they don't agree with.

He bought four weapons legally since May. Even keeping a registry of who is buying guns might have slowed him down or tipped somebody off.

I think it may be harder to buy glue.

Hey Profox, If you're so much in favor of arming everyone I've got an idea. Why don't you volunteer to go on Hannity and help fund "The Joker's" legal defense fund? By definition, nothing that can be done with a gun could ever be wrong or bad. Yeah, go on Hannity and help him throw some softball questions. I'll help you with the first one: "So, do you regret anything you did that night?" "No Sean, as you'll most likely recall, all of my killings that night were accomplished with guns and again, as I'm sure you are well aware, the Constitution sanctions all gun killings." "Of course, of course ...you're correct, it's right there in the document."

This is modern America. There is no Plan B. Follow the money...

First, massacres by gun aren't just an "American" phenomena which certainly the Globe understands. Second, exactly how is society supposed to identify a complete loner plotting a massacre? Third, had this fiend chosen other than to shoot he could have easily murdered everyone in that theater. Change the bullets to well made fire bombs thrown or placed at the exits and the death toll would likely been worse. Liberals imagine that if guns are removed murder and massacre becomes unlikely. Does anyone imagine someone as depraved as this man or the recent mass murderer in Norway would not have devised equally devastating means to massacre people indiscriminately? Exactly how are we going to outlaw the murderous creativity of mass murderers like the Uni-bomber? Whether we want to tolerate mass murder or not, mass murderers can fairly easily get around just about limitations be it on guns, gasoline or other improvised explosive devices or the misuse of something as "normal" as a truck to drive through a crowd. No one wants to "tolerate" any such violence but to imagine disarming everyone will magically eliminate mass murder is completely delusional.

The Catholic Church holds that abortion is murder and is working hard to remove a woman's legal right to choose. Similarly, they are also opposed to any and all "right to do" legislation, even when it is to end terrible suffering in the final stage of life. Perhaps Archbishop Aquila and Cardinal O'Malley will do more than pray for the dead, maybe they'll speak out for rational gun control laws in order to help reduce the appalling rate of gun violence in the US and save thousands every year. Bet I bet they won't get involved in this "secular" matter, not their business unlike all the other stuff they preach on. They can't risk offending the right wing which they need to overturn Rov v. Wade and keep people from dying with dignity on their own terms. But there'll be a lot of praying.

Right-wingers are pushing for stricter voter registration by using analogies such as, "You need a license to drive a car, so why not to vote?" If we're going down that road, then we should also require licensing of guns as lethal instrumentalities, especially since owning one is now not just a privilege but a right thanks to the Supreme Court. The next fight for gun zealots is to counter the increasingly indefensible view that there's no need for gun licensing and registration. Once you have a right, it can be regulated (look at how strictly abortion has become regulated since the Roe v. Wade ruling), and in the case of guns, they should be.

"exactly how is society supposed to identify a complete loner plotting a massacre?" Maybe keeping track of gun and ammo purchases would have rung a few bells... four guns and 6,000 rounds of ammo in two months?

All indications are that he obtained the guns legally. A few months ago, a driver--licensed and who had obtained the car legally--plowed into a crown at a SoCal art gathering, killing an infant. Rotten Tomatoes had to shut down the comments about Dark Knight rises because of the posting of death threats. By illogical extension, we should of course tighten access to automobiles and message boards to avert violent events. The shooter in the Aurora tragedy is clearly unhinged. Had he not been able to obtain his little arsenal legally, he would have obtained it illegally. Events such as this will VERY OCCASIONALLY occur. There are a lot of isolated, disaffected, mentally unbalanced people who in their twisted psyches believe that they must do what they must do. Knee-jerk tightening of legal access to hand and long guns will not stop this sort of violence. While I do take some issue with the NRA's continued resistance to restrictions on assault weapons, the more I have learned about the illiberal efforts to restrict the ownership of firearms, the more I can understand their concern about such restrictions being the proverbial cold wet nose of the camel under the tent flap. This is an enormously complicated issue, and screaming for new, draconian restrictions on firearms is not the appropriate response.

I reject your assumption that given strict prohibition of guns, deranged individuals would still be able find them. Yours is a right-wing talking point with no statistical back-up.

As as been said in the past there are enherant dangers of living in a free society and our first reaction shouldn't be to tighten laws (controls) over the people. With liberty comes a responsibility to take care of yourself. This should not be looked upon as an opportunity to further advance the government's oversight of our daily lives. You ask what is America's plan B but I believe that it is already in place with the emphasis on anti bullying education on the current generation but that takes time (i.e. I'm sure there was not a focus for the person involved in the movie shooting, maybe only his junior or senior years in high school but make no mistake about it this was form of bullying and may also have been a reaction to past bullying along with obvious mental instability).

BecknBuv nailed it. When a person bought two Glocks, an assault rifle, and a drum magazine for said rifle in a 3-4 week period, someone should have taken notice. Maybe, just maybe, someone would also have noticed he'd purchased a gas mask and bullet proof clothing. They track grow light purchases due to the war on drugs. Why is tracking gun purchases a big deal?

I've read both this editorial and the related Derrick Z. Jackson column "Wake up, Capitol Hill." I've also read comments posted to date. Here's my small contribution to the unsurprisingly charged conversation to date: 1. I'm not persuaded events would have gone well in Aurora if moviegoers had been armed. In a crisis situation in a packed, panicked theater, how can I know who is the "real" shooter versus a "defender"? And if I shoot the wrong person, what are the consequences for me? 2. The US is no longer an eighteenth century agrarian society with simple firearms. Briefly, I do think a strong case can be made that there should be some differentiation in the purchase process for, say, a handgun as opposed to an assault rifle. It is a fact some firearms can be used to inflict more casualties per unit time than other weapons. Just as we have different classes of licenses to drive different types of vehicles, we arguably need a differentiated process for firearms. 3. Finally, several commentators have correctly observed an intelligent madman has other means to create mayhem than guns (e.g., a gasoline bomb). So, even if the gun purchase process is reformed to reduce the risk of another Aurora, we should all acknowledge that mass murder will still remain a risk. "Gun control" is not a panacea.

Derrick Jackson's column makes much more sense than this editorial. Jackson writes, "Our firearm fatality rates ... are six times that of Canada's and 10 times that of Australia's, countries which have stronger gun control laws. And it is even double that of Mexico, a country know for its terrible drug wars." This editorial suggests a plan B like "frisking everyone who enters a movie theater". The other countries with lower murder rates don't frisk everyone entering movie theaters. (In that case, a psychopath could shoot people in the line-up to enter the movie theater). Jackson also correctly points out that the argument that "if we armed everyone, somebody would have gotten that killer first" is bogus. "Who would hit who in the panic of a dark theater?" The other countries with lower murder rates don't allow everyone to be armed. It seems to me that the only difference a reasonable person who looks at the evidence can see is that the other countries have stronger gun control laws on a national level. (Stronger gun control laws in some states help a little, but guns can easily be sent from one state to another).

Pathetic politicians are the U.S. firewall against gun control laws here. It is all about GREED & campaign money. Until term limits get politicians OUT of Washington after TWO terms . . . nothing, absolutely nothing will change.