It was a somber Meet the Press this morning just 48 hours after the country witnessed the horrible tragedy of the shooting in Colorado.
The suspect, James Holmes, is in police custody and Gov. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) acknowledged this morning that Holmes is "at this point not cooperative."
The governor, when talking about the alleged shooter, did not mince words. He described Holmes as being "demonic" and "twisted" adding that he was "almost as a terrorist."
From a law enforcement perspective, the lone gunman scenario has always been a big concern. Former LAPD Chief Bill Bratton explained, "That single individual who operates below the radar. ... It remains the most difficult [scenario] to try and deal with."
Politics, for the most part, halted on Friday out of respect for the victims in Colorado, but the campaign will come back shortly as Mitt Romney presumably is preparing to announce his Vice Presidential pick.
Our roundtable helped break down Romney's options as well as some of the bigger moments that still lay ahead in the campaign.
You can watch the full discussion on our website.
Meet the Press will be off the air for two weeks in light of NBC's coverage of the Olympic games in London.
If it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.
Leave a Comment:
I was highly disappointed that you failed to have on your panel anyone supporting stronger restrictions on firearms. This issue is picking up speed as it did during the late 80ies and 90ies. Perhaps you will be surprised at the vote in November, I certainly hope so as it's very obvious that your politics is to the right.
I was extremely disappointed that you had no one on your panel speaking positively about the future of restrictions on firearms. How dare you give up and take the NRA and the entire gun lobby off the hook. But then I suspect your politics are showing. Shame on you.
I agree with Sarah Brady1: "Shame on you", for taking the NRA and the entire lobby off the hook.
Restrict them all you want, but as a law abiding citizen, I will still have weapons. That right will not be taken away from me! The NRA did not pull the trigger. Fry the piece of trash.
Feel how you want to about the state of gun control in our country today and if we need more/less/same. But everyone agreeing that change will never be made cause of the lobbying power of the NRA is true indictment of how broken our political system is. To me, that kind of defeatist attitude is basically telling viewers "we're screwed."
This anti American fool has no business telling me anything about freedom, integrity, patriotism or how I can live my life.
He is a vapid piece of dog meat for which the dude calling himself Barry something or other would drool over.
If you get my meaning ?
How dare you have Michelle Rhee as a guest on your show. She committed corporal punishment against Black students in her class. She couldn't hack teaching, but like the Teach For America charlatan she is, she became an administrator, and conned her way into the chancellorship of the DC schools.
As chancellor, she shut out parents, scapegoated the older teachers abd their union for the problems in the DC schools and community, and created the New Teacher Project for financial gain. Then she got rid of tenure and laid off hundreds of teachers obly because they were over the age of 50, to be replaced by Teach For America "teachers" from her New Teacher Project. Along with anti-union financial backers such as Mike Bloomberg, they conned many into actually believing that her "teachers" who become certified after a five week quiclie course are more qualified than the veterans they replaced. DC's schools became worse, and she is the sole reason why Mayor Fenty lost his re-election bid.
Then Rehee, with financial backing from billionaires and Wall Street hedge fund managers, started StudentsFirst, an anti-public education and anti-union group masquerading as an education reform group. But StudentsFirst's idea of "reform" is to scapegoat teachers for all of the social problems which cause some students to fail.
When Secretary Chertoff commented on the need to detect the decline of individuals who eventually become mass murderers and to step in and get them help before the psychological problem is out of control, it struck a chord with me. I couldn't agree more with this approach. However, in this country, the privacy laws which exist prohibit family members, friends or aquaintances from stepping in and getting the person help. I am passionate about this privacy problem because I have been unable to help my own young adult son with depression and anxiety because my hands are tied to force him to talk to a therapist because he is an "adult". Most of our young people who need psychological help and don't get it don't act out in a violent manner, thank God. But it is my belief that the large number of suicides among our youth is directly related to the privacy laws prohibiting parents and friends from stepping in and forcing help. I am on the warpath to change the privacy laws so that the people closest to a person in pain can take care of them when they are unable to take the necessary steps to help themselves.
These are good points. I agree that the best way to prevent tragedies would be to focus on identifying individuals who would take such actions and then preventing them from reaching that point or from carrying out such a plan, but how can this really be done?
And if people think limiting the right for anyone to purchase any type of destructive weapon is too much of an imposition on individual liberty, what measures would be considered acceptable to control the actions of someone who has not done anything like this so far?
This can be done by beginning with changing the privacy laws so that family and friends who detect changes in behavior can step in and get the help that is needed. Even mildly depressed individuals cannot recognize the changes in themselves, nor are they able to seek out and be proactive about how to get help. I have been a teacher and a parent and I have always maintained that behind every deranged killer there is a string of people who have recognized that the person 's behavior has changed and have tried to get them to help themselves. My heart goes out to the parents of this young man because it is my strong opinion that they may have known that he was in trouble, and that they may have even tried to help but have faced the "brick wall" our lawmakers have built for us with the privacy laws.
I agree with you (that there probably were signs of trouble). Throughout the coverage of this tragedy, I keep being haunted by the comment attributed to the shooter's mother: "You have the right person. I have to call the police". What did this mean? This is what I have been watching coverage waiting to find out more about, I guess for reasons relating to what you are saying (that people may have known the individual was 'in trouble', and for whatever reason, didn't know what to do, or how to prevent things from reaching this point).
I totally agree with you. In addition, the lack of adequate available social services for those without insurance is appalling and will get worse as states refuse to implement the Affordable Care Acts full benefits. Even when parents are able to get the attention of mental health professionals, state laws (such as Florida's Baker Act) fail to help by limiting initial commitment to 72 hours, not offering full psychiatric or psychological treatment and excluding parents or other family from involvement in patient care. I don't know if the shooter's situation could have been prevented - no one other than his family does at this point - but there are many other young people who are at risk of the same kind of behavior.
I am encouraged that some of you agree with me about the strong possibility that someone, maybe the mother, knew that this young man was in serious trouble. I would like to see a discussion soon on Meet the Press relating to the inability for loved ones to get psychiatric help for an individual in need. And this, I repeat, is the fault of the privacy laws preventing us from seeking help for another person. If someone is bleeding and broken we can take them to the hospital, but if the mind is bleeding and broken, we are powerless because of the privacy laws.
How can we change this, you may ask. Our lawmakers figured out how to take away our freedom to help those in need by enacting the privacy laws. I feel that they can figure out how to restore this freedom. We humans are programmed to help each other and live together as a society. Privacy laws take away our ability to help those in need and all of society suffers.
It is time to stand up and fight for the right to take care of those we love and allow our health care professionals the freedom to work together with families to solve psychiatric problems. The alternative is what we have now - many people who quietly suffer and live unfulfilling and unproductive lives, record numbers of preventable suicides, and, yes, the occasional bleeding and broken mind that finally snaps and takes with it the innocent.
I too agree with you, SSM. Personally, I know that my family had the same problems when I had a brother who attempted suicide a couple times. Because he was an adult at the time and HE HAD TO SEEK THE HELP himself. Where does this make things right? He didn't see that he had any problems when in fact, his problem stemmed from a previous surgery that caused a loss of blood due to an artery that was nicked during the surgery and then that caused a loss of oxygen to his brain. Until the situation got very severe and my mother had to go through extremes would anyone finally listen and help him. Not without him losing everything in his life.
This suspects mother is a psychiatric nurse (I believe is what I heard) and she probably did know the warning signs but was too faced with these same problems as getting help before something like this has happened. Unfortunately, their hands were tied until HE PERSONALLY asked for the help and he lost it before he saw the signs that he needs the help necessary. I feel for his parents and I really feel for these other victims of this senseless act that was committed. Please everyone continue to pray for everyone to understand and have patience in the whole process. I just hope justice prevails and that IF this person has some psychological issues going on that he can finally get whatever help is necessary until the day whatever decision is made in this case. God bless the suspects parents and the victims and their families in this whole situation.
SSM, I pray and hope that you can get help for your son or that he will soon realize he needs the help necessary. God bless you and your family.
Thank you Steph in Illinois. I wish I knew how to get the ear of someone in government who could at least point me in the right direction to get this discussion out to the public. All I hear is talk of gun control, as is usual in mass murders. But no one seems to want to get to the root of the problem which is psychological disorders and how to deal with them, and our larger problem, which is our inability to deal with them because of our PRIVACY LAWS!
Thank you for your kind words, and I hope that your brother and your family have found healing.
There is some possibility that a discussion about gun control laws should follow the massacre in Colorado, "BUT" the gunman purchased his arsenal legally. (Really??)
Doesn't this disaster demonstrate that a deadly arsenal making it easily possible to shoot 70 people in a matter of minutes is too easy for the wrong hands to obtain legally?
Wow, there was a time {in very distant memory} that I thought David Brooks made cogent comments (even if I didn't agree with him 100%).
We shouldn't discuss gun control, but should only focus on 'the person' to try to prevent tragedies as in Aurora?
The CO governor made the point that a deranged person like Holmes could manufacture other ways to kill if he didn't have access to these guns. True; but at the same time, the high-powered automatic(?) weapon the shooter used is DESIGNED to efficiently kill a large number of people easily and quickly - that is what it is designed FOR, and what it does.
So, it would be too much of an imposition on individual liberties to consider limiting access to such weapons? Then what exactly would Mr. Brooks propose, focusing on 'the person', to help prevent a tragedy like this??
This guy had nothing but a speeding ticket on his record. Should we lock up everybody who doesn't date much? Who graduated with highest honors from college and is enrolled in an impressive graduate program (e.g. in neuroscience), but who had to take a temporary job at McDonald's to earn money between the college and graduate programs?
{These talk shows provide us with some real geniuses as commentators sometimes!!}
I agree with Laja. Mr. Brooks is usually so right on--I can't believe his comments this morning. To just write off gun control of automatic weapons and instead favor focusing on the individual--how exactly, Mr. Brooks? You can't commit people for no reason; you can't help them until they want help. That is a hugh mountain to climb--far better to limit the weapons private citizens can purchase.
Journalist need to make it professional standard to not mention the names or images of mass murders unless requested by police. The peoples right not know can be satisfied by talking about his personality, description, etc without making him infamous and by extension of a hero to other misguided people.
As we share our collective sadness and empathy toward the victims of the Aurora attack, let us at least agree to disagree without empowering the perpetrator. It is always destructive to blame one’sopponents for an act by an insane madman. i.e. blaming the tea party, the occupy movement, the NRA, President Obama, Mitt Romney or in other political entity. Insane acts by definition can never shed light on predictable causes however they can be used to justify and promote more insanity.
I view the gun violence crisis in our country as a situation that has evolved beyond the point of no return due to the proliferation of firearms and the ease in which they can be obtained. Even if the strictest possible gun control laws were in place it obviously would still not prevent deranged individuals from getting hold of them in one way or another to use for the the purpose of harming others, and as we know there will always be these types of people among us. With that being said, I still feel that there is a lot more that the government and concerned citizens could be doing to reduce the incidence of crimes involving firearms. Loopholes in gun sales need to be closed as well as having stricter regulations on automatic weapons, but I think one of the best an most overlooked methods of reducing the number of guns in at-risk communities are gun buyback programs which could be funded by private companies, agencies and individuals. I know these programs have been criticized but they have also been proven to be effective in some areas. If this could save even one life, which it most likely would, then it would be worth every bit of the effort. People have said that the U.S. government doesn't have the backbone to stand up to the wealthy and powerful gun lobby to get things changed, and I agree 100%. We need to stop being so tolerant of these horrific gun crimes and look for ways to reduce their occurrence while still allowing law abiding citizens to have their right to carry. There is just so much more that needs to be done, and soon.
I agree. We can never put forth enough sensible gun control to completely prevent these incidents. But we can sure mitigate them by limiting what these types of people can acquire legally.
Can't we all be thankful that this guy wasn't able to walk into that theater with a grenade launcher or a belt-fed machine gun?
Isn't that proof that gun control we currently do have was beneficial and that we might further benefit from an extension of our current gun control?
Are we all convinced that we are at a perfect equillibrium of gun control and 2nd ammendment rights?
These are great points.
I do apologize for my previous comments - I just realized I hadn't seen the whole show only the panel with David Brooks, Bob Shrum, Steve Schmidt and Michele Rhee. Do totally disagree with this panel. The NRA is not too powerful to beat - difficult yes but it can be done.
I, in turn, feel bad about my 'real geniuses' comment at the end of my previous post (which I think it is too late to edit).
But I do see Brooks more and more as an example of someone whose commentary has degenerated into often nonsensical 'reasoning', as he stretches logic further and further in order to be a proponent of possibly predetermined viewpoints. Even if commentators are chosen by media outlets to take specific and opposing points of view, it is much more interesting and seems more productive if they at least take positions that they can back up with some kind of sensible reasoning.
I applaud NBC for publishing the NY Times / CBS Polls showing Romney out in front of Obama by two points!
Your avatar says it all - you are old and out of touch! Romney may buy his way into the big house but he is only out to protect the 1%
Saying the shooter is diabolical shows how The Gov. from Colorado is not articulate, and comes off as being ignorant in regards to the situation. many so called"mental health "professionals have tried to analize this man without even evaluating or assessing his mental condition. Let the professionals evaluate him and let that stand. Anyone who could plan, carry out and show no remorse is lacking in the fundemental ability to function in society.Let justice be served. pray for the victims , and all families involved
It is a shame that it takes a tragedy of this magnitude to get some discussion on issues not generated out of the campaigns. I understand the frustration over a lack of will over more gun control. It does take some courage to agree that maybe that war was lost. When you all of a country flooded with millions of guns and some determined murderous people, is it not time to focus on what can be won. A similar thought to the people that can not let go of the fact that we are not going to deport millions of people with "tough" immigration laws. We spend to much time re-litigating in the face of realities on the ground. One of the most interesting shows in a long time. Good work David.
Never have I believed in corporal punishment.
Clearly we are a country that protects wrong. The time is now... as Americans we should start setting examples. Those guilty without doubt, of such a horrendous crime, should have the same punishment. It is easy as standbyers to make forgiving statements. It is my opinion justice should prevail. In today's society it is so easy to make the claim of "temporary insanity" I say "$%^^sh&*". I believe if in fact the punishment according to the crime was equal, our crime rate would diminish.
As I parent and a medical professional my heart breaks for those who have suffered such a senseless loss.
For the folks who are saying that if there had been some law abiding gun owner (ideal candidate would be a middle class, Christian, who had never had any legal trouble) in the theatre, with a gun (or two, or three) things could have been much less lethal, one little reminder, there was just such a person there.
James Holmes!!!
PS, others are saying that, because those who want them desperately enough will be able to get hold of guns, it doesn't make sense to try and pass laws criminalizing possession, and I have to wonder, are they using the same arguments to lobby against drug-control laws?
Good point!
As I am Canadian,I'm not sure I have the right to make these comments or if they'll be accepted but here goes. First to those who strongly believe in the 2nd amendment.Do you really believe the writers were thinking of guns such as the AR15 or AK47 when they wrote the words.
I watched the show this week and one thing I found missing was compation. Yes everyone said they were sorry for what happened to the people and their families, but, they were just political words. At one point Chief Bratton mentioned that 55 Americans are murdered every day. It was just talked over, like that wasn't important.
As a 20 year retired U.S. Army veteran of the Persian Gulf War, I can say quite clearly that no civilian needs weapons of war in their possession. I own guns but I do not own semiautomatics. Bolt action rifles, shotguns, and even revolvers are fine for responsible gun owners. You can defend you house quite nicely with a shotgun or a .38 revolver. America should have gun laws similar to Canada and Australia. These two English speaking countries allow bolt action rifles and shotguns, very limited handgun ownership, and semiautomatics are in general not allowed. I am not an expert on the laws of these two countries but in general they are more stringent than in America but still reasonable for hunters and target shooters.
A bolt action rifle, such as the British Lee-Enfield, can fire upwards of 30 rounds per minute with some practice with a sustained rate of fire of about 15 rounds per minute. The British Army had a "mad minute" drill of 30 aimed shots per minute. The M-16 for instance has a sustained rate of fire of about 15 rounds per minute. M-16's heat up, jam, and magazine failure sets in after too much automatic firing. So don't sneer at bolt action rifles. Read about the battle of the Mons in 1914. Name a situation in civilian life where a sustained rate of 15 rounds per minute would be inadequate? Drug gangsters and right winged milia-terrorists need Uzi's, M-16's, and AK-47's. A normal married man with a family can get by just fine with a British .308 or a Springfield .30-06 when hunting deer.
What everyone of our recent massacres have in common are these nasty AR-15/M-16's and AK-47's. I also am vehemently against civilians owning Glock 9mm semiautomatic pistols, that were used in the Virginia tech massacre and the Tucson massacre. These semiautomatics with large ammunition clips are weapons of war. If you get a 30 round ammunition clip, a gunman can fire off hundreds of rounds of ammunition, with minimal changing of magazines, before the police can arrive. I regard the NRA as a domestic terrorist organization that helps kill 9,000 Americans due to firearm homicides annually. Any one who supports the NRA ought to be ashamed of themselves. AR-15's, AK-47's, and semiautomatic pistols with large ammunition clips are weapons of war that only law enforcement authorities and the military should have in their possession. A normal married man with a wife and family needs an AR-15 or Glock 9mm for what purpose in normal civilian life?
We need the assault weapons ban reinstated in America. We need to outlaw all gun shows. Gun dealers need to be licensed by the federal government plus an up to date federal data base for criminals and incompetent people need to be listed across all 50 states for all gun purchases. Strict limits on the number of guns bought by one individual per year should also be put into place. We should also explore the possibility of licensing all 18 year olds who wish to own firearms. You would go attend gun safety and hunter safety classes and then take a test for a gun license. Keeping that gun license is contingent on you obeying laws with no felony convictions or being declared mentally unstable by a judge. These suggestions won't stop all gun crime in America but they will overtime work to reduce the number of gun massacres in America. When assault weapons get into the wrong hands, scenes like Aurora's movie theater, Tucson, Virginia tech, FT Hood, and Columbine will become an ongoing American nightmare. We need to cleanse our first world country of this 3rd world filth of frequent gun massacres that are a public health danger.
@Robert - Glad to hear your point of view.
@Rex - thanks so much for sharing your perspective!!!
not surprised of the comments from a former stooge of president Bush in favor of more spying on its citizens. nor am i surprised at the intellectually dishonest argument from the governor(who, in every speech, seems unqualified for his position of leadership) about how a bomb could have been used to commit this crime. and good old David is there spooning it up and feeding it to the audience. what a crock. there is only one purpose of a handgun or automatic weapon.
why was Chertoff even on the panel? David...why does your show stink of cronyism? Wiki should have your title of journalist in quotation marks instead of parentheses.
the point that the show seems to be making is that instead of banning handguns, let's live in a society where we have to fear guns and also fear big brother picking us out as potential future candidates of criminal behavior.