Slashdot Mirror
12 Dead, 50 Injured at The Dark Knight Rises Showing In Colorado
beaverdownunder sends the sad news that a gunman opened fire on an audience watching the new Batman movie early this morning, killing 12 and wounding 50 others. The shooting took place in Aurora, Colorado, and the suspect was arrested by police.
"Witnesses told KUSA that the gunman kicked in an emergency exit door and threw a smoke bomb into the darkened theater before opening fire. One movie-goer, who was not identified, told KUSA the gunman was wearing a gas mask. Some people in the audience thought the thick smoke and gunfire was a special effect accompanying the movie, police and witnesses said."
Pat downs and body scanners are coming to the movie theaters.
How would the people in that audience being armed, in a dark theater, with fucking smoke from the smoke grenades he tossed in before he started shooting, have made much of a difference at all?
How long did this incident go on? A minute? According to CNN he killed 12 people (their revised figure) and wounded 50 more. Even Quick Draw McGraw wouldn't have been able to stop him from killing a few people. Those people would have died whether the audience was armed or not...
While we can go to great lengths to guard against some types of security threat, we are reminded once again that the greatest risk is often from somebody who decides to take something lethal to a crowded place and do his worst with it.
People in the thread already engaging in partisan political speculation about motives relating to the film's plot or controversies surrounding it. Give it a rest, guys - too soon. It'll all come out in due course, but there's every chance it was nothing more than somebody with a random grievance picking a target area he knew would be crowded.
Umm... Would the name calling gentleman be so kind as to explain, why incidents like this are very rare in countries which do not provide ready access to guns to the general public?
Do you think someone who is planning to commit multiple murders is going to care about a rule telling them they shouldn't bring their gun in? or care about setting off a metal detector as they barge-in?
Rules against bringing guns in are probablly good at reducing the damage when a fight gets out of hand (which is presumablly why bars and pubs had them) but they aren't going to stop premeditated attacks (indeed they may make them easier because they mean the regulars will be unable to fight back).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Your'e absolutely right. The entire audience should have been armed so that instead of one nutjob shooting there would also be tens or hundreds of people shooting wildly in all directions as they hear gunshots and see someone near them with a gun.
And all the bloodshed would have been avoided.
Or, they thought that shooting into a dark crowded theatre filled with smoke was far more stupid than just hiding under their seat.
It should be noted that this didn't happen in a bar or pub.
It should also be noted that shooting people is illegal. If you're inclined to obey laws, then you won't shoot them, even if you have a gun. If you're not inclined to obey them, then you're going to be willing to acquire and use a gun in spite of it being illegal.
And finally, it should be noted that even including this incident, the murder rate in Colorado is lower than it is in Washington DC, where owning a firearm is essentially illegal....
Actually it should be noted that, ignoring RATE, there are more murders in Washington DC (population 600k or so) than in Colorado (population 5.1 million or so) in a typical year.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I have a concealed carry permit, and do so on a daily basis. Assuming someone in the theater had a weapon on them, it would have been difficult for them to react safely. It's a crowded theater. I understand there was teargas involved. People would have been running around, screaming. Unless you happened to be within direct proximity to the gunman it would have been almost impossible to fire your weapon without hitting an innocent or three, and that would have prevented me personally.
Add to the fact that if you draw your weapon in a crowded theater with panic going on around you, you are automatically going to be assumed to the the gunman.
It's hard to judge without being there, but the best option for someone in that position quite likely would have been to stay low and return fire only if under direct threat.
I doubt it, more than likely he burst in and started spraying wildly in the theater, probably within mere seconds, so even if half the people in that theater had been packing, they likely wouldn't have prevented anything. If anything, they probably would have increased the body count as they started shooting crazily in the dark and smoke filled theater (he threw a smoke grenade, remember? He was wearing a mask, the audience wasn't) and there probably would have been another half-dozen or so people killed.
Of the people I know who have a concealed carry license (we just got CC here in WI within the last year or so), only a handful have any real firearms handling experience, mostly through prior military service. Most everyone else just took the 4 hour course the state mandates. The fact that they're able to carry a firearm doesn't make me feel safer at all, and a few of the people actually scare me that they're legally allowed to carry concealed (stupid kids that think it makes them tough).
Two points, one to the parent directly, and one to later commentary.
First, to the parent, considering the demographics of Colorado, yes, he probably was a right-wing nutjob. This does not, of course, imply that right-wing nutjobbery makes you more likely to be a mass murderer.
Second, to those who have already and will continue to claim that permissive concealed carry laws are ineffective in general because they were ineffective in this case: A crowded, dark movie theater, during an action scene is pretty much the second worst place you could possibly attempt a defensive shooting. You would be fairly unable to accurately identify your target, to clear the space in front of and behind him, to take aim or to prevent yourself from getting shot or harmed by others, police included, during or after the event. The worst, I think, would be a nightclub. So no, this neither affirms nor repudiates weapons ownership or carry, concealed or open, in any real way. You might as well take the Challenger as proof that man is never to leave terra firma.
Only idiots assume that citizens having guns *prevents* nutjobs from shooting. Most of these guys know it won't end well for them, sooner or later. Very few honestly expect to not get caught and punished (likely why it's so common for them to commit suicide at the end of the spree). What it really does is minimize the damage. The nutjob is going to open fire anyway and will kill people before anyone can react. However, if there's resistance then he may only get a handful of people before being taken down as opposed to mowing down a crowd before the cops show up.
That said, this particular case is one in which firing back would have been a very bad idea. It was a crowded, dark and apparently tear gas filled theater with a whole lot of people dressed up as Batman (similar to the dark clothes the shooter was wearing). Even if you get a clear shot and you're 100% sure you have the right target and are 100% sure you won't hit someone else, another armed citizen might mistake you for the bad guy in the confusion and shoot you by mistake.
Lets say for a moment that gun control laws would have kept this individual from acquiring them. Waiting for the movie to let out and then driving a vehicle at high speed into the crowd would likely kill and injure as many or more people. If someone loses their mind and wants to kill people, there is little we can do to stop them. It's tragic, but it's part of the price of a free country.
As much as it would be great to be able to prevent horrible events like this, it is important to remember that at some point we have to accept that a certain amount of evil has to be tolerated if we want to live in a free society. A locked down police state would likely not be a state worth living in.
Regardless, I offer my condoleances to the families affected by this horrible attack.
.: Max Romantschuk
Just like and armed churchgoer stopped this attack
It wasn't an "armed churchgoer" as you misleadingly state. It was an off-duty police officer, trained in the use of lethal force.
When you start with untrained use of lethal force you get George Zimmerman shooting at Trayvon Martin.
One of the worst shooting incidents in recent times came on an army base. And I see to recall that a certain politician in Arizona was surrounded by gun-carrying people, for all the good it did her and the other victims around her.
If you want to feel good, get a lollipop. All the weapons in the world aren't going to help if you don't have the wits to use them. Conversely, anything in the world can be a weapon if you do.
Why does the shooter have to be right or left wing? Why can't he just be crazy?
Chris Rock: [On the US school shootings] Everybody is wanting to know what music were the kids listening to, or what movies were they watching. Who gives a fuck what they was watching! Whatever happened to crazy? What, you can't be crazy no more? Should we eliminate crazy from the dictionary?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
In America, we too have VERY few massacres. We just have a media that earns more money by selling advertising and wants as many eyes on them as possible so they are willing to make everything big and controversial.
Still there is a chance that you would be able to do that under lucky circumstances. And that chance justifies permission to carry weapons.
And what is the probability to hit a perfect innocent in these circumstances?
If gunman knew that many people would be carrying concealed weapons, he probably would not even consider such an attack.
You mean like no one is attacking NATO force in Afganisthan because they are openly carrying weapons? If some nuts decide to go mass murderer it is not some concealed weapon that are going to make him change hist mind, he will just use clever tactics.
There would be shooting, but the shooter wouldn't have survived.
Right. Because a crowded, dark, smoke-filled movie theater is the perfect place to test your marksmanship.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I think it's safe to say that violence has always been with humanity since the origin of our species, and will continue to be with our species for the indefinite future. That said, do you really think he could have killed 12 and injured 50 had he burst into the theatre armed with a flint knife and an atlatl?
Weapons technology doesn't make people kill, but it sure as heck makes them a lot more proficient at it.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
There would be shooting, but the shooter wouldn't have survived.
And how many more would have been killed in the crossfire as panicked people start shooting wildly in a smoke-filled theatre?
A forum for their hateful speech isn't overcome by his reasonable statements on gun control. Stating that ANY sizable group of humans have no "hesitations, compulsions and morals." Is pretty bad in my book.
If that's your attempt at "reason", I can see why you didn't understand what that post was about.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Do you realize how poor the firearms training and proficiency is among actual police officers, much less security guards?
Most average concealed carry permit holders are much better marksmen and practice far more often. With them you have people who have made a conscious choice to carry that gun and most who take the time out to get a permit and carry are fairly dedicated to the idea. Police and security guards on the other hand are carrying as part of their JOB. Many never have fired a gun in a real situation and only do the bare minimum in practice requirements (typically a yearly range qualification of pretty low requirements).
As someone who does pretty heavy competitive shooting (USPSA and IDPA), I see a LOT of law enforcement (and military) competitors, and most of them turn in some pretty poor scores (except those that have a separate interest in firearms and put in the same practice as the other competitors).
People just have to get away from the idea that the badge is magic. Except for highly specialized teams like SWAT, police are generally not all that much more qualified to "handle" defense of people than the actual people being threatened are. Their main rule is the apprehension and detainment of criminals. IE, the aftermath. We ALL should take a role in the protection of ourselves when out and about.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Devil's advocate would say that it also arms and protects any potential victims, regardless of their physical strength. An elderly woman with a gun, trained to use it proficiently, can bring down a muscular adult male attacker just as easily as any other person. Guns are, as they say, the great equalizer.
There's also a simple thought experiment: suppose an armed gunman breaks into your theater. Would you rather A) be unarmed, or B) have a concealed pistol.
The equation for gun violence plotted with gun ownership might not be linear or exponential. Maybe gun violence initially goes up sharply with ownership and then drops off if enough honest, law-abiding, citizens are armed.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
If he had any sex worth taping, he probably wouldn't have done it.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
This comes up every time there's a mass shooting in the US. The solution to gun violence is not ensuring that everyone is equally armed.
First, if someone opens fire around you or at you, your first reaction is not going to be to reach for your own gun, but to get the fuck out of there. That's instinct. You run.
Second, a gun is most effective with proper training and practice. Not everybody wants to own a gun or accept the responsibility that goes with it.
Third, the last thing we want in a shooting situation is six other people drawing guns and firing. That has a better chance of just adding to the body count rather than stopping the shooting.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
I assume you live in Iceland since you made that comment about the pepper spray. Try to imagine living in the USA. Most of our states are several times larger than your entire country (and most of Iceland is uninhabited). The largest city in Iceland has a bit over 100,000 people. And the entire country is a remote island! It's almost like it was purposefully created to be easy to control imports and how imported products are used once they get there. The Icelandic police could get rid of all guns in a few weeks by literally going to every house and looking for them.
This is not the same situation we face in the USA. We are a continental country with two massive borders. To our South is a country without a functioning government (with respect to internal security). Smuggling is rampant. Let's say we decided to ban guns and follow Europe in their social policy. What would happen?
-Many gun owning citizens would be angry, hide their guns, and probably become violent if the government tried to take them.
-A black market for guns would be expanded (it already exists)
-Smuggling of guns from Mexico and Canada would increase immensely and we can't realistically stop them all.
-Citizens who give up their guns to follow the law will be unarmed, but their criminal attackers won't be.
In short, we'd be much worse off.
Why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare you? Maybe it's because I grew up around guns and people who owned them but seeing a pistol on someone's belt doesn't bother me at all. It's just something you see sometimes. I'm only afraid of criminals with guns, and they tend to hide them until the crime starts so you never knew they had one anyway. I'd much rather bullets being flying both directions during a shootout, than just coming from the criminal who wants to kill as many people as possible. The lawful armed citizens only want to kill one person, the attacker.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
so yeah: EASY ACCESS to the tool is the problem
So if he'd chained one exit shut, kicked in the other, and then tossed three or four molotov cocktails into the crowd, and used a machete to deal with any non-flaming people rushing him in the ten seconds before he could throw a couple more ... you'd blame what, petroleum, glass bottles, matches, and garden implements? Or would you blame the government for not preventing people from having access to automobile fuel? A couple hundred people in a Bali nightclub were killed in similar fashion (look, mom, no guns!) ... did you blame that country's lax regulation of flammable materials?
What is it with the desparate need to never, ever blame wackos like this for their own acts? People are so invested in total moral relativism so that they don't have to fret about being judgemental (or ever being judged) that they have to twist themselves into insane knots like "only the USA" blah blah blah. How about the Japanese guy that walked in and slaughtered a bunch of school kids with a knife? Did you post an "only in Japan" rant about easy access to kitchen tools, so that you could find a way to not come right out and say you think a murderer is a murderer?
On second thought, I won't blame you for such drivel. You obviously have easy access to a keyboard.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It does. It also makes us more proficient defenders.
But the trick here is for us to stop being like our parents. Something bad happened and now the debate ensues as to which of our fundamental liberties we need to infringe to "make things better." The movie these people were seeing contained no shortage of innocent crowds of people being violently attacked.
One could have the knee-jerk reaction that the 1st Amendment has to go, that people shouldn't be allowed to make movies like this, under the premise that they inspire this behavior.
One could have the knee-jerk reaction that the 2nd Amendment has to go because the tools of self-defense can be abused to hurt people.
One could have the knee-jerk reaction that the 4th Amendment has to go because if the police had searched this guy's car at his last traffic ticket, they might have found incriminating content.
Just stop. These people have suffered a tragic loss, and people with empathy want to "do something" to make it better. But there are no quick fixes. The real fixes can only be tracked by the emotionally unsatisfying math that shows when you:
Fund the existing background check system's connection to the mental health care system (under laws that already exist), you make it harder for crazy people to buy guns.
Fund and fix education, you give young people options and opportunities to find things they are passionate about. It is from a large pool of hopeless, directionless youth that most violent criminals are drawn.
These solutions work, and there are others. But they work slowly over time. The goal of a high-opportunity society is achieved with patience and dedication. They don't "feel" like they are working in any one individual's life, the coefficients of variation are simply too high on any individual person's experience. But they show quite clearly in the math. To advance, we need to be the people who measure, understand and improve. The next Enlightenment will be data driven.
Who would be better suited toward trusting the math and working the solution that computer geeks. This is our problem to solve.