Colorado shooting...

[Enjarin]

So the likelihood of pulling out your weapon, yelling, "Die scumbag!", shooting the guy dead with no muss and no fuss would be highly unlikely without hurting or killing someone else and maybe losing your own life.


Why in the hell would you yell anything just shoot the freak. if he has a vest on you shoot him in the face, or take his legs out. its going to be hard to shoot with 10 shots in your legs,nuts,hips.

It's not so easy to aim under those conditions much less think clearly. And you have no clue what you would do in that situation unless you have had siginficant training. Any training will teach you to avoid a shootout if possible. The point is not to use your weapon, but only when there's no other option. Without any training, chances are you will panic along with the rest. Fear is overwhelming when your faced with those situations. If not, chances are you will do something stupid to compound the issue. While you're thinking about killing the bastard, you're also putting other people at risk. Not from him, from you. Now you're just as much a threat as the actual shooter. And by the way, the cops won't care too much if you were trying to do the right thing. You're just another guy shooting in the theatre.

I hope you never face a situation like that. The reality is not like the movies.

 

[Sage]

Here in the People's Republic of Illinois, no CC is legal, so we are unable to fight back anywhere unless it's our own home or are quick enough loading if we are transporting firearms. I'm a believer that we all should be allowed to carry and that it makes criminals think twice hopefully not knowing if civilians are packing.

To think that if you had a CC and could have made a difference doesn't look like the case. The article I read said he had body armor, armored helmet, and the gasmask with tear gas out blinding and choking everyone. So unless you were used to breathing tear gas, had a pistol that could penetrate body armor or were a good enough shot while your eyes are watering and you are choking to hit him straight in the face, then the only thing that could help would be police with assault rifles that do penetrate and are better trained to do what is needed when civilians are running around in a panic. It's sad that there are some pretty psychotic people out there that would do this..

I feel for the families that had people involved in this, I have some friends out there and couldn't imagine if they were in one of the theatres when this happened.

 

[Chevyfazer]

Talking about pistols that can penetrate body armor, I've been eyeing the FN 5.7 pretty hard here lately...

Pricey but badass

 

[Sage]

Talking about pistols that can penetrate body armor, I've been eyeing the FN 5.7 pretty hard here lately...

Pricey but badass

Same here, awesome little pistol, it's not horribly pricey, but the ammo sure is.

 

[Chevyfazer]

Yeah it wouldn't be a range gun that's for sure lol

 

[Brock Kickass]

I usually stay away from expressing strong personal opinions on this forum. I respect the opinion of every member here, and I did not join to argue with people. In this case, though, my feelings on this subject are too strong to keep my mouth shut.
First, my deepest sympathy to all involved in this senseless tragedy. I cannot imagine the pain of losing a loved one to such a random and pointless crime. I cannot even imagine the pain of surviving this event. I sincerely hope that those affected by this are able, one day, to lead what resembles a normal life again.
Now, to the gun advocates: Seriouly? In a dark, teargassed theatre with people running everywhere screaming, and shots ringing out, you're going to stand up, identify the shooter, evaluate his armour situation, and then pick him off with a prefectly placed shot in the neck right in-between his vest and helmet? Or clip his thigh and put him on the ground? Oh yeah, and with a handgun? Please. I support the notion of protecting oneself in an emergency, but appempting this shot is plain reckless. It's a panic reaction which has a slim possibility of being effective and a large possibility of contributing further to the chaos and confusion.
I know this is a polarizing topic, and I'm going to take a ton of crap for this, but really. Think about this honestly and tell me if you could make that shot without a chance of killing an innocnet bystander and adding to the chaos and tragedy. If you can, you're already taking that shot as part of your job, as the best SWAT marksman in the world. The notion of a civillian attempting that shot is reckless.
Now, you stand up and attempt this shot, and a split second later, someone else does the same, only they see you, arm outstretched, blasting away before they see the psycho who started all this. Guess what happens? At least your grieving friends and family can call you a hero through their tears at your funeral.
Multiply this by 3, or 7, or 22 "heroes". How many kill each other before the shooting stops? What happens when the cops show up in the middle of this gunfight? How do they know who to shoot?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and this is mine: a handgun is a weapon with one practical purpose, which is killing people. Law enforcement are the only people who have any reason whatsoever to posess one. Part of their job is learning all of the proper moves in these tactical situations. Not a weekend hobby, a career. It shoud be a serious crime to have one if you're not required to have one as a part of your duties. Makes it simple. Posess a handgun, go to jail for 25-life, before you even shoot someone with it. Makes it a lot easier for the cops to sort out who is the bad guy.
By increasing the tolerance of firearms in a society, you are inviting more crime with firearms. Making handguns illegal will not eliminate this type of crime. Look at what happened in Norway. However, by making handguns less tolerable in society, people will have a less casual attitude toward them. For example, when I was a teen, loads of people in my school smoked pot. It was considered "cool". People openly did it, and openly admitted it. People constantly asked if I wanted to partake, tried to convince me it was harmless, encouraged me to try it, etc... Cocaine, however, was regarded as a serious drug. Sure, people did it, but they kept to themselves. Cocaine was a rumour. Nobody was walking up at lunch and offering it up.
Young people see "gun culture" and they want to emmulate it. They see "gangsters" in music videos and movies and think it's cool. They want to be cool. Change the message. Guns aren't cool, they kill people. They ruin families. They take young people full of potential and turn them instantly in to meat. They make orphans. A gun is the tool that caused someone's wife to not come home last night. Someone's sister laid awake all night last night, grappling with the shok of knowing she'll never, ever, see her brother again. Change the message. Make handguns illegal, and portray them as the instruments of terror they are. The psychos will always be out there, but this will push them further in to the shadows.
If you have a notion to go on a killing spree, and everyone is walking around with a gun, you blend in. If you're the only one with a gun, people notice. If handguns were illegal, there would have been more opportunities along the path the gun took from manufacture to this psycho's hand to intercept it. If handguns were illegal, it would have been harder for this psycho to even get one. It might not have prevented this crime, BUT IT MIGHT HAVE PREVENTED THIS CRIME. It's better odds that a handgun ban would have prevented this crime than a cowboy in the theatre with his six-shooter locked and loaded.
Change the message. Guns are not cool. They are not even as effective a defense tool as many people think. The solution to people shooting people is not more people shooting people.
You want to be John Wayne out there and kill some bad guys? Go down to your local police station and hand in a resume.
I did not write this post to incite an argument. I did not write this post to incite debate. I wrote this post in hopes that someone, even one person, might see my point and join me in trying to help reduce gun violence in the method which I truly believe will work. I respect everyone's honest opinion, and did not write this post do discredit those who have a different opinion than I do. I expect there will be posts which disagree with my position, and I respect those opinions. I will not engage in an argument to defend this opinion. This post makes my opinion and the reasons behind it quite plain, and I respectfully decline to argue about it.
The real topic here is the victims. To them, my sympathy. Whatever the solution, I hope as a society we all make a concentrated and honest effort to reduce these types of crime in the future.

 

[Chevyfazer]

I usually stay away from expressing strong personal opinions on this forum. I respect the opinion of every member here, and I did not join to argue with people. In this case, though, my feelings on this subject are too strong to keep my mouth shut.
First, my deepest sympathy to all involved in this senseless tragedy. I cannot imagine the pain of losing a loved one to such a random and pointless crime. I cannot even imagine the pain of surviving this event. I sincerely hope that those affected by this are able, one day, to lead what resembles a normal life again.
Now, to the gun advocates: Seriouly? In a dark, teargassed theatre with people running everywhere screaming, and shots ringing out, you're going to stand up, identify the shooter, evaluate his armour situation, and then pick him off with a prefectly placed shot in the neck right in-between his vest and helmet? Or clip his thigh and put him on the ground? Oh yeah, and with a handgun? Please. I support the notion of protecting oneself in an emergency, but appempting this shot is plain reckless. It's a panic reaction which has a slim possibility of being effective and a large possibility of contributing further to the chaos and confusion.
I know this is a polarizing topic, and I'm going to take a ton of crap for this, but really. Think about this honestly and tell me if you could make that shot without a chance of killing an innocnet bystander and adding to the chaos and tragedy. If you can, you're already taking that shot as part of your job, as the best SWAT marksman in the world. The notion of a civillian attempting that shot is reckless.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and this is mine: a handgun is a weapon with one practical purpose, which is killing people. Law enforcement are the only people who have any reason whatsoever to posess one. Part of their job is learning all of the proper moves in these tactical situations. Not a weekend hobby, a career. It shoud be a serious crime to have one if you're not required to have one as a part of your duties. Makes it simple. Posess a handgun, go to jail for 25-life, before you even shoot someone with it. Makes it a lot easier for the cops to sort out who is the bad guy.
By increasing the tolerance of firearms in a society, you are inviting more crime with firearms. Making handguns illegal will not eliminate this type of crime. Look at what happened in Norway. However, by making handguns less tolerable in society, people will have a less casual attitude toward them. For example, when I was a teen, loads of people in my school smoked pot. It was considered "cool". People openly did it, and openly admitted it. People constantly asked if I wanted to partake, tried to convince me it was harmless, encouraged me to try it, etc... Cocaine, however, was regarded as a serious drug. Sure, people did it, but they kept to themselves. Cocaine was a rumour. Nobody was walking up at lunch and offering it up.
Young people see "gun culture" and they want to emmulate it. They see "gangsters" in music videos and movies and think it's cool. They want to be cool. Change the message. Guns aren't cool, they kill people. They ruin families. They take young people full of potential and turn them instantly in to meat. They make orphans. A gun is the tool that caused someone's wife to not come home last night. Someone's sister laid awake all night last night, grappling with the shok of knowing she'll never, ever, see her brother again. Change the message. Make handguns illegal, and portray them as the instruments of terror they are. The psychos will always be out there, but this will push them further in to the shadows.
If you have a notion to go on a killing spree, and everyone is walking around with a gun, you blend in. .

That has got to be the craziest thing I've ever herd about guns, pistols should be outlawed...

Go read up on some history and places where guns are mandatory. 2 prime examples, the town next to where I live kennesaw Georgia, if you own a home within the city limits it's mandatory to own a firearm. When that law was put into place crime rates dropped by like 86% and have stayed low ever since. And the other, contrary to hollywoods depiction of the "wild west" people were more likely to die of a lightening strike then a gun shot wound. Why because almost everyone was armed and it would be a instant death wish to do something like this.

 

[dart1963]

we've already discussed this on a shooting forum I belong to...

in this case... about the only thing you could do is duck and cover... to much risk of hurting others for sure....

the real question becomes, if this guy knew that others were armed (someone can confirm, but I heard legally CC is not permitted in movie theaters in CO?) would he have be so brazened to do this in the first place... it really seems like the worst shooting spree's happen where "handguns are banned".

The real topic here is the victims. To them, my sympathy.

:thumbup:

Def. value your opinion as well

 

[Sage]

It's not the guns, It's the psycho that shot up the theater. But he chose the theater because he knew there would be no retaliation. He could have just as easily took different measures to harming people that I won't start listing off here. I agree that in the situation trying to be a hero could have been more harm than good, but saying that guns have a mind of their own and walk around killing people is hearsay. You have your opinion and I have mine I guess.

 

[r0ar]

Just another reason why I want to get my CC license and now will, even if in this situation nothing could have been done

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis....colorado/&feed_id=1&videoid=37&catid=57476379

So sad...

I was at work when I saw this, I am glad the number came down from the original 14 dead 50 injured. Such a cruel act. Officers say he didn't resist when arrested I personally would have shot him and said he was trying to run, does this make me just as bad? Probably but life in prison doesn't fit this. Does Colorado have the Death Penalty ? If so I hope he gets it . As far as the CC this was the discussion that followed at work and I am seriously thinking about it considering I don't have to take a class since my job requires weapons training which is well above CC.

 

[Blue-Sun]

Now, to the gun advocates: Seriouly? In a dark, teargassed theatre with people running everywhere screaming, and shots ringing out, you're going to stand up, identify the shooter, evaluate his armour situation, and then pick him off with a prefectly placed shot in the neck right in-between his vest and helmet? Or clip his thigh and put him on the ground? Oh yeah, and with a handgun? Please. I support the notion of protecting oneself in an emergency, but appempting this shot is plain reckless. It's a panic reaction which has a slim possibility of being effective and a large possibility of contributing further to the chaos and confusion.

Personally, I can say I DON'T have the reaction time or wherewithal or skill set to perform this task. I would hope I'd have enough control not to freeze or panic. My plan would be to grab my girlfriend's hand and attempt to escape through an emergency exit.

 

[Chevyfazer]

Yeah I said it earlier as well and will say of again, in this exact situation it would be very very hard to say that a armed individual could have prevented it or at least minimized the damage. But there are 1000's of accounts where armed citizens have prevented crimes from happening and less then about 1% of them had "collateral damage"

Taking away peoples guns solves nothing, crack is illegal but there are still plenty of crackheads out there. And if pistols are to be illegal how would a law abiding citizen be able to defend himself against a criminal with a pistol? Pull a AR out of his pocket?

 

[MNGreg]

I don't have my CC permit but been looking into it lately.

I myself have thought about getting my CC but there are so many restrictions on where you can and can't carry. Well atleast in Louisiana that is!

It is almost pointless to get it here in this state, But after hearing this news I may reconsider.

God bless the families of all the victims involved in that horrible and disturbing incident.

Here also.. Been thinking about getting it and getting a more compact gun than my 92FS, like maybe an XD or M&P .40 compact. But there are a lot of places you cant carry, or many places I go to have signs up saying not allowed. so not really sure it is worth the $ to get.

 

[Nastybutler]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and this is mine: a handgun is a weapon with one practical purpose, which is killing people. Law enforcement are the only people who have any reason whatsoever to posess one. Part of their job is learning all of the proper moves in these tactical situations. Not a weekend hobby, a career. It shoud be a serious crime to have one if you're not required to have one as a part of your duties. Makes it simple. Posess a handgun, go to jail for 25-life, before you even shoot someone with it. Makes it a lot easier for the cops to sort out who is the bad guy.
By increasing the tolerance of firearms in a society, you are inviting more crime with firearms. Making handguns illegal will not eliminate this type of crime. Look at what happened in Norway. However, by making handguns less tolerable in society, people will have a less casual attitude toward them.

TL;DR most of this inane wall of text. For future reference when you want people to read your rant, it helps to make use of this device called paragraphs.

Now onto the part of your rambling that I quoted above before I stopped reading.

So you don't think veterans should be allowed to own handguns? Or concealed carry them? Because they aren't law enforcement either, but I'm pretty sure they have some training.

This assumption that only law enforcement should be allowed to have firearms is ridiculous. Lets put aside the fact that you believe only the government should have weapons (that always ends well right?), do you think the small amount of police in this country can possibly keep us safe from the multitude of criminals who don't bother to obey these gun laws? You think if a law is passed all of a sudden criminals can't get their hands on guns? If so, you're a fool. If not, than I guess you'd prefer to sit and wait for the cops to show up when a group of junkies are breaking into your house. :facepalm:

Now onto this bizarre comment on "increasing tolerance of firearms in society" where you compare it to drugs. Seriously? If anything, liberal pussies are making sure firearms are less tolerated by doing things like always calling them "weapons" instead of what they are; tools. By always harping on how "guns kill people," when the truth is, criminals kill people, they just used a gun (tool) to do it.

If anything an increased tolerance of firearms would solve a lot of problems. Like increasing education on proper firearm safety, as well as teaching kids from a young age how to treat them with respect, not a titillating curiosity which leads to them playing with the first firearm they come across with often tragic results.

Unlike smoking or drugs, education of firearms combined with increased awareness, training and use will actually lead to fewer gun related deaths, not more.

Now if you want to start bringing up European countries into this discussion, take a look at Switzerland.

 

[meganiimarie]

Not exactly on topic, but I think this response to Columbine is pretty relevant...

Columbine: Whose Fault Is It?

by Marilyn Manson

It is sad to think that the first few people on earth needed no books, movies, games or music to inspire cold-blooded murder. The day that Cain bashed his brother Abel's brains in, the only motivation he needed was his own human disposition to violence. Whether you interpret the Bible as literature or as the final word of whatever God may be, Christianity has given us an image of death and sexuality that we have based our culture around. A half-naked dead man hangs in most homes and around our necks, and we have just taken that for granted all our lives. Is it a symbol of hope or hopelessness? The world's most famous murder-suicide was also the birth of the death icon -- the blueprint for celebrity. Unfortunately, for all of their inspiring morality, nowhere in the Gospels is intelligence praised as a virtue.

A lot of people forget or never realize that I started my band as a criticism of these very issues of despair and hypocrisy. The name Marilyn Manson has never celebrated the sad fact that America puts killers on the cover of Time magazine, giving them as much notoriety as our favorite movie stars. From Jesse James to Charles Manson, the media, since their inception, have turned criminals into folk heroes. They just created two new ones when they plastered those dipshits Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris' pictures on the front of every newspaper. Don't be surprised if every kid who gets pushed around has two new idols.

We applaud the creation of a bomb whose sole purpose is to destroy all of mankind, and we grow up watching our president's brains splattered all over Texas. Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised. Does anyone think the Civil War was the least bit civil? If television had existed, you could be sure they would have been there to cover it, or maybe even participate in it, like their violent car chase of Princess Di. Disgusting vultures looking for corpses, exploiting, fucking, filming and serving it up for our hungry appetites in a gluttonous display of endless human stupidity.

When it comes down to who's to blame for the high school murders in Littleton, Colorado, throw a rock and you'll hit someone who's guilty. We're the people who sit back and tolerate children owning guns, and we're the ones who tune in and watch the up-to-the-minute details of what they do with them. I think it's terrible when anyone dies, especially if it is someone you know and love. But what is more offensive is that when these tragedies happen, most people don't really care any more than they would about the season finale of Friends or The Real World. I was dumbfounded as I watched the media snake right in, not missing a teardrop, interviewing the parents of dead children, televising the funerals. Then came the witch hunt.

Man's greatest fear is chaos. It was unthinkable that these kids did not have a simple black-and-white reason for their actions. And so a scapegoat was needed. I remember hearing the initial reports from Littleton, that Harris and Klebold were wearing makeup and were dressed like Marilyn Manson, whom they obviously must worship, since they were dressed in black. Of course, speculation snowballed into making me the poster boy for everything that is bad in the world. These two idiots weren't wearing makeup, and they weren't dressed like me or like goths. Since Middle America has not heard of the music they did listen to (KMFDM and Rammstein, among others), the media picked something they thought was similar.

Responsible journalists have reported with less publicity that Harris and Klebold were not Marilyn Manson fans -- that they even disliked my music. Even if they were fans, that gives them no excuse, nor does it mean that music is to blame. Did we look for James Huberty's inspiration when he gunned down people at McDonald's? What did Timothy McVeigh like to watch? What about David Koresh, Jim Jones? Do you think entertainment inspired Kip Kinkel, or should we blame the fact that his father bought him the guns he used in the Springfield, Oregon, murders? What inspires Bill Clinton to blow people up in Kosovo? Was it something that Monica Lewinsky said to him? Isn't killing just killing, regardless if it's in Vietnam or Jonesboro, Arkansas? Why do we justify one, just because it seems to be for the right reasons? Should there ever be a right reason? If a kid is old enough to drive a car or buy a gun, isn't he old enough to be held personally responsible for what he does with his car or gun? Or if he's a teenager, should someone else be blamed because he isn't as enlightened as an eighteen-year-old?

America loves to find an icon to hang its guilt on. But, admittedly, I have assumed the role of Antichrist; I am the Nineties voice of individuality, and people tend to associate anyone who looks and behaves differently with illegal or immoral activity. Deep down, most adults hate people who go against the grain. It's comical that people are naive enough to have forgotten Elvis, Jim Morrison and Ozzy so quickly. All of them were subjected to the same age-old arguments, scrutiny and prejudice. I wrote a song called "Lunchbox," and some journalists have interpreted it as a song about guns. Ironically, the song is about being picked on and fighting back with my Kiss lunch box, which I used as a weapon on the playground. In 1979, metal lunch boxes were banned because they were considered dangerous weapons in the hands of delinquents. I also wrote a song called "Get Your Gunn." The title is spelled with two n's because the song was a reaction to the murder of Dr. David Gunn, who was killed in Florida by pro-life activists while I was living there. That was the ultimate hypocrisy I witnessed growing up: that these people killed someone in the name of being "pro-life."

The somewhat positive messages of these songs are usually the ones that sensationalists misinterpret as promoting the very things I am decrying. Right now, everyone is thinking of how they can prevent things like Littleton. How do you prevent AIDS, world war, depression, car crashes? We live in a free country, but with that freedom there is a burden of personal responsibility. Rather than teaching a child what is moral and immoral, right and wrong, we first and foremost can establish what the laws that govern us are. You can always escape hell by not believing in it, but you cannot escape death and you cannot escape prison.

It is no wonder that kids are growing up more cynical; they have a lot of information in front of them. They can see that they are living in a world that's made of bullshit. In the past, there was always the idea that you could turn and run and start something better. But now America has become one big mall, and because of the Internet and all of the technology we have, there's nowhere to run. People are the same everywhere. Sometimes music, movies and books are the only things that let us feel like someone else feels like we do. I've always tried to let people know it's OK, or better, if you don't fit into the program. Use your imagination -- if some geek from Ohio can become something, why can't anyone else with the willpower and creativity?

I chose not to jump into the media frenzy and defend myself, though I was begged to be on every single TV show in existence. I didn't want to contribute to these fame-seeking journalists and opportunists looking to fill their churches or to get elected because of their self-righteous finger-pointing. They want to blame entertainment? Isn't religion the first real entertainment? People dress up in costumes, sing songs and dedicate themselves in eternal fandom. Everyone will agree that nothing was more entertaining than Clinton shooting off his prick and then his bombs in true political form. And the news -- that's obvious. So is entertainment to blame? I'd like media commentators to ask themselves, because their coverage of the event was some of the most gruesome entertainment any of us have seen.

I think that the National Rifle Association is far too powerful to take on, so most people choose Doom, The Basketball Diaries or yours truly. This kind of controversy does not help me sell records or tickets, and I wouldn't want it to. I'm a controversial artist, one who dares to have an opinion and bothers to create music and videos that challenge people's ideas in a world that is watered-down and hollow. In my work I examine the America we live in, and I've always tried to show people that the devil we blame our atrocities on is really just each one of us. So don't expect the end of the world to come one day out of the blue -- it's been happening every day for a long time.

MARILYN MANSON (May 28, 1999)

 

[JSP]

 

[r0ar]

Not exactly on topic, but I think this response to Columbine is pretty relevant...

Very good response because you know its gonna be blamed on the movie or some game or some music genre. The world tries to find excuses for murders motives. the fact is he simply is a sick individual

 

[meganiimarie]

It doesn't matter whether it's a movie, a game, or a music genre. Someone will be blamed by the media and therefore by the people who choose to not educate themselves.

"throw a rock and you'll hit someone who's guilty"

No one is guilty but the person who took action. As laws expand to "protect" people, personal responsibility becomes less and less important to our current society. Sad indeed...

Very good response because you know its gonna be blamed on the movie or some game or some music genre. The world tries to find excuses for murders motives. the fact is he simply is a sick individual

 

[Blue-Sun]

There are several media sources releasing a picture of the alleged shooter, James Holmes.

If the picture being released is his mug shot, then I fear we have another Jared Loughner, here. I can't imagine the justification for "smiling ear to ear" after such an act, other than some type of mental instability.

Just my opinion...

 

[alaskanflyboy]

Now, to the gun advocates: Seriouly? In a dark, teargassed theatre with people running everywhere screaming, and shots ringing out, you're going to stand up, identify the shooter, evaluate his armour situation, and then pick him off with a prefectly placed shot in the neck right in-between his vest and helmet? Or clip his thigh and put him on the ground? Oh yeah, and with a handgun? Please. I support the notion of protecting oneself in an emergency, but appempting this shot is plain reckless. It's a panic reaction which has a slim possibility of being effective and a large possibility of contributing further to the chaos and confusion.
I know this is a polarizing topic, and I'm going to take a ton of crap for this, but really. Think about this honestly and tell me if you could make that shot without a chance of killing an innocnet bystander and adding to the chaos and tragedy. If you can, you're already taking that shot as part of your job, as the best SWAT marksman in the world. The notion of a civillian attempting that shot is reckless.
Now, you stand up and attempt this shot, and a split second later, someone else does the same, only they see you, arm outstretched, blasting away before they see the psycho who started all this. Guess what happens? At least your grieving friends and family can call you a hero through their tears at your funeral.
Multiply this by 3, or 7, or 22 "heroes". How many kill each other before the shooting stops? What happens when the cops show up in the middle of this gunfight? How do they know who to shoot?

As a concealed weapon carry, I have to agree, and most of my friends that also carry agree. Situations like that are unfortunately bad all around and the bad guy has the upperhand. How do you defend yourself and others without looking like part of the attack? How do you do it without harming others?

To make this one worse, it sounds like he was dressed like on of the good guys which even the ones that had no means to defend themselves now have to wonder who's a cop and who's just dressed like one.

Even soldiers are dying because of bad guys dressed like good guys. That's honestly what scares me the most about this incident. What do I do in the face of a guy intent on killing a crowd who I think is really a cop until he opens fire?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and this is mine: a handgun is a weapon with one practical purpose, which is killing people. Law enforcement are the only people who have any reason whatsoever to posess one. Part of their job is learning all of the proper moves in these tactical situations. Not a weekend hobby, a career. It shoud be a serious crime to have one if you're not required to have one as a part of your duties. Makes it simple. Posess a handgun, go to jail for 25-life, before you even shoot someone with it. Makes it a lot easier for the cops to sort out who is the bad guy.

Unfortunately cops are still human and the best response time in the country has been a minute and a half to the scene of a shooting, and only because he was already nearby on patrol. Around my city, it has taken as long as half an hour for police to respond. We also had several cops recently go to prison for beating an unarmed man to death for suspicion of robbing an ATM. Turns out the report was false and the surveilence video also shows the cops beating him down before he even attempted to resist (it's hard to blame the guy for resisting when he's being beaten to death for no apparent reason).

For example, when I was a teen, loads of people in my school smoked pot. It was considered "cool". People openly did it, and openly admitted it. People constantly asked if I wanted to partake, tried to convince me it was harmless, encouraged me to try it, etc... Cocaine, however, was regarded as a serious drug. Sure, people did it, but they kept to themselves. Cocaine was a rumour. Nobody was walking up at lunch and offering it up.

Despite society's disapproval of both of them, they've become cool on their own. Despite both being illegal, they're still rampant. I have no illusion that guns would have the same allure whether legal or illegal. Weapons have always equated to power, which is their true allure. Where weapons have been banned, citizenry have lost power to both criminals and governments.

In an essay I read, entitled "The Gun is Civilization", the author says that there are only two ways to convince someone to do something, force or persuasion. I agree. Often the mere presense of a weapon causes one trying to use force to drop the use of force, leaving only persuasion on the table. Most who use force are cowards, targeting only those who have no chance of defending themselves. Look at wars. I don't think we'd have ever gone against Iraq or Afghanistan so brazenly had we expected a fair fight.

Young people see "gun culture" and they want to emmulate it. They see "gangsters" in music videos and movies and think it's cool. They want to be cool. Change the message. Guns aren't cool, they kill people. They ruin families.

The gun culture seems, to me, most prevalent in the places where there aren't as many guns. Growing up in rural societies, there were a lot of guns, but they were never cool, never toys. They were dangerous tools and treated as such. I don't wave them around, show them off, or act cavalier around firearms.

So I agree, change the message. You don't need to ban them or even discourage owning them, but change the message in pop culture that makes them seem like fun, harmless toys. A lot of people have more respect for the danger of farm and construction equipment than they do firearms. That needs to change.

Change the message. Make handguns illegal, and portray them as the instruments of terror they are. The psychos will always be out there, but this will push them further in to the shadows.

The psychos are already far in the shadows, removing one tool still leaves them with thousands of others. He could easily have dragged a bomb in there and blown it up, using just materials readily available at Wal-Mart. He could have drove his SUV through a crowd of people. Thanks to the internet, all the info to make weapons of mass destruction from just the stuff we keep under our sink is available at the tips of our fingers. Men intent on killing will kill. Banning guns does nothing to stop it. It only moves the field advantage in their favor by leaps and bounds.

If you have a notion to go on a killing spree, and everyone is walking around with a gun, you blend in. If you're the only one with a gun, people notice. If handguns were illegal, there would have been more opportunities along the path the gun took from manufacture to this psycho's hand to intercept it. If handguns were illegal, it would have been harder for this psycho to even get one. It's better odds that a handgun ban would have prevented this crime than a cowboy in the theatre with his six-shooter locked and loaded.

The trouble is, handguns are easily concealed. So really they blend in on that fact alone. There could be lots of guns present or none at all, you don't know. Making them illegal won't make concealed weapons suddenly unconcealed.

There's also so much talk of banning guns, yet I still want to know how this guy got ahold of body armor and tear-gas grenades. Those aren't things I could just go get if I wanted to. I'd have to spend time talking to feds for a while before they'd even consider giving my a permit for the body armor. I'm not sure I can even legally get access to the teargas. This guy probably would have no trouble getting illegal handguns.

Change the message. Guns are not cool. They are not even as effective a defense tool as many people think. The solution to people shooting people is not more people shooting people.

Guns are the most effective defense tool people can have. That said, you're right — they're not a guarantee as some believe. I can only guarantee that it works better than my 130 pound self trying to defend myself against a 180 pound guy with any other means available. I'm sorry, but any other weapon I bring into play would be ripped out of my hands and used against me in that scenario.

The funny thing about handguns for self defense is that most scenarios are not escalated, as many anti-gun advocates claim, but in fact deescalate the situation. What is often reported is that the assailant retreats when he sees his weak target isn't weak. He's now faced with a gamble when he was looking for a sure thing.

The real topic here is the victims. To them, my sympathy. Whatever the solution, I hope as a society we all make a concentrated and honest effort to reduce these types of crime in the future.

Hear, hear.

I think this will allways happen until society takes responsibility for their own safety.Even with a cc permit, and if you carry a 1911.What are you gonna do, stop a purse snatcher with a knife or .22?If a criminal gets the drop on you, all you have left is finding cover or getting out of range.Drawing, then acquiring a sight picture isnt a smart option at that point.

If people weren't instantly viewed, and labeled as a criminal upon sight carrying a carbine.This might of been stopped out in the parking lot, safely.Even just a .17 varmint rifle could of been a game changer here.But not a .45 with a 5'' barrel and sights.

But I do think if you were in the audience, with a .380.The only responsible thing to do is to not use it.I agree they should be illegal inside.It would add to much confusion, panic, and badly placed shots.But if your in the parking lot, have a deer rifle in the car, and see a guy in a gas mask thats armed.I say game on!

I dont see why we have drivers ed, but nothing for gun safety.If people are against owning, or carrying then I support them.If someone wants to learn and make efforts to protect themselves and others then I support that even more.

But ill never be able to support a person thats anti gun, has never made an effort to develop security in their own community, and thinks that 911 will save them.

A scary looking carbine doesnt mean your carrying a m60 like people tend to think.Carrying a carbine like the ruger pc9 should be more common place imo.It uses the same 9mm cartridge and magazine as a very popular line of handguns.All it does is give you the ability to defend yourself beyond handgun range, or take a more positive shot in hg range.

I just honestly think modern society led to this just as much as the shooter.Educated gun owners add to the economy, not just safety.Restricting those people just does damage.Education is the only way.

Police couldnt stop the 2 LA bank robbers from 97 with handguns.Swat did with a 5.56.Now police carry more than just a handgun.We need to demand that as well.

If im staying in a hotel out of state, and had to leave my carbine at home.Im gonna be pretty pissed off at society if the craigslist killer kicks in my door, and I have to fight a gun with a phone..

Iv never made a irresponsible decision with a gun.Why am I judged like I will?

A carbine won't do much against body armor either unless you get armor-piercing bullets or a large caliber. They're also not very portable or convenience for defense. They're also much harder to bring to bear on a target, and useless in most defense situations, since most are at close quarters. I don't know too many people defending themselves from rifle range who couldn't have just fled and let the cops deal with it.

You also say it's difficult to draw a pistol and get a sight picture in a hurry, yet seem to imply that a carbine would be better in such a situation. I have never been able to get a rifle to bear and lined up in the time it takes with my handgun. There's a reason handguns are viewed as a defensive weapon by military and law enforcement and rifles/carbines as offensive weapons.

Also, if everyone was carrying a carbine in the open, how do you expect to have stopped it in the parking lot? He'd just be another guy carrying a gun. The gas mask? Maybe just a guy in costume going to some movie.

Although I'm fully in support of the right to carry and have had my CC for years, keep in mind that the circumstances probably would not have changed much. The odds were completely in the shooters favor.

1. He was wearing armor including a bullet proof vest and a swat helmet.
2. He used tear gas in the theatre (yeah you can't breathe and your blind now)
3. The theatre was packed with moviegoers including small children as young as 3 months old
4. All these people were running in different directions, diving over seats, etc.

Not to mention the CC is typically illegal in theatres (because it stops bad guys right?)

So the likelihood of pulling out your weapon, yelling, "Die scumbag!", shooting the guy dead with no muss and no fuss would be highly unlikely without hurting or killing someone else and maybe losing your own life.

And if you do happen to hurt or kill someone else while stopping this guy, your life will end as you know it. You will be arrested and convicted of a number of crimes which may include a felony. You will be sued by the family or families. You're not a hero, your the guy who got in the way.

Armed civilians can create possibilities to change the outcome for good or bad. As I said, I'm in favor of it. But each situation is different. If you plan to carry, please take some advanced courses which teach situational awareness and what to do in different scenarios, not just the silly CC course. That course only teaches the law and general info about weapons. It gives you the ability to learn much like an "M" endorsement or MSF does for bikes. Don't just get the CC, carry it and assume you're solid and can make the right decision when the time comes.

You pretty much speak my mind on the particular situation. The man created a situation that was incredibly chaotic and in his favor. Your only hope would be that he or you got close enough to you without his noticing and you had a "sure" shot. That seems unlikely. I haven't taken any classes since I never seem to have the several hundred bucks they ask for, but I do read up on the subject to at least have the head knowledge. Hopefully I'll never have to use any of it.