Gunman Opens Fire During "The Dark Knight Rises"

[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.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by sigmagirl2000

There's no logical reason for people to be wandering around with concealed weapons. .

Yep, I totally agree. I'm not sure about gun control in other states, but here, people are allowed to have a concealed weapon. On top of that, the police force has been reduced here in some cities, as well. That just doesn't make any sense, to me.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Yep, I totally agree. I'm not sure about gun control in other states, but here, people are allowed to have a concealed weapon. On top of that, the police force has been reduced here in some cities, as well. That just doesn't make any sense, to me.

It doesn't make sense to you because you're ignorant of the statistics. Back in the 80s when states started allowing CHL's anti gun activists were chomping at the bite to show a correlation between CHL holders and increased crime rates or shootings. It never happened. In fact, studies conducted have shown that CHL holders are less likely to commit ANY crime than a non CHL holder. Don't use your fear of guns paint a law abiding citizen as a potential criminal.

[Iota Man]

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.

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.

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.

[MysticCat]

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 would agree that's problematic and not helpful.

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.

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.