Intercepted Twilight Saga Spree Killer Was Headed for A Gun Free Zone

 

“A southwest Missouri man accused of plotting to shoot up a movie theater during the new Twilight film was charged Friday after his mother contacted police,” foxnews.com reports, “telling them she worried her son had purchased weapons similar to those used during the fatal Colorado theater shooting.” Blaec Lammers [above] was headed to his local cinema in Bolivar, Missouri, owned by B&B Theaters. Although I can’t find any official policy about firearms on B&B’s websites, I contacted their theater in Bolivar. A representative told TTAG (firmly) “we do not allow firearms on this premises.” This statement is backed-up by a post-Aurora midnight movie massacre news story by ky3.com, after B&B management intercepted a patron attempting to attend a movie while open carrying . . .

Ozark — A man walked into the Ozark B&B theaters on Saturday afternoon with a gun on his hip–in plain view.

Theater staff immediately called authorities around 3p.m. when the incident happened. Ozark police officers and Christian County deputies escorted the man out of the theater.

After checking to make sure he did not have any outstanding warrants, officers told the man he could return without the gun, or he would have to leave the theater.

Christian County Sheriff Joey Kyle said the man didn’t do anything illegal.

“Missouri is a carry state, in others words, you can carry weapons in Missouri exposed, you can carry weapons concealed, if you have a conceal and carry permit. He said he just exercising his right to carry a firearm,” said Sheriff Kyle.

Here’s what tipped off Lammers’ Mom, who tipped off the police [via fox]:

His mother contacted authorities Thursday, saying she worried that with this weekend’s opening of the final film in the popular Vampire movie series, her son “may have intentions of shooting people at the movie,” police wrote in the probable cause statement.

She said she thought the weapons — two assault rifles and hundreds of bullets — resembled those used by a gunman who opened fire inside a theater in Aurora, Colo., during the latest Batman movie in July. That attack killed 12 people.

Lammers was questioned Thursday afternoon and told authorities he bought tickets to a Sunday “Twilight” screening in Bolivar and planned to shoot people inside the theater. The town of roughly 10,000 people is about 130 miles southeast of Kansas City.

ABCnews.com reports that Lammers was having mental issues before the purchase.

Police characterized Lammers as “being off his medication,” but he was able to purchase the rifles on Monday and Tuesday this week. He then practiced shooting them in Aldrich, Mo.

More info as it becomes available. But rest assured this incident will give new and timely ammunition to the pols who have their sights set on a new assault weapons ban. But not with as much force as if Lammers had carried out his evil plan. Thank God.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

61 Responses to Intercepted Twilight Saga Spree Killer Was Headed for A Gun Free Zone

  1. avatarAverage_Casey says:

    Haven’t people figured out that gun free zones invite spree killers? My goodness, it’s so stupid to prevent people from defending themselves.

    • avatarLolinski says:

      Its probably a sick thought for some, but wouldnt it be effective if you put snipers in gun free zones(highlight them as such) so when the criminal scum comes out of the woodwork they will be taken out.

      • avatarshawmutt says:

        What could possibly go wrong?

      • avataruncommon_sense says:

        Snipers are totally unnecessary if three or four patrons had concealed handguns … and had the will and the skill to use them honorably.

        • avatarpat says:

          Good idea that has many difficulties to pull off without added mayhem. The best thing about having a gun with you in a movie theater is mousing up and hitting the dude close range when he comes near you. Everything else is bodies flying around in the dark between you and the shooter and other people like you with guns in their hands who you dont know may be in on it with the shooter or are the shooter and shooting at you because they think you are the shooter (or are in on it with the shooter).
          In short, a cluster#@&*. A movie theater is a tactical and logistical nightmare where you can only address the situation at point blank range due to the darkness and flying bodies everywhere.

        • avatarAverage_Casey says:

          Exactly Pat. The question would be whether or not you could safely get a shot off without endangering someone else. Though, it may be worth it to stop a shooter because the longer someone takes to take them out, the more people they hurt. However, if I couldn’t get a clear shot, I couldn’t take one because I could never forgive myself if I hurt an innocent person while trying to stop a madman. With that said, I pray that I will never have to be in any position to draw my weapon on anyone ever. This is double true when my daughter is with me (though ensuring her protection is my main reason for carry).

        • avatarpat says:

          I could see where time goes by and the crowd (that has not already made a mad dash for the exits or been shot) begins cowering and mousing up behind their seats while the tall standing shooter starts slowly and methodically going about his evil. This is the time to strike behind your seat with a carefully placed shot, followed up by more as you shoot him while closing distance (making sure nobody is in the line of fire) until the last shot is at point blank range into his skull (no court on earth would view that as excessive…and eff them if they do).

    • He wasn’t going there BECAUSE it was a gun free zone. He was going there because he wanted to emulate Holmes. Robert’s post title is misleading, it should have read “Lawful Gun Owner Plans Attack in Theater but is Thwarted.”

      That will be the emphasis of my post, the fact that a young man as mentally ill as this one was so easily able to buy guns.

      • avatarWLCE says:

        sure, impartial assertion there mikey LMAO!!!

        pretty pathetic. try again.

      • He wasn’t going there BECAUSE it was a gun free zone. He was going there because he wanted to emulate Holmes. Robert’s post title is misleading, it should have read “Lawful Gun Owner Plans Attack in Theater but is Thwarted.”

        That will be the emphasis of my post, the fact that a young man as mentally ill as this one was so easily able to buy guns.

        Here it is: http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/11/lawful-gun-owner-plans-aurora-type.html

        • avatarSteve says:

          Oh my, Mikey is going to blog about this on his widely read & influential blog. I’m sure it will be referenced for its insight & well thought out arguments by legislators & judges everywhere.

        • avatarRuffRidr says:

          The story is right here. No need for anyone to head over to your blog to discuss.

      • avatarpat says:

        Evil will always have guns. Your solution is a totalitarian state (Stalins USSR and Hitlers final solution Reich). If you get what you want, you will make a far less safe (and free) society. At least let the potential heroes (sheepdogs with guns) be heroes, because the BG will surely be armed.

  2. avatarMichael B. says:

    I still find it kind of hard to believe that a guy like this actually checks to see if a place is a gun free zone before deciding to kill people there. Can it be proven that any of the major spree killers did that kind of research? I doubt most know or care. They just know there are a lot of people crammed in there that can’t get away really fast when the shooting starts.

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      John Lott tackled that subject with James Holmes: Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns?

      His take: yes. “Gun-free zones are a magnet for those who want to kill many people quickly. Even the most ardent gun control advocate would never put “Gun-Free Zone” signs on their home. Let’s stop finally putting them elsewhere.

      • avatarSanchanim says:

        Hey RF chimes in, I thought he was supposed to be getting drunk on a plane today? ;-)

      • avatarDan says:

        That’s less that compelling evidence that he explicitly chose a gun free zone. With the Aurora massacre suspect we have a kind-of confession that he did, in this case I’ll wait for evidence before chalking it as another plus. Confirmation bias must be avoided in such sensitive issues.

        • avatarAverage_Casey says:

          Seriously, does it matter for sure whether or not a mentally unstable person targeted a no gun zone? I actively avoid them because I never want to be in further danger in case some mad person or criminal is smart enough to actually target one (though I do work in one and it really irks me because security is way too easy to get around, but at least security has weapons and actually checks people).

      • John Lott is even more biased than you and far more dishonest. People go to gun free zones to do their shootings for various reasons, but the “sitting duck” theory is not one of them. Usually it’s because that particular place is the source of their grievance. This “Twilight” guy, it was to imitate Holmes.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          john lott biased and dishonest? please provide a alternative to john lott’s statistics…

          “People go to gun free zones to do their shootings for various reasons, but the “sitting duck” theory is not one of them.”

          Why not?

          I suppose killers like him plan on shooting up police stations too…

      • avatarpat says:

        Gun free zone (in many instances) equals ‘come and get it’ to predators. Basic common sense AND human nature. But the swill the libtard professors hatch up in their insulated ivory towers is mind bending and only works on paper……zig zag paper for rolling their reefer.

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      No need to check, most places a spree killer wants to go is gun free in the country. You don’t hear about spree shooters in gun store, firing ranges, or police stations now do you…

      • avatarbarnslayer says:

        I never felt safer than I do at a gun range. A bunch of strangers, all armed, peaceful and secure. The opposite of sitting on the LIRR wondering if the next person that walks past is the crazy one and how to be ready (though unarmed by law).

      • avatarshawmutt says:

        Actually, yes, right in this very blog! Granted, he didn’t get very far in his spree…

    • avatarCarlosT says:

      Hard to know either way, but ultimately beside the point. Gun free zones are risk free zones for attackers, whether they know it or not. On the other hand, if the story were consistently that people who opened fire on crowds got shot after a few seconds, then it would probably become a lot less attractive. I just can’t see wanting to copycat a guy who’s 15 minutes are postmortem.

      A lot of these notorious attacks are notorious because the victims were completely defenseless. The Sikh temple shooting wouldn’t have made national news if the first person the guy had come across had been carrying and had dropped him. Then it’s just some crazy guy, and it’s an 11:00 local news story. Subtract defense, and now you have national news. Same thing at the Azana Spa. If someone there had had a gun, there might have been a chance of stopping that guy before he killed three people. It’s the same story, over and over.

    • avatarpat says:

      It is surprising more dudes dont go mad having to endure those wretched vampire romance movies. That MUST have been the reason.

  3. avatarJohnny says:

    If I were some insane maniac bent on killing people, I wanna go where there’s a lot of people in a confined space and also 99.9% no chance of being shot at.

    Get rid of gun free zones, spree killers will really be rolling the dice when they try to shoot somewhere up.

  4. avatarflboots says:

    Looks like a copycat, wanting his 5 min of fame. The news can help cut down on copycat killers/crimes by not making as big a deal as they do.

    • avatarChris says:

      At least this guy’s mom did for him what the family and teachers were too timid to do for Holmes, or Loughner, or so many others. Gun control won’t stop much of anything, but a little old fashioned giving a s#!t can save countless lives. There are virtually always people who know that someone is about to blow, but they are too often afraid to be the one that sends that person to jail or the hospital.

      • avatarPantera Vazquez says:

        +1

      • avatarLongPurple says:

        Don’t neglect the failure of the psychiatrists. Holmes was in contact with some of the top people in the field as a student of Neuroscience. MAJ Hasan was on staff with colleagues who had credentials in Psychiatry as good as his own, or better. Nothing effective was done.

  5. avatarThe Smiling Swordsman says:

    Going to see the new James Bond tonight. You better believe I’ll be carrying.

    • avatarjwm says:

      T.S.S, my way of dealing with anti gun hollywood types, of which daniel craig is supposedly one, is to way until the movie comes to the video stores and then buy a used copy at places like Rasputins. That way I still get to see the movie and none of my money goes to the hollywood grabbers.

      Now, when someone like Tom Sellack makes a movie I have no problem with paying for the first run. He supports gun people.

      • avatarGregolas says:

        JWM,
        I applaud and follow your refusal to fund antis like Craig. He doesn’t look like a Bond anyway,looks more like a Bond villain to me. In any case I don’t patronize the local Regal Cinemas b/c of their “no firearms” policy.

      • avatarPhydeaux says:

        We’ve cancelled the local paper (take the WSJ now), ended our cable service, and only go see about 1 movie every couple of years – all because of the political bias.

        The sooner we stop supporting the media, the sooner changes will come.

      • avatarWLCE says:

        i find it fascinating how these hollywood action stars love to take anti-gun stances.

        hypocrites.

        as if anybody cares what a bunch of self-indulgent, gossiping, narcissistic pricks think…

  6. avatarLance says:

    Don’t see this becoming Obama’s chance to ban anything Gun Banners are morgue chasers they want bodies to stand on to say ban this. Also Both Nick leghorn and even the NRA President said a AWB wouldn’t make it threw the House and even could die in the Senate. So pls no fear mongering. However like another post they make up crap Pols saying we NRA members want gun shows closed and every gun banned so make sure to unite together to stand against any Media gun grab they want the President to champion.

    • avatarpcrh says:

      If Scalia rolls off the court (he’s in his 70s), or any of the other conservatives, then Heller could be overturned. That’s the case holding the 2A is an individual right. 5-4 decision. We’re one Justice away from the 2A being officially declared a “collective” right. Which means no one gets to enjoy it.

  7. avatarST says:

    *shakes head*

    Just like a DGU which ends with the bad guy aborting after seeing his target’s pistol counts in our book, this event will count in the Anti’s. The dangerous theme about this event is not the weapons or the ammo, but the fact that it was prevented by the mother ratting out her son. In this case, it saved lives-something the anti gun lobby will certainly use to justify restrictive background checks, waiting periods, and greater intrusion into gun owners’ lives.

    Note that in Europe police can only enter one’s home without a warrant if they own a gun.Do not think for a hot second that kind of legislation isn’t passable in America.

    • avatarAverage_Casey says:

      I don’t think the searching without a warrant because of firearm ownership. The Constitution would have to be changed and I don’t think we will ever see anamendment ever get passed again.

      • avatarpcrh says:

        According to the “living Constitution” school of interpretation, the Constitution doesn’t have to change. It just needs a little creative interpretation. If one pro-2A Justice is replaced this term, then what’s to prevent Heller from being overturned? And if Heller were overturned, then owning a gun as an individual is no longer among your “rights”. No change to the Constitution required.

    • avatarLance says:

      I agree a bigger threat of Obama making buying a gun days long with intrusive background checks seems more likely then another failed AWB plan now.

  8. avatarjake45 says:

    I am in Maryland, on business. Virtually no concealed carry here. I think I will wait until I get back to Wisconsin to see the new Bond movie. The local Marcus Theatre near my home in Franksville thinks very highy of its patrons, we are permitted to carry concealed or open.

  9. avatarOHgunner says:

    Regrettably, I was coerced Into taking the wife to see that yesterday. As I tried not to fall asleep, I was contemplating what I would do if there was a copy-cat killer in the theater. The conclusion I came to was that with my only weapon on my person being a pocket knife, tucking my head between my legs and kissing my ass goodbye or hoping to sneak up to the killer for a bladed attack were the only options at my disposal. Neither thought was particularly appealing.

  10. avatarAPBTFan says:

    I wonder how many boyfriends that got dragged to that movie would’ve welcomed a bullet.

  11. avatarJoshinGA says:

    The post mentions “off his medication”…so tell me again how the politicians plan to legislate away mental illness.

    • avatarAPBTFan says:

      Very salient point. There’s no way to do it but they’ll try their hardest to put something like mental illness into a nice neat little box and legislate accordingly.

  12. avatarSlappy says:

    Seems strange; alleged nutjob purchases a ticket three days before the movie opens. How was he going to get the rifle(s) into the theater? Walk out the emergency exit, prop the door open, retrieve said rifle(s) and walk back into the theater? With Aurora still fresh on everyones mind several 911 calls would have been made if the guy went out the exit.

    He was reportedly off his meds, he may have confirmed he was a purple unicorn if Ozark’s Finest asked.

    • avatarChris says:

      Yes, the guy probably did think he could just walk in carrying two rifles. He’s probably suffering from a psychotic disorder that severely impairs his ability to think rationally. Thank god his mother had the decency to call the police and save an unknown number of lives, including her son’s. Too many people were too timid to call the police for Holmes in CO, or Loughner in AZ, or so many others.

      • avatarAPBTFan says:

        In actuality there were many folks that raised red flags over Loughner’s behavior. The college he got kicked out of contacted the authorities after one of his instructors as well as classmates contacted campus police that he was acting in an erratic and threatening manner. He was thrown out of the college on the condition that he could only return after a psych eval. In the day or two leading up to the shooting he was acting extremely erratic and his folks (who are another story) were well aware of it but did precious little.

        My point? Loughner sent off so many prior signals it’s a shame he wasn’t even seriously looked into let alone stopped before he did what he did.

  13. avatarCameron S. says:

    Thank all that is sacred that this copycat was stopped before he was able to follow through. I would like to be able to buy an un-neutered AR-15 with my next tax-return…

  14. avatarAverage_Casey says:

    I read a little earlier today (I think it was on Fox News but I’m not 100% sure) that the guy was actually involuntarily committed a couple of years ago. So why was his firearms rights not rescinded after that? The grabbers will probably try to use this case along with the Aurora shooting to try to take away our rifles but it’s actually another case of the system not following through on restricting someone who shouldn’t have firearms. This is just another example of the system failing because some people didn’t push through the paperwork they were supposed to. Thank goodness his mother had the presence of mind to actually call the police (though I wonder how the arrest was actually legal, not that I mind in this particular case). If people in the system just did their jobs effectively, I wonder how many mass shootings would be avoided? However, it could get worse then because they could just start using explosives and then everyone is screwed because you can make bombs out of way too many different things.

    • avatarAPBTFan says:

      He may well have been adjudicated by court and being adjudicated by court is a question on a 4473 but as far as the form goes it is a voluntary answer. I’ve no idea if adjudication shows up in a federal background check.

    • avatarLance says:

      More doom and gloom come on guys this didnt happen and we have pro gun house enough with the take our guns away not going to happen for another two years im with Leghorn 100% on this.

  15. avatarak74 says:

    I live 20 mins from Bolivar, Missouri. For anyone that is not too familiar with southern Missouri its a big ccw area. MO also does not recognized private property gun free zones. So any non federal building these signs are complete ignored, as you can only get a trespassing ticket if they ask you to leave and you don’t. The article is correct though B&B does have a no gun policy but I would be surprised in a full theater if there is not at least one person carrying.

  16. avatarLongPurple says:

    Before looking at the copycat, look at the original.
    James Holmes was quite obviously both intelligent, and insane. The planning he put into his rampage is frightening. No need for the details. However, his CUD campus was one of the few in the country which was NOT a “gun free zone”. On March 5th 2012 , almost 4 months before the rampage at the theater, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against the CUD Board of Regents and required that they permit those with CCW permits to be armed on campus.
    As has been said, students on a murderous rampage appear to be “targeting the place in which they have deep rooted anguish and resentment”, and do not care about the “gun free” status of their campus. The unarmed nature of the campus is supposedly “mere co-incidence”.
    Yet Holmes did not target his “armed” campus, which I agree appears to be certainly the most likely venue for his rampage — the scene of his failure and frustration. He chose a “gun free” movie theater instead. There was no connection between this theater, the Batman movie, or the audience, with Holmes’ frustration, resentment, or anger — but it was a “gun free zone”. There he had control of the situation, and could kill without any interference from an armed “victim”, until HE decided he had killed enough.

    I think it was a rational choice of an intelligent madman, to substitute the more feasible venue of slaughter in a “gun free” theater in place of the more formidable armed campus.

  17. avatarJuanCudz says:

    Another reason to wait for the DVD…

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.