"Batman Massacre"

[Gravekeeper]

-just the act of him firing back would allow many others to escape as the shooter would then focus on the potential threat instead of picking off random individuals.

That's a rather glorified assumption. He could just as easily be gunned down and/or hurt as many people in the crossfire between them.

Indiscriminate Rant Mode On:

This constant bullshit that guns can be solved by more guns has got to stop. The US has been blowing that smoke up its own ass for years and what has it gotten it? The highest rate of firearm deaths of any first world country? The highest rate of fire arm homicides of any first world country? I mean seriously, you're failing every benchmark you claim to be succeeding at.

Firearms do nothing to prevent crime. Crime rates tend to stay the same with or without firearms. Criminals will just use different weapons instead and firearms do nothing to deter criminals. What changes is the probability of someone dying during a crime. Which is SIGNIFICANTLY higher when a firearm is introduced by either the perpetrator OR the victim. Firearms can and will escalate a situation that would not have otherwise been lethally dangerous.

So wtf is it doing? If the goal is to deter crime, you've failed. If the goal is to save lives, you're failed miserable. If the goal is to protect yourself from the government, good fucking luck. The government comin' to git yew is a paranoid delusion and even if it did happen you're SOL vs the US military no matter what you bought at Walmart.

So what's the justification? Penis extension? Vigilantism? The US has failed by every concievable benchmark here yet there are still all these people that are absolutely convinced the way to put out the fire is to throw gas on it. They cling to an amendment that was never intended for nor could have envisioned the sort of weapons we have today.

America has a big problem here and its basically being caused by a 3 way gangbang of issues that are all sacred cows it can't or won't fix: Gun control, socio-economic woes and health care.

It won't accept ANY more regulation over fire arms, it can't do shit ( with the GOP in the way ) to help the people poor enough to be desperate enough to use them and it sure as fark can't help people who are mentally ill before they use them ( that would be Communist ). Its the perfect clusterfuck but discussing any aspect of it gets you shouted down by mouthbreathers and/or congressmen. -.-

If you fixed any one of the three at a federal level than shit like this might be prevented.

But instead people get on the Internet and fantasize about how THEY could have been the hero if they were there with their own gun or if only there were more people in the theatre with guns! Because that would help. Then you get this parade of god damn idiots from the GOP on TV claiming it would somehow be insensitive to talk about the gun problems facing America right now. Jesus Christ.

Indiscriminate Rant Mode Off.

Okay, I'm better now. ;p

[Canarr]

Ah! You hit on the key word there! SENSIBLE! A sensible reaction to the 9/11 incident was installing reinforced, locking doors on the cockpits of planes and having Air Marshals riding on some flights at random. That was done. The 9/11 hijackings and subsequent tragedies are functionally impossible to do now, at a minimal cost. The TSA screenings are security theater - it's a show to calm the average flyer, it doesn't actually do much (if anything) to stop would-be terrorists. And an expensive show, at that.

Very well said.

if he doesn't preent a profile as a threat, you do nothing, which should be obvious. if he does commit a shooting, you update the profile. If he presents a threat, the further investigation dictates your action? mentally ill? then send him to a mental hospital. actively planning a shooting? have cops waiting for him to stop him before he enters with the guns.

I'm not quite sure how that would work, I'm afraid.

So, some guy - say Mr. Smith in Thistown, Oregon - buys five guns at different stores. Maybe he's trying to hide the purchases, maybe he's shopping around for a better selection or better prices. Personally, I've bought furniture for my living room in three different stores, without any nefarious thought behind it.

But, okay. The ATF in Oregon - or whoever - gets a notice that Mr. Smith went "over the limit" for gun purchases. So, they send two agents to his house to talk with him. The guy talks to the agents, seems reasonable enough, no immediate sign of mental deficiency or homicidal intent. He lives alone, seems intelligent and well-read, but declines to invite the agents inside to look around his house - maybe he's got the blueprints for his local theatre and a bunch of pipe bombs on his kitchen table, maybe he's just a private guy who doesn't want strangers tromping through his home. Why did he buy so many guns? Well, he just got his tax return, wanted to splurge a bit, treat himself. Maybe take up competitive shooting, or hunting... it's not really anybody's business, is it?

Now what? The agents may talk to Mr. Smith's neighbors, who can't really say much about him: he's polite, makes chitchat over the property fence, but is otherwise a private guy. Doesn't get out much, doesn't have many visitors, but hasn't really done anything suspicious at all. What can you do here? How far do you want to delve into the private life of someone who hasn't really done *anything* wrong? Monitor his internet usage, to see if he's been looking at bomb manufacture? Look over his library records? Read his emails? Tap his phone? Bug his house? Install cameras? Have him followed? Check his medical records?

How would you evaluate whether or not Mr. Smith is a threat? What possible grounds could you give a judge to sign a search warrant, much less have him confined to a mental facility?

If you're not willing to put in an Orwellian surveillance state, you're not going to catch a perpetrator like the guys in Aurora or Norway. Never.

[Gravekeeper]

But, okay. The ATF in Oregon - or whoever - gets a notice that Mr. Smith went "over the limit" for gun purchases. So, they send two agents to his house to talk with him. The guy talks to the agents, seems reasonable enough, no immediate sign of mental deficiency or homicidal intent.

The theatre shooter was in therapy and emailed the entire plans for his massacre, including helpful drawings, to his pyscholgist several days before the attack but it got stuck up in the college mail system for like 8 days. Preventing its delivery before the attack.

I'd say there was enough reasons for some red flags to go off if this guy started buying a bunch of guns.

[Canarr]

Hadn't caught the therapy part, thanks; but IMO, that would depend on why he'd gone. If it's just depression, there's probably a lot of Americans who've done that. However, if it were suppressed fantasies of violence towards unsuspecting innocents, that should raise suspicions.

I read the part of the sending, but I understood it to have been a mailed package, that sat unopenend in a mailroom somewhere. In either case, material that no one gets to read can't really give any meaningful warning, I'd say.

[Gravekeeper]

I read the part of the sending, but I understood it to have been a mailed package, that sat unopenend in a mailroom somewhere. In either case, material that no one gets to read can't really give any meaningful warning, I'd say.

No, but it does point to someone thats pretty damned disturbed and if he was in any sort of therapy than his problems are likely known to one or more professionals.

On a side note, if you're not aggrated enough over this: One guy that got shot is now facing 2 million in medical bills for the priviledge of recieving emergency medical treatment.

[siead_lietrathua]

On a side note, if you're not aggrated enough over this: One guy that got shot is now facing 2 million in medical bills for the priviledge of recieving emergency medical treatment.

that's... disgusting.
glad to live in canada. jeebus.

[Andara Bledin]

That's a rather glorified assumption. He could just as easily be gunned down and/or hurt as many people in the crossfire between them.

If a person just whipped out their piece and started shooting wildly, you'd be right.

However, there is a sizable segment of the CCW population who actually consider and train for the possibility of being involved in a shooting event (not just a spree or mass shooting). CCW holders who end up firing their weapons outside of training are actually a magnitude less likely to hit bystanders than the criminals (whose targets often are bystanders) or police (not sure why they're as sloppy as they are regarding the issue of bystander injuries).

Even if the CCW hold chose to shot at the ceiling, it should still draw attention away from the shooter and allow more people to escape during that time.

Firearms do nothing to prevent crime. Crime rates tend to stay the same with or without firearms.

Indiscriminate ranting, indeed, considering that this statement is demonstrably false.

The theatre shooter was in therapy and emailed the entire plans for his massacre, including helpful drawings, to his pyscholgist several days before the attack but it got stuck up in the college mail system for like 8 days. Preventing its delivery before the attack.

I had not heard any report on him being in therapy before. What's the source?

Also, the only source on the mailing of the notebook is "exclusive" to Fox News (unless someone new is reporting it since I mentioned it in this thread), so I'm not ready to trust that as completely accurate, either.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

If a person just whipped out their piece and started shooting wildly, you'd be right.

However, there is a sizable segment of the CCW population who actually consider and train for the possibility of being involved in a shooting event (not just a spree or mass shooting). CCW holders who end up firing their weapons outside of training are actually a magnitude less likely to hit bystanders than the criminals (whose targets often are bystanders) or police (not sure why they're as sloppy as they are regarding the issue of bystander injuries).

Even if the CCW hold chose to shot at the ceiling, it should still draw attention away from the shooter and allow more people to escape during that time.


Indiscriminate ranting, indeed, considering that this statement is demonstrably false.


I had not heard any report on him being in therapy before. What's the source?

Also, the only source on the mailing of the notebook is "exclusive" to Fox News (unless someone new is reporting it since I mentioned it in this thread), so I'm not ready to trust that as completely accurate, either.

^-.-^

Unless they have special forces or SWAT training or they paid the thousands of dollars for the military grade classes at a place like FrontSight, your average CCW holder is not going to have any training at all firing in a crowded, darkened, and tear gas filled room with people running everywhere. The only possible chance they'd have at taking down the shooter is to coincidentally be at point blank range and hope like hell they shoot first.

The only thing you need to be able to do to get your CCW is sit through a long ass class (up to 16 hours) and hit targets from specified distances with each hand individually. They do not make you shoot in the dark, with objects moving in between you and your target, or with hazardous gas making it difficult for you to see and breathe.

I really wish people would quit making it out that people with CCWs are trained to handle any situation they're in.


ETA....
The State of Nevada requires a 30 round qualification shooting test (6 12, and 12 rounds at 3, 5 and 7 yards respectively). A minimum score of 70% with each hand is required to pass, and you must recertify for every weapon you wish to conceal.

Some States, like Florida, Utah, Georgia, Washington, Alabama, Virginia, and Colorado do not require a shooting test.

[Nekojin]

That's a rather glorified assumption. He could just as easily be gunned down and/or hurt as many people in the crossfire between them.

Sure, we can handwave on either side of the scenario, but there are cases where an armed defender ends a situation before it becomes a "massacre." Note another incident in Aurora:
Two Aurora shootings, one widely known, the other ignored

Or this incident in Florida, where a man with a legal Concealed Carry license stopped an armed robbery.

Regarding your rant: It's clearly not guns that are the problem, or at least not legal ownership of guns.

Observe Kennesaw, Georgia, a town that passed a law requiring legal citizens of age to own a gun. Their crime rate plummeted, and their murder rate dropped to ZERO.

And, for contrast, take Chicago. When the city enacted a handgun ban, the crime rate and murder rate, both of which had been dropping for nearly a decade, abruptly went up.

Also consider Switzerland, a country that has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, and yet has a very low crime and murder rate.

Guns, in and of themselves, are not the problem. We can agree that there's a problem, but handwaving about the guns is pointless.

[Nekojin]

I really wish people would quit making it out that people with CCWs are trained to handle any situation they're in.

Actually, we're not. Go reread Andara's posts - the mere presence of a perceived armed defender would have most likely saved lives in the Aurora shooting.

Claiming that CCW holders are godly shooters is false, of course, but nobody's claiming that - it's a strawman. But by raising that strawman, you're implying that CCW carriers are more of a threat than an adequate defense, which is also false.

[Andara Bledin]

I really wish people would quit making it out that people with CCWs are trained to handle any situation they're in.

No problem. I never said that.

Most CCW holders will panic with the rest of the crowd. I have no argument against that as most don't have that much training.

However, as I said in my last comment, there is a significant sector of those who have CCW permits who have advanced training. Some are ex-military and others are more interested in just being able to react appropriately should the need arise. Many of the same courses that law enforcement professionals take are available to civilians. It's also worth noting that of one of the police requirements I found only required an 85% score to pass.

Guns, in and of themselves, are not the problem. We can agree that there's a problem, but handwaving about the guns is pointless.

Not just pointless, but detrimental.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

If a person just whipped out their piece and started shooting wildly, you'd be right.

However, there is a sizable segment of the CCW population who actually consider and train for the possibility of being involved in a shooting event (not just a spree or mass shooting). CCW holders who end up firing their weapons outside of training are actually a magnitude less likely to hit bystanders than the criminals (whose targets often are bystanders) or police (not sure why they're as sloppy as they are regarding the issue of bystander injuries).

Even if the CCW hold chose to shot at the ceiling, it should still draw attention away from the shooter and allow more people to escape during that time.

^-.-^

You know when I first heard about this my reaction was the same as others - "Why didn't a CCW person take him down?"

Then I learned that the theatre banned CCW anyway and that he was wearing body armor to boot.


There are some who CCW and say "concealed is concealed" in regards to establishments that prohibit CCW. However the ones who are trained for the possibility etc... are usually the ones who respect the law. And that means leaving the gun behind when entering "no gun" area.

And even with training... up against someone wearing body armor isn't an ideal situation. You'd have to be able to somehow shoot him between the armor gaps, close enough to not miss. While keeping in mind what's around you and what's behind your target.



What i personally fear however is that this will only excite the anti-gun movement. as if it would have somehow stopped him somehow.

[Rapscallion]

What i personally fear however is that this will only excite the anti-gun movement. as if it would have somehow stopped him somehow.

I think I've mentioned before in this thread, but in the days since this occurred, the only attempts to gain any sort of political capital that I saw anywhere were from the pro gun lobbies. Every meme regarding it on FB, including a Wonka meme, was pro gun. Every 'words in front of a blurred image' picture was pro gun.

Funny you mention the word 'fear'. That's what the pro-gun lobbies work on.

Think about it.

Rapscallion

[crashhelmet]

Actually, we're not. Go reread Andara's posts - the mere presence of a perceived armed defender would have most likely saved lives in the Aurora shooting.

And that argument is false. Someone other than the shooter firing a single round could cause more panic among the audience members and result in people stampeding eachother to death. It could cause the shooter to panic himself and fire at a faster rate. Even if that single round was to the ceiling, as Andara suggested, it could direct the shooter's attention towards their direction and onto a new group of innocents that may have otherwise survived. Is one innocent person's survival worth the risk of another innocent's life?

This is a situation where we cannot predict what could've or would've happened. Also, don't forget that he was wearing body armor. There's a chance that shooting him would not have stopped him.

Claiming that CCW holders are godly shooters is false, of course, but nobody's claiming that - it's a strawman. But by raising that strawman, you're implying that CCW carriers are more of a threat than an adequate defense, which is also false.

You're right in that no one is claiming that in this thread. In other threads on this board, as well as on other boards and sites discussing this very topic, people have claimed that CCW holders are better trained and could have saved lives. That having their CCW automatically means they know how to react and handle a situation like this. The length of this thread and the references to CCWs and the multiple insinuations that there would've been a smaller body count had an audience member been armed led to confusion within my memory of how this discussion was flowing.

[crashhelmet]

I think I've mentioned before in this thread, but in the days since this occurred, the only attempts to gain any sort of political capital that I saw anywhere were from the pro gun lobbies. Every meme regarding it on FB, including a Wonka meme, was pro gun. Every 'words in front of a blurred image' picture was pro gun.

Funny you mention the word 'fear'. That's what the pro-gun lobbies work on.

Think about it.

Rapscallion

You're right. Almost everything I've seen in memes, tweets, and comments is "OH NOES!!!!! Obama is take away our guns now. Vote Romney!!!!!"