Mass Shootings, Guns, and the US

Originally posted by FortAnthem


The first thing I thought when I read about this is; isn't Colorado a pretty liberal concealed carry state? Where were the people carrying when this happened? Why didn't even one patron in that theater have a gun?

One person carrying could have stopped this situation in its tracks. Its a shame more people don't exercise their right to self defense.

the theater has a no gun policy, didn't work out too well for the victims though did it.

there will always be people doing bad things and what they use really makes no difference now does it. if he didn't have a gun he would have used something else.

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle


Yep, "no gun" policies only apply to law-abiding citizens and people that follow rules. Kind of ass-backwards if you ask me. Putting a sign up saying "no guns" isn't going to stop a criminal, but it is going to make sure all the victims are easy targets.

I ignore such signs.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by antonia

 

Maybe 3 or 4 of us get shot, but not 50. If all the men and capable women in any group just rush the shooter, they will be quickly neutralized.

edit on 20-7-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)

Well, the problem is the word I bolded for you. Being able bodied isn't enough. Most people have never been in the kind of situation we are discussing. People tend to just freak out. The mind shuts down. It's why eye witness testimony can be so varied and sketchy-People's brains are running in overtime. You have to remember they are sitting in a dark theater watching a movie with loud blasts and gunfire. It is likely that at first many people in the theater didn't even realize what was happening. But I think you are correct that we should wait and see. It's likely someone may have tried to stop him.

I think it's a bit much to expect people to all be brave though. Most people are just thinking about self-preservation nor are they trained to deal with chaotic situations.

Originally posted by Realtruth
I think that this is something we need to look at closely, since people bash the USA so hard on these events.

What do people say when an event happens in their country and guns were not allowed?

In Canada, Toronto recently, we had both the Eaton Centre shooting and the Scarborough shooting, both stupid senseless acts. If people were permitted to conceal carry, as I was in South Africa, I expect in both cases there would have been fewer injured and less people killed. Criminals only take chances with people who pose no real threat. How often does a criminal storm the police station evidence lockup to steal money or drugs? Hence, if everyone is armed there is a higher probability of everyone being polite and less need for the police, the janitors with a gun. You have to remember that the "Serve and Protect" has nothing to do with serving or protecting the general population, it has to do with serving and protecting only the "law" and the criminals who enacted the laws.

Only a stupid person or idiotic and corrupt government gives the criminals the advantage by removing guns from responsible and legitimate gun owners. Which kind of tells you that the government is "in bed" with the criminals, birds of a feather and all that eh...

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by getreadyalready
With all due respect, OP, I'll probably refrain until the actual truth comes out.

Hours after the horrific accident, and people are blaming movies, guns, society, Tea Party, psy-ops, CIA, MK Ultra, ad nauseum.

While it's fun to debate actual issues and interpretations, I am finding it increasingly irritating to debate "speculative assertions".

Cheers and I honestly hope that cooler heads do prevail.

reply to post by beezzer


I agree with you, and that is kind of the point of this thread, I hope.

This was one guy. But people will be blaming all the things you mentioned and even more, and they won't be remembering the whole of the situation, or the whole of the society. When you look at all of those different causes mentioned, they probably have all been correct at one time or another, but they might all be incorrect for this guy.

We do need to keep our wits, and watch it unfold, but we also all need to remember to be responsible for our selves, and our people.

If this guy's mother is not surprised at all, then why didn't she alert someone?

reply to post by getreadyalready
Sadly, the irrationality won't be confined to ATS. Politicians will also be labeling and pointing fingers starting in 3. . . 2. . .

What we need right now is critical thinking and a refusal to rush towards the nearest, most convenient scapegoat.

Hopefully a rational approach will be found.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by beezzer

 

If this guy's mother is not surprised at all, then why didn't she alert someone?

You can alert people, but the process of getting someone committed is long and arduous if they have not committed a crime or hurt themselves (obviously before the shooting). Otherwise he couldn't be held. If they didn't have enough medical insurance for the guy then it's pretty likely he wouldn't be able to be voluntary committed either.

Originally posted by Realtruth

What do people say when an event happens in their country and guns were not allowed?

I wonder that myself.

When that guy went nuts in England with a shotgun a couple of years ago I remember a lot of "could have been worse" posts and some people calling for guns to be banned(er).

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

banned(er)

Yes. That goes back to my OP. Lets ban sharks, and wolves, and mosquitos, and forks, and pavement, and put governors on all cars at 35 mph, and make the bumpers out of twinkies. Everyone should live in padded rooms, where your education is piped in through the internet, and your food is exactly what you need to survive, nothing more and nothing less, and it must be at a consistency that makes choking impossible.

We have to stop demanding the government ensures our safety.

I'm reminded of the premise behind I-Robot. The computers realize humans are always going to get themselves into trouble, so the only logical solution is to enslave all the humans and control their actions.

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by FortAnthem


The first thing I thought when I read about this is; isn't Colorado a pretty liberal concealed carry state? Where were the people carrying when this happened? Why didn't even one patron in that theater have a gun?

One person carrying could have stopped this situation in its tracks. Its a shame more people don't exercise their right to self defense.

The guy was suited up in body armor and had tear gas. Trying to take him on with a handgun would not have been a good idea.

Actually, not true. I have been in more combat than I care to have been in my life and I can tell you while I ballistic vest will for a fact save your life, I have one with a 7.62x39 round in the back plate to prove that. However, I was also knocked off my feet and very much out of breath. Certainly out of the fight for a few minutes. I had no real damage other than some serious bruising and pain which lasted about 3 weeks.

As for the helmet, same applies. The substantial energy of the round has to go somewhere and that will be absorbed some by the padding and the straps designed to support it; however, the whiplash effect to the neck and the shock to the brain can be traumatic and severe.

Also, this is why I carry the .45 even if the target has a vest I guarantee he/she will feel like she just got kicked by a horse and very disoriented at least.

A mitigating factor in the situation would be that the incident took place in a crowded theater. Any citizen responder would have to be very calm under pressure and a good shooter to not hit a bystander in that mess.

I think that fact alone would be more of an impediment to citizen response than his helmet and armor.

reply to post by Golf66


Thanks for that! I was thinking something similar. Shooting someone with a bullet-proof vest might not kill them, might not even disable them, but at least it would hurt, stun, and disorient them, and their focus would be on something other than shooting the innocent people fleeing.

Shooting in a crowded theatre is something that hopefully no amateur would try, but if people are scrambling, ducking, covering, etc., and if the murderer is standing up boldly in his armored suit, and if someone with a concealed gun is within 25 or 30 feet of the guy, preferably to the side, or behind him, then I think a good shot might be possible.

Two days ago - www.foxnews.com...

Sometime later this week, the UN will finally unveil its Arms Trade Treaty. The exact date the treaty will be released is a secret.

Russia, China, France -- with its new Socialist government -- Britain and the Obama administration are writing the treaty behind closed doors. Yet even if the final treaty is being kept under wraps, we still have a pretty good idea of some of the requirements that will be in it.

The group writing the treaty is not promising. Russia and Britain ban handguns and many other types of weapons. The possession of guns for self-defense is completely prohibited in China. The Obama administration is undoubtedly the most hostile administration to gun ownership in US history, with Obama having personally supported bans of handguns and semi-automatic weapons before becoming president. And remember the recent scandal where the Obama administration was caught allowing guns go to Mexican drug gangs, hoping it would help push for gun control laws.

It seems this was planned in order to garner American support for Obama to sign this UN gun control treaty.The next two weeks the media are going to exploit the deaths of these 12 innocent people and the other injured people.

Apparently this theater shooting is eerily similar to a theater shooting in a 1986 comic by a crazed loner and apparently the blamed Batman in the comic book even though he was not there.

www.washingtontimes.com...

It seems the powers that be like to read Batman comics.

Also, I forgot to add that this event is 15 miles from Columbine Massacre shooting that occurred on April 20, 1999, 13 years and 91 days ago.
www.latimes.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Emergingtruth


I hope it backfires and gun sales in Colorado skyrocket!

reply to post by getreadyalready


I hope so too, might as well buy them now while you still can. People have to realize that these events are planned well ahead of time to cause people to be afraid of each other, when in actuality they should be afraid of their government.

You know what would of prevented the majority of the people being killed at the movies?

Another person with a gun to stop them..End of story.

If guns were not available he would of used fire, bat, chemicals, spear, cross bow blah blah blah that could cause death and destruction.

A ban on guns would solve nothing and in my opinion if someone else legally were carrying theirs he could of been stopped before the tradegy hit 12.

I just think it's sad that you can go into a shop and buy an assault rifle. Do people have to have any background checks or do you just walk straight in and take your pick?

I'm glad the UK went the way it did with guns. Murders are at the lowest for 30 years here at the moment. Still I understand you guys love your guns and understand its's different strokes for different folks.

The criminals and crazies are still going to have guns. The numbers of both those groups will just increase since noone else will have guns. Only the good, stable minded citizens will not have guns then so they will be wiped off the face of America and the powerhungry and greedy will take over the country and then the world. Make a really good movie, believable too

reply to post by woodwardjnr


We don't need assault rifles or lazer scopes and night vision scopes. Just guns and bullets and practice. Night goggles would be nice so I can put my tagless underwear on in the dark though.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


All states have their own laws concerning the purchasing and sale of firearms. In some states they require a background check and a permit before you can own a gun. In other states, you can buy a gun with out a background check or a permit.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. There are more people that die every year from car accidents, drunk driving accidents, overdose of prescription drugs, etc. and we don't hear government or the mainstream news media call to banning the sale of cars, alcohol, or prescription drugs. But we do hear the government and the mainstream news media exploit the deaths of these shooting events because it is part of their agenda to confiscate weapons and banning the sale of firearms so that they can carry out their agenda for an oppressive New World Order.

Switzerland actually mandates for people to have guns and they have the lowest crime rate in the world. I don't hear people calling for Switzerland to revoke it's gun laws.