Mass Shooting in Colorado

Ascendancy

There's more to it than just the weapons though. There are countries in Europe where you can own fully-automatic weapons without any of the dealer licenses and hullaballo required here yet these mass shootings are a lot less common elsewhere. With the exception of the psycho in Norway last year the majority of mass murders have been committed by terrorist groups overseas.

I think a big part of it is that killers here know that their message will be televised. Part of the VA Tech killer's farewell video was shown multiple times on every major network. We found out everything and then some about the Columbine killers, the shooters in MS and Padukah, KY. Every single workplace shooting from the Postal Rampages to multiple office attacks against former co-workers get played up in full-detail. The guy in AZ who shot the senator got his fifteen minutes as well. When you kill here the media gets your thoughts out to the rest of the country and your insanity gets seen in prime time no matter how bass ackwards it is.

If the killers got ignominy instead of fame and didn't get to share their twisted manifesto perhaps they wouldn't see this kind of thing as a way to make a point or get their thoughts heard. The guy let himself be taken peacefully by the cops, and the majority of these dbags kill themselves rather than facing the music against people who can actually defend themselves.

That said, some change to gun laws is necessary. Every interview and tidbit I've caught about this guy shows that the people around him knew he was unstable and even his mother said that she knew he was responsible as soon as he was named a suspect. If someone is that blatant of a headcase then it seems that maybe there should be some kind of competency testing in addition to background checks and that those checks should include inquiries into mental health treatment and hospitalization.

Still doesn't solve everything as the Columbine shooters got someone else to get them weapons and ammo, but it's a start.

Oliver North

Originally posted by Ascendancy
There's more to it than just the weapons though. There are countries in Europe where you can own fully-automatic weapons without any of the dealer licenses and hullaballo required here yet these mass shootings are a lot less common elsewhere. With the exception of the psycho in Norway last year the majority of mass murders have been committed by terrorist groups overseas.

many European nations require a very strict form of licencing to obtain an AR-15 (I'd imagine most...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15#Legal_status_of_civilian_ownership

Switzerland may be the exception, but that is because of mandatory military service.

I agree there are likely cultural reasons for a lot of the shootings in the states, but access to these weapons facilitates the scale.

Toronto, in Canada, has seen a number of shootings in recent months, including one at a barbecue where there were a couple killed and several wounded. The lack of availability of military grade weapons (not to mention body armor) prevents these from being on the scale of what we saw in Colorado.

EDIT: The VT shooter had diagnosed mental health issues...

Astner

I don't see what the problem is. Remove the right to bear arms. As it is now a dozen lives clings on the psyche of each gun owner.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by Astner
I don't see what the problem is. Remove the right to bear arms. As it is now a dozen lives clings on the psyche of each gun owner.
That's a kneejerk reaction.

There are still plenty of people who go their entire lives using guns responsibly and not committing massacres. This is the problem with most gun control debates, that they tend to be heavily polarized because of personal or cultural biases for or against guns.

That said, no civilian needs body armor, an assault rifle, or tear gas. It's ridiculous that these things can be purchased legally.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That said, no civilian needs body armor, an assault rifle, or tear gas. It's ridiculous that these things can be purchased legally.

An AR-15 isn't exactly an assault rifle given that it's semiautomatic. Aside from the shape and lineage it really isn't any different from a hunting rifle.

The idea that people can go out and buy tear gas is absurd, though. The "need" argument isn't a good one but the "can't possibly use legitimately" argument makes sense to me.

Astner

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's a kneejerk reaction.

There are still plenty of people who go their entire lives using guns responsibly and not committing massacres. This is the problem with most gun control debates, that they tend to be heavily polarized because of personal or cultural biases for or against guns.
So we should let people keep their weaponry at the risk of other people's lives, because there are some people that are responsible?

The only real problem I see is the risk for riots. As outlawing something is more controversial than to make it legal.

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by Astner
So we should let people keep their weaponry at the risk of other people's lives, because there are some people that are responsible? Trying to mass ban guns in the U.S. at this point would be one massive clusterf*ck.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by Astner
So we should let people keep their weaponry at the risk of other people's lives, because there are some people that are responsible?

The only real problem I see is the risk for riots. As outlawing something is more controversial than to make it legal.
Banning guns wouldn't stop gun violence, it would cut it down for sure, but it would also make home defense difficult and recreational hunting/shooting impossible.

I'm asserting that many people who own guns will never use them for illegal purposes, so to ban them categorically is a knee-jerk move that speaks to laziness and a lack of understanding of the issue.

A better move would be to institute smarter controls so that the wrong people can't get a gun but a sensible, principled, upstanding single mother who lives in a bad neighborhood and wants to be able to protect her children can.

Darth Jello

How about we reintroduce the assault rifle ban or ban all fire arms that aren't pump action or single action? I wasn't at the screening but fielded calls all day telling people I wasn't there and was ok.

Oliver North

apparently the shooter purchased 6000 rounds of ammo in the past 60 days

Ascendancy

Originally posted by Oliver North

EDIT: The VT shooter had diagnosed mental health issues...

As did the shooter at University of Illinois. Both should have never been capable of legally purchasing a weapon. Actually, I think that the shooter in AZ purchased his legally as well.

Originally posted by Oliver North
apparently the shooter purchased 6000 rounds of ammo in the past 60 days

Red flag of the year there, but if he purchased it online and from multiple brick and mortars then there would have been nothing to be done because AFAIK there's no tracking of ammunition sales. Even if he'd bought a multitude of guns in the past few months private sales aren't tracked either, at least not in any states that I know of off-hand.

Oliver North

Originally posted by Ascendancy
As did the shooter at University of Illinois. Both should have never been capable of legally purchasing a weapon. Actually, I think that the shooter in AZ purchased his legally as well.

In almost all of these types of shootings the guns are purchased legally, for sure. I guess my point was more about what you were saying about fame. It is somewhat hard to look at a seriously ill person and determine what it was, if anything, that motivated them.

I'm just saying, be cautious, otherwise it is kind of like saying Son of Sam proves America has a culture that listens too much to dogs.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Red flag of the year there, but if he purchased it online and from multiple brick and mortars then there would have been nothing to be done because AFAIK there's no tracking of ammunition sales. Even if he'd bought a multitude of guns in the past few months private sales aren't tracked either, at least not in any states that I know of off-hand.

But Obama is coming to get your guns!!!!

Oliver North

just to throw it out there, Wiki is always fantastic for these unfolding events (with a grain of salt, of course), corrects even some things said earlier in this thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

Darth Jello

This is why living in the Colorado suburbs is terrible. Growing up there it's like the endless rows of clone tract housing (the American equivalent of communist matchbox apartments), the dry and high altitude, the featureless prarie, the ample supply of guns and drugs, and the general ****ed attitude of people and ample hate grouops creates these monsters. Even coming to visit for a prolonged time to certain towns will **** you up. Just a reminder that several spree killers (including this one), Dick Cheney, Condaleeza Rice, Sayed Qutb (the father of Muslim Terrorism), James Watt, and Tim Allen and Jake Lloyd(not as bad, but definitely a plague on acting) all were born or studied in the Colorado suburbs.

Oliver North

I was going to say, your description did remind me of Qutb, lol

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Darth Jello
ban all fire arms that aren't pump action or single action?

This is one of my biggest issues with the firearms debate. One side actually knows about the topic and the other really doesn't seem to (the barrel shroud is not "the thing that goes up" for example). The AR-15 he was using had a single-action trigger.

Oliver North

is it still an AR-15 if it can be put in single action mode? I thought the M16 was the select fire version?

EDIT: whoops, should have checked wiki first, there are old select fire versions of the AR

EDIT2: there is also the fact one of the weapons the man had was a police style Remington shotgun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_870

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Oliver North
is it still an AR-15 if it can be put in single action mode? I thought the M16 was the select fire version?

See now that's not what single-action means.

Single action describes how the trigger works and means, basically, that the hammer or striker is not readied by the trigger at any stage. This is true on the AR, a charging handle positions the striker for the first shot and the gas system positions it for subsequent shots.

I assume that you're thinking of "semiautomatic" vs "full automatic" and DJ meant to ban all weapons that don't have a manual action (presumably thinking of old single-action revolvers that needed to be cocked between every shot).

Oliver North

ah, ya, my mistake smile

(though, I meant more being able to switch between a single bullet fire per trigger pull and multiple... I didn't think a rifle could be turned into a fully automatic weapon without some intense conversion... I could totally be wrong again though)

EDIT: erm, nevermind, I was confused again

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Oliver North
EDIT2: there is also the fact one of the weapons the man had was a police style Remington shotgun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_870

Missed this.

I'm not totally clear on what "police style" means. According to the link there's a model called "police" but that doesn't necessarily mean only police can buy it since the same company sells a "special operations" stock to the public.

Oliver North

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Missed this.

I'm not totally clear on what "police style" means. According to the link there's a model called "police" but that doesn't necessarily mean only police can buy it since the same company sells a "special operations" stock to the public.

oh, I mean it is designed more for combat/police/etc rather than hunting

I'm not even saying it shouldn't be available for purchase, just pointing out that the "everything but pump action or single action" ban wouldn't have taken away any of the shooter's weapons

Omega Vision

I think the issue with a gun like the AR-15 is that its ammunition is all but useless for big game hunting and rifles aren't generally home defense weapons so there's no reason why civilians should be allowed to buy them.

Ascendancy

It's just a hard problem to fix. As mentioned, private sales are not tracked. Regardless, I agree with a push to have more thorough background checks. Maybe the Tech, UI, and others still would have gotten their hands on weapons, but the odds of them doing something to get themselves caught beforehand would have been much higher.

It's interesting to me that people accept that both the Federal and state governments require that you register your vehicle, home, etc with them but flip out when there's any talk of mandatory registration of firearms. The paranoia of some is beyond my understanding.

Robtard

Originally posted by Oliver North
apparently the shooter purchased 6000 rounds of ammo in the past 60 days

I never understood why buying ammo isn't monitored as much or more-so than the guns.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is one of my biggest issues with the firearms debate. One side actually knows about the topic and the other really doesn't seem to (the barrel shroud is not "the thing that goes up" for example). The AR-15 he was using had a single-action trigger.

To be fair though, if a ban goes through no one really needs to know about the topic ...

Darth Jello

Originally posted by Oliver North
I was going to say, your description did remind me of Qutb, lol Well when you're a hardcore Muslim living in a town with the pervasive stench of cow and pig shit for several years...

That same town has often had the highest rate of violent crime and murder in the state.

silver_tears

Originally posted by Robtard
I never understood why buying ammo isn't monitored as much or more-so than the guns.

Exactly.

You can be a gun enthusiast your entire life without owning a single bullet. If anything, the purchase of ammo, especially such an extravagant amount, is the red flag.

Oliver North

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-colo-shooting-suspect-bought-guns-legally-16826588#.UAr-eLSe68A

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/aurora-dark-knight-suspect-joker-cops/story?id=16822251&singlePage=true#.UAsBErSe68A

Nemesis X

I wonder why after people buy guns like those in public, they're never followed by any form of law enforcement that keeps an eye on them for awhile without their knowledge so they can see what they'll do with 'em. Seriously, the FBI keeps an eye on folks who google the word hitman but they can't keep an eye on the ones who purchase guns or the ammo for 'em that are capable of doing crap like this?

Kazenji

Was the shooting imitated from the 1986 comic?

Ascendancy

They don't track them because NRA and gun company lobbyists have lots of money. What's a few dead people here and there when one can make millions?

Omega Vision

And of course the NRA will reply that this wouldn't have happened if people were allowed to bring guns into movie theaters.

Though it would be very, very difficult if not impossible for the ordinary upstanding citizen with a handgun to take down someone as well equipped as the shooter.

But hey, the NRA isn't big on practical matters.

rudester

what do you expect public places to have metal dectectors?

Ascendancy

dadudemon

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And of course the NRA will reply that this wouldn't have happened if people were allowed to bring guns into movie theaters.

Though it would be very, very difficult if not impossible for the ordinary upstanding citizen with a handgun to take down someone as well equipped as the shooter.

But hey, the NRA isn't big on practical matters.

I'd argue that a member of the NRA is not your normal gun owner. That person should have plenty of practice to shoot the dude in the head: enough to disable or kill the the guy. He only had a gas-mask on.

But here's another problem: police would have a difficult time taking him out, as well.

Also note that he surrendered without a fight to the police. Maybe he would have surrendered to 4-10 armed citizens firing at him?

Originally posted by Ascendancy
There was a case in Texas where a guy went on a rampage at a courthouse and an armed citizen tried to stop him. He shot the man several times but he was wearing a vest and apparently had enough adrenaline going not to feel the impacts. He returned fire and killed the guy trying to take him down, illustrating your point. For all the talk about the need for concealed carry it is a rare thing that joe schmoe takes out a crazed gunman.

That's an anecdote that is easily countered by other anecdotes.

Here's another anecdote showing an old man with a conceal and carry permit, Samuel Williams, going to town on some armed robbers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/raw-video-fla-man-shoots-would-be-robbers/2012/07/18/gJQAOvKguW_video.html

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/71-Year-Old-Man-Shoots-Would-Be-Robbers-at-Ocala-Internet-Cafe-Authorities-162941656.html

Originally posted by Ascendancy
I have no problem with people owning firearms to protect themselves, but to try and pretend like situations like this would end differently if someone were carrying is a ridiculous ploy by the NRA as you noted.

I would state the opposite:

"I have no problem with people owning firearms to protect themselves, but to try and pretend like situations like this would not end differently if someone were carrying is a ridiculous ploy by the anti-gun movement in America and other nations."

Don't you think it is a bit ridiculous to assume even a single gun owner in the theater would not have saved lives?

silver_tears

Or killed even more through the smoke.

dadudemon

Originally posted by silver_tears
Or killed even more through the smoke.

From the descriptions of the people that were in the theater when the shooting happened, I did not read or hear one person say visibility was diminished due to the smoke.

How the gent describes, visually, of what happened, it does not appear there was any loss in visibility. He had quite a bit to convey about what he saw.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/aurora-colo-batman-shooter-james-holmes-phd-student/story?id=16817842#.UAuaVbSe7kV

Oliver North

ddm: the guy was in full ballistic armor, including helmet, neck guard and leggings. any "normal" gun owner better be packing a D.Eagle or something similar if they were going to take him down.

Robtard

Anyone who thinks armed civic-minded movies goers would have been a good thing in this scenario is a ****ing loon. Imagine 1-10+ armed men and women firing at an armed and armoured lunatic in a dark and noisy theater that's filling with tear-gas.

I don't think it's crazy to think the death-count would have been higher by panicking and fleeing people getting shot by accident. I know people love to imagine themselves as heroes, but be realistic.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Oliver North
ddm: the guy was in full ballistic armor, including helmet, neck guard and leggings. any "normal" gun owner better be packing a D.Eagle or something similar if they were going to take him down.

I think I understand what you're trying to get at, here: you think with my words "He only had a gas-mask on" was referring to his entire person. It wasn't. I was referring to just his head. I was commenting directly at a post you had made about his "full armor" or something: he did not have on full armor as his head was wide-open. Maybe I am wrong. Do you have a source that says he had on a helmet for blocking bullets? ABC says gas-mask. Even if he did have on a helmet.......there's still his face because, remember, he only has a gas-mask.

And a Desert Eagle isn't going to punch through most body armor. The bullets used are generally what constitutes armor piercing or not. Looks like Level IIA softarmor (the lightest the have) is the lowest armor that you can wear that will stop the AE .50.

http://www.safeguardclothing.com/nij-levels/

If the armor is as badass as you make sound, it was probably not the equivalent of II or even III...sounds like higher grade body armor than they are selling, there.

Originally posted by Robtard
Anyone who thinks armed civic-minded movies goers would have been a good thing in this scenario is a ****ing loon. Imagine 1-10+ armed men and women firing at an armed and armoured lunatic in a dark and noisy theater that's filling with tear-gas.

I don't think it's crazy to think the death-count would have been higher by panicking and fleeing people getting shot by accident. I know people love to imagine themselves as heroes, but be realistic.

More indirect troll-posting, eh? Your post was directed specifically at me because I was the only one that made that statement. Have enough balls to actually quote me instead of making passive-aggressive troll posts like this one. erm

INB4 "rage posting!"
INB4 "U mad!"

I assure you, I am perfectly calm. no expression

Ushgarak

Don;t make troll accusations like that, dadude. Robtard's point was very clear and he was under no obligation to direct it specifically at you just because you raised the issue in the first place.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Don;t make troll accusations like that, dadude. Robtard's point was very clear and he was under no obligation to direct it specifically at you just because you raised the issue in the first place.

I have made other posts in this thread, as well. Let me know if those are over-the-line, too. I'm not too sure if I should have made them. PM me, if necessary because I do not want to derail the threads with my curiosity.

Oliver North

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think I understand what you're trying to get at, here: you think with my words "He only had a gas-mask on" was referring to his entire person. It wasn't. I was referring to just his head. I was commenting directly at a post you had made about his "full armor" or something: he did not have on full armor as his head was wide-open. Maybe I am wrong. Do you have a source that says he had on a helmet for blocking bullets? ABC says gas-mask. Even if he did have on a helmet.......there's still his face because, remember, he only has a gas-mask.

And a Desert Eagle isn't going to punch through most body armor. The bullets used are generally what constitutes armor piercing or not. Looks like Level IIA softarmor (the lightest the have) is the lowest armor that you can wear that will stop the AE .50.

http://www.safeguardclothing.com/nij-levels/

If the armor is as badass as you make sound, it was probably not the equivalent of II or even III...sounds like higher grade body armor than they are selling, there.

so your argument is that, during a confusing scenario where most witnesses have claimed they had no idea what was happening and were taken totally by surprise, in the presence of smoke/teargas, some dead-eye in the theater is going to pull his weapon and bang out a couple of shots to the face?

it sounds like you live in a movie version of reality.

additionally, the two men being taken out by the old man is a terrible comparison. If those two individuals had come in shooting, as the individual did here, that old man would have been dead in his seat, as the video clearly shows (they also had a pistol and a baseball bat). Whats funny is I heard people on Laura Ingram making that same nonsense argument when I was in North Dakota last week, are you a listener?

dadudemon

Originally posted by Oliver North
so your argument is that, during a confusing scenario where most witnesses have claimed they had no idea what was happening and were taken totally by surprise, in the presence of smoke/teargas, some dead-eye in the theater is going to pull his weapon and bang out a couple of shots to the face?

First, let me rephrase what you stated so it accurately represent what you want to say while representing what I want to say:

"so your argument is that, during a massacre; where most witnesses have claimed they had no idea why this was happening and were taken totally by surprise because no one expects someone to walk into a theater and start unloading bullets, where some people experienced the effects of teargas; you think half a dozen armed citizens will be able to shoot a guy in the face wearing very large, heavy, cumbersome armor with low visibility due to wearing a bulky gasmask, most likely sweating his ass off because he started this by getting dressed outside (where it was over 85 degrees at the time), is probably already tired from carrying all of those stuff inside, is a thin man adding to his weight burden, is not going to run anywhere fast, anytime soon, and is standing by the exit where the light from outside is lighting him up like a Christmas tree, and you think that one of those half a dozen people whose conceal and carry permits require that the know how to use a gun (check the Colorado state laws that allow conceal and carry) before they can get the license?

Why, yes, I think that in that scenario, it's possible that this event may have been stopped 30-40 seconds in (instead of the 2 to 3 minutes it occurred). Heck, it's possible that it will take less than 20 seconds to see a response (see the video with the old man going to town).

Crap, what a long winded way to put things. Let us both just agree to use a list, next time.

Originally posted by Oliver North
it sounds like you live in a movie version of reality.

For me, it sounds like you have a warped sense of not only the event but of how "bad" guns are. But it's funnier if you think I think I am John McClane trying to take back the Nakatomi Building from a highly sophisticated criminal organization: it makes for a more dramatic "look how stupid this guy is" argument, right? big grin

Originally posted by Oliver North
additionally, the two men being taken out by the old man is a terrible comparison.

lol

Originally posted by Oliver North
If those two individuals had come in shooting, as the individual did here, that old man would have been dead in his seat, as the video clearly shows (they also had a pistol and a baseball bat). Whats funny is I heard people on Laura Ingram making that same nonsense argument when I was in North Dakota last week, are you a listener?

Yes, because an old man that got up and started unloading round after round into their asses (as one eyewitness put it, to paraphrase) would definitely be afraid to shoot them because they weren't already threatening enough?

Makes perfect sense.

And, no, I haven't listened to the radio in over a year.

Let's put it another way: a fat, out of shape, old man, unloaded with no apparent problems. As soon as the first guy got shot, they got scared and ran.

Now let's compare to the scenario at the theater: as soon as the cops showed up, pointed their guns at him, he surrendered immediately.

That video is not supposed to be an exact replica of the scenario: it is to show you that armed citizens can and do fight back quite well. If a fat, out of shape, old man can do quite well with a conceal and carry permit, I think you can do well, too (I do not know about your shooting experience but I assume you have been to a few ranges or have been hunting once or twice...just roll with my example sad

Oliver North

James Holmes' Match.com profile:

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0721_james_holmes_classic_jim_tmz.pdf

Bardock42

Video Games got very little flak for this one so far. (that sounds a bit self indulgent, I apologize to my fans and family)

dadudemon

Originally posted by Oliver North
James Holmes' Match.com profile:

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0721_james_holmes_classic_jim_tmz.pdf

I felt nervous clicking that.

But he seems very.......normal. In fact, he seems "like a chill dude."

Why do you think he went off the deep-end all of a sudden (it seems like it was all of a sudden).

Oliver North

Originally posted by dadudemon
I felt nervous clicking that.

But he seems very.......normal. In fact, he seems "like a chill dude."

the tag-line is "will you visit me in prison", the exact same as his Adultfriendfinder account

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/life_of_depraved_sex_VX83ThuIVAk8Fl62xYJyMI

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why do you think he went off the deep-end all of a sudden (it seems like it was all of a sudden).

mental health issues tend to show up around mid 20s in men, especially those of the "schizophrenia" type. Additionally, he had been spiraling downward in school, and people who knew him said he had taken a major downward turn (friends, family, acquaintances).

there probably isn't a cause in the sense of "here is a clear and understandable motivation for why he did it". It is the product of a sick mind and some bad context, imho. We'll have to see as more comes out, apparently he goes to court on Monday.

Bardock42

I assume the "all of the sudden" is an illusion, he probably was messed up for a while.

Oliver North

omfg:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48267833#.UAv1fbSe68A

Mindship

Originally posted by rudester
what do you expect public places to have metal dectectors? They already have them in schools and airports. If more theater shootings occur, or in supermarkets, train stations, etc, yeah, it may be a good idea to invest in companies manufacturing metal detectors.

For whatever reason(s), this guy was desperate for his moment of power.

Oliver North

rmyA5AwNZ6k

Ascendancy

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd argue that a member of the NRA is not your normal gun owner. That person should have plenty of practice to shoot the dude in the head: enough to disable or kill the the guy. He only had a gas-mask on.

But here's another problem: police would have a difficult time taking him out, as well.

That's an anecdote that is easily countered by other anecdotes.

Here's another anecdote showing an old man with a conceal and carry permit, Samuel Williams, going to town on some armed robbers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/raw-video-fla-man-shoots-would-be-robbers/2012/07/18/gJQAOvKguW_video.html

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/71-Year-Old-Man-Shoots-Would-Be-Robbers-at-Ocala-Internet-Cafe-Authorities-162941656.html

I would state the opposite:

"I have no problem with people owning firearms to protect themselves, but to try and pretend like situations like this would not end differently if someone were carrying is a ridiculous ploy by the anti-gun movement in America and other nations."

Don't you think it is a bit ridiculous to assume even a single gun owner in the theater would not have saved lives?

So you say the police would have had a difficult time taking him out, but then you claim that a single gun owner would have made the difference? Makes no sense.

Secondly, your article with the old man is exactly the type of situation I was saying was valid: an armed citizen against inept criminals. That is something that justifies concealed carry. However, the argument that one citizen against a motivated, well-equipped nut job would make a difference is foolish and one that I was hinting that gun fanatics would try and hold to. It also is a situation that in no way helps to show that assault rifles and the like should be easily obtainable.

Let's also add to the fact that these are people who even if they know how to use a weapon are in a dark theater, under fire, with people panicking around them, and are dealing with being exposed to tear gas.

Let's also remember situations such as the armed robbery in Cali a few years ago. Two men in full body armor and the police couldn't do crap to them until they got automatic weapons and closed on them in force.

Let's look at the Kehoe brothers who got pulled over in Colorado back in the 90s. One of them engaged and officer from within 10 feet of each other and neither he nor the officer hit anything but air after emptying an entire magazine. One was a radical who had militia gun training, one was a trained officer, both missed. I don't think a bunch of Sunday shoppers running and gunning in a crowded theater would have made for happy endings.

Omega Vision

@DDD: The average NRA member has no experience shooting an armored man in a heated situation in a dark theater with tear gas in their eyes. Rob is right, the more likely scenario would be that lots more people would be shot by a dozen half-blinded NRA members shooting at the shooter.

Unless they brought rifles and gas masks with them...
Originally posted by Robtard
Anyone who thinks armed civic-minded movies goers would have been a good thing in this scenario is a ****ing loon. Imagine 1-10+ armed men and women firing at an armed and armoured lunatic in a dark and noisy theater that's filling with tear-gas.

I don't think it's crazy to think the death-count would have been higher by panicking and fleeing people getting shot by accident. I know people love to imagine themselves as heroes, but be realistic.
For an illustration: rGFZDhCjvj0

This guy is a horrible shot. It's fortunate he didn't shoot that lady in the face.

Ascendancy

Wow. Didn't watch the vid before. Points out exactly the way that a lot of that practice range competency goes out the window in those kind of situations. Very undisciplined shooting. Glad no one else was hurt.

Oliver North

I think what is more important about that video is that the teen with the gun actually points it in the direction of the old man before walking by. If this were a rampage shooting instead of a robbery, that man would have not had the time to draw his weapon without being shot first, especially if, instead of a pistol and bat, these two had automatic weapons. (ugh, its not as good in that footage, as they skip past the kid walking by and go straight to Williams already in pursuit, but the do show enough to make my point).

What I'd also point out, both of those kids were shot. I'm not sure this is a preferable outcome to a mere robbery. Certainly we wouldn't be calling the man a hero if he had shot and killed a robber armed only with a bat (or, at least, we shouldn't) or his 17 year old accomplice, pistol or not.

Oliver North

or, just as a thought experiment:

put yourself in the situation of being in that theater, and unarmed. There is a lunatic firing on you, and then suddenly the man next to you pulls a weapon.

is "gee, this guy is trying to save me" really going to be your first thought? I know I'd at least be equally likely to think it was an accomplice of some type. Having the rose coloured glasses of knowing there was only one shooter is not something we can pretend the victims would have known. Any would be vigilante in this case immediately risks being attacked by those near them, or the police, who arrived in under 90 seconds after being called.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Ascendancy
So you say the police would have had a difficult time taking him out, but then you claim that a single gun owner would have made the difference? Makes no sense.

No, those are two different arguments. One argument is the people in the theater would not be able to "get him" with guns, at all because he is wearing full body armor: no need for citizens having guns as there is no justification. Well, the police would have had just as difficult a time so the argument against guns, there, is not valid. Most police do not carry armor piercing bullets.

Another argument is that no gun toter would make a difference in the outcome and would have shot people in the theater. That's probably wrong as he was immediately deterred by the police pointing guns at him. Additionally, he was standing at the fire-exit opening fire: he was the most visible person in the room.

Those are two different arguments are are only marginally related: they cannot be correlated and a contradiction contrived.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Secondly, your article with the old man is exactly the type of situation I was saying was valid: an armed citizen against inept criminals. That is something that justifies concealed carry. However, the argument that one citizen against a motivated, well-equipped nut job would make a difference is foolish and one that I was hinting that gun fanatics would try and hold to. It also is a situation that in no way helps to show that assault rifles and the like should be easily obtainable.

I do not think those criminals were inept. They had a pretty good team-system going and the appeared to spread out and make note of everyone in the room. It appeared that they had done this before.

And the idea that one armed citizen against a nutjob will not make a difference is stupid: how many citizens have to defend themselves before you think that you're wrong? Apparently, well over 1.5 million (I read it was 2.5 million) defenses happen, every year, from armed citizens firing their weapons. I am not gun-fanatic but it seems to me that if anyone had a gun in that theater, they could have saved lives.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Let's also add to the fact that these are people who even if they know how to use a weapon are in a dark theater,

He's standing at the exit (lit up because he's standing in the light) and almost everyone interviewed that bothered to look said they saw him (most people just ran out).

Originally posted by Ascendancy
under fire, with people panicking around them, and are dealing with being exposed to tear gas.

Sounds like the perfect scenario for the shooter to be caught off guard by someone, in the dark, getting a shot off in his face. Remember, he's wearing full body armor, has diminished visibility due to wearing a gas mask, put that stuff on in 85+ degree weather, is a skinny man (adding to his probable fatigue), and is carrying quite a few weapons that definitely weigh him down.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Let's also remember situations such as the armed robbery in Cali a few years ago. Two men in full body armor and the police couldn't do crap to them until they got automatic weapons and closed on them in force.

It was North Hollywood and if you remember, they were shot "all over the place." One of the fellas (he was the one with the short last name) was shot all over before he threw in the towel by killing himself with a handgun. The other dude (the one with the really long last name) was injured due to the gunfire beneath the car: his legs were shot over 20 times.

So, no, the idea that the cops couldn't do crap to them is false. They did quite a bit. Tactics changed to shoot appendages or the head of armored foes until armor piercing rounds can be acquired (if none are present, at the time of the confrontation). Also, only two people died: the shooters: despite being armed with automatic weapons.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Let's look at the Kehoe brothers who got pulled over in Colorado back in the 90s. One of them engaged and officer from within 10 feet of each other and neither he nor the officer hit anything but air after emptying an entire magazine. One was a radical who had militia gun training, one was a trained officer, both missed. I don't think a bunch of Sunday shoppers running and gunning in a crowded theater would have made for happy endings.

Let's look at the fat old man in that internet cafe (was that were he was) that seemed to unload on two robbers and did it quite well.

If you want to use anecdotes, there are hundreds of thousands to millions of self-defenses perpetuated with guns, each year, that would contradict your anecdotes.

For every situation you come up with "someone missed" or "someone got killed for being a hero", there are tens of thousands of cases ready to be substituted.

Robtard

Originally posted by dadudemon
More indirect troll-posting, eh? Your post was directed specifically at me because I was the only one that made that statement. Have enough balls to actually quote me instead of making passive-aggressive troll posts like this one. erm

INB4 "rage posting!"
INB4 "U mad!"

I assure you, I am perfectly calm. no expression

Deal with me calling you out instead of dodging with "he's just rage posting".

And, no, it would appear you are incorrect. Did you see the video I posted of the old man taking out the two robbers? He seemed to do just fine as he waddled after them. "BUT IT WAS LIT, MAN!" Sure, ignore that he was shooting from the exit and seemed to be able to see well enough to aim the gun right in someone's face (read some of the information in the links I posted). People were able to see just fine. That might be because he opened up the exit to get his stuff. But, the visual details the victims talk about are too high to be this dark, smoke filled theater, that two of you now (you and Silver Tears) seem to think they experienced.

Let's pretend there is another scenario where the shooter is shooting in a pitch-black theater. So why can't those armed citizens sneak up on him and then open fire instead of this wild-flailing and spraying that you think all people would do?

Depending on the state, the conceal and carry is just not handed out like candy.

More trolling, wtf? It was to anyone who thinks "more guns" would have been a good thing in scenario. It also wasn't a "troll post", it's my honest opinion of that assessment.

No need to pin yourself on the cross.

Now, could one (or more) armed person have sneaked up on the guy and shot him dead or made a great shot and killed him from a distance? Yes, it's possible. But taking into account a dark theater with people panicking*, it's more likely that people who have been caught in the cross-fire.

*I watched an interview (Anderson Cooper, iirc) with two guys that were in the theater; they said in was mass panic, people stepping over each other to get out and that the gas was stinking and blinding.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard
Now, could one (or more) armed person sneaked up on the guy and shot him dead or made a great shot and killed him from a distance? Yes, it's possible. But taking into account a dark theater with people panicking (as was claimed my many who were there), it's more likely that people who have been caught in the cross-fire.

But what about the fact that he was pretty much the most visible person in the room? That makes for a great target. I'm sure a skinny fella like him would have felt the rounds hit is armor, worst case scenario. Despite what some people will say, getting hit by a bullet in body armor hurts.

Mindset

Oliver North

your totally right ddm, the guy in full ballistic armor with an automatic rifle, 100 round clip, shotgun and 40 cal glock is at a disadvantage against a citizen with a pistol (which the theater banned anyways).

btw: the sheriff told channel 7 news last night (in a televised cast, so no linkable quote outside wiki) that witnesses reported diminished viability or that the shooter appeared as a silhouette in the smoke.

EDIT: to clarify, this link has witnesses describing the shooter as being a "silhouette", which by definition, means the view is obscured.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/31289126/detail.html

not to mention, many people in the theater didn't know there was a gunman until the smoke had already gone off, others suspected he was part of a promotional stunt, and anyone on the right side of the theater would have had limited, if any, view of the shooter.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21119904

really man, I don't see why someone didn't just sneak up behind the guy and snap his neck, then hit him with groin shots. He totally would have gone down, I mean, what a pussy, he didn't even fire back at the cops.

EDIT: oh, also, being in front of a bright light in a dark room is a great way to mess with people's perception. I'm sure you know a little about the differences between vision in the dark and the light, so there is that line of evidence, but even more colloquially, there is a reason it is a convention in movies to have someone being interrogated to be in a dark room with a light on them - it messes with their ability to see, or, think of old timey dog-fights, where pilots would try to fly at their opponents in front of the sun.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you want to use anecdotes, there are hundreds of thousands to millions of self-defenses perpetuated with guns, each year, that would contradict your anecdotes.

unfortunately, those numbers are almost next to worthless. In some estimates, they use self-reports, which have been found to include instances where a person was merely passed in a dark alley and thought their possession of a gun had prevented them from being a victim. They include scaring away robbers who might have otherwise been scared off without a gun. If George Zimmerman is found not-guilty, he will be included in those statistics. In one of the stories I posted in that thread, a man shot a mentally handicapped teen because he had punched his car, that statistic is included in "guns protecting people from crimes".

I'd love an actual count, but I've never seen one with good methodology, and people have been pointing this out since I was back in high school (I read an article on it in Scientific American back in the day).

Certainly, there are some, but if this type of logic were true, you would expect more gun crime in nations with tougher gun control (people unable to defend themselves have more crime done to them), and in general you see the opposite.

Robtard

Originally posted by Oliver North
I think what is more important about that video is that the teen with the gun actually points it in the direction of the old man before walking by. If this were a rampage shooting instead of a robbery, that man would have not had the time to draw his weapon without being shot first, especially if, instead of a pistol and bat, these two had automatic weapons. (ugh, its not as good in that footage, as they skip past the kid walking by and go straight to Williams already in pursuit, but the do show enough to make my point).

What I'd also point out, both of those kids were shot. I'm not sure this is a preferable outcome to a mere robbery. Certainly we wouldn't be calling the man a hero if he had shot and killed a robber armed only with a bat (or, at least, we shouldn't) or his 17 year old accomplice, pistol or not.

I've heard more than one person spin this into a "he saved lives", like those teens were going to kill everyone as fact after they robbed the place.

Possible, but not likely.

Robtard

Originally posted by dadudemon
But what about the fact that he was pretty much the most visible person in the room? That makes for a great target. I'm sure a skinny fella like him would have felt the rounds hit is armor, worst case scenario. Despite what some people will say, getting hit by a bullet in body armor hurts.

Even accepting that the gun-man had a big red light on his head, there would have been people panicking all about and likely getting in the way. As Oliver North pointed out, someone sitting next to them could have attacked them in turn not knowing or even armed movie-goers shooting at each other not knowing if the other was involved in the massacre.

These would be for the most part average people who've never been in a position where someone is trying to shoot them dead and never felt tear-gas; 'mass panic' was the case here. My heterosexual life-partner who was in the military and has been tear-gassed before for training purposes says it's absolutely frightening and you panic, especially the first time. Now add darkness, someone shooting at you and people shoving you all about on-top of your eyes burning and not being able to breath properly. Staying calm and collective fly out the window.

Tzeentch._

Originally posted by Robtard
Nope.

Robtard

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Nope.

Basic Training = being tear-gassed. Mother****er!

Mindset

I think he's saying that you are both homosexuals.

Astner

I don't have a gun, but I do have a N.B.T.H.K. certified katana set. It's primarily intended for decoration, but if shit went down in the hood there's no guarantee that I wouldn't be slicing through crowds like Afro Samurai. I'm just saying.

Oliver North

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht

Tzeentch._

Wayyyy too long; didn't read.

Oliver North

George Costanza made a couple good points is all

Tzeentch._

Could you summarize them?

Or, even better, bullet them! : D

Omega Vision

I doubt that an AR-15 with NATO ammo can fire farther and more accurately than a good hunting rifle, otherwise I agree with that.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Oliver North
your totally right ddm, the guy in full ballistic armor

He wasn't in "full ballistic armor".

Problem #1.

Originally posted by Oliver North
with an automatic rifle,

He didn't have an automatic rifle.

Problem #2.

Originally posted by Oliver North
100 round clip,

This is accurate.

Originally posted by Oliver North
100shotgun and 40 cal glock

What's a "100shotgun"?

But, yes, he had 2 glocks and a shotgun. Couldn't find anything to back up what caliber it was.

Originally posted by Oliver North
is at a disadvantage against a citizen with a pistol (which the theater banned anyways).

Nice strawman. If you could, please point to where I said "he is at a disadvantage to someone with a handgun".

But, based on your wording, you made two very big mistakes with your recollection.

This is what full-body armor looks like:

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images/full_body_armor_1.jpg

That's not what he was wearing.

His rifle was semi-automatic, not automatic. It also jammed so he discarded it.

Originally posted by Oliver North
btw: the sheriff told channel 7 news last night (in a televised cast, so no linkable quote outside wiki) that witnesses reported diminished viability or that the shooter appeared as a silhouette in the smoke.

And some people said that they saw him walk up and down the aisles, unloading on people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/colorado-shooter-identified-as-james-holmes-24/2012/07/20/gJQAWkdrxW_story.html

Another man described Holmes' entire getup in vivid detail.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/colorado-shooter-identified-as-james-holmes-24/2012/07/20/gJQAWkdrxW_story.html

Another described, visually, everything that was going on in the theater (see the ABC interview I posted).

Originally posted by Oliver North
really man, I don't see why someone didn't just sneak up behind the guy and snap his neck,

You can't really do that to a human without considerable strength. But I know you're just mocking me by pretending that every armed citizen in the US is a true "American Ninja." Just don't hope to be taken seriously with comments like that. (And as the rest of your post indicates, you spiral into a very anti-gun tirade that is mostly unscientific or unsupportable).

Originally posted by Oliver North
then hit him with groin shots.

He was wearing armor that covered his groin area. smile

Originally posted by Oliver North
He totally would have gone down, I mean, what a pussy, he didn't even fire back at the cops.

Yes, he probably is a coward. He didn't take his life at the end of his rampage and he opened fire on defenseless people: definitely a coward.

Originally posted by Oliver North
EDIT: oh, also, being in front of a bright light in a dark room is a great way to mess with people's perception.

Not really. It's a great way to draw attention to yourself, though by making yourself the only visible figure in a room, for a while.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm sure you know a little about the differences between vision in the dark and the light,

Yes, the light from the screen or the emergency exit would have made him much more visible than anything else due to the lights adjusted the irises to close up a bit more. It probably would not be until the people looked down at the ground that their eyes would readjust to the darker ground and aisle areas.

Originally posted by Oliver North
so there is that line of evidence,

Yes, the evidence that he would be much more visible than even people sitting next to each other.

Originally posted by Oliver North
but even more colloquially, there is a reason it is a convention in movies to have someone being interrogated to be in a dark room with a light on them - it messes with their ability to see, or, think of old timey dog-fights, where pilots would try to fly at their opponents in front of the sun.

Yes, seeing a man 40-60 feet away at a brighter area in front of a fire exist would blind someone to the point of debilitating their vision.

And, yes, their vision impairement was so severe that comparing his entrance to the theater at the fire exit is logically and scientifically comparable to pilots firing on opponents flying into the sunlight.

Originally posted by Oliver North
unfortunately, those numbers are almost next to worthless.

Of course those numbers would be worthless to you: you're very anti-gun. Any type of stats used to show why guns are effective, you would automatically reject.

Any types of stats that would show that they are ineffective, you would automatically support. This is called "confirmation bias" in the psychological community.

Originally posted by Oliver North
In some estimates, they use self-reports, which have been found to include instances where a person was merely passed in a dark alley and thought their possession of a gun had prevented them from being a victim.

Yes, all of those reports can be thrown out and none can be trusted because some may have incorrectly reported their defense.

Originally posted by Oliver North
They include scaring away robbers who might have otherwise been scared off without a gun.

Yes, in all instances, the robbers could have been scared away with other means and the guns had nothing to do with it: those portions of the stats should be thrown out, too.

Originally posted by Oliver North
If George Zimmerman is found not-guilty, he will be included in those statistics.

Yes, because 1 person among hundreds of thousands to millions will grossly throw-off the statistics.

Originally posted by Oliver North
In one of the stories I posted in that thread, a man shot a mentally handicapped teen because he had punched his car, that statistic is included in "guns protecting people from crimes".

Yes, because the man was mentally handicapped and going to town on some dude's care, the entirety of the statistics should be thrown out.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'd love an actual count, but I've never seen one with good methodology, and people have been pointing this out since I was back in high school (I read an article on it in Scientific American back in the day).

Yes, all of those statistics are misreported and none are legitimate.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Certainly, there are some,

Oh yes, some. But most likely just a dozen or so in the US, each year, right? That is grossly outweighed by the accidental shootings and suicides by firearms, right?

Originally posted by Oliver North
but if this type of logic were true, you would expect more gun crime in nations with tougher gun control (people unable to defend themselves have more crime done to them), and in general you see the opposite.

Oh yes, the facts are definitely wrong. Increasing individual gun ownership has never been followed by a decrease in violent crimes, right? In no city, ever, right?

And crime increases the more people can defend themselves, right? The facts back that up, right?

Edit - My post is a mixture of sarcasm and direct meaning. If you are confused at which portions are sarcasm and which are direct, let me know: I'd be happy to clarify (Ushgarak has asked me to be more direct).

Symmetric Chaos

This is the kind of thing I've been talking about:

More rounds: Yep.
More range: Not in the slightest. Many states require hunting rifles fire full power rounds that have vastly greater range than a 5.56.
More accurate: No, people accurize their hunting rifles. In an enclosed space accuracy is pretty meaningless anyway.
More lethal: I could go into a long discussion of biology and physics and history about trying to measure the "lethality" of a given round. Suffice to say bullets don't become more deadly because they're fired from a scary looking gun.

Because people say and believe things like this the gun community is very happy to dismiss its critics as having no idea what they're talking about, because so often they clearly do not. It gives the impression of hysteria. When someone opens a conversation with "the LHC should never have been made because it will destroy the universe" it doesn't matter what other arguments they bring against it, they just proved they've failed to understand the very thing they're talking about.

Dadude are you really trying to argue that a random person could get a headshot on this guy while in a dark room with teargas in his eyes when highly trained and experienced people miss that shot under ideal circumstances? These Rambo delusions that people have are beyond absurd.

Oliver North

Originally posted by dadudemon
Of course those numbers would be worthless to you: you're very anti-gun. Any type of stats used to show why guns are effective, you would automatically reject.

Any types of stats that would show that they are ineffective, you would automatically support. This is called "confirmation bias" in the psychological community.

oh

Tzeentch._

Classic Plague.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Dadude are you really trying to argue that a random person could get a headshot on this guy while in a dark room with teargas in his eyes when highly trained and experienced people miss that shot under ideal circumstances? These Rambo delusions that people have are beyond absurd.

Not really. I am more or less arguing that it may have saved lives or ended the confrontation more quickly.

Worst case scenario, he takes a couple of bullets to his armor, it hurts pretty bad, and he steps out or takes cover. Just a few seconds of him not firing could save lives and that's what matters.

Then there's the chance that someone could get a shot off in his face or any of his appendages. That's definitely an added bonus or possibly confrontation ending.

No Rambo speed or accuracy required. He seemed to give up fairly quickly when the police pointed their guns at him. Maybe that was Holmes' plan? Maybe he truly was a coward? Who knows. But no one can argue that someone firing at him would have done nothing : surely it could have saved a life or two or spared someone injury as more escaped? sad

A shot to the face is possible and not even that difficult for even Old Man Jenkins. Keep in mind that he's a slow moving, big, probably hot (he had to have been hot in that outfit since he got dressed outside) target.

Originally posted by Oliver North
oh

lol

Figured you'd get a kick out of that. It's almost always a tough crowd in here.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Classic Plague.

Quiet, you: get back to posting "TL : DR" posts. uhuh

BackFire

"Worst case scenario, he takes a couple of bullets to his armor, it hurts pretty bad, and he steps out or takes cover. Just a few seconds of him not firing could save lives and that's what matters."

Pretty sure that's not the worst case scenario.

dadudemon

Originally posted by BackFire
"Worst case scenario, he takes a couple of bullets to his armor, it hurts pretty bad, and he steps out or takes cover. Just a few seconds of him not firing could save lives and that's what matters."

Pretty sure that's not the worst case scenario.

Worst case scenario for a situation where armed citizens fire back in probable outcomes.

But, if you want an even more worse case scenario when dealing wit this but is much more unlikely:

"The fire at him, all miss, and they all get shot in retaliation by him."

Is that better? sad

BackFire

A little better. Still not quite worst case scenario, though.

Maybe this - They fire at him, all miss, end up accidentally shooting innocent people, and they all get shot in retaliation by him."

Impediment

This is the latest meme of Holmes floating around Facebook.

Personally, I think it's a crock of shit. What say you blokes?

dadudemon

Originally posted by BackFire
A little better. Still not quite worst case scenario, though.

Maybe this - They fire at him, all miss, end up accidentally shooting innocent people, and they all get shot in retaliation by him."

Oh.

Yes, that would be worst.

I can reword it to, "Most probable worst case scenario", then, to sate the critics. uhuh

dadudemon

Originally posted by Impediment
This is the latest meme of Holmes floating around Facebook.

Personally, I think it's a crock of shit. What say you blokes?

I agree with that: the image, not your post.

The Trayvon Martin shooting had a lot of anti-latino sentiments.

Terror attacks from Muslims? Had a lot of anti-muslim sentiments.

I think America has a lot of racists. I have not heard one thing about 'stupid white people always doing stupid sh*t" from anyone or any demographic. We seem to gloss over the fact that he was white.

Lek Kuen

Originally posted by dadudemon

I think America has a lot of racists. I have not heard one thing about 'stupid white people always doing stupid sh*t" from anyone or any demographic. We seem to gloss over the fact that he was white.
You would if you lived in my neighborhood.

Ascendancy

Dadudemon, I really think you didn't even bother to read my post at all, despite the fact that you dissected it into quotable tidbits.

1) I completely support the idea that the average citizen with concealed carry can prevent incidents of crime. I've made that clear several times.

2) What I don't agree with and what all the "cases" you attempt to site about gun defense don't support either is citizen gunmen taking down well-equipped shooters. However you want to spin it there have been no incidences of the mass shootings in recent history being stopped or slowed by anyone other than the police.

The case I pointed out in Texas would have been a perfect chance to be changed, but as it happened the would-be hero ended up dead. He used standard aiming tactics, both hands on the gun, target squared up ON A SUNNY DAY and was not able to take down the attacker with a headshot. For you to claim that had the old man from that robbery in the vid been there in a dark theater, eyes filled with tear gas, people panicking around him because the shooting had already started, it would have made all the difference is ludicrous.

Again, in case you didn't understand I fully support the right to bear arms, but citizens with handguns will never be the dividing line in which way one of these shootings goes and scenes like this should in no way ever be used to lend support to the need for access to assault rifles and tactical gear including body armor.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Dadudemon, I really think you didn't even bother to read my post at all, despite the fact that you dissected it into quotable tidbits.

Well, I did and I addressed things directly, point by point.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
1) I completely support the idea that the average citizen with concealed carry can prevent incidents of crime. I've made that clear several times.

I don't. I do not want the average citizen getting a conceal and carry. I want exceptional citizens to get a conceal and carry.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
2) What I don't agree with and what all the "cases" you attempt to site about gun defense don't support either is citizen gunmen taking down well-equipped shooters. However you want to spin it there have been no incidences of the mass shootings in recent history being stopped or slowed by anyone other than the police.

Those police seemed to take down the shooters in North Hollywood with regular ol' Berretta's. They turned one of the shooter's legs into hamburger meat.

But I'd like to find a single instance where a citizen gunman stopped a mass-shooting in progress. To my recollection, none have occurred because no one had any guns during those shootings other than the police. Why would anyone but the police be able to stop them when no one but the police had the guns? sad

Originally posted by Ascendancy
The case I pointed out in Texas would have been a perfect chance to be changed, but as it happened the would-be hero ended up dead. He used standard aiming tactics, both hands on the gun, target squared up ON A SUNNY DAY and was not able to take down the attacker with a headshot.

I believe that most people do not aim for the head. they aim for the body. This could explain why he did not shoot the head. Based on mine and your conversation, don't you think that people like you and I who may (or already do) have a conceal and carry will think that maybe we should aim for vulnerable spots?

I guess most people think they will panic. But in most to all disaster situations I have been in, I think fairly clearly.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
For you to claim that had the old man from that robbery in the vid been there in a dark theater,

It wasn't that dark: vivid visual descriptions were given by some people.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
eyes filled with tear gas,

Some, maybe, but not all.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
people panicking around him because the shooting had already started,

Some panicking. most quickly cleared the area: that would leave a fairly decent line of sight without worrying about hitting innocents, imo.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
it would have made all the difference is ludicrous.

I disagree since I seemed to have taken apart your reasons in this post and others.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Again, in case you didn't understand I fully support the right to bear arms, but citizens with handguns will never be the dividing line in which way one of these shootings goes and scenes like this should in no way ever be used to lend support to the need for access to assault rifles and tactical gear including body armor.

I disagree. Citizens may be the difference between 12 dead with 60 injured and 6 dead with 30 injured in these types of situations.

There were several military personnel there, as well. If they had some guns on their person, I think they could have been effective.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
You would if you lived in my neighborhood.

1. Sexy avatar.

2. lol! It's about time we got some "crazy-ass crackers" talk going on. As I have pointed out in the past, 20-45, white, males are the most common type of terrorist in America.

Ascendancy

I will say that race is certainly mentioned in these cases, but as that meme points out, rarely if ever on the news. I will also say that in instances such as with the D.C. shooters race wasn't mentioned either, but I do seem to recall multiple mentions of the fact that the adult shooter was Muslim.

Clearly there are still issues of race and stereotypes prevalent here as some tried to paint Treyvon Martin as a pot-smoking thug shortly after his murder; ironic in that such assumptions are what got him killed in the first place. The U.S. is a country built on ideas of liberty but also rampant racism and bigotry that it is still trying to climb out from under and that will take time.

Back on-topic: just saw on CBS Evening News that the shooter's gear matched that of the S.W.A.T. team that responded and that had two of them not noticed that his gas mask was non-regulation he likely would have slipped by in the confusion. Guess he watched Leon the Professional one too many times.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Back on-topic: just saw on CBS Evening News that the shooter's gear matched that of the S.W.A.T. team that responded and that had two of them not noticed that his gas mask was non-regulation he likely would have slipped by in the confusion. Guess he watched Leon the Professional one too many times.

Woah.

Now that dude seems much smarter than I was originally giving him credit for.

Grand-Moff-Gav

Originally posted by Lestov16
I didn't even hear any of those reports. I heard he was wearing a gas mask. All I have to say is damn it. The Dark Knight was already surrounded by Heath Ledger's tragic death, and now this shit

To be fair, it saved them having to watch a terrible movie.

Oliver North

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is the kind of thing I've been talking about:

More rounds: Yep.
More range: Not in the slightest. Many states require hunting rifles fire full power rounds that have vastly greater range than a 5.56.
More accurate: No, people accurize their hunting rifles. In an enclosed space accuracy is pretty meaningless anyway.
More lethal: I could go into a long discussion of biology and physics and history about trying to measure the "lethality" of a given round. Suffice to say bullets don't become more deadly because they're fired from a scary looking gun.

Because people say and believe things like this the gun community is very happy to dismiss its critics as having no idea what they're talking about, because so often they clearly do not. It gives the impression of hysteria. When someone opens a conversation with "the LHC should never have been made because it will destroy the universe" it doesn't matter what other arguments they bring against it, they just proved they've failed to understand the very thing they're talking about.

to be fair, though, what Alexander is saying isn't really that hard to parse from that. Whether the lethality of a round can be determined to any exact degree is one thing, but there are surely reasons why the militaries on this planet have moved from hunting rifles to assault rifles beyond simply them looking scary.

I do sort of get what you are saying, but isn't this a little nit-picky? I mean, I'm still sort of confused about a clear distinction between an automatic and semi-automatic weapon, I don't think that represents as fundamental of a misunderstanding as does the LHC example, and certainly doesn't invalidate my opinions on guns made for the specific purpose of efficient human killing for the military.

(being honest, however, the range/accuracy claim about hunting rifles was a fairly obvious gaff; just out of curiosity, what is the technical difference between a hunting rifle with a scope and a sniper rifle?)

Colossus-Big C

Does anyone know why he did it?

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Oliver North
Whether the lethality of a round can be determined to any exact degree is one thing, but there are surely reasons why the militaries on this planet have moved from hunting rifles to assault rifles beyond simply them looking scary.

A large part of the change to small caliber rounds can be credited to a study found that the only factor that strongly correlated with an increased chance of willing a battle was firing more shots than the enemy. Small rounds weigh less so you can carry more. Doctrine has changed since then but the basic philosophy that that "no one ever regretted having an extra shot" is still the main argument in favor of assault rifles.

The 5.56 round that is used in most assault rifles (starting with the M16) tears itself apart inside soft materials like flesh, which was marketed as making it more effective, but there's little evidence for the claim of improved lethality. Actually the biggest controversy is that soldiers feel doesn't kill people very well.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I do sort of get what you are saying, but isn't this a little nit-picky? I mean, I'm still sort of confused about a clear distinction between an automatic and semi-automatic weapon, I don't think that represents as fundamental of a misunderstanding as does the LHC example, and certainly doesn't invalidate my opinions on guns made for the specific purpose of efficient human killing for the military.

I'm mainly pointing out cultural things. The people who are anti-gun (for lack of a better term) usually don't care about guns enough to learn a lot about them while people who are pro-gun can be very invested in the subject. The perception is that anti-gun people are easily swayed by misinformation and emotional appeals. I think this is more true than many people are willing to accept.

The American assault weapon ban, for example, ended up banning nothing but cosmetic features that people thought looked scary. As in you could literally take one gun and change the grip and suddenly it would be illegal. Yhe very term "assault weapon" just means "scary gun", there's no actual standard meaning. In New Jersey the M1 Carbine (a semiautomatic rifle from 1938) is an assault weapon.

There is so much precedent of ignorance from the anti-gun side that the pro-gun side feels justified in just dismissing them. I think it would seriously benefit anti-gun people to get enough of an understanding of the subject to understand in serious term what it is they want to stop. At the very least it prevent the other side from saying "this guy have no idea what he's talking about" to mobilize.

It is true, however, that the AR-15 was originally specifically designed for and marketed to the US military (which I didn't know).

Semiauto vs fullauto is pretty easy.
Full auto means that if you pull the trigger and hold it the guns keeps firing and reloading until its out of rounds.
Semi auto mean that if you pull the trigger and hold it the fires once then reloads and stops.
Burst fire means that if you pull the trigger and hold it gun fires and reloads a given number of times (usually 2 or 3) then stops.

Originally posted by Oliver North
(being honest, however, the range/accuracy claim about hunting rifles was a fairly obvious gaff; just out of curiosity, what is the technical difference between a hunting rifle with a scope and a sniper rifle?)

There really isn't one. Lots of organizations arm snipers with accurized Remington 700s (a common hunting rifle) that fire high quality ammo.

Specialized sniper rifles usually fire something that was designed for long range shooting like a .338 LapuaMag or .300 WinMag. Antimaterial rifles, arguably a subset of sniper rifles, fire stuff .50 caliber or larger in order to take out harder targets like vehicles.

Oliver North

so then what would be an example of a weapon that is neither automatic or semi-automatic? something like a pump action that requires the pump to load the next round? is a revolver semi-auto, or is the self loading of a different nature?

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Oliver North
so then what would be an example of a weapon that is neither automatic or semi-automatic? something like a pump action that requires the pump to load the next round? is a revolver semi-auto, or is the self loading of a different nature?

Revolvers, pump actions, lever actions, bolt actions, and single shot guns are all considered to be manual and thus not automatic. In a revolver the pressure you place on the trigger provides the energy used to rotate the cylinder (except in two very rare automatic revolvers).

Ascendancy

Going to have to agree that not knowing the basic difference between weapon types doesn't help the anti-gun squad much. When the assault weapons ban expired Bill Mahr made a joke that there were Uzis under the seat for the entire audience, which was either a piece of slanted commentary that skewed things further for a likely ignorant audience or showed that he himself was ignorant over the piece of legislation.

Oliver North

so the assault weapon ban didn't restrict Uzis but did restrict the M1?

that does seem really superficial and totally useless...

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Oliver North
so the assault weapon ban didn't restrict Uzis but did restrict the M1?

that does seem really superficial and totally useless...

No, the Uzi was banned because it had a folding stock and a pistol grip (the original was also full auto which makes it banned by an older law). A Chinese company made an import legal version by giving it a wooden stock.

assault weapon:
http://www.gunlistings.org/uploads/l2_rifles_norinco_m320__uzi_clone_72602.jpg
non-assault weapon:
http://thumbnails43.imagebam.com/19855/2b5c5f198549361.jpg

I believe the most extreme example that's ever been found was that under the AWB you couldn't buy an AK-47 (which was banned as a line item because it didn't have banned features) but you could buy a Type-56. The only difference between the two guns is the shape of their sights.

The provisions of the ban are very strange in general:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

The strangest by far is that obsolete (as in antique) grenade launchers were banned but not the modern versions.
Suppressors being banned is probably the most interesting from a social/political perspective. Most people are familiar with them as a movie assassin's tool, which is why they're listed, but pre- and post-AWB they're used more for extra hearing protection.

And it didn't entirely ban any of these things. You could attach a suppressor to a rifle . . . as long as it didn't also have a pistol grip.

I believe in the end it was allowed to expire because everybody hated it. The pro side found it restrictive and the anti side needed to get rid of it in order to make a useful law.

Ascendancy

No, the assault weapons ban didn't change whether or not you could have a fully-automatic weapon without the appropriate class of dealer license, which is what what Mahr's full statement implied and what his audience seemed to believe.

What it did was things such as banning flash suppressors, certain types of magazines, and specific firearms. I don't recall there being any reduction in crime statistics that could be linked to its passage and there certainly wasn't an increase in gun crime once it expired. It was done to appease anti-gun voters and lobbyists. If they want to do something of worth push for proper legislation.

Looks like I was thoroughly beaten to the punch by SC. =p Yeah, to say it was a weird piece of legislation is only to begin the conversation. It made no sense what-so-ever.

Oliver North

oh, for sure, I knew there were dumb things, like if the clip was in front/behind the trigger or those things, I just misunderstood the joke.

if it did ban a ww2 era rifle but not the Uzi, that would seem particularly problematic, but Sym pointed out a number or equally confounding issues...

The MISTER

Originally posted by Darth Jello
This is why living in the Colorado suburbs is terrible. Growing up there it's like the endless rows of clone tract housing (the American equivalent of communist matchbox apartments), the dry and high altitude, the featureless prarie, the ample supply of guns and drugs, and the general ****ed attitude of people and ample hate grouops creates these monsters. Even coming to visit for a prolonged time to certain towns will **** you up. Just a reminder that several spree killers (including this one), Dick Cheney, Condaleeza Rice, Sayed Qutb (the father of Muslim Terrorism), James Watt, and Tim Allen and Jake Lloyd(not as bad, but definitely a plague on acting) all were born or studied in the Colorado suburbs. I think you have a good point as harsh as it may seem to some.

The MISTER

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Does anyone know why he did it? Even if he explained his reasons in detail most of us would consider it crazy. We could just sum it up as "he did it cause he was crazy".

Some of the factors that may have led to his mental meltdown could be a life structure that was too rigid and demanding, a false presentation of perfection important to his family, and possibly a desire to share pain to those he felt were oblivious to suffering.

Robtard

Originally posted by Impediment
This is the latest meme of Holmes floating around Facebook.

Personally, I think it's a crock of shit. What say you blokes?

LoL.

Oliver North

So, I was in North Dakota for a conference when this happened. For a laugh, my girlfriend and I had been listening to conservative talk radio for the 4-5 hour drive to and from Fargo from Winnipeg (at least on the American side of the border, we switched that shit back to CBC immediately once we got north of the 49). The station was FLAG AM 1100, supporting "Faith, Family, Freedom and Free Enterprise".

I can't imagine it is going to surprise anyone that I and the Tea Party crowd disagree on most things, but I did want to share an awesome part of the experience of hearing this news event covered by batshit insane individuals.

So, the obvious:

- Laura Ingraham knows karate and has escape routes planned from every building she is ever in because she expects the unexpected (she teaches her kids to do this too)

- the theater's policy of not allowing concealed weapons into the theater was responsible for so many people dying

- the media loves it when white people shoot other people but wont report on the Fort Hood shootings for fear of upsetting Muslims

- Laura Ingraham does not have the capacity to understand why Barack Obama would suspend his campaign for a day or why Romney would pull political ads in Aurora in the wake of the shooting

but...

what was really amazing was her reaction to a morning talk show that mentioned someone with the same name as the shooter was scheduled to attend a Tea Party rally of some type. I sympathize with her criticism that, even if the shooter was a Tea Party member, this is generally irrelevant unless it comes out that the attack was politically motivated.

However...

Ingraham quite literally spent the next 3 hours playing the most amazing game of "I know you are but what am I?" in the most immature way possible.

Her argument basically boiled down to this:

- It is irresponsible to say he was a member of the Tea Party

- The Batman film portrayed the people of Gotham as rabble

- The rabble is an allegory for the 99%, Batman is the 1%

- Internet trolls were angry that some people gave the film a bad review

- Therefore, the Batman film inspired anger and violence in the 99% because they were mad it got bad reviews or they were mad at how they were portrayed (she moved back and forth between these positions frequently)

- The tactical armor the shooter was wearing was black

- The black bloc wears black

- Gas masks are also a part of the black bloc attire

- The black bloc is the military wing of the Occupy movement

- Occupy caused the shooting

Now, she would say things like "we don't know for sure yet, but..." and so on, the same way conspiracy theorists say "I'm just asking questions", however, the implication was really clear. She was pissed that someone would associate guns with the Tea Party, so she insisted it was actually Occupy that was to blame (even though nobody blamed the Tea Party, just mentioned something they found online possibly linking the shooter to an event). That the Tea Party also are upset by the 1% and could be included in the metaphorical "rabble" of the film is ignored, among many other factual things, and she yelled for the half of her program that wasn't constant commercial breaks.

Anyways, the minute we got back to Canada, CBC did a news recap of the shooting, where I learned several things that 3 hours of Ingraham didn't teach me, for instance, which guns were used and other sort of "facts" about the event. So ya, fun story, made me chuckle. I know very few people actually listen to talk radio, and the average age is something like 65, but man...

God bless America

Mairuzu

Wearing this today. Too soon?

http://i49.tinypic.com/svp5ya.jpg

Oliver North

Holmes' court appearance :

Ui_-a0ipdEA

He looks terrible...

AJE summation:

gIirRMDk5d4

Additionally, it appears that the shooter had taken Vicodin prior to the shooting at a regular dose, almost certainly to ward off pain associated with the attack .

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/james-holmes-aurora-shooting-suspect-not-cooperating-with-investigators

Not that I have any real idea of what happened, but it seems he might have had a sort of "moment of insanity" type of deal... maybe explains why he didn't shoot back at the cops? who knows...

Robtard

He looks like a stupid ****ing clown, I'd suspect that sad dopey look on his face is due to the anal-rapings he's looking forward to receiving and the possible death sentence.

Mairuzu

I wish I could afford that much weaponry right out of college while not being able to find a job and having a place of my own.

BackFire

Epic fakery by that guy. Trying to play his way to an insanity defense.

Mairuzu

Send him to arkham

Nemesis X

What is with his hair?

Mairuzu

Spent all his money on weapons and the yellow was cheaper than blue?

Robtard

Originally posted by BackFire
Epic fakery by that guy. Trying to play his way to an insanity defense.

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/6351/assclown.jpg
pic link

rudester

Originally posted by Robtard
http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/6351/assclown.jpg
pic link

I think so too. It turns out he was really smart, one of his friends said that he would show up too class not take notes and get A's... that or he cheated.

Oliver North

Originally posted by rudester
I think so too. It turns out he was really smart, one of his friends said that he would show up too class not take notes and get A's... that or he cheated.

to be fair, that is a learning style more than it is intelligence

rudester

Originally posted by Oliver North
to be fair, that is a learning style more than it is intelligence

True. Does anyone else think he kinda looks like Jackson Rathbones? I saw the video, it appears to look like he has no remorse over what happend? Sad really.

http://images.ctv.ca/gallery/photo/ent-funny-twilight-111115/image2.jpg

BackFire

He's shown himself to be cunning and intelligent. Not a stretch to think that he's also manipulative. That's what I think he's doing here, trying to manipulate people.

Ascendancy

Yeah, I don't know whether insanity will play enough to get him out of the death penalty. The uni bomber was out of his gourd, this guy just seems to be trying to save himself from the chair.

He booby trapped his house, dressed like S.W.A.T. so that he could escape, spent two months arming himself and who knows how much time actually planning this all out. I don't think too much can get him out of the chair, but time will tell.

Insomniatric

The guy needs to be locked up for the rest of his life, in my opinion.

Oliver North

1) planning and manipulation are not mutually exclusive with insanity.

2) most mental hospitals are worse than prison. I think an argument can be made that being tranquilized on anti-psychotics until the body wastes away is worse than being electrocuted.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Oliver North
Not that I have any real idea of what happened, but it seems he might have had a sort of "moment of insanity" type of deal... maybe explains why he didn't shoot back at the cops? who knows...

He spent two month stockpiling ammunition. I have a hard time seeing this is not being planned.

Oliver North

touche

dadudemon

Originally posted by Oliver North
So, I was in North Dakota for a conference when this happened. For a laugh, my girlfriend and I had been listening to conservative talk radio for the 4-5 hour drive to and from Fargo from Winnipeg (at least on the American side of the border, we switched that shit back to CBC immediately once we got north of the 49). The station was FLAG AM 1100, supporting "Faith, Family, Freedom and Free Enterprise".

I can't imagine it is going to surprise anyone that I and the Tea Party crowd disagree on most things, but I did want to share an awesome part of the experience of hearing this news event covered by batshit insane individuals.

So, the obvious:

- Laura Ingraham knows karate and has escape routes planned from every building she is ever in because she expects the unexpected (she teaches her kids to do this too)

- the theater's policy of not allowing concealed weapons into the theater was responsible for so many people dying

- the media loves it when white people shoot other people but wont report on the Fort Hood shootings for fear of upsetting Muslims

- Laura Ingraham does not have the capacity to understand why Barack Obama would suspend his campaign for a day or why Romney would pull political ads in Aurora in the wake of the shooting

but...

what was really amazing was her reaction to a morning talk show that mentioned someone with the same name as the shooter was scheduled to attend a Tea Party rally of some type. I sympathize with her criticism that, even if the shooter was a Tea Party member, this is generally irrelevant unless it comes out that the attack was politically motivated.

However...

Ingraham quite literally spent the next 3 hours playing the most amazing game of "I know you are but what am I?" in the most immature way possible.

Her argument basically boiled down to this:

- It is irresponsible to say he was a member of the Tea Party

- The Batman film portrayed the people of Gotham as rabble

- The rabble is an allegory for the 99%, Batman is the 1%

- Internet trolls were angry that some people gave the film a bad review

- Therefore, the Batman film inspired anger and violence in the 99% because they were mad it got bad reviews or they were mad at how they were portrayed (she moved back and forth between these positions frequently)

- The tactical armor the shooter was wearing was black

- The black bloc wears black

- Gas masks are also a part of the black bloc attire

- The black bloc is the military wing of the Occupy movement

- Occupy caused the shooting

Now, she would say things like "we don't know for sure yet, but..." and so on, the same way conspiracy theorists say "I'm just asking questions", however, the implication was really clear. She was pissed that someone would associate guns with the Tea Party, so she insisted it was actually Occupy that was to blame (even though nobody blamed the Tea Party, just mentioned something they found online possibly linking the shooter to an event). That the Tea Party also are upset by the 1% and could be included in the metaphorical "rabble" of the film is ignored, among many other factual things, and she yelled for the half of her program that wasn't constant commercial breaks.

Anyways, the minute we got back to Canada, CBC did a news recap of the shooting, where I learned several things that 3 hours of Ingraham didn't teach me, for instance, which guns were used and other sort of "facts" about the event. So ya, fun story, made me chuckle. I know very few people actually listen to talk radio, and the average age is something like 65, but man...

God bless America

She sounds very annoying. I would not be able stand listening to that kind of crap beyond 5 minutes.

So you think I am fair, there is a 10 minute segment here in OKC where an ultra-libtard gets on the radio and idiots up the airwaves: I can't stand listening to him, either (thought i have no listened to the radio in ages)/

Originally posted by Mairuzu
I wish I could afford that much weaponry right out of college while not being able to find a job and having a place of my own.

Me too x1000. I asked my wife yesterday where he got that money. She said student loans and/or parents. Probably.

Originally posted by Oliver North
to be fair, that is a learning style more than it is intelligence

Indeed, depending on his learning style. That, or he simply is very smart and just remember things by association and immediate-memorization.

Oliver North

Originally posted by dadudemon
She sounds very annoying. I would not be able stand listening to that kind of crap beyond 5 minutes.

ha, no for sure. If we lived in America or were around these ideas more often, I'm sure it would have been less entertaining.

I've been playing a lot of GTA4 lately, and one of the radio stations they have in the game is a mockery of right wing talk radio (they also have an equally hilarious mockery of left wing radio too). There were times that the parody station and the real station we were listening to would have been indistinguishable. Its like, moved beyond any form of mockery, there is no position so outrageous that they wont go there...

For all the crazy stuff she said, the one that really got me was how she seemed legitimately confused that Obama and Romney would cancel their campaign/ads/etc in the wake of the shooting. Like, ok, maybe it is symbolic, maybe it is political, but seriously, it is also the right thing to do to show even the smallest amount of decency and respect for the victims. She repeated over and over how she just literally didn't understand it, and said things like "I bet Obama visits Colorado, you just watch, he's going there", as if that was something the ****ing president shouldn't do.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you think I am fair, there is a 10 minute segment here in OKC where an ultra-libtard gets on the radio and idiots up the airwaves: I can't stand listening to him, either (thought i have no listened to the radio in ages)/

Oh, i hear you, massive partisan stuff like that is never any good. Even stuff I generally like, TYT for instance, annoys me at times when they sort of lose that "critical analysis" thing and just do partisan rants. It also tends to be where they make the most factual errors...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed, depending on his learning style. That, or he simply is very smart and just remember things by association and immediate-memorization.

I'm actually really similar, I do bring some paper to jot things down on, but they tend to be more questions I want clarification for, not "notes". It makes studying a bit tougher, especially for subjects like stats where having a comprehensive understanding of concepts and theories isn't really enough. I don't think it is an intelligence thing though, it is more just, in my case at least, I need to interact with information as it comes in for it to make any sense. If I'm spending my time writing it down, I don't interact with it and it loses relevance.