I think we know that, yes, data mining and surveillance could have stopped this – depending, of course, on the intensity of such a program – it might not be “feasible”, politically or financially, but technically, I think there’s a very good chance it would detected him. Whether the police would/could have intervened and prevented this short of simply arresting him for his “Pre-Crime” frame of mind is another question.

So, the larger question remains – how much personal liberty will people give up, (knowingly or unknowingly), to achieve this state of “pre-crime detection?”

A lot of people are willing to give up their rights, (and other people’s rights), to, for example, buy and bear arms. Ok. But I suspect these same people would be outraged to learn that their cell phone conversations are monitored, or their purchases are cataloged in a government database, or their e-mails are surveilled. These latter examples are what it would take to stop a Holmes.

Because this guy was an exceptional case. He was motivated, for whatever reason, to kill random people; his weapon wasn’t the point. Making it more difficult for him to buy guns and ammunition wouldn’t have done a thing to curb his ambition – almost certainly, he would’ve found other, and perhaps more lethal means to achieve what he did – I seem to recall a scene in the Batman movie wherein “The Joker” blew up a hospital, and attempted to blow up ferries full of people. What if decided to cue off of those scenes?

What next, do we ban gasoline purchases? Fuel Oil? Propane? There’s plenty of information on creating explosives out there – remember Rudolph, McVeigh, and Kaczynski? They didn’t buy their materials at “Bombs R’ Us”, you know.

Where does it end? Over 10,000 people a year die to firearms homicides in America. Over 10,000 people a year die in alcohol-related vehicle crashes. And who knows how many of these intersect – that is, how many gun deaths involved the use of alcohol?

So, the answer’s obvious – ban alcohol and guns, ammunition and gasoline.

’cause that worked so well the last time we tried it, right?

I’m not suggesting we just throw up our hands and say “That’s the way it is, nothing to be done about it.” But let’s not pretend that any solutions we come up with won’t have some serious secondary consequences.

And solving for what amounts to anomalies like Holmes is not the same as solving for, say, MS-13 gang killings, or drive-by’s in Chicago, or sexual predators who kill their victims, or car-jackers who think nothing of killing their victims.

Final thought – be careful about what rights you give up – because they’re hard to get back. And the erosion of rights never stops; giving up rights you don’t care about seems harmless enough, but sooner or later, someone’s going to ask you to give up a right you *do* care about.

To paraphrase Niemoller, who’ll be left to speak for your rights, when you failed to speak up for the rights of those before you?

A loud theater, dark room, smoke and 4 other armed people (severely under powered and unarmored) shooting…. hmmm that will work.

My guess at least 4 more shot.

Look up what the CC holder did in the Gifford shooting on a nice clear sunny day.

Once again the irritating example of comparing driving and regulating car safety and regulating our 2A rights.

Ed you ignorant sl#t, travel does not require a car, it can be done by foot, train, bicycle, aircraft, etc. Guns are not spelled out in the constitution, ARMAMENTS are. I strongly recommend a course in logic, syllogistic deconstruction to be precise. You really do not get it.

Brian, it sounds like you think my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is secondary to your right to have arms. That is the problem.

An explicit right does not trump a common law right documented in the Declaration of Independence. Founding fathers fought for the right to life, liberty and happiness, not for the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms had to be stated because it was a new concept. The right to travel is derived from the right to life and needed no enumeration.

ACT, are you referring to Jacob as the “colorful commentator” who should be concerned about data mining for admitted he keeps weapons in order to help overthrow the government if it becomes unresponsive to his viewpoint.

It is all about Ed and his personal comfort level and feelings.

This is the new societal order where feelings now trump rights. Remember, we now have awards for last place that equal awards for first. Self worth thru self responsibility are now figments of days gone bye-bye.

“and that is symptomatic of a greater societal attack on masculinity/manhood”

….please note my “wimp factor” post. Apparently the Irrelevant Rag Newsweek thinks Obama is the ultimate manly man.

My husband has a bag he uses when we undertake one of those hellish ventures known as family travel by air, where we all need to have all of our papers handy at all times for all gates, wands and patdowns, but he calls his a “murse”.

That’s funny Barbara. I’ll leave it up to ACT to tell us what the “p” in purse stands for.

“Man bags” are not unmanly!! Mine currently holds three revolvers (sorry, you semi-auto fans — I do shoot them too, but I hate chasing brass), two sets of ear and eye protection, and about 200 rounds of ammo.

I’m not talking about a bag for travel for a utility bag. I am talking about those purses that the hipsters carry around in Adams Morgan. They carry it every day in the same way a woman does keeping their wallet, keys, phone and other accessories in it.

I travel a lot for my contracts and I often carry a backpack to carry my computer and other essentials. That’s not what I was referring to

The “P” in purse stands for the first letter of the word, BlackEye. You can’t understand these things because you are thick-headed, as we’ve tried repeatedly to explain to you here!

Jack, I use those pockets too–to hold my wallet and keys.

Wong, BE. If we (and Romney) just ignore it and divert attention, it will just become moot. It’s a liberal tactic.

“Whimp”?!!! Lo and behold, a Dan Quayle moment.

Maybe Wolverine, the problem is when does the “evolving” stop? Before or after the election?

Here’s a good bit of “mining” for you — by a Federal judge in D.C. In the process of handling a lawsuit by Judicial Watch against the DOJ with regard to the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), the judge has declared that he believes there was interference by political appointees in the Obama administration in the DOJ handling and dropping of the NBPP case. Nice……Now I really want to see those sequestered documents from Fast and Furious.