MyGovCost News & Blog

Did Federal Grant Bankroll Colorado Gun Rampage?

Friday July 27th, 2012   •   Posted by K. Lloyd Billingsley at 3:58pm PDT   •   40 Comments

James Eagan Holmes, charged with 12 murders in the July 20 “Dark Knight” shootings in Colorado, received a federal stipend of $21,600 for personal expenses, part of a grant from the federal National Institutes of Health. The federal grant of $176,000 supports six PhD students per year and the stipend of up to $26,000 is paid in 12 monthly installments.

Officials at the University of Colorado, where Holmes was enrolled in a PhD neuroscience program, declined to comment on the possibility that Holmes could have used the federal money to pay for his arsenal, which police have valued at $15,000. The 24-year-old Holmes had worked part-time at McDonald’s after earning his bachelor’s degree and lived in a one-bedroom apartment in Aurora, Colorado.

The National Institutes of Health, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, bills itself as “the nation’s medical research agency – Making important discoveries and save lives. Thanks in large part to NIH-funded medical research, Americans today are living longer and healthier.”

The NIH “invests over $30.9 billion annually in medical research for the American people. More than 80 percent of NIH’s funding is awarded through almost $50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,00 researchers at more than 2500 universities, medical schools and other research institutions in every state and around the world.”

The UC neuroscience program is highly regarded and accepts five or six students a year. All students receive a background check, which evidently turned up nothing on James Holmes, who will be charged with killing 12 and injuring 58.

The case raised an outcry over gun-control laws. Columnist David Brooks wrote that researchers at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “were unable to show the laws are effective.” To prevent murderous rampages, Brooks argued for better mental health programs.

University leaders covet federal grant money, which comes with strings attached. Schools that take the money are subject to federal rules such as Title IX. As the Holmes case suggests, federal grant money may not always fulfill its intended purpose.



40 Responses to “Did Federal Grant Bankroll Colorado Gun Rampage?”

  1. wayne turner says:
    July 28, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    We need to pray for James that he will ask God to forgive him before he is put to sleep. There is no need to keep him in locked-up for the rest of his life. Cheaper to put him to sleep than take care of him the rest of his life.

  2. Ab says:
    July 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    It wouldn’t surprise me at all if it wasn’t the anti-gun activists that financed this escapade.

  3. Anthony Fotia says:
    July 28, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    More wasted tax dollars and Obama wants job creators to give more money to the government so they can give away more tax dollars for programs like this. Anyone..... and I mean ANYONE who votes for Barack Hussein Obama in the November election needs mental-health care.

  4. Joseph Scott says:
    July 28, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    How convenient...pay a nut case to kill people in the midst of the gun-control debate. How cynical...How Democratic!

  5. Dee Russell says:
    July 28, 2012 at 3:35 pm

    This has nothing to do with gun control. Our family has guns for the purpose of hunting & we’ve never taken a human life, not even by accident! This young man has a darkness in his psyche that wasn’t detected....shameful...because now there are 12 corpses & 58 injured people some of whom are fighting to live!

  6. Glenda Adams says:
    July 28, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    I believe he was paid to buy the weapons and also maybe threatened concerning his family!!!!!!!!!!!!

  7. Rick Hoelzer says:
    July 28, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    Until more sane people have guns, the insane ones will feel free to do what they do.

  8. Stan B. says:
    July 28, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    Regardless of what his outcome will be whether through death or incarceration. The impact of his actions will linger on through the survivors of the injured or dead. May God be with him and may God have mercy on his soul......

  9. Evermont says:
    July 28, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    Look... The simple fact is that everyone should have the right to carry a gun and if ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE IN THAT THEATER OTHER THAN THAT LUNATIC HAD A GUN HE WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOT AND IT WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN NEARLY AS BAD. I know there are people who shouldn’t have guns out there but it seems like gun control laws only serve to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding people who would do the right thing with them... The criminals and lunatics don’t care about gun laws. They get guns anyways. The government would like to disarm us all because they don’t want us to be able to fight the tyranny that is about to be unleashed upon us so they are saying “GIVE ME YOUR FREEDOM AND WE WILL PROTECT YOU”. This is a huge lie.

  10. Evermont says:
    July 28, 2012 at 4:21 pm

    Life is a series of good and bad incidents. If we give up our freedom then our lives will be mostly bad!

  11. FoolOnTheHill says:
    July 28, 2012 at 4:24 pm

    He did a really Good job of picking the only movie facility in town with a “No Firearms” rule including the supposed “Security Guards” on duty that night. They threw popcorn at him as ordered by hiding management personnel, to no avail!!! Popcorn was abandoned as a weapon, and they then fled the scene as unable to protect themselves or anybody else. Thanks, I’ll keep mine, all you knee-jerk sheeple!!!!!! With every new law you pass, you get a free lawyer to support for the rest of his life!!!!

  12. George says:
    July 28, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    I just read the comments to this tragic story. Never have I seen so much hate from the right towards the president. Blaming President Obama for this program is like blaming him for the recent heat waves hitting the nation.
    As far as voting for President Obama in November, you bet I will. He is much better of a president then the Nazis that left office in 2008. And yes before you ask, I have been in President Bush’s war in Iraq, and guess what we have gain NOTHING there except kill innocent Iraqi people.
    All you Bible-toting, Reagan-lovers try getting a life and practice what the Bible tells us.

  13. Mel Stevens Jr says:
    July 28, 2012 at 6:19 pm

    Sounds like Hussein learned real well from his mentor. Hitler burning the Reichstag in ’33 to enact Marshall Law........ Would not surprise me at all.

    Holder sent guns to Mexico, lied to Congress and is not held responsible...

    Very, Very dangerous times. Can’t believe I am saying this but I actually believe it......

  14. James Clark says:
    July 28, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    Glenda, who do you think paid him & threatened him? Do you know something the rest of us don’t?
    There’s so much garbage out there people are feeding on–violence in video games & movies, pornography, anything that can corrupt– & it does affect one’s thinking. How do we expect children to grow up to be decent if they are allowed to watch anything & everything they want? And adults are just as bad–filling themselves with filth.
    Thank God, there are still some decent people who value themselves enough not to contaminate themselves & their communities.

  15. kseagle says:
    July 28, 2012 at 7:34 pm

    There is no control on what grant money is used on. This is a good point and government educational grant money should be better controlled. They like to control everything else, why not that?

  16. Steven Ortiz says:
    July 28, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    That is the very first thing that popped into my mind when I realized the details of the shooting. When Fast and Furious was all over the news and the details of that scandal were realized, it was no question in my mind that the ones in power are more than willing to take innocent lives to force their policies on unwilling citizens.

  17. BSlies says:
    July 28, 2012 at 8:34 pm

    Liberal Illuminati mind control to get him to mass murder with guns so the outrage will give further the zealousness to outlaw guns so every one except police and criminals will be unarmed.

  18. Bob Jones says:
    July 28, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    What a silly posting. I hear he may have also purchased a aspirin and some beers with the money he was paid. Oh my God, the Federal government makes people alcoholics, oh the horror.

    Do you people really have nothing intelligent to say anymore?

  19. Bo Porter says:
    July 28, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    If you use the reasoning gun-control advocates are using..... Government aid kills. It’s not guns that kill, it’s the individual. It’s not government aid that kills, it’s the individual.

  20. Craig says:
    July 28, 2012 at 10:06 pm

    Instead of “Fast and Furious” we now have “Quick and Questionable”. Good job Feds, please waste more of my tax dollars.

  21. Babs says:
    July 29, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    It is amazing that virtually NONE of the comments above address the issue of a mass murder perpetrated by a young man with considerable head problems. This is not a gun-control thing; it is a mental-health thing. While the NIH bears some accountability in giving Holmes a grant without demanding proof of what the money would be used for, the psychiatrist at the university who allegedly had seen him bears even more responsibility for the sad outcome at Aurora.

  22. kathlen johnson says:
    July 29, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    I feel like it is up to God to judge people r saying pray for him but what about people who hate? Thou shalt not kill. Love is the key word even for him. I will not be part of hate. My God teaches me that I pray for whoever hates anybody.

  23. ZCH says:
    July 29, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    The choice to buy guns and other substances for his nefarious purposes was his alone. The grant was for his schooling and support while furthering his education. Perhaps the grant foundation should start giving the students cards that restrict what they are allowed to purchase with the money, like the SNAP card for food or the WIC cards/checks.

  24. David Theroux says:
    July 30, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    George, We would note that Obama has expanded defense spending and war-making, not reduced it. He also pledged to close Guantanamo, end the renditioning and torture, etc., but has instead expanded every aspect of the national surveillance state. Obama further supported TARP, the bailouts, and the greatest expansion of government power in U.S. history, with the resulting economic malaise.

    The classic definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

  25. David Theroux says:
    July 30, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    Bo, Government aid is funding taken from the citizenry through coercive means (i.e., the threat of lethal force).

  26. Dallas says:
    July 30, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    Funding a grad student in the sciences is the cheapest form of very high quality (brains) labor available for basic research. A very cost/effective investment for the society.

    The basic research we are paying for allows science based innovation and economic growth. We need a lot more of this type of wise investment and less in the bureaucracy and DOD.

    This issue is orthogonal to the gun issue.

  27. Jean says:
    July 31, 2012 at 1:32 am

    I have been comparing gun murders in the US compared with the UK, where I live.

    I found the figure for 2008 for the UK – 39. Whatever the figure for 2009 was, you can be sure it was similar – we just don’t have many gun murders over here.

    I found the figure for the US 2009 – 9,146.

    True, our population is smaller, so to get a true ratio, you have to multiply by 5. So if our population was the same as yours the figure would be 39*5 = 195, compared with 9,146.

    So your gun murder rate is very nearly 47 times higher than ours.

    We don’t have many gun murders here. Well, we don’t have many guns.

  28. Kurt B Smith says:
    July 31, 2012 at 5:09 am

    George, like you I voted for Obama in ’08 for many of the reasons you’ve posted. However, like Mr. Theroux, I’m disappointed by the facts that show that certain important campaign promises have been broken. Many of these atrocities have been expanded beyond even what the Bush administration deemed as appropriate. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. I will be supporting Gary Johnson this year.

  29. David Theroux says:
    August 2, 2012 at 12:23 am

    Jean, Comparing crime rates between countries is not instructive because there are so many cultural and historical factors at work. What is relevant is to compare crime rate within countries or other jurisdictions before and after gun control, and the evidence shows overwhelmingly that gun controls result in higher crime rates.

  30. Kattisch A. says:
    August 2, 2012 at 10:08 pm

    Ever hear of the MK ULTRA program (research it–gov run mind control program headed by Dr. West)? And isn’t it interesting that the Psychiatrist who headed up this program was called in to be the psychiatrist for Timothy McVeigh? And who was the Intern who selected the team of people who would watch him be executed? Chandra Levy (remember her – research it)? Enough coincidence for one email?

  31. Jean says:
    August 4, 2012 at 6:11 am

    Dear Mr. Theroux,

    Thank you for commenting on my comments (or, rather, the facts that I sent). I note your statement that gun control results in more crime. Please could you support this with details, e.g. names of countries, legislation, statistics. I am interested in facts with supporting evidence.

  32. David Theroux says:
    August 4, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    Jean, There are many studies and books on this. Here is a sampling:

    “The Truth about Guns,” by John C. Goodman

    “Gun Control: Separating Fact from Myth,” with Gary Kleck and David Kopel

    “Guns, Crime, and the Swiss,” by Stephen Halbrook

    “Guns and Violent Crime,” with Don Kates and Joyce Malcolm

    “Rising Gun Ownership Has Helped Cut Murder Rates for Americans Over 25, New Study Says”

    “Gun Control Restricts Those Least Likely to Commit Violent Crimes,” by Don Kates

    ” How Many Global Deaths from Arms? Reasons to Question the 740,000 Factoid being used to Promote the Arms Trade Treaty,” by David Kopel, Paul Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen

    Targeting Guns: Firearms and their Control, by Gary Kleck

    Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, by Gary Kleck and Don Kates

    More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, by Gary Kleck

  33. Jean says:
    August 8, 2012 at 9:13 am

    Dear Mr Theroux

    Thank you for your list of books. I started checking and found that the first author mentioned is a “Research Fellow at the Independent Institute”. What sort of list is this? You’ve cherry-picked a collection of people who agree with you, when what I asked for was independent statistics.

    I know that Americans are in love with guns, but I’ve discovered that, even if you count only the murders with “ropes, knives, lead pipes, wrenches, candlesticks, and so on”, Americans commit murders at a higher rate than Europeans. And there’s a division, with the Southern States being the most violent.

    I’ve been to America and found everyone very pleasant. Somewhere here is an American tragedy.

    Best regards
    Jean

    PS: Quotation from Stephen Pinker: “The Better Angels of our Nature”

  34. David Theroux says:
    August 9, 2012 at 9:20 am

    Jean, All of the sources I have recommended are peer reviewed, which is why the Independent Institute supports them. If you have questions about any of the findings please raise them.

    I would also suggest that Steven Pinker has no expertise on the matter of firearms and government policy and has done no scholarly work on the matter. Indeed, his quote reflects his own personal “Progressive” biases. Incidentally, his non-peer-reviewed book The Better Angels of Our Nature is confused and conveniently does not address the gigantic reality of the massive threats of lethal force by leviathan governments.

    “Make Money, Not War: Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,” by Aschwin de Wolf (The Independent Review, Summer 2012)

  35. Jean says:
    August 9, 2012 at 9:48 am

    Dear Mr Theraux

    Thank you for referring the review of “The Better Angels of our Nature” to me. I see, alas, that I would have to pay to acquire it. I have read the book and was very impressed by it. If you would like me to read the review, please forward it. (I would stress that I am a retired person who is not rich.)

    Very best regards
    Jean

  36. Jean says:
    August 9, 2012 at 11:05 am

    PS

    You referred to “The Better Angels of our Nature” as “non-peer-reviewed”. I am baffled. Surely peer review is for scientific papers, and the book is not one of them. It is the author’s views on history/religion/science/philosophy/human nature/and everything else.

    Were all Stephen J Gould’s articles in the “New Yorker” peer reviewed before they appeared? I mention Stephen J Gould because his articles were published in book form over here, and I think they are wonderful. I’m pretty sure they weren’t peer reviewed before being printed. One or two baffled me, because they were about baseball, quite unknlown to the average English person! Did baseball need peer reviewing?

    Very best regards
    Jean (Isn’t this fun?)

  37. David Theroux says:
    August 9, 2012 at 10:49 pm

    Jean, Your PS simply confirms my point that not only is Pinker’s work not scholarly but instead simply his biased “Progressive” opinions, but that you do care whether it is or not. As for Stephen J. Gould, he was not just a Marxist (as was his father) but here is a disturbing quote from his book, Bully for Brontosaurus: Reflections in Natural History (New York: W.W. Norton, 1991):

    Two years ago, I obtained a copy of the book that John Scopes used to teach evolution to the children of Dayton, Tennessee – ‘A Civic Biology,’ by George William Hunter (1914). Many writers have looked into this book to read the section on evolution that Scopes taught and Bryan quoted. But I found something disturbing in another chapter that has eluded previous commentators – an egregious claim that science holds the moral answers to questions about mental retardation, or social poverty so misinterpreted . . . he writes:

    ‘Hundreds of families such as those described above exist today, spreading disease, immorality and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals and plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money. Largely for them the poor house and the asylum exist. They take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites.

    If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race.’

    Bryan had the wrong solution, but he had correctly identified a problem!

  38. David Theroux says:
    August 9, 2012 at 10:51 pm

    Jean, You bought Pinker’s book and we suspect you can afford to purchase a copy of The Independent Review in which this devastating review appears.

  39. Jean says:
    August 10, 2012 at 3:28 am

    Dear Mr Theroux

    Oh dear, I thought praising a great American like Stephen J Gould would get me brownie points. I never noticed that he was a Marxist. I found his essays full of interest.

    As for the adverse review of Professor Pinker’s marvellous book, I can only say that you are in conversation with an elderly pensioner of limited means. If you’e too mean to send a copy, I can only comment, What a stingy old thing you are! After all, you’re the one who wants me to read it.

    Very best regards
    Jean

  40. Jean says:
    August 10, 2012 at 5:57 am

    PS

    I’ve had a look at “Bully for Brontosaurus” and found the words of Vernon Kellog, quoted the end of the essay on William Jennings Bryan to be rather inspiring:

    “We are ignorant, terribly, immensely ignorant. And our work is, to lern. To observe, to experiment, to tabulate, to induce, to deduce. Biology was ever a clearer or more inviting field for fascinating, joyful, hopeful work.”

    Since those words were written, we’ve learned a lot more. And, surely, Professor Pinker’s book is hopeful – he thinks human beings are getting better – less cruel, more kind. Yes indeed, his book is a fascinating, hopeful work.

Leave a Comment

Twitter Facebook Youtube RSS

Search


By linking to Amazon.com from this page, The Independent Institute earns referral fees of 4% to 15% from whatever you buy. Bookmark the above link and you can support the Institute when you do your normal shopping!

FF
Seminars
TIR

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

RSS Recent Posts on The Independent Institute’s Other Blog, The Beacon

Blogroll

Categories

Archives

July 2012
S M T W T F S
« Jun   Aug »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031