They didn't take guns into the theater because its a societal norm. Its the same reason you don't take guns into Chuckie-Cheeses. As much as you can bet that guns would have helped, I can bet that people who went to the theater did not think about taking a gun with them... because it is the societal norm.
Says you. I carry my gun most everywhere I go. Just like most other people I know that carry a weapon with them most everywhere they go. That is kind of the point.
You can claim that, because it fits your views of society. But that does not change the fact that the Century 16 theater in Aurora, CO was a "gun-free zone" (except for the killer, it seems) by company policy. And I, as a law abiding CCW permit holder, also do not carry in any areas that are designated as "gun-free" zones - such as banks (which, oddly enough, being "gun-free" zones doesn't stop armed robberies...)
Right, right, but I'm saying that no one even considered taking a gun with them to the theater. It doesn't matter what the policy of the theater is. People wouldn't have even thought to take their gun with them.
So, the "gun-free" zone rule doesn't matter. It would have only have mattered if people wanted to take a gun in but were denied. Because no innocent citizen thought about taking their gun into the theater it does not matter where the shooting took place.
Right, right, but I'm saying that no one even considered taking a gun with them to the theater. It doesn't matter what the policy of the theater is. People wouldn't have even thought to take their gun with them.
So, the "gun-free" zone rule doesn't matter. It would have only have mattered if people wanted to take a gun in but were denied. Because no innocent citizen thought about taking their gun into the theater it does not matter where the shooting took place.
Not true at all. I carry a weapon most all the time and I can rattle off right now the places in my neighborhood that don't allow weapons. It comes with the territory of carrying a weapon. It's called being responsible.
You are really making stuff up.
*edit* Whenever I personally go to one of those said "zones" my gun is locked away in my car. I'd be curious to know how many of those CCW had their weapons in their car.
Not true at all. I carry a weapon most all the time and I can rattle off right now the places in my neighborhood that don't allow weapons. It comes with the territory of carrying a weapon. It's called being responsible.
You are really making stuff up.
*edit* Whenever I personally go to one of those said "zones" my gun is locked away in my car. I'd be curious to know how many of those CCW had their weapons in their car.
Thats just a personal anecdote...
All that I'm doing is speculating on the psychology behind the people who went to the theater.
At least I have personal anecdote to rely on. You have pure speculation.
I went to the Batman premier. I was with my friends. I did not ever think to take a gun with me to the theater.
Personal anecdote.
Not speculation.
Now, because I did not think of taking a gun to a movie theater, I am speculating that the people who went to the batman premier in Colorado also did not think about taking a gun with them.
They were thinking about hanging out with friends or the batman movie premier. Having a firearm was never considered.
I'm talking about the 4 (I believe) people that were CCW holders.
As far as gun control goes, I'm actually okay with what we have in place now. The only thing I would like to maybe see put in place is some sort of mandatory safety training. We have to pass a test to drive a car I don't see why we shouldn't have to pass a safety course to own a weapon.
Quote from Catmurderer »
All that I'm doing is speculating
Yes its obvious. And you even admit it.
And actually I'm not really in the camp that having a gun would help in the Colorado shooting. Psycho was prepared. But it definitely wouldn't have hurt.
Ok, I'm a bit confused here. Is it really that crazy to think that people did not even consider to bring a gun with them to a movie theater?
No. I would never think that I'm going to be shot at the theater.
But thats very situational from one individual to the next. My city has had one murder in the last 10 years so the odds of it happening are slim to none.
Note
The "slim" part of slim to none covers those who might say "BUT IT COULD".
Though, if someone were to be shot at my theater, it might be me because I TXT during the movie and annoy people behind me with the blue screen lighting up every 20-30 minutes.
Ok, I'm a bit confused here. Is it really that crazy to think that people did not even consider to bring a gun with them to a movie theater?
No, it's not really that crazy because registered CCW permit holders are the least likely person to ever shoot someone.
That is statistical - the amount of people shot and killed by registered CCW permit holders not in a self-defense/justifiable homicide situation is below 500...since May 2007. In the past 62 months, 463 people have been killed by registered CCW permit holders in 343 incidents in 32 states. That is 7.468 people killed by lawful CCW permit holders in non-self defense situations per month.
442 homicides in 2007, 510 homicides in 2008, 458 homicides in 2009, 449 homicides in 2010, 440 homicides in 2011, and 250 homicides so far in 2012 as of one month ago. So for a similar time frame, that is 2,549 homicides in the same time frame...from just one city (that happens to have very strict gun control).
So just one city in one state has a much higher homicide rate than all the CCW permit holders in 32 states.
As of this article from one year ago, there are an estimated 6,000,000 CCW permits in circulation. Out of the 6,000,000, only 343 CCW permit holders have committed non-justifiable homicide (as per the VPC link). That means 0.00005716% of CCW permit holders have committed homicide. Or for every CCW permit holder that has committed homicide, 17,492.711 have not.
Clearly, law abiding CCW permit holders like myself and Org are not who you have to be worried about. But law abiding CCW permit holders like myself and Org are who get demonized by the left wing every time someone is shot.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Why are people assuming that if the other movie goers were armed it would have stopped or even lessened the tragedy?
From what I read, this happened in the middle of the movie when the theater was dark. The gunman used a smoke grenade and was wearing body armor. The fire alarm went off shortly after the firing started. Apparently some people thought that there was another gunman in the lobby which only added to the panic.
I would think that in such an environment, you would have to very skilled and lucky to be able to even hit the gunman. Most likely they would have missed or even hit an innocent person. Also in the confusion any of the armed people would have looked like another gunman and they would have probably shot at each other next.
This does not even account for the people who would have panicked, pulled out their guns and then started firing at anyone near them.
Why are people assuming that if the other movie goers were armed it would have stopped or even lessened the tragedy?
I haven't seen anyone assume that. We are just pointing out that the theater was designated as a "gun-free" zone by the owners. It COULD have ended the situation sooner and with less causalities, or it COULD have made it worse. But other "massacres" could have been easily mitigated by allowing license people to carry their sidearms - such as Virginia Tech or Columbine. To prove this point, one "massacre" was mitigated because the school (Appalachian School of Law) did permit licensed students and faculty to carry - two armed students subdued the gun man and held him until police arrived after only three casualties. Compare 3 casualties at the Appalachian School of Law to the 32 at Virginia Tech (including the gunman) and 15 at Columbine (including the two gunmen).
This does not even account for the people who would have panicked, pulled out their guns and then started firing at anyone near them.
You'd be surprised how hard it is to shoot another person, even if you're trained to do it (like the Navy PO3 and the Air Force SSgt in the audience would have been trained to do as members of the military). People, especially licensed CCW permit holders, most likely would have not done that. But it pure speculation on both our parts - you are speculating a worst-case-scenario and I am speculating a best-case-scenario.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
This does not even account for the people who would have panicked, pulled out their guns and then started firing at anyone near them.
I agree with the rest of your post till this. This is where education come into play. I am not saying people wouldnt panic, but most educated gun owners know not to just start shooting into crowds...unless they are crazy gun men.
No, it's not really that crazy because registered CCW permit holders are the least likely person to ever shoot someone.
That is statistical - the amount of people shot and killed by registered CCW permit holders not in a self-defense/justifiable homicide situation is below 500...since May 2007. In the past 62 months, 463 people have been killed by registered CCW permit holders in 343 incidents in 32 states. That is 7.468 people killed by lawful CCW permit holders in non-self defense situations per month.
442 homicides in 2007, 510 homicides in 2008, 458 homicides in 2009, 449 homicides in 2010, 440 homicides in 2011, and 250 homicides so far in 2012 as of one month ago. So for a similar time frame, that is 2,549 homicides in the same time frame...from just one city (that happens to have very strict gun control).
So just one city in one state has a much higher homicide rate than all the CCW permit holders in 32 states.
Not even a majority of which were gun crimes. Irrelevant data.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Not even a majority of which were gun crimes. Irrelevant data.
Of course you dismiss it as irrelevant - it erodes your position on gun control to show that licensed CCW permit holders commit a statistically insignificant amount of homicides in comparison to the amount of homicides committed in a city with some of the strictest gun control laws on the books in a state with the strictest gun control laws on the books.
If you would have read the Wikipedia entry, you would have seen that in 2005 75% of homicides were committed with a gun. Using that as a base line, we can estimate that 1,911.75 of the homicides in the 62 month window I provided were committed with a gun. Compare the 1,911.75 to the 463 CCW permit holders who were charged with homicide and you will see that Chicago alone as an estimated 4.129:1 the rate of gun related homicides than all the CCW permit holders combined in 32 states.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Of course you dismiss it as irrelevant - it erodes your position on gun control to show that licensed CCW permit holders commit a statistically insignificant amount of homicides in comparison to the amount of homicides committed in a city with some of the strictest gun control laws on the books in a state with the strictest gun control laws on the books.
If you would have read the Wikipedia entry, you would have seen that in 2005 75% of homicides were committed with a gun. Using that as a base line, we can estimate that 1,911.75 of the homicides in the 62 month window I provided were committed with a gun. Compare the 1,911.75 to the 463 CCW permit holders who were charged with homicide and you will see that Chicago alone as an estimated 4.129:1 the rate of gun related homicides than all the CCW permit holders combined in 32 states.
My position has never been that CCW carriers are more likely to kill people. Never has been.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
My position has never been that CCW carriers are more likely to kill people. Never has been.
But the laws you support passing will impact lawful CCW carriers like me significantly more than it will impact criminals and mass murderers.
There were 55,643 homicides in the United States from 2007 until 2010 (last year the FBI has completed data for). 37,491 on them were homicides using firearms - or 67.37%. 463 non-justifiable homicides (convictions and charged awaiting trial) were committed by lawful CCW permit holders. That is a mere 1.235% of homicides (actual number will be smaller, I am using roughly 5 1/2 years of data from www.vpc.org in comparison to only 4 years of data from www.fbi.gov) that were committed by the group of people who are most impacted by newer stricter gun control laws.
Is it fair to punish all lawful CCW permit holders for the crimes committed by 0.00005716% of lawful CCW permit holders and all other gun-using criminals?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Is it fair to punish all lawful CCW permit holders for the crimes committed by 0.00005716% of lawful CCW permit holders and all other gun-using criminals?
Sir, people are ignorant. That isn't to claim people are "stupid" which has a very different meaning.
On this topic, I've actually grown very tired of trying to educate people. It's like trying to educate a religious person; you just cannot do it. No matter the evidence or correlation, you will never overcome "yeah but I feel this way."
Guns have been demonized throughout the last 100 years in the US and I don't see that changing. There aren't national headlines when a woman uses a firearm against her rapist and there isn't a national headline for the elderly man who defends he and his wife vs three intruders. It just doesn't happen.
I've actually come more and more to appreciate and loath the distinct connected between the US society and Rome. After re-watching the HBO show with my wife, I've recently become reminded just how simple the "mob" still remains.
This is how you fight against mass murderers like these nutjobs. Not with new laws or stricter regulations, but by being a society and recognizing these threats and neutralizing them before they kill.
Our society is one of "I don't want to get involved" and that leads to massacres like this more than "lax gun laws". How many times have we seen or witnessed things that aren't quite right, but don't get involved because its "none of our business"?
I know I have. Moreso now than before since I have my own children and I think of all the crazy outcomes that could arise from me getting involved. And harm to my children is one that I cannot allow. Does that make it right? No. Sometimes it makes me feel like a coward in a sense.
This strikes me as wrong. Perhaps there's more to it, but it sounds like they got a tip, searched his home, found nothing illegal, but are now forcing him to undergo psychiatric evaluation?:-/
This strikes me as wrong. Perhaps there's more to it, but it sounds like they got a tip, searched his home, found nothing illegal, but are now forcing him to undergo psychiatric evaluation?:-/
Don't have time now to double check but I'm pretty sure he was threatening people's lives.
Says you. I carry my gun most everywhere I go. Just like most other people I know that carry a weapon with them most everywhere they go. That is kind of the point.
GWBKarador, Necrotic Ooze SubthemeBWG
Right, right, but I'm saying that no one even considered taking a gun with them to the theater. It doesn't matter what the policy of the theater is. People wouldn't have even thought to take their gun with them.
So, the "gun-free" zone rule doesn't matter. It would have only have mattered if people wanted to take a gun in but were denied. Because no innocent citizen thought about taking their gun into the theater it does not matter where the shooting took place.
Not true at all. I carry a weapon most all the time and I can rattle off right now the places in my neighborhood that don't allow weapons. It comes with the territory of carrying a weapon. It's called being responsible.
You are really making stuff up.
*edit* Whenever I personally go to one of those said "zones" my gun is locked away in my car. I'd be curious to know how many of those CCW had their weapons in their car.
GWBKarador, Necrotic Ooze SubthemeBWG
Thats just a personal anecdote...
All that I'm doing is speculating on the psychology behind the people who went to the theater.
At least I have personal anecdote to rely on. You have pure speculation.
GWBKarador, Necrotic Ooze SubthemeBWG
I went to the Batman premier. I was with my friends. I did not ever think to take a gun with me to the theater.
Personal anecdote.
Not speculation.
Now, because I did not think of taking a gun to a movie theater, I am speculating that the people who went to the batman premier in Colorado also did not think about taking a gun with them.
They were thinking about hanging out with friends or the batman movie premier. Having a firearm was never considered.
Now please explain how this isn't conjecture.
Yes, that's correct, but you seem to be assuming that your speculations are more than just that, when you have absolutely no basis for doing so.
As far as gun control goes, I'm actually okay with what we have in place now. The only thing I would like to maybe see put in place is some sort of mandatory safety training. We have to pass a test to drive a car I don't see why we shouldn't have to pass a safety course to own a weapon.
Yes its obvious. And you even admit it.
And actually I'm not really in the camp that having a gun would help in the Colorado shooting. Psycho was prepared. But it definitely wouldn't have hurt.
GWBKarador, Necrotic Ooze SubthemeBWG
No. I would never think that I'm going to be shot at the theater.
But thats very situational from one individual to the next. My city has had one murder in the last 10 years so the odds of it happening are slim to none.
Note
The "slim" part of slim to none covers those who might say "BUT IT COULD".
Though, if someone were to be shot at my theater, it might be me because I TXT during the movie and annoy people behind me with the blue screen lighting up every 20-30 minutes.
My Buying Thread
No, it's not really that crazy because registered CCW permit holders are the least likely person to ever shoot someone.
That is statistical - the amount of people shot and killed by registered CCW permit holders not in a self-defense/justifiable homicide situation is below 500...since May 2007. In the past 62 months, 463 people have been killed by registered CCW permit holders in 343 incidents in 32 states. That is 7.468 people killed by lawful CCW permit holders in non-self defense situations per month.
http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
Now let's compare that with the murder rate of just one city (Chicago) from a similar time frame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/#chicago-reaches-250-homicides-for-2012
442 homicides in 2007, 510 homicides in 2008, 458 homicides in 2009, 449 homicides in 2010, 440 homicides in 2011, and 250 homicides so far in 2012 as of one month ago. So for a similar time frame, that is 2,549 homicides in the same time frame...from just one city (that happens to have very strict gun control).
So just one city in one state has a much higher homicide rate than all the CCW permit holders in 32 states.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/#.UBL2DqPz3Rw
As of this article from one year ago, there are an estimated 6,000,000 CCW permits in circulation. Out of the 6,000,000, only 343 CCW permit holders have committed non-justifiable homicide (as per the VPC link). That means 0.00005716% of CCW permit holders have committed homicide. Or for every CCW permit holder that has committed homicide, 17,492.711 have not.
Clearly, law abiding CCW permit holders like myself and Org are not who you have to be worried about. But law abiding CCW permit holders like myself and Org are who get demonized by the left wing every time someone is shot.
From what I read, this happened in the middle of the movie when the theater was dark. The gunman used a smoke grenade and was wearing body armor. The fire alarm went off shortly after the firing started. Apparently some people thought that there was another gunman in the lobby which only added to the panic.
I would think that in such an environment, you would have to very skilled and lucky to be able to even hit the gunman. Most likely they would have missed or even hit an innocent person. Also in the confusion any of the armed people would have looked like another gunman and they would have probably shot at each other next.
This does not even account for the people who would have panicked, pulled out their guns and then started firing at anyone near them.
Ban guns today, Cast spells tomorrow!
Spam warning.
I haven't seen anyone assume that. We are just pointing out that the theater was designated as a "gun-free" zone by the owners. It COULD have ended the situation sooner and with less causalities, or it COULD have made it worse. But other "massacres" could have been easily mitigated by allowing license people to carry their sidearms - such as Virginia Tech or Columbine. To prove this point, one "massacre" was mitigated because the school (Appalachian School of Law) did permit licensed students and faculty to carry - two armed students subdued the gun man and held him until police arrived after only three casualties. Compare 3 casualties at the Appalachian School of Law to the 32 at Virginia Tech (including the gunman) and 15 at Columbine (including the two gunmen).
You'd be surprised how hard it is to shoot another person, even if you're trained to do it (like the Navy PO3 and the Air Force SSgt in the audience would have been trained to do as members of the military). People, especially licensed CCW permit holders, most likely would have not done that. But it pure speculation on both our parts - you are speculating a worst-case-scenario and I am speculating a best-case-scenario.
I agree with the rest of your post till this. This is where education come into play. I am not saying people wouldnt panic, but most educated gun owners know not to just start shooting into crowds...unless they are crazy gun men.
Not even a majority of which were gun crimes. Irrelevant data.
Of course you dismiss it as irrelevant - it erodes your position on gun control to show that licensed CCW permit holders commit a statistically insignificant amount of homicides in comparison to the amount of homicides committed in a city with some of the strictest gun control laws on the books in a state with the strictest gun control laws on the books.
If you would have read the Wikipedia entry, you would have seen that in 2005 75% of homicides were committed with a gun. Using that as a base line, we can estimate that 1,911.75 of the homicides in the 62 month window I provided were committed with a gun. Compare the 1,911.75 to the 463 CCW permit holders who were charged with homicide and you will see that Chicago alone as an estimated 4.129:1 the rate of gun related homicides than all the CCW permit holders combined in 32 states.
My position has never been that CCW carriers are more likely to kill people. Never has been.
But the laws you support passing will impact lawful CCW carriers like me significantly more than it will impact criminals and mass murderers.
There were 55,643 homicides in the United States from 2007 until 2010 (last year the FBI has completed data for). 37,491 on them were homicides using firearms - or 67.37%. 463 non-justifiable homicides (convictions and charged awaiting trial) were committed by lawful CCW permit holders. That is a mere 1.235% of homicides (actual number will be smaller, I am using roughly 5 1/2 years of data from www.vpc.org in comparison to only 4 years of data from www.fbi.gov) that were committed by the group of people who are most impacted by newer stricter gun control laws.
Is it fair to punish all lawful CCW permit holders for the crimes committed by 0.00005716% of lawful CCW permit holders and all other gun-using criminals?
Sir, people are ignorant. That isn't to claim people are "stupid" which has a very different meaning.
On this topic, I've actually grown very tired of trying to educate people. It's like trying to educate a religious person; you just cannot do it. No matter the evidence or correlation, you will never overcome "yeah but I feel this way."
Guns have been demonized throughout the last 100 years in the US and I don't see that changing. There aren't national headlines when a woman uses a firearm against her rapist and there isn't a national headline for the elderly man who defends he and his wife vs three intruders. It just doesn't happen.
I've actually come more and more to appreciate and loath the distinct connected between the US society and Rome. After re-watching the HBO show with my wife, I've recently become reminded just how simple the "mob" still remains.
This is how you fight against mass murderers like these nutjobs. Not with new laws or stricter regulations, but by being a society and recognizing these threats and neutralizing them before they kill.
Our society is one of "I don't want to get involved" and that leads to massacres like this more than "lax gun laws". How many times have we seen or witnessed things that aren't quite right, but don't get involved because its "none of our business"?
I know I have. Moreso now than before since I have my own children and I think of all the crazy outcomes that could arise from me getting involved. And harm to my children is one that I cannot allow. Does that make it right? No. Sometimes it makes me feel like a coward in a sense.
GWBKarador, Necrotic Ooze SubthemeBWG
I see no reason why not. Do you have a reason why they shouldn't?
GWBKarador, Necrotic Ooze SubthemeBWG
This strikes me as wrong. Perhaps there's more to it, but it sounds like they got a tip, searched his home, found nothing illegal, but are now forcing him to undergo psychiatric evaluation?:-/
Don't have time now to double check but I'm pretty sure he was threatening people's lives.
GWBKarador, Necrotic Ooze SubthemeBWG