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."
It would of been better if everyone in the audience was armed. There would of been no shooting then... right?
The shooter should have at least done the world a favor and taken himself out, too. What a fucking piece of shit...
Pat downs and body scanners are coming to the movie theaters.
Straight to partisan blame? You've clearly found a tragedy to capitalize on.
If it's a right-wing nutjob, it's an incident. If it's a Muslim, it's terrorism.
From what I read, the shooter came into the theater from outside through an emergency exit door. I don't know how he got it open, unless perhaps someone had propped it open to sneak their friends into the theater, that happens at my local theater all the time...
Yes, of course. Becuase had that movie theatre had a sign the gunman would have said "Shucks" and turned right around and found another theatre.
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...
It would of been better if everyone in the audience was armed. There would of been no shooting then... right?
Yes, you are right. Just like and armed churchgoer stopped this attck before anyone got killed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sKQl-Qp5W0 And yes, it was in Colorado as well.
It's too bad the majority of people have been brainwashed over the last 30 years to think that they should never take any active role in defending themselves.
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.
Colorado has concealed carry and open carry, and there were a lot of people in the theater.
I'm curious to know if there was anybody else there who had a gun and was either shot too quickly or just ran away.
Either way, I don't see this changing the debate at all in the states. I'm in my early 30s now and have heard about more massacres in the states that I can remember, and every time the arguments are the same. Gun control generates as much rational debate down south as abortion does.
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
If you want attention, just post a sex tape like everyone else. Make love, not war
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"
It wouldn't, but now there's a nice pretext to put body scanners!
We need that quick fix! Blame the Guns! Thats the Answer!
Don't blame the Society that desires a movie that glorifies violence and subversive behavior!
Don't blame the School that grinds down the individual.
Don't blame the Friends that saw a lost person and walked away.
Don't blame the Parents that watched Wheel of Fortune instead of constructive activities.
Nah, it must be the tools.
Yes, you are correct. Because ordinary people with guns won't know how to react in the presence of criminals with guns and innocent bystanders will get maimed and shot by bullets flying everywhere.
We can't possibly have, say, a 63 year old, getting off 4 shots in under 3 seconds --all of which hit both criminals-- in a crowded internat cafe: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/19035444/customer-shoots-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery
Nope. We will quickly forget the aforementioned incident becuase innocent lives we *not* lost. But gun control advocates will dance in the blood of the victims of the Colorado shooting in an effort to cram more useless gun control down our throats.
Nope. We can't train ordinary people simple tactics and gun safety.
That really depends. Not everyone has nerve to pull out gun and aim precicely in case of such emergency. I agree that having no guns in public place like cinema is way much safer than having them. However, I would do prefer to have security guys with really good training which can act in seconds in such cases. You really can't hope that you will have some well trained guy between customers in every such situation.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
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.
Well RT is owned by WB, and guess who produced this movie?
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).
What are you talking about? You do not get 'checked' when a business has a sign that says no guns, it simply means if you are a law abiding citizen with a CCW and someone finds out you have a gun in there, you will get charged. Of course, anyone who goes to these places to shoot people, is not going to care about the sign or being charged for breaking the business' no-guns policy.
"...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
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.
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?
Ah, my good ol' friend correlation does not imply causality. Now, rather than explain anything I'll simply point out that number 4 on the list of gun ownership/capita is Switzerland where incidents like this are rare. So perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why you jump to such glib conclusions as to the cause of this incident.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
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.
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.
Isn't brown people, or gay people, or Muslims. It's crazy. Crazy is the root cause behind most of mankind's problems, be that war or criminal behavior or just everyday sociopathic behavior.
We need a "war on crazy", free mental healthcare for all and easing the ability for family and friends to compel treatment, coupled with increased government spending on treatment for mental illnesses.
Except there's more money to be made in cleaning up after other people's crazy (defense and police and corrections spending) than there is in trying to prevent it. So it'll never happen.
My condolences to all those affected.
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?
Anders Breivik got all his guns and explosives ingedients legally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik These shootings abroad --in both countries that do and don't have easy access to guns-- are becoming more common. Maybe it's a refelction on society and not access to inanimate objects?
Also, where I live in New York City, that is, we still have very strict gun control and that hasn't done one thing for the massive spike of shotting recently.
Yeah the ones at my local theater don't even have handles on the outside of the door, and they have those alarm boxes on them with the push-bars like most places do for emergency exits, but I've seen those doors propped open many times so the alarms must either be broken or deactivated. Probably deactivated; I've seen people smoking near that door. More than likely, employees use it themselves to take a secret smoke break...
In Israel, believe it or not, we have very strict gun control laws. We also have few massacres, and the ones that have happened have mostly been religious crazies attacking another group, which is a different kind of terrorism than this sort of massacre. I've lived in the US and grew up part of my childhood in America, and came back to America to work for many years as well.
What is interesting is that in Israel, we have thousands of people walking around not just with guns, but the most fearsome guns in the world usually. It's rare that I'm not on the train or a bus where someone isn't at least 3 seats from me carrying some breed of machine gun. You would think with all the 19 year old kids walking around with guns and often pissed off at this country and being in the army, we'd have more problems with shootings like this one, but we rarely do. It's not that it doesn't ever happen, but the gun culture here is very different than the US.
Firstly, in the army you are taught that a gun kills and you need to take your gun seriously. When you first are issued your gun and from that point on, you're not allowed to let it leave your sight ever. Technically you don't need your gun with you at all times, but you are definitely responsible for your own gun. If someone uses your gun or steals your gun, you're most likely going to prison and going to be in some serious trouble. So much fear is put into people about this, that most people will take their guns with them literally everywhere. It is not uncommon to see soldiers on leave going to the beach with their guns still around their shoulders. You are also taught to keep your safety on and to carry it without bullets loaded, unless of course you are on duty.
Therefore, we have entire generations of people who know how to use guns, and often use them well. They also understand gun safety, that a gun kills, and is only for last resort. Even if you are on duty, you often have to use rubber bullets first, and aim for the legs, never the head or heart. You can get in serious trouble for even following orders but shooting poorly at someone who is firing live ammo or fire bombs at you. People don't realize how much sometimes it can take to let IDF soldiers actually use proper ammunition (this often happens at the expense of the safety of our soldiers).
It's an interesting effect to see how serious people take guns here and how reluctant they are to use them. The media paints other pictures. One might also believe that massacres don't happen like this one as often because so many people have guns that you probably wouldn't last long. If it's not a soldier that gets you, it's a security guard or police.
One last point as well is that when we enter almost any populated building such as a mall or movie theater, we always go through metal detectors and sometimes a pat down or x-ray machine. And yet this process isn't like in the US where they screen so heavily and still don't find. We screen a lot lighter, but find lots, but we rely more on the human factor of looking for signs such as nervous twitches, sweat, and profiling of threats. In my time working the border, we found bombs on pregnant women and in ambulances all kinds of ridiculous things. It's a tough thing for everyone involved whether it is our own citizens or screening people entering and leaving our borders. It's sometimes humiliating for both involved (trust me, anyone who has worked guard duty and done searches in the IDF doesn't want to be doing it), but it keeps us safer than we otherwise be.
I hope the US doesn't become more of a police state. I also hope that people can learn more gun responsibility. Something seems like it needs to change as either an outright ban, or a different approach to all of it than exists now.
In my day if we didn't like the movie we just slashed the seat. I miss the drive-in.
Blank until
The FBI, which is working with the police, says no terrorism link has been established.
This is the most amazing quote, ever.
if this was not 'terrorism', how is some "brown" guy working on his own branded as terrorist even if he hasn't done anything yet?
No worries guys, this was not terrorism, so you can just relax.
It's amazing that we leave in time where "terrorism" seem to be defined by color of the skin or ethnicity or religion, rather than action.
"Would have".
"It would have been better if..."
No sig today...
Yup, would have been a much higher death toll.
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
his right to bare arms
He wore short sleeves?
Or 130 dead as multiple armed citizens in a blind panic open fire on other armed citizens, and all hell breaks loose.
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
The Swiss also have an obligation to do military training, so it's not quite the same situation, as the population could easily be defined as a militia. But these kind of events might become less common in the US if their citizens had the same responsibilities to go with gun ownership.
There's are rules against killing people too that clearly didn't prevent this tragedy, but you think a rule against carrying a gun into the building would have made this guy turn around and walk away???
So would you accept that, in this situation at least, better gun control would have saved lives?
Doubtful. A human being intent on doing harm to others will invariably find a way to achieve their goals. If you plan on killing 14 people, I doubt you'll be terribly concerned about violating gun control laws.
Banning guns in the US would be less successful than banning alcohol or drugs.
Because there totally haven't been ANY school shootings in Europe in the last 10 years.
Except for France, Italy, Norway, Greece, Germany, Hungary, Finalnd, the Netherlands or Russia. But they don't count, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Europe
Nor have there been non-school massacres in Europe.
http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/mass-shootings-in-europe_195344.html
If you look at The Communist Manifesto, it's a pretty good idea. But in reality, it doesn't work (due to factors which Marx didn't realise were important). So let's forget about rhetoric, and just look at the facts.
There's bugger all conclusive evidence either way. The Swiss have lots of guns, and similar crime rates to their neighbors. The US and Canada both have a lot of guns, and crime is mostly driven by socioeconomic factors.
There's some evidence that if you have legal guns, a few more women get raped, and a few less get murdered. Homicide against males remains pretty constant.
There's basically not factual reason for favoring either side - it's all just political bullshit.
Personally, I favor banning the kind of weapons which can be used for these kind of attacks - semi autos. Mass murders aren't just bad because of the number of deaths, but because they are a massive distraction for the police. Security measures against this kind of attacks are insanely expensive and ineffective. Counter-terrorism is probably the only thing more futile than trying to stop mass murders through anything other than gun control.
A knife attack ending up with 12 people dead and 50 wounded?
Look, if they had a good shot, they should have taken it. But most of the 300 people wouldn't have been in a position to do anything other than make themselves a small target.
You mean like that ultraviolent Switzerland?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
If you're going to troll against a country, you might as well spell the demonym correctly. That said, you might want to look up the case of Derrick Bird. The UK is an island and even they can't get gun control right after years of marching toward the Orwellian prophecy. Yes, violence is higher, per capita, than the rest of the Western world. Firearm ownership, however, is not a cause -- both the firearm ownership and violence are results of an underlying cultural and socioeconomic system. Namely, we have a culture where individualism is the highest ideal and violence is glorified. The fact that individualism is so important has two salient results: First, it means that we do not require practically any training prior to firearm ownership nor do we require all residents to be proficient or even familiar with firearms, unlike the Swiss. This means that children grow up without a full understanding of the effects of firearms except through the make-believe of the movies, where guns solve all problems. Second, it means that if we attempt true gun control there is likely to be violent resistance, especially if it is done without first somehow abolishing the Second Amendment.
Okay, that's enough for now. I have too much work to spend all day talking gun politics.
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.
impose strict laws...
Laws only take the guns out of the hands of the wrong people.
No sig today...
More likely it's the altitude. The state averages around 6800 feet (little over 2km) above sea level.
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?
Ah, my good ol' friend correlation does not imply causality. Now, rather than explain anything I'll simply point out that number 4 on the list of gun ownership/capita is Switzerland where incidents like this are rare. So perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why you jump to such glib conclusions as to the cause of this incident.
Well, I could be wrong, but I think that gun ownership in Switzerland is practically mandatory due to military service requirements. On the other hand, I hadn't heard that they run around the streets packing heat like in the USA.
Only idiots assume that citizens having guns *prevents* nutjobs from shooting.
Did you really have to put it that way?
We used to have unrestricted gun ownership and carry laws - think "Wild West" - and gradually laws were enacted to restrict those rights.
Why? Because a few people abused it. Folks with anger and impulse control issues were hurting and killing people. And even if one were in the "right", most people in conflict lose a bit of their marksmanship - bullets don't hit their target and hit other things and people. To be precise enough and calm enough to NOT do that takes quite a bit of training and who has the time, money (ammo is expensive!) or desire to spend the time everyday shooting targets? And considering some of the calibers out there, even if you hit your target, they go through it until it hits something or someone else.
In populous areas, guns are a horrible self defense weapon - or offensive weapon for that matter; unless you don't care about who or what you may hit.
These laws evolved over time for a good reason. Granted, because of the hap hazard way they were written and knee-jerk responses to the events of the time these laws were written, we get some really asinine restrictions - at one time one New England state required a carry permit to drive a gun from your house to the range even if it were locked up IIRC.
So, now that I got your attention. In Holland there was a young girl who wanted to sail around the world. Big fucking deal except the carebears thought she shouldn't. Turns out now she was stalked by several pedo's one of who has now been convicted. So, sailing around the word: to dangerous. Leaving pedo's running free, well, that is the risk you got to take for living in a "free" society.
However, the one convicted turned himself in. What to do? Lock away for life as some pedo's themselves have suggested? NO! Not for human rights. To costly.
Every early release, pre-release, test-release etc etc is not motivated by carrying for human beings but because long term stay either voluntary or mandatory costs a LOT of money. In Holland the right complained the left was to lax in sending people to prison, then there first act in power? To close prisons!
Some people need to be locked up for life. This doesn't need to be terrible, you can make such a stay very humane, just not optional. I talk about pedo's for a reason. Some WANT exactly this, to be taken away from the normal world where they are afraid to give into temptation and be allowed to live in peace? Why not? Arrange an island somewhere and create a gated community that locks from the outside. The not-yet dangerous pedo can live in peace and safety and so can the rest of society.
But you CAN'T! Because the bleeding hearts cannot accept that all people cannot be molded into the same one size fits all shape and the right refuses to pay for it.
Mental care for dangerous people is possible but is a long and costly process with no guarantee the person ever returns to a "normal" safe condition. Putting someone away for life is just not on anymore. A recent high-profile pedo case in holland revealed that the man in question had asked his doctor for chemical castration. The doctor refused. Didn't fit with his world view, so some kids had to be tortured instead because the bleeding heart thought the pedo didn't know himself well enough.
And it is not about money, that is just another sort of insanity.
It is that those in power have dreams and those dreams cannot deal with reality. Reality that some people just don't fit in society and the only answer is to remove them in time and that this is going to cost a fortune! But we find it more humane to send a person with severe mental issues home with an aspirin and an appointment and then send them to a hellish jail when they snap, rather then send them to a nice hospital for long stay.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Of major attacks (say, 6 or more deaths) in recent decades, think Islamist is in the lead over RWNJs, and are 2/3 of the top 3.
Right now talking heads are blathering about, hell, they're puling shit out of their ass, includimg he is a kid confused by movie and video game violence.
Everybody just wait and see, just wait and see.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
Another incident I tend to bring up when this argument comes into play: During the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, there was a former US Marine who had been in combat in Iraq nearby with a gun in his pocket. He never even drew his weapon - he got behind cover, approached as closely as he could, waited until the shooter stopped to reload, and was part of the group that tackled him.
The idea that a more armed populace will prevent these kinds of massacres is just plain incorrect. It may serve other purposes, but it doesn't prevent a nutjob from attacking a crowd and killing a bunch of people.
I am officially gone from
From CNN:
Some people in the audience thought the thick smoke and gunfire was a special effect accompanying the movie, police and witnesses said.
We'll never know for sure, of course, but I'm betting that it wouldn't have made a difference if the audience had been packed with people carrying concealed. People don't expect to be opened fire upon in a movie theater, and the incident itself lasted only a few minutes at the most. He shot the place up and then dipped out.
AC, you are going to get thrown in jail. First of all, it is illegal to carry a concealed firearm in any federal building. You may carry one on Federal property, if your state allows it, but not inside of any building. Secondly, the state of Florida does NOT allow you to disregard those signs. If a building has a conspiciously posted sign barring the concealment of weapons, then it is a felony (minimum 3 year sentence) to conceal a weapon inside that building. It can be a house, a church, an office building, whatever. It does not matter. You have to follow the wishes of the property owner. Failure to do so is tresspass, and since you are armed while committing a trespass, there are stiff penalties.
I highly recommend you read this book about Florida Gun Laws before you conceal a weapon again. And no, I am not in any way affiliated with Amazon or the author.
Of course. Everyone commits felonies, but only the real hardened criminals commit misdemeanors. Grand Theft Auto was a great game, but there was way too much jaywalking in it so I wouldn't let my kids play it.
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?
"There would be shooting, but the shooter wouldn't have survived".
Are you 100% sure about the shooter not surviving? I am not. The smoke bomb probably would have prevented that, quite effectively.
An audience firing back into the smoke more likely would have killed even more.
Would the gun control have helped? Even if I'm pro gun control I don't think it would have helped here. It is really hard to tell as this was a seriously premeditated attack. This guy wanted to kill and harm and as judged by the gas mask it was planned well in advance.
Well, Rush did claim that Bane, the main villain who has been a Batman character in the comics for at least a decade or more, was propaganda against Mitt Romney because Romney's venture capital firm is named Bain.
So, lets get back to the theory that some right-wing nutjobs that have undue influence over stupid people.
Has any shooting like this been ended by a civilian carrying a gun? Any? Ever? I don't know.
Look at the massacre on UT campus in the 60s. Troubled sniper got up to the bell tower and started firing mostly indiscriminately (1 shot, 1 kill or he left you alone). Once people realized what was going on, many of the students who owned guns got them and started returning fire, severely limiting the number shots the sniper (Whitman) could take as he was forced to take cover. There was even an armed civilian in the group of 4 people who got to the bell tower and ended the killing spree.
Authorities have stated that the large number of armed civilians returning fire was instrumental in keeping Whitman from inflicting further harm
Charles Whitman
So would you accept that, in this situation at least, better gun control would have saved lives?
Well lets think here... he decided that he wanted to kill a group of innocent people, he had access to tear gas and body armor... hmmm. Yep I think a law that makes it illegal to kill people would have been very important. If only it were illegal to kill people... That law would definitely be more effective than gun control laws, since it would bar people from killing others with more than just firearms.
It's a good thing no law-abiding citizen was armed there, someone might have been hurt.
Let me guess, the theater bans conceal-carry guns, I'd guess?
-Styopa
The shooter was in early 20's, so we can't blame the parents.
The shooter was more than old enough to own weapons.
The shooter appears to have some training in use of such weapons.
While I'm horribly saddened for all those people who went out to enjoy a premier of an action packed movie.
For someone to kick open an exit door, clearly the individual had every motive and intent to just kill. This isn't because he saw the movie and it made him violent. He already had violent tendencies and cares little for human life.
I am not a gun owner, and have only recently looked into receiving proper gun training so I am familiar enough to truly respect the laws in place. We have laws in place, but we have this other thing called a Constitution, which is clearly designed to allow each person to enjoy their rights as a citizen of this country. The gun and canisters used were only tools that this individual used. Would we scream afoul of gun ownership if this guy had swords or throwing knives and killed people that way, and then some citizen who legally carried a concealed weapon stopped this guy with the concealed weapon? No, we'd be praising that person with the gun as a hero. Would we then start adding more law about knife ownership?
The fact is that people are unpredictable. And whenever you have that you will always have unpredictable results.
I do not mean to sound as if I don't care. I Do. But massacres have been happening for as long as humans have walked this planet. Before instant news, it would be something we'd learn later. And while it is still tragic, and I wish it never happened, it did.
Creating restrictive laws has never stopped someone whose intent is mass damage. Blaming a movie is just someone's way of trying to take the blame from the individual.
How many of us grew up to the 3 Stooges or the Little Rascals? Both of those TV shows had tons of violence in them. Kids would put poison in cakes or nails. The Stooges would ride on rockets that were fired. Of the millions who saw that stuff as kids, you don't see us going on rampages.
Lets actually blame the problem of the massacre on the person and not the crap that people will speculate caused the killer to kill.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Right, because obeying the law was obviously his first concern.
No, but it is a place for nerds to congregate to discuss news that a lot of them are apparently interested in. 9/11 wasn't exactly news for nerds (other than the subset of it causing some Internet blackouts), but as I recall, the 9/11 articles were some of the most heavily commented in Slashdot history.
Stupid government, always trying to take away my Doomsday devices... Oh yes they'll rue the day...
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
I was with you until the last sentence... What kind of logic is this?
We already have many examples of shooters not surviving their killing spree and you think the death penalty will deter any of them?
Fact is, neither giving everyone guns nor taking them all away from citizens, neither capital punishment nor lax and liberal handling of such things will stop all of the occurrences of these shootings. Period.
What we must decide is how much freedom we are willing to give up and what gain we can expect from that. Basically this means how many lives is our freedom worth. And that is a damn hard question to answer. I for one am of the belief, that since you cannot realistically save them all, some lost lives must be accepted as collateral damage. If you really aim for perfection in the security game, you're halfway down the road towards madness.
Indeed, the FBI has your back:
FBI spokesman Jason Pack said it did not appear the incident was related to terrorism.
and the mandatory training ... are you calling these guys crazy?
The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home. Up until October 2007, a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place.[4] The ammunition was intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion.
Yep. And the places they come from generally make it legal to own and carry firearms, and have lower murder rates than DC.
Most likely.
Which makes it odd that the usual response to a lunatic killing people is to scream for tighter gun laws...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.
Nope. We can't train ordinary people simple tactics and gun safety.
Not seems you cannot.
His last shots were through an open door into the street when the criminals were running away from him.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
If you can't get a gun, you can't shoot people. It's really not rocket science, what part of it is hard to understand?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Today, like every day of the year, an average of 90 people will die in traffic "accidents". Yes, every day. So can we stop all the hand-wringing about "gun violence" and do something meaningful about mental illness? Or drunk drivers?
Because those countries tend to have lower crime rates overall.
Years ago, the UN did a survey (they I can't find freely available anymore, unfortunately) of every country in the world. The correltaed "non-suicide gun-related deaths per capita" to "guns ownership per capita" along with a bunch of other figures. Based on those numbers, there was no correlation. For example: European countries with mandatory gun ownership had comparable non-suicide gun-related deaths per capita had similar crime rates to countries where guns were rare.
So were the laws working? Mostly yes: gun ownership per capita was lower in countries with stricter laws.
So what *does* correlate fewer non-suicide gun-related deaths? Better education. Lower overall crime.
It was a fascinating set of statistics and I wish I could link to it so that everyone could read it.
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
That's right, use both hands when pulling the trigger.
Seriously, all gun control does is keep guns away from the victims. The criminals don't give a fuck about it being illegal, and they'll find a way to get guns.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
No. There is, however, ample evidence that gun ownership rates do NOT correlate to higher murder rates.
You said it, I didn't.
That aside, have you ever noticed that mass-shootings like this are almost invariably done by white men?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Even with an armed audience, the shooter might have survived this one.
"Holmes was wearing a bullet-proof vest and riot helmet and carrying a gas mask, rifle, and handgun, when he was apprehended, according to police. "
source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/mass-shooting-colorado-movie-theater-14-people-dead/story?id=16817842#.UAlanjtwZvx
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
It's not testing when you have fired a weapon in a crowded room full of tear gas. Lot's of people have been there and done that, yet their state of residence does not allow them to obtain a CCW.
sudo make me a sandwich
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
Yes, actually I do. Most hobbyists I know visit the range at least monthly. Many weekly (as a competitive shooter I tend to shoot around 200 rounds per week in practice and another 450 or so per month in competition). Excepting specialized teams like SWAT and the like, many police officers visit the range yearly for their annual qualification and not much more than that.
The idea that your average street cop is some tactical expert is simply not true.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I was referring to the guys that go on shooting sprees in public as nutjobs... not gun owners as nutjobs. I come from rural NY where it's unusual for a house to have fewer guns than people (although handguns are somewhat rare, most are higher powered rifles and shotguns). As far as I'm aware, we haven't had any gun-related violence in a very long time.
However, I would call the Swiss crazy just because of what the Swiss Guard is willing to wear in public.
You're clearly not European.
In Europe if it's a left-wing nutjob you get the random extremist right-wingers creating a dozen new fake accounts on every newspaper's website so they can create a right-wing echo chamber denouncing the "reds" and their wicked ways. Obviously there would also be a ton of comments about how this is a pro-islamist action.
You'd also have the majority of the media demanding the entire left immediately distance themselves from the nutjob (since most of the media is right-wing).
Oh, and you'd also have a bunch of crackpots ranting about how the left-wing media was trying to cover the whole thing up (even if every major paper was running it as headline news).
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
One of the worst shooting incidents in recent times came on an army base.
You do realize that on a state-side base (such as Ft Hood that you're referring to) almost none of the soldiers inside are allowed to carry loaded weapons right? The fact that they're wearing camo and have Jeeps sitting outside means zilch if you're still force to walk around unarmed
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
A bolt-action rifle only has slightly slower firing rate than a semi-automatic, in the right hands. JFK was assassinated with a bolt-action rifle, the shooter got off 3 rounds in about 7 seconds. This guy was in the theater for 15 minutes. Semi-auto, bolt-action, whatever, he had plenty of time to commit these atrocities.
sudo make me a sandwich
The Constitution of the US does not grant or enumerate rights to citizens; it limits the rights of the government. Huge difference from a European-style (and I mean that in a pejorative sense) "subject society".
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
He could have killed more people by tossing in a couple gallon jugs of gasoline and lighting it.
In short, would I want to spend every waking moment surrounded by people who are armed to the teeth for the highly unlikely offchance that I happen to be in a situation like this one at some point, and then hope that amateurs take him down without hitting even more innocent people in the smoke, darkness, and chaos?
I'll answer that with an unhesitating "no".
I'm not totally anti-self-defense-tools. For example, I think Iceland's anti-pepper-spray law goes too far, in that it's a pretty lousy weapon for committing crime with even compared with commonly available tools like a kitchen knife, and is pretty obviously only for self-defense, with non-lethal, non-permanent results. But do I want to live in a paranoia-society surrounded by heavily armed people at all times? No thank you!
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
If a guy decides he wants to kill a whole lot of people and takes the time and effort to get body armor and tear gas, but finds guns are unavailable do you think he would:
A) Use a knife/baseball bat/bow and arrow/other relatively short range and less lethal weapon
B) Build a bomb or find another way to make an explosion using readily available materials at your local shop that are more accessible than a gun
C) Give up and go home, as guns are the only way to kill a bunch of unsuspecting and distracted people in a crowded, public place
How would they be much harder to get? Even if every US gun making company was destroyed outright, we'd be able to buy guns cheaply and easily from overseas.
I'm surprised you thought your idea would work at all, which indicates you're not thinking, just reacting emotionally.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
The part where if guns were banned, there'd be a thriving black market for them and criminals would still be able to get their hands on guns. Banning guns will NEVER result in criminals not being able to buy them, not in the USA at least. Our nation is too big, borders too porous, and there are too many guns already here for a ban to work.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Good body armor will stop 2-3 rounds on a good day. And body armor only prevents the bullet from penetrating, it DOES NOT stop the kinetic energy from being imparted. It is common for people being shot in a vest to have broken ribs and extensive bruising from the impact. Two shots would have put this guy on the ground crying, even if the vest stopped it.
sudo make me a sandwich
Pepper spray is actually a great tool for mugging people. Dark alley/park/etc, fewer other people (typical mugging place). Spray someone in the face, grab what you want and run. They probably won't be able to ID you at all if you plan it just a little bit. And best of all, it appeals to those of us with somewhat of a conscience because it's going to be non-lethal in 99.99% of cases (whereas just brandishing a kitchen knife means someone could get seriously hurt).
Not in favor of the ban, just saying it's not as purely-defensive as it may at first seem. After all, even a motorcycle helmet can do a lot of damage if you swing it at someone.
I have a love/hate relationship with the right to bear arms. On one hand, when interpreted the way I'm sure our founding fathers intended when they codified our rights, I think it is an excellent check on governmental power; if the shit truly hit the fan there would be militia's and guerrilla forces springing up overnight to fight back (the apathy of the modern-age be damned). " But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Attacking the right to bear arms seems to me to be attacking our right of revolution as spelled out in the Declaration.
On the other hand, however, I cannot believe that our founding fathers would have intended for the high-powered weaponry we have available to us today to be freely available to anyone out there that's capable of passing a cursory background check. People aren't buying AK's for practical defense, they're buying AK's for ePeen. For instance, a friend of mine, who lives in an apartment and recently got his Concealed Carry license, the day he got his license in the mail he went out and bought a massive Desert Eagle hand cannon that he loves to show off to people. If someone were to break into his apartment, and he started firing with that gun...how many rounds would end up in his neighbors apartments as they blast through those poorly-insulated plaster-board walls? He tells me he's in the market for an AR-15 now...for 'home defense', and he's still in that apartment with the tissue paper walls. He's a fucking accident waiting to happen...which is precisely why I won't hang out with him when he's strapped. He'd probably end up taking me or someone else around him out just trying to draw down on someone...
The problem, as I see it, is how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 20-year-old kid I mentioned above from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal weapon. Just making sure the person in question doesn't have any felonies and isn't certifiably mentally ill doesn't seem like enough. How many kids in this country die every year because their dumbass parents don't properly secure the guns in the home? How many kids have been killed by other kids because their parents didn't properly secure them? We need to have an honest conversation about this on a national level but unfortunately the issue is driven to extremes: Either you're pro-gun and anyone and their sister should be able to buy whatever gun they want, no questions asked, or you're anti-gun and think that they should be completely illegal for everyone but the police and military. There's no grey area anymore.
Or Mexico. Or Canada.
The UK has a hard enough time keeping them out, and they're an island with borderline Orwellian practices. Heck, they give the US a run for the money in terms of Big Brother.
Meanwhile, the US has them all here already and we have 2 countries that border us. Enough criminals want guns that, the worst case for them, they'd have to pay more for them to get smuggled in.
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.
In all honesty, what a load of bullcrap. Whoever is attacking you has the element of surprise and will come at you with guns drawn and safeties off. And if they want to shoot you then with bullets flying. Not to mention every choice of time and place and they only pick fights they're going to win, like when I'm on my way home from the pub after one too many beers. If you claim guns have "removed force from the menu" in the US you must be smoking the really, really good stuff. Nothing puts me on equal footing with the attacker, whether it's a gun pointed at me or a knife on my throat. Even in the wild west the sheriff and bounty hunters was a very important part of society, the less rule of law you got the more guns you need because you're on your own. Maybe he should try civilized society sometime, it's a pretty good alternative to the hand gun.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It goes both ways. Do I want to be treated like I can't be trusted just on the off chance that some nutter will commit mass murder. The problem with gun control or any similar "category ban" is that it's fundementally democratic. It demonstrates a contempt for the citizenry. It's a blatant statement by the relevant politicians that they think the commoners can't be trusted.
The idea that the people can't be trusted with types of personal property is fundementally at odds with the idea that they can govern themselves.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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
The problem, as I see it, is how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 20-year-old kid I mentioned above from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal weapon. Just making sure the person in question doesn't have any felonies and isn't certifiably mentally ill doesn't seem like enough. How many kids in this country die every year because their dumbass parents don't properly secure the guns in the home? How many kids have been killed by other kids because their parents didn't properly secure them? We need to have an honest conversation about this on a national level but unfortunately the issue is driven to extremes: Either you're pro-gun and anyone and their sister should be able to buy whatever gun they want, no questions asked, or you're anti-gun and think that they should be completely illegal for everyone but the police and military. There's no grey area anymore.
Hmm, interesting... I wonder if we can substitute 'gun' for something else here...
The problem, as I see it, is how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 16-year-old kid... from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal automobile? Just making sure the person in question doesn't have any felonies and isn't certifiably mentally ill doesn't seem like enough. How many kids in this country die every year because their dumbass parents don't properly secure the car keys in the home? How many kids have been killed by other kids because their parents didn't properly secure them?
Ha! This is fun...
The problem, as I see it, is how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 21-year-old kid... from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal bottle of booze? Just making sure the person in question doesn't have any felonies and isn't certifiably mentally ill doesn't seem like enough. How many kids in this country die every year because their dumbass parents don't properly secure the liquor cabinet in the home? How many kids have been killed by other kids because their parents didn't properly secure them?
K, that's all I've got (right now).
PS the answer to your question, "how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 20-year-old kid I mentioned above from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal weapon" is actually extremely simple: Training, training, training. a near-fanatical devotion to proper firearms safety and training is what's kept my gun-happy family accident free for over 100 years.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Note that concealed carry licenses in the USA require some level of training to get (exactly how much and what kind varies by State).
Note also that "training", or being part of a "militia" in no way implies that you're less likely to wig out and shoot someone.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The shooter was reported to be wearing body armour so you would need to make a head shot in a smoke filled and very crowded theatre. So assuming you are even able to identify the shooter in the theatre trying to get that head shot with the panicked patrons running around would be difficult to say the least. What's more likely to happen is that everyone with a gun would have started firing at anyone else brandishing a weapon and the body count would be much higher and the gunman would most likely still have survived.
I AM A SEXY SHOELESS GOD OF WAR!!!
With a bolt you usually have to lower the weapon between shots to cycle the action, or at the least have to reacquire the target. Bolts also generally re-load either one at a time or with a stripper clip, while a semi-auto generally uses a replaceable box mag.
Semi-autos are much easier to have a high rate of fire with. That would be why US infantry units had much higher firepower than their counterparts during WWII, when we had semi-auto M1s and everyone else had bolts (ignoring SMGs, which outside the Red Army were far less common).
No mindless pro-gun bullshit, please.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Guns are banned in many parts of Europe and even in countries where they are banned, gunmen open fire on crowds, e.g.:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1214/Belgium-gunman-also-killed-a-cleaning-woman
So:
D) Get an illegal gun, because no gun ban in the history of the entire world ever, anywhere, in any time nor place, has ever been meaningfully successful at keeping guns out of the hands of nutjobs.
I everybody in the theater was armed, maybe the shooter would have survived, but in my own personal opinion, the attack would have not happened. Shotting sitting ducks is a business, engage in a shooting whith 200 hundreds armed man on your own, it's a whole different history. Gun control only benefits wrongdoers, and only harm law abiding citizen. Legal drugs will end the black market and drug mafia, they will pay taxes instead, USA proved that with the alcohol in the '29. All "good" citizen crying for gun control, drug control, and so on, are in my own personal opinion, just being childish and trying to twart their own personal responsability on keeping Freedom. They don't want freedom, they want to be slaves, controlled and "protected" by their master... and, allas, USA citizen are getting what they want. In my own personal opinion, this episode is another chapter in the war against USA Citizen freedom, brought to you by the same company that gave you TSA and pats down. Old good USA is dead, what remains is a tumbling zombie with a lash. Full disclaimer: I'm not a USA citizen, and I don't live in USA. You were a country to imitate, now you are a pitty, man up gentleman. Even third world countries citizen have now more freedom that the average overweight and scared USA citizen who is controlled by his own cowardice.
Didn't you know, there is a magic spell that gets rid of all illegal guns in a country 'at the snap of a finger', and the only reason the US government doesn't use it is because the NRA has bought them off, you see.
Just like 'gun-free-zones' around schools create a magical invisible barrier around them that prevents someone from bringing a gun in.
Maybe not with a knife, but he could have easily built a bomb with homemade components. He could have sewn it into a large jacket, then left it in his seat and detonated it from the safety of the hallway. Or as someone else said, he could have waited for the crowd to start leaving the theater, then plow into them at 60 mph in an SUV.
The only thing that will make people less proficient at killing are full frontal lobotomies and straight jackets.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
There were probably quite a few guns in the audience, this being Colorado and all.
But consider the tactical situation and that he was reportedly wearing a ballistic vest and riot helmet.
How do we know that nobody tried to shoot him?
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
While I do understand that this is news and this is mostly a site for nerds, the whole article should just be modded "off-topic".
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
at least explains how man with two shotguns and in full armor can walk into cinema.
He could have done it by wearing a batman costume.
Of course, I understand that there are many vectors through which morons can harm others either deliberately or through the fact that they're fucking morons, but I was talking about guns because that's the subject at hand; alcohol abuse and inexperienced drivers is another argument.
The problem is that the second I utter my concerns about how easy it is for people to get guns in this country that really shouldn't have them I get pounced on by a ton of rabid pro-gun people that mistake my misgivings for me advocating that all guns be banned forever from civilian hands. They use the same arguments you do.
For what it's worth, the amount of training required to get a license these days is much, much higher than it was in my day, and my day was only 20 years ago. I waltzed into the DMV in Georgia and got my license on my 16th birthday after passing a written test only a real retard could possibly fail and taking a road test that consisted of 4 right turns around the block, a Y-turn in the parking lot, and then backing into a parking space. Contrast this with the mandatory 6-months of Driver's Ed that kids are required to take here, the many hours of practical driving time with an instructor present, and the fact that kids can only get a probationary license until they're 18, which carries restrictions on how many people can be in the car, what hours they're allowed to operate the car, and that a single fuck-up results in them losing their license for a varying length of time. They are also required to take and pass an alcohol awareness course. Getting busted for underage drinking, even if it has nothing to do with driving at all, results in suspension of their license up here. That's automatic.
What level of training do you feel is appropriate for firearms ownership? Do you believe that the level of training required today for gun ownership is sufficient? Honest question, because many of the people I talk to that are decidedly pro-gun feel that there are already too many restrictions on gun ownership and that it should be easier for people to get guns "for their protection"...a sentiment that, coupled with my first-hand experiences with that friend of mine packing that ridiculous weapon, is frankly terrifying.
FYI, I'm a rape victim too, and wanted to buy pepper spray after I found myself freaking out in certain situations.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
I grew up there, thanks.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
He probably did so because he is from a country/culture which:
a) Finds the frequent occurrence of these kinds of incidents in the US, and the rates of US gun crime in general, to be both notable and disturbing. And
b) Nevertheless views US society and culture as an aspirational or progressive model for their own.
If you're from another country, particularly an anglophone country, which looks to the US for leadership in many fields, the automatic response to these incidents is to blame a single, easily identifiable flaw---in this case gun ownership. Doing this allows them to be dismissed as a correctable or ignore-able aberration in a system otherwise worth emulating.
However, as you have pointed out, the reality is that gun ownership does not by itself explain why such things happen so frequently in the US. In reality, the reasons are probably much deeper and indeed systemic issues and pathologys within American society and culture which remain unresolved or even unrecognized. All of which would present a problem for anyone who is trying to order their own country in the model of the US.
The basic point is that society and culture is more important than gun ownership. But recognising this forces you to conclude that there is something wrong with US society and culture and this is a difficult thing for both Americans and for people who look to America for leadership. It's easier to blame gun licences than to reassess your own world view.
May the Maths Be with you!
The marine explained that he didn't fire because he was concerned about hitting another innocent bystander. The reason I brought up his combat experience was to point out that he knew how to react, and had reacted in precisely that kind of situation. He had a gun, he had the training and experience to use it effectively, and certainly would have had no qualms about shooting the guy if he'd thought it would help, but he did none of those things.
I am officially gone from
Agreed. This incident should not be taken as an example either for or against gun control. Gun control would not likely have stopped the guy from getting a gun, and lack of gun control would not have allowed another armed citizen in the theatre to aim through tear gas, a dark, crowded theatre, with lots of commotion, nor even realize that this was not just an act by the theatre employees (as some people reported they first believed).
Let's try to find out why this guy did such a horrific thing instead of fighting about gun laws that wouldn't have had an effect either way.
I don't know what state you're talking about, but in Kentucky the sign doesn't carry any weight. All the store owner can do is ask you to leave. If you don't leave, they can call the cops. If you don't leave when the cops ask you to, then you can be charged with trespassing. Granted, buildings such as courthouses are another issue.
Sig: I stole this sig.
Well, it's worth pointing out that Canada has a much lower gun violence rate than either of those places, and there ARE strict gun laws in place. In fact, the gun laws are getting much stricter in an attempt to quash the gun violence that we DO have. There was recently a shooting here, and it was a big deal that TWO people were killed. 12 with 50 injured would be a national catastrophe and on the front page of every major newspaper.
The USA and Canada are different; I wouldn't suggest that you adopt our system per se, because your circumstances aren't the same. But it seems obvious to me that sufficiently strict gun laws CAN work if they have an appropriate societal context to exist.
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.
I think you are exactly right that it is the relative cultural norm that would define your reaction. For example, if you saw a landscaping crew in the USA all "armed" with machetes, you might be nervous or uncomfortably surprised. However, in places like Costa Rica, only tourist would be surprised, as it is a normal tool for clearing brush there.
Ability scales with population. To say it's easier for a small country to enforce a law is to say that the US can't build roads or armed forces like Switzerland has because we're too big. Obviously ability scales with population and size. And certainly with wealth - the US has enormously more resources per capital than Iceland has. Same deal with the "expense" of installing fiber-to-the-home and such - of course we can do it, at reasonable cost for everyone, and run it for pennies per terabit - it's just that some people don't want it to happen for their own reasons.
I agree that we can't eliminate guns without turning us into a police state. I also look up at all the cameras, the GPS trackers in our phones and our cars (soon), the drones, the blimps, the private cop armies being built - we already have the police state. The 50 cal you have in the basement, ready to revolt? Useless. This isn't pioneer America. Look what happened to Occupy, a totally peaceful and unarmed organization - arrested before they even left their homes. You think you can wave *guns* at the state and live?
Yes, I am afraid of the man on the street with a gun. I know too many people. The man you see before you could be bipolar, angry, depressed, sociopathic, ideologically insane, consumed with end-times nonsense (very common in the US). I am afraid because if everyone is armed, some MUST crack and start firing, every damned day - just as what happened last night.
Keep in mind that being armed would have saved few last night - he tossed in a smoke bomb and started firing. Pop guns, machine guns, armies - nothing works against a simple plan that plays on people's confused perceptions. Surprise trumps defense, every time.
I am afraid it is too late to "control" guns in the US - too many, too ideologically mad. But I think "no military assault weapons" is a sane rule, as no one needs those. Those are for mass slaughter. You need them to kill crowds, not muggers.
And just to remind everyone: laser guns are coming soon. Mass murder with a damned flashlight at distance and with no sound. They are already outlawed. But they will come.
Major Caudill does not exist. This essay was originally written by Marko Kloos in 2007.
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/
Shortly thereafter it was plagiarized and falsely attributed to the nonexistent Major Caudill. It even appeaed in a certain celebrity's book.
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/major-caudill-hits-the-big-time/
Actually, unless legislated for the venue, those signs do not mean anything for a CC. The sign is just expressing the policy of the business and holds no power over CC permit holders.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Thing is most people aren't very good at making bombs and will likely fail, usually at a not insignificant cost to themselves. Every idiot with an inferiority complex who wants to be like John Wayne can buy a gun over the counter.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
If gunman knew that many people would be carrying concealed weapons, he probably would not even consider such an attack.
Yeah, you'd have to be crazy to do that. Oh, wait.
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.
The police shoot random unarmed people just for moving their hands. Being shot by friendly fire is far preferable to that, so get back to me about gun control after you've disarmed the police.
Still not as hilarious as when they claimed that the Star Wars prequels were anti-Bush. They were basically saying themselves that Bush was evil, the only things Bush and Palpatine had in common otherwise was that they were both old white men. Somewhat similar to the situation with the V for Vendetta movie.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"Concealed carry by citizens" is the free software movement of the security world, if that makes any sense. Rather than rely on "trained professionals" for my security I have the means to protect myself and my family.
Had I been at that theatre it might well have turned out very different. I can't say. I am usually armed in public and I know how to use my guns. That doesn't guarantee success in a case like this but it sure makes the odds better.
One of the PR problems with CCW is that the successful foiling of an attack like this is a local headline, whereas the successful attack is an international headline.
Do you have ESP?
The "training" for my concealed carry permit was a 1 hour online video and a 20 question multiple choice test. I may be a crazy right wing gun owning nut, but even I think that was too easy. A hunting license (for deer) is a whole weekend course.
That said, we're statistically in the the most law abiding category, but I'd like to know that we've at least proven we can hit a target.
:wq
In short, would I want to spend every waking moment surrounded by people who are armed to the teeth for the highly unlikely offchance that I happen to be in a situation like this one at some point, and then hope that amateurs take him down without hitting even more innocent people in the smoke, darkness, and chaos?
There was an incident in Montréal (Canada) last year where police officers firing upon a criminal hit and killed a random passerby about half a block away. If trained police officers in relatively controlled conditions can kill innocent people, I'd hate to see what would happen if a bunch of amateurs started firing in a crowded and smoky movie theater.
In colorado, one must take a class in order to get the concealed permit. While a single class is nothing compared to real military training, they usually cover "don't shoot in crowded areas where you can't even see your target."
While having a gun might not have done much good in this circumstance, it seems unfair to assume that any carrier would automatically just start shooting randomly.
i do prefer those. they are a lot less lethal
one maniac with a gun can kill 10x the amount of one maniac with a knife
"Especially because those people have zero chance of defending themselves"
this is a myth. if you have a gun, you can't defend yourself. because you aren't omniscient. giffords was surrounded by responsible people with guns in gun happy tucson. why wasn't she protected? because the idea a gun at your side will protect form a loony toons with a gun is a myth
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That's an impressively high density of tired cliches you have there.
This attack likely would have happened no matter if the audience were all armed. However, the more dangerous ranged weapons that are available to the public, the more victims a mentally unbalanced person can potentially claim before being taken out themselves.
You rarely get mass shootings like that here in the UK, because hardly anyone has access to, or even an interest in, guns. The last serious incident was in 2010, but the only other ones before that were in 1996 and 1987.
which is totally what she said
Probably none if the armed were all trained. You have to show proficiency to get a CC license. This is what happens when a couple of armed robbers try to rob a casino full of people when there's one seventy one year olf man armed and fighting back (the video is amusing). Bottom line -- several shots are fired, the only people shot are the robbers, who flee and are caught and jailed.
Free Martian Whores!
No. That's not a case of untrained used of lethal force.
That's a case of untrained law enforcement in general. It was a case of unchecked vigilantism. They guy even went so far as to disobey the instructions of an official dispatcher.
So it goes even further than inept vigilantism and is a case of blatant insubordination and lack of discipline.
Cop wannabe gone bad and ignoring orders.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
All of which is really easy to say right up to the moment that you're in the midst of a shooting.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
How about something like this?
A bunch of street thugs decided to take potshots against each other, with civilians in between.
Now add a situation where there's gas obscuring the view, and tons of people with guns exchanging fire. Maybe you can identify the "bad guy", but what's to stop you from blowing the brains out of somebody else either
a) by accident
b) mistakening him/her for the malicious shooter
Sorry to burst your bubble, but conceal carry licenses are already reasonably available in all but 4 states (Illinois is the ONLY state that doesn't issue them at all - Hawaii, New Jersey, and Maryland have them but it's virtually impossible to get one). There are MILLIONS of legal concealed carry permit holders out there. Nearly half the population has a firearm in their household. You still don't have to "wear kevlar suits everywhere".
Realistically, incidents such as this are a rarity. Most gun owners are responsible and upstanding citizens. Every time the issue of of conceal carry comes up you always have the naysayers who claim that there will be blood in the streets. Innocent bystanders will be caught in the every present crossfire situation and people will be shooting each other up for parking spots in the grocery store. It never happens.
As a matter of fact as gun carry laws have gotten ever more permissive in the last few decades violent crime rates have continues to drop. Now is that a direct result? I'm not sure. Crime rates might have dropped anyways. Regardless, permissive concealed carry certainly hasn't resulted in any INCREASE.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Harvard Injury Control Research Center
Homicide
1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.
2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.
Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.
3. Across states, more guns = more homicide
Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).
After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.
4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.
Jesus fucking Christ. The guy threw tear gas into the theater and had a gas mask. Anyone wanting to return fire would have been at a huge disadvantage. This isn't an open fucking field where the shooter is wearing a big bullseye on his chest. This is a crowded enclosed dark space with a cloud of tear gas fucking with your senses.
The idea that a bunch of theater patrons packing heat would have made this particular exchange less deadly is beyond moronic. This guy clearly had the equipment and the planning to pull it off, whereas anyone in that theater, even if they were packing serious guns, wouldn't know what was hitting them, and by the time they did, would be in the middle of teargas-filled chaos. Not only that, because it was chaos, it meant anyone with a gun would be a target for anyone else with a gun, making the likelihood that you would be shot by a fellow Rambo thinking he was taking down the bad guy would greatly increase.
There are arguments for allowing the carrying of concealed weapons. This situation isn't one of them.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm sorry but this a bunch b.s. You're making a huge number of assumptions. This isn't about moral relativism and no, Molotov’s & blades are much more difficult to use than a firearm, and anyone who has shot a firearm knows this. If that wasn't the case people would be going down to the Molotov and machete range a lot more often. People do blame the wackos, but people also recognize that the laws in this country (especially in certain states) make it all to easy for these wackos to get ahold of very deadly weapons. Again the Japanese guy choose targets that had no chance of defense. If he had tried to attack a group of adults his attack would not have been as successful. So again I call your whole post willfully ignorant b.s., and I can't figure how people would mod you insightful, karma be damned.
All glory to the Hypnotoad!
There have been plenty of deranged arsonists who have tried to kill more people by fire than with guns. But I think the mentality is what lies behind the motivation. Movies and games do tend to glorify the man with a gun. The psychological experience of the gunman is very different from that of the arsonist. The gunman kills his victims almost effortlessly, in an instant, seeing the terror in their victim's eyes fade to death's blank stare. And the gunman can repeat this experience over and over until his victims are either dead or fled or he has run out of bullets or is tackled or killed. Setting off a bomb from a distance or setting a fire does not compare to the adrenaline rush of the mass-murderer with a gun. Of course, if you take away guns some deranged schizo or fanatic is going to find a creative alternative, but the fantasy of wielding a modern firearm to terrorize an entire crowd of people might indefinitely delay the plans of many would-be terrorist gunmen if procuring a gun was more difficult for them. Perhaps, in addition to the standard background check, if potential gun owners needed to provide a certificate from a qualified psychologist that the individual had no identified propensity for violence, emotional disturbance, or any other mental deficiencies that should disqualify them from gun ownership. In most of the worst gun-related mass murders in recent history there were clear signs of serious problems with the mental health of the assailants. There also needs to be more restrictions for gun owners to allow others access to their firearms. In Texas private citizens can still sell handguns and assault rifles at a garage sale without checking the ID or background of the buyer or reporting the transfer.
Nice article, but I disagree with the premise somewhat:
Putting aside the obvious objection that poking fun at the powerful isn’t the same as bluntly confronting them, it’s important to give Stewart and Colbert their due.
They do in fact bluntly confront the powerful. Did you see the white house press correspondents dinner that Colbert hosted? No really, watch this.
Watch the audience, the looks on their faces. Some are in total shock. Others look like they're ready to kill him.
That took some serious balls.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I agree that training is absolutely essential. However, I'm not sure I buy your analogy entirely. Although it can be used to kill, the main purpose of a car is to transport people/things from point A to point B. Although it can be used to kill, the main purpose of alcohol is to make people feel good. The main purpose of a gun is to maim or kill. I am perfectly willing to concede that this may be a distinction without a difference.
SOME states (maybe most -- I'm not sure) require training but not all. Washington State, for example, does not mandate training to obtain a concealed pistol license.
I don't care whether I'm armed or not, because I know I wouldn't be stupid enough to try to shoot under those circumstances. That said, I'd rather everyone else be unarmed. If everyone were armed and no one could see who the shooter was, the odds of me getting hit by somebody trying to shoot the shooter are far higher than me getting hit by the shooter him/herself.
The only thing that arming the population could do would be to serve as a deterrent. However, given the way the attacker did this (blinding everyone, and being the sole shooter), it is unlikely that it would be a significant deterrent even if every person in the theater were visibly wearing a holster.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
Why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare you?
I can't speak for the OP, but the reason why it scares me is because my grandmother had a gun. She had no idea how to use it, but she kept it loaded under her pillow at night. She was paranoid that someone would come in and try to attack her. I'm not kidding--she was so paranoid that, even with a full set of drapes and blinds on her windows, she used to turn off the light to change clothes at night because she though someone might be peeking through the window. (Why? I guess because nothing attracts peeping toms like an 80-year-old woman changing clothes, I guess. I don't know.)
She once came home and told us a story about how she was at the mall, and a black man followed her out. (Keep in mind that she grew up in pre-segregation South, and yes, she fit the stereotype you can imagine that goes along with that.) It rattled her so badly that when she got to the car, she got her gun out of the glove compartment and held it up so that he knew she was armed, and it worked, because apparently he changed direction to give her car a wide berth. Of course, I'm sitting there thinking that she's pulled a gun on an innocent shopper and that when he saw some crazy old lady pull out a gun, he didn't want to have anything to do with her. It's probably a good thing too, because if he had not been paying attention and walked too close to her car, she probably would have killed or seriously injured him. (Or herself, or at least done some nasty property damage.)
So why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare me? Because I know that there are, practically speaking, absolutely zero controls on who gets guns. There are no requirements for training, no evaluation of responsibility, little to no ability to track where weapons come from if one is used in a crime, and thanks to organizations like the NRA, virtually no control over the types of weapons those law-abiding citizens can own.
I used to be pretty staunchly in favor of banning all guns. These days, my stance is what I consider a bit more practical and well-thought out. I'm not for banning guns completely, but I am for measures such as requiring training and evaluation that has to be periodically repeated before issuing a permit to allow people to legally have guns, implementing methods of tracking guns, requiring all guns sold adhere to certain standards of safety, and restricting the sale and distribution of the types of assault weapons that are designed for killing massive numbers of people quickly. Because the fact is that I'm MUCH more afraid of well-meaning--but stupid and untrained moron--hurting or killing me with a gun than some nutjob opening fire in a theater. My grandmother passed away around 10 years ago so she's no longer a threat, but living with her as a kid was a bit of an exercise in terror, thinking that if I had to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night I might get mistaken for a burglar and shot. And in my day I've met and known a lot of people like her, people who are grossly irresponsible with guns.
And THAT is why being around law-abiding citizens who have guns scares me.
I'm curious what your conclusions were... mine were inconclusive based on an admittedly limited sampling:
http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/colorado/
Aurora: In 2009 the city violent crime rate in Aurora was higher than the violent crime rate in Colorado by 39.22%.
Colorado Springs: In 2009 the city violent crime rate in Colorado Springs was higher than the violent crime rate in Colorado by 45.04%.
Denver: In 2009 the city violent crime rate in Denver was higher than the violent crime rate in Colorado by 70.98%.
It seems like other factors might be at play here.
13 shootings with 62 victims in Europe the last 10 years, versus 67 shootings and 132 victims in the US. Europe has more than twice the population. That's a pretty significant difference.
PS. I'm not counting the Breslan shooting for obvious reasons.
Not in Pennsylvania. We have an affirmative concealed carry law. The state has to prove that you shouldn't have a concealed carry license, so unless you've got an absurd number of parking tickets, or have a felony under your belt, you can have the permit.
What world do you live where someone with a concealed carry license doesn't have any "real" firearms handling experience? Do you not understand how incredibly easy it is to become at least semi-proficient with shooting a modern firearm? The reason so many states have such low requirements for their classes is because it is incredibly easy to pick out a man-sized target from 10 yards and put rounds into center mass of that target.
And while a panicked crowd is going to create sighting problems, for you to sit there and say that someone lining up their shots to try to stop the shooter would somehow make things worse is just laughable on its face.
Just because you're terrified of guns and have no experience with them doesn't mean that those of us who do have that experience should be deprived of our right and ability to defend ourselves (and others).
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
In short, would I want to spend every waking moment surrounded by people who are armed to the teeth for the highly unlikely offchance that I happen to be in a situation like this one at some point, and then hope that amateurs take him down without hitting even more innocent people in the smoke, darkness, and chaos?
You are discounting the effect that a society free of gun laws and fear of guns has on the decision-making of these sorts of people. Would he have bothered getting off his couch if he knew that many of the people in the theater were likely armed?
So no, you aren't arming yourself for an unlikely event, but helping make the event unlikely by arming yourself - in addition to promoting the easement of gun laws, and spreading gun education to reduce irrational fear of guns.
The porosity of your borders is more of an issue for the countries around you, they are being infected by this stupidity. Anything can be achieved, you just lack the strength of will to do anything about it.
This is going to undo some rather necessary modding.. but...
You're dead wrong. How's that War on Drugs working out? How about the one on prostitution?
These are facts:
Passing gun bans does not reduce crime. If crime does go down, you can likely find a far more logical reason why real close by.
Passing bans on anything has never stopped anyone from buying them. It at best raises the bar and prevents the law abiding from acquiring them. Those who are willing to break the law will simply do so anyway. This is true for guns, drugs, prostitutes or anything else you care to name. This has been true since day one.
If none of the other bans on various things have prevented their acquisition, why in the world would it work any better for guns? Guns can be made once and last decades if not centuries. The stock of them increases over time.
Any thoughts on the above?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Your argument is also logically flawed, because you are assuming how a rational person would carry out an irrational act. Of course the handgun is the less effective way to kill a crowd of people. But considering that most mass murders are carried out with firearms, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the mentally ill people who commit these acts derive personal satisfaction from using the firearm. Given that small arms like pistols and shotguns are the most often depicted weapons in movies and video games, I think that the perpetrators of these types of attacks prefer to use them to satisfy their own fantasies.
I grew up in a military family. My step-father was career Army, my brother and his wife are both Marines, and not only that, but pretty much my entire extended family comes from rural settings where guns are ubiquitous and I spent many a summer on a farm. I've been around guns almost my entire life. I'm not afraid of guns, I'm afraid of the number of idiots out there that think they're fucking Rambo because they took an 8-hour course and fired at a few paper targets.
My brother carries a piece and I don't feel nervous around him because he not only has been trained how to use the weapon, but he's actually used weapons in combat while in Iraq during the initial invasion back in '03, as has his wife. My step-father did multiple tours, both in Desert Shield/Storm and Iraqi Freedom (not to mention the random ops he was involved in down in Central and South America in the 80's and 90's doing who knows what), and he also has combat experience. My extended family were born and raised with guns and are avid hunters (not to mention a few police officers in the mix as well). They've got the experience.
Contrast that with the idiot friend of mine that found out that they were legalizing concealed carry here in Wisconsin and treated it like a goddamned Xbox 360 achievement to unlock, went out and bought a ridiculous hand-cannon that he can barely handle because he wanted a 'Deagle' just like the ones in the FPSs he likes to play that he's shot a handful of times, and is now looking to pick up an AR-15, because the hand-cannon wasn't enough for the "defense" of his apartment with papier-mâché walls. I would trust my step-father or my brother with that weapon, but him? Absolutely not.
The law doesn't make a distinction for fucking retards getting a gun for all the wrong reasons, and I don't know how it ever would without impinging upon the rights of those mature enough to handle a weapon, but to pretend like it's not a worthy concern and stems only from a fear of guns is ridiculous. I'm betting you yourself know people in your own life that you know should not be carrying a weapon that are legally in their rights to do so because there is nothing to stop them from applying and receiving the permits. Hell, I'll make it even easier: How often do you see people driving that you cannot believe they actually managed to get a fucking license? They fulfilled the training requirements, they took the test and passed, but they still drive like a fucking retard? Surely there are gun owners out there that fit the same criteria, and if you deny that, you're just being deliberately obtuse.
I think you accidentally got it right "it's fundamentally democratic". If the people decide that some weapons are too dangerous and it's best for everyone to not have them around, who are you to disagree?
Most people will agree that some things are too dangerous to have people carrying around on them. The argument is really where you draw the line: ...) ...). ...) ...). ...)
1) Biological weapons (Ebola, anthrax,
1) Nuclear weapons (Suitecase nuke,
2) Explosives (Dynamite, C4, grenades,
3) Chemical weapons (Chlorine gas, sarin,
4) Firearms (50 caliber machine gun, AK-47, M-4, Shotgun, Pistols,
5) Knives
6) Pepper spray
7) Tazers
If you're a reasonable person, no matter where you think it should be drawn some people will think more weapons should allowed and some people will think fewer weapons should be allowed, and some people will just think different weapons should be banned.
The idea that the people can't be trusted with types of personal property is fundementally at odds with the idea that they can govern themselves.
Not really. People can't be trusted to carry around weaponized biological weapons because the chances of accidental or deliberate release are too high and the consequences too dire. Only a total idiot couldn't understand that.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Would he have bothered getting off his couch if he knew that many of the people in the theater were likely armed?
Oh, I see. The guy wearing a bullet proof vest and gas mask who tossed a tear gas grenade into the theatre before opening fire would have been stopped if he though, wait a minute, what if some of the people in theatre have guns? I'll bet he would just say "I could get hurt so I'd better not try and kill dozens of people today".
Are you really that naive?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Bet they all were talking during the movie.
Seriously, funny?
12 people die, and many other injured and you think this is modded f'ing funny.
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.
Except that in real life, it never seems to happen that way. Off the top of my head, I can think of 4 instances with attackers stopped by armed citizens, with no collateral damage. Two of them were school shootings, and in that case the armed citizen didn't even have to fire--the sight of a gun caused the attacker to give up. Two others, total was 4 out of 5 attackers dead, 5th one was lucky enough to be standing near an emergency exit door when the intended victims started shooting back.
It's amazing to me how such highly dramatic news does not seem to get reported beyond the local area--it demonstrates how deeply biased the national news media is against "armed citizen fights back" stories, even though I'm perfectly sure that such stories would be great for ratings. In the case of the Tennessee law school shooting, I saw a media study where out of 800 news items about the shooting and the victims, only 8 mentioned that the attacker was stopped by an armed student. 99% of the news omitted that--imagine.
Of course this exchange will end with you accusing me of making this up, and I'm not interested in taking time to dig up actual references to prove that I actually read what I read--from reputable mainstream media, not some gun-nut web site. Oh well--you can continue to believe that we all have no choice but to submit to such violence should it ever come our way, and I will continue to know perfectly well that's not true.
Oh yeah, if your instinct is actually to run, congratulations, you'd be out of the gene pool! My instinct is to duck & assess ;-)
IANAL, and clearly YANAL, because that is just plain wrong. The signs have varied impact depending on the state. In South Carolina, the sign must meet be posted conspicuously, meet specific size requirements and have a specific phrase and artwork or it carries no legal weight. In North Carolina, the requirement is merely "... notice that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited by the posting of a conspicuous notice ..." In both cases violators can be arrested for carrying a weapon illegally - essentially carrying without a permit since a valid notice supersedes one's concealed carry permit. In Kentucky, violating the notice is not a criminal act. Unless you know the letter of the law in a particular state, you should assume that any prohibition has legal weight.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
"Contrast that with the idiot friend of mine that found out that they were legalizing concealed carry here in Wisconsin and treated it like a goddamned Xbox 360 achievement to unlock..."
Laws are made for reasonable people. There will always be idiots, but you can't mold the laws around them without punishing the reasonable people.
In short, would I want to spend every waking moment surrounded by people who are armed to the teeth for the highly unlikely offchance that I happen to be in a situation like this one at some point, and then hope that amateurs take him down without hitting even more innocent people in the smoke, darkness, and chaos?
I'll answer that with an unhesitating "no".
I'm not totally anti-self-defense-tools. For example, I think Iceland's anti-pepper-spray law goes too far, in that it's a pretty lousy weapon for committing crime with even compared with commonly available tools like a kitchen knife, and is pretty obviously only for self-defense, with non-lethal, non-permanent results. But do I want to live in a paranoia-society surrounded by heavily armed people at all times? No thank you!
I love how people who are opposed to firearms carry always seem to use wildly hyperbolic phrases like "armed to the teeth" and "paranoia-society surrounded by heavily armed people". How exactly does a personal self-defense handgun in a hidden pocket qualify as being "heavily armed"? Oh, and I always love this one: "Guns blazing," used to describe how apparently ANY private citizen will defend themselves with a firearm. As if any person who carries a self-defense firearm will ALWAYS whip out a full-auto MAC-10 with a 30-round clip and spray the room indiscriminately, no doubt killing as many innocent bystanders as possible. The evidence for this kind of thing occurring in the real world is of course non-existent. It doesn't even happen in Hollywood movies that way!
You fail to realize of course that most of the paranoia is your own. Let's see, you're stuck in a theater with someone who is ACTUALLY "heavily armed" with "guns blazing" trying to kill you, yet you are far more worried about someone with a defensive firearm ACCIDENTALLY shooting you while they're trying to stop the guy who is doing his best to kill everyone in the room ON PURPOSE. I don't think I will ever be able to understand this upside-down way of looking at things, as if you're actually in MORE danger from the people who might try to protect you. This is such a bizarre twisting of priorities and reality that I just can't fathom how it makes sense to anyone. It seems you'd rather be a [highly probably] victim of a violent attacker than a [possible but improbable] victim of accidental friendly-fire.
[What is this, I don't even... *bewildered face*]
Oh, and I also love how I always see people talk about how "likely" an event is to happen, rather than talking about how bad the consequences are. In most circumstances it's not "likely" that you'll be stung by a bee. But I'll bet if you were highly allergic to bee stings you'd make damn sure you carry your epi-pen with you at all times, and you'd train all your coworkers and friends on how to use it so that--in the unlikely event you do get stung--you won't, you know... DIE FROM IT.
The consequences of being in a theater when a raving lunatic breaks in and starts shooting people are possibly equally grave, and I guarantee there are only a couple ways of avoiding those consequences, the main one of which is to either be armed or for at least one other person in the same room with you to be armed. No, not "heavily armed" or "paranoid", just "armed". No hyperbole necessary. And people who carry self-defense firearms are also quite likely to not be "amateurs". Many spend a lot of time learning to use their firearm effectively and safely. Many are also retired or off-duty police or military. Shocking, I know. In other words, there is a good chance that ANY person near you who is armed will react quickly and shoot accurately, and perhaps save your life in the process.
If something is highly likely to kill you, I would think you'd want to take reasonable precautions to avoid it or survive it. But I guess I just live in a different reality. Maybe mine's the one
Oh, I see. The guy wearing a bullet proof vest and gas mask who tossed a tear gas grenade into the theatre before opening fire would have been stopped if he though, wait a minute, what if some of the people in theatre have guns? I'll bet he would just say "I could get hurt so I'd better not try and kill dozens of people today".
Are you really that naive?
Well, despite being inside his bulletproof vest and well armed himself, he surrendered to the armed police in the parking lot rather than fight it out with them, so, yes, perhaps if he thought some of the moviegoers were armed he might have stayed home.
Interesting how your citations only lead us to abstracts of papers that cost about $20 each.
Also interesting that all of them cite Hemenway as an author.
I don't want to pull an ad hominem here, but I think it is pretty safe to say that Hemenway has a bit of bias, considering his main occupation.
The abstracts essentially describe meta-analyses, yet appear to come to different conclusions than the people who did the original research (e.g., Kleck and Lock). This causes me to wonder what their criteria are for determining "availability", and other factors.
I also question the relevance of a study of other nations, since it has long been known that the statistics in the United States do not mirror those of other nations.
Humor is a protection and coping mechanism.
If we want to change the 2nd amendment, article five is right there, provided specifically so we can do exactly that.
Article III, which establishes the supreme court, in no way assigns article V powers to the justices or to congress. No restriction, license or ban they have implemented or rubber-stamped is relevant or authorized with regard to the 2nd; the thing explicitly says the government can't infringe on the rights to keep and carry, and that covers the entire scope of it any law dealing with any arms whatsoever. Likewise, congress can make no legitimate law that restricts these rights. Any such law they create is government malfeasance, a direct violation of the oath they swore when they became members of congress, and an exercise of unauthorized power. If we want to change this, then we must turn to article five. There is no other legitimate path.
Furthermore, I would even argue that we SHOULD change it -- I don't want my neighbor cooking up Anthrax or cobbling up a nuke somehow -- but it CAN'T be changed legitimately by congress enacting legislation or SCOTUS' sophist hand-waving. They simply do not have that authority. Power? Sure, they have the power, and they're 100% ready to misuse it, but that is no different in any sense from any banana republic where some buffoon declares "because I said so."
Let me leave you with this quote:
"Who are the militia?" asked Tench Coxe, friend of Madison and prominent ... Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their ... The unlimited power of the sword is not
Federalist, in the Pennsylvania Gazette of Feb. 20, 1788. "Are they not
ourselves.
swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the
birth-right of an American.
in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I
trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
1) Yes, the militia were, and are, "ourselves" -- that's what it meant when they wrote it. Not national guard, etc.
2) You would probably be amazed at the variety of arms the authors were aware of when they wrote the second. Yet they didn't say guns: They said arms. They were also well aware that arms were under development at all times, and they *still* just said "arms." You have every right to own any arms you can afford, build, receive as a gift, or trade for. You don't legally require a license for any of it, and you don't need to tell anyone what you have. Just be aware that the government does whatever it wants, as it is, and has long been, out of control due to our consistently electing idiots to power.
So he paid attention to his target and his backstop, and didn't shoot when he wasn't sure about one. Which is what they teach in any firearms 101 course. Good for him, and I hope he serves as a role model for many other people out there.
In cases of rape, I'm in favor of the assailant being castrated. If he's going to act like a savage animal, treat him like one! This way, he can't hurt you or anyone else ever again with a penis.
Life is not for the lazy.
The problem with this mindset is that rape is not about sex. It's about power . Take his penis away, and next time the rapist will use a baseball bat, or a gun, or kidnap and torture the victim. Castration will only make the problem worse.
...and one day when a handful of armed men from The Government show up to load you on to a cattle car, you'll think "Thank God they don't allow me to have grenades or machine guns"
The scenario of the government showing up to load you onto a vehicle isn't hypothetical. It's actually happened.
So here's a thought experiment for you. Suppose that some of those Japanese-American citizens who were rounded up in the early 1940s had been armed, and defended themselves from precisely this. Can you imagine the NRA of its day defending those peoples' right to defend themselves from the over-reaching, civil-rights-destroying government?
How about those whose fifth amendment rights are routinely trampled upon under the so-called War on Drugs?
How about if the students at Kent State or the Lattimer miners had shot back?
Of course they bloody wouldn't. No government will ever do this to you if you're popular. When The Government shows up to load "you" onto a cattle car, whoever "you" happens to be at the time, the NRA is going to cheer, and some of its members will be doing the herding, and if you attempt to defend yourself, history will remember you the same way that it remembers the Branch Davidians. And you'll be dead.
Ask Manuel Noriega how useful it was to have machine guns, grenades and a whole fracking army at his disposal when faced with the might of 27,000 grunts armed with the complete works of Def Leppard. Or perhaps ask the Ludlow miners how well it worked out for them.
Neither machine guns nor grenades will protect you from a hypothetical tyrannical US government, wrapped in the flag and waving a cross. That's because gun owners don't care about civil rights. They care about, typically at most, one civil right. The only time they would actually use guns against a tyrannical US government is if the government tried to take away their guns, which is completely circular.
Unless you have a job or hobby for which guns are part of the standard toolkit (e.g. you're a farmer or security guard), they are useless. They won't protect your civil rights. Only you and your fellow citizens working together can do that. Your civil rights are entirely contingent on the rest of the public respecting them. No magical talisman will help you with that.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I don't think it's a coincidence at all. I've long maintained that guns aren't the problem, it's just that Americans can't be trusted with them.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});