Gunman Opens Fire During "The Dark Knight Rises"

[sigmagirl2000]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I don't know what will change some of the laws in this country, but there are some that need to be changed. I honestly really don't think there is any reason for any civilian person to have an assault weapon, but that's just me. I just think that should only be for law enforcement and the military. I mean, I would think that the American public would like to be at least as safe as members of congress are when they're at their job. You can't walk into the capitol with any kind of weapons, so then why are we allowed to walk down many of the streets of America armed, especially those who shouldn't have weapons in the first place? Just my opinion on the subject. I'm just more concerned now about copy-cats. I guess this now means that we're going to have to be searched for weapons before entering the movies.

I entirely agree. The more people able to wander around with weapons (especially those with mental illness, etc. that may be undiagnosed), the greater chance that something can go wrong. There's no logical reason for people to be wandering around with concealed weapons. There's too much room for error.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by sigmagirl2000

I entirely agree. The more people able to wander around with weapons (especially those with mental illness, etc. that may be undiagnosed), the greater chance that something can go wrong. There's no logical reason for people to be wandering around with concealed weapons. There's too much room for error.

And if the sane and good people are the only ones who are disarmed, that's a good thing?

[ASTalumna06]

As I just said to one of my friends on Facebook:

What's amazing to me... When I go into a concert, or a playhouse, or a sporting event, my bag is checked, and in some instances, I've had to walk through metal detectors. In thinking about this today, I'm actually shocked that packed movie theaters don't do the same thing. I know that the guy came through an emergency exit, but hell.. put metal detectors by those too.

People will obtain a gun if they want one.. or maybe they'll use knives.. or planes.. or biological weapons.. or whatever they can possibly think of. I agree that there are certain guns that people don't need to own, but again, I'm not so sure that telling people, "You can carry a gun wherever you go," or, "You can't own a gun at all" will really solve the problem.

If someone wants a gun badly enough, regardless of whatever law you put in place, they're going to find one.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

What's amazing to me... When I go into a concert, or a playhouse, or a sporting event, my bag is checked, and in some instances, I've had to walk through metal detectors. In thinking about this today, I'm actually shocked that packed movie theaters don't do the same thing. I know that the guy came through an emergency exit, but hell.. put metal detectors by those too.

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.

[sigmagirl2000]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And if the sane and good people are the only ones who are disarmed, that's a good thing?

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)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by sigmagirl2000

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?

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And if the sane and good people are the only ones who are disarmed, that's a good thing?

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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.

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.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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.

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."

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

I've not gone back through to read all the posts, but I don't remember anyone saying anything about "banning" guns.

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

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

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."

It is unfortunate, but obviously there is a reason. Think of it as insurance. You have insurance on your car, you have health insurance, you have life insurance. You may have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen. You hope that you don't need any of them and never have to use them, but it sure is nice to know that it is there if you need it. Concealed firearms are the same way. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

You bring up an interesting point. We cannot know without a doubt that the presence of a concealed permit holder would have changed the outcome. What we can do it look at where it DID make a difference or might have.
1. In 1991 Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, a great lady that I have had the opportunity to meet, was in a Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, TX when someone drove into the restaurant and killed the people dining there, including her parents. Dr Gratia-Hupp had left her firearm in her car due to Texas law at the time. She was not given the chance to defend her parents. Would it have made a difference? We will never know.
2. It did make a difference in Austin, TX in 1966 when a shooter went to the top of the tower on the university campus and began shooting people. 16 people were killed that day, but the count would have been higher had the people of Austin not taken up arms and began shooting back to keep the shooter's head down. It was three police officers and one armed private citizen who assaulted the tower and killed the shooter. This was the event that was the impetus that created SWAT teams across the US.
3. It did make a difference at Pearl High School in Pearl, MS. In 1997 a student walked into school and killed two students after having killed his mother at home, but the assistant principal retrieved a .45 auto pistol from his car and subdued the shooter, holding him for police.
4. It did make a difference in 2002 at Appalachian School of Law. Three people were killed when a former law student went to the campus and started shooting. When he came out of the building there were two armed private citizens who had gone to their cars to retrieve their guns. The shooter surrendered.
5. It did make a difference in the town square in Tyler, TX in 2005 when the shooter opened fire on his son and ex-wife. His ex-wife was killed as was a concealed permit holder who was credited for slowing and distracting the shooter by his intervention until police could arrive in force.
6. I saved my girlfriend from an abduction in progress at a gas stop while we were returning from a trip for Thanksgiving in 1989. Five people were dragging her to their car, but when they saw me approaching with a firearm they left before I could close the gap enough to shoot them accurately.
In only one of these situations were shots fired by the licensed citizen, but their presence lowered the casulty rate considerably.

So although we cannot predict what would have happened with certainty, we can look at past similar situations and may venture a hypothesis that it probably would have reduced the casulty count as it had in the past.

[sigmagirl2000]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

3. It did make a difference at Pearl High School in Pearl, MS. In 1997 a student walked into school and killed two students after having killed his mother at home, but the assistant principal retrieved a .45 auto pistol from his car and subdued the shooter, holding him for police.

I understand that especially in different areas of the country and in different political areas, that gun presence and acceptance may be different, but there is no reason for school staff be it administrators, teachers, paraprofessionals, secretaries, custodians, etc. to have a firearm on property of the building. There are procedures in place, or there should be, especially after Columbine, to lock down schools for such situations without school faculty drawing weapons with the possibility of injuring coworkers or students.