Gunman Opens Fire During "The Dark Knight Rises"

[kaeb]

Colorado does have concealed carry permits.
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbys...gunlaws_co.htm

[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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Hell, even if a 90 year old grandma started popping rounds at this guy's general direction it would have forced him to duck and get cover, possibly allowing more people to escape.

Or get killed by granny.

I'm not sure of the exact details of the layout of this theater but since most people either run away or hit the floor from gunmen I don't see a whole lot of danger of people getting in the crossfire.

Well I sure do. People panic in situations like this, and it's quite possible that it's hard to tell where the shooting is coming from.

Also, whoever did have a gun would have the element of surprise on this guy since I'm pretty sure he'd have a hard time finding the movie goer with the gun in a dark, smoke filled theater.

And why do you think movie goer-with-gun would have such an easy time finding him -- and only him -- in the dark, smoke/gas filled, chaotic theater?

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I honestly really don't think there is any reason for any civilian person to have an assault weapon, but that's just me.

No, it's not just you.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Or get killed by granny.

Well I sure do. People panic in situations like this, and it's quite possible that it's hard to tell where the shooting is coming from.

And why do you think movie goer-with-gun would have such an easy time finding him -- and only him -- in the dark, smoke/gas filled, chaotic theater?

It's called a muzzle flash sir. With the AR-15 alone he might as well have had a flashlight in his hand.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

It's called a muzzle flash sir. With the AR-15 alone he might as well have had a flashlight in his hand.

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.

[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.