Originally posted by rudesterThey 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.
what do you expect public places to have metal dectectors?
For whatever reason(s), this guy was desperate for his moment of power.
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.[B]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:
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? [/B]
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.
@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.
This guy is a horrible shot. It's fortunate he didn't shoot that lady in the face.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]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. 😬
INB4 "rage posting!"
INB4 "U mad!"
I assure you, I am perfectly calm. 😐 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.
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.
Originally posted by dadudemonDepends on the bullets and the armor.
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.
Did he just have a kevlar vest? If so, then yea, he'd be down from almost any handgun.
*Haven't read the story*
Also, you have to assume these armed citizens are able to keep composure in this type of situation, something that people specifically trained for even have problems with.
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.
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.
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.
I'd like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday's victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.
Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.
Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:
As passed by the Congress:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:
"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military serviceThe advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no.
Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?
I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.
Then there are the tweets from the extreme right - these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn't see it should...
a. be labeled a moron
b. shut the **** up
c. be removedAnd amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.
These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats - no problem. But if they try it with anyone else - it's going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a "militia". They don't. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That's why they have to "take our country back". From who? From anyone who doesn't think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn't believe that? Just asking.
Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning - I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.
Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out."
But that won't happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.
I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don't kill - people do. Well if that's correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes --- a mob can deal with that.
There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.
These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.
SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?
We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.
I'll say it plainly - if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to "pry it from my cold, dead hand", then they are probably planning on using them on people.
So, sorry those of you who tell me I'm an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.
But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.
In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless.
Jason Alexander