TDK shooting in Aurora

[Colly Wolly]

Not one person in that sold out theater shot back... not one.

If that ever happens in a theater I'm in... he better get me with the first shot...

Because I will shoot back and I'll line up the head shot.

No. Don't do that. You'll just end up hitting someone else and making matters worse. Just lie down and die.

[Uncle Ted]

I'm not advocating for an all out gun ban, just a few more restrictions. I'm just sick of people saying I should feel safer when more people are carrying weapons. If they were all like Uncle Ted and Colly Wolly I would feel safer, but there are too many people like this carrying guns out there.

I am all for guns carriers to be licensed. IMO they need to have extensive background checks, take gun law and safety classes, written test to demonstrate that they understand what they have learned and, most importantly, they need to demonstrate they can shoot and safely handle a gun. A CHL is a good way for the police to know who are the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are. A criminal or a gang banger is not going to be caught in a CHL class and most likely wouldn't pass the (FBI and State) background check (at least in Texas).

[Uncle Ted]

Japan - 45 incidents of gun violence in 2011. 35 in 2010.

Japan is very much a police state. For example, from what I understand, the police in Japan can pretty much search anything they want and if you are arrested they can have you detained without bail for up to 28 days (or even more by drumming up a variety of pretexts). The only person that is allowed to visit you during this time is your defense lawyer. It is such a police state they have a confession rate of 95%.

Gun ownership in Japan is very low for good reason. If a japanese citizen does go through the long process of getting a gun he must keep it in a locker, draw a map to it for inside their home, and give this and a key to the police. The police will come and visit the citizen's homes and collect information on everyone that lives there. If they have a gun they will inspect to make sure it is properly stored and make sure everyone is emotionally stable. The will do this twice a year.

[Clark Addison]

Can anyone advocating for stricter gun laws please tell me how tighter laws will protect us from seemingly-law-abiding citizens planning massacre style shootings? I'm pro-gun rights, within reason. I have no problem with the government scrutinizing weapons purchases, but I'm opposed to window dressing laws made as a knee-jerk reaction that don't really provide a measure of safety.

In other words, what reasonable proposals are out there that will actually keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them?

I guess it depends on what you consider reasonable. There are obviously ways to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys, as several countries have done it; however, all the examples of which I am aware keep guns out of the hands of good guys as well. I would tend to agree that laws that fit under the current definition of the second amendment would likely have little impact. I think any meaningful and effective legislation would have to change or do away with the second amendment (this change could just be how the courts define it). I am not a big gun guy, so I am open to thinking about these types of solutions, though I am not convinced they are the way to go. I also don't think that the political climate is close to where it would need to be to make a constitutional change.

[Moliere]

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc/48271313

Here's a clip of the niece of a friend being interviewed. She was in the theater adjacent to the one that got shot up. Looks like she got hit by a stray bullet. Crazy!

[cowboy]

I'm interested in arguments coming from both sides of the gun debate as they comment on this horrific event. Predictably, the gun control types insist stricter laws would have prevented this (see, e.g., HuffPo). Equally predictable, others say that if one or more in the audience had been carrying, they could have taken the guy out long before 72 had been killed or injured.

I'm unconvinced stricter laws would have prevented this guy from getting weapons. On the other hand, the guy was wearing all sorts of protective gear and with the smoke and tear gas billowing in the theater, I wonder if more guns would have added to, not reduced, the carnage.

I agree with most of this and, while I haven't read the rest of this thread, I suspect it's equally predictable to the discussion on a national level. Gun advocates say there should have been a gun owner shooting back, and others pointing to this as reasons to make gun ownership more restrictive. In the end, we all talk past each other, and nobody is convinced to change their minds because this isn't an argument that anybody can win.

With that said, if I were there I would have rather had someone shooting back than not. As it was, everybody was a sitting duck, just waiting for the shooter to either shoot them or run out of ammo. With someone shooting back, the shooter is forced to shift his attention to defense, and everybody else can get out of the direct line of fire.

Regarding the difficulty of taking out the shooter, body armor may have saved his life, but a round from even a 9mm delivered into a Kevlar vest feels like a kick from a mule. Unless he had some sort of military/swat training to know what to expect and how to react, getting shot would have knocked him back, if not down, and allowed a defender to advance on him for a head shot.

Again, not trying to convince anyone, just stating the reason for my preferences. I only carry a gun on a horse (we have a bear problem) and in my pickup, and I don't have a concealed carry permit, but I'd sure want to be with someone who does if I was ever in an Aurora situation.

[Ma'ake]

Serious question intended to break the logjam of dysfunctional discussion on the gun issue:

Is there any potential for 2nd Amendment advocates to support restricting magazine capacities? In order for conceal carry "defenders" in this situation to have a chance to fire back, there needs to be a pause in the shooting, gives the defenders time to make sure who they're aiming at, assess the need for a precise shot because body armor, etc.

Some of these psychotic shooters probably don't have the social skills to find black market high capacity magazines, but smart crazies can go to a store and buy at will. Holmes seems to fit this profile.

[Devildog]

I agree with most of this and, while I haven't read the rest of this thread, I suspect it's equally predictable to the discussion on a national level. Gun advocates say there should have been a gun owner shooting back, and others pointing to this as reasons to make gun ownership more restrictive. In the end, we all talk past each other, and nobody is convinced to change their minds because this isn't an argument that anybody can win.

With that said, if I were there I would have rather had someone shooting back than not. As it was, everybody was a sitting duck, just waiting for the shooter to either shoot them or run out of ammo. With someone shooting back, the shooter is forced to shift his attention to defense, and everybody else can get out of the direct line of fire.

Regarding the difficulty of taking out the shooter, body armor may have saved his life, but a round from even a 9mm delivered into a Kevlar vest feels like a kick from a mule. Unless he had some sort of military/swat training to know what to expect and how to react, getting shot would have knocked him back, if not down, and allowed a defender to advance on him for a head shot.

Again, not trying to convince anyone, just stating the reason for my preferences. I only carry a gun on a horse (we have a bear problem) and in my pickup, and I don't have a concealed carry permit, but I'd sure want to be with someone who does if I was ever in an Aurora situation.

From my perspective this post is very well reasoned.

I take my responsibility as someone who carries a firearm seriously. It is my right to defend myself, and my family.

Our freedoms allow us the rights to protect ourselves.

[Ma'ake]

From my perspective this post is very well reasoned.

I take my responsibility as someone who carries a firearm seriously. It is my right to defend myself, and my family.

Our freedoms allow us the rights to protect ourselves.

This isn't intended as a precursor to calling for gun control, just an honest question, exploring scenarios: in a shootout situation where guys are trying to protect themselves and their loved ones, what about unintended casualties?

Presumably if there were multiple "defenders" in the theatre who may end up shooting at each other in the confusion and darkness, what legal ramifications are there if bystanders are injured/killed by the "defenders", ie friendly fire?

Thinking from a 2nd Amendment perspective, it seems like the NRA may want to push for a national (or state-by-state, ala ALEC) movement to exempt "white hats" from prosecution in this type of scenario.

It gets a little trickier if a whitehat tries to stop a crime in progress, let's say what appears to be a rape or maybe even a potential murder in progress, at the very least a heated argument. At what point can the white hat prevent the commission of a crime? "I thought I saw a pistol in what appeared to be the assailants hands."

Some of these "stand your ground" questions are being addressed in the Zimmerman case; it will be interesting to see what the consensus becomes.

[Devildog]

This isn't intended as a precursor to calling for gun control, just an honest question, exploring scenarios: in a shootout situation where guys are trying to protect themselves and their loved ones, what about unintended casualties?

Presumably if there were multiple "defenders" in the theatre who may end up shooting at each other in the confusion and darkness, what legal ramifications are there if bystanders are injured/killed by the "defenders", ie friendly fire?

Thinking from a 2nd Amendment perspective, it seems like the NRA may want to push for a national (or state-by-state, ala ALEC) movement to exempt "white hats" from prosecution in this type of scenario.

It gets a little trickier if a whitehat tries to stop a crime in progress, let's say what appears to be a rape or maybe even a potential murder in progress, at the very least a heated argument. At what point can the white hat prevent the commission of a crime? "I thought I saw a pistol in what appeared to be the assailants hands."

Some of these "stand your ground" questions are being addressed in the Zimmerman case; it will be interesting to see what the consensus becomes.

This issue is complicated, but it's not new. Blue on blue engagements have occurred between police officers, and the military is always working to prevent their own force elements from engaging each other through mistaken identification.

Fog of war. The only answers are clear thinking and good judgement.

[SeattleUte]

Is there anything more dangerous than super smart men with mental illness? I've not seen anything in the news about Holmes' past that suggests he was a mass murderer risk.

[Colly Wolly]

Is there anything more dangerous than super smart men with mental illness? I've not seen anything in the news about Holmes' past that suggests he was a mass murderer risk.

Heard second hand that he was denied entrance to a local private gun club because of bizarre behavior. Haven't verified it though.

[Ma'ake]

It looks as though Holmes' AR-15 jammed, so even though he had a magazine of 100 rounds, he only go through 50 or 60. (I'm guessing the barrel may have over heated.)

Supposedly the AK-47 is a more resilient weapon, from the standpoint of jamming. If he had one of those, then could switch to a few handgun rounds while he loaded another 100 round magazine, he might have been able to wipe out a lot more people, considering the body armor, etc.

People in the theatre said they really didn't have a chance to even escape because they were suppressed by continuous gunfire, there was no break in the firing.

Maybe gun advocates need to reconsider the potency of conceal carry in this kind of scenario. It sounds like you'd need to be more equally equipped.

I wonder if an Arizona style open-carry approach would be more effective, especially if you could display a couple of hundred rounds, as a deterrent.

[Devildog]

It looks as though Holmes' AR-15 jammed, so even though he had a magazine of 100 rounds, he only go through 50 or 60. (I'm guessing the barrel may have over heated.)

Supposedly the AK-47 is a more resilient weapon, from the standpoint of jamming. If he had one of those, then could switch to a few handgun rounds while he loaded another 100 round magazine, he might have been able to wipe out a lot more people, considering the body armor, etc.

People in the theater said they really didn't have a chance to even escape because they were suppressed by continuous gunfire, there was no break in the firing.

Maybe gun advocates need to reconsider the potency of conceal carry in this kind of scenario. It sounds like you'd need to be more equally equipped.

I wonder if an Arizona style open-carry approach would be more effective, especially if you could display a couple of hundred rounds, as a deterrent.

Ma'ake I appreciate your contributions here and your open mind.

With that said however, your perspective is obviously not very informed about this topic.

First, AR-15's jam... they just do (tighter tolerances for accuracy), adept professionals are very quick at diagnosing and rectifying the problem and getting the weapon back in battery - practicing immediate action drills until they become automatic responses to stoppages. Even during intense action. This idiot was an unskilled amateur assclown with fantasy delusions.

AK's are more reliable, but less accurate... at these distances though that wouldn't make much of a difference. The AK high capacity drum magazines also have feeding issues themselves and are also prone to jamming.

Of course the people in the theater didn't have a chance to escape... their only options were to run away or hide... and the shooter had planned for that. This guy thought he was the Joker... seems the Joker always survives... he wasn't prepared to be shot in the head. Movies and fantasy's don't end like that.

Anybody in a gunfight would prefer to be the one with the most firepower... but even the cheapest made Czechoslovakian 9mm piece of shit... will kill if you know how to aim it properly and keep it serviced correctly.

The time difference to draw and fire from concealed carry, and from open carry is minimal. The deterrent factor is unimportant, no loud noises or bright flashes ever ends a gunfight with a determined adversary... well aimed bullets do.

These issues are all incidental and aside to the main gun control argument.

[LA Ute]

[YOUTUBE]G6T_Qw8wDV8#![/YOUTUBE]