OT: Bane wanna be attacks!

[Sunsetcarcrash]

 

If I returned fire, the people around me would be in much less danger of an errant shot from me than they would be from the person who was attempting to kill them deliberately. And yes, there's a very good chance I'd be able to prevent him from killing additional people. We can argue the merits of CCW laws if you'd like, but imagine if two or three off-duty cops or retired military personnel with CCW permits and handguns had been present in that theater and reacted when the shooting first started. There's a reason why the air marshals are usually undercover - it keeps the bad guys guessing, and it gives the good guys the element of surprise when reacting / responding to a violent attacker. CCW laws that allow honest, law abiding and trained citizens to exercise their second amendment rights to bear arms have a similar effect. The bad guys don't know who might be able to put up a determined resistance. That prospect wouldn't be likely to deter a determined fanatic or sociopath, but it would offer some possibility of defense against them.

 

 

One of the baddest men I have ever met in my life was an air marshal... He was so deadly it was intimidating... Luckily he was a good guy!

[Phil O'Keefe]

I've heard many arguments about this from both sides and the fact of the matter is if only the military and police had access to automatic weapons and sidearms there'd be a lot fewer deaths.

 

For the most part, the public has very limited access to fully automatic weapons. Yes, you can own them as a private citizen, but the hoops you have to jump through for the permit are significant, and there are relatively few people out there will full-auto permits.

 

Before someone tries to claim that people need guns to fight back at the military if they want a revolution let me remind you that you'd be using small arms against a military that has access to heavy air support, drones, tanks, artillery, and sophisticated automatic weaponry.

 

Tie that in to one of the original intents of the Framers in drafting the second amendment (giving the citizens the ability to fight back against a tyrannical government) and you just presented an argument for citizens to have access to rocket launchers, artillery, etc. Frankly, I think that's excessive...

 

You don't have a chance against them anyway

 

Not if you go head to head with them in a frontal assault.

 

Kind of like the vastly outnumbered and out-gunned Viet Cong didn't have a chance against the French and American armies... or for that matter, how the Colonial militia and army didn't have a chance against the strongest military and navy on the planet at that time - Great Britain.

 

nor would you have much of a chance against a guy like this who comes in with a machine gun and tear gas to obscure vision of himself.

 

Did he have a "machine gun", or are you playing loose with your automatic weapons terminology? I suspect that he was using semi-automatic weapons. They extract the spent casing from the chamber, then feed a new cartridge. You have to depress the trigger for each shot. With a full auto, you depress the trigger once and it will continue to fire until the weapon jams or runs out of ammunition in the magazine.

 

As to your point, yes, you'd be at a disadvantage. Pistol vs rifle, gas, etc. However, I respectfully submit to you that the tactical situation would be significantly worse for you if you were in that situation and you were unarmed.

 

14 people were killed and 50 people were injured in this attack. For ONE rifleman to kill and injure that many people, even with a semi-auto rifle, takes considerable time. We're talking about at least two or more magazine swaps - and that's assuming high-capacity 30 round magazines were used - I have no idea if that's the case or not... the point is, he can't be firing in all directions at once. He can't fire without ceasing... there would have been opportunities there for defensive action had there been say, an armed, off-duty officer in attendance.

[Reauchambeau]

PHil, your wisdom never fails to impress.

[lotlizard]

 

I really don't understand why the public needs access to anything besides hunting rifles (which was what the law originally had in mind). I've heard many arguments about this from both sides and the fact of the matter is if only the military and police had access to automatic weapons and sidearms there'd be a lot fewer deaths.

 

 

This came up in the political forum as well.

 

The general public does not have access to owning automatic weapons. Owning an automatic weapon is extremely expensive, whether one does so legally or illegally. The legal process involves stringent background checks, interviews with law enforcement personnel, and paying yearly licensing fees (around 3K the last time I looked). Additionally, a fully automatic AK47 or AR type rifle is not cheap, and often cost several thousand more dollars than the semiautomatic versions like the one this shooter used. Buying one illegally is more expensive and much more difficult. Unlike movies and tv depict, an illegal dealer in automatic weapons is not on every street corner, they typically will not deal with strangers, and rarely sell one weapon at a time.

 

A skilled shooter can do more damage with a traditional bolt-action or lever-action hunting rifle than an unskilled shooter with semiautomatic rifle. A semiautomatic rifle, like the shooter had, will, when an operator rapidly pulls the trigger, create muzzle climb - the shots will go over the target and into the air. This is even worse with an automatic weapon. They don't work like they are shown to in the movies.

 

Where I live, for example, we have a huge problem with feral animals - particularly packs of wild dogs and feral hogs. For a farmer working in an isolated part of a field, having a military type rifle is essential. Those types of guns handle exposure to the elements, don't require carry multiple accessories (pouches for ammunition, etc.), and can be quickly reloaded. The ARs, particularly when chambered for a lighter round, are good for small framed people such as the young kids who are often up early in the morning tracking down livestock.

[crohny]

I think the problem anti gun people don't realize is the wealth of illegal fire arms on the streets that can be bought from a trunk of a car by anyone. Yeah you can make the theoretical argument that if gun laws were set in place sooner there wouldn't be this wealth of illegal fire arms. Sadly talking about the what ifs and what should bes doesn't make us safe. Because one lunatic goes and shoots up a movie theater I no longer have the right to own a firearm? So I should do what? Give up my guns because some of you can't face the fact that there are good and bad people and you seek to punish all for one's vile acts? So only the pieces of {censored} should have weapons and I am left sitting on my hands waiting to see if someone breaks in with an illegal hand gun or just a crow bar and hope my pocket knife is enough to protect me and my family? Get with reality please.

[crohny]

 

This came up in the political forum as well. The general public does not have access to owning automatic weapons. Owning an automatic weapon is extremely expensive, whether one does so legally or illegally. The legal process involves stringent background checks, interviews with law enforcement personnel, and paying yearly licensing fees (around 3K the last time I looked). Additionally, a fully automatic AK47 or AR type rifle is not cheap, and often cost several thousand more dollars than the semiautomatic versions like the one this shooter used. Buying one illegally is more expensive and much more difficult. Unlike movies and tv depict, an illegal dealer in automatic weapons is not on every street corner, they typically will not deal with strangers, and rarely sell one weapon at a time. A skilled shooter can do more damage with a traditional bolt-action or lever-action hunting rifle than an unskilled shooter with semiautomatic rifle. A semiautomatic rifle, like the shooter had, will, when an operator rapidly pulls the trigger, create muzzle climb - the shots will go over the target and into the air. This is even worse with an automatic weapon. They don't work like they are shown to in the movies. Where I live, for example, we have a huge problem with feral animals - particularly packs of wild dogs and feral hogs. For a farmer working in an isolated part of a field, having a military type rifle is essential. Those types of guns handle exposure to the elements, don't require carry multiple accessories (pouches for ammunition, etc.), and can be quickly reloaded. The ARs, particularly when chambered for a lighter round, are good for small framed people such as the young kids who are often up early in the morning tracking down livestock.

 

 

This. I own a semi automatic rifle. Doing bursts of pulling the trigger as quickly as possible to get off as many rounds as possible is very inaccurate. The kick of the gun starts to push the barrel up and off target. Fully automatic rifles are good for combat when you need to send suppressive fire if to cover some. Other than that single round shots are the way to go. I could buy an AK47 and mod it easily to be fully automatic. Two reasons I don't, I don't need fully auto and it's highly illegal. The former reason is more than enough of a reason. Semi auto assault rifles are frowned upon but I am far more worried about the asshole with a hand gun that I can't see or the sawed off shot gun I can't see. It's very hard to conceal a semi auto assault rifle. If I see someone walking down the street with an ak47 I know that this isn't an area to be in most likely. I can't see a hand gun in a pocket.

[Trick Fall]

I really don't care what anyone says. I do not like guns and wish they were less prevalent in our society. I can see people having hunting rifles, but to me the rest of it is just bs.

[crohny]

 

I really don't care what anyone says. I do not like guns and wish they were less prevalent in our society. I can see people having hunting rifles, but to me the rest of it is just bs.

 

 

 

It is bull{censored} that guns are so big in this country, but that is how it is. Either deal with it or go hide under a rock. Also I find it amusing that you don't like guns but think hunting rifles are ok. Like they can't be used on a human. Why not say {censored} those too and support the use of bows?

[IRG]

PHil, your wisdom never fails to impress.

 

 

Except for this time. You thinking you could've stopped this lunatic and the people around you being safer is at best, pure conjecture. If you had fired at him (that is if you could even see him through the smoke and darkness) it wouldn't have made much difference with someone wearing kevlar. Assuming you even had a chance to draw your weapon, click off the safety first. He probably would've then signaled you out, and eliminated both you and everyone sitting near you. Still the best advice is to have run as fast as possible, fight another day. He was prepared for this massacre, no one else was. And to think we need to have "air marshalls" on every flight, movie theater, mall, school, etc. etc. because the 2nd amendment says we have the right to bear arms (but not specifically AK47) is {censored}ing nuts.

 

Sorry to sound bitchy, it does suck as I've said for law abiding gun owners, but you have a hobby/interest that has unfortunately gone very wrong in our modern society. There needs to be a better way of allowing those who can be responsible, vs. those who can't. But no one wants to put forth tough possible solutions without the fear of the NRA coming down on them.

 

So enjoy your guns, while people like this are scared {censored}less:

[soapbladder]

Well even though I'm an advocate (although I have gone back and forth) of fairly strict gun control, the "law" is the Second Amendment--which is featured fairly prominently in the Bill of Rights.

That makes it both almost impossible to change and something to be taken enormously seriously, lest we start carving up the rest of the Bill of Rights according to the fad of the day. The bill of rights has held up pretty well over time with very limited additions and subtractions.

I don't agree with the interpretation of the amendment as it stands. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The bold part is usually neglected, and appears to allow for substantial regulation and restriction.

But the current interpretation is the law of the land, and is likely not to change.

I don't regard the constitution as a 'sacred' document or anything, see the original 3/5s clause for example, but generally it has been good at balancing individual rights from both the excesses of laizez faire capitalism and authoritarian government impulses.

Personally, in a world without the Second Amendment, I would prefer a situation like Britain where guns are really hard to get but...

1. Here the genie is out of the bottle anyway. Our country is literally awash in guns. A gun to citizen ration of like 5 to 1. So many guns, legal or not, can't quickly or easily be phased out.

2. Like it or not the Second Amendment and it's interpretation, has to be taken seriously.

3. Guns are a big part of our recreational and outdoor culture.

I do regard hunting as legitimate, and won't deny that firing a weapon is fun.

But with all that said, and terrible as tragic as the event in CO is, it cannot be called surprising.

As a society, we have decided long ago that guns should be relatively freely available.
Terrible crimes such as this are most certainly the price the price we pay for that decision and that cultural priority. To pretend that guns, and easy access to them, are not the No. 1 facilitator of crimes such as this is naive. Like it or not, that bridge has been crossed.

And crimes like this will happen again.

SB

[crohny]

Except for this time. You thinking you could've stopped this lunatic and the people around you being safer is at best, pure conjecture. If you had fired at him (that is if you could even see him through the smoke and darkness) it wouldn't have made much difference with someone wearing kevlar. Assuming you even had a chance to draw your weapon, click off the safety first. He probably would've then signaled you out, and eliminated both you and everyone sitting near you. Still the best advice is to have run as fast as possible, fight another day. He was prepared for this massacre, no one else was. And to think we need to have "air marshalls" on every flight, movie theater, mall, school, etc. etc. because the 2nd amendment says we have the right to bear arms (but not specifically AK47) is {censored}ing nuts. Sorry to sound bitchy, it does suck as I've said for law abiding gun owners, but you have a hobby/interest that has unfortunately gone very wrong in our modern society. There needs to be a better way of allowing those who can be responsible, vs. those who can't. But no one wants to put forth tough possible solutions without the fear of the NRA coming down on them. So enjoy your guns, while people like this are scared {censored}less:

 

Here in lies the problem. You're sitting and debating the what ifs and over looking the fact that there are {censored}ty people out there. It's not about having a dangerous hobby. My gun isn't a hobby. It's how I protect my family. You're mistaking hobbiests for people that own guns and respect them for what they are. You have a naive outlook on this issue. You look at it from one point of view. Fearing a gun is absurd. Fearing the asshole holding it is the correct response. If someone wants to kill somone they have many ways of doing so. Guns, knives, their hands, rope, car, planes, bombs and so on. To just put on the blame on an inanimate object is irrational and over looking the fact some humans are vile pieces of {censored}.

[IRG]

 

Well even though I'm an advocate (although I have gone back and forth) of fairly strict gun control, the "law" is the Second Amendment--which is featured fairly prominently in the Bill of Rights. That makes it both almost impossible to change and something to be taken enormously seriously, lest we start carving up the rest of the Bill of Rights according to the fad of the day. The bill of rights has held up pretty well over time with very limited additions and subtractions. I don't agree with the interpretation of the amendment as it stands. " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The bold part is usually neglected, and appears to allow for substantial regulation and restriction. But the current interpretation is the law of the land, and is likely not to change. I don't regard the constitution as a 'sacred' document or anything, see the original 3/5s clause for example, but generally it has been good at balancing individual rights from both the excesses of laizez faire capitalism and authoritarian government impulses. Personally, in a world without the Second Amendment, I would prefer a situation like Britain where guns are really hard to get but... 1. Here the genie is out of the bottle anyway. Our country is literally awash in guns. A gun to citizen ration of like 5 to 1. So many guns, legal or not, can't quickly or easily be phased out. 2. Like it or not the Second Amendment and it's interpretation, has to be taken seriously. 3. Guns are a big part of our recreational and outdoor culture. I do regard hunting as legitimate, and won't deny that firing a weapon is fun. But with all that said, and terrible as tragic as the event in CO is, it cannot be called surprising. As a society, we have decided long ago that guns should be relatively freely available. Terrible crimes such as this are most certainly the price the price we pay for that decision and that cultural priority. To pretend that guns, and easy access to them, are not the No. 1 facilitator of crimes such as this is naive. Like it or not, that bridge has been crossed. And crimes like this will happen again. SB

 

 

 

Good post, and I agree with pretty much everything here.

 

Here's what the gun man was wearing/using last night:

 

"He was wearing a black ballistic helmet, a ballistic tactical vest, ballistic leggings, throat and groin protectors, a gas mask, and tactical gloves, Oates said. The police chief did not address reports that Holmes told officers, "I'm the Joker," referring to the villain in the Batman story.

Four weapons were found, Oates said.

Two were handguns, made by Glock. Both were 40-caliber. At least one of those was used, the police chief said.

One shotgun, a Remington model 870, one of the most popular models. Pump action, single barrel.

And one Smith and Wesson AR-15 type rifle, called by some an "assault rifle." These weapons can accommodate large ammunition "clips," but authorities have not yet said what kind of magazines were at the scene."

 

So is an assault rifle like this, capable of just 1 shot per squeeze, or multiple rounds being fired?

[V]

Ok lets put it this way. Go ahead and {censored}ing have your death machines you assholes.

[crohny]

 

Good post, and I agree with pretty much everything here. Here's what the gun man was wearing/using last night: "He was wearing a black ballistic helmet, a ballistic tactical vest, ballistic leggings, throat and groin protectors, a gas mask, and tactical gloves, Oates said. The police chief did not address reports that Holmes told officers, "I'm the Joker," referring to the villain in the Batman story. Four weapons were found, Oates said. Two were handguns, made by Glock. Both were 40-caliber. At least one of those was used, the police chief said. One shotgun, a Remington model 870, one of the most popular models. Pump action, single barrel. And one Smith and Wesson AR-15 type rifle, called by some an "assault rifle." These weapons can accommodate large ammunition "clips," but authorities have not yet said what kind of magazines were at the scene." So is an assault rifle like this, capable of just 1 shot per squeeze, or multiple rounds being fired?

 

 

It is more than likely a single round burst gun. Semi auto means that one round is fired and the gas from the explosion in the barrel is used to push the empty round out and put a new one i the chamber. Fully auto is where you can pull the trigger and have constant firing.

[crohny]

 

Ok lets put it this way. Go ahead and {censored}ing have your death machines you assholes.

 

 

I'm an asshole because I want to be able to defend myself against someone who uses guns to harm others? You're a child.

[conky]

Except for this time. You thinking you could've stopped this lunatic and the people around you being safer is at best, pure conjecture. If you had fired at him (that is if you could even see him through the smoke and darkness) it wouldn't have made much difference with someone wearing kevlar. Assuming you even had a chance to draw your weapon, click off the safety first. He probably would've then signaled you out, and eliminated both you and everyone sitting near you. Still the best advice is to have run as fast as possible, fight another day. He was prepared for this massacre, no one else was. And to think we need to have "air marshalls" on every flight, movie theater, mall, school, etc. etc. because the 2nd amendment says we have the right to bear arms (but not specifically AK47) is {censored}ing nuts. Sorry to sound bitchy, it does suck as I've said for law abiding gun owners, but you have a hobby/interest that has unfortunately gone very wrong in our modern society. There needs to be a better way of allowing those who can be responsible, vs. those who can't. But no one wants to put forth tough possible solutions without the fear of the NRA coming down on them. So enjoy your guns, while people like this are scared {censored}less:

 

With all that going on in there, I really doubt that guy would have seen anyone draw a weapon back on him. I mean, isn't your argument that it is too dark for me to shoot back at him without injuring any bystanders?

 

I grew up around guns. My dad would take me hunting and recreational shooting before I knew how to ride a bike. I'm not scared of them and I respect them. My wife hated guns, but when i started working full time out of the county on 24 hr shifts I bought her a 9mm pistol. I took her shooting and once she was around it and because familiar with it, she wasn't scared of them anymore. It's not the gun that kills people, just as it isn't the shovel that digs the ditch. It is the one using it and as long as there are crazy bastards out there in this world, I'll continue to carry because I could live with myself a lot better if I had a a way to defend myself if there was no other way to diffuse a situation than to not do anything and watch my family or friends or anyone else get hurt.

[Trick Fall]

 

It is bull{censored} that guns are so big in this country, but that is how it is. Either deal with it or go hide under a rock. Also I find it amusing that you don't like guns but think hunting rifles are ok. Like they can't be used on a human. Why not say {censored} those too and support the use of bows?

 

 

I choose to live in NY where gun laws are strict. I also do not associate with people other than law enforcement who own hand guns. It's not so much that I think hunting rifles are "oK" as I think they have a legitimate use and purpose for the average citizen and are much less likely to be used in a crime. I still would not let my daughter be at my in-laws without my supervision because my father-in-law is a hunter and has a couple of rifles.

[IRG]

 

Here in lies the problem. You're sitting and debating the what ifs and over looking the fact that there are {censored}ty people out there. It's not about having a dangerous hobby. My gun isn't a hobby. It's how I protect my family. You're mistaking hobbiests for people that own guns and respect them for what they are. You have a naive outlook on this issue. You look at it from one point of view. Fearing a gun is absurd. Fearing the asshole holding it is the correct response. If someone wants to kill somone they have many ways of doing so. Guns, knives, their hands, rope, car, planes, bombs and so on. To just put on the blame on an inanimate object is irrational and over looking the fact some humans are vile pieces of {censored}.

 

 

You are completely wrong, as usual. I do and have, as mentioned if you read my posts, view this from multiple angles. It is you who don't. I can understand the gun owner for being pissed that they're lumped into this. It is not their fault. Well mostly not. Gun owners come in many flavors, I certainly don't deny that. Some like you buy them for protection, some collect as historical artifacts (what I would probably do) some use them for sport, some for hunting, etc.

 

Of the many guns floating around though, many are simply used for killing other people. And that is because they are violent, or mentally ill, or just plain evil. I don't blame the gun itself, seldom does a gun go off by itself and kill innocent people. But to say we can't limit certain guns, like the AR15 used here, or an AK47, is simply stupid. It's just too easy to kill too many people, too quickly. And I know we can't realistically ban all guns all of a sudden, but to have realistic limits, hell even an intellingent conversation about the types of "arms" this country can or should have for its population, is indeed needed.

[Hiwatt Bob]

 

bobby D?

[soapbladder]

just as it isn't the shovel that digs the ditch.

Good luck digging a hole without one.

SB

[conky]

 

Ok lets put it this way. Go ahead and {censored}ing have your death machines you assholes.

 

 

I'll be your asshole I guess because I own a Glock, an AR15, and 2 AK47's.

[conky]

Good luck digging a hole without one. SB

 

Nice pun.

[soapbladder]

 

But to say we can't limit certain guns, like the AR15 used here, or an AK47, is simply stupid. It's just too easy to kill too many people, too quickly. And I know we can't realistically ban all guns all of a sudden, but to have realistic limits, hell even an intellingent conversation about the types of "arms" this country can or should have for its population, is indeed needed.

 

 

Truth. An AR 15 is serious firepower, and takes less knowledge to convert one to fully auto, than it does to build a fuzz face.

 

SB

[IRG]

 

With all that going on in there, I really doubt that guy would have seen anyone draw a weapon back on him. I mean, isn't your argument that it is too dark for me to shoot back at him without injuring any bystanders? I grew up around guns. My dad would take me hunting and recreational shooting before I knew how to ride a bike. I'm not scared of them and I respect them. My wife hated guns, but when i started working full time out of the county on 24 hr shifts I bought her a 9mm pistol. I took her shooting and once she was around it and because familiar with it, she wasn't scared of them anymore. It's not the gun that kills people, just as it isn't the shovel that digs the ditch. It is the one using it and as long as there are crazy bastards out there in this world, I'll continue to carry because I could live with myself a lot better if I had a a way to defend myself if there was no other way to diffuse a situation than to not do anything and watch my family or friends or anyone else get hurt.

 

 

 

I'm just saying, that as well intentioned as you think you are, in this case at least, you would not have succeeded. I wish you could've of course, but this guy was fully protected, even his crotch had protection, lol. He had head protection. Your gun, even if you could have fired off a shot, would not have been effective against him. But his assault rifle, plus the other 3, would have almost entirely done you in, if you had stayed around, trading shots. Do you really think you would have got him had you been there? It's nice to think so, but like I said from the first post, the element of surprise (plus his gear) has all the cards in his favor.

 

BTW, how did he get apprehended? Not sure if I saw anything on it specifically. Sounds like he just went and sat in a car until the police came.

[crohny]

 

You are completely wrong, as usual. I do and have, as mentioned if you read my posts, view this from multiple angles. It is you who don't. I can understand the gun owner for being pissed that they're lumped into this. It is not their fault. Well mostly not. Gun owners come in many flavors, I certainly don't deny that. Some like you buy them for protection, some collect as historical artifacts (what I would probably do) some use them for sport, some for hunting, etc. Of the many guns floating around though, many are simply used for killing other people. And that is because they are violent, or mentally ill, or just plain evil. I don't blame the gun itself, seldom does a gun go off by itself and kill innocent people. But to say we can't limit certain guns, like the AR15 used here, or an AK47, is simply stupid. It's just too easy to kill too many people, too quickly. And I know we can't realistically ban all guns all of a sudden, but to have realistic limits, hell even an intellingent conversation about the types of "arms" this country can or should have for its population, is indeed needed.

 

 

Dude, I am the son of a retired 30 year police officer. I HATED guns up until 3 years ago. Don't try and broad brush me and tell me I don't look at guns in multiple views. I hatred guns after being shot at when I was younger. So you can get {censored}ed. Banning assault rifles does what? Nothing. You still have hand guns that can have 20 plus rounds in a clip and can be fired just as fast as an assault rifle. If you take the time you can get super deadly with a pump action shot gun. You're not solving any problems by taking away assault rifles. Assault rifles arne't used just for killing people. They are great for sport shooting which is done in controlled settings by capable people with a knack for gun safety. If you're going to regulate what can and can't be bought, you're over looking that any gun is just as deadly as the neck. Hunting rifle is just as deadly as an AK. The advantage of a magazine is rather frightening, but if someone really wants to you can be just as deadly with bolt action and pump.