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.