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....