Gunman Opens Fire During "The Dark Knight Rises"

[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.

[PiKA2001]

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 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."

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

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

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

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

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)

Disarmament of the general populace= banning guns.

[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.

[sigmagirl2000]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

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.

Better to have something that someone else has the possibility of getting out of your possession and using against you? or using against someone else? young children perhaps? yeah, clearly this is a great idea. Just because SOME people who go through raining and classes are responsible, doesn't mean that EVERYONE who goes through these actions is responsible or emotionally balanced enough to deserve to carry. Carrying on school grounds is still ridiculous and a good reason to never educate in Texas.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

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.

No. Bad analogy.

And opinions are opinions. Unlike insurance and fire extinguishers, data does not suggest that it is better to have a gun and not "need it" ("need" is relative) than to need it and not have it. Rather, the data finds that owning or having access to a gun increases likelihood of victimization among law abiding civilians and the rate of offending for certain offenses. "Having it and not needing it" does not reduce the likelihood and rate of victimization.

As for what someone said about suicide and gun access, gun access does increase the rate of lethal violence in cultures in which lethal violence is correlated (not caused) with gun access. For example, men have a higher rate of suicide than women and men have a higher rate of gun suicides than women. This gender dynamic in completed and attempted suicides is associated with a number of factors including the higher likelihood of men to have access to and therefore use guns whereas women use devices that they tend to have greater access to such as prescription drugs and razors/knives. Again, there is a correlation which means that guns make lethal violence "quicker", "easier", and more permanent.

The higher rate of suicide in Japan as compared to the United States of America has been studied in comparison with other forms of lethal violence such as homicides and vehicle deaths. Yes, Japan has this higher rate of suicide without the gun access. That is only a testament to people using whatever means necessary in the absence of "easier" means. If Japan was a culture in which gun access was more highly regarded, and they lacked proper social control mechanisms in a similar fashion as the United States of America, they would most likely have a homicide rate more comparable to the United States of America (we have the highest rate among "industrialized nations"). The suicide rate in Japan could possibly increase in line with the greater access to quicker and more lethal forms of harm if, again, guns were thrown into the equation without the proper control mechanisms. It would also shift suicide attempts to completed suicides. There is absolutely no debate that guns truly are the "quickest" and "easiest" form of harming oneself and others for those who are motivated to engage in such behaviors.