Slashdot Mirror
12 Dead, 50 Injured at The Dark Knight Rises Showing In Colorado
beaverdownunder sends the sad news that a gunman opened fire on an audience watching the new Batman movie early this morning, killing 12 and wounding 50 others. The shooting took place in Aurora, Colorado, and the suspect was arrested by police.
"Witnesses told KUSA that the gunman kicked in an emergency exit door and threw a smoke bomb into the darkened theater before opening fire. One movie-goer, who was not identified, told KUSA the gunman was wearing a gas mask. Some people in the audience thought the thick smoke and gunfire was a special effect accompanying the movie, police and witnesses said."
Pat downs and body scanners are coming to the movie theaters.
How would the people in that audience being armed, in a dark theater, with fucking smoke from the smoke grenades he tossed in before he started shooting, have made much of a difference at all?
How long did this incident go on? A minute? According to CNN he killed 12 people (their revised figure) and wounded 50 more. Even Quick Draw McGraw wouldn't have been able to stop him from killing a few people. Those people would have died whether the audience was armed or not...
While we can go to great lengths to guard against some types of security threat, we are reminded once again that the greatest risk is often from somebody who decides to take something lethal to a crowded place and do his worst with it.
People in the thread already engaging in partisan political speculation about motives relating to the film's plot or controversies surrounding it. Give it a rest, guys - too soon. It'll all come out in due course, but there's every chance it was nothing more than somebody with a random grievance picking a target area he knew would be crowded.
Umm... Would the name calling gentleman be so kind as to explain, why incidents like this are very rare in countries which do not provide ready access to guns to the general public?
Do you think someone who is planning to commit multiple murders is going to care about a rule telling them they shouldn't bring their gun in? or care about setting off a metal detector as they barge-in?
Rules against bringing guns in are probablly good at reducing the damage when a fight gets out of hand (which is presumablly why bars and pubs had them) but they aren't going to stop premeditated attacks (indeed they may make them easier because they mean the regulars will be unable to fight back).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Your'e absolutely right. The entire audience should have been armed so that instead of one nutjob shooting there would also be tens or hundreds of people shooting wildly in all directions as they hear gunshots and see someone near them with a gun.
And all the bloodshed would have been avoided.
Or, they thought that shooting into a dark crowded theatre filled with smoke was far more stupid than just hiding under their seat.
It should be noted that this didn't happen in a bar or pub.
It should also be noted that shooting people is illegal. If you're inclined to obey laws, then you won't shoot them, even if you have a gun. If you're not inclined to obey them, then you're going to be willing to acquire and use a gun in spite of it being illegal.
And finally, it should be noted that even including this incident, the murder rate in Colorado is lower than it is in Washington DC, where owning a firearm is essentially illegal....
Actually it should be noted that, ignoring RATE, there are more murders in Washington DC (population 600k or so) than in Colorado (population 5.1 million or so) in a typical year.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I have a concealed carry permit, and do so on a daily basis. Assuming someone in the theater had a weapon on them, it would have been difficult for them to react safely. It's a crowded theater. I understand there was teargas involved. People would have been running around, screaming. Unless you happened to be within direct proximity to the gunman it would have been almost impossible to fire your weapon without hitting an innocent or three, and that would have prevented me personally.
Add to the fact that if you draw your weapon in a crowded theater with panic going on around you, you are automatically going to be assumed to the the gunman.
It's hard to judge without being there, but the best option for someone in that position quite likely would have been to stay low and return fire only if under direct threat.
I doubt it, more than likely he burst in and started spraying wildly in the theater, probably within mere seconds, so even if half the people in that theater had been packing, they likely wouldn't have prevented anything. If anything, they probably would have increased the body count as they started shooting crazily in the dark and smoke filled theater (he threw a smoke grenade, remember? He was wearing a mask, the audience wasn't) and there probably would have been another half-dozen or so people killed.
Of the people I know who have a concealed carry license (we just got CC here in WI within the last year or so), only a handful have any real firearms handling experience, mostly through prior military service. Most everyone else just took the 4 hour course the state mandates. The fact that they're able to carry a firearm doesn't make me feel safer at all, and a few of the people actually scare me that they're legally allowed to carry concealed (stupid kids that think it makes them tough).
Two points, one to the parent directly, and one to later commentary.
First, to the parent, considering the demographics of Colorado, yes, he probably was a right-wing nutjob. This does not, of course, imply that right-wing nutjobbery makes you more likely to be a mass murderer.
Second, to those who have already and will continue to claim that permissive concealed carry laws are ineffective in general because they were ineffective in this case: A crowded, dark movie theater, during an action scene is pretty much the second worst place you could possibly attempt a defensive shooting. You would be fairly unable to accurately identify your target, to clear the space in front of and behind him, to take aim or to prevent yourself from getting shot or harmed by others, police included, during or after the event. The worst, I think, would be a nightclub. So no, this neither affirms nor repudiates weapons ownership or carry, concealed or open, in any real way. You might as well take the Challenger as proof that man is never to leave terra firma.
Only idiots assume that citizens having guns *prevents* nutjobs from shooting. Most of these guys know it won't end well for them, sooner or later. Very few honestly expect to not get caught and punished (likely why it's so common for them to commit suicide at the end of the spree). What it really does is minimize the damage. The nutjob is going to open fire anyway and will kill people before anyone can react. However, if there's resistance then he may only get a handful of people before being taken down as opposed to mowing down a crowd before the cops show up.
That said, this particular case is one in which firing back would have been a very bad idea. It was a crowded, dark and apparently tear gas filled theater with a whole lot of people dressed up as Batman (similar to the dark clothes the shooter was wearing). Even if you get a clear shot and you're 100% sure you have the right target and are 100% sure you won't hit someone else, another armed citizen might mistake you for the bad guy in the confusion and shoot you by mistake.
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.
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.
his right to bare arms
He wore short sleeves?
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
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.
Just like and armed churchgoer stopped this attack
It wasn't an "armed churchgoer" as you misleadingly state. It was an off-duty police officer, trained in the use of lethal force.
When you start with untrained use of lethal force you get George Zimmerman shooting at Trayvon Martin.
One of the worst shooting incidents in recent times came on an army base. And I see to recall that a certain politician in Arizona was surrounded by gun-carrying people, for all the good it did her and the other victims around her.
If you want to feel good, get a lollipop. All the weapons in the world aren't going to help if you don't have the wits to use them. Conversely, anything in the world can be a weapon if you do.
Why does the shooter have to be right or left wing? Why can't he just be crazy?
Chris Rock: [On the US school shootings] Everybody is wanting to know what music were the kids listening to, or what movies were they watching. Who gives a fuck what they was watching! Whatever happened to crazy? What, you can't be crazy no more? Should we eliminate crazy from the dictionary?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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
Do you realize how poor the firearms training and proficiency is among actual police officers, much less security guards?
Most average concealed carry permit holders are much better marksmen and practice far more often. With them you have people who have made a conscious choice to carry that gun and most who take the time out to get a permit and carry are fairly dedicated to the idea. Police and security guards on the other hand are carrying as part of their JOB. Many never have fired a gun in a real situation and only do the bare minimum in practice requirements (typically a yearly range qualification of pretty low requirements).
As someone who does pretty heavy competitive shooting (USPSA and IDPA), I see a LOT of law enforcement (and military) competitors, and most of them turn in some pretty poor scores (except those that have a separate interest in firearms and put in the same practice as the other competitors).
People just have to get away from the idea that the badge is magic. Except for highly specialized teams like SWAT, police are generally not all that much more qualified to "handle" defense of people than the actual people being threatened are. Their main rule is the apprehension and detainment of criminals. IE, the aftermath. We ALL should take a role in the protection of ourselves when out and about.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Devil's advocate would say that it also arms and protects any potential victims, regardless of their physical strength. An elderly woman with a gun, trained to use it proficiently, can bring down a muscular adult male attacker just as easily as any other person. Guns are, as they say, the great equalizer.
There's also a simple thought experiment: suppose an armed gunman breaks into your theater. Would you rather A) be unarmed, or B) have a concealed pistol.
The equation for gun violence plotted with gun ownership might not be linear or exponential. Maybe gun violence initially goes up sharply with ownership and then drops off if enough honest, law-abiding, citizens are armed.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
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
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.
If he had any sex worth taping, he probably wouldn't have done it.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
This comes up every time there's a mass shooting in the US. The solution to gun violence is not ensuring that everyone is equally armed.
First, if someone opens fire around you or at you, your first reaction is not going to be to reach for your own gun, but to get the fuck out of there. That's instinct. You run.
Second, a gun is most effective with proper training and practice. Not everybody wants to own a gun or accept the responsibility that goes with it.
Third, the last thing we want in a shooting situation is six other people drawing guns and firing. That has a better chance of just adding to the body count rather than stopping the shooting.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
I assume you live in Iceland since you made that comment about the pepper spray. Try to imagine living in the USA. Most of our states are several times larger than your entire country (and most of Iceland is uninhabited). The largest city in Iceland has a bit over 100,000 people. And the entire country is a remote island! It's almost like it was purposefully created to be easy to control imports and how imported products are used once they get there. The Icelandic police could get rid of all guns in a few weeks by literally going to every house and looking for them.
This is not the same situation we face in the USA. We are a continental country with two massive borders. To our South is a country without a functioning government (with respect to internal security). Smuggling is rampant. Let's say we decided to ban guns and follow Europe in their social policy. What would happen?
-Many gun owning citizens would be angry, hide their guns, and probably become violent if the government tried to take them.
-A black market for guns would be expanded (it already exists)
-Smuggling of guns from Mexico and Canada would increase immensely and we can't realistically stop them all.
-Citizens who give up their guns to follow the law will be unarmed, but their criminal attackers won't be.
In short, we'd be much worse off.
Why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare you? Maybe it's because I grew up around guns and people who owned them but seeing a pistol on someone's belt doesn't bother me at all. It's just something you see sometimes. I'm only afraid of criminals with guns, and they tend to hide them until the crime starts so you never knew they had one anyway. I'd much rather bullets being flying both directions during a shootout, than just coming from the criminal who wants to kill as many people as possible. The lawful armed citizens only want to kill one person, the attacker.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I come from a very different background, where in general I feel that people should be armed with just about anything they want in terms of weapons (a private tank? Sure, just sign on the line and make sure you pay taxes on it). I also see that the right to bear arms is an important component of protecting our freedoms as it also places an important check on the reach of government when armed citizens can push back against would be government officers if they seriously step out of line. The government should be afraid of an armed citizenry, but the fear is because that government is kept in check by that citizenry from doing stupid things.
On the other hand, I am becoming more and more convinced about the need for firearm training for those who have access to them. Classes that teach firearm training are fairly easy to find if you really want them, and a good firearms instructor can not only show you the proper way to use those devices without hurting yourself in the process, but you also learn very quickly that where you point a gun, regardless of the fact that you may think it is unloaded or even if your hand is nowhere near the trigger, you should expect that the gun will go off at any point with a bullet and strike whatever happens to be in front of that muzzle. NEVER point a gun at somebody unless your goal is to literally kill them in hopefully a self-defense purpose. Don't screw around and joke about such things too and be extremely serious about how you use firearms because they are serious devices that can cause a whole bunch of damage if misused.
Sure, other kinds of equipment (notably automobiles) can also kill people if misused (the accused assailant in the theater could have simply crashed his car into the theater at 70 mph instead of using a gun and caused nearly as much damage). I remember kids that screwed around in shop classes when I was growing up, and ended up injuring themselves on some of the power tools, so I know stupid people do stupid shit with dangerous equipment simply because they want to joke around. Real life isn't a video game and you don't get a second life if you screw up.
All this said, there is even a constitutional provision for the training and enforcement of firearm regulations, and that would be through the use of state-chartered militias. For myself, I would even be fine if the only people who could possess firearms would be regular members of the militias, at least in America. This is not some group of nut jobs who go off to the woods and run around in uniforms of their own design and pretend the end of the world is here or planning for a nuclear holocaust, but rather legitimate groups of ordinary citizens who receive proper training on firearms from skilled instructors and are part of an organization which is formally recognized by a state government.
I'll also note that a state militia does not need to be the National Guard, does not need to have the dual oath loyalties that come from guard service, and in theory doesn't even need to be taxpayer supported. Members of these militias don't even necessarily need to be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It could be groups like a neighborhood watch or something else similar, but it could b