I think everyone should be disarmed, not just the sane and good. There's no reason for ANYONE to be running around with firearms (outside of war)

Oh good Lord.. that's not happening.

There are more guns than people in this country. Disarm the good people and only the bad ones will have weapons.

Want your neighbor to put up one of these signs?

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/i...as_no_guns.jpg

Yeah, I know what it is, sir, though you should factor in the tear gas, which can affect the ability of others to make that flashlight out clearly. I just don't have the confidence you seem to that that 90-year-old woman, or any average theater-goer for that matter who lacks experience in situations like this, is going to be taking down the gunman and only the gunman.

Not to mention several studies have shown that CHL/CCW holders are less likely to commit ANY crime compared to the general population and about 98% of all shootings are committed by non CHL/CCW holders. I tend to quit listening when people start talking like that what you quoted. I'm all for having a discussion on how to attack the black market arms trade but I think a lot of people's fear and ignorance of firearms gets in the way of that.

But yes, let's ban guns for everyone but the criminals and murderers who obtain their firearms illegally to begin with.

It doesn't make sense to you because you're ignorant of the statistics. Back in the 80s when states started allowing CHL's anti gun activists were chomping at the bite to show a correlation between CHL holders and increased crime rates or shootings. It never happened. In fact, studies conducted have shown that CHL holders are less likely to commit ANY crime than a non CHL holder. Don't use your fear of guns paint a law abiding citizen as a potential criminal.

Signed up for a concealed carry class just 2 weeks ago. :)

Just to be clear, I'm not one of "let's ban all the fire arms" crowd, even if I don't see any reason for an average person to have assault weapons. I think the idea of complete bans, aside from being unconstitutional, is wildly unrealistic. And I agree that the evidence doesn't support it, at least not the evidence I have seen. (Though I do tend to start tuning out when the discussion devolves into bumper sticker arguments like "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" or into things like the picture above.)

But I do have a problem when, in the wake of an incident such as this, we start hearing claims that if only concealed weapons were allowed/allowed more freely/carried more widely, someone could have prevented this or stopped it sooner. Maybe or maybe not. That person with the concealed weapon mIight have helped or they might have made things worse. They're so many variables that I think it's impossible and unrealistic to simply assume a better outcome.

Exactly. I'm not so sure there's a right answer here.

The whole situation is tragic.

I went and saw the movie today and my FB friends posted for me to be safe. Usually when I post I'm seeing a movie, I get "enjoy the movie" or "let me know how it is" not "be safe". It is weird.

My heart goes out to the victims and their families as well as everyone else in the theater who, while not physically wounded, might be emotionally/mentally wounded by what happened.

I'm glad that the shooter was quickly apprehended and is in police custody. If his defense attorney is smart he will advice his client to take a deal, as he is screwed and I'm not sure how much of an impartial jury he might find considering the media attention surrounding the case.

My prediction is that there is no way in hell that a deal is offered here. The state's going to want the needle.

In the state of Arizona, which has concealed carry AND some of the most lax gun laws in the country, death by gunshot wound is more common than death by motor vehicle crash. This only happens in 3 states in the union. That is astounding since nationwide motor vehicle crashes account for the majority of deaths of people ages 4-34. Homicide is #2 in the 4-24 group, but that includes all types of homicide. That is a lot of gun violence in Arizona that has not been improved by concealed carry or putting more guns in law abiding citizens hands. More guns does not equal less death by guns.

I similarily have a problem when, in the wake of a situation like this, we hear claims that if guns were "banned" incidents like this would not have happened. Personally, I've never been one to push a pro-firearm agenda and I definitely don't fall into the category of someone who thinks we need to make gun laws more lax either. I still disagree with the idea that these victims would have fared worse if someone in the crowd had a firearm him/herself. Most likely it would have been an off duty police officer or someone extremely proficient in handling of a pistol because those are the types that carry almost everywhere. The 90 year old grandmother and people less experienced with fire arms tend to leave them in the nightstand or closet. :cool:

I've not gone back through to read all the posts, but I don't remember anyone saying anything about "banning" guns altogether. It just seems that, as far as this incident is concerned, it would be short-sighted to assume that there would have been fewer casualties had someone in the theater fired.

You're welcome to disagree all you want with what I said earlier, but I still maintain that a dark, crowded, loud, tear gas filled, already chaotic theater is not the type of environment that would be bettered by the addition of extra weaponry.

ETA: I know people have commented that, on an everyday basis, there's no reason for civilians to carry guns, but "no reason" doesn't equate to "ban guns."

I could be wrong, but I don't think he was referring to anyone here.

Fair enough, we all have our own opinions on the situation. See below about the banning guns.

I wasn't referring to anyone here specifically even though it was implicated by sigmagirl2000.

Disarmament of the general populace= banning guns.

Suppose everyone in the theater carried guns, but were inexperienced. You have the risk of crossfire hitting an innocent person. However, you also have the risk that the shooter may hit many more people if not subdued.

The question here is whether the involvement of inexperienced shooters will involve less deaths compared to being defenseless against a malicious shooter.

I'm personally of the belief that since those who really want guns will be able to obtain them regardless of the law (similar to how people under 21 can obtain alcohol), it's necessary to deal with that reality. We're in the worst scenario because it's relatively easy to obtain guns while most people still don't have one. Group protection only works if there's a culture where you can reasonably expect to be shot if you shoot someone else.

Now, for concealed carry, those who do it properly will appear no different than an unarmed person. If CCW becomes part of culture, then it's unclear who actually has a weapon, but the assumption that people will generally be defenseless against a gun no longer apply. The playing field is effectively equaled.

Essentially, it'll be as if pepper spray was replaced with guns.

I feel y'all to some degree, but I also disagree, too. If they did away with folks having concealed weapons it really wouldn't make folks any safer. I can't see how it would, because people would still find ways to get these weapons illegally and sell them, making a big profit. Basically the state or govt. wants their hand in anything that they can place a tax/make money on, and track. Not to be bringing up prostitution, but it's legal in Nevada, and all they do it tax the shit out of it. Same thing with prohibition. It would be similar if they did away with folks having weapons.

I would agree that's problematic and not helpful.

I quarrel with this simply because I think it's based on speculation and assumptions that may be true in a given situation but likewise may not be true in a given situation. It's not that I don't think it's possible that things would have gone better if someone in the crowd had a firearm; it's just that I think it is also possible they would have gone worse. So to me it makes as little sense to simply assert that situations like this show the need for personal concealed carry as it does to simply assert that situations like this show the need to ban firearms. Both assertions are, to me, simplistic.

Do you really want to live in a world where you're not trusted to do anything, and are searched everywhere you go? I don't. I would MUCH rather face the possibility of a madman than to give up individual liberties.

No one said if someone had a concealed weapon it would have stopped the attack. Only that it might.

With no other defensive weapons in the theater, there was no choice to be made. No one could make a shoot/no-shoot decision. Yet Cinemark posts ALL its theaters so even law-abiding permit holders cannot carry.

Even a flashlight could have blinded the perpetrator.

She does say "could have possibly," but to me, this comes close enough:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcsparky (Post 2160430) I also see how this is a case advocating for personal concealed carry. If just one person in that theatre had been trained and able to stop this guy, imagine how many of those 12 deaths could have possibly been prevented.

Again, it's simplistic, because we can similarly imagine that the hypothetical person carrying a concealed weapon who tried to help wasn't trained well enough for a task like that.

It's not that it's not possible that it could have helped. It course it might have. What I'm uncomfortable with is the bald assertions in the wake of an incident like this along the lines of "this shows why we need to be able to carry concealed weapon into places like movie theaters." I think that's a knee-jerk reaction that ignores the possibility of the law of unintended consequences and assumes only two possible outcomes -- that it would have helped or that it would not have made a difference -- and ignores the third possible outcome. That's the part of it I have a problem with.

As with many topics, the same thing keeps being said over and over again. about the concealed weapons topic. So here goes....

Sure, a law abiding civilian with a gun (concealed or not) could have said "oh shit, I get to use my gun" and (insert potential outcome). Thank goodness that all discourse and policy are not based on what could possibly happen based on a small probability. The probability of otherwise law abiding civilians with concealed weapons actually fighting off (wielding a gun with prayerful hopes that the offender will change his/her mind is not the same thing as fighting off--a truly law abiding citizen is not looking forward to using a gun on a person) a motivated offender is minimal. That is neither pro-gun nor anti-gun, it is what has been studied by researchers and community activitists who want people to base their opinions on reality rather than fantasy, fear, and wannabe Billy Badassness.

Anywayyyyyyyyyyyy, this offender will not become "famous" like he hoped that he would. God bless the victims and their loved ones. Thankfully such tragedies, although unforeseen and heinous, are rare.

I wish that no citizens had guns but:

I taught in a low-security corrections institution for almost 20 years. Before I taught there, I thought that passing a law against citizens having guns would work. Now I know that there are so many ways to get a gun, legally and illegally, that I realize it could never work.

During class breaks, the men would be casually discussing their guns and where they got them (btw, none of these men had committed violent crimes) and for years, I would ask if they thought that a law could stop the general population from having guns. They would fall over laughing. It seems that making gun ownership illegal would hardly make a dent in the criminal world's access to guns. And these men had never used a gun in a crime! Can you imagine how much easier it is for the really rotten people to get one?

I don't think that the hunters of the country would go along with giving up their guns either and of course if someone could still get a rifle, he could do some serious damage to people as well. I've always felt that Americans have so many guns because our ancestors who conquered the frontier had to have them and owning guns is more acceptable here than in some other countries.

Like most of you, I wish that people who had no business with guns didn't have them. After working in the CI, though, I can see that that will never happen. :(

And many policies and laws are a result of something happening that spark outrage. Theaters are now looking into better security just as airports improved security after September 11. I remember how lenient airports were before September 11--my friends who were not flying could hang out with me at the terminal, for goodness sake--and I thank God that September 11 was not used to support concealed weapons that could bypass airport security. Likewise, this may mark a time where people will have to suck it up if theaters improve security. There will be complaints but such is life. I damn sure want increased security if more people (both motivated offenders and supposedly law abiding citizens--since we do not know which is which until after people act out) want to carry their guns on their hips.

I'm not convinced that there wasn't at least one movie-goer concealing anyway. I know for sure my FIL carries practically everywhere - a Cinemark sign wouldn't persuade him to leave his gun in the car. The few times he's visited me on campus, he's always been carrying, despite the obvious NO WEAPONS ON CAMPUS signs. I know he's not the only person who disregards such signs.

So - I think people are going to carry whether they're 'allowed' to or not. This goes for both criminals and CCW alike. I think there's a strong possibility that someone had access to a weapon in the theater, but chose not to shoot it. I think there's a time and place for CCW discussions, but I don't think this incident is the best backdrop for such a discussion.

Excellent points, SydneyK.

First of all AZ is a weird state. Something is in the water, or lack of water, to make the people there "off". They have the most suicide by gun and police shootings per population then any other state. You can use these stats to try to prove any point you want but it's hard to get anything to stick. Look at California for example. They have the strictest gun laws in the union yet are consistently number one in the country for violent gun crimes so the more restrictions, less death argument isn't exactly a solid one.

Will you please post your source? I don't usually get involved in these discussions, but I have to defend California! Here's a link to statistics on a per capita basis, that disproves your comment above. I realize this article is out of date, so perhaps you have a more current source? http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...rt-of-comments

I guess that no one ever knows what is in a persons mind. No one knows what may make a persons mind snap.
Parents always say He is a good boy, but who actually knows?
According to Drs. or Lawyers in court, they were abused as a child or bullied in life.

But some with so called normal lives can be triggered by some small thing in the brain that no one knows about.

Guns are just made of metal and do not go off by themselves and neither do bombs unless there is a human factor to pull the trigger or drop the bomb.

I guess I will never join the 72 virgins in the after life as I do not plan on shooting or killing anyone.

We must keep guns for a way to defend each other. If we as Colonists did not have guns, we would be speaking The Kings English.

Now I wonder how long it will be before he goes to court and even if he will be convicted? How much will it cost us as tax payers to keep this rat bastard in bed and breakfast?

TEITY?

I'll agree that AZ is weird, but having the most lax gun laws with more guns running around than any other state CANNOT be discounted as a reason for these stats.

BTW, I was wrong, it is ten states not three with this historic change in #1 cause of death to gun violence rather than motor vehicle crash. I thought I heard 3 when I was listening to reports of this on NPR, but I found different reports when I looked for references on the Internet.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-s...b_1536793.html


Please note that none of these are California or any other liberal bastion of gun control.

I was referring to the actual numbers of murders, not the per capita rate. CA seems to be 12th per capita but still has the most handgun murders in the country at 953 handgun murders. The second place goes to TX at 581 gun murders. Take it for what it is but like i've been saying, if there was a definite correlation between gun laws and murder rates this debate would have been settled long ago.

And the point of comparing gun deaths to auto deaths is..?? I mean, traffic fatalities have been on the steady decline for quite a few years due to cars being equipped with better safety features, the implementation of the "seatbelt always on" mentality, better student driver trainings, etc. The gun death numbers on the huffpo article come from the Violence Policy Center, which include suicides and police shootings in their numbers. I've long heard that 2/3 of all gunshot fatalities are results of self-inflicted injuries (suicide/accidents) as opposed to murder. I don't have time now but I'll look it up later. Will stricter gun laws prevent suicides? I really don't think so.

Interesting chart:

Interesting to see how this translates to red and blue states. I also had to idea that Michigan was so populated..... (or if it isn't, there are just a lot of gun and motor vehicle deaths there).


ETA: Since I'm a number/ math nerd, this was interesting to me. DC is high up there with the guns, as are the Virgin Islands (whoa!)

This makes me think that being in Massachusetts I have a good chance of not being killed by vehicle or gun. Now I just need to avoid the coyotes that hang out by my car early in the morning when I'm going to work....

I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but we already live in this world. Why do you think we can't take liquids through airport security, and have to remove our shoes? Why do you think there's heightened security in offices and government buildings? Why do we have to have our bags checked before entering a concert or sporting event? Because there are evil people in this world who have killed innocent people, and have inconvenienced the rest of us.

But I'd rather deal with a 15 minute inconvenience than end up dead. But maybe that's just me.

And what's the trade-off here? Wait 15 minutes to get into the theater.. Or wait 15 miniutes sitting in my seat. There's no real difference if you ask me.

Exaaaaactly.

And this doesn't surprise me, at all.

Yeah, DC has guns everywhere. And, even though it is technically legal to own one after the Heller ruling, it is logistically impossible due to restrictions that can't be met.

Great chart -- thanks for sharing. I definitely find it more helpful to compare things on a per capita basis, it's more apples-to-apples for me.

I've quit flying.

I recently canceled plans to go to a Nationals baseball game when I learned I'd be searched like a common criminal.

I'm perfectly happy staying away from places where I'm presumed guilty. But maybe that's just me.

It just amuses me that after an atrocious crime, the rules and regulations change to punish those who didn't do it.