What does the head of Interpol think that we should do to protect people from terrorists? Get rid of gun-free zones

The problem is that creating "secure perimeters" around all possible targets is impossible.  Interpol Secretary General Ron Noble is pretty clear: "You can't have armed police forces everywhere."  Given that Noble is right that we have only two alternatives, it seems to me that there is no option but to accept his second option: let people defend themselves.  From ABC News:

Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month's deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians. 

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called "soft targets" are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves. 

"Societies have to think about how they're going to approach the problem," Noble said. "One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you're going to have to pass through extraordinary security." . . . 

Citing a recent call for al Qaeda "brothers to strike soft targets, to do it in small groups," Noble said law enforcement is now facing a daunting task. 

"How do you protect soft targets? That's really the challenge. You can't have armed police forces everywhere," he told reporters. "It's Interpol's view that one way you protect soft targets is you make it more difficult for terrorist to move internationally. So what we're trying to do is to establish a way for countries … to screen passports, which are a terrorist's best friend, try to limit terrorists moving from country to country. And also, that we're able to share more info about suspected terrorists." . . . 

"Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?" Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. "What I'm saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, 'Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?' This is something that has to be discussed." . . . 

"For me it's a profound question," he continued. "People are quick to say 'gun control, people shouldn't be armed,' etc., etc. I think they have to ask themselves: 'Where would you have wanted to be? In a city where there was gun control and no citizens armed if you're in a Westgate mall, or in a place like Denver or Texas?'" . . .

ABC News goes on to immediately mention the deadly "movie theater in Aurora, Col., a suburb of Denver," but, of course, the story fails to note that the movie theater was a gun-free zone.

Another murderer wants to avoid the death penalty

James Holmes undoubtedly wanted to die when he attacked the Aurora movie theater.  But even in his case, he now wants to avoid the death penalty.

Colorado theater shooting suspect James Holmes has offered to plead guilty and serve the rest of his life in prison to avoid the death penalty — a deal that would bring a swift end to the sometimes wrenching courtroom battle and circumvent a prolonged debate over his sanity.
Prosecutors haven't said whether they would accept the offer, and victims and survivors of last summer's massacre were divided on what should be done.
Melisa Cowden, whose ex-husband was killed in the theater, said Wednesday she was resolutely opposed to a plea deal.
"He didn't give 12 people the chance to plea bargain and say, 'Let's see if you're going to shoot me or not,'" said Cowden, whose two teenage daughters were with their father when he was killed.
"No. No plea bargain," she said. . . .

Nothing learned from gun-free zone tragedy in Aurora, Colorado last summer

Despite an obvious example last summer where a killer picked the one venue where victims were not allowed to defend themselves, Democrats continue to protect gun-free zones in Colorado.  It seems hard to believe that nothing was learned from the attack at the Aurora, Colorado movie theater.  Additional information indicates that the killer cased his target before the attack.  From the Denver Post:

Guns continued to play a big role Wednesday at the Colorado legislature as new bills were introduced even as others died an early death.
On a 3-2 part line vote, a Senate committee rejected a measure to encourage more businesses to allow patrons to carry concealed weapons. The Republican measure would have required businesses such as shopping malls or movie theaters would have to provide armed security if patrons can't carry guns.
Colorado's police chiefs association opposed it and raised questions about large gatherings such as football games.
Meanwhile, a Republican senator proposed a measure to allow more school employees to carry concealed weapons. The measure being introduced is another attempt to add security at public schools. A Democratic committee rejected a related proposal earlier this week. . . .

Apparently, the killer here planned his attack for at least over 2.5 months in advance of the July 20th shooting when he started buying items for it.  From the Huffington Post:

Prosecutor Karen Pearson argued that Holmes meticulously planned the attack, starting with the online purchase of two tear gas canisters on May 10, followed by buying online 6,295 rounds of ammunition, and body armor, as well as going to local sporting goods stores to purchase an assault rifle, shotgun and two Glock pistols. He bought his ticket for opening night of "The Dark Knight Returns" nearly two weeks before the attack and visited the theater early, photographing the layout. . . .

Accused Aurora Shooter James Holmes Cased Movie Theater 12 Days Before Shooting

As I have written previously, the killer picked the one movie theater out of seven that banned permitted concealed handguns.  Now there is a little more evidence that he probably realized that the theater was posted to ban guns.

Accused Aurora movie theater gunman James Holmes bought his movie ticket 12 days before the shooting, it was revealed in court today during the emotional first day of a preliminary hearing. . . .

After the election Colorado Gov Hickenlooper changes position on gun control laws

I don't remember Hickenlooper ever even hinting about taking "a couple of months off" to think about gun laws previously.  One wonders whether this change in his position is simply because Democrats picked up control of the state legislature in November.  From the Denver Post:

In a significant shift from his statements earlier this year, Gov. John Hickenlooper now says "the time is right" for Colorado lawmakers to consider further gun restrictions. 

The Democratic governor made his comments in an interview with The Associated Press that comes less than half a year after the mass shooting in an Aurora movie theater that killed 12 and injured at least 58. His latest words also follow a shooting in an Oregon mall Tuesday that left three dead, including the gunman, who shot himself.  

"I wanted to have at least a couple of months off after the shooting in Aurora to let people process and grieve and get a little space, but ... I think, now ... the time is right," Hickenlooper said in the Wednesday interview. . . .

Drawing the wrong lesson from the tragedy in Aurora

Why can't people see that these attacks keep taking place where guns are banned?

A new bipartisan ad demanding a plan from the 2012 presidential candidates to stop gun violence features Stephen Barton, who survived the shooting massacre this summer at a Colorado movie theater.
The Demand a Plan ad is set to air nationally during the presidential debate Wednesday in Denver and is led by shooting survivors and the Mayors Against Illegal Guns group.
Barton was shot in the face and neck while attending a midnight screening of "The Dark Night" at a movie theater in Aurora. The shooter, James Holmes, killed 12 people and wounded 58 others.
In the ad, Barton delivers his demand sitting in an empty movie theater.
"So when you watch the presidential debates, ask yourself: Who has a plan to stop gun violence? Let's demand a plan," Barton says.
For debate viewers unfamiliar with Colorado geography, the presidential candidates will be debating about 10 miles from the Cinemark movie theater where the mass shooting occurred in July. . . .

Aurora movie theater where shooting occurred announces its reopening

Unfortunately, one thing that probably won't change with the theater when it reopens is its gun-free zone policy.  From Fox News:

The lawsuits filed against the subsidiary of Cinemark Holdings Inc. by three people wounded in the shooting that killed 12 people at a Colorado theater, are believed to be the first. They were filed the same day the company revealed plans to refurbish and reconfigure the theater and have it ready to open by the beginning of 2013. 

The three have filed lawsuits alleging the exit door the gunman used to enter the building should have had an alarm. 

Two lawsuits were filed Friday in U.S. District Court on behalf of Denise Traynom, Brandon Axelrod and Joshua Nowlan. Their attorney, former Denver judge Christina Habas, declined to comment. A spokeswoman for Cinemark USA Inc. had no immediate comment. . . . 

Prosecutors allege the former University of Colorado, Denver, graduate student left the theater through a back exit, propped open the exit door and re-entered the theater to begin the shooting. The lawsuits claim Holmes was able to move his car into position after he left the theater through the back exit. 

In addition to failing to have alarmed exit doors, the lawsuits claim Cinemark was negligent in failing to hire extra security for the midnight showing or generally protect patrons who were sitting in a darkened theater. They also say Cinemark failed to help evacuate the theater even after the shooting ended. The lights were either off or very low even after the gunfire stopped, according to the lawsuit. . . .

Newest Fox News piece: "Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns?"

My piece starts this way:

With 12 dead and 58 wounded, the July 20th shooting at the Cinemark Century 16 Theater in Aurora, Colorado was sure to result in a lawsuit. On Friday, the first suit was announced, claiming Cinemark has “primary responsibility.” The theater did have responsibility for the attack, but not for the reasons that the lawyers bringing the case think. 

The lawyer bringing the suit, Attorney Marc Bern, with the New York city law firm of Napoli, Bern, Ripka and Scholonik, suggested the theater should have had security guards the night of the attack. Yet, checking bags or metal detectors at the front of the theater that night wouldn’t have prevented the attack. The killer brought his guns in through an emergency backdoor. 

Armed security guards at movie theaters are rare in low crime areas, such as Aurora, especially on less crowded weeknights. And, with an audience fleeing the theater, armed guards may have experienced difficulty getting quickly inside. 

So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer’s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience. 

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, . . . 

Why the lawsuit planned against the Cinemark Aurora Movie Theater over the July 20th shooting could be much stronger

I think that the lawsuit by the New York law firm of Napoli, Bern, Ripka and Scholonik, the same firm that represented 9/11 first responders, is missing the mark on what they are looking to push here.  I would note the issue of gun-free zones.

'The victims here are some of the worst types of injuries that I have seen in over 37 years of practice,' said Mr Bern. 'I believe that the primary responsibility at this point rests with Cinemark.' 

Partnering with a local law firm, Mr Bern said they're currently investigating whether there were any past incidents at the theatre and whether they should have had more security on the night of the July 20 shooting. . . .

An earlier news story had this mention:

The Colorado movie theater at which 12 people were killed and 58 wounded by a gunman this month did not have any uniformed security guards on duty the night of the July 20 shootings, even though other US theaters had additional protection that night.Guards hired by movie theater complexes generally spend their time roaming the complex, checking bags and dealing with disputes, the Associated Press reports. While it is impossible to know whether guards would have found the weapons brought into the Aurora theater by James Holmes, they would have had the authority to check his bags and possibly prevent a tragedy.
Holmes entered the theater with an AR-15 assault rifle, a shotgun, and two .40 caliber Glock handguns.
Cinemark normally hire off-duty police guards to work at the Aurora theater on busy Friday and Saturday nights – except on the opening night of “The Dark Knight Rises,” during which the shootings occurred.
The theater complex also hired security on other nights on a case-by-case basis, depending on how much trouble was likely to occur. . . .
Some theaters, including Beaumont, had armed security guards during the first few days of the Batman showings. . . . .

The New York Daily News reported:

THE COLORADO movie theater where the “Dark Knight” massacre took place didn’t have uniformed security guards on duty that night, even though other theaters operated by the same company provided guards for the film’s premiere.
Cinemark provided off-duty police guards at the Aurora theater on busy Friday and Saturday nights, but the company declined to explain why there were no guards the night of the July 20 show. . . . .

But in this case the killer didn't bring the guns through the front theater doors.

A gunman clad in black SWAT gear came through an emergency door at a movie theater in Colorado early Friday, hurled two canisters of an unknown gas and opened fire on the stunned audience, killing at least 12 people and wounding 59 others who were watching the midnight premiere of a new Batman film. . . .

The Hollywood Reporter has this:

Mike Dorn, a security consultant in Macon, Ga., says hiring armed security officers and training employees to flag unusual behavior are likely the best answer. He cautions against using metal detectors and X-ray screeners, which could cost a theater as much as $1.5 million a year to operate including personnel. For Cinemark, which runs 298 U.S. theaters, that could cost $447 million if every theater was equipped -- not to mention annoying customers who would be subjected to airport-style screenings. If the machines aren't manned properly, there's little point. "This happened with schools," says Dorn. "They spent hundreds of millions of dollars with little or no improvement, and guns still got through." . . .

The video mentions that the law firm might also go after the people providing mental health care to the killer.  From the CBS affiliate in Denver:

Also in their crosshairs, the mental health professionals suspect James Holmes saw in the past.
“Either they did warn, and if they did, who did they warn. And if they failed to warn, should they have warned?”
That has been a central question in the case, and because of doctor-patient confidentiality, it’s something that may never be revealed.
Aurora police say no major incident like a shooting has ever happened before in the theater, but has happened in the nearby mall. Cinemark has yet to comment on the impending litigation. . . .

It is hard to believe that there will be enough past incidents at or near the movie theater that will create a pattern that the plaintiffs can successfully say represents negligence by the movie theater.  Looking at the other movie theaters in Aurora or east Denver is it unlikely that the Cinemark theater had less security than other theaters.  Possibly Mr. Bern thinks that the horror of this crime and the desire by a jury to make someone liable will be enough, but I doubt it.  Instead, why not go after the fact that this was the only theater that prevented people from protecting themselves.

New York Times reporters Catrin Einhorn and Leslye Davis actually do a balanced report on guns after the Aurora shooting

I wish that the reporters would have mentioned that both the Columbine and Aurora Movie theater shootings were in places where guns were banned.  I also wish that they had mentioned that all the other theaters within 20 minutes of the movie theater killer's apartment allowed concealed carry.  Indeed, only one of the seven movie theaters within a 20 minute drive banned concealed handguns.

Colorado University to segregate dorms for students with concealed carry permits

This will make things safer.  The university has learned nothing from all the other multiple victim public shootings.

The University of Colorado Boulder and University of Colorado at Colorado Springs are amending their student housing contracts, segregating students who possess a valid concealed weapons carry permit. 

The university said Thursday that both campuses will establish a residential area for students over the age of 21 with a permit. In all other dormitories, guns will be banned, the new policy states. 

"The main dorms on the main campus will not allow any concealed carry weapons," CU Boulder spokesman Bronson Hilliard said. 

In addition, attendees at ticketed athletic and cultural events, such as football games and theater, on both campuses, will not be permitted to bring their guns, officials said. 

"We are treating that ticket purchase as a contractual agreement that you won't bring your weapon to the venue," Hilliard said 

Less than 1 percent of the student body population of each campus is believed to have a concealed carry permit, school officials said. . . .

The University of Colorado at Boulder is going even further.  For those interested in the effect of mandatory gunlock laws the research available here might be useful.

The University of Colorado Boulder today announced it is amending housing contracts to ask students who live in undergraduate residence halls and hold a Colorado concealed carry permit, or CCP, to forgo bringing a handgun to campus. The campus also will accommodate those who hold a CCP in a graduate student housing complex off the main campus, provided the permit holders store their weapon in a safe within their dwelling when they are not carrying it. 

The university also is asking residence advisers and faculty who live in university housing to sign the same housing agreement as a condition of their residence in these facilities. 

The actions follow a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court on March 5, which allows individuals with state-issued concealed carry permits to carry handguns on university or college properties. The University of Colorado Board of Regents last spring delegated the authority to the chancellors of CU-Boulder and CU-Colorado Springs to create a process to implement the Colorado Supreme Court ruling in the campus residence environment.  

“I believe we have taken reasonable steps to adhere to the ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court, while balancing that with the priority of providing a safe environment for our students, faculty and staff,” said CU-Boulder Chancellor Philip P. DiStefano. . . . . 

All this is ironic after the Aurora movie theater shooting.

So are movie theaters near where the Aurora, Colorado killer lived posted to prevent concealed carry?

As many now know, the Cinemark movie theaters in Colorado ban permit holders from carrying their guns into the movie theater.  The media mentions that the theater was "close to [the killer's] home," but where there other movie theaters?  What were the rules for guns at the other theaters?  Why might the killer have picked the movie theater that he did?  

To check that out, I went to movies.com and entered in an Aurora, Colorado zip code where the killer lived.  By the way, the number of theaters showing the movie went from 4,404 from July 20 to August 2 to 4,242 from August 3 to August 3 to 3,690 from August 10 to 15.  There has thus been a 16% drop off between opening weekend and when I checked on these facts on August 14th and 15th.

Below is the list of theaters that I obtained from the above link.  Of the seven theaters showing The Dark Knight Rises on July 20th that were within a 20 minute drive of the movie theater, six allowed permitted concealed handguns and only one denied them at the time of the attack.  

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners has a website where they have collected information on whether movie theaters have been posted as not allowing concealed carry available here.  The only theater that they note to where the killer lived that was posted was the Century Cinemark Theater.  However, I did not rely on their listing for any of the information provided below as it is based on permit holders reporting that information to the RMGO group.  Though it is interesting to note, that for movie theaters within 20 minutes of where the killer lived and showing The Dark Knight Rises, this source only lists the Century Cinemark Theater as the only place that posted a "no weapons" sign. 

Here is the relevant part of the Colorado law on the ability of private businesses to restrict concealed carry.

18-12-214 Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions.(5) Nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.

Cinema Latino de Aurora/Aurora Plaza 8 Cinemas

777 Peoria St., Aurora, CO 80011

888-588-2463/(303) 991-7022 (name withheld)/
Not posted (Theater visited by Michael McNulty)
Showing The Dark Knight Rises
1.22 miles (3 minutes)

Picture from Michael McNulty who visited the theater (August 20, 2012).
Confirmed that it has never been posted.

Cinema Grill 

13682 East Alameda Avenue, Aurora, CO

(303) 344-3456 Press 9
Not posted
started showing Dark Knight Rises on Aug 17th.

3.72 miles (7 minutes)

Century Cinemark Theater -- where the attack occurred
14300 East Alameda Avenue, Aurora, CO 80012
No weapons allowed sign
Showed Dark Knight Rises
3.97 miles (8 minutes)

Harkins Northfield 18 (Billed as the home of Colorado's largest auditorium)

8300 E. Northfield Blvd., Denver, CO 80238 

(303) 595-4275 720-374-3118
Not posted at the time of the attack, the manager (name withheld) indicated that the policy had been changed since the Cinemark attack. 

Showing The Dark Knight Rises

5.13 miles (10 minutes)

Aurora Movie Tavern 
18605 East Hampden Avenue, Aurora, CO 80013-3533
(303) 680-9913

Not posted
Showing Dark Knight Rises
10.04 miles (18 minutes)

Elvis Cinemas Tiffany Plaza 6

7400 E. Hampden Ave, Denver, CO 80231
303-221-1672

Not posted
Not showing The Dark Knight Rises
9.12 miles (18 minutes)

The Movie Tavern at Seven Hills

18305 E. Hampden Ave., Aurora, CO 80013

(303) 680-9913
Not posted
Showing The Dark Knight Rises

10.02 miles (19 minutes)

Landmark Theatre Greenwood Village

5415 Landmark Place, Greenwood Village, CO 80111

(303) 352-1908 (303) 779-0584

Not posted
Showing The Dark Knight Rises

12.88 miles (19 minutes)

UA Colorado Center Stadium 9 and IMAX

2000 S. Colorado Blvd., Denver, CO 80222

(303) 757-8665

Not posted
Showing The Dark Knight Rises
9.66 miles (20 minutes)

Esquire Theatre

590 Downing St., Denver, CO 80218

(303) 733-9939

Not showing The Dark Knight Rises

9.95 miles (21 minutes)

Regal Continental Stadium 10 & RPX

3635 S. Monaco Pkwy., Denver, CO 80237

(303) 758-6732

No weapons allowed sign
Showing The Dark Knight Rises
9.97 miles (21 minutes)

UA Greenwood Plaza Stadium 12

8141 E. Arapahoe Road, Englewood, CO 80112

(303) 741-2606

No weapons allowed sign, but told that people who have their permit with them are allowed to carry in there.

Arapahoe Crossings 16, 9969 South Parker Road Aurora (303) 766-3100

(303) 766-7200

No weapons allowed sign
Showing Dark Knight Rises
15.38 miles (23 minutes)

Mayan Theatre

110 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203

(303) 744-6799

Not Showing The Dark Knight Rises
9.29 miles (23 minutes)

AMC Southlands 16 23955 East Plaza Avenue Aurora 
(303) 627-5430

No weapons allowed sign
Not showing The Dark Knight Rises
20.47 miles (25 minutes)

Instead of reporting whether these attacks keep on occurring in gun-free zones, the media keeps reporting on irrelevant or incorrect issues.  The problem with the reporting isn't really whether they falsely claim that the Aurora theater killer was a member of the Tea Party or misstating a statement from the killer's mom.  No, what I am referring to involves claims that are made over and over again during these attacks, namely the claim that so-called "assault weapons" (a political term, not a useful descriptive term) are used in these crimes or whether the guns and ammunition were purchased legally.

UPDATE: Here is a story about the mayor of New Haven calling for a ban on concealed carry in movie theaters in his town.

A New Haven lawyer said he had every right to carry a loaded .40-caliber pistol into a Batman movie in downtown New Haven Tuesday night. Mayor John DeStefano said he shouldn’t be able to.
The remarks came at dueling press conferences Wednesday afternoon following an incident Tuesday evening at Criterion-Bow Tie movie theaters on Temple Street, where police arrested a lawyer who had carried a gun into the theater.
Sung-Ho Hwang (pictured at left), a 46-year-old lawyer and president-elect of the New Haven County Bar Association, was arrested Tuesday night at an evening showing of the latest Batman movie at the Criterion. Three patrons saw him carry a gun into the theater and— on the heels of a mass shooting at an Aurora, Colo. screening of the same movie last month—called the cops. They swept into the theater and charged Hwang with breach of peace and interfering after he allegedly refused to obey orders to show his hands.
Hwang was carrying a gun in a holster at the small of his back. He has a permit to carry the gun and said Wednesday afternoon that he had done nothing wrong. . . .

Some notes on claims about Australia's crime rates

After the attack at the Aurora movie theater, there have been a lot of discussion about Australia's gun control laws.  For example, see this piece at the Huffington Post. 

A decade-long examination of the program in the journal "Injury Prevention" concluded that "chances of gun death in Australia dropped twice as steeply" after the program was implemented. A study by Harvard University in the Spring of 2011 suggested that the program helped reduce, either causally or directly, firearm deaths, gun-related suicides and accidental shootings. The Washington Post, summarizing many of the studies, concluded that there was "strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness." . . .

Of course, the Huffington Post ignores that more sophisticated research finds no benefit from these laws.  A paper by Lee and Suardi in Economic Inquiry in 2009 does an excellent job of looking at the issue.

Here is the actual data from Australia.  First note that gun ownership exhibits a very interesting pattern that isn't often acknowledged.  There was a large gun buyback in 1996 and 1997 that reduced gun ownership from 3.2 to 2.2 million guns.  But immediately after that gun ownership increased dramatically and is essentially back to where it was before the buyback.  Why is that important?  Well, if it is the number of guns that is important, you should initially see a large drop in suicides or crimes and then see it increasing.  Yet, in none of these data series do you observe that pattern.

For example, homicides didn't fall until eight years after the laws.  It is not clear what theory they have for why the long delay would occur.  Nor can I even find an acknowledgment of that long lag in the cited literature.   A more natural explanation for the drop at the eight year point would be the substantial increases in police forces that occurred at that time.

Crime can change for lots of reasons besides changes in gun control laws.  One way to get a handle on this is to see how Australian homicides are changing relative to other crime rates.  A single continuous crime data series isn't available, but the two diagrams below show how homicides is falling almost continuously as a fraction of violent crime.  If anything, the drop in homicides relative to overall violent crime was biggest in the 1970s.  

See also homicides relative to overall crime.  Again, it is very hard to see any benefit from the gun control laws.

UPDATE: Comments on the Huffington Post Show today.  Purely cross-sectional evidence in references to the UK, Germany, etc. doesn't mention that homicide rates were even lower relative to the US before they had gun control.  The graph that they showed across countries (at about 12:55) makes it look like the US has a similar murder rate to other countries such as Russia, Mexico, and other South American countries.  For further information see here and here.  

Finally, despite all the claims to the contrary, Australia didn't ban guns, though it did impose stricter criteria for people to own certain types of guns.

UPDATE 2: Ann Coulter has this interesting discussion of a New York Times piece by Rosenthal claiming "More Guns = More Killing":

Rosenthal also produces a demonstrably false statistic about Australia's gun laws, as if it's a fact that has been carefully vetted by the Newspaper of Record, throwing in the true source only at the tail-end of the paragraph:
"After a gruesome mass murder in 1996 provoked public outrage, Australia enacted stricter gun laws, including a 28-day waiting period before purchase and a ban on semiautomatic weapons. ... Since, rates of both homicide and suicide have dropped 50 percent ...," said Ms. Peters, who lobbied for the legislation." . . .
Whether or not the homicide rate went up or down in Australia as a result of strict gun control laws imposed in 1997 is a fact that could have been checked by Times researchers. But they didn't, because facts wouldn't have given them the answer they wanted.
Needless to say, the effect of Australia's gun ban has been extensively researched by Australian academics. As numerous studies have shown: After the gun ban, gun homicides in Australia did not decline any more than they were expected to without a gun ban.Thus, for example, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, the homicide rate has been in steady decline from 1969 to the present, with only one marked uptick in 1998-99 -- right after the gun ban was enacted.
The showstopper for anti-gun activists like Ms. Rosenthal and Ms. Peters is the fact that suicides by firearm seemed to decrease more than expected after the 1997 gun ban.
But so did suicides by other means. Something other than the gun ban must have caused people to stop guzzling poison and jumping off bridges. (Some speculate that it's the availability of anti-depressants like Prozac.)
Curiously -- and not mentioned by Rosenthal -- the number of accidental firearms deaths skyrocketed after Australia's 1997 gun ban, although the law included stringent gun training requirements.
It turns out, until the coroner has certified a death as a "suicide," it's classified as "unintentional." So either mandatory gun training has led to more accidents, or a lot of suicides are ending up in the "accident" column.
Most pinheadedly, especially for a graduate of the Harvard Medical School, Rosenthal says: "Before (the gun ban), Australia had averaged one mass shooting a year. (Since then,) there have been no mass killings."
Mass murder is a rare enough crime that any statistician will tell you discerning trends is impossible. In this country, the FBI doesn't even track mass murder as a specific crime category. . . .
Totally unbeknownst to Elisabeth Rosenthal, Australian academics have already examined the mass murder rate by firearm by comparing Australia to a control country: New Zealand. (Do they teach "control groups" at Harvard?)
New Zealand is strikingly similar to Australia. Both are isolated island nations, demographically and socioeconomically similar. Their mass murder rate before Australia's gun ban was nearly identical: From 1980 to 1996, Australia's mass murder rate was 0.0042 incidents per 100,000 people and New Zealand's was 0.0050 incidents per 100,000 people.
The principal difference is that, post-1997, New Zealand remained armed to the teeth -- including with guns that were suddenly banned in Australia.
While it's true that Australia has had no more mass shootings since its gun ban, neither has New Zealand, despite continuing to be massively armed. . . .

The paper by McPhedran and Baker that Ann might be citing has some interesting facts.  I frequently hear about the mass public shootings in Australia prior to the 1996 law, but it turns out that there were only 4 of them between 1980 and 1996.  8 other attacks were "domestic" attacks.  If you look at total multiple victim-suicide attacks in Australia, the attacks are hardly eliminated after 1996.

Other:

A discussion of Europe is available here.

Mayor Bloomberg's proposals are discussed in the Wall Street Journal here.

So-called assault weapon bans are discussed here.

The importance of gun free zones is discussed here.

Other gun control laws that could impact these public mass shootings is discussed here.
See also ALER piece here.

Aurora, Colorado killer saw Psychiatrist with an unusual history

Besides multiple disciplinary actions, there is a possibility that his psychiatrist has some unusual views.  From Fox News:

Fenton worked for the U.S. Air Force in Texas as an acupuncturist before joining the University of Colorado in 2005.A 1998 Denver Post article quotes a Colorado acupuncturist named Lynne Fenton discussing how acupuncture could be used to enhance women's busts. . . .

Obama uses Colorado attack to call for more gun control

Well, at least Obama is more in the open now on this issue.  Who wins the presidency will have a major impact on gun control at least through their appointments to the Supreme Court.  From Fox News:

President Obama has added his voice to the push for stricter gun control in the wake of the massacre last week at a Colorado movie theater.
Obama, speaking Wednesday evening to the National Urban League, affirmed his belief in Americans' right to own guns, but he singled out assault rifles as better suited for the battlefield.
"I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms," Obama said. "But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities."
The president, in making the comments, went further than he typically does in suggesting Washington open a new debate on gun control. It's a topic he has handled lightly in the past, but his remarks Wednesday night follow statements from vocal gun control advocates like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg calling for new restrictions.
Republicans, though, have largely said new laws are not the answer. Mitt Romney, pressed on the gun control issue in an NBC News interview during a visit to London, said changing laws won't "make all bad things go away."
"I don't happen to believe that America needs new gun laws. A lot of what this ... young man did was clearly against the law. But the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening," he said. . . .

From the New York Daily News:

Obama says an AK-47 belongs in the hands of soldiers, not criminals. Republican rival Mitt Romney says America doesn't need new gun laws. . . .
While he called hunting and shooting part of the nation's “cherished national heritage,” Obama added that “a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals.”
"I believe the majority of gun owners would agree we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons, and we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller," he said during a speech to a supportive audience  National Urban League. "That a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily."
"These steps shouldn't be controversial," Obama added. "They should be common sense." . . . 

The push for new laws has also spread to California and Illinois.

Democratic leaders in three big states have used this summer's Colorado mass shooting to push bills that would crack down on assault weapons and ammunition sales, rekindling a debate that has not gained much traction in Congress or the presidential campaign. 

In Illinois, Gov. Pat Quinn proposed that his state enact a strict ban on assault weapons, similar to California's. New York lawmakers have proposed wide-ranging legislation that would limit weapons purchases. 

California Attorney General Kamala Harris and the Democratic state Senate leader back a bill that would make it more difficult and time-consuming to reload assault weapons. The chairmen of public safety committees in California's Assembly and Senate co-authored a bill that would require dealers to report purchases of large quantities of ammunition to law enforcement authorities. . . . 

Some notes on Colorado Shooting

Several important points
4 months of planning make it very difficult to stop this type of attack.
Gun-free zone yet again.
10 minutes between when attack starts and when police are able to arrive at the crime scene. Attack was already over when police arrived.
60 explosive devices in his apartment (30 homemade grenades) -- what would this guy have been able to do without any guns.
Side points
Large magazines like that in this shooting often jam -- large magazines require very strong springs, but over time the pressure from the bullets being held in the magazine cause the metal in the spring to suffer fatigue. When the spring loses its ability to push bullets into the chamber properly you get jams.
As occurred in the Aurora, Colorado attack, the gun used in the Tucson, Arizona shooting also jammed.
I have seen several concerns that if citizens had been allowed to carry permitted concealed handguns into the theater, there would be more casualties from the crossfire. There is one problem with this claim. Despite all the defensive gun uses that have stopped multiple victim public shootings, this possible scenario has never occurred.
Slightly longer discussion
As I have already noted, this horrible tragedy occurred in yet another gun-free zone. Don Kates notes: "it turns out that Century 16 Theaters no-gun policy also applies to its own security personnel, including the off-duty policy officer on the premises."
On Fox News at 5:34 PM EDT, the Aurora police chief said that the killer had been receiving "a high volume of deliveries at work and home over the past four months".
CBS notes that the attack erupted at 12:30 AM. Reuters has this timeline:

* Local police began receiving emergency calls at 12:39 a.m. Within a minute, hundreds of 911 calls had been placed. * Police arrived at the scene at 12:40 a.m. (0640 GMT) The suspect, Holmes, was taken into custody in the parking lot near the back door of the theater.

Police arrived very quickly once they called, but it appears that nine minutes elapsed between when the attack started and they were notified.
From a June 2010 piece entitled: Think Tough Gun Laws Keep Europeans Safe? Think Again...

It wasn't supposed to happen in England, with all its very strict gun control laws. And yet last week Derrick Bird shot and killed 12 people and wounded 11 others. A headline in The Times of London read: "Toughest laws in the world could not stop Cumbria tragedy." . . .

Take a simple example. Suppose your family is being stalked by a criminal who intends on harming them. Would you feel safer putting up a sign in front of your home with the message: "This Home is a Gun-Free Zone"? Probably not. The sign would only tell criminals that they would meet little resistance if they attacked. But in effect, we have put these signs on everything from schools to a couple of cities.

I meant to bring up Edinboro, PA as an example of a school shooting that had been stopped by a citizen with a gun.
Immediate calls went out for gun control.
The Hill Newspaper: "Gun control calls follow Colorado theater shootings, but few expect major changes"
Fox News: "Mass shooting prompts calls from Capitol Hill and beyond for tighter gun laws"

"We don't want sympathy. We want action," Dan Gross, president of the Brady campaign said Friday as Obama and Romney mourned the dead. "Everyone is scared of the NRA," [Ed Rendell] said on MSNBC. "Number one, there are some things worth losing for in politics and to be able to prevent carnage like this is worth losing for." . . .

The Guardian Newspaper in the UK -- Guns in America: beyond control: America has had more than its share of deadly shootings, but there is scant hope of a change to gun laws Of course, this claim is patently false.
As noted earlier, there are all sorts of calls for more gun control on twitter.
Editorials and op-eds are already calling for bans and registration. The Economist Magazine has this piece.

No guns policy at Cinemark Theaters?

The movie theatre was not a statutory gun-free zone. The exception for secure “public” buildings applies to buildings owned or managed by a public entity, not to all buildings accessible by the general public. Private business owners who invite the public onto their own premises can set their own policies: “Nothing in this part 2 [establishing the scope and limits of a Colorado concealed carry permit] shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.” Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-12-214(5).

The attack did occur at a Cinemark theater. Here are pictures taken by Ray Hickman from another Cinemark theater in Ft. Collins, CO. Cinemark Fort Collins, 4721 South Timberline Rd Fort Collins, CO 80525

Here is a picture of this theater from the Cinemark website.

J. Neil Shulman has this post:

My sister, who lives in Colorado and has a license to carry a concealed handgun, tells me every Cinemark movie theater she’s gone to has the same sign the Cinemark Century 16 Theater displayed to its customers: No Firearms Allowed. This sign informed James Holmes that the management was guaranteeing nobody would be shooting back. . . .

Here is a post at The Truth About Guns.

Posts for gun control on Twitter from early this morning

UPDATE: Of course, it isn't just tweets that are pushing for gun control.  Here is a post by David Weigel attacking those who hoped that someone with a permitted concealed handgun would have been present at the movie theater:

It'll be a while before we hear anything so knuckleheaded about the shootings. The fact that Colorado has these laws [concealed handgun laws] is evidence that they don't stop all massacres. . . .

UPDATE 2: Of course, the theater was a gun-free zone.