RIP to those who have lost their lives in this terrible tragedy and my deepest condolences go out to the family's who were effected by this tragedy.
Gun control does one thing and one thing only; it makes it more difficult for people who want to obtain guns legally from obtaining them.
12 dead. 38 injured. A metal detector wouldn't have helped, because the gun man didn't go through the front doors.
If you don't know what I'm talking about I'm referring to the shooting that took place this morning at a premiere of Batman in Colorado.
What are your thoughts here is a link to the article.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater…
Edit: The more I think about this, there is no real way to prevent something like this happening. Can't stop crazy if you don't even know where crazy is going to pop up, he could have used an actual homemade bomb would have been the same effect. There is just nothing you can do about it, in the preventative department.
I'm confused as to how he got in the emergency exit...Aren't those doors usually locked from the outside? Wouldn't that mean someone had to help him inside?
It would seem too improbable that he had came in earlier, propped the door open, and nobody noticing but then again people are pretty oblivious to stuff like that.
As a kid I would go to a movie theater near my house that had exits at the bottom of each individual theater (most do). They usually left you on the outside of the building, on the backside near an alley. Of course, no one parked in the alley, so no one would choose to go that way, thus, the door could have been propped open and it would have never been noticed because no one ever walked by. Additionally, the lock could have been fixed in such a way that the door didn't latch and that wouldn't likely have been caught even if people used that exit.
Regards
From what I read, he literally crashed his car through the door. No movie theater has a door lock that can withstand that
if just one other person in that room had a gun at the time, and assuming said person didn't miss, he would have shot at the shooter. regardless of whether he actually hit the shooter or not, he would've forced the shooter to stop shooting and take cover, either behind a seat or a wall, buying everyone more time till the security guard can bust in.
Imagine this scenario: Its completely dark, the only light is coming from guns shots on the screen, there is smoke everywhere due to the smoke grenade this guy apparently rolled across the floor. He starts shooting, you see muzzle flashes, people start screaming, more muzzle flashes, was it the screen or this guy shooting? Everyone is running towards the door, more gun shots, screen or shooter?
You want to tell me that someone could find the shooter who is shooting indescriminatly and fire at him and a) get close enough to hitting him to suppress his fire b) not be mistaken for the shooter by any number of other people and c) not hit any of the hundred or so innocent people running around said shooter. In the dark. In a smoke filled room.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt security guards carry any weapon whatsoever. Essentially making them pretty useless in this scenario.
That is true. But then again, would you have walked into a dark movie theater by yourself, with only a gun (ok lets say you had a machine gun), and with 2 gas grenades if you knew that out of the 50+ people in the theater, potentially 10-20 of them had concealed weapons? You might down 10 of them but by then SOMEONE in the theater would have had time to pull out a gun and fire in your direction. Probably not a good idea.
The man had a gas mask on. Not night vision goggles. It would've been just as dark for him to see the shooters shooting in his direction. Plus, there were at least 2 witnesses who saw him walk in through the emergency door.
I still think more people should get concealed carries. Only ban guns on college campuses. Maybe ban tear gas canisters as well. The only thing that would've prevented someone in that theater from shooting back was the surprise tear gas.
While I don't agree that the initial poster's simplified view is accurate of how things would have went down, I do agree with his premise.
Obviously no one knows what would have happened if someone in the theater, or many people in the theater, would have been armed, but we do know what happened when a theater full of people were unarmed...12 people were murdered and dozens more injured.
I realize that shooting the assailant is much easier said then done given the environment and the alleged tear gas, but it's hard for me to fathom that the situation could have turned out any worse. As stupid as criminals are, they typically aren't devoid of all common sense and they purposefully prey on the week. Now this guy appears to be a crazy person, so it's less likely to apply to him, but you don't often hear of gun stores being robbed during business hours or police stations being assaulted. Criminals will find the people that are least able to protect themselves and this is why crime rates typically drop in states that allow concealed carry and support the Second Amendment.
Just look at Chicago...literally some of the toughest gun laws in the country and people get gunned down and robbed and beat there on a daily basis. It's real easy to fuck with some middle aged dude in a suit on public transit when you are fairly confident he is not capable of protecting himself. Firearms are the great equalizer...they allow an 80 year old woman to stand-up to a 25 year old would-be assailant.
The reality is, nearly everyday in this country crimes are thwarted by armed citizens and though this largely ignored by the national media, we should be educated enough to acknowledge it.
Regards
I may be wrong, but isn't Colorado relatively lenient on gun control?
You're going to die someday, accept that, and then go live your life without fear.
For what it's worth...and it may not be much, lol...one of the comments under an article I read this morning was from a guy who says he lives in Aurora and that he specifically doesn't go to that theater because he is a concealed weapons permit holder and that theater, allegedly, has signs that states no weapons are permitted on the premises.
So I don't know if that is actually true or not, but would be tragically ironic if that proved to be the case.
Regards
Dude, can someone explain to me why this happens routinely in the US now? I feel like it's every single year -- do we just not hear about it when it happens in other places? Do we just have more loons in the US? Are mental health services significantly worse here than elsewhere?
And I completely disagree that people carrying guns would have bettered the situation in any manner, and am in fact certain it would have been a bigger shitstorm with crossfire. The gunman did prepare for this, and the thought that the gunman would hesitate if he knew people in the movie theater were armed is ABSOLUTELY absurd.
I really don't think it's an issue of guns anymore (or ever was, really) -- the only way to prevent gun crimes is to kick back the clock and un-invent them, but why does this keep on happening in the US over and over again when it doesn't happen elsewhere? I understand we're a nation 320 mil so we're more likely to have more loons, but seriously, what's going on here?
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201208/anders-behring-breivi…
I'm fairly certain it's just because most of the American public don't care at all for the rest of the world. That or they're just completely ignorant. I'm betting it's a combination of the two.
And political interests have gotten a lot better at using timely infotainment to bend public perception.
I know people aren't going to like my assessment, but I truly think it's a combination of (1) the Internet and nationwide media coverage, which is prevalent now, so things we would have never known about before are now known and (2) a systematic softening of our character.
When I grew up (which wasn't that long ago) you had winners and you had losers. The winners got the victory party and the trophy and the losers got a lesson in humility and were generally told that they lost because the other team just worked harder (it's debatable whether that was always true). That 'loser' talk made you want to work harder than you had before and forced you to learn from your mistakes so you could get better.
Now we are on this system were youth sports leagues don't keep scores because they don't want anyone to feel like a loser and that is detrimental to society because there isn't always a group of soccer moms around to rub your back when you fall short. The truth is there are winners and losers in every facet of life and not allowing kids to experience that at an early age just puts them in a position to be unprepared for when it actually happens...and make no mistake, it will eventually happen.
Also, I miss Midas, lol. We had a conversation at one point in the past...actually it might have even been a post of his...that talked about how important school yards fights are/were. You used to get lippy with someone and you might get popped in the mouth. This taught you that there are real consequences for your actions and it forced you to think about what you said or did before you actually did it. That isn't the case anymore. End rant, lol.
That's just speculation. People said that permitting concealed carry in Florida would turn it into the wild west where people would be shooting back and forth from behind cover and hitting bystandards, that just wasn't the case and the numbers disagree with you...I mean, that's assuming you are into facts and figures, etc...
http://www.humanevents.com/2009/01/26/concealed-carry-permits-are-life-…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Resea…
Same as above.
Regards
I think you have some good points... but I would totally love to have a soccer mom rub my back when I feel down.....
In Australia we have some of the most restrictive laws regarding firearms in the world. It’s almost too easy from my perspective therefore to put the blame on your current legislation or lack thereof, and from speaking with others this seems to be the general consensus.
I do however completely agree that this isn’t the genesis of the issue, and with or without strict laws crimes like this one will always occur. We still have gun crime, although I’m not sure if we would shape up to your record per capita.
I should mention though looking at the list of weapons used, I have no idea how I would even go about acquiring such items in a low risk manner without raising some serious red flags (I’m also a 20 something college student). I could count on one hand people I know who own guns (that I’m aware of), none of which are even semi-automatic.
Society basically hinges on the fact that most people want it to work and no one wants to die / be imprisoned, so these things don't happen, other than freak incidents like this. This sort of thing shows you how fragile it all is.
Yep, Norway last year, Germany 3-4 years ago...I can't think of anything else, and I generally pay attention. Here I feel like you're going to fingers and toes to count 'em up.
From Reuters:
March 13, 1996 - BRITAIN - Gunman Thomas Hamilton burst into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot dead 16 children and their teacher before killing himself.
April 28, 1996 - AUSTRALIA - Martin Bryant unleashed modern Australia's worst mass murder when he shot dead 35 people at the Port Arthur tourist site in the southern state of Tasmania.
April 1999 - UNITED STATES - Two heavily-armed teenagers went on a rampage at Columbine High School in Littleton, Denver, shooting 13 students and staff before taking their own lives.
July 1999 - UNITED STATES - A gunman killed nine people at two brokerages in Atlanta, after apparently killing his wife and two children. He committed suicide five hours later.
June 2001 - NEPAL - Eight members of the Nepalese Royal family were killed in a palace massacre by Crown Prince Dipendra who later turned a gun on himself and died few days later. His youngest brother also died later raising the death toll to 10.
April 26, 2002 - GERMANY - In Erfurt, eastern Germany, 19-year-old Robert Steinhauser opened fire after saying he was not going to take a math test. He killed 12 teachers, a secretary, two pupils and a policeman at the Gutenberg Gymnasium, before killing himself.
Oct. 2002 - UNITED STATES - John Muhammad and Lee Malvo killed 10 people in sniper-style shooting deaths that terrorized the Washington, D.C., area.
April 16, 2007 - USA - Virginia Tech, a university in Blacksburg, Virginia, became the site of the deadliest rampage in U.S. history when a gunman killed 32 people and himself.
Nov. 7, 2007 - FINLAND - Pekka-Eric Auvinen killed six fellow students, the school nurse, the principal and himself with a handgun at the Jokela High School near Helsinki.
Sept. 23, 2008 - FINLAND - Student Matti Saari opened fire in a vocational school in Kauhajoki in northwest Finland, killing nine other students and one male staff member before killing himself.
March 11, 2009 - GERMANY - A 17-year-old gunman dressed in combat gear killed nine students and three teachers at a school near Stuttgart. He also killed one other person at a nearby clinic. He was later killed in a shoot-out with police. Two additional passers-by were killed and two policemen seriously injured, bringing the death toll to 16 including the gunman.
June 2, 2010 - BRITAIN - Gunman Derrick Bird opened fire on people in towns across the rural county of Cumbria. Twelve people were killed and 11 injured. Bird also killed himself.
April 9, 2011 - NETHERLANDS - Tristan van der Vlis opened fire in the Ridderhof mall in Alphen aan den Rijn, south of Amsterdam, killing six before turning the gun on himself.
July 22, 2011 - NORWAY - Police seize a gunman who killed 69 people at a youth summer camp of Norway's ruling political party, on the small, holiday island of Utoeya. Anders Behring Breivik is later charged with the killings, as well as with an earlier bombing in Oslo which killed eight people. The trial ended last month with Breivik saying that his bombing and shooting rampage was necessary to defend the country - prompting a walk-out by relatives of his victims.
Dec. 13, 2011 - BELGIUM - Gunman Nordine Armani killed three people, including a 17-month-old toddler, wounding 121 in a central square in the eastern city of Liege, before shooting himself. The next day Belgian investigators found the body of a woman in warehouse used by the gunman raising the death toll, including the killer, to five.
July 20, 2012 - UNITED STATES - A masked gunman killed 14 people and wounded 50 others when he opened fire on moviegoers at a showing of new Batman film "The Dark Knight Rises" in the city of Denver.
I don't believe there are practical means of curtailing evil to this degree. The most recent reports say he entered through an emergency exit equipped with an AK-47, shotgun, and two handguns. Witnesses say he threw a bomb (tear gas with glass shards), making it very hard to breathe, before opening fire with what looked like a stick poking out from his coat.
"Jennifer Seeger, 22, who is studying to be an emergency medical technician, said the man pointed his gun at her. She said she dove to the ground and sensed bullets flying by her face."
"One teenage victim, she said, had a bullet in his back."
"Several children were among the victims, the television channel said."
The sad reality is that nothing feasible could have, or even can be done to prevent this tragedy. This wasn't an archetypal terrorist location like an airport or mall--it was a fucking movie theater. The guns--at least the assault rifle--were probably obtained illegally, and as was mentioned earlier, metal detectors wouldn't have picked up anything as the guy came through an exit directly into the theater. He was wearing a gas mask and possibly a bullet-proof vest. It's pure fucking evil, plain and simple. I grew up 25 minutes from that exact mall, have friends in the area, and my family still lives there. I'm trembling as I write this knowing that violence so indiscriminate is now a sad reality in today's day and age, even in the most "safe" and "peaceful" of places (see Norway massacre). Not because I'm afraid, but because for all I know, I knew people in that very theater. Among the victims were a 3 month old and several other children. Prayers and condolences.
somebody actually mentioned that the us should get rid of the right to bare arms on facebook when talking about this story.... cause I'm sure an extra illegal gun charge would have made him reconsider his plans...
I really need to stop reading comments on facebook -_-
this shit makes me sick. I would've went last night if the opening crowds didn't annoy the piss out of me. Granted that's in CO, but it could've been anywhere... In MI it's still illegal to carry a gun in a theater that can hold up to a certain amount of people even if you have a CCW, but god damn would this make me reconsider following that law.
Things like this will always happen. Imagine high school sporting events in nice areas. Hundreds of people with no meaningful security. Picnics, parks, street fairs, etc.
There will always be people that are too awful to prevent.
Blaming this on gun control is just plain stupid. That is all there is to that.
"There will always be people that are too awful to prevent."
An interview with his mom she said " you have the right guy". I hope they hold her accountable if she had previous knowledge. That is how you prevent things.
I agree.
Also, as already mentioned by others, I don't believe any change in gun control policy could have prevented this. Like others said, it needs to be people seeing the writing on the wall, and the behaviors leading up to it.
I'll bet this guy is another Columbine shooter type, never got laid in his life, total internet/video game geek, probably bullied, and built up rage about being a complete loser for years.
Did any of you guys see what he posted on this site 9gag or whatever before the shooting? Pretty scary stuff.
How do you solve this problem,... I really don't have any good ideas.
Maybe he got pissed he couldn't get midnight showing tickets for batman
I read it on barstool, here:
http://www.barstoolsports.com/philly/super-page/story-of-the-day-man-sh…
[quote=adapt or die]I read it on barstool, here:
http://www.barstoolsports.com/philly/super-page/story-of-the-day-man-sh…] Maybe people start taking stuff more seriously before a blowout? These types of shootings have a very predictable and OBVIOUs behavior pattern in the lead up. How about employing proactive measures?
Or would that just make sense?
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1929835/pg1
[quote=Tolland15]http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1929835/pg1[/quote] Not sure what's scarier: the pics or the responses on this website. Fundies are nuts.
Yeah, some truly disturbing shit
Really sad to see happen. Admittedly, I'm biased as fuck on the issue, but frankly I'm just pissed off that my FB news feed is a bunch of people yelling "omg this is why we need a ban on assault weapons!!!!1!"
Ironically, I was at the gun range firing a scary, black "assault weapon" before the premiere last night.
Look up one of the victims "Jessica Redfield," Final Destination shit right there.
There was a shooting at a block party in Toronto this week where a 14 and 23 year old was killed, and 19 others wounded. It's a scary world.
Very sad that this happened. Agree with OP on the update. You can't stop crazy people. Banning guns is not the answer. Psychos would still get their hands on them or use other weapons like homemade bombs (which this guy did as well) to do what they want. Society always wants to pin point a solution whether it's ban guns or give counseling to all kids with issues in school. I am not sure what an appropriate answer for something like this might be. I feel like violent shootings are much more common today than 30-40 years ago when my parents were going up. There is often writing on the wall and those signs need to be taken seriously. Many news sources have this quote from the suspect mother. .
"You have the right person,” the mother said, speaking on instinct
The issue is not about gun laws the issue is why do violent shooting and other heinous crimes keep taking place amongst young people in this country. America is a great nation and of course there are going to be a few bad people but hopefully we can improve our society moving forward.
My condolences to all the victims.
This shit is messed up. Glad I didn't go to the midnight showing.
Thank ya sir.
Update: 12 dead, 59 wounded.
Thank God, is that the theater you go too?
I don't really go to any theater normally, just a roll of the dice as to where we end up. Luckily most of my friends have jobs and weren't going to sacrifice sleep for a midnight showing
Looks like they've released the weapons that Holmes had in his possession:
He was also wearing a ballistic vest, ballistic helmet, gas mask and leggings.
Also it's been confirmed that Holmes deployed smoke grenades, and not CS as previously thought.
And just so we are clear, my comments were aimed at Happy, just general statements regarding the situation as a whole.
Worth checking out...
http://nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx
Regards
..... but without guns, how are we going to defend ourselves against the impending zombie apocalypse?
I would love to see the Dark Knight cast visit all the wounded. Would be a real great thing to do
At work, so didn't read through the thread, but still want to give my two cents since I'm also pro-gun, CCW, and think everyone should know how to use one.
Every time someone shoots a bunch of people it immediately brings up a debate about having stricter gun control laws. Everyone wants to talk about how unbelievably tragic it is that someone could have access to such an artillery of weapons and how this is all George Bush's fault and the 2nd amendment is horseshit. For some reason much less outrage pours out about how unbelievably tragic it is that society has gotten to the point that we can so consistently fuck up our kids enough to make them go on shooting rampages. In my eyes, if someone wants to kill a ton of people tomorrow, they are going to find a way to do it with or without gun control laws in place. What we should be focusing on is finding ways to stop people from wanting to kill a ton of people. Maybe that's human nature though and we can't get rid of it, but something tells me we could be doing a lot better. According to the suspect's mom, they "got the right guy," meaning she knew how messed up he was. How do you not address this shit? I think it's a product of society far more than a product of policy that things like this happen. I can't even begin to imagine the guy's motivation for doing what he did, which is saying a lot because the motivation of the Columbine shooters actually made sense to a lot of people, not that it wasn't equally (if not more) heinous a crime as what happened last night. The world is only getting sicker, and we just keep trying to find someone to blame rather than fixing it.
I agree with you that the human element (fucked up kids, emotional instability, etc) is more to blame and a greater cause of concern than weapons. A weapon is inanimate without a human behind the trigger.
For that same reason I'm not at all pro-gun. People are idiotic, retarded, crazy, unstable, and generally speaking a fairly self destructive lot. We're talking about a species that just seems to try to fuck ourselves over with every single positive cultural or technological advance we discover. Discover fire? Let's burn shit! Create a religion? Let's burn the people who don't believe us! Figured out how to hunt animals? Let's hunt them to extinction! Tuna fish tastes good? Let's catch them all! Create collateralized securities to make lending more efficient? Let's blow up the financial system?
Quite simply, I can't trust the everyday person to carry a weapon and not be an idiot. The idea of the dumbasses from the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, and every other ideological idiot walking around with a loaded weapon scares the living shit of me. If the average person can be barely trusted to use a credit card responsibly, finish high school with basic reading comprehension or math, or not fall victim to a Nigerian prince email scam, I certainly don't want them to decide the appropriate situations to mount an armed defense against a perceived threat.
Do you also think we should ban automobiles, since you can use one as a weapon? How about fire, because you could have always chained the doors shut to the theater and lit the place on fire. Knives too? After all, someone could stab you. Probably should ban baseball because bats swung at your head could be lethal.
Regards
Not at all proposing banning things as the solution, rather there are times when people aren't meant to have every privilege, especially those with fairly severe consequences. Just because you can doesn't mean you should...
It's not going to stop a nutjobs, but the point isn't to stop nutjobs. It's to prevent everyday idiots from causing more damage because they are idiots.
I guess the response here is that you are just in the absolute wrong country...assuming you are in the US.
Honestly though, how many times have you witnessed someone being wrongly shot by a concealed weapon permit holder? Probably never. That's not to say it hasn't happened or never will happen again, but the people I know that are permit holders take that right very seriously. They know the gravity of the choice they might have to make, as least as much as anyone actually can without being in that deadly situation.
I don't know any permit holder that carries a gun because they want to be macho or wishes they were a cowboy. Most will say their firearm is no different than the fire insurance they have on their home...it's there in case they need it but boy do they hope they never have to use. I've been a permit holder for about 7 years now and I've never shot anybody. Thankfully I've never been in a situation where I felt like I had to save myself or somebody else from severe harm or death.
I've been around a large number of people over the years who voice their discontent with guns and talk about how dangerous they can be. Little did they know, I was standing next to them and hand a handgun concealed beneath my clothes. Fact is, concealed carries walk among us undetected all the time yet you don't live in constant fear because you don't know that it's there.
Regards
Two very, very good points.
I agree wholeheartedly with your first point. I think the problem is, partly, the lack of personal responsibility assigned in society. If you fail your test it isn't because of you, it's because the school didn't provide the right resources or the teacher didn't prepare you well enough. If you are shoplifting, it isn't because you are a criminal, it's because you grew up in a bad neighborhood and didn't have any other options and the list goes on.
I also agree with your second point. I had this discussion with professors when I was in school and there was talk about setting up metal detectors so kids couldn't bring guns into the class room...if I recall, this was in the wake of the VT shootings. At any rate, I asked them what happens when a couple hundred kids are standing in the metal detector line, which would have left most of them outside of the building and that potential gunman just gets in his SUV and runs through the large crowd of students?
You can not prevent these tragedies through legislation because most of these people are crazy. Outside of that, you can't use extra laws to control criminal behavior because criminals, by definition, don't follow the law.
Regards
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-20/after-aurora-gun-contro…
Businessweek article echoes nearly the exact sentiments.
Not that I don't agree that more mag capacity means more people can die, I think it's kind of stupid for them to go on record saying "oh well the problem isn't that you can kill someone... that's fine. The problem is that you can shoot 16 people. What we need to do to fix this problem is make it so you can only shoot 12 people, then it'll be all better."
Yes I'm exaggerating a little, but you get the point.
Looks like Cinemark (the operator of the Century 16 theater) has a posted no weapons policy...
Do you have a link or anything to that? That's what I heard, but I don't have any real proof.
Regards
This is the link that explains it most concisely. It's hearsay, but it sounds like it checks out. Scroll towards the bottom, and there is a quote from a forum.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/07/robert-farago/cinemark-theater…
What's worse? One guy killing 50 people or 75 people killing 75 people. I believe the latter is worse, although it has a less sickening or visceral impact.
It's important to keep things in perspective and look at overall crime rate trends. I believe that the vast digitalization of our society will make things safer for all. Everyone has the ability to take a picture, make a call, or take a video. I'm optimistic about our future.
I envy you.
You realize recording a crime doesn't actually stop the crime, right? The police are nothing more than a reactionary force. Though their presence can deter crime, they don't often stop it, instead they merely investigate it after the fact. And that's not a dig at cops, they are just doing the job they are told to do.
I'm not sure how taking a picture, making a call or taking a video is going to deter crime, especially when half the time the footage is from the freaking criminal themselves.
Regards
See: Magnotta, Luka
"Let me make a short, opening, blanket comment. There are no good guns. There are no bad guns. Any gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a decent person is no threat to anybody - except bad people." Charleton Heston, may 18, 1997
Quick story: so my dad's driving with a co-worker to a doctor's office to try and sell him something... not exactly the nicest of neighborhoods where they're going, but no real reason to be particularly afraid. Dad turns down the wrong side street and ends up down a dead end. Two shady lookin' guys standing at the end of the dead end start walking up towards the car. Obviously dad and co-worker get kinda freaked, but again, no real reason to be afraid just yet. Guy leans over side of the car and asks my dad if he's got a light, dad says no. Guy says ok no problem, starts walkin' away. All the sudden, two shady guys turn back around towards the car with guns and start open firing on dad and co-worker. Dad throws the car in reverse as fast as he can while absolutely freaking out, but co-worker's a cool cucumber. Co-worker pulls out trusty King Cobra .357, fires a few rounds through the windshield and drops shady guy #1 and shady guy #2 like a champ. They call the cops and report what happened. After brief investigation, dad and co-worker are sitting in police station, detective comes out and walks over to them, puts his hand on dad and co-workers' shoulders and goes "well, that's two less criminals out walkin' the streets." Dad buys two guns next day.
Sorry to hear your dad ended up in such a bad situation, but glad it turned out okay for him and his co-worker. These scenarios happen nearly everyday in the country but are rarely covered by the media.
Regards
It's a crowded movie theater and the patrons have no idea how many gunmen are in there. They just know folks are shooting, that it's dark, and there's tear gas.
With lots of patrons shooting to defend themselves, it will turn into a circular firing squad. Anyone who fires a weapon is one of the gunmen, and nobody shooting can really tell the difference without turning on the lights and clearing out the smoke.
Having armed patrons may very well have increased the damage in this situation. Even after the gunman was shot- assuming they could aim and hit him in a dark tear-gas filled room, the other "gunmen" could still be firing at each other not knowing the one gunman is dead. It could also have decreased it.
My view? There is a clear right to keep a gun on your private property or on the private property of other informed and consenting individuals. I am not sure there is as much of a right to bring a gun to Coney Island and ride the Cyclone with a 12-year-old kid sitting next to you. It may be safe to carry unloaded and people who are worried about strangers carrying guns may be irrational, but the voters of a state have the authority to be irrational about what people carry in public that could conceivably be a threat to others.
I do think that if some people can carry weapons in public, everyone should be able to. States should either be shall-issue or no-carry.
I also think this debate needs more nuance. Most ccw supporters probably aren't happy about the prospect of Iran having WMDs and would draw the line on permissible weapons at some point before having a 500kt warhead in your garage. I think a much more interesting debate than whether people should be allowed to have guns is what weapons people should be allowed to keep at home as well as have in public.
Agree with this philosophically...and not just in this freak scenario, but as representing the broader landscape. I'm sure everyone in this situation wishes they had a firearm, but consider through reductio ad absurdum, that every single person did in fact have a gun, and was incited to use it simultaneously at the threat of personal danger, even though the perpetrator could not be seen.
All I know, is it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I'll keep packin'
Nobody you know owns even a semi-automatic? Most pistols that aren't revolvers are considered semi-automatic.
Yea, handguns to my knowledge are highly restricted and only available to registered competitive target shooters.
that's crazy ha. I've been doing some reading recently and the consensus seems to be that shotguns and handguns (with ammunition that won't go straight through walls) are the best weapons for home defense. So I'm guessing that most people just have rifles? Maybe some shotguns?
I appreciate my right to buy a shotgun or pistol with a 27 round clip for home defense. It seems like too unrealistic of a dream for strict gun control laws to even help anything significantly with how things are now, like we might as well ask Obama to make free unicorns and world peace mandatory with a purchase of a new car.
Many of these comments are also ignoring the fact that this guy, not only has a gas mask and hence a superior view of the situation, but also had his head to toe covered in anti-riot bullet proof gear. Keeping in mind the type of fire power the shooter had, the fact that even with CCW, carriers would have likely been carrying puny 9mms or something similar, and the fact that the theatre was filled with smoke, panic, and bodies running all over the place, anyone who atempted to shoot at him would have either 1) Missed and possibly injured someone else 2) Hit his mask and possibly injured someone else with the deflecting bullet while only dazing the shooter 3) Hit his body and caused some pain, but not enough to subdue him 4) Shot at the wrong person 5) Failed to hit anyone or anything
Aftermath of most scenarios 1) 'Hero' becomes a target for the shooter
I think you're giving riot gear way too much credit here. Ever been shot while wearing a bulletproof vest?
And to whoever says this stuff only happens in the States, isn't today the anniversary of the massacre in Norway? Why yes, yes it is. 69 dead, 8 injured? It's a universal problem, and no matter what policies are in place, unfortunately people will do what they want to do.
Haha. That's some badass rubber, lol.
Regards
You're so sure of it, huh? btw, injuring somebody else on accident while still having another 4-10+ bullets to hit the bad guy still seems like it may end up better than letting him walk around with an ar-15 and a 100 round clip. I'm getting really tired of all of these scenarios that people make up regarding this (either "I would have done this!" or "30 people would have pulled out their guns and they would then kill each other one by one because they're all retarded and couldn't think of the possibility that the guy aiming the gun at the psycho probably isn't with him"). All it takes is one person with a gun, in this case, I'd say he better have a big gun though.
Also: he threw smoke grenades, not tear gas, so I have no idea why he had a gas mask on.
Lol just lol @ at you conservatards finding the assailant inrespective of your smoke filled vision, firing your 9mms pew pew at a guy firing an assault rifle whose ammunition penetrated the walls and injured people in the adjoining theatre.
Has there been any mass shooting case in recent memory where the gunman was stopped by an armed civilian?
I don't think gun ownership prevents crime in any meaningful way, especially when compared against the crimes it facilitates. Everybody likes to point to homeowner gun dood who shoots a burglar dead, but this stuff is pretty uncommon man. Armed home invasion isn't a crimewave sweeping the nation or anything.
I just don't buy that line of reasoning that "there are other ways" of killing people. Yeah, sure, but the easiest and best way has always been guns, and we should thus deal with that. It's about being practical, not finding the perfect solution for everything. I doubt the crazy aspie types that usually seem to go on these mass shooting sprees have the ability, connections, or money to buy guns on the black market if they are tightly regulated and controlled.
How cute, you're calling names because not everybody ASSUMES things the way you do. First off... pistols come as big as 50 caliber revolvers, so way to assume that only 9mms could possibly be there. Second, was he even wearing a bullet proof vest or a tactical vest? Bullet proof vests don't make you invincible either way... hate to break it to you guys. A nice, bigger bullet could have even knocked him on his ass. The kid is also a huge pussy, it COULD HAVE been enough to stop him right there and have him reconsider his plans since he was too much of a puss to stand up to the people with guns.
I've heard reports of the psycho picking and choosing who he was shooting at, especially people trying to run out... so tell me how only this guy can see through smoke and darkness while everybody else in the theater is 100% blind and unable to identify the guy with the huge muzzle flash dressed like goddamned SWAT.
These are all assumptions. You just decided to call people names because not everybody assumes the same as you, which is ridiculous.
"Has there been any mass shooting case in recent memory where the gunman was stopped by an armed civilian?"
1) If there was, it wouldn't really be a mass shooting, would it? 2) Think of the last huge mass shootings there've been (at least ones that come to my memory)... one in a high school, one in a college, one in a little kids camp in Norway, one in a movie theater... legal carriers weren't allowed to have their guns in any of these places anyways.
"Everybody likes to point to homeowner gun dood who shoots a burglar dead, but this stuff is pretty uncommon man."
I remember looking at the NRA website where they had news reports of people shooting burglars/assailants and there seemed to be a new one everyday... Do you have any data backing up that these happenings are "pretty uncommon"?
What do you suppose we do? Take all the guns off the streets? Seems like that would be extremely hard with how many are already out there now.
From my understanding of what happened, he had on a ballistics helmet, bulletproof vest (for those that don't know, this name is misnomer), a gas mask, and tear gas. Weaponry included an assault rifle, a standard Remington 870, and a couple of pistols.
Not exactly world class stuff, and it would be pretty much impossible to get rid of having access to these kinds of guns. A Remington 870 is every kid's first shotgun in the state of Michigan, the thing is pretty much a toy the way we played around with 'em. This would be the equivalent of buying a kitchen knife or something, (and following that analogy) the dude didn't kill everyone with a machete he did it with a standard kitchen knife, so I think this whole 'restrict guns way more' bullshit isn't going to solve the problem. It's like restricting guns in Israel, it's not gonna do shit cuz the Palestinians still want to kill you but they'll just use rocks instead now.
Not sure if I'd agree with him backing down if someone pulled out a gun, but sure if someone in there had a gun it certainly wouldn't have made the situation any MORE dangerous. And yeah I'm guessing most people who carry are not carrying 9mm Sig Sauers or something like that. I carry a .38 Super and I'm pretty sure if you get pegged with one of those even if you have body armor you're gonna bust a rib and fall on your ass. Probably would have been enough to give everyone a few extra seconds to escape, so I'm not sure how it could have hurt. As for the whole blind shootout scenario, that's just retarded.
I'm very sorry if your feelings were hurt. Here are some facts just in case you choose to educate yourself.
http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
Regards
And they're not called ballistic helmets for nothing. A 9mm bullet would not have pierced through that.
Here's the city of Aurora's official stance on weapons...
Sec. 94-146. - Discharge within city prohibited; exceptions; range rules.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to fire, shoot, or discharge any firearm; crossbow; bow and arrow; slingshot; blowgun; BB gun or pellet gun, whether powered with gunpowder, compressed air, or gas cartridges; gas gun; or any weapon whatsoever within the city limits. However, such discharge, firing, or shooting by any law enforcement officer, federal, state, county, or city, in the course of his or her official duty shall not be deemed a violation of this subsection, and such discharge, firing, or shooting at commercial, private, or public shooting ranges or by authorized classes of schools or universities at all times under proper instruction and supervision as may be authorized or permitted by law shall not be deemed a violation of this subsection.
Regards
Now here are my thoughts on the original topic: If we had more guns, then yea less people may have died that day (assuming they could hit the shooter through the tear gas and their bullets could pierce his body armour). But whatever extra safeness is achieved in these sort of mass-murder situations is offset by the fact that there will be more murders in other everyday situations, ultimately resulting in more murders overall. Remember, the number of people killed as a result of these mass murders that you hear about on the news is a very small fraction of the total number of murders.
When more people have guns, there will be more murders given all else is equal. A gun gives any pussy the power to kill somebody in the blink of an eye. For every 10 men in the world, there is going to be that 1 dumbfuck who is prone to being irrational. Maybe he's lonely and depressed (seems like that james holmes loser was), or maybe he's just high on bath salts. All it takes is one idiot with a gun going through a temporary moment of insanity to cause shit like this. Guns by themselves don't kill people, but they sure make it a hell of a lot easier.
Imagine you come home one day from work, and to your utter surprise, you find your wife of 20 years that you love so dearly fucking some other man. Are you more likely to kill him and/or your wife if all you need to do is reach into your pants, pull out your gun, and pull the trigger? No fucking shit. You might be thinking "I'd never do that". I'm sure you wouldn't, but shocking moments like that can cause anyone to be temporarily irrational, and stupid uncomposed people who can't handle their emotions are a lot more common than you probably think. I takes a lot less balls to kill someone with a gun than it does to attempt to kill someone with a kitchen knife.
And even if everyone had guns, there will always be areas that are defenseless against some loser with no friends who needs attention to cause a shitstorm like this. Rather than a movie theater, somebody could shoot up a gym, Chuck E Cheese's (apparently that happened 20 years ago in Aurora), swimming pool, beach, etc. It's impossible to have security guards and armed civilians everywhere. Add to that the fact that anybody can buy armor, tear gas, etc. , and that means that even places that are seemingly safe could be breached.
MAD (Mutually assured destruction) only works when everyone who has the power to fire a nuke is sane. Could we trust every single human to have a nuke? Of course not. Everyone isn't sane. That's why we have to draw the line somewhere.
Are stricter gun control laws going to magically stop all murders? Of course not, and nobody's claiming that they will. That doesn't mean we can't improve the situation.
I've been reading a lot of gun stories lately, and I have read a few stories of idiots negligently firing their guns... including police officers and people in the police academy. A lot of these people tend to do it while cleaning their guns (why they can't remove the magazine and clear the chamber beforehand is beyond me).
It does seem that some people can get guns too easily, but I still think that somebody who has proved that they're not a complete f#$%^ing moron should be able to hold a gun for self defense. I would feel absolutely helpless if I couldn't hold a gun in my home and every bad guy knew it.
I think the answer has more to do with mental/intelligence screenings than banning this gun or that gun.
Flat out disagree that another gun wouldn't have made this more dangerous. CPH, I know you've shot with a gas mask on and know how difficult that is so I cannot imagine you think anyone could put shots on target with tear gas and complete chaos going on around you. Most people train at 7 yards. This shot could have easily been 2 or 3 times that distant with all of the other factors mentioned above.
Bad shit happens and there is nothing you can do about it sometimes.
So you would rather have a guy walk around a room with a shotgun, an ar-15 w/ 100 round clip, and a pistol with no resistance than have somebody shoot at him with 6-13 shots?
I repeat guys, bullet proof vests DO NOT make you invincible. DO NOT. You can get knocked on your ass, and bullet proof vests also do not cover your WHOLE body. This isn't the opening scene from Lethal Weapon 4. Trauma from a bullet hitting the vest alone can stop somebody's heart, even if it doesn't pierce it. This kid wasn't some built, physically fit guy either.
Again, he did not throw tear gas, he threw smoke grenades...
If I'd been in that theatre, carrying a gun would have given me a chance. Lying there knowing your fate is random, and there's nothing you can do about it has to rank there with one of the worst feelings in the world.
What could have been done to prevent this? Nothing. What could have been done to reduce the number of deaths? Arm everyone in that room that wants to be armed. I will bow to better experience whether it would have worked or not, but it would certainly make him rethink walking into a room full of .45's and spraying. He didn't kill himself, so he had no suicidal ambitions. The doubt to an intelligent mind of "what if there's a good shooter in that room" may be enough to sway him.
Reading the press on this guy can only lead to the conclusion that he was highly intelligent. He was a dean’s list student and studying for a PhD in Neurology. He bought the guns and body armor long before the attack. He clearly planned it out beforehand and was prepared for the possibility of being shot. That sounds like an intelligent mind to me. I don’t think IQ is a factor so much as other things, like personality, stress levels, upbringing, etc. If anything, having a high IQ helped him to better plan his attack.
when did I say that every bullet would have hit him? "shoot at him" with 6-13 shots.... shoot AT him. Sorry, didn't know you were in the Army. For the future, I'll keep in mind that there's no chance that a civilian could know more about guns/ballistic vests as somebody who served in the Army. (not assuming that I do, just saying that you come off as assuming that).
the thing is we're both assuming the worst/best, I have a feeling that if at least one bullet hit the guy, he wouldn't go around doing business as normal... leaving more time for a follow up shot, or a couple seconds of people being able to gtfo.
I just have a hard time with this:
scenario a) guy comes in with a shotgun, ar-15 with 100 rounds in the clip, and a .40 caliber pistol and is given free reign scenario b) guy comes in with a shotgun, ar-15 with 100 rounds in the clip, and a .40 caliber pistol and meets some resistance
I have a hard time choosing scenario a if there's somebody there that has a good shot. but yeah, I guess that there's no possible way this could have ended up better than what happened. If somebody there had a gun, then it would have HAD to end up worse.
You're also supposing that the CCW holder would have actually a) been in a position to do anything and b) done it. There are maybe 30 seats in that theatre that would have provided for legitimate areas for shots to be put on target where the person could have seen the shooter when it started and had at least a 50 50 chance of hitting him.
What the fuck do I know, though.
why are you acting as if I think you're completely clueless? we're talking about hypothetical scenarios, neither one of us can be proved right or wrong, but what you're trying to do is assume that every part of my situation would not have been possible.
Do I really need to mention that a guy sitting in the back row probably shouldn't take a shot at this guy and just gtfo? I wasn't talking about the mere presence of another gun possibly making it safer. Remember, you said you flat out disagree that another gun there wouldn't have made it more dangerous... I never said that I falt out think that it would have made it safer. I'm just trying to bring up one scenario where it COULD have made it better.
Occaecati corporis fugit maiores facilis voluptatibus sapiente qui. Qui fugiat reiciendis reiciendis illo fugit. Nulla explicabo dolores officiis sunt minus magnam non. Delectus illum rerum et qui. Impedit corporis dolore illum porro est. Facilis magnam iure ipsum. Facilis culpa dolores possimus sunt.
Cumque cum quo natus dolorum. Et at quia quidem consequatur. Placeat est itaque nisi nostrum non ut illo. Quasi velit voluptates consequatur magni fugit.
Quaerat ad sunt dolore dicta est ipsa in quo. Unde exercitationem sed quia doloremque omnis voluptas ad et.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Consequuntur similique enim rem eveniet ipsam autem. Molestiae molestiae reiciendis laboriosam soluta. Consequatur velit officia et minus sapiente repellat. Et sit rerum nostrum iusto.
Corporis veniam dolores voluptatem voluptatem. Harum id fuga perspiciatis recusandae et. Et tempore quas eum earum. Quos qui eum rerum perspiciatis corrupti expedita.
Fugiat quasi velit quo. Qui enim nihil et nisi molestiae officia. Dolore laboriosam omnis voluptatem. Molestias qui rerum quam sed quia quae nam. Voluptates est nihil autem error et.
Ut et ipsam suscipit omnis incidunt. Incidunt asperiores accusantium vitae architecto illum et. Neque ut et laborum quo quod nisi aspernatur. Architecto velit soluta repellendus quod. Delectus distinctio atque iusto vero non corporis. Voluptas et quae impedit ullam ullam.
Aut consectetur qui sit et rerum et cum. In rerum pariatur consequatur saepe quae culpa. Minima quibusdam in optio est id ipsa. Pariatur omnis voluptatem quidem dolores non qui. Esse vitae consequuntur dolores quos minima quae.
Qui laudantium dolor animi repudiandae. Rerum sed eius voluptatem delectus molestiae libero sed. Voluptas rerum id quod officia.
In id quia dolorum ducimus consequuntur officiis. Maxime possimus est repudiandae veniam distinctio. Sit sed sed suscipit quod.
Nostrum repellendus voluptatem veritatis eum. Sequi quod accusantium delectus tempore reprehenderit ipsum dignissimos. Aut magni est odio nihil. Aspernatur fuga iusto vitae nostrum nam rerum. Voluptate cumque consequatur iusto consequatur soluta. Repudiandae doloribus facilis vitae sed amet.
Illo cumque numquam eius asperiores quos. Laudantium doloribus dolorem ex soluta dolor aliquid nihil.
Beatae autem quam aut molestiae magnam dolore aperiam. Unde ipsum facere odio nobis facere quidem. Architecto a voluptatum dolore. Non suscipit et commodi autem blanditiis et quidem.
Rerum recusandae amet saepe voluptatum rem. Cupiditate expedita corporis expedita doloremque. Omnis ut cupiditate eum repellat. Distinctio sunt ullam et. Natus vel ipsum quis provident. Eos iusto qui totam consequatur.
Qui explicabo necessitatibus veniam autem earum autem qui. Corrupti est non enim delectus. Sapiente consectetur dolorem numquam harum cum voluptatem unde rerum. Iusto molestias est ipsum nisi quia adipisci voluptates.