"Batman Massacre"

[s_stabeler]

can peeople please grow up some? both sides seem to be treating this with absolutes. we have Nekojin, who has been arguing that because some CCW owners are trained, that CCW should be legal, and we have other people arguing that CCW owners are idiots.

1) CCW owners being trained isn't an argument for gun control, it's an argument for mandatory training. Which i happen to think is a good idea ( in recognizing situations where it's legal to use the gun, for one thing. second being aim.)
2) a darkened theater is no place to fire a gun with any kind of aim w/o special training. for that matter, it would probably be hard even with training, so I personally doubt your average CCW holder would help. a highly trained CCW holder might well be able to, but not your average one. CCW training never covers targeting in a darkened room AFAIK.
3) the actions of individual CCW holders cannot be used as arguments for or against CCW as a whole. I admit, I would be interested in seeing statistics on gun crimes performed by CCW holders compared to non-ccw holders, but I doubt there are accurate ones.


finally, this is a thread about the massacre in aurora. can we please leave any further debate on gun control for a gun control thread?

[Gravekeeper]

GK seriously? Wether or not the gun was working, or a prop, is a moot point--if they had pointed their non working gun at a cop, they would have been shot, because you don't ask someone if that thing their pointing at you is real or not.

My point is that lethal force was immediately used despite what all the possible facts of the situation might be. It was also used with clear intent to kill. Not scare or chase away. Kill. It was used immediately, recklessly, dangerously and with intent to kill.

A police officer in this same situation would not be permitted to immediately use lethal force. So why is an untrained civilian?

You're trying to argue that if people had resisted in a manner that didn't include someone else with a deadly weapon and the will to use it that they would have just thrown up their hands and walked out fo there without hurting anyone (well, except for the shop owner, who'd already lost money in damaged equipment). We both know you're not that naive.

I'm trying to argue that this is not a situation worth dying for on either side and that anyone that actually cheers on the loss of life over a register full of cash is a morally repugnant human being.

Adding guns to the equation does literally nothing except increase the chance of a fatality. Crime will occur regardless and its quite rare that would be robbers run around pointlessly murdering innocent people. That's not their objective. Otherwise they would be a spree shooter ala dipshit in the theatre.

He's firing at a downward angle, which I mentioned previously and is, in part, supported by the fact that one of those shots is while one thug is on the ground and the other has just scrambled up from a prone position and isn't yet upright.

Every shot he takes is in the direction of a public street and a couple of em are in the direction of the cashier. He has no regard for his surroundings or the people in them at all.

So, you admit that you can't say with certainty what would have happened, but you continue to make absolute statements about the situation.

All 5 of those statements are completely factual.

- He obviously has no situational awareness, thats pretty damn clear in the video.
- They only would have grabbed cash, that was their plan.
- They did come in and tell everyone to get down on the floor, thats witness testimony, also you clearly see kid with gun ushering people away from the register.
- Using the illusion of a working gun was the most effective way of completing their objective.
- Being shot at most farking definately inspires fight or flight and this was obviously a crime for material wealth.

Perhaps you should watch the video again and read up on the story.

And since nobody can read minds (except for possibly you, it would seem), it is not out of line to assume that they are willing to follow through on their threats. I don't blame the old guy one bit for not trusting criminals to not lie.

The threat is "let me take the money or I'll harm you" not "Hey everyone get away from the register so I can help myself before I leisurely murder everyone here". This is two dipshit teenage thugs, not the Manson family. The threat requires a qualifier: Resistence.

Thats why the first damn thing they teach you when you work at any given convenience store is don't resist, the till isn't worth your life. Give them what they want then call the cops.

finally, this is a thread about the massacre in aurora. can we please leave any further debate on gun control for a gun control thread?

That's sort of hard when gun control is the very heart of this issue. Its the incontinent elephant in the room. >.>

[Andara Bledin]

This is two dipshit teenage thugs, not the Manson family. The threat requires a qualifier: Resistence.

You're still arguing from the perspective of being psychic.

Sure, we know now that they were just a couple of stupid thugs out for a quick score. And, still, that fact is completely and utterly irrelevant. Every argument that stems from that point is flawed out of the gate.

And the resistance argument is just as flawed.

Try telling Salvador Maya that there has to be resistance to trigger violence. It'll require that you be psychic or know one, however, since the robber in that case shot him to death despite his cooperation.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

Sure, we know now that they were just a couple of stupid thugs out for a quick score. And, still, that fact is completely and utterly irrelevant. Every argument that stems from that point is flawed out of the gate.

It sure is easy now to know that it wasn't their intent to kill people, but if I'm at a 7-11 and someone draws a gun on me and demands my wallet, I'm assuming they are going to shoot me if I don't. Until they are long gone, they are a lethal threat and I'd be forced to treat them as such.

[AdminAssistant]

A police officer in this same situation would not be permitted to immediately use lethal force. So why is an untrained civilian?

....Yeah they would. It might be *preferred* to take out a leg, but generally cops are trained to always aim for center mass. And threatening people with a gun (loaded or not) in this country *will* get you shot by the police.

[Greenday]

....Yeah they would. It might be *preferred* to take out a leg, but generally cops are trained to always aim for center mass. And threatening people with a gun (loaded or not) in this country *will* get you shot by the police.

Exactly. Police generally shoot to kill. When in a potentially lethal situation, you have to put down the threat without giving the person a chance to kill you or other innocent bystanders.

[Gravekeeper]

You're still arguing from the perspective of being psychic.

They look like two teenage thugs and they stated their intentions outloud when they entered. That doesn't require psychic power. It does, however, require psychic power to assume they're both blood thirsty murderers despite their appearence and intentions.

The resistence argument is perfectly valid because its the exact mechanism by which a farkin' armed robbery works. "Give me x or I do y".

Try telling Salvador Maya that there has to be resistance to trigger violence. It'll require that you be psychic or know one, however, since the robber in that case shot him to death despite his cooperation.

He was shot because he recognized the suspect under his mask. Also, one flawed example to the contrary does not an absolute rule make in any way shape or form.

Your chance of injury/death is undeniably higher if you resist, especially with a firearm. When a firearm is in play, its not *your* firearm, its *a* firearm.

....Yeah they would. It might be *preferred* to take out a leg, but generally cops are trained to always aim for center mass. And threatening people with a gun (loaded or not) in this country *will* get you shot by the police.

No, they wouldn't. A cop doesn't get to just walk up and shoot someone dead from 10 feet away because they're carrying a weapon. It'd be a PR shitstorm if they did.

Exactly. Police generally shoot to kill. When in a potentially lethal situation, you have to put down the threat without giving the person a chance to kill you or other innocent bystanders.

In an *actively* lethal situation sure. In a *potentially* lethal situation a cop is going to verbally engage you and command you to put the weapon down.

[Hyena Dandy]

....Yeah they would. It might be *preferred* to take out a leg, but generally cops are trained to always aim for center mass. And threatening people with a gun (loaded or not) in this country *will* get you shot by the police.

No, they wouldn't. A cop doesn't get to just walk up and shoot someone dead from 10 feet away because they're carrying a weapon. It'd be a PR shitstorm if they did.

Umm... I'm beginning to think that people in this thread have stopped reading each-other's posts and are more yelling past each-other...

Can we have a mulligan on this? Make a gun control thread and talk about the massacre instead?

[Greenday]

In an *actively* lethal situation sure. In a *potentially* lethal situation a cop is going to verbally engage you and command you to put the weapon down.

A person pointing a gun at me is a lethal situation. I'd prefer a cop shoots them before they get a chance to shoot me.

[siead_lietrathua]

Umm... I'm beginning to think that people in this thread have stopped reading each-other's posts and are more yelling past each-other...

Can we have a mulligan on this? Make a gun control thread and talk about the massacre instead?

i think that's a lost cause. jsut change the name of this thread to "gun control" and wash hands of it, and let them keep going on their own.

[Mytical]

Yep, tried to restore sanity quite a few pages ago, got lost in the maelstrom. Every time a tragedy happens, people try to figure out WHY. Some jump on the easiest possible scapegoat, and run it into the ground. Others will counter, and run their end to the ground. Guns, no guns, costumes, no costumes. Instead of mourning the tragedy, we rail against the night..and perpetuate anger and only want to be RIGHT..regardless the cost.

To the victims of this tragedy, I want to apologize. Some of us have not lost the way, and some still remember what is important in this. People died.

[Duelist925]

*snip*

No, they wouldn't. A cop doesn't get to just walk up and shoot someone dead from 10 feet away because they're carrying a weapon. It'd be a PR shitstorm if they did.




In an *actively* lethal situation sure. In a *potentially* lethal situation a cop is going to verbally engage you and command you to put the weapon down.

"Carrying" a weapon is a far cry from "Brandishing" it.

If you're carrying a gun in a non hostile manner, wether it be holstered, or cradled, then you will receive a massively different response than if you are actively brandishing it.

One will get you, at best, a polite request for the weapon, or the removal the weapon.

The other will get you, at best, a shouted order to drop the weapon, and several bullet if you do not obey.

[the_std]

To the victims of this tragedy, I want to apologize. Some of us have not lost the way, and some still remember what is important in this. People died.

As much as I don't really care about the debate this has evolved to, I'm sorry, but your and s_stabeler's guilt trips are not cool.

Firstly, it's incredibly unlikely that any of the Aurora victims or their family/friends/loved ones are reading this forum, so we can say what we like with impunity. Secondly, the debate is, really, at its heart, about trying to keep this type of tragedy from occuring again in the future, and if we can find a way to do that, I can see no more fitting tribute to those who died in the massacre. And, thirdly, talking like that seems to come from a position of "we are grieving, you who are debating or not", which is an incredibly lofty assumption to make. People can grieve in many ways. How do you know that the people involved in this debate do not feel remorse or grief? And even if they don't, so what? Yes, it's very sad that those people are dead but no one is required to grieve. If you are so insulted by the debate and its desecration of the memories of those who died at Aurora, don't involve yourself.

No one is making you debate here. We debate a lot of serious topics, and because people died in the topic currently under discussion does not mean that it is untouchable. Also, I believe that the idea of "good taste" does not apply here as we are not talking about people directly involved with the forums.

Please do not try to dictate what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to death and the topics associated with it.

[Mytical]

Fair enough. Never meant to try to 'dictate' anything. *shrugs*

[Hyena Dandy]

If you are so insulted by the debate and its desecration of the memories of those who died at Aurora, don't involve yourself.

I'm not upset about the memories of the people who died at Aurora. Though I'd rather we put the debate in a different thread because, well, there are some other things about the shooting that might be discussed as well.

I am upset that I know most of the people involved are perfectly reasonable, intelligent people, but aren't debating reasonably and intelligently.