"Batman Massacre"

[Nekojin]

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?

Come on, you can do better than that. I linked several instances where a legally-carrying person stopped a gun-wielding assailant. Can you cite any instances where your hand-waved situation played out?

Statistically, history supports our position far more than yours.

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.

And there's a good chance that it would have, anyway. Body armor isn't absolute protection. There's still a hell of a lot of kinetic energy in the bullet, the vest just disperses it. People who have been shot while wearing a vest have said straight-up that it felt like being kicked by a horse, and it was enough to knock them on their ass.

Or the CCW could have hit them in an arm, or the head. Even with a SWAT helmet, being shot in the head isn't going to be shrugged off as though he hadn't been shot. There's a ton of "What-If" involved, and when you only focus on the negatives, you're building a huge strawman.

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.

So argue against those people there, and don't drag arguments that aren't being presented here to argue against. That's strawmanning.

[Andara Bledin]

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

The body armor question was addressed in the CCW blog post I'd mentioned earlier.

First, even if a person appears to be armored, that doesn't mean that they actually are. A shot fired at "center mass" will likely answer that question.

Second, if it turns out the shooter is armored, a shot to center mass might not take him out, but it will be felt, potentially even knocking him down. Bullets may be small, but that much kinetic energy will have a notable effect, particularly if it is discharged entirely against an actual bullet-proof object, of which most armor is merely bullet-resistant.

In that sort of situation, attempting a clean shot is almost entirely beneficial while not firing based purely on armored vs unarmored is pretty much pointless.

^-.-^

[Mytical]

I have had night fire training, I've been in tear gas chambers, and I even am able to hit a great percentage of what I aim for. I've had guns pointed at me, knives pulled on me, and even a baseball bat wielded against me(long story)..even if I was armed..in that theater, and not one of the first ones taken out..the chances of me doing any good in that situation I feel is nil. Don't get me wrong, there are a few people who would do good if they had been armed (Navy Seal, etc)..I am just not one of them. I don't think any average joe would be, unless extremely lucky.

That being said, I am against too much gun regulation. Simply because then only the criminals (who don't care about the law) would have guns. Not an idea situation.

[PepperElf]

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

So you're suggesting it's unfounded fear then...?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...79W_story.html

Obama pledges more action on guns

NEW ORLEANS — President Obama promised Wednesday to lead a national discussion about gun control after the deadly mass shootings last week in Colorado, wading into the gun issue more extensively than at any other time in his presidency.

[crashhelmet]

Come on, you can do better than that. I linked several instances where a legally-carrying person stopped a gun-wielding assailant. Can you cite any instances where your hand-waved situation played out?

Statistically, history supports our position far more than yours.

How many of those incidents involved dark theatres, people running and screaming in between the one carrying and the perpetrator, and tear gas? The answer is zero.

Now, about your two (not several) citations. In the second shooting in Aurora, the "hero" of your story was an off duty cop. The killer shot 1 person outside the church after chasing their desired target to the location. They did not walk into the church and start shooting randomly or wildly. This was not the same type of situation.

The second incident you cited, the would-be robbers did not fire a single shot. It is highly believable that their guns were used strictly for fear, if they were even loaded, without the intention of shooting anyone. Again, this is not the same type of situation.

Any other false arguments for me to pick apart?

And there's a good chance that it would have, anyway. Body armor isn't absolute protection. There's still a hell of a lot of kinetic energy in the bullet, the vest just disperses it. People who have been shot while wearing a vest have said straight-up that it felt like being kicked by a horse, and it was enough to knock them on their ass.

What was the calibre of the weapons they were shot with? At what range were they shot from? What were the vests made from? Were they "Hard Armor" or "Soft Armor"? If you can't answer those questions, your argument is pointless.

Or the CCW could have hit them in an arm, or the head. Even with a SWAT helmet, being shot in the head isn't going to be shrugged off as though he hadn't been shot. There's a ton of "What-If" involved, and when you only focus on the negatives, you're building a huge strawman.

Strawman? Your what ifs are valid but mine are strawman? I'm sorry if my pessimistic attitude about what could happen destroys your dreams of happy ever after endings. But Strawman? Really?

Your example where an old man played vigilante and shot at 2 guys that only brandished weapons is a valid defense for shooting in a crowded, darkened, panic and tear gas filled room? And I'm the one guilty of strawmanning?

But let's get technical, if not tactical.

Due to the layout of theatre seating, unless the would-be hero was within the same aisle as the shooter and either behind them or does a damn good dead opossum impersonation, their only target area would be primarily above the waist. Unless they got a lucky shot (yet another "if"), they would have to hope for a shot to the arm or one of the places the armor didn't cover. Sadly, this requires aim and/or luck. Given that the theatre was dark, people running and screaming, tear gas, and the would-be hero probably in a crouched and covered position behind another chair or laying prone on the floor, my money is on luck. Luck that they don't shoot an innocent. Luck that they don't miss completely and draw the ire of the shooter, causing others to die.

This is a situation where hand-waving, as you call it, is the best and safest option for everyone in that situation.

So argue against those people there, and don't drag arguments that aren't being presented here to argue against. That's strawmanning.

There's that strawman thing again....

[crashhelmet]

So you're suggesting it's unfounded fear then...?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...79W_story.html

From the same article you cited

Obama said that laws should be better enforced and that guns should be kept out of the hands of people with mental illness. Although he reiterated his commitment to uphold gun owners’ Second Amendment rights to responsibly bear arms, he blamed Congress for inaction on what he called common-sense restrictions to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Yes, I'd say it's unfounded fear.

[PepperElf]

Laws already prohibit selling guns to the mentally ill - as per the federal gun control law of 1968.

Now whether or not your state actually reports the mental illness to the database is a completely different story. By law any FFL who sells a gun must conduct a background check on the person buying the gun. This can only be circumvented if the purchaser has a valid CCW card since the CCW process includes the background check as well as extra training. The FFL cannot however force the states or medical institutions to do *their* job properly when it comes to actually putting the data on the database.


So creating a law that is already on the books will do what to fix this?

[Rapscallion]

So you're suggesting it's unfounded fear then...?

The fear I was talking about was the one where the NRA etc are more than happy to point at shady bogeymen and tell you to arm up. That inspires distrust and makes a huge mockery of your 'fellow Americans'.

It's fascinating that as a nation you don't trust each other, or are more than willing to believe that your compatriots will do anything they feel like if you're not armed. Horrifying, but fascinating.

It's a fairly impressive vicious cycle they use. "Well, see, if you have the right to have a gun, then they do, and since they do, you need a gun, and since there are lots of guns around, everyone needs more guns."

However, when fear is mentioned you go straight to a piece that says 'let's discuss it'. You don't even want to discuss the ramifications? That scares you?

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

What was the calibre of the weapons they were shot with? At what range were they shot from? What were the vests made from? Were they "Hard Armor" or "Soft Armor"? If you can't answer those questions, your argument is pointless.

Mostly irrelevant.

Here is a video of a man being shot (the gun fires at 5:22) at close range by a Glock 19 to demonstrate the capability of the company's covert bullet-proof vests. He is expecting to be shot and is shot in the stomach, where bone damage is least expected. He spends the next 10 seconds doubled over in pain, and he was prepared to be shot.

That's an awful lot of time for people to either get away or take other, more proactive action.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

How many of those incidents involved dark theatres, people running and screaming in between the one carrying and the perpetrator, and tear gas? The answer is zero.

Well, if you really want to address the darkness situation...

The shooter entered from a brightly-lit parking lot, into a theater that had been running for 20 minutes. The patrons' eyes were fully adjusted to their situation; the shooters' were not. Not that it would have taken him long to adjust.

Furthermore, from many angles, he would have been back-lit against the brightly-lit screen, while he'd be looking and firing into the darkness at any supposed counter-assailants.

The tear gas is an issue, no question. But it's not an insurmountable one, especially given the design of theaters - people toward the back of the theater would be far less affected by the gas than the people up toward the front.

Now, about your two (not several) citations. In the second shooting in Aurora, the "hero" of your story was an off duty cop. The killer shot 1 person outside the church after chasing their desired target to the location. They did not walk into the church and start shooting randomly or wildly. This was not the same type of situation.

The second incident you cited, the would-be robbers did not fire a single shot. It is highly believable that their guns were used strictly for fear, if they were even loaded, without the intention of shooting anyone. Again, this is not the same type of situation.

Any other false arguments for me to pick apart?

Neither are precisely the same sort of situation, but unless you're trying to say that I have to have something perfectly analogous, you can certainly apply the information from them to different situations. If you are insisting that I have to have a perfectly-analogous situation, then you're performing a variant of the Scotsman Fallacy.

What was the calibre of the weapons they were shot with? At what range were they shot from? What were the vests made from? Were they "Hard Armor" or "Soft Armor"? If you can't answer those questions, your argument is pointless.

Hardly pointless. You're just hand-waving the point away, because you can't defend it adequately.

Strawman? Your what ifs are valid but mine are strawman? I'm sorry if my pessimistic attitude about what could happen destroys your dreams of happy ever after endings. But Strawman? Really?

Because mine aren't perfect, happily-ever after situations, while yours seem to be perfect-disaster situations - you throw up one tiny objection, and presume that destroys the entire situation.

Due to the layout of theatre seating, unless the would-be hero was within the same aisle as the shooter and either behind them or does a damn good dead opossum impersonation, their only target area would be primarily above the waist. Unless they got a lucky shot (yet another "if"), they would have to hope for a shot to the arm or one of the places the armor didn't cover. Sadly, this requires aim and/or luck. Given that the theatre was dark, people running and screaming, tear gas, and the would-be hero probably in a crouched and covered position behind another chair or laying prone on the floor, my money is on luck. Luck that they don't shoot an innocent. Luck that they don't miss completely and draw the ire of the shooter, causing others to die.

Oh, good! You're finally thinking. But you're not thinking it through completely, you're again putting up full-stop counters, rather than critically thinking about the scenario.

There's that strawman thing again....

How about you go back and read the link that Andara provided, where an actual threat analyst ran down every possible scenario? You know, the person who actually gets paid to do this sort of thing?

Here's a hint: Several of the scenarios do include the possibility of the counter-shooter accidentally hitting innocents. And yet, the casualty count still ends up smaller. How does THAT work? Well... I guess you'll have to go back and read, won't you?

[PepperElf]

The fear I was talking about was the one where the NRA etc are more than happy to point at shady bogeymen and tell you to arm up. That inspires distrust and makes a huge mockery of your 'fellow Americans'.

It's fascinating that as a nation you don't trust each other, or are more than willing to believe that your compatriots will do anything they feel like if you're not armed. Horrifying, but fascinating.

It's a fairly impressive vicious cycle they use. "Well, see, if you have the right to have a gun, then they do, and since they do, you need a gun, and since there are lots of guns around, everyone needs more guns."

However, when fear is mentioned you go straight to a piece that says 'let's discuss it'. You don't even want to discuss the ramifications? That scares you?

Rapscallion

To be honest to me... that's pretty much labeling all gun owners as being scary cats. For... essentially being different.


I mean i fully understand if gun owning is something you disagree with. but I do dislike the idea of blanket assumptions like that. cos it seems more like ... i dunno, deciding all gun owners are scared of their own shadows. for basically holding to beliefs you disagree with. O_o


but it's not hard to figure out that there are groups out there who do want to take away our rights. this is just another vehicle they're taking advantage of to do so.

[Nekojin]

The fear I was talking about was the one where the NRA etc are more than happy to point at shady bogeymen and tell you to arm up. That inspires distrust and makes a huge mockery of your 'fellow Americans'.

It's fascinating that as a nation you don't trust each other, or are more than willing to believe that your compatriots will do anything they feel like if you're not armed. Horrifying, but fascinating.

Actually, when you think about it, we trust our neighbors with guns more than we trust the government to adequately handle the situation where they're the only ones who (legally) have guns.

Let's presume, for a moment, that we ban all guns - the only people who are legally able to have them are the police and the military. Do we smile and carry on, assuming that our government is incorruptible, and those guns will never find their way into other hands? And that's not even considering guns smuggled in from other countries.

Ultimately, my position stems from the "genie axiom" - the genie's out of the bottle, you can't shove it back in. Guns exist. Guns will always exist. There's no way to make them not exist; you can't make every government on the planet disarm, and you can't remove the knowledge of how to make them from gunsmiths' heads. Better to understand them and learn how to deal with them, than play ostrich.

[PepperElf]

Actually, when you think about it, we trust our neighbors with guns more than we trust the government to adequately handle the situation where they're the only ones who (legally) have guns.

Let's presume, for a moment, that we ban all guns - the only people who are legally able to have them are the police and the military. Do we smile and carry on, assuming that our government is incorruptible, and those guns will never find their way into other hands? And that's not even considering guns smuggled in from other countries.

Ultimately, my position stems from the "genie axiom" - the genie's out of the bottle, you can't shove it back in. Guns exist. Guns will always exist. There's no way to make them not exist; you can't make every government on the planet disarm, and you can't remove the knowledge of how to make them from gunsmiths' heads. Better to understand them and learn how to deal with them, than play ostrich.

thank you. you voiced it better than i.


plus the whole "call the cops" thing isn't viable either since our own supreme court has stated that the cops are not required to actually protect us from attackers. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po.../28scotus.html

[crashhelmet]

Mostly irrelevant.

Here is a video of a man being shot (the gun fires at 5:22) at close range by a Glock 19 to demonstrate the capability of the company's covert bullet-proof vests. He is expecting to be shot and is shot in the stomach, where bone damage is least expected. He spends the next 10 seconds doubled over in pain, and he was prepared to be shot.

That's an awful lot of time for people to either get away or take other, more proactive action.

^-.-^

That is close range with a "Soft Armor" vest. That's going to hurt. It's going to hurt even more if they fired a .380 or a 40 calibre. Step back another 10 feet and it's going to hurt less.

But regardless.... The would-be hero would need to be awfully close to make any kind of impact. The closer you get to the shooter, the higher the risk you are of getting shot before you can shoot yourself.

It's possible someone might have been able to get close enough and it's also possible that the one or few people carrying were on the other side of the theatre from where the shooter was and we're just back to playing the "What if" game.

[Nekojin]

That is close range with a "Soft Armor" vest. That's going to hurt. It's going to hurt even more if they fired a .380 or a 40 calibre. Step back another 10 feet and it's going to hurt less.

But regardless.... The would-be hero would need to be awfully close to make any kind of impact. The closer you get to the shooter, the higher the risk you are of getting shot before you can shoot yourself.

It's possible someone might have been able to get close enough and it's also possible that the one or few people carrying were on the other side of the theatre from where the shooter was and we're just back to playing the "What if" game.

And there's no scenario in the "What If Game" that results in more deaths than no action at all. Even if the counter-shooter actually hits some bystanders. Go read that analysis.