The theater shooting in CO has sparked an interesting debate between random people I know. I wondered what you guys thought of it.

Currently, in what appears to be most of the states, people are not allowed to carry guns into places like movie theaters, bars, etc. Places where you either 1) have to pay to get in or 2) consume liquor, concealed weapons are not allowed.

The point was raised that if there had been 2 or 3 dudes with concealed carry sidearms with them in the theater, that the outcome would have been different. They would have had a chance at stopping this guy from shooting so many people.

For me it just comes down to the question of, 'do I want to sit here, defenseless, and hope I dont die. Or, do I want a tool with which to fight for my life, and the lives of those innocent people around me?' And when I hear it put like that, the answer is pretty obvious.

I do have some issues with adopting the 'Israel model', where everyone is strapped, so no one can kill TOO many people just by blasting away. I think there would be a lot more incidents of accidental shootings, drunken shootings, etc etc. But that the number hurt per episode would be a lot less. People simply wouldn't have the opportunity to stand in front of a large crowd, casually blasting away with various weapons, their ass would be blown away by EVERYONE in short order.

Where do you guys come down on this?

I think you obviously shouldn't be allowed to have a full blown assault rifle like the guy legally bought, but when it comes to handguns, sure. Of course, though, it should be incredibly difficult to obtain a gun, background checks, permits, etc.

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.

As Pat can tell you from my facebook rants today, I pretty much always come down on the side of less guns. If you have everyone carrying handguns around, you might see a few less incidents where 12 people get killed by a lone gunman. However, I can guarantee you you'll also have a shit ton more incidents where one person gets shot. More guns mean more homicides plain and simple. Arm more people, you'll have many more murders.

Ohh, so that's YOU I was bickering with....

_________________

Not everyone can or will legally carry a handgun. They still have to pass background checks and so on. I get a pass on areas that forbid concealed carry, as long as I have my badge, id, and a pistol (on-duty or off-duty pistol) that I have qualified with through my agency. I can't be drinking either. I'm armed almost everywhere I go, especially with family.

So even though there won't really be much of a jump in the number of new concealed carry permit holders (despite the possible increase in applicants), I can see an increase of current holders or off-duty law enforcement that choose to actually carry their firearm more often. Only the off-duty LEOs will be able to (legally) carry in these forbidden areas like movies or sporting events, so I still don't expect any wild west scenarios to occur. I think that the people who would get into unnecessary shooting incidents are the type that can't get a CCW permit or wouldn't have the discipline to properly maintain it.

Conceal carry in movie theaters, yes.
In bars, no.

The people who are going to jump through all the hoops and take all the courses for a CC permit are going to be the heroes, not the bad guys.

gun laws specific to Aurora Co.
Unlawful to carry a concealed dangerous weapon
Unlawful to discharge firearms, unless by law enforcement on duty or on shooting range
Unlawful to have a loaded firearm in motor vehicle within the city limits

Let's make those more strict eh...because gun controls stop criminals

I head a good piece on NPR the other day with a Norwegian newspaper editor who summed things up like this (paraphrasing):
"When Columbine happened, I think people in seemingly safe progressive countries like Norway said "those Americans and their loose gun laws, no wonder things like this happen...they're a bunch of cowboys". Then when Anders Breivik massacred 77 people in 2011 many of them children, we, as a country realized the problem is more complicated than gun control."

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

i want to point out that this means you cant have a gun with a bullet in the chamber. a clip in is legal.

_________________

My point was the shooter in Colorado was in violation of every single of those laws.

I believe in the saying "locks are for honest people"...in much the same way, Laws are for law abiding people.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

And unfortunately some people and countries like Norway actually think the problem is a lack of gun control in the U.S. I'm not all caught up in flag waving histrionics about the 2nd Amendment, but I know there's more to our current issues than what laws can address.

I had a conversation about this with a very nice German guy in Munich. He asked about gun laws and gun crime after I told him what I do. Countries in Europe and elsewhere were not formed and won with firearms. They were won with older weapons in the hands of established armies. The U.S. was won with firearms in the hands of every day people. This country was born with a gun culture, and many advances in firearm technology took place in this country. This country was expanded and settled with rifle in hand. There is no way to reverse history, but the history has caused a culture and more importantly a massive supply of firearms among average citizens that people from other countries can't quite grasp.

With such a massive supply there is no feasible way to prevent criminals from getting them unless we put every first concealed carry offender away for 10+ years (talk about overcrowding). That still won't deter the most dangerous criminals from carrying and using them. Mass shootings are more the result of mental illness than the result of poor gun laws. These offenders often have no criminal record, but even a thorough mental health eval won't necessarily keep people off the streets and prevent these incidents. So if the cat is already out of the bag, so to say, and there is already a huge amount of readily available guns for criminals to obtain and use undeterred (regardless of what the law says), what good is it to reduce the ability of law abiders to protect themselves equally?

It's not just limited to countries with an existing supply of civilian firearms anymore...we have the internet.
Anyone, anywhere can buy illicit firearms.

http://gawker.com/5879924/now-you-can-b ... arketplace

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Everyone's cultural love of guns is all fine and dandy, but a look at the actual numbers may be useful here. And this is from the Washington Post mind you, a rightwing paper.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... n-control/

The actual facts say that as gun ownership has gone down, so has the murder rate. The actual facts say that states with stronger limits have lower murder rates.

Yes, there is already this huge number of guns out there, but that doesn't mean nothing can be done. That argument is refuted by the numbers is this article if you read it.

I've been investigating getting my CC for the last few months, and was suprised to learn of all the places I'd not be allowed to carry my firearm. It seems like those are the obvious 'soft' targets for a psycho to hit, seeing as no one there is 'supposed' to have a gun. It almost seems pointless, any place where a large amount of people can gather, you're pretty much not allowed to have a firearm. Well, places where large amounts of people gather tend to be preferred targets of crazies with tactical assault rifles, so what's the point?

I just cant stomach the thought of having no choice but to lay there, pretending to be dead, just HOPING this guy doesnt put a bullet in my back. People want to bitch and moan about the constitutionality of this or that, but not dying at the hands of psycho seems like it should be a pretty inalienable right to me. I think barriers to self protection should be torn down, I just never want to be at the whim of some stranger with 100 rounds in his gun.

If it were true that the number of guns already out there meant that anyone who really wants to shoot someone could find a way, then there is no logical reason that as the population has gone up and gun ownership rates have gone down, so have murder rates. By your theory 1980, the number of murders per 100K should stay constant even if gun ownership rate goes down because everyone who wants to kill someone can compensate. That didn't happen.

It sucks, but honestly, you're never in total control of your life. If you fly in planes, you could be killed. If you drive your car you could too. Someone could release a biochemical in your town. You have to live with some degree of uncertainty or else you'll end up living in a bomb shelter.

Fix the gun shop loophole. Make it more difficult for questionable individuals to easily obtain assault rifles at these shows.

That by itself will go a long way.

EDIT: I also question what armed patrons in the movie really could have done. The shooter was wearing body armor, and had already thrown tear gas into a dark theater. I doubt armed and trained police officers would attempt that shot and risk hitting other innocents. (SF1980, please correct me if that's a false assumption.)

Well assuming there had been some gun carrying cops in that audience, you dont really think they'd just sit there and wait to get shot, do you?

Lets assume there are only 2 or 3 people carrying a weapon in that theater, of the probably 2 or 3 hundred patrons. If they all start addressing this threat then the shooter now has 2 or 3 people shooting at him. He's not able to leisurely walk up the aisle, killing people huddled over in fear. He HAS to address those people in the crowd first. At the very least this buys time for other people to get the hell out of there. And seeing as how this chicken shit little puke IMMEDIATELY surrendered when faced with armed people who could kill him (the police), there is a good chance even one person standing up to him could have changed the outcome.

Also, for everyone bringing up the point of his tactical clothing, well, even if a bullet wouldnt have been able to penetrate all of his clothing, from what I hear it still hurts like hell getting shot with a vest on. That's got to be some sort of defense, again, even if it's just time/opportunity.

Definitely...there are lots of ways to eat it, and we can never be fully protected. But is that really an argument for NOT addressing the ways we CAN defend ourselves?

You shoot him in the gas mask....assuming you can see him of course.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

That's what I'd assume. I know I'd be uncomfortable with my aim after being in a room full of tear gas.

Then again, tear gas and my bedroom after a night of Mighty Taco are quite similar.

i would assume that it is a good choice to attempt that shot if you are reasonably sure of where the target is. it's not like he's killing one person, he's mowing down a field with an automatic rifle. stopping that seems to be worth a single casualty, in any case I can imagine. even if you're shot in kevlar, it still hurts and it will probably knock him off balance. it's a chance for people to get out.