[Monte314]

Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I doubt it. They'd be trying to shoot panicked, in dark crowded room, with a face full of tear gas against a man who isn't dealing with tear gas (gas mask), armed with an AR-15 and wearing body armor. Half blind, trying to pick a head shot using a pistol (assuming they knew they had to make a head shot rather than operate off the trained double tap to the chest), with innocents all over the place, against a guy armed with a rifle who doesn't care about collateral damage and can see your silhouette back-lit by the projector... I don't see a few concealed weapons making much of a difference here in terms of outcome.

I can't really disagree. This was a terrible scenario.

But I still argue that there would be a beneficial psychological impact had there been armed resistance, effective or not. And I strongly assert that severe restriction of gun ownership would serve to embolden bad actors in their pursuit of ever more brazen assaults on a public guaranteed to be unable to mount any kind of defense.

[Thrushbeard]

	Originally Posted by kookoonuts To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Holmes would have passed all of that screening.

Did I say it would of?
Incidents like those where a person was clearly dedicated to commit the atrocity in an organized or highly organized way are hard to prevent, if not impossible... Anyways how would you know, are you a close friend or relative? Please explain...

It might have prevented Zimmerman...might or might have not.

[bawb]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Imagine, one day, public discourse on this subject not mostly being about how guns should be legislated, but more about how we can actually work towards modes of living together where significant numbers of people don't want to shoot each other.

There were significant numbers of people don't want to shoot each other in the theater.
All it took was one person who wanted to cause harm, and I don't see how that will ever change.
Peace in the Middle East would be easier.

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It is the automatic weapons that cause the problems. A single shooter can go in and kill a whole lot of people in a very short time.

Ever hear of spray-and-pray? It's the only "benefit" of automatic weapons, and it's useless for killing people. Which is why we don't give every grunt a light machine gun, but instead rifles. Hence the phrase "pick your shots."

In these mass-shooting scenarios, a semi-auto is what does all the killing...and how shooters primarily use automatic rifles. Automatic handheld weapons are only useful for suppression, where you spray to keep people pinned behind cover.

Outside of a warzone, a "friendly"
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is more lethal than an "evil"
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

[Fecal McAngry]

INTP (or ENTP, but I doubt it) John Lott:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I can't really disagree. This was a terrible scenario. But I still argue that there would be a beneficial psychological impact had there been armed resistance, effective or not. And I strongly assert that severe restriction of gun ownership would serve to embolden bad actors in their pursuit of ever more brazen assaults on a public guaranteed to be unable to mount any kind of defense.

Colorado has concealed carry, and there have been attempted mass-shootings in Colorado that were foiled by a CCW holder in an opportune position. Of course, since only the would-be shooter died, it never made national headlines.

Which is why the perp in this case went to such lengths to sow confusion (costume + tear gas)...he had to ensure that nobody in the theater could return fire. Can't shoot back if you can't see.

[bawb]

	Originally Posted by Straylight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Thats not to say England hasn't got a certain problem with the saturday night piss up and resulting punch up. But I'd take that over these gun death figures; USA: 9,369 - UK: 14 *2002

Do you have any numbers on murders in the UK?
You guessed 70-80% of murders in the US was caused by guns. [It's still not real facts]
And we are starting to blur the line between murders and deaths.
I'm guessing there were more than the 14 deaths in the UK that year. Humans being as they are, how do they kill each other over there without guns readily available?

[Monte314]

It is also likely that those with permitted guns either left them in their cars or at home.

I heard that there were other folks in costume at this opening, which allowed the shooter to blend in... don't know whether that is true or not.

One news account suggested that the shooter had originally intended to set off the devices planted in his apartment to draw the police away while he carried out his attack. Don't know whether this is true, either.

[arcreates]

Gun ownership really isn't the issue. Its more of an issue that one man took it upon himself to decide the fate of another, or several others in this case. If someone really has the desire to exert authority to the extreme over others, why would you think a not having a gun would change that? There are many other ways to achieve the same results. Hitler did well with gas chambers, just as one example.
So even tho I am in favor of gun ownership and own several myself, I am ok with other people not. I have more of a problem with the government (or anyone else for that matter) telling me what I can or cannot do.

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It is also likely that those with permitted guns either left them in their cars or at home. I also heard that there were other folks in costume at this opening, which allowed the shooter to blend in... don't know whether that is true or not.

Yep...it was executed brilliantly. Opening night of a Batman flick, so lots of people were in costume. His gas mask and body armor looked just like a Batman villain (
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
), the tear gas ensured nobody could shoot back, and he started during a shooting-scene in the film so that nearby security wouldn't suspect anything until dozens had already been hit.

Evil + Intelligence = Very Bad

[arcreates]

Originally Posted by eagleseven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yep...it was executed brilliantly. Opening night of a Batman flick, so lots of people were in costume. His gas mask and body armor looked just like a Batman villain ( To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ), the tear gas ensured nobody could shoot back, and he started during a shooting-scene in the film so that nearby security wouldn't suspect anything until dozens had already been hit. Evil + Intelligence = Very Bad

Absolutely. Perhaps it is the evil + intelligence we should all be analyzing.

[Monte314]

Now let's give the bad guys a chance to present their perspective...


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[firebee]

In order to carry concealed in Colorado, you've got to (approximately):

• Be willing to carry a gun.
• Have a gun.
• For all practical purposes, have a holster.
• Take a course covering material such as where to put the gun, how to hit approximately what you are aiming it at, and who it is legal to shoot.
• Have a permit from your county of residence, or a reciprocal permit from a state that is itself reciprocal with Colorado (which, for residents, is required to be issued given the above course and passing a background check).
• Not be in one of the relatively few places (such as courthouses, K-12 schools, etc.) where firearms are prohibited by statute.
• Not be on private property when the owner does not permit it (I believe this falls under trespass law, but I'm not sure on this point).

For all that I don't have a lot of faith in government restrictions meaning all that much, I'm not seeing a lot of fluff that can be cut here. Is it wise to have people carrying who are utterly untrained, or who are unwilling to carry? Should we not be permitting private property owners to have rules regarding the use of their facilities? Should we be putting $500 guns and $100 holsters in boxes of Cracker Jacks?

Concealed carry is handy enough, but it's not a panacea.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by eagleseven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Evil + Intelligence = Very Bad

Ever seen Rampage?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Uwe Boll's movies are crap, but this one was surprisingly good. It's a fictional account of a guy setting out to utterly destroy his home town and, unfortunately, there aren't any plot holes. Something really could go down this way.

A free society has to accept that freedom means putting up with other people's bullshit. As long as we err on the side of freedom we will always let a few false negatives through. A few of those few will be huge mistakes.

It's not a problem. There is no solution. It is merely a compromise. We can choose a different compromise, or we can accept one that is forced on us.

[Endeavor]

Originally Posted by kookoonuts To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Holmes would have passed all of that screening. ---------- Post added 07-21-2012 at 09:11 PM ---------- The summary is psychology is a soft science that struggles to gain credibility when predicted results are not as concrete as those measured by studies conducted by physicists and chemists. The various associations can't agree, because correllated data does not determine causation, and the brain is too complicated to study without violating ethical standards of research. I knew this well in advance, but thanks for the history lesson.

It's now known that psychopaths have diminished function in their limbic system, namely the amydalae. If you knew this you wouldn't have made that statement. There is nothing unethical about an fMRI or EEG.

Analytical brain imaging technology doesn't require invasive procedures, yet in this case generates data that supports claims of this "soft science", as it relates to psychopathy. In these individuals, that's exactly where you would expect a problem.

Of course back in the day, there was no method of determining such aspects of brain functioning without invasive procedures, which contributes to much of the confusion around psychology.

And by the way, the fields of Physics, Biochemistry, etc. contribute to the diagnostic potential of psychological studies so I wouldn't be so quick to write it off.

Brain imaging technology is very expensive and this limits the opportunities, however as the technology advances, becomes smaller, and more accessible it will encourage more research.

[Fecal McAngry]

	Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In order to carry concealed in Colorado, you've got to [*]Not be on private property when the owner does not permit it.

Such as the theater where this shooting occurred.

Not that having armed citizens in the audience might have helped. If someone is hard to see, and dressed head-to-toe in body armor...that's a toughie.

[Sk8ordude]

If a crazy wants to rampage a crazy is going to rampage, its not that hard to kill 12 people if you really want to. Open door, toss in molotav cocktail, barricade door. See school children at crosswalk, step on the gas. If you planned it out right you could kill a good 20 people in a hospital with nothing but their pillows. If one were to take their time they could probably kill hundreds with their bare hands before they ever got caught.

When I look at the world its obvious that it belongs to the strong, this dynamic is apparent in every party bigger then one. There are so many guns on the street, and there is so much money to be made illegally in a post gun prohibition America, that I would rather not give up my claws just because once in a while a crazy will kill a couple innocent people with a gun.

Make guns illegal in a culture where there are 90 guns for every 100 people, guess what organized crime just got that much stronger, and guns just got that much more readily available to anybody with the money, because there will be so much money to make.

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by Fecal McAngry To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Such as the theater where this shooting occurred.

I'd venture to guess that they also don't allow in video cameras and snack coolers.

	Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Should we not be permitting private property owners to have rules regarding the use of their facilities?

[arcreates]

I guess if you hit someone in the temple hard enough with a snack cooler you could kill them...

[Bevan]

I do believe totalitarianism can happen anywhere, US included. If for some reason people in the US government decided to make war on the citizenry we wouldn't have a chance, no matter how well-armed.

My neighborhood is getting rough. There have been two shootings within a quarter-mile of where I live in the last two years. I'm glad to see police patrolling the area. I want plenty of visible deterrence.

I haven't shot a gun since I was a kid but I remember it being fun. I'd like to have a .38 revolver in my home. Too expensive a project at the moment. Big mean dogs help too. The idea of gun control in the US is futile, but it wouldn't hurt to tighten restrictions. It might not help much either, but it would seem to be the sensible direction to go in if we want to do anything about the problem.

My father prevented criminal activity targeted at him in his home. Two guys came to the door saying their car broke down. They asked to use the phone. Dad said sure just wait a minute. He went and got a shotgun, returned to the front door and ordered them to come on in, one at a time. One guy came in scared sh*tless and pretended to make a phone call while my father held a shotgun on him. After making the 'phone call' they got in their broken down car and drove away.

My father was in his 60s at the time. He had a wicked sense of humour.

[kookoonuts]

Originally Posted by Endeavor To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's now known that psychopaths have diminished function in their limbic system, namely the amydalae. If you knew this you wouldn't have made that statement. There is nothing unethical about an fMRI or EEG. Analytical brain imaging technology doesn't require invasive procedures, yet in this case generates data that supports claims of this "soft science", as it relates to psychopathy. In these individuals, that's exactly where you would expect a problem. Of course back in the day, there was no method of determining such aspects of brain functioning without invasive procedures, which contributes to much of the confusion around psychology. And by the way, the fields of Physics, Biochemistry, etc. contribute to the diagnostic potential of psychological studies so I wouldn't be so quick to write it off. Brain imaging technology is very expensive and this limits the opportunities, however as the technology advances, becomes smaller, and more accessible it will encourage more research.

Again, correllation without causation is data that only helps identify trends, but not predict results. I would not vote or support legislature that requires an. MRI of individuals and prohibits those with questionable results from the same rights as others. I think I'll go pop in Minority Report while we are on the topic of stripping rights based on no evidence of prior misconduct or disability...

[Endeavor]

Originally Posted by kookoonuts To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Again, correllation without causation is data that only helps identify trends, but not predict results. I would not vote or support legislature that requires an. MRI of individuals and prohibits those with questionable results from the same rights as others. I think I'll go pop in Minority Report while we are on the topic of stripping rights based on no evidence of prior misconduct or disability...

You're missing the point. Of course a mandatory MRI would be out of the question. A much better example is as follows:

We know some psychopaths have an unusually low tolerance for delayed gratification. So does the mandatory waiting period implemented in some states serve as a deterrent for them? (Factor in waiting time to receive any permits, certificates, etc.)

Again, this is an example, but you see what I'm saying. Equal rights access is not affected. Does it require clever engineering? You bet, but we're not talking about any Minority Report type venture here, simply a deterrent for those unhealthy enough to legally wield an AR-15.

[DesertKnight]

These arguments always seem pointless to me.

People who want weapons to kill people with will get them legally or illegally. The only thing stricter gun control laws do is make it difficult for law-abiding people to get guns; criminals will always be able to walk down any back alley in any major city, pay $50.00 and walk away with an arsenal. I know this and I'm technically more "liberal" than I am "conservative" I'm a moderate to be precise.

Manage to actually make gun control 100% effective? People will make their own weapons and kill each other that way. Outlaw weapons all together? people will use their bare hands to pummel, break, and strangle. People will kill other people no matter what you try to do, tragedies will always happen because there will always be violent people and there will never be a 100% effective way to catch them.

Personally I wish we could all just go back to sword and shield, bow and arrow way of doing things. What I would really like would be more of a focus on people learning how to defend themselves in high threat situations. We have bred ourselves to react terribly in times of violence and I believe making a move towards getting everyone to learn at least some tactical/strategic responses to violent situations would benefit everyone.

[thod]

	I live in a small quiet town with a wife and kids. There is no way in hell I would feel safe doing that.

I live in the countryside. I never lock my car. Half the time I don't lock my door. I own no weapons.

	it would be in the US instead of the UK

Most British people have never held a gun. Big criminals can certainly get them, but they are not available to 'street punks'. Such organised criminals have no interest in mugging you or robbing your house. They tend to go after each other and are no threat to the average person. Gun ownership attracts heavy prison sentences. The police make tracking them down a priority, since they are the ones most likely to be shot. It is the petty criminals that Americans fear, not mafia style snipers shooting them with poison bullets at 1000 yards.

	If there had been a couple of folks in that theatre with CWP's, that guy would have gotten a few rounds off and then taken a couple in the face.

I would see your muzzle flash, assume that you are the shooter and open fire on you. Someone else would do the same to me and the whole room would become a free for all fire fight.

	It is also likely that those with permitted guns either left them in their cars or at home.

Because it takes a special kind of paranoia to strap a heavy lump of metal to your side day after day, year after year, and never use it. There is a psychological effect. One will begin to want to use it in order to justify this inconvenience. Such a gun carrier will be actively looking for people to shoot and will end up shooting someone that does not deserve it. Knights wore armor when they were going to war, they did not do so everyday.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I live in the countryside. I never lock my car. Half the time I don't lock my door. I own no weapons.

That settles it. We should all move out to the country where the bumpkins can thaw our frozen city-slicker hearts with their old-timey folk ethics.

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Most British people have never held a gun. Big criminals can certainly get them, but they are not available to 'street punks'. Such organised criminals have no interest in mugging you or robbing your house. They tend to go after each other and are no threat to the average person.

Is that analysis based on your experience with British organised crime?

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It is the petty criminals that Americans fear, not mafia style snipers shooting them with poison bullets at 1000 yards.

I can't believe I never thought about poisoned bullets until just now. At first I was all like, why would you need to poison a bullet? But then I realized that people sometimes survive bullet wounds, so if the bullet was poisoned then the bullet itself wouldn't have to kill them. Even a "flesh wound" would be deadly. Awesomesauce. Jeeves, to the patent office!

Actually, this reminds me of an idea that was thrown around back when we invaded Iraq. As a way to convince the towel-heads to stop fighting we could dip all our good American bullets in pig's blood. That way they couldn't martyr themselves because they'd all go to hell after we shot them. Basically the same idea except it's soul poison.

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would see your muzzle flash, assume that you are the shooter and open fire on you. Someone else would do the same to me and the whole room would become a free for all fire fight.

Meh...possibly. I suppose weirder things have happened.

Oooooo, I wonder if you could do that on purpose? Find an enclosed space where a bunch of people are carrying, fill it with smoke, then set off some firecrackers or a flashbang in the middle. Try to get all the CCW guys to turn and shoot at each other. They'll probably miss, so they'll get into a nice long firefight and kill a lot of the innocent people around them. Then all you have to do is cower in the corner and pretend you're grateful to be alive. Even if someone can prove you're the one who started it you'd probably get a lighter sentence seeing as how you didn't actually have a gun or anything.

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Because it takes a special kind of paranoia to strap a heavy lump of metal to your side day after day, year after year, and never use it. There is a psychological effect. One will begin to want to use it in order to justify this inconvenience. Such a gun carrier will be actively looking for people to shoot and will end up shooting someone that does not deserve it. Knights wore armor when they were going to war, they did not do so everyday.

Yeah, I don't think that happens much. I try to follow CCW statistics and I've never seen anyone demonstrate a trend where people shoot other people just to cross it off their bucket list.