 | |
|  |
mad_dog1
Marine
July 21st, 2012 @ 8:44AM
Registered:
2003-03-26
Location:
Germany - Destroying legends one post at a time
Posts: 583
| What's the defense against that? I think letting everyone carry guns. IMO.
yeah imagine a cinema full of smoke grenades and panic. half of people in it armed. everybody will instantly recognize the right aggressor and take him out with a few aimed shots.
realistic scenario:
person1 thinks person2 is aggressor. shoots him. turns out he is the wrong one. person3 sees this through the smoke shoots person 1. person4 panics and shoots into the crowd. person 5,6,7 shoot at person 4 - miss and hit person 8,9,10. etc etc
no wepaons no cry. thats the only pragmatic solution.
|
killer6600
Marine
July 21st, 2012 @ 9:22AM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1156
| there is no solution, gun control isn't the solution, more guns isn't the solution.
you can't defend crazy people trying to get famous.
also forget taking your kids to R rated movies, did you see the family with their 2 kids (todler and baby asleep in parents arms) at a midnight showing? 25 years old....if you can't get a babysitter and you have kids, until they're 13-15 you're stuck inside past 8-10 pm |
mad_dog1
Marine
July 21st, 2012 @ 9:51AM
Registered:
2003-03-26
Location:
Germany - Destroying legends one post at a time
Posts: 583
| no guns WOULD work. but the industry behind it is just to big the end.
also i bet if americans would have to trade the lifes of about 30 americans per year for the liberty to have assault rifles under your bed many would vote for it.
i dont get why you dont get the logic. if NOBODY is able to get weapons. crazy people wouldnt be able to get weapons either - problem solved.
EDITED: 2012-07-21 09:52:15 |
Enforcerman
Kali Compton
July 21st, 2012 @ 10:04AM
Registered:
2003-03-26
Location:
SCL Headquarters - Texas Division
Posts: 301
| I take my gun everywhere i go. |
Noss
Peon
July 21st, 2012 @ 10:08AM
Registered:
2004-02-10
Location:
Canada
Posts: 1132
| Neither gun control or guns for all would probably help, although gun control helping is more plausible I think.
A better possible solution might be a universal health system with good mental health services. I think medication can do a lot for these types of people.
Although RRP will surely chime in with his scientology-esque opinion on that. Also, since I`m sure one of his sources of crazy is naturalnews he`s bound to bring in his (their) opinion that the whole shooting is actually some government `false flag` terrorist event so they can do... whatever, gun control or something, which won`t happen. |
Macavity
Peon
July 21st, 2012 @ 10:14AM
Registered:
2005-04-16
Location:
Posts: 105
| There has never been a gun massacre when the victims were armed.
Since this is going to lead to the end of people wearing masks and cosplay at these movie events, will this spill over into video game events? |
Miamihrrcne
Marine
July 21st, 2012 @ 10:56AM
Registered:
2004-03-12
Location:
Miami
Posts: 801
| People don't seem to get it. If everyone was armed in the theater, the attack wouldn't have happened in the first place. Everyone is looking at it from the standpoint of AFTER the attack starts, and then everyone shooting wildly in a smokey, dark theater. But the guy that shot up the place wouldn't have even planned on starting a gun fight in a theater.
The reason he went in there and attacked was because he knew all the patrons in the theater were unarmed. |
killer6600
Marine
July 21st, 2012 @ 11:43AM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1156
| thats ridiculous miamihrrcne, if that were true no one would ever get in shootouts with police, ever.
this guy was crazy, he rigged his house to explode when people went in and left incredibly loud music playing so people would go into his house to turn it off. it isn't much of a stretch at all to think that he'd be happy if all 200 people in the theatre had guns and started shooting wildly trying to kill him, ring up more numbers for his total. |
Miamihrrcne
Marine
July 21st, 2012 @ 12:36PM
Registered:
2004-03-12
Location:
Miami
Posts: 801
| I don't think so. If he wanted to get into a gunfight, why not go into a police station? He went into the theater because everyone was unarmed. |
nate_orenstam
Special Ops
July 21st, 2012 @ 2:55PM
Registered:
2003-04-05
Location:
Posts: 1406
| i dont think he wanted to get into a gunfight, i think he wanted to kill a bunch of people and get on the news so people could see what a painful and sad life he led ... oh noes the horror of being loser james holmes.
i think it'd be an interesting experiment to arm and properly train every american citizen. but it'd sure be a lot simpler to just implement better gun control. |
ZeroNFC
Peon
July 21st, 2012 @ 7:05PM
Registered:
2003-03-26
Location:
Sacramento Cali
Posts: 63
| This guy gives all the tell tale signs of schizophrenia. Young, incredibly smart and delusional. I`ll bet money it comes out thats what`s wrong with him. |
killer6600
Marine
July 21st, 2012 @ 10:13PM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1156
| i'm not saying this guy wanted to get into a gunfight, i'm saying that things like this would still happen, and have more casualties, if everyone was armed.
if people would stop committing crimes 100% because someone might have a gun where they were going to commit the crime, there'd never be bank roberies, there'd never be gang fights.
in 2004 there were 11,624 gun homicides in america.
thats 31.7 per day (leap year in 2004)
by those numbers this dude didn't even kill half the people that were murdered in america yesterday, it's just shocking and newsworthy, to try and change laws based on this statistical improbability is silly.
you'll never catch all the crazies and treat them with drugs and love before they go gun nut, you'll never keep every gun out of the hands of bad people, everyone in america isn't dirty harry so arming everyone isn't he answer.
the only fool proof 100% effective way to stop this type of shit is martial law and giving up your freedom, like all of them, like you leave your house and the gestapo asks you where you're going and pats you down as you leave, and you're patted down again as you arrive, and they have gps tracking on you.
sadly the cost of a free society is some terrible shit.
and nate, they basically have that proper training for every citizen with a deadly weapon, it's called the dmv, look how many assholes can't drive but have a license to do so given to them based on skill and knowledge....nebu has a whole site dedicated to all the 'dirty harry's of driving' that would have easily stopped this dude and any crazy with a gun trying to do bad |
nate_orenstam
Special Ops
July 21st, 2012 @ 11:01PM
Registered:
2003-04-05
Location:
Posts: 1406
| killer i agree it would be easy to overreact to this specific episode. however please consider 2 things
* the harder it is for a nobody like james holmes to get an extremely deadly weapon without consorting with hardened criminals or being extremely patient the better.
* when i suggest better gun control i do it on the basis of the absurd amount of deaths by gun in the united states compared to the rest of the first world, not any specific incident.
the dmv line appears to be pointless. i understand lots of people die in car crashes and there are bad drivers out there but lets do ourselves a favour and restrict this discussion to crimes of intent. perhaps i am missing your reasoning. |
killer6600
Marine
July 21st, 2012 @ 11:52PM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1156
| my reasoning is that even when the government tests peoples ability to operate machinery to a certain standard before allowing them to do so, even then it's still incredibly substandard and results in crazy ammounts of deaths, and as you pointed out those aren't even intended, cars aren't intended to be weapons, guns are, it could only be worse is my point.
im personally for more gun control, you don't need an assault rifle to hunt, and anyone who says you need one to keep the government in check is the same type of person that says obama is a tyrant and hasn't done jack about it with their gun in 3 years anyways, thus nullifying their point
i dunno why americans like killing each other with guns so much, we have guns in canada too, i own a couple myself for hunting |
nate_orenstam
Special Ops
July 22nd, 2012 @ 12:04AM
Registered:
2003-04-05
Location:
Posts: 1406
| ok, i agree that additional safeguarding with the current process probably won't be helpful. making the more dangerous classes of guns illegal on the other hand would potentially be much more useful. you said it yourself, holmes was responsible for close to half of the deaths by gun in the united states on an average day. preventing that, even only once every couple of years, is a worthwhile goal.
also, everyone who claims its still too soon to talk about these things is an idiot. |
Wootah
non-leet
July 22nd, 2012 @ 2:12AM
Registered:
2003-05-16
Location:
Utah
Posts: 1464
| Guns are banned in mexico. How many gun deaths did they have last year?
Guns are banned in DC and Chicago. Aren't there lots of gun deaths there?
Not many people plan to get in gunfights with the cops. The few who do actually plan it want to die.
I can promise you that it wouldn't take that long to figure out who the aggressor was in the theater, even if it was smokey... especially after they announced on the PA for everyone to get out. How long is 'that long'? Long enough so that fewer would have died.
And no, everybody doesn't need to carry guns. Only those who would feel inclined to and have done the work to get the permit. An armed populace IS a deterrent to a shooter. And for all your arguments against how it is not come across to us who lived in highly armed states as moot.
Finally look at Israel. A place where most of the population is required to serve a couple of years in the military, learn all about guns and most everyone owns a gun. What do you get from that? A much more responsible populace and a very low gun murder rate and you never have such massacres. |
RowdyRoddyPiper
Nut Job
July 22nd, 2012 @ 5:21AM
Registered:
2003-06-20
Location:
Nashville TN
Posts: 1672
| this is a false flag. it comes right on the doorstep to the july 27th un gun traety o`slima is going to sign. As the corporate bought and paid for whore media is saying "gun control! need guns out of peoples hands!" The bottom line is all those killed and maimed in that theatre were disarmed jellyfish......like mice in an aquarium with no teeth or claws.
Classic black op. the kid was in a college class run by the department of defence he was a patsy.
I highly suggest...everyone watch this documentary "innocence betrayed"
Gun control means only the govt has guns
Noss you jellyfish your ancestors stood up and fought the british when the british started to confiscate weapons. But whatever im sure the gun control will be passed by the U.N. and you will soon find out why they dont want you having guns bwahahaha. easy victims for your new bosses the chinese and russians when they invade....and they will. |
GroverDill
Special Ops
July 22nd, 2012 @ 8:09AM
Registered:
2003-04-09
Location:
your mom's house
Posts: 802
| It wouldn't have mattered if everybody in the theater was armed. Psychoboy had tons of weapons and ammo, was wearing body armor and was using smoke grenades in a dark theater. He had the benefit of surprise and weeks of advanced planning, which would have severely limited the effectiveness of a couple armed guys in the theater trying to fight back.
Basically, there is nothing we can do to prevent these sorts of attacks in a free society. If someone is determined to kill a bunch of people they don't know, they will find ample opportunities for them to do so. Guns are probably the easiest way to carry out an attack like this, but certainly not the ONLY way if someone is suitably motivated. |
killer6600
Marine
July 22nd, 2012 @ 9:12AM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1156
| lol wootah, you can't compare americas gun homicides to other countries
americans like to kill people
in israel in 1993 there were 0.72 gun homicides per 100 000 people, in germany where they have much more stringent gun control laws than america, they had 0.22 per 100 000
in america it was 4.14 in 2004-2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany
so there's israel with "most everyone" owning a gun, and germany with guncontrol laws and yet both come well below america in gun homicides
|
Wootah
non-leet
July 22nd, 2012 @ 10:40AM
Registered:
2003-05-16
Location:
Utah
Posts: 1464
| And in brazil, where guns are banned, the numbers are much higher. I was held up by 3, 17 year olds who had a gun. It might have been fake. It looked real, but I certainly knew that guns were banned there and yet people were getting shot there all the time.
But you are right cultures are very different. My post was directed to comvments like maddog about nobody being able to get guns. The demographics of the wikipedia chart generally match that of poverty levels except when it comes to the US, but even here you find most of the homicides are concentrated in poor areas. It is crazies like this that are the exception. And I believe it has been shown that even people with body armor are deterred when people are shooting back at them.
As for those of you who are afraid things would deteriorate into huge gun battles with the unarmed getting hit in the process by a Concealed Carry person, I have yet to hear of such a thing happening. I invite you to link such articles because I would be interested in reading about such cases and why they happen, because I don't see that as very probable at all. |
killer6600
Marine
July 22nd, 2012 @ 12:34PM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1156
| well, i typed "how many innocent bystanders hurt by gunfire" and the 2nd link that popped was
http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/two-bystanders-injured-in-sf-officer-involved-shoo/nD3xy/
so there's a link where 2 innocent people were shot by trained police.
i know i know, if everyone had a gun to begin with then the person the cops were chasing wouldn't have committed crime in the first place and the 2 highly trained officers wouldn't have been put in a position to fire their gun with less than 100% accuracy. it just speaks for itself |
TheSilver_Ghost
is awesome.
July 22nd, 2012 @ 6:24PM
Registered:
2003-03-25
Location:
wisconsin, USA
Posts: 1066
| I can't really say I want a gun. I would feel no reason to have it, and I don't exactly live in the safest part of the united states. We have concealed carry laws in WI but you will still get hassled if you actually exercise your right to do so.
Completely off-topic, I saw batman today and there was a trailer for the hobbit. The human dude with the beard looks just like GF. |
SourGrapes
Peon
July 22nd, 2012 @ 8:01PM
Registered:
2006-06-01
Location:
Posts: 132
| "Guns are banned in mexico. How many gun deaths did they have last year?"
Mexicans cartels get their guns from the US. |
Wootah
non-leet
July 22nd, 2012 @ 9:18PM
Registered:
2003-05-16
Location:
Utah
Posts: 1464
| Well I shouldn't nit pick and maybe it wasn't clear enough, but I wasn't askinrg for law enforcement, I was asking for concealed carry civilians. And I am glad it is left to the states. I am not a big fan of citizens having automatic rifles either, and I am glad that holmes AR jammmed, but, in America, much like mexico there are much to many armed criminals to make a gun ban effective.
I am surprised though that Obama has recently avoided the gun issue with: “The president’s view is that we can take steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them under existing law.” possibly because it is an election year and it appears he is winning in the polls. |
killer6600
Marine
July 23rd, 2012 @ 6:15AM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1156
| law enforcement are trained and held to higher standards than concealed carry ciilians and even they screw up.
thats the point, in 2 seconds i found a story about innocents in crossfire from trained people with guns shooting at bad guys, and thats without everyone walking around with guns.
also, would homes rifle jammed if he was trained proficiently in cleaning/caring for his gun like he would be if everyone was trained for guns? |
Miamihrrcne
Marine
July 23rd, 2012 @ 9:12AM
Registered:
2004-03-12
Location:
Miami
Posts: 801
| I don't understand why he used guns in a crowded theater. Why not plant a bomb? Bombs can be really effective in killing people crowded together. If the guy had bombs in his apartment, why not use those?
For that matter, why did he tell the police that his apartment was booby trapped? He could have let police bust in his door and killed a bunch of them also. |
Wootah
non-leet
July 23rd, 2012 @ 10:58AM
Registered:
2003-05-16
Location:
Utah
Posts: 1464
| Sourgrapes said:
"'Guns are banned in mexico. How many gun deaths did they have last year?' Mexicans cartels get their guns from the US."
Sure they do. And what happens when guns are here. our criminals wont get them from somewhere else as well?
Edit: Fixed for the fact that I Didn't quote the whole post.
EDITED: 2012-07-23 13:00:17 |
Noss
Peon
July 23rd, 2012 @ 12:03PM
Registered:
2004-02-10
Location:
Canada
Posts: 1132
| Found this, interesting opinion.
If only someone else had a gun...
It`s not specifically about this shooting but it applies. Although a reasonable counter argument about the shooter not even trying if he thought people were armed is sort of reasonable, but considering he was covered in body armor (I`ve heard) then he seemed to be preparing for something like that so maybe he wouldn`t have been deterred.
I`ve heard some arguments about the bulk amount of ammo this guy was buying. It is kinda too bad that there can`t be some sort of monitoring to see if someone is building up an arsenal. I know people (RRP) will start yelling `big brother` but I don`t think it`s an unreasonable measure. Isn`t there monitoring in place for things like fertilizer? Seems like a similar precaution. There would certainly be ways around it, as there always is, but it would be another thing that a homicidal person would have to make sure to do properly to not get caught before they have a chance to put their plan into action.
Oh, and RRP, my ancestors didn`t fight the British, although maybe some of them fought the Americans back in 1812 and it`s good they had guns. I guess if I believed the world of today is just like the world of 200 years ago I might share your opinion.
But just so you know my actual current position on guns, I don`t think draconian gun control is the solution to your country`s gun problems. I think a big part of the problem is the culture of guns/violence as a universal solution to problems. As is noted by many, there are countries with much less gun violence but near as many guns. Maybe some small measures of monitoring could help, but overall the problem is going to be hard to change with groups like the NRA being so adversarial about guns and not even willing to discuss the issue (although the extreme hippies on the left certainly don`t help either). But you see it on the right too, acting like Obama is going to start taking away the guns despite having shown no real inclination to do so even in the wake of several high profile shootings.
|
Wetnoodle
Peon
July 23rd, 2012 @ 12:03PM
Registered:
2006-01-06
Location:
Casper
Posts: 2
| I would have to disagree with the comment on law enforcement being trained and held to higher standards than concealed carry citizens. I live in Wyoming where concealed carry has been available to anyone who can own a firearm legally without any sort of licensing for over a year now.
There are people here who take the responsibility of carrying concealed very serious. Every year a handful of very accomplished defensive shooting instructors visit Wyoming. These instructors train groups ranging from Secret Service to special forces and are very good at what they do. And yet out of the 20 to 30 students that are there only 2 to 3 will be LEOs, and often at least one of them is retired.
Those individuals are the ones who take the defensive shooting aspect of their jobs very seriously. They are willing to spend the time to gain access to new tools and training of an elite level that they normally wouldn`t receive.
The other LEOs don`t take that aspect of their job nearly as seriously, and believe me it shows when you compare the abilities of the two groups. It also shows when you compare their abilities with the concealed carry citizens who also choose to take advantage of a high level of training.
Don`t count on any LEO having a high level of defensive firearm training, and never assume that because they have that badge they automatically make correct split second decisions. I think it`s telling when their lives are put in danger on a daily basis and only a handful bother to seek out additional training to better protect not only themselves, but the citizens as well.
I personally carry concealed, own assault rifles, multiple handguns, shotguns for both hunting and defensive purposes, rifles ranging in caliber from .22 to .500, in multiple configurations from bolt to double rifle. This is my right, and I choose to take advantage of it. The government cannot take that right away from me regardless of the actions of one crazed individual. |
Nebuchadnezzar
The King
July 23rd, 2012 @ 12:13PM
Registered:
2003-03-20
Location:
Irvine, CA
Posts: 3628
| I think having a gun wouldn't have mattered much here. He's all in black and had body armor and a full suit. You'd need a gun with a flash light on it or night scope. Or shoot him in the face. |
Trickshot
Peon
July 23rd, 2012 @ 12:55PM
Registered:
2006-10-22
Location:
Lansing, Michigan
Posts: 354
| Isn`t it funny how if your dog bites somebody you are responsible, but if your kid shoots 60 people you`re not responsible. |
Miamihrrcne
Marine
July 23rd, 2012 @ 2:33PM
Registered:
2004-03-12
Location:
Miami
Posts: 801
| Trickshot: everyone that had any influence on this kid are somewhat responsible (although there are situations where you can't hold them responsible at all).
we don't really know anything right now. This guy could have fallen and suffered brain damage or something similar that completely changed him. |
TheSilver_Ghost
is awesome.
July 23rd, 2012 @ 3:42PM
Registered:
2003-03-25
Location:
wisconsin, USA
Posts: 1066
|
also, would homes rifle jammed if he was trained proficiently in cleaning/caring for his gun like he would be if everyone was trained for guns?
There's a lot of reasons a weapon will jam.
Would an automatic rifle jam if he were trained in cleaning it properly? Sure. You can oil it and keep dirt out all you want but that can't account for manufacturing defects (there's a surprising amount of parts that are used in tandem), can't account for bad rounds, can't account for a round getting stuck, can't account for powder, etc.
If he were in the Army then he would have learned what they call SPORTS but obviously it didn't matter anyway. It isn't like he was carrying a single weapon. You don't need to have a weapon jam in order to stop something like this from happening. You need to not be fucking nuts in the first place.
I won't blame guns. I won't blame video games (WoW was already blamed in one news entry I read). I won't blame music or movies or his friends or his school.
He's a fuckhead. Plain and simple. A weak little pin-headed nothing.
I think having a gun wouldn't have mattered much here. He's all in black and had body armor and a full suit. You'd need a gun with a flash light on it or night scope. Or shoot him in the face.
"Body armor" will only do so much and if you're in a theater where people are ducking down, and you have the lights behind you, then you have the tactical advantage. Particularly if you're on the balcony. If there were someone armed in the theater, trained in combat, they still would have likely ducked out to keep the people they were with safe anyway.
You wouldn't have needed any kind of guiding system like a light or lazer. You'd just have to line up your shot when and watch the movement of the silhouette.
...okay I'm not some freak or anything, I was in the army. I trained in infantry. I have no plans on hurting anyone. :p
EDITED: 2012-07-23 15:44:54 |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
July 23rd, 2012 @ 4:10PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2203
| I find it vastly amusing that the same liberals who decry drug laws as being ineffective in preventing drug use and increasing criminal activity think that a gun ban will achieve the exact opposite result for the same purpose.
This is a classic example of trying to address symptoms of the problem instead of the problem itself. Unfortunately there is NO answer to THIS problem. There are 6 billion + people living on this planet. They are bound to go crazy and do crazy shit for various reasons, you can't stop it any more than you can stop car accidents or heart disease....it's called a fact of life.
If guns were removed from the face of the Earth this still would have happened, and potentially much worse. The problem wasn't that the kid had access to guns, the PROBLEM was the kid was crazy and wanted to commit mass murder. Remember the guy in Norway who killed all those kids recently? He also blew up a building first. That GUY was the problem, not his method of killing. Take away guns, they'll use explosives. Take away the components to make explosives and he'll make poison gas. Meanwhile the rest of the populace can't even clean their toilets properly because of a lack of effective ingredients.
Having an armed civilian populace isn't a proper deterrent for crazy people (since by definition they are crazy and not rational), but (provided these people have proper training) it does raise the possibility that someone is capable of preventing or limiting the deaths when such an event occurs.
People need to realize that you can't stop malicious intent of people by targeting specific potential actions. We do the same shit with our airport security. ANYONE with any malicious intent that is serious about killing people on a plane will be able to make it through security in one way or another and do it.
The lesson to be learned from this tragedy unfortunately for many should be that there is no lesson to be learned.
Also the guy's gun jammed because of a combination of several things. One, considering he bought all his ammo online there is a good chance he used cheap shitty ammunition which jams often. Two, he uses a shitty magazine which is notorious for jamming and three he used an AR-15 which are notorious for jamming. This isn't about cleaning his gun properly it is about knowing your firearms and not shopping on a budget.
EDITED: 2012-07-23 16:14:09 |
TheSilver_Ghost
is awesome.
July 23rd, 2012 @ 4:42PM
Registered:
2003-03-25
Location:
wisconsin, USA
Posts: 1066
| I find it vastly amusing that the same liberals who decry drug laws as being ineffective in preventing drug use and increasing criminal activity think that a gun ban will achieve the exact opposite result for the same purpose.
And I find it vastly sad that you take something as horrible as this and exploit it as a political platform to preach from.
This is a classic example of trying to address symptoms of the problem instead of the problem itself. Unfortunately there is NO answer to THIS problem. There are 6 billion + people living on this planet. They are bound to go crazy and do crazy shit for various reasons, you can't stop it any more than you can stop car accidents or heart disease....it's called a fact of life.
I have to agree, despite me being a nutty "liberal".
There's not much you can do about people who are just messed up.
Having an armed civilian populace isn't a proper deterrent for crazy people (since by definition they are crazy and not rational), but (provided these people have proper training) it does raise the possibility that someone is capable of preventing or limiting the deaths when such an event occurs.
Hah...BS. What you have in that situation is a civilian population trained for combat when there isn't any combat. Ask the guys chilling in Fort Worth how well that works out.
So if someone decides one day to go all Miami Cannibal, hey, they're a sharpshooter now instead of some thuggish asshat.
Not a good idea. And completely contrary to every other valid point you made. |
Apricoth
Kali Compton Girl
July 23rd, 2012 @ 5:07PM
Registered:
2003-06-14
Location:
MN
Posts: 1792
| I think I am with some folks on this one. People going to the theater were there to enjoy themselves, relax and forget reality for awhile. Even if the audience were armed, the casualty count and the wounded count might not have changed from its' current number or would have increased exponentially. I would lean over to increase because really, common sense is not so common among people. There are always the trigger happy folks who will/would have made mistakes. Friendly fire anyone? |
TheSilver_Ghost
is awesome.
July 23rd, 2012 @ 6:23PM
Registered:
2003-03-25
Location:
wisconsin, USA
Posts: 1066
| I would lean over to increase because really, common sense is not so common among people. There are always the trigger happy folks who will/would have made mistakes. Friendly fire anyone?
I agree.
The city I live in, in 2008, they decided to erect a statue of the Fonz. Yes, the fonz, from Happy Days. They call it the Bronze Fonze. Now, there's a guy who owns a gallery nearby who didn't want that retarded statue put up.
He got death threats. He had weapons pointed at him in the street. Because he didn't want the bronze fonze. He owned an art gallery, and when they put up the statue, he closed his gallery in disgust.
Now, think about that. A guy who doesn't want a statue of f'ing arthur fonzarelli outside his art gallery was given death threats. People threatened to kill him because this is how bad they wanted a statue of the fonz.
I'm not making this up.
No. I don't agree with the general population having firearms training. At all. |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
July 23rd, 2012 @ 6:34PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2203
| Well I think in a scenario like this one provided they were allowed to carry inside there may only be one or two people with guns...I'm not saying put a gun in the hand of every civilian, only ensure that you remove barriers from civilians that are responsible enough to acquire appropriate training to learn to defend themselves and others. Smoke grenades or no, when someone is standing at the front of the theater facing the crowd I don't know how much chance for freindly-fire there is. Guns give a pretty clear indicator of where your firing is coming from. I'm not saying it would have helped in this case, it COULD have, but there are other better scenarios where it most definitely would.
If there were three men cool-headed enough to think of protecting their girlfriends before themselves, there were likely some men who would have gladly died defending them and others with a gun if they had one. This guy was firing blindly into the crowd as he was standing facing the projector and had no way he could see individual targets firing at him. All the theoretical tactical advantages with the exception of surprise lay with a defender.
Anyways, the main point I wanted to get across was that there is nothing we could have done in general without know this was going to happen to prevent it. Shit happens. Sure it is a cold-hearted thing to say in the face of such tragedy but reality is a cold thing and the even greater tragedy is over-reacting at the cost of more of our freedoms.
|
killer6600
Marine
July 23rd, 2012 @ 6:38PM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1156
| to wetnoodle, my point is that yes there are people that take owning guns seriously, i'm one of them, but just like driving a car, or any skill based task, you're going to have people that are good at things, and people that are just going to suck at it.
not saying those 2 cops sucked and thats why innocent people got shot, i'm saying that even with training people fuck up
i think the last time everyone generally had a gun whenever they wanted we had reasonable resolutions to debates...they were called duels and usually the loser of the debate died |
RowdyRoddyPiper
Nut Job
July 24th, 2012 @ 3:35AM
Registered:
2003-06-20
Location:
Nashville TN
Posts: 1672
| The best video ever ever ever
while the disarmed throw up their hands in compliance this old fart says NO and saves the day |
Smokin Joe
Marine
July 24th, 2012 @ 9:35AM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2240
| Shit happens.
Even if everyone carried a gun, shit would still happen. |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
July 24th, 2012 @ 12:23PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2203
| Exactly. I'm not arguing that as a solution at all. |
Smokin Joe
Marine
July 24th, 2012 @ 1:37PM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2240
| Anyways, the main point I wanted to get across was that there is nothing we could have done in general without know this was going to happen to prevent it. Shit happens. Sure it is a cold-hearted thing to say in the face of such tragedy but reality is a cold thing and the even greater tragedy is over-reacting at the cost of more of our freedoms.
Well sheee-it, I guess I could have just quoted what you said earlier! Hypotheticals aside, this is sadly what the event kinda boils down to. |
nate_orenstam
Special Ops
July 24th, 2012 @ 5:01PM
Registered:
2003-04-05
Location:
Posts: 1406
| I find it vastly amusing that the same liberals who decry drug laws as being ineffective in preventing drug use and increasing criminal activity think that a gun ban will achieve the exact opposite result for the same purpose.
well i wouldn't ban all guns... but banning assault rifles, high capacity magazines, etc might not be the worst idea in the world. |
Smokin Joe
Marine
July 24th, 2012 @ 6:11PM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2240
| well i wouldn't ban all guns... but banning assault rifles, high capacity magazines, etc might not be the worst idea in the world.
You crazy? Those are to combat super animals, like the Electric Eel or the Flying Squirrel. |
Trickshot
Peon
July 24th, 2012 @ 6:32PM
Registered:
2006-10-22
Location:
Lansing, Michigan
Posts: 354
| Since when has banning things ever worked? |
Apricoth
Kali Compton Girl
July 24th, 2012 @ 8:06PM
Registered:
2003-06-14
Location:
MN
Posts: 1792
| hahaha Smokin. Don't forget about the roaches. I hear they grow 20 feet long down south - need some serious fire power to combat those!
And there were copy cats already hot on the trail of this douche. Luckily it had been thwarted. An 18 year old was arrested for making fun of this as well - as in he was in a theater and made some comment, causing panic. I really despise stupid people. |
Miamihrrcne
Marine
July 24th, 2012 @ 8:13PM
Registered:
2004-03-12
Location:
Miami
Posts: 801
| For shits and giggles. If the government ever decides to suspend democracy in this country and wants to round up everyone and throw them into detention camps, what exactly is the response from a bunch of unarmed people? |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
July 25th, 2012 @ 9:11AM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2203
| "Since when has banning things ever worked?"
Just when I've given up hope on some people, they throw out little gems like this one. Truly said.
For shits and giggles. If the government ever decides to suspend democracy in this country and wants to round up everyone and throw them into detention camps, what exactly is the response from a bunch of unarmed people?
Pitchforks and Environmentally-friendly torches evidently.
|
Smokin Joe
Marine
July 25th, 2012 @ 10:40AM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2240
| And there were copy cats already hot on the trail of this douche. Luckily it had been thwarted. An 18 year old was arrested for making fun of this as well - as in he was in a theater and made some comment, causing panic. I really despise stupid people.
Frankly, if there was something I would point at and blame, it would be the media and all the fame/coverage the shooter is receiving now.
All it takes is some other batshit crazy person with some retarded ideal to watch tv and think that if he does something similar he'll get a mouthpiece to voice his opinions.
Of course, I'm not saying to completely ignore the situation, but geez, there is a limit to how closely any event should be covered. |
nate_orenstam
Special Ops
July 25th, 2012 @ 10:41AM
Registered:
2003-04-05
Location:
Posts: 1406
| it seems as if a lot of people on this thread are talking about two extremes--heavily armed or unarmed populace. i've yet to hear why its so important that people have legal access to assault weapons.
that would still leave plenty of guns around to fight off the black helicopters or fascist democracy-suspending government. |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
July 25th, 2012 @ 12:15PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2203
| Joe, don't forget it is the PERSON who is at fault not the weapon they choose or what they copy. I haven't found the coverage to be overmuch...but then again I don't watch the news which is probably why.
The better question Nate is why do you think removing legal access to assault weapons would prevent mass murder from occurring. It is a flawed, if well intentioned idea. There are already sufficient restrictions in place to make is very difficult for a criminal to obtain assault weapons through legal channels.
Why we need to have SUVs? Why do we need two televisions? What should anyone need more than a million dollars? That line of questioning leads to a dangerous place. |
nate_orenstam
Special Ops
July 25th, 2012 @ 12:34PM
Registered:
2003-04-05
Location:
Posts: 1406
| i didnt say they would prevent mass murders from occurring. i think its pretty likely they would have prevented james holmes from having an assault rifle, which might have lowered the body count.
what's dangerous about limiting the scope of weapons that citizens can own? i can't buy a howitzer or a fuel-air explosive, i don't see you complaining about that horrible assault to our personal liberties. |
Smokin Joe
Marine
July 25th, 2012 @ 1:48PM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2240
| Joe, don't forget it is the PERSON who is at fault not the weapon they choose or what they copy. I haven't found the coverage to be overmuch...but then again I don't watch the news which is probably why.
Oh, I agree completely that the person who pulls the trigger is ultimately to blame. However, my point is that the motivations to do such a heinous act can easily be fueled by fame and celebrity - exactly what you get from committing the crime. |
BlueFalcon
Word To Your Mom
July 25th, 2012 @ 2:25PM
Registered:
2003-04-27
Location:
Filth-a-delphia
Posts: 1288
| it seems as if a lot of people on this thread are talking about two extremes--heavily armed or unarmed populace. i've yet to hear why its so important that people have legal access to assault weapons.
What's an assault weapon? A handgun, shotgun, and rifle can all be used to assault someone. I'm guessing you are referring to something like an AK-47 or an AR-15. If so, generally those weapons are banned for sale if they are fully automatic. Only semi-automatic versions may be sold. So really they are just rifles that look sinister. They have magazines, but there again most states have place restrictions on the capacity of those magazines (anywhere from 10-30 rounds). Keep in mind that many handguns have a 15 round capacity, and they are easier and quicker to handle / reload. In close quarters combat, a rifle is fairly unwieldy. Finally, I don't have hard statistics, but I believe that semi-automatic (or even automatic) rifles account for a relatively low percentage of criminal homicide by firearms. I'm really not worried about people toting rifles. It's the handguns that concern me, but there's already 10s of millions of those on the streets as it is. I really think people go after "assault weapons" merely because they look mean and have an intimidating name.
As for regulating weapons, they are already regulated. Convicted felons may not possess firearms. Those who have been previously committed for mental health reasons generally may not purchase firearms. There are also restrictions on those who have active restraining or protrection from abuse orders. It varies from state to state, but from what I've seen the law generally tries to prevent the wrong people from obtaining guns.
This Holmes kid was going to do something terrible. He planned it for months. He intended to injure or kill people at his apartment with the bombs he made, and that didn't involve a firearm. Sure he killed a bunch of people with firearms he legally obtained, but if for some reason he was not able to legally acquire said weapons would that have stopped him from his purpose? We will never know unless he comments specifically on that question. Who knows, maybe if he was turned away from owning guns he might have rented a Penske truck, made a bomb, and drove it into the theatre. We'll never know. The batshit crazy kid is the problem, not the guns he owned.
EDIT: Very interesting reading from the Bureau of Justice Statistics regarding types of guns used in crime and other stats...
It's from 1995. Can anyone find something more recent?
LINK: LINK
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF
EDITED: 2012-07-25 14:39:22 |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
July 25th, 2012 @ 2:42PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2203
| Thanks for saying it better than I did BF.
I could think of several ways of killing every single person in a movie theater a hell of a lot more effectively and less costly with a lower chance at getting caught than using a rifle. There are a few easy to obtain gases out there you could release into the ventilation system that would asphyxiate everyone present. Bombs are also another option. Once you go down the road of "what is the best way I can kill a shitload of people" it isn't a matter of the method, it is a matter of how many die and will you be caught (provided you care about that). |
nate_orenstam
Special Ops
July 25th, 2012 @ 3:26PM
Registered:
2003-04-05
Location:
Posts: 1406
| i am referring to semiauto rifles with extended magazines. lower capacity magazines offer the novice user like james holmes appears to be an additional step to fuck up, potentially lowering their body count.
of course depending on the usage model an easily concealed firearm like a pistol can be at least as deadly as anything else. the main difference that i see is that they're harder to aim effectively, especially for novice users.
these seem like pretty uncontroversial things to me, but perhaps high capacity magazines serve to water the tree of liberty in ways in which i am not aware.
charkoth i expect that you would kill an entire movie theatre's worth of people simply by wishing it to be so if you wanted, so when you go out of your tree i will be glad to not live in ohio, that's for sure. |
BlueFalcon
Word To Your Mom
July 25th, 2012 @ 4:57PM
Registered:
2003-04-27
Location:
Filth-a-delphia
Posts: 1288
| Nate: I agree with your notion that there's no reasonable purpose for high capacity magazines. Probably anything over 10 rounds is overkill.
With that said, however, it's a tangent from the issue. Rifles are used in very few firearms homicides, and when they are does it really matter how big the magazine is? If anything, when I see stories about assault rifles being used indescriminantly, usually the outcome is that there's a lot of bullet holes and few casualties. I think people make assumptions based on ideal scenarios where magazines never jam and every bullet finds its target. Besides, if you think there's already a lot of guns out there, there's an unbelievable number of magazines. They aren't really controlled or tracked, and all it really takes to make them is sheet metal and a stamping machine.
In short, restricting magazine capacities more than they are already restricted would have almost no effect on firearms homicides. It's kind of like saying the second row seat belt in the middle position of a car should be improved to prevent fatal crashes. Sometimes it would make a difference, but aren't there a lot of other things that can be done first?
To your point, Holmes's use of a high capacity drum magazine actually backfired on him when it jammed. He would have been better served using 20 or 30 round mags. With practice he could get reloads done in under 2-3 seconds, tops. The drum magazine had the rather ironic side effect of likely lowering the total body count. |
nate_orenstam
Special Ops
July 25th, 2012 @ 5:06PM
Registered:
2003-04-05
Location:
Posts: 1406
| He would have been better served using 20 or 30 round mags.
how's he going to use them if he can't buy them off the internet? |
BlueFalcon
Word To Your Mom
July 25th, 2012 @ 5:31PM
Registered:
2003-04-27
Location:
Filth-a-delphia
Posts: 1288
| Nate: I think this is an academic argument. What size do you propose to limit him to, 10? 5? You realize that there are now nearly 1/2 billion weapons in the United States and probably 4x that number of magazines. In your hypothetical scenario where magazines are limited to a smaller size (5-10), couldn't he just illegaly acquire a larger magazine? Or wouldn't that just push him to use a handgun with a 15 round magazine or shotgun instead? It's funny, I read an article in a Colorado newspaper that quoted law enforcement officials as saying he would have been better served with a shotgun firing buckshot. All those heads in a theater were on a line. He really chose the wrong tool for the job.
What I'm saying is why are we even talking about magazine capacities? The amount of political capital required to defeat the gun lobby and get the magazine sizes restricted is disproportionate to the benefit. In the case of Holmes, the magazine capacity made no difference. If anything, it saved people. In most other cases, it makes no difference at all.
Related but separate note: This theatre shooting has awakened a gun debate in America (like Columbine did, like the Va Tech shooting did, etc). The arguments on both sides seem pretty absurd. On the one side you have a bunch of Pollyannas who think they can wish guns away (ridiculous, they're here to stay). On the other, you have your hardcore anti-government / survivalist types who make arguments about the need to check our allegedly tyrannical government (equally ridiculous). I think if people would take the time to lookup they're local laws regarding the purchase and possession of firearms, they'd find that things are mostly reasonable. For your Pollyannas, you'll find that not every asshole can easily amass an arsenal. For the anti-government folks, don't worry, your rights are clearly spelled out and protected.
This incident is about a crazy kid. Think about Harris and Klebold with Columbine. Think about that Cho guy with VA Tech. All these people had warning signs that were ignored, and they were the ones pulling the triggers. You just can't stop crazy. |
SourGrapes
Peon
July 25th, 2012 @ 7:38PM
Registered:
2006-06-01
Location:
Posts: 132
| Maybe this guy was trying to cure his own crazy by going into neuroscience kind of like Kurt Connor trying to cure his missing arm, except that it was too late and instead of turning into Lizard Man he turned into the Joker. |
nate_orenstam
Special Ops
July 25th, 2012 @ 9:08PM
Registered:
2003-04-05
Location:
Posts: 1406
| i don't know, bf. did he use anything that he didn't legally acquire? if extended mags were illegal...
i agree this is academic, but the reality isn't very interesting--the nra is for some reason feared by every politician (could it be that the nra membership all have assault rifles with extended mags? thank god for that when the government hypothetically suspends democracy) and won't stand for restriction. but here's my point: beyond a certain limit i think reasonable people can agree more killing power/convenience of sustained fire/etc isn't desirable. and i don't think the line we as a society have drawn is in quite the right place yet. |
killer6600
Marine
July 25th, 2012 @ 9:19PM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1156
| "For shits and giggles. If the government ever decides to suspend democracy in this country and wants to round up everyone and throw them into detention camps, what exactly is the response from a bunch of unarmed people"
i dunno, what guns that you can buy take out tanks and blackhawk hellicopters and cruisemissles? |
Trickshot
Peon
July 25th, 2012 @ 9:23PM
Registered:
2006-10-22
Location:
Lansing, Michigan
Posts: 354
| Ted Kaszinki killed a whole bunch of people as a mathematician. If we get somebody like that whose is a biologist, we might need to get worried. |
Trickshot
Peon
July 25th, 2012 @ 9:23PM
Registered:
2006-10-22
Location:
Lansing, Michigan
Posts: 354
| Ted Kaszinki killed a whole bunch of people as a mathematician. If we get somebody like that whose is a biologist, we might need to get worried. |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
July 25th, 2012 @ 9:54PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2203
| Nate the point no one is addressing is the belief that making these things illegal will prevent these kind of attacks from occurring and somehow prevent someone who is determined to acquire them from doing so. The question should then be why go through the trouble? As BF pointed out there are more than a few handguns that would have better served the killer in his scenario if he wanted to maximize his body count. In fact if I recall he opened up with the shotgun before switching to an AR15. How many rounds did he even fire from the rifle? With the crowd that packed in a good semi-auto shotgun like a Saiga 12 with a drum magazine would have done far far more damage than the AR15 and you wouldn't have to worry about jams either.
Killer, overthrow of government isn't done through opposing it's standing army. You should know just how difficult urban warfare is from Iraq. Also remember that if such a scenario occurred many of our armed forces members would switch over to the side of the citizens and betray it from the inside. |
TheSilver_Ghost
is awesome.
July 25th, 2012 @ 9:56PM
Registered:
2003-03-25
Location:
wisconsin, USA
Posts: 1066
| it seems as if a lot of people on this thread are talking about two extremes--heavily armed or unarmed populace. i've yet to hear why its so important that people have legal access to assault weapons.
that would still leave plenty of guns around to fight off the black helicopters or fascist democracy-suspending government.
I wasn't talking about the extremities of an armed or unarmed populace.
I'm talking about the extremity of lack of common sense, and the commonality of just pure f'ing stupidity.
People, in general, are really stupid. I just don't think we need to mix this with combat training. It's a ridiculous thought. There's warnings on coffee now no matter where you getting saying it's hot. That happened. That exists. It exists for a reason: because people, in general, are really, really stupid.
I'm not an idiot but I do something stupid on a daily basis. I don't feel the need to bring full metal jackets into this scenario. |
killer6600
Marine
July 26th, 2012 @ 10:03AM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1156
| thats my point
its laughable when people say they need guns to overthrow the gov |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
July 26th, 2012 @ 10:53AM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2203
| Well you DO need guns, you can't have a nonviolent overthrow of government, but resistance isn't organized enough to fight a pitched battle against armed forces. You just kill everyone in authority (mainly politicians) until the chain of command and government breaks down and then some group forms (usually lead by some high ranking military figure) and takes over. Needless to say if such an even ever occurred the US would split apart like the USSR.
I know one thing....if something like that ever happened, my ass would be moving to Texas.
|
Trickshot
Peon
July 26th, 2012 @ 6:25PM
Registered:
2006-10-22
Location:
Lansing, Michigan
Posts: 354
| It wouldn`t be a person, it would be Twitter. How many people already have been exposed because of Twitter? This isn`t the 1800s. |
Bluntdogg
Marine
July 27th, 2012 @ 4:56AM
Registered:
2003-03-27
Location:
VA
Posts: 63
| BlueFalcon hit a homerun with his responses. Could not have said it any better than that. |
BlueFalcon
Word To Your Mom
July 27th, 2012 @ 3:44PM
Registered:
2003-04-27
Location:
Filth-a-delphia
Posts: 1288
| This guy gives all the tell tale signs of schizophrenia. Young, incredibly smart and delusional. I`ll bet money it comes out thats what`s wrong with him.
Well, it appears that ZeroNFC might have properly called it back on 07/21. It's a little premature, but apparently the psychiatrist that Holmes was seeing specializes in schizophrenia. At the very least, it seems like insanity will be his defense. When the news came out, I thought back to the comment that was made earlier in this thread.
BlueFalcon hit a homerun with his responses. Could not have said it any better than that.
Haha, thanks Bluntdogg. I feel like I won the Internet... |
Smokin Joe
Marine
July 27th, 2012 @ 3:49PM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2240
| Haha, thanks Bluntdogg. I feel like I won the Internet...
Hope you've had all your shots. |
ReaverSC
Peon
July 27th, 2012 @ 3:50PM
Registered:
2011-01-03
Location:
San Jose, CA
Posts: 123
| Saw this comment over on Reddit and I felt it was pretty spot on:
:getting kinda tired of all the rambo fantasies: "oh if I was there with my gun i would have taken him out, calmly because I`VE BEEN TRAINED".
Bullshit
he threw tear gas/smoke grenades first. He was wearing a gas mask.
let me lay out what will really happen:
You are trying to draw your weapon while you were choking, eyes tearing, unable to see or breathe. Then proceed to sight your weapon on a target, wearing dark clothes in a dark movie theater filled with smoke and noxious fumes while people are screaming and running to the exits in panic and confusion. oh, and the tear gas is really starting to take effect now, all you can see are dark blurs, your lungs are burning, you can barely keep your eyes open.
ending a) Your intended target, the one with the gas mask on, seeing and breathing clearly, sees you and puts two shots "center mass". Even with your gun you are now just another victim of a massacre.
ending b) You begin firing at what you think is your target, but unable to tell friend from foe, you may get lucky. oh crap. He`s wearing body armor. he gets knocked down.
ending c) You begin firing at what you think is your target, but unable to tell friend from foe, you may get unlucky, and wound or kill innocent bystanders. If you survive you will likely be charged a co-conspirator to the crime, or at least have your life ruined by lawsuits from your victims.
just a friendly dose of reality for all the would-be rambos out there."
|
BiVRiP
General
July 28th, 2012 @ 12:37AM
Registered:
2003-05-11
Location:
Canada
Posts: 1879
| On a more positive note I saw Dark Knight Rises last night and wow, what a great movie. As much as I liked Heath's performance as the Joker, Tom Hardy's portrayal as Bane was amazing. What a great villain. And if anyone has any doubts about Hathaway as Selina/Catwoman (I know I did) everyone I saw the movie with agreed that she was fantastic (and hot!).
The plot is a little more convoluted than the previous 2 entries and aside from a few minor gripes I think I can honestly say it's my favourite of Nolan's trilogy. |
SilverDeth
Marine
July 31st, 2012 @ 11:18AM
Registered:
2003-03-26
Location:
Montana
Posts: 60
| Quote: It wouldn't have mattered if everybody in the theater was armed. Psychoboy had tons of weapons and ammo, was wearing body armor and was using smoke grenades in a dark theater. He had the benefit of surprise and weeks of advanced planning, which would have severely limited the effectiveness of a couple armed guys in the theater trying to fight back.
Allow me to chime in, since as an avid shooter, and an owner of over 2 dozen firearms, I actually know something about what I am talking about - which contrasts with the above person - who, as it is painfully obvious, knows jack.
Let's talk about body armor.
It's bullet resistant. At best. Even military grade rifle plates - which are NOT what our friendly neighborhood psychopath was wearing - are an iffy proposition when it comes to taking a direct shot at close range.
Please note that, anywhere within the space of a theater is "close range" for the purposes of a modern firearm.
There are coverage gaps, and sometimes, the armor fails outright - even on cartridges it is designed to stop. Particularly if it's taking multiple hits. I have friends and employees who did time in Iraq and as Law Enforcement, who have related numerous tales of bullet "resistant" armor failing.
Next point - it's not a force-field.
Body armor - particularly soft armor like the IIIA vest the nut-job was wearing - does jack to deal with 466 pounds per square inch hitting you at 1,350 feet per second. (Assuming a .9mm +P defense round commonly used in the popular self defense weapons).
While being shot, and assuming the armor does it's job, the person taking fire is going to suffer major injury weather or not the bullet tore a hole in their body. Internal bleeding is common, organs can rupture, and the armor-wearer is probably going to topple over as their ribs, sternum, and/or collar bone splinter. Of course, any head shots will be nearly instant show stoppers, and any hits to the upper legs/goin have a very good chance of causing death by rapid (as in 2 min and you're dead) exsanguination.
I reject the premise on it's face that armed people would have made the situation worse. In a situation such as this, it is patently obvious, even though the smoke, who the aggressor was. He was prancing around looking every bit the mall-ninja he was, shooting an AR with a drum-magazine, (and you should thank him for this - had he been using standard 20-round magazines, he's have killed more people - more on this below), and he shot what... 72 people?
Now, even though we have ZERO - yes read that again - ZERO recorded cases of a concealed carry permit owner shooting innocent by-standards in the process of stopping a mass shooting - let's assume this is the first time - just to placate the anti-gun weenies out there - who as usual, have no actual real-world evidence to stand on.
So Mr. Concealed Carry Permit carries a popular self defense pistol - let's go with the Springfield XD9 Subcompact. Very high-selling, +P rated personal defense automatic pistol. It's magazine holds 10 .9mm +P cartridges.
The shooting starts... the gas is in the air - though not nearly as choking and thick as some of the barking moonbats fellaciating for the Brady goons would have us believe - he had two gas canisters - you'd need 10+ to really choke up a room that sized - and after seeing the first 10 people get shot, Mr. CCW draws his pistol. He's breaking hard, his heart is racing. People are pushing and shoving to get away from the maniac. The gas might be causing some slight tearing, but even if close to the canisters, there just isin't enough tear-gas per volume to matter this quickly.
Let's assume he misses 70% of his shots. Let's pretend he's a really bad shot - even at such a close range - or that he's getting shoved around so much hes having a hard time staying on target.
Now... that's 7 shots that are going to the left, right, and above the nut-job. Since the people are moving away from him, the odds are good the seats BEHIND him will be clear... but since we are already "giving" the anti-gun-goons their "imaginary" worst case scenario - let's pretend that the row of seats behind the guy were, packed with blind and deaf quadriplegics, who were unable to move, see, or hear.
So, the cripple convention is sitting there, blissfully unaware that there is a mass-shooting commencing, (what a Greyhound busload of deaf and Dumb quadriplegics is getting out of a Batman Film is of course stretching logic and reason to their breaking point - but little things like "rational thought" has never stopped the panicky-anti-gun-bigots in the past - just roll with it), and they start taking bullets meant for the maniac.
Now, naturally, every missed round fired is not going to strike a target. In fact, odds are most of the missed shots will hit nobody. But again, we are playing with the lib-tard's "completely-not-based-on-anything-realistic" version of events they like to trot out every time they start peeing their pants over the thought of citizens exercising their God-Given rights as presented in the constitution.
So 7 people are shot by the CCW, wielder - we will assume the same mortality rate the shooter had - i.e. 1 dies. 3 Shots find their way to the loon with playing Kaptain Kommando. Let's say that the shooter was half way done with his rampage by this point - 6 dead, 21 shot. (Of course, this is again giving Mr.-didn't-know-100-round-.223-drum-mags-are-HIGHLY-failure-prone a TON of credit he didn't deserve - but again - we are placating the lefty-bigots out there - so again - roll with it). The nut-job collapses, 2 broken ribs jutting into his lungs, coughing blood. The other shot, which hit him in the abdomen, ruptured his liver internally, hit the vest at an angle, zipped down, penetrated at the waist, and shattered his hip. The third shot, way low, hit his thigh, rupturing his femoral artery. He will bleed out in about 1-2 min - well before the Police can secure the scene for the EMTs.
Total People Wounded: 28
Total People Killed: 7
Total Sub-Human Nut-cases Killed: 1
Even in the unlikely even that a CCW shooter, who was totally determined to empty his entire magazine, at point-blank missed 70% of his shots, all of which managed to dodge all of the empty space and hit people, you STILL, even in the libtard nightmare scenario, end up with a lower number of people wounded.
Even if another CCW person had pulled out a gun and shot THAT guy before he shot the nut-wad, hell even if you had TEN people all do that - you would still have less people shot - not that such a thing has happened - EVER.
________________________________
Back to magazines.... drum magazines are highly failure prone - firearms generate tremendous heat when fired. The metal expands, and your magazine jams. Or it feeds improperly. Resulting in... exactly what happened in Col - and also what happened in Arizona. A jammed weapon and a nutter to incompetent to clear. Had either of these idiots being using standard sized, manufacturers magazines, they'd have done much more damage in my opinion - thankfully - these too were ignorant of the serious problems that are often encountered when using ultra-capacity magazines.
________________________________
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
Pretty well defines the liberal trolls who want to strip me, or in any way, diminish my incorporated constitutional rights. Heller V. DC placed gun-rights n equal footing with the Civil Rights act of 1964.
Makes them no different than the people behind the Jim Crow laws from a constitutional standpoint.
Bigots.
_____________________________
In closing, I would ask the Bigot anti-gun people how many millions of American citizens are they willing to kill to usher in their statist utopia?
Do they think people will willingly surrender their weapons? 106 million gun-owners, if only 25% of them say "no - make me" you will have to slaughter/imprison 27-odd million folks.
And let me assure you, that people who are willing to die for their rights usually tend to be willing to fight to defend them. If even 3% of that 25% result in a law enforcement officer being wounded or killed as they themselves die, you will run out of foot soldiers long before the citizens run out of gun-owners. I am friends with MANY members of the Sheriff's department. We have discussed what would happen if "orders to seize weapons" were passed down. My beer-buddy, Doug, a Deputy Sheriff - doubts he'd make it past house number 3. I believe that Most law officers would simply refuse, to, quote another pal, "commit suicide."
Any attempt to steal the civil rights of gun-owners - in order to save the children or "stop the bloodshed" - will only magnify it by many orders - in true liberal fashion, they will make a problem dramatically worse in their ham-fisted attempt to solve it. I mean, look at how wonderful Chicago is - what are they up to - almost 120 shootings this month? Wow! Look how all that "gun control" helped out there! Statistics are equally grim in other countries/states with draconian limitations on their citizens civil rights.
You see... criminals... don't follow laws... *shock*. I know... amazing how that's not a deterrent. Drug laws did nothing to stop criminals - firearm laws will be equally effective.
Oh... you goal is to stop crazy people? Like the guy who drove a rental truck full of cow-sh*t up to a federal building in Omaha? Of the crazy Muslim that drove his SUV on a rampage into a large crowd? Oh... maybe if we outlawed cow-sh*t, rental vans, and SUV's we'd all be perfectly safe forever!!!!
Come save us nanny state!
Ahh, but sadly there are alot of people that, just like the Goons cheering on Bloomberg's soda bans, who would be all for that - not realizing they were descending into self parody.
But hey, it was the Democrats that gave us the first civil war, only fitting they'd start a second.
EDITED: 2012-07-31 11:34:35
EDITED: 2012-07-31 11:36:46 |
Smokin Joe
Marine
July 31st, 2012 @ 11:36AM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2240
| Wow SIlverDeth, very nice and informative post. Not sure about some of the attitude, but you appear to have much more experience with guns than I have.
However, you also realize that this argument isn't BAN ALL GUNS vs. GUNS FOR EVERYONE? There is a gigantic gray area in which I believe most everyone in this thread lies.
But hey, it was the Democrats that gave us the first civil war, only fitting they'd start a second.
Right, because those Democrats and today's Democrats are so similar. Besides, I thought we were only hypothesizing earlier about Civil War scenarios.
EDITED: 2012-07-31 11:42:48 |
SilverDeth
Marine
July 31st, 2012 @ 11:41AM
Registered:
2003-03-26
Location:
Montana
Posts: 60
| PS - I like how the libtards, with little to no understanding of fire-arm operation, suddenly can definitively paint a picture of "mass carnage" caused by CCW holders opening fire like a scene from a John Wayne/Kirk Douglas western.
I suppose they will be handing out medical advice next - despite their utter lack of any sort of knowledge, skill, and qualifications in the field of medicine...
Oh... wait... they shoved Obama-care up our @sses... never mind... I forget we are dealing with people who have unwittingly become self-parodies. |
Smokin Joe
Marine
July 31st, 2012 @ 11:44AM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2240
| PS - I like how the libtards, with little to no understanding of fire-arm operation, suddenly can definitively paint a picture of "mass carnage" caused by CCW holders opening fire like a scene from a John Wayne/Kirk Douglas western.
Who are you talking about, specifically? What 'libtards'? |
SilverDeth
Marine
July 31st, 2012 @ 11:44AM
Registered:
2003-03-26
Location:
Montana
Posts: 60
| Shame you had to jam it full with such a high-than-though attitude.
I don't like bigots trying to diminish constitutionally incorporated civil rights. Such people are legally indistinguishable from those behind the Jim Crow laws, "and deserve every bit of contempt and ridicule and scorn they receive - to quote the Magnificent Hunter S. Thompson on the subject.
The Good Dr. Gonzo was quite a believer in freedom.
Who are you talking about, specifically? What 'libtards'?
There are several rather... vehement anti-gunners running wild in the threads above. I really don't care about them enough to pick them out and mention them by name - so I compress them into a group, and deal with their generalized mindset and misconceptions in that manner.
The drones are a legion, and I lack the time to deal with them all individually. I was not referring to you in particular if that was your question. I started that rebuttal while reading a post somewhere above, before you had posted your reply.
So it was not intended as a reply to you in specific.
EDITED: 2012-07-31 11:49:20 |
Smokin Joe
Marine
July 31st, 2012 @ 11:48AM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2240
| You provide no answer to why you had to sound like a smart-ass. Ok, bigots suck, I dislike them as well, but they have nothing to do with the way you interact with your audience.
I also changed those words because I felt I didn't give you a chance, that it was a rather informative post and I assumed your 'attitude' came from the disconnect that occurs between when you think/say something and then type it out on a keyboard.
Edit: I'm bad at this conversation right now.
EDITED: 2012-07-31 11:50:33
I never mean to imply you were talking about me specifically, I just always get curious who they 'boogeymen' are that people tend to imagine up to help prove their point. Purely imaginary, like gremlins, unicorns and communists.
EDITED: 2012-07-31 11:51:56 |
SilverDeth
Marine
July 31st, 2012 @ 11:51AM
Registered:
2003-03-26
Location:
Montana
Posts: 60
| Because some people have ideas and premises that are so blatantly wrong headed that absolutely nothing besides mockery of them is an appropriate response.
:D |
Smokin Joe
Marine
July 31st, 2012 @ 11:54AM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2240
| Because some people have ideas and premises that are so blatantly wrong headed that absolutely nothing besides mockery of them is an appropriate response.
This should be taught in schools. |
