How do you figure, Paul?

AMC 'banning' costume attire is nothing but ludicrous feel good pacification for the sheep. Equally erroneous, are comments about banning movies, it's gutless irreverence.

The horrific event that unfolded in that movie theater is yet again another example of how mentally unequipped our nation has become about evil. Time and time again we fall short of learning,,,, sadly forsaking character has become America's full time love affair.

Sarcasm. Matt. I'm criticizing all the knee-jerk reaction going on. For instance, we need tougher gun control laws. Okay, I guess the guys who don't obey the laws that forbid murder will be stopped by gun control laws. And while we're on the topic, Hollyweird seems to revel in making these kinds of movies but seems so surprised when people imitate them. Finally, did you see the YouTube video of the guy in the Internet Cafe who had a concealed carry permit and chased two armed robbers out of the store? These two guys were falling all over themselves to get out of the door and out of his line of fire. Priceless.

That's the same reason you can't ban guns.

There have been millions of acts of violence in movie theaters all over America...on the screens compliments of Hollyweird. You know, the same crowd that says do what I say not what I do. We have disarmed the citizenry and effeminated society until everyone is afraid to do anything even to protect one's self or one's loved ones. It's a myth to suggest that law enforcement will protect anyone and this latest incident proves that. Let us therefore dispense with the idea that police will do anything but clean up afterwards and realize that we are each responsible for our own safety.

The establishment did not let him in with the weapons.

All the news stations have reported via eye witness accounts that the shooter bought a ticket, watched the previews, then left the theater by propping open the back door. He reemerged from outside via the same door (next to the movie screen) and was seen as a silhouette upon reentry and started to shoot.

Thanks for the info. I somehow missed this detail.

We live in an era with tougher gun laws now more than ever,,,,and they are proving to be a failure. Reason #1, criminals don't care about laws. One day we will all understand this, or die from not knowing it.

Mankind cannot legislate bliss.

Assault weapons have got a lot of bad press lately, but they are manufactured for a reason: to take out today's modern super animals. Such as the Flying Squirrel or the Electric Eel.

Ric,

Please define an "assault weapon".

Gary, you are so wrong - they are easier to purchase now because Dubya lifted the ban on assault weapons that were initiated by Clinton. That is why the cinema mass murderer was able to purchase the guns he used on those innocents watching Batman. So that destroys your reason number 1 as well as "one day we will understand this.”
I will end by saying one day you, Gary B, will understand it is now easier to buy guns.

Franklin's actual quote was, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The question then becomes, what is essential liberty? Are semi-automatic rifles an essential part of the 2nd Amendment? Would enacting stricter controls benefit more in the long term? It's something worth discussing.

Actually Bryan, the Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v. Heller that weapons "in common use" are most definitely constitutionally protected, and semi-automatic rifles have been around for close to 100 years, with the AR-15 being the most widely purchased variant in the past 8 years in the United States. The last so-called "assault weapons" ban did not ban semi-automatic rifles, per se. It banned rifles with certain cosmetic features, such a bayonet lug, a flash suppressor, and a collapsible stock. None of these items make the rifle "more deadly", as those in the gun control industry would have you believe.

Stricter controls have proven to be a dismal failure. Chicago and Washington D.C. had complete firearms bans for over 25 years, and they had the highest murder rates in the country for many of those 25 years. The "assault weapons ban" had no effect on crime, as violent crime has gone down since the sunset of the ban, and it did nothing to prevent mass shootings, as the Columbine massacre happened 5 years into the ban.

People who cannot be trusted with a gun cannot be trusted without a custodian.

Great discussion, either way.

Two questions for you.

How many guns are too many in the hands of criminals?

How many guns are too many in the hands of a law abiding citizen?

Actually, Will, guns don't kill nearly as many people as doctors do. Look up the stats and see how many people die accidentally at the hands of a doctor. So, given your logic, we don't need more doctors...or at least automobiles, right?

Wow, your comment is so full of FAIL I don't even know where to begin... Let's start with your 99.99% of the time you'll be killed before you have the chance to use your firearm for self defense. According to two different studies, defensive handgun uses in the U.S. number anywhere from 1,000,000 to 2,500,000 times per year. So, according to your numbers, we have 10,000,000,000 - 25,000,000,000 deaths per year. Pretty neat, since there are only 4,000,000,000 people on the planet. Do you have any actual, you know, proof of that 99.99% number?

And to your comment about this lunatic being a law abiding citizen up until a few days ago. Maybe, but what do you propose? That we just lock everyone up on the chance that they might be a criminal, someday? That would certainly make things "safer", but that is not freedom and not what this country was founded on.

...a law abiding citizen...
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha...that's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. Get educated and get a clue, Will.

Okay, Will, if someone is in the process of pulling a gun on you which position would you prefer to be in?
1. Unarmed
2. Armed
Making it more up close and personal, if you were in the theater in Aurora with your family would you prefer to have been armed or unarmed?

Pual, I was armed, it made no difference because there was no chance of me getting to my weapon. and in the case of the theatre, my first thoughts would be to get my loved ones in a safe position, not reaching for my gun. my goal would have been to get out of there safe

Yea, that's it Will, just worry about yourself. If I was armed, and in the theatre, my first reaction would be to push my family to the ground and then go after the shooter to save as many lives as I could. I don't know how you came to be armed, but if you are, you don't deserve to be. and your 99.99% quote is ridiculous. Perhaps you mean if someone pulled a gun on you, 99.99% of the time you would lose. Now that I believe.

@Bull Pitt - I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this line of thinking.

Aside from the thought of average people taking guns with them into the movies at all, which to me is an absurd concept, the idea that you or anyone armed with a handgun would be able to accurately bring down an assailant in body armor who tear gassed a crowd in a darkened theater before opening up with a B.A.R. really stretches credibility to me. The element of surprise in this case trumps any thought of accurate response.

I understand the legal tradition of Americans' right to bear arms. I understand the idea that preparedness can win the day in many situations, and that this line of thinking influences some people into carrying concealed weapons. But I think there is also a reasonable expectation that in a civilized society we as neighbors should be able to live without the fear that someone is constantly trying to do us bodily harm and that the only response is deadly force. Simply put, you can't undo what a gun does to someone.

Most offensive is the idea that any violent individual would derive notoriety from such an act, using a high-profile event like the latest Batman movie--which everyone would be talking about already--to do it. This guy wants everyone to ask why, and he'll get his 15 minutes of fame and all the hand-wringing that goes along with it on both sides of the fence.

Using a gun to act out is the issue, not owning one, and no legislation or counter-armament resolves that.

Here's another great take on this from the English media. Warning: harsh language, if that offends.

What's most telling is that the tips the psychiatrist whose comments are contained within offered in terms of preventing something like this happening, and how each has been repeatedly ignored in coverage of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4&feature=youtu.be

We're guilty above of including the name of the shooter and reporting on him as well. If this happened again, I wouldn't do that the same way.

John - as a note, if you're referencing the Kleck study on defensive use, it's taken some serious criticism for a small sample size extrapolated out. That's not to say there aren't quite a few defensive uses - considering McDowall's study - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/?tool=pmcentrez - in the late '80s suggested at least 65,000 per year, it's likely a good bit higher now, but the 1-2.5 million is the high end of the scale suggested by Kleck's research.

There have also been studies suggesting at least some of the defensive uses are illegal, and that gun use to intimidate or threaten is more common than defense - one such is here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730664/?tool=pmcentrez

Any thoughts on that?

Bryan,

Gary Kleck's study suggested that it was 2.5M defensive gun uses (DGU) annually. The study that was done to debunk it by Peter Cook, much to his dismay, confirmed Kleck's findings. Cook subsequently dismissed all 15 studies performed on the subject (which found DGU's to range from 765,000 to 3.6M per year), including his own, as "unreliable". Since the research didn't support the conclusion he wanted, he simply dismissed the studies, which isn't very scientific.

The study you linked to was done during the 1980s when very few states had some form of concealed carry. The Right To Carry movement has swept the U.S. since Florida passed its shall-issue law in the 1987, with over 40 states now classified as shall-issue or "Constitutional Carry" (which means no permit is required to carry concealed). Citing a study for DGU from the 1980's is like citing a study on cyber bullying from the mid 1990's.

Any thoughts on the other research, John, about intimidation/threatening vs. defense?

Bryan,

Actually, one of the biggest studies ever done was performed by the CDC (you know, that rabid right wing NRA backed organization...[/sarcasm]) at the end of the Clinton administration which found that there was no evidence that any of the 22,000 gun laws on the books have ever done anything to reduce crime.

Correct me if I'm looking at a different CDC review, but it looks like that one was just a review of 51 other studies - none federally-funded - and the lead on that review said it was inconclusive and more study is needed. Looks like some of those studies said there was an increase in violence, some said a decrease, and the inconsistency of the studies was cited as a factor.

Bryan,

You know me, I don't just spout without some support, although this time I'll admit that my memory might be failing me. I will provide a link as soon as I can find it...

Hey Good Guy, do you have a NJ FID (Firearm ID) or pistol? Did you ever try to get one? Did you know an FID is required for a BB Gun? NJ states that you must be shown reason to reject your pistol permit app within 30 days or it must be granted. The truth is that most have to wait at least 45 days, 60 days, 90 days and as long as up to a year. That, by the way, is contrary to NJ law. So, the pistol permit requires a mental health check, a state police check, and personal references. Then after 45, 60, or 90 days and you get the permit and attempt to buy a pistol you are subjected to another state police computer check at $16. So, how many more checks do we need? If I see a good deal on ammo and want 6000 rounds, what's it to you?

Settle down, I understand jerseys gun laws are strict. Is it too much to be checked out for buying 1 to however any rounds. Are you in a rush? I don't think making sure your background and arrest record for everyone's safety is worth rushing. I understand for those who abide by laws this is a hassle but if it keeps some guns out of scumbags hands I think it's worth waiting and being clear

There's already a process for keeping guns out of people's hands, you mentioned ammo. How many more people do you want to employ to keep a check on you and everything you do? If the state okays me to buy a firearm do I need further approval to buy ammo for that firearm? Maybe I want to go shoot off 500 or 1000 thousand rounds out of my approved 22-semi long gun. How many hoops do you want to set up before that is deemed safe?

And while we're at it let's ban automobiles that can go faster than 65 mph, right? And what are we going to do to stop all the accidental deaths on the operating tables?
BTW, HomeBrew, do you know the story of Randy Weaver? Who killed Randy Weaver's wife? And who killed all the women and children at Waco, TX? Is our government out of control yet? Do you know one of the top reasons our founders wanted access to firearms? Government.

I'm talking apples and you're throwing oranges. This isn't about cars, or doctors, or Waco, or conspiracy theories; this is about high-capacity magazines and bloody murder. The cowards in Washington did nothing after one of their own, Rep. Giffords, was gunned down with bullets from a high-capacity magazine. Now it's happened again in Colo. President Obama and Congress need to find the courage to ban high-capacity magazines once and for all.

Read my post below contrasting firearm deaths versus automobile deaths and tell me about apples and oranges. The point is that on the whole firearms are relatively safe so why does everyone want to outlaw them as soon as a bad seed turns up? Check the statistics in any country that outlawed firearms and see what happened in the area of violent crime.

Will, Gary's facts are not reliable. He said to me, "We live in an era with tougher gun laws now more than ever' and that is bull. In fact Dubya lifted the ban on assault weapons that were initiated by Clinton. So the trutrh is: it is easier now to purchase guns than when Bill Clinton was president and that is because of George W. Bush.

Wow Ric, you need to do a little more fact checking. GWB did NOT lift the so called "assault weapons" ban. It had a sunset provision in it, and it was triggered because Congress did not re-up it. GWB actually said that he would sign it if it came to his desk. It didn't because it didn't do anything.

I asked another poster the same question, and I'll ask you the same question. Please, define "assault weapon".

In one year, according to the Brady Campaign, nearly 100,000 people are killed and wounded by guns in the U.S. http://www.bradycampaign.com/xshare/Facts/Gun_Death_and_Injury_Stat_Sheet_2008__2009_FINAL.pdf

U.S. murder rate for 2010 was 14,748 (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm) which involves all kinds of murder.
Other than the report you cite, everything I read puts firearm homicides in the 9,000-to-10,000 per year range.
If you want to throw in firearm injuries not resulting in death than we move into a whole different realm. For instance, there are 40,000 toilet-related injuries per year. In fact, there appear to be so many injuries per year in the U.S. that I can't find any total of all injuries, only breakdowns of specific injuries.

They are made to launch a small projectile at a high rate of speed in a predictable direction. Whether they are used for criminal purposes or for self defense is determined by the user. After all, you're not suggesting that the police only carry guns to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible, are you?

Interesting, Will. Consider that guns are made for "one thing," as you write, and yet we only had 789 unintentional shootings in 2005 (last year recorded), whereas automobiles are made for transportation and yet we had 42,636 auto related deaths in 2005 with slightly less passenger vehicles than firearms (forget about the injuries caused by automobiles). That works out to over 54 times more automobile related deaths than accidental gun deaths. My logic is as convoluted as yours, that's my point. In other words, your logic is as ridiculous as mine when you actually consider facts rather than hype and hysteria.
BTW, I have a number of firearms, as do friends of mine, and yet never once has any of those firearms been used for its quote, only purpose.
What purpose does archery equipment serve, Will?

Will, If something is diculous, and we do it again, then it would be rediculous, but since neither of those are actually words, please stop using them! And yes, Gary is correct, you are clueless. You've lived through gun violence? Oh do tell, we can hardly wait.

Gary, you run from the fact that Dubya lifted the ban of assault guns. Why do you resort to your propaganda that gun laws are in place when Dubya lifted the ban on assault weapons? Oops, I know why. You must be embarrassed to admit Dubya lifted the Clinton era ban on all assault weapons. I have no idea why. Only for killing humans why do hunters need assault weapons. – talk about overkill. It makes no sense since you cannot eat the animal’s meat because it is riddled with bullets.

Interjecting George W. Bush into this post is asinine. The neurotic obsession with 'blame Bush' will not be entertained.

Gary B, you are kicking up a lot of dust running away from the truth! LOL!

A troll using Bush for Godwin's law, not unprecedented, but lame nonetheless.

Here it is a second time, Ric:
Interjecting George W. Bush into this post is asinine. The neurotic obsession with 'blame Bush' will not be entertained.

101% agree!

Loretta, what if there was no off-duty policeman there? Would it be too far of a stretch to imagine that you or I could accomplish the same thing? When it comes to my family and friends, I would at least like a chance and not have to rely on hoping someone else is there to do it for me. Diving under a seat is not a good alternative to self-defense. The fact is that law enforcement accomplishes most of what it does after-the-fact. Only someone on the scene can do anything in real time to stop a tragedy from becoming a major tragedy.

In a perfect world...but we don't live in a perfect world. BTW, I don't think I'm Dirty Harry and having an opportunity to protect my family and friends in a situation such as occurred in Aurora is not an attempt to be a super hero it's an attempt at self-defense. If you don't need a firearm in public to protect yourself from such as happened there why do you need one at home? Just ramp up the education and medication, that'll do it.

http://a.yfrog.com/img532/1982/3blyt.jpg

Take a good look at what your up against there. Ya big damn hero.

Good luck with your .22 on movie night while your stuffing your face with Coke and popcorn.

Dan, I agree with EVERYTHING you state, except about knocking the mentality of a CCW individual. There are no crime waves of concealed carry permit holders going 'cowboy' on the population. The media does a really good job at brainwashing this nation via the idiot box, aka television, and we have adopted some very perverse stereotypes.

Now I will also say that I don't believe for a second that if somebody had a hand gun in that theater would they have made a difference in stopping the madness. But that event is the horse already out of the barn,,, the fuse was lit,,,it was just a matter of when Holmes was going to strike, we were on his clock.

The point in all of this, like I stated way way above is this; this is about a human being having been failed by his fellow man. We as a society had plenty of opportunities to stop this event before it unfolded.

The mainstream news is reporting that the Aurora shooter applied for a membership to a private shooting range. The owner said Holmes was bizarre and was creepy, so what did Glenn Rotkovich do? Answer: Nothing. This man had first hand knowledge of Holmes being potentially dangerous, and Glenn Rotkovich sat on his hands. Tragedy could have been averted right then and there and now he bears some accountability for blood on his hands. No gun laws, mandates, regulations needed,,,just a simple phone call to the police, ATF of FBI and lives would have been saved.

Cont'd....I would like to throw this out there again too.

Where does an unemployed soon to be college dropout get the cash to buy all this exotic gear? How does he afford to move into an apartment? How can he bypass the application for the apartment about proof of income?

There is a whole lot more to this.....and I have a feeling that his parents and family are behind a lot of it.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Dan, but maybe you better stay in the house with your firearm. The idea behind owning a firearm is self protection whether you are at home or out. How does that make anybody a Dirty Harry? Based on the picture you posted, I take it you are fine with leaving your firearm in a safe place at home. Just because one nut dressed up like that doesn't mean every situation will be the same. Having said all that, I guess your plan is to hope diving under the nearest seat will work out for you.

"Dressed up".

Like its a costume right?

Good luck there Chief.

Unless you plan to hit that point blank, in the chest with a .45 he's not going down unlike your spilled extra large tub of buttered popcorn.

Or are you bringing your night vision goggles out too?

Gary B - Very good points.. much agreed.

Point is this;

The dude is an armored semi with shock, suprise, and awe on his side.

Paul, you are the Kia Rio minding your own business,

CCW is not what I'm talking about. Its CCW people who watch too much TV and think about this event as "Gee, If I were there....." THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

CCW permits are not handed out so you can go cowboy and save the day.

If you are a gun owner, and fall into the "Gee if I were there.. I would have stood up and BOOM HEADSHOT!!!!... YOLO!!!"

Game over.

Dark theater, mass panic, confusion, slipping on a bloody floor, loved one screaming in your ear, 1am..

Yea, big hero.. come save us all.

It has been said that a baby was shot at point blank range. It has been said that people were at his feet where expended hot shells were falling on their heads and faces and burning them. He had head gear on which means his field of vision was extremely limited. An assault rifle is of no use when someone is tackling you, wrapping their arms around you legs (remember, there were people laying at his feet), or jumping on your back. This guy could only look in one direction and with very limited vision. Additionally, his assault rifle jammed which would have caused a pause in the shooting as would any and every attempt to re-load. So, Dan, Mr. Anti-Hero, tell me what you are going to do? There is more than one way to defend yourself than with a firearm, although that might be the preferred method. With all due respect to the fallen and the wounded, and I'm sure this was a very stressful situation, but why was this guy left standing, unmolested, and allowed to calmly walk out of theater and then surrender? Did it not occur to anyone to bum-rush the guy from behind?
There is a lot that can be said about this event and what it reveals about us all but, in deference to the deceased and their families, I think it would be best at this time to let it rest. Thanks for the dialog.

Paul, most people's reaction is to duck and cover or run. It's a primal "fight or flight" instinct. Even people who are armed. I always tell people to look at the US Army studies where they measured the % of soldiers who fire their weapons in combat. It's low, because most people are just going to try and not get shot.

We can all imagine what we'd have done in that situation. Maybe we would've charged the guy. But the percentages say that, when under fire, we'd try to save ourselves by fleeing. And we shouldn't judge people to be cowards or fools - not that that's what you are doing - because they followed a primal instinct to run.

The problem that Mr. Reynolds, if not eloquently, is trying to get across is that a CCW enables the person to defend themselves and their families. It does not make you law enforcement or any type of hero, and those who believe it does are fools.

If I'm carrying a gun, I'm not doing it to protect anyone else but me and my own, period. If someone else chooses to go unarmed and relies on someone else to protect them (i.e. the police, who rarely ever are there to stop a crime in progress), then good luck to them and I hope it works out for them.

Paul,
You and Dan are on the same side, but you're talking past each other. We own guns for self defense, not to defend the general population. If you (the greater "you", not you "you") have that type of vision for yourself, take the test and become a cop. Otherwise your firearm is for defending yourself and your family, not to save the day from some rampaging psycho.

Porter, I don't necessarily disagree with you, if I was alone my first instinct would be to protect myself....but, if my family is there with me it now becomes a different ballgame. While I might not be willing to do something rash if I was there by myself, if my family is with me I am willing to act rashly and rush or fire upon whomever is posing a threat to my family.
Incidentally, when watching the TV movie made about the 9/11 flight that crashed in Shenksville, PA, the thing that struck me the most was how long the passengers waited before they bum-rushed the two terrorists who had only razor knifes. Had they not waited so long it seemed to me that they might have had a different outcome.
The question then becomes, why did they wait so long to do the inevitable? I think the main thing we need to come away with from these type of scenarios is they seldom have a good ending. That being the case it becomes imperative upon us to take the situation into our own hands and possibly be able to direct the outcome to something we can live with afterwards.

John Hayden, I appreciate your sentiments but I don't think Dan and I are that close. I contend that somebody with a semi-auto pistol could have pumped 5 to 20 rounds into the guy's chest area and even with the protection he was wearing it would have stunned him and probably knocked him down giving all those around him the opportunity to subdue him. Remember, as long as he was holding that assault rifle he was hitting targets of opportunity at a distance. That is not a close-up weapon so all those around him, especially those behind him had opportunity to subdue him.
I think we need to realize that these types of situations rarely, if ever, have good endings. It is thus imperative upon us to act while we have opportunity. I have thought about this and realized that this is my best option. Hoping that hiding and escaping death or injury seems to me to have been proved to be faulty logic.

But Paul, if you were to carry a gun, would you be carrying it for your protection or for the protection of the greater public?

I don't disagree that a law abiding CCW holder WITH THE APPROPRIATE TRAINING could (not would) have made a difference, but carrying a gun for the express purpose of protecting those who choose not to protect themselves is foolish, plain and simple. If, in the process of defending yourself and your family, others are saved, that is an added benefit, but it should never be the primary reason. This is what Dan has been saying.

John, I would never pretend to think that if I were carrying a concealed weapon that it would be for any other purpose than my own protection and those whose company I was in, especially family. That is not to say that I know before hand what my reaction would be in any other situation such as the one that transpired in Aurora. But, to reiterate, general self-protection is my only concern.

I don't think we have anything to disagree on then, Loretta.

Yes, yes. Well lit church, daytime, calm.. same events as a dark late night movie theater.

Go watch Hobo with a Shotgun.

You leave Rutger Hauer the hell out of this, Dan.

(I'm waiting for the backlash that will follow this attempt at levity.)

So Will, what I'm hearing from you is that nobody anywhere has ever defended themselves successfully with a gun.

Did you see that video of the 71 year old man in Florida who shot that armed robber in the internet cafe a week and a half ago? I guess that didn't really happen...

actually paul, whats getting old is you and others telling what heros you are and how you would have changed the situation in CO.
i'm a gun owner paul, i dont need you to tell me what your 9mm may have done.

So far in our dialog, Will, you've been the only one trying to imply that I, or anybody else, was assuming the title of 'hero.' You've thrown that word around in each of your posts in a derogatory manner and yet I've read of no one making that claim. I'm so glad you came along to offer your expertise in the matter.
BTW, I never claimed I could have changed what happened in Aurora. Nobody, including you, knows what any other outcome could have been because nobody tried. The only thing I do know is that you claim there was no other possible outcome other than what occurred. It's good to know that somebody has it figured out.

Nice job Grandpa! What was he using though, a .22????

Actually, it was a .380.