Re armed theater goers stopping alleged Aurora, Colorado shooter James Holmes, this is perhaps the most apt quote I have seen so far:
The reality is different than the gun nut heroic fantasy myth.
The typical NRA member is old, white, crabby, and not physically fit, including having less than optimum vision. They have a lot of heart, and good intentions; aim, or good judgment, not so much.
Hubert Williams, former head of the Newark police department and president of the Police Foundation, said that the idea that average citizens with guns could keep a theater safe only makes sense "on a piece of paper."Law enforcement consistently debunks the gun nuts notions that they are not going to miss, they are not going to have a weapon malfunction or accidental discharge, they are not going to get themselves shot by mistake, or they are not going to shoot someone else in error.
"Reality is much more complicated. What if you pull a gun out, take aim and someone else thinks you're the shooter?" he asked. "Would you stand up against an AR-15, AK-47 military-style assault weapon? Give me a break."
The reality is different than the gun nut heroic fantasy myth.
The typical NRA member is old, white, crabby, and not physically fit, including having less than optimum vision. They have a lot of heart, and good intentions; aim, or good judgment, not so much.
Dog- In my opinion, absolutely not. Unless we start allowing citizens to bring full autos, with 30 round bananas, which house armor piercers. Nothing could have prevented this tragedy. Here's my problem. To prevent this incident, the only way would be to impede on my rights. I like my AR, and I should be allowed have purchased it. But I will say again, that there is no need for a civilian to own anything bigger than a 15 round clip. Especially a 100 RD. That's just fu##ing crazy. My heart goes out to the victims and their families.
ReplyDeleteHow about a pair of on-duty police armed with light machine guns, the kind I see on television at European events? Would that have helped?
ReplyDeleteMr. Doakes, the same rules of gun safety, the same reality based rules of when it is safe to shoot and when it is not apply.
ReplyDeleteThis was not a situation where shooting by a private individual was a solution, nor was it an appropriate solution for law enforcement in that situation. Other solutions than shooting however were possible.
If having a gun prevents you from considering any other, better solution than dangerously using your firearm instead of making a good decision about when to shoot -- and those pretty consistently conform to the rules of gun safety which apply EVEN IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES -- then maybe you shouldn't have a gun, much less carry it in public anywhere.
The reality of the circumstances determine when someone is safe to shoot or not take a shot. The constitution does not redefine reality to gratify your desire to shoot a bad guy. There is no Constitutional right to be stupid or dangerous - not for any of us; that is as true for me as it is for you.
We ALL wanted to stop that shooter just as much as you did.
The rule of first do no harm / don't mke the situation worse applies. Objective risk analysis is still appropriate.
I guarantee you that the police armed with light machine guns have to abide by the same firing restraint rules of when to shoot/not shoot that you would had you been in the Aurora, Colorado theater. The caliber of their weapons wouldn't change the rules of engagement as to when it would be acceptable to shoot; innocent people are still not expendable to kill someone who is shooting innocent people.
There is no free pass to shooting more innocent people; none of us are - or should - be expendable. I feel strongly that it is AS important that you not be hurt as I feel about my not being hurt.
A better question is not what weapons could we use to shoot James Holmes in that situation, but rather how could we prevent these situations from occurring as frequently as they do.
Prevention is the best solution, not machine guns. Part of that prevention means we need to rethink our gun culture flaws and failings. J.O.B. has it exactly; the solution is not bringing assault rifles or machine guns into movie theaters. Renewing the assault rifle ban makes sense; limitations on magazine sizes makes sense.
Greater restrictions on gun show sales and private sales so as to require background checks makes sense.
In 2009 after the VA Tech shooting - another mass shooting by a crazy male in the same age range who suffered from schizophrenia like Jared Loughner, and possibly James Holmes - we enacted federal funding to report court determined dangerously mentally ill people to the NICS data base. We still don't report those people in 2012 for the most part; we've gotten a little better, but MN is still one of the worst reporters of ANY prohibited people to the NICS. There is more we could do and don't do. Our state restrictions are better than the national ones, yet the right - including our friend Mitch - wants to remove them without funding providing those names to the NICS, so those names don't get submitted. That means our FFL checks fail because the data base is not current or complete. THAT is something we could do better, just for starters.
Got news for you, those Individual rights proclaiming Heller-McDonald decisions said:
ReplyDeleteLike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
And then went on to say:
We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
So, how would "gun control" restrict your "Second Amendment Rights"?
John,
ReplyDeleteI ant ot thank you for being willing to comment, stand up to response, and comment again. Too few on both sides will engage in any sort of thoughtful discourse. We may not agree, but the path to solution is to find what we agree upon and work out the differences, not throw-up on each other verbally and walk away. So, thank you for being a "better" sort of critic than many blogs often get.
With that said, I've followed many of your comments. Here's what all of us can agree upon. First, you and I have the right to own a firearm. That right should not be infringed upon unless we show ourselves unworthy of that right. What constitutes unworthy is where we disagree - probbably. More on that in a moment if you don't mind?
Second, you, according to the Heller decision, have the right to carry a firearm so long as you abide by your state's laws AND as long as your state does not restrict that "too" far, making compliance with such laws untenable, you have the right to carry that firearm for your protection. What constitutes restricting "too" far is again, where we'd likely find some disagreement.
Third, you have the right to protect yourself, in a darkened theatre from someone who is shooting at you. You have the right to use your firearm for that purpose so long as your discharge of that firearm can be seen (as I understand it) as either a. your only option in an otherwise imprudent circumstance or b. a reasonable option in a prudent circumstance. What constitutes ONLY option appears to be in part the point of discussion here.
Your comments though, have presented a false, either THIS or THAT two-sides of a coin argument, meaning you say Either I shot, OR i allow my family members to die. How so? Did everyone in that theatre die, was everyone shot? Clearly it was EXCEEDINGLY dangerous, and clearly there was a VERY high likelihood you could or would have been shot, but there were also clearly other outcomes. It MIGHT be true that if you failed to act, you or your loved one would have been shot. It is at least as likely true that IF you acted you would have been, that someone else would have been by you accidentally, and so on. The point is, your premise is false. Furthermore, we weren't (or at least I wasn't) talking about YOU specifically, but rather, we were debunking the mythology that Rep. Gohmeret used that if there'd been a gun in the theatre this wouldn't have happened. In short, we weren't talking at ALL about specific people, but rather the chance Mr. Gohmert was right. The chance he was right was very low, his comments were at best grand-standing hyperbole. His comment had nothing to do with your personal right to use a firearm to defend yourself. So, let's stay on the subject at hand. Was it likely, would it have worked, private citizen or cop for that matter, that this guy would have been stopped simply because SOMONE had a gun - the clear answer is no. Does that mean you wouldn't have had the right, had this guy walked up to your aisle and started to aim in your direction, to fire at him, no matter the background of targets, again, the CLEAR answer is "NO!", and no one is saying you wouldn't have had that right. You would have. Given no alternative, you have that right, clearly.
This is getting long, II'll post another comment
Continued..
ReplyDeleteSo, at this point, the question Dog is presenting is, did you have other alternatives... depends on the circumstance. Furthermore, are you bound, by ethics if nothing else, which by the way should matter a lot, to NOT fire unless you have no other alternative? The clear answer there is YES! If you disagree, meaning if you feel that if you were 20 rows away, with this guy's back to you, and a background of 30 civilians beyond him, in the dark, in the haze, that you should have stood up and fired at him - you and I have a very different view of prudent use of a firearm. I'm not saying y ou DO feel that way - but you need to consider there are more than just two choices of SHOOT or DIE - and the outcome in that theatre is self-evident. Careless discharge of a firearm only leads to further chaos and death. As an example, let's assume two other people were in the theater were armed, neither the assailant, you stand up and start shooting, both assume the other is part of the problem, and you shoot each other, who was in the wrong there? No one? Both? Who could tell?
So, it comes down to this - for any individual, that individual would need to decide form him or herself whether shooting at someone was wise, but as a comment about likelihoods or remedies, this line of argument, that having a gun would have stopped James Holmes is palpably foolish and wrong for all the reasons already given. It was far more likely to harm others than him, it was far more likely to give him another weapon, one he'd have used. That doesn't mean, never meant you didn't have any rights, that you had to stand there and die - that was a fallse argument, we never made it, never claimed it.
So, back to the first two points. What rules should exist in society around gun ownership - should violent felons have guns? Should those who are deemed mentally unstable and a danger to themselves and others have guns? Do you support limiting access to guns to those people? Do you support CHECKING to see if someone purchasing a gun might be one of those people? Do you support prevening straw buying?
Second point, what restrictions do you feel state's may place on carrying a firearm? Any? I assume you support some - which ones? Do you feel someone should be allowed to carry a firearm in school? Into a police department? Into a federal building, a post office, a prison? If so, why, if not why not? Do you feel state's are allowed to place restrictions on access to firearms while driving?
Lastly and on this point - what do you consider prudent use in that theatre? I consider it prudent ONLY when he aims in my direction and I have no alternative OR I have a certain background and am certain he intends to continue to harm others. I do NOT, for example, believe sat down and placed his hands on his head, that I have the right to shoot him as I feel he is no longer presenting a grave threat - do you agree? Do you feel you have the right to fire at him no matter the intervening field even IF he's not walking or among your way and you clearly have access to an exit? Clearly do you have the right to act tot help defend others, but how far does that right go? I think if you answer those questions you might find we ccan find common ground on those points, but on the point of whether a gun was likely to have prevented this - on that point there is no meaningful evidence to say it would have, and MUCH evidence to say it would not. Mr. Gohmert was dead wrong to say it would have. The chances the RIGHT person with the right weapon would have hit him and stopped him were far outweighed by the likelihood of others being additionally harmed. If Mr. Gohmert wanted to say , "IF a trained sniper had been in that theatre with a rifle, this might not have happened." I'd agree, but then I'd say, and if monkeys flew, we'd call them monk birds -- because it's hooping for a fantasy, living in a fantasy world.
Pen- My apologies, but is your comment directed towards me?
DeleteHeres the bottom line - no one has a right to defend themselves with a gun when it means you are not likely to stop someone else with a gun, ad you are likely to shoot innocent people instead.
ReplyDeleteAnd NO, btw, there is no constitutional right to carry firearms; there is a constitutional right to own a firearm in your home, and even that can be strictly regulated. More firearms in public are not making us safer.
Let us remember that the assassin was wearing body armor ... so how many stray bullets would it have taken to bring him down ?
ReplyDeleteSecond, let me ask the parents -- would you let your child go to an event where you thought that people needed to be armed for self-defense ?
There is a reason why I see the signs at churches (and public movie theaters) : No Guns ... because they want people to come in.
In society, we have rules that say how fast a car can go ... some based on road construction and some based on keeping people safe ... there is no reason why there should not be limitations.
Sorry, but the Heller--McDonald created Second Amendment right is very limited and solely applies to firearms used for home protection in the home. As I said before, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
ReplyDeleteIt also specifically said that concealed firearms, or weapons of any kind were most likely to not be protected under the Second Amendment.
Thus, you DO NOT have a right to carry a firearm in public.
William Rawle, said in his A View of the Constitution of the United States 125--26, 1829 (2d ed.):
This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.
An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment.
In short, the concept of "Constitutional Carry" is pure nonsense.
Unless, you mean for purposes of a militia which is organised under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution.
Laci and DG,
ReplyDeletePerhaps I'm mistaken, and so I'm asking, but it was my impression that part of the McDonald decision (rather than the Heller) was based upon the fact that the court sided with the argument that rules cannot be so restrictive that someone cannot have a weapon in their home nor otherwise have a weapon outside the home for their own personal safety. I'd have to go re-read that element of the decision to be sure, but it's my recollection that this seemed to frame a point that personally bearing arms was permissible, under McDonald. Whether Heller addressed it, I cannot say. YET, in both, iirc, there was a clear implication of a right to posess a firearm for the purpose of hunting. Since you don't hunt in your home, I think there is a cogent argument that in fact you have the right to carry a firearm on your person (if for hunting if nothing else). Do you concur?
"Dog- In my opinion, absolutely not. Unless we start allowing citizens to bring full autos, with 30 round bananas, which house armor piercers. Nothing could have prevented this tragedy."
ReplyDeleteWhen you're only tool is an AR, every problem has a bullseye on it.
NOTHING could have prevented the tragedy? Bullshit.
I can think of a half-dozen things off the top of my head:
1.) Alarmed emergency exits.
2.) Emergency exits that, when opened, trip a photocell that turns on VERY bright lights in the theater and the adjacent corridor for at least 30 seconds.
3.) Emergency exits that, when opened, trip a photocell that STOPS the movie.
4.) Paid theater staff at all emergency exits, or video monitors on all emergency exits which, when tripped, immediately sound an alarm for security personnel.
5.) Metal detctors at all entry points.
6.) Not allowing people to buy a fuckton of gunz and ammor without anyone, in a position to do something about it, even THINKING it might be a bit odd.
And first to last of the six, fuck the expense; unless you think profits by the theater chains, film makers and gunzsellerz are more important than other peoples' lives.
Commie- I see you're just as brash here as at Mike's. Goody good.
Delete1- Not true. The exact details of all evidence has not come out yet for obvious reasons. But I think the door was a fire exit, which tripped an alarm. Again, that is a guess, but would explain the excellent response time.
2- Maybe. One problem, a badly lit theater may have actually saved some lives. Much harder to properly aim in the dark.
3- Really don't know how that would have helped.
4- Unless the theater staff and security is armed, I don't see how this would have helped at all.
5- Wouldn't have done a thing. The kid exited through an emergency exit to get his guns. He probably would have quietly passed through any metal detector. Not to mention, would you go see a movie with metal detectors at the entrance?
5- He didn't have a f##k ton of guns. He had three. I have three.
The ammo, we can agree upon. I believe our Government passed a bill today to remedy that. Not to mention the 100 round clip. Like I told Dog, there is no reason for a civilian to have that item.
Stay brazen my man.
Anyone who has had to take a firearms safety course as a condition of carrying a firearm, either open or concealed, has had to learn the rules of firearm safety.
ReplyDeleteIt is a prerequisite in all but the most rabidly dangerous lax gun law states.
If you ignore those rules of firearm safety, even if you claim self defense, shooting up other people, either killing or injuring them, or even just doing serious property damage, you can be in trouble for reckless endangerment, and potentially both civil action and criminal prosecution if they act like this -- and rightly so.
I've heard far too many people who actively carry make exactly the same kind of wrong statements, reckless statements, and indicate the same kind of dangerous intent in using their firearms as were made regarding this situation.
We have that from Louis Gohmert, we have it from NRA board member and draft-dodging clown and convicted hunting crimes board member Ted Nugent.
Law enforcement and trained military personnel conspicuously DO NOT make the statements of dangerous intent that these civilians do, for good reason - they know better. THEY are not dangerous to themselves and others.
JOB, no, my comments were directed at Mr. drakes initially, and then at DG and Laci for clarification.
ReplyDeleteBest - Penigma.
Were your comments to ME? Sorry, I'm Joe Doakes, not John Drakes.
ReplyDeleteI was exchanging comments with Dog Gone on another thread. She asked me to pose a scenario in which I thought it would be appropriate for me to shoot. I did and we were working toward an understanding but that thread seems to have been abandoned.
Do you want to take up the conversation here?
Apologies Joe, for the ooops on our name; I know that Pen was responding a bit on the fly.
ReplyDeleteOkay, let's recap (and Dog Gone, you step in where I go astray).
ReplyDeleteWhen we left the thread, I suggested we consider this scenario:
I'm a flabby, crabby, overweight, middle-aged White man with high blood pressure, just as Dog Gone describes all NRA members. I'm in a movie theatre like the one in Aurora, sitting with my wife and three grandkids about 20 rows back. The show has begun so it's dark and noisy. The shooter enters down front, sets off tear gas and moves up the aisle towards me shooting first his shotgun, then his assault rifle, wearing the exact same equipment as a top-of-the-line SWAT team would use: helmet, body armor head to toe, assault rifle.
I push the grandkids out of their seats onto the floor, crouch down in my row, draw my concealed snubnose .38, line my finger up along the trigger guard, point the pistol at the aisle end of my row and wait to see what happens.
When the shooter gets to the end of my row, he points the assault rifle at my granddaughter. My eyes are watering, I'm caughing from teargas and there are other patrons fleeing so I cannot be sure of my backstop. It's too risky to shoot. He fires, killing my granddaughter and aims the assault rifle at my wife.
I'm now confident he intends harm to me and mine but the environment hasn't changed. Do the Rules of Firearms Safety let me shoot? As I ponder, he fires again, killing my wife.
He points the assault rifle at me. At that moment, I should . . . what? Shoot or not shoot?
This scenario is horrible but not hypothetical, it's as close as we get to what actually happened at dozen times in that theater.
Dog Gone asserts that I would probably lack the physical ability to shoot, being incapacitated by tear gas. Even if I could get a shot off, I would have poor visibility, lousy iron sights and no idea where my missed shot would go. And even if I hit him, a puny .38 wouldn't do anything against his invincible armor so it's not only senseless to shoot, it's dangerous.
Under those conditions, it's likely legal to shoot the killer (that is, the DA couldn't successfully prosecute me for murder because I have a good self-defense claim), but if I shot and missed, I'd have legal liability to any innocents I harmed plus the DA might successfully prosecute me for Reckess Discharge. There'd also be civil liability to those I injured.
She also suggests it is immoral for me to prefer my own life over others so I shouldn't shoot where there was any risk of missing the killer and hitting an innocent.
I objected that her analysis leaves me no choice but to sit patiently, waiting to die. She denied it and countered that as a flabby, overweight, middle-aged man facing a killer pointing an assault rifle at me under those conditions, my only legal and moral option was . . . to attack him bare-handed.
continued
The conclusion that I should follow Kwai Chang Caine instead of Sam Colt naturally leads me to ask: always? Or just that once? The Aurora shooter took extraordinary care to outfit himself and arrange the killing zone. I can't recall another mass shooting as extreme - element of surprise, darkness, noise, body armor, tear gas, gun-free zone and assault rifle. This strikes me as the far end of the environmental curve as far as mass shootings go, usually it's more like Virginia Tech or Columbine where the shooter had pistols and extra mags but no body armor, tear gas, darkness or noise to assist him.
ReplyDeleteLet's say Dog Gone is right - I shouldn't have shot in the Aurora theater situation. This new thread asserts off-dty cops shouldn't shoot, either (I assume on-duty cops would be included, the duty status doesn't affect their ability to hit what they fire at). Basically, nobody should have fired at the Aurora shooter. Fine. But that case is the outlier. Change the facts a bit: body armor but no tear gas so I can see clearly to fire - okay to shoot then? No tear gas and no body armor so a Mozambique will likely drop him - okay then? Not during the show but during the previews when the house lights are up, the theater is only half full, no body armor, no tear gas - okay to shoot then?
Obviously, where I"m going with this is exploring is whether there are ANY circumstances under which the authors at this blog agree a concealed carry civilian should shoot a mass murderer. So far, we haven't found any.
So, Pen, what's your take?
Joe- I don't know about the authors, but if you were to ask me? I think your Human instinct would take over. You would probably defend your loved ones to the death. In the pandemonium, most patrons would be rioting to the exits. In fact, I believe that's how 2 or 3 of the victims died. They weren't shot, they were trampled.
DeleteAny case, in this unlikely event, you shove your family to the ground. Snake crawl towards the aisle. Look for a good shot. Even with this kid so heavily armored, go low. Preferably the foot. Guarantee he did not have foot armor.
I don't know about you, but I think it is sick that we are even discussing this. But I agree. In this circumstance, unless you were running down aisles, taking random shots, you may have been able to accomplish your goal. I would however recommend some tactical combat training, and maybe even some CQC training.
Joe and JOB, sorry, my "Damn you auto correct" changed Doakes to something else, and I though Joe's name was John (again, apologies). I was typing off of my Ipad and only have a limited view.
ReplyDeleteJoe - let's stay on point. This is about the question of probability had there been someone in that crowed with a gun, whether they'd have stopped this guy. That answer is "no" - the very much higher probability is they'd have failed, the equal high probability to stopping him (at least as high) is they'd have shot someone else.
Does this mean they aren't allowed to try, no, at least not as far as I understand the law, but "allowed to try" has legal parameters (as it should). The person cannot fire if they have no clear field of view unless they are in imminent danger (the guy is walking their way and so on). Further, if they have another alternative and have no clear field of view, they are expected to use that alternate - again, as far as I understand it.
So, your false premise, that you either shoot back or your family dies, is far too simplistic and creates a false black vs. white argument. It's a strawman -- and it's irrelevant to the overall point.
Theater = slanted aislways.
ReplyDeleteShoot at his feet, you will hit those people who crawled out behind him.
Sometimes there is simply NOT an acceptable shot that can do the job. It sucks, but there it is. And if you are down on the ground snake crawling, your choking and gagging and your eyes are teared up so badly, that between your eyes from the irritant, the dark, and the gas smoke, you can't likely see him clearly enough to hit even close to him, particularly as he was moving.
Smarter move - the dark worked against him as well as the people he shot at; the sound worked against him as well as the people he shot at. He is one man, and a not particularly physically muscular one. He was physically vulnerable to someone yanking off his damned gas mask, tripping, projectiles such as something middling heavy thrown at his head. He was wearing eye protection, but he was still vulnerable to anything that blocked his vision (no little wiper blades cleaning them off).
Significant question -- how is he vulnerable? Not what gun am I going to shoot him with.
We're having an unfortunate series of interruptions to our internet service today which is making moderation and commenting, never mind posting something new, difficult and intermittent.
ReplyDeleteJoe wrote:The conclusion that I should follow Kwai Chang Caine instead of Sam Colt naturally leads me to ask: always? Or just that once?
Nothing 'Kway Chang Caine' about it. Follow the damned rules of firearm safety ALL THE TIME. Cops do, in determining when to shoot, and you should too. Most military rules of engagement for that matter also have pretty stringent rules against hitting civilians or non-combatants when they fire as well. That would be the reason that human shields have had at least limited usefulness in preventing fire.
A better example of when to fire was the amazing military fire that ended the Somali pirate hostage situation, early in Obama's administration. There was some risk of the hostage being hurt - the snipers were shooting from a ship at sea, not a completely stable surface. But the risk was not any greater than what the hostage was in already, and the probability of the attempt working was fr higher than the risk of hitting the hostage. Snipers successfully shot the pirates, arrested the others, rescued the hostage.
Not every situation allows for an unarmed person to overcome an armed person, but there are still a surprising number of instances in news coverage, on a regular basis, where unarmed people DO so, including wresting the firearm away from someone.
Bottom line - you and other people are NOT expendable; other people are not less important, they are not fodder, you can't take a 'who cares' approach to risking their lives and limbs.
J.O.B.
ReplyDelete"Commie- I see you're just as brash here as at Mike's. Goody good."
And you are just as fact averse here as there.
Your refutations are nonsense. You know it; more importantly I and other readers HERE know it as well.
You dismiss those things that you don't LIKE to think might have some deterrence value and insist that an armed, polite and REALLY FUCKING GOOD SHOTS group of people would have resulted in a LOWER death toll and few injuries. Really? that's your whole presrciption.
Would I go to a movie with metal detectors in its lobby. Well, yeah. I go to the courthouse and other public buildings with metal detectors in their lobbies quite often. I actually get on planes and have to pass through a metal detector or six everytime I do that.
"1- Not true. The exact details of all evidence has not come out yet for obvious reasons. But I think the door was a fire exit, which tripped an alarm. Again, that is a guess, but would explain the excellent response time."
Brilliant. You claim I'm wrong, based on a lack of evidence and then use a counter argument--based on a lack of evidence. Urdoinitong.
2- Maybe. One problem, a badly lit theater may have actually saved some lives. Much harder to properly aim in the dark.
I said very bright lights, not normal room lighting. Shooting 70 or so people in the dark? You really think he was "aiming"?
3- Really don't know how that would have helped.
Let's see; he LEFT the theater and then came back in.
4- Unless the theater staff and security is armed, I don't see how this would have helped at all.
Because you're blinded by your own muzzle flash? Guy leaves the theater, with no gun. He is stopped by an employee and you don't see any possibility that the damage is mitigated?
5- Wouldn't have done a thing. The kid exited through an emergency exit to get his guns. He probably would have quietly passed through any metal detector.
You really don't do a lot of thinking before you shoot off your mouth, do you? See 1-3 in my original comment, think about them and then, after you pull your head out of your ass, think some more.
You claim I'm wrong, based on a lack of evidence and then use a counter argument--based on a lack of evidence. Urdoinitong.
"Not to mention, would you go see a movie with metal detectors at the entrance?"
Since I rarely go to theters of any kind, it's not generally an issue. But I do go to courthouses, federal, state and county courts and office buildings and have to pass through metal detectors to get into many of them. If I want to do something and passing through a metal detector is an entry requirement, well, yeah, I'd do that.
"5- He didn't have a f##k ton of guns. He had three. I have three.
The ammo, we can agree upon. I believe our Government passed a bill today to remedy that. Not to mention the 100 round clip. Like I told Dog, there is no reason for a civilian to have that item."
A.) I wasn't talking about only the shooter in the instant case. There are large numbers of idiotz wit teh bigazz gunz collectionz out there. He had FOUR, btw,--he apparently left one in his car.
B.) Any sort of firearm is okay, but not a drum magazine? WTF? If you don't have a problem with people owning all the gunz they want (and as much ammunition as they want) why would you give a shit if they use a drum or a bunch of taped together magazines? The dead and wounded would still pile up.
"Your refutations are nonsense. You know it; more importantly I and other readers HERE know it as well."
DeleteIf you really think that your ideas would have prevented this massacre, then you're a jerk-off. One thing and one thing only would have prevented this, psychological testing before attaining a FOID card. I don't know how that could be done, but maybe someone can come up with something. If someone has the idea and initiative to shoot dozens and dozens of people, not much will stop them. By the way, a 100 round magazine only made it easier for this kid to accomplish his goal.
Remember one thing pal. You did not produce one fact in your original comment. Only opinions, which I politely disagreed with. So you proceed to use your bad ass persona to attack me because a disagreed. Do me a favor, in the future, before you reply to any comment that I make. Take out your d##k, point it at your ass, and go f##k yourself. Of course, in return I will let you spew your ideas, without any insight on my part.
I think we'll get along just fine.
I'm sorry, Pen, I think we're talking at cross purposes.
ReplyDeleteIn the prior thread, Dog Gone asked me to pose a scenario about a concealed carry permit holder shooting a mass murderer. I posed one and we debated it, but our conversation died when that thread got too deep on the site.
So I reposted the scenario to this thread to continue the prior conversation. I understand that it's off point for the armed-off-duty-cop posting but I wasn't responding to that, I was responding to your response to my comments on the prior thread.
Yes, it's as confusing to understand as it is to read. Sorry.
Look, we're getting nowhere with long debate so let's cut to the point:
Are there any circumstances in which the authors of Penigma believe a concealed carry permit holder is legally and morally justified in shooting a mass murderer?
I ask because it's beginning to seem as if the answer is No.
Ooooooooooooooooooh, somebody's feelings are hurted.
ReplyDeleteJ.O.B. asserts something nonsensical:
"Unless we start allowing citizens to bring full autos, with 30 round bananas, which house armor piercers. Nothing could have prevented this tragedy."
I counter his bullshit premise with six suggestions for preventing the tragedy--which he dismisses.
The facts on the ground are these.
1.) In a state with permissive gunzlawz, a person was able to buy--with no background check--sufficient weapons and ammunition to effect the killing of at least a dozen people and the wounding of many others.
2.) In a state where ccw is allowed in public places and private buildings (theaters are not, afaia, an exclusion zone) nobody, in the theater under attack or adjacent theaters was able to shoot the assailant. This leads one to conclude that there were no people carrying gunz--which flies in the face of RMGO and other gunzhuggerz association's characterization of CO gunzloonz propensity to exercise their Type 2A rights--or, they were afraid to do so. Take your pick.
Joe asked - and I'm now able to be online to answer:
ReplyDelete"Are there any circumstances in which the authors of Penigma believe a concealed carry permit holder is legally and morally justified in shooting a mass murderer?"
Yes, with the same restriction of gun safety and restraint the cops use. You have to be able to reasonably disable the shooter - and most do NOT wear what the guy in Aurora wore - AND do so without a high risk of killing more innocent people than your chances of hitting the bad guy.
There may be times, in fact quite a lot of them, where you cannot shoot. It is the expectation of being able to shoot, and some of the really bad locations - based on arm chair quarterbacking news accounts - that are offered up by permit holders that makes my head spin.
Examples of such were common on MikeB's blog, where the primary topic is guns and/or gun control, where both Laci and I have been admins and authors. You'd see reports of some physical confrontation in a WalMart; a man attackin a woman for example. Not crowds of people as closely packed together as the Aurora theater, but still a considerable number of people shopping.
Immediate answer - draw your personal weapon, and empty your magazine at the 'goblin'. Never mind that at the range described with the weapons described, the bullets would go through the assailant killing the woman, in some instances the woman AND her children, and a few WalMart employees, and potentially directly and indirectly a half dozen shoppers (especially if you consider cement floors and other hard surfaces which could result in probable ricochets or shrapnel).
Alternatives NOT considered? Grab a gan or two of corn out of your shopping cart, or some similarly hard, middling heavy objects that could be used as projectiles, and hit the bad guy in the head with them the way you would throw a rock, from say six feet away. Blow off one of those very loud horns in a can. Hit him with the nearest fire extinguisher. Heck TURN the fire extinguisher on and cover him in foam so he has to stop to see and breathe and slides around if he tries to be violent.
We aren't talking about a person SHOOTING another person in those confrontations, just pushing and shoving and maybe some punching - no weapons.
EVERY damned time, the ONLY solution to any conflict under discussion - shooting, and rules of firearm safety be damned.
Give me one good reason why it is acceptable to shoot other innocent people? Give me one good reason why your efforts in the Aurora CO scenario are NOT better spent crawling towards the aisle furthest from the aisle where the gunman is, getting your wife and grandkids OUT of the theater and away from the gunman, or at least, behind the best available protection instead of shooting. Shooting is AN answer, not THE answer; sometimes it is the right one, often it is the wrong one. How do you tell? Rules of Firearm safety, and the important questions about how likely you are to take down the bad guy, weighed against how many people will YOU hurt or kill with any shot that doesn't ONLY kill the bad guy.
Here is another factor to weigh into the mix. By capturing the shooter in Aurora, as horrible as the whole event was -- law enforcement was able to find out and defuse the bombs in Holme's apartment. Had they not done so, it is reported the entire building would have been leveled.
ReplyDeleteAt that hour of the night, that would almost certainly have killed and injured as many additional people, given the number of residents and units, as were killed in the theater.
Do you or do you not count those saved lives in the equation of shoot or don't shoot? I think you have to do so.