Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Crablezworth wrote: The thought never crosses their mind that they may have A) been s***ing their pants or B) the first one to take a shot to the dome.

This.

Crablezworth wrote:
What I hate the most about every post-rampage discussion is the idea that "you know what would have solved that, more guns". It just seems asinine and it usually comes from the same hindsight heroes who think if only they were there they would/could have done something about it. The thought never crosses their mind that they may have A) been s***ing their pants or B) the first one to take a shot to the dome.

There is much truth here.

I own a few guns, though I don't carry, but even if I did my immediate response to an indirect threat would be to escape the threat, not confront it.

Edited by Manchu.

Crablezworth wrote:
What I hate the most about every post-rampage discussion is the idea that "you know what would have solved that, more guns". It just seems asinine and it usually comes from the same hindsight heroes who think if only they were there they would/could have done something about it. The thought never crosses their mind that they may have A) been s***ing their pants or B) the first one to take a shot to the dome.

Yep, because once one person gets shot and decides to defend themself/retaliate in a very public area, you tend to up with something like Monday night's mass shooting on Danzig street in Toronto... 2 dead & 23 injured. But sure, more people with guns who think they can be heroes would be a good thing?!

Perhaps if there had been a fully trained sniper/sharpshooter who was carrying their proper night vision gear, they might have made a difference... Sadly, I don't anyone who tends to walk around with all that added gear just because some random crazy gak-wipe wants their 15min of infamy.

No one going to know what their capable of unless they already went throught the experience.

dogma wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:
What I hate the most about every post-rampage discussion is the idea that "you know what would have solved that, more guns". It just seems asinine and it usually comes from the same hindsight heroes who think if only they were there they would/could have done something about it. The thought never crosses their mind that they may have A) been s***ing their pants or B) the first one to take a shot to the dome.

There is much truth here.

I own a few guns, though I don't carry, but even if I did my immediate response to an indirect threat would be to escape the threat, not confront it.

I think its all about confidence. Its all about risk/reward, just as in nature. A jackal will try and swipe some meat from a lion if he thinks hes going to get away with it, and the prinicpal is the exact same. Your the same as me Dogma, namely, honest about things and beyond all the white knighting people do on the internet. If I dont think Im going to get something out of it, then why do it?

So, in this case, if a guy was shooting in the cinema and I was carrying, im 99% likely to shoot the fether for two reasons, firstly little risk to myself, and secondly big reward. If he was targetting people randomly, I would casually whip my handgun out, centre it on him from a nice bit of cover and casually and calmly blow his face off, the risk (minimal to me in a crowd) is outweighed by the rewards HERO MATTY SAVES CINEMA, hello morning news, book deal, have to beat the chicks off with a gakky stick for a few weeks.

Now, if there was say.. 4 or 5 of them and they had rifles and machine guns..

I would trip the guy next to me as we fled, possibly nudge him towards the bad guys and nip out the fire exit.

Green Berets are thinking soldiers.

I don't understand this need for guns either, for hunting seems reasonable but the idea that it's okay to have multiple weapons with which you can go on a killing spree with doesn't seem particularly logical.

The other thing that I don't understand is the insistence that a law from the 1800s entitles people to possess weapons. Considering we were also trading slaves and hanging people in the 1800s it doesn't quite seem right that the second amendment shouldn't also be adjusted slightly.

I also agree with matty on the fact that there are too many guns now to remove them all. I think stricter gun laws are definitely a necessity though, like one firearm per household. I don't really understand why you'd need more than one weapon.

One for each hand!

Bill of Rights/2nd Amendment has evolve over time so the federal and state gov't has to work within the confine of the law.

Main points though of US citizen mentality from colonial to modern day
deterring tyrannical government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system

Also the unconfirmed...really unconfirmed...the ability to overthrow the US gov't if the people so choose to

Evilledz wrote:I don't understand this need for guns either, for hunting seems reasonable but the idea that it's okay to have multiple weapons with which you can go on a killing spree with doesn't seem particularly logical.

The other thing that I don't understand is the insistence that a law from the 1800s entitles people to possess weapons. Considering we were also trading slaves and hanging people in the 1800s it doesn't quite seem right that the second amendment shouldn't also be adjusted slightly.

I also agree with matty on the fact that there are too many guns now to remove them all. I think stricter gun laws are definitely a necessity though, like one firearm per household. I don't really understand why you'd need more than one weapon.

Why would someone need more then one car?

Why would someone need more then a couple pairs of shoes?

Why would someone need to make more then what their basic cost of living is?


The issue isn't the guns. Its the person behind the gun. This guy could just as easily have committed this act with a hatchet and a pipewrench. The difference in casualities would have been minimal, especially since it wouldn't have been as immediatly obvious what was going on whereas when a gun goes off you know exactly whats going on. Or let just say he did it with a couple of 9mms.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and its never going to be anything different.

Should we regulate knives too? I mean, more people get hurt by those things then they do by guns.

Grey Templar wrote:
The issue isn't the guns

I can assure you it is one of the issues

Grey Templar wrote: This guy could just as easily have committed this act with a hatchet and a pipewrench. The difference in casualities would have been minimal

I'm sorry what? I'd love the to meet the individual who can wound/kill 71 people with a hatchet and wrench combo...

Ok, maybe he couldn't have wounded that many people, but he could certaintly have killed as many as he did.

My point still stands. The law really only effects those who act within the law, those who operate outside the law will be uneffected.

Hmmm...More people packing guns wouldn't have helped in this situation. It was in a dark movie theatre and wasn't he wearing body armor?

Here's the situation...It's dark in the theatre, and someone starts shooting. You think...I'm going to be the hero and take him down so you pull your weapon and start firing at him (And missing badly because of the panic/light conditions/etc). Another person sees two people who are shooting trying to kill everyone so pulls out his weapon and tries to take down the two people. Add more to that.

Grey Templar wrote:Ok, maybe he couldn't have wounded that many people, but he could certaintly have killed as many as he did.

My point still stands. The law really only effects those who act within the law, those who operate outside the law will be uneffected.

Explosives could have been as deadly, sure, but not implements such as wrenches(or whatever), unless done in a serial killer -style fashion.

Grey Templar wrote:Ok, maybe he couldn't have wounded that many people, but he could certaintly have killed as many as he did.

My point still stands. The law really only effects those who act within the law, those who operate outside the law will be uneffected.

He operated within the law when he purchased the firearms... had the laws governing the purchase/ownership of firearms been different, he may not have been able to access firearms especially the ones that are designed to facilitate efficient levels of death. I don't think a .22 bolt action hunting rifle would lead to the same levels of wounded. Also, from all indications it was an ar-15 with 100 round drum mag and he was firing semi and it apparently jammed at some point due to the drum mag. He also had a shotgun and a glock.

I really don't think he would have been able to acquire firearms illegally, he already lived in a s**ty part of town and yet still went the legit route to purchase his guns. If he still intended to massacre people but was unable to procure firearms to facilitate that I can't see him making the jump to "I'll just hack a bunch of people up with an axe". There’s a greater disconnect between firearm and stabbing/bludgeoning. He also showed some form of regret because the second the police had him he was telling them that his car and apartment had been boobytrapped.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

skyth wrote:Hmmm...More people packing guns wouldn't have helped in this situation. It was in a dark movie theatre and wasn't he wearing body armor?

Here's the situation...It's dark in the theatre, and someone starts shooting. You think...I'm going to be the hero and take him down so you pull your weapon and start firing at him (And missing badly because of the panic/light conditions/etc). Another person sees two people who are shooting trying to kill everyone so pulls out his weapon and tries to take down the two people. Add more to that.

Not to mention the use of tear gas, he was wearing a gas mask afterall. And I would think 100 rounds of 5.56 in an inclosed space isn't exactly quiet either. You can also add that the way most theaters are designed, it's not easy to escape if buddy is standing near the exit and just firing up at anything that moves.

skyth wrote:Hmmm...More people packing guns wouldn't have helped in this situation. It was in a dark movie theatre and wasn't he wearing body armor?

Here's the situation...It's dark in the theatre, and someone starts shooting. You think...I'm going to be the hero and take him down so you pull your weapon and start firing at him (And missing badly because of the panic/light conditions/etc). Another person sees two people who are shooting trying to kill everyone so pulls out his weapon and tries to take down the two people. Add more to that.

Assertive speculation like that isn't valid, I would argue. The eventuality we can be certain about is the one that actually happened, which was one person(the killer) using a gun.

It's a tricky situation to be sure, though. If you would ask an individual if they'd rather be armed(and have typical training/experience of a firearm carrier) in this kind of situation, their response would probably be 'yes'. If you ask if they would be okay with *other* people being armed...it varies.

Individuals [may] want to be armed.
Individuals may not want others to be armed.
The killer certainly doesn't want others armed.

I would say with the vision issues there was plus the mass panic, anyone with a gun shooting back would be likely to hit an innocent bystander rather than the target.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:
Danzig street in Toronto...

Woah woah woah. There is a Danzig street in Canadia? How am I just now learning this?

Vaerros wrote:The killer certainly doesn't want others armed.

Judgeing by the reported use of body armor, he was counting on it

or dealing with law enforcement

Crablezworth wrote:

Vaerros wrote:The killer certainly doesn't want others armed.

Judgeing by the reported use of body armor, he was counting on it

o_O

Err, what? Sounds like he was anticipating it yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean he wanted to be shot.

EDIT: Unless your point was he was anticipating civilians carrying weapons, therefore the point about about armed civilians scaring criminals is invalid?

Jihadin wrote:or dealing with law enforcement

But he just surrendered to the police. The body armour was to ensure his survival of shooting people in a theatre, not a gunfight with the police.

His chances of surviving a gunfight in a dark, gas filled theatre with a blinded civilian with a handgun is pretty good with a Kevlar vest.
His chances of surviving a gunfight in an open street with a SWAT team packing fully automatic weaponry is slim to nil.

There's no point in being an infamous psychopath if you aren't alive to enjoy the infamy.

The source said the extensive body armor Holmes had on when he was arrested gives "no doubt he intended to do battle with law enforcement," and not people watching a movie, according to the source. But he was arrested unarmed while going back out to his car, possibly to retrieve another gun, the source said.

Weapon jammed, three other weapons unloaded in the theater and caught in the open by police with no loaded weapon.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Jihadin wrote:or dealing with law enforcement

But he just surrendered to the police. The body armour was to ensure his survival of shooting people in a theatre, not a gunfight with the police.

His chances of surviving a gunfight in a dark, gas filled theatre with a blinded civilian with a handgun is pretty good with a Kevlar vest.
His chances of surviving a gunfight in an open street with a SWAT team packing fully automatic weaponry is slim to nil.

There's no point in being an infamous psychopath if you aren't alive to enjoy the infamy.

This assumes that psychopaths care about infamy, which isn't often the case.

Aerethan wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Jihadin wrote:or dealing with law enforcement

But he just surrendered to the police. The body armour was to ensure his survival of shooting people in a theatre, not a gunfight with the police.

His chances of surviving a gunfight in a dark, gas filled theatre with a blinded civilian with a handgun is pretty good with a Kevlar vest.
His chances of surviving a gunfight in an open street with a SWAT team packing fully automatic weaponry is slim to nil.

There's no point in being an infamous psychopath if you aren't alive to enjoy the infamy.

This assumes that psychopaths care about infamy, which isn't often the case.

Spoiler:

Psychopaths are usually extremely egotistical, it is one of the defining characteristics of a Psychopath.
Here's a list of some of the characteristics tested for when determining whether one is a psychopath:


A Psychopath is extremely self centred and manipulative, often highly intelligent too or at least can pass themselves off as intelligent.

Someone who just wants to see the world burn is not necessarily a psychopath, they seem to fit more into the category of a sociopath, someone with no regard for any human values.

Vaerros wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:

Vaerros wrote:The killer certainly doesn't want others armed.

Judgeing by the reported use of body armor, he was counting on it

o_O

Err, what? Sounds like he was anticipating it yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean he wanted to be shot.

EDIT: Unless your point was he was anticipating civilians carrying weapons, therefore the point about about armed civilians scaring criminals is invalid?

Anticipating anyone being armed, civilian or police

Palindrome wrote:I have always been confused as to why Americans are so enamoured with guns and why so many seem to think that gun ownership is a basic right. I have been around firearms my whole life, they are even part of my job, but to me they are simply tools. I fail to see how anyone needs, or even wants, to own automatic weapons. I don't even own any firearms mysefl anymore as I simply have no use for them at the moment.

At the end of the day they are designed to kill and as such they need to be heavily regulated. If they aren't then you will see a lot of gun crime and shootings, its as simple as that.

Ah... in America, being able to own a gun IS a basic right. It's the second right specifically mentioned in our Bill of Rights. It's enshrined in the basic framework of our government.*

I'll grant you that when the Bill of Rights was written, you were looking at muzzleloading rifles as state of the art. Furthermore, a very large portion of the population lived on farms, in a land full of predators and potential game animals - not to mention pests like squirrels that had to be dealt with lest they harvest your crops before you do. It's literally worlds different from the weapons and needs of a modern society.

But that's the nice thing about America. We can revisit the Bill of Rights and change them if we, the people (and government) see the need.


*And the 2nd Amendment is not in the least bit ambiguous. Americans have the right to bear arms, full stop. It says nothing about militas or any other such nonsense that people have since claimed 'are what it really means.' The English of the Founding Fathers isn't THAT different from modern English...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blood guard26 wrote:I just think the laws should be reduced to pistols only not shotguns, assault rifles or anything like that.

In other words, you think hunting should be illegal? Or if not illegal, just so difficult as to be impractical?

Jihadin wrote: Threw that in there because isn't high capacity magazines are being "phased out" from civilian purchase?

No, there are no laws against high capacity mags and no effort to phase them out, at least not driven by any legislation. What you're talking about was part of the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004, and no actual effort has been made to reinstate it.

--


Also, several people (not you) have made arguments in this thread to the effect of "do you really need to be able to buy a fully automatic weapon" and such. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the US for civilian purchase since 1934. The only way to legally buy one is fairly complex, involves many onerous regulations and the strictest of oversight - legally owned automatic weapons have only killed 2 people since then, and one of the perpetrators was a cop. TLDR, if you bring up the spectre of fully automatic AK-47's, you're raising a really ignorant strawman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vulcan wrote:*And the 2nd Amendment is not in the least bit ambiguous. Americans have the right to bear arms, full stop. It says nothing about militas or any other such nonsense that people have since claimed 'are what it really means.' The English of the Founding Fathers isn't THAT different from modern English...

You are a liar. Anyone with 2 seconds and google knows what it really says, but for anyone reading this whom lacks either of thise, here's what it says:

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.

Ouze wrote:

Jihadin wrote: Threw that in there because isn't high capacity magazines are being "phased out" from civilian purchase?

No, there are no laws against high capacity mags and no effort to phase them out, at least not driven by any legislation. What you're talking about was part of the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004, and no actual effort has been made to reinstate it.

--


Also, several people (not you) have made arguments in this thread to the effect of "do you really need to be able to buy a fully automatic weapon" and such. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the US for civilian purchase since 1934. The only way to legally buy one is fairly complex, involves many onerous regulations and the strictest of oversight - legally owned automatic weapons have only killed 2 people since then, and one of the perpetrators was a cop. TLDR, if you bring up the spectre of fully automatic AK-47's, you're raising a really ignorant strawman.

While currently legal, why does a civie need to have a 100 round drum mag? WTF is he "hunting" that requires it?

Crablezworth wrote: The thought never crosses their mind that they may have A) been s***ing their pants or B) the first one to take a shot to the dome.

I'd like to paraphrase the President's story about two young adults presence of mind during the shootings, names Abby and Stephanie If I recall correctly.

They were sitting up close to the screen so that they saw the gas canister as the gunman threw it. Abby immediately stood up, maybe to warn people, maybe to throw the gas canister out the door. The gunman shot her in the neck and hit a vein. Abby started spurting blood.

Stephanie had the presence of mind to fall forward with Abby, pull her out of the aisle and cover her wound with her fingers and apply pressure to it. She used her free hand to call 911. She did this immediately while the gunman was shooting people. Three men had the presence of mind to protect those they were with and cared about, taking a bullet for them.

I don't think it's so unreasonable for one of those men to have had the presence of mind to shoot the guy in the front of the theatre shooting people as they stood up. It's certainly not a given I'll grant that but you shouldn't discount the possibility as some sort of armchair badass guy who's ignoring reality's opinion.