MKopack Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 I agree that taking away everyone's weapons would stop these senseless shootings - after all, it's worked so well in Toronto... Prior to Friday there have been 147 shootings in Toronto involving 209 victims this year, a 62% increase from 2011. "Two dead and nineteen injured in Toronto mass shooting." http://news.yahoo.com/toronto-shooting-2-dead-19-injured-103720046--abc-news-topstories.html "Toronto gun violence rages as politicians debate solutions." http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/07/21/toronto-shootings.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokin Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 There is a degree of irony here. Everyone who is proclaiming that they would have saved the day with a CCP...what's to stop you from being the shooter in the theater? Not advocating gun control, but that is a difficult question to answer. No it's not; actually one of the easiest answers ever. The same thing that keeps me from going around killing people with my CCW is the same thing that keeps me from randomly doing hit and runs with my truck, the same thing that keeps me from turning my propane tank into a bomb, the same thing that keeps me from dropping live bombs on a city instead of going out to the range, the same thing that keeps me from shooting down civilian airliners when doing Noble Eagle caps. Firearms are tools and a fundamental right. Just like freedom of speech, some use it for good, some evil, and most don't use it at all. The fact that skinheads advocate ethnic cleansing does not mean free speech should be revoked. The solution to people abusing freedom of speech is more speech, not less. The same is true of firearms. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Noonin Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) The people on Flight 93 figured it out instantly and changed everything we think about airline hijacking scenarios. Not really "Instantly." The passengers on 93 had time to think, consider, plan, logically conclude there was no other option/escape/hope, etc., before they acted. Hardly the same as instantly reacting in the dark, choking on tear gas while being shot at. I think we all (or most of us) would like to think we would have done the heroic thing but the reality is probably more complicated. People were scared, confused, covering their loved ones with their own bodies so as to take any bullets, etc. Would a concealed carry or a group of heroes charging the bastard have changed things? Maybe. I'd like to think so. But at this stage, who is to say that didn't happen and the good guys simply got gunned down trying before they could save the day? I have to believe that out of that entire theater of people (which included several military guys) at least someone had some of the courage the Monday morning crowd here proclaims to have, but that's speculation. I certainly bet if you presented this scenario to the men in that theater in a conversation a week ago most of the men would confidently proclaim they would do whatever it takes to try and take the guy down. But that didn't work out in the real situation obviously. Tragic all around. Edited July 22, 2012 by Danny Noonin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 http://www.airforcet...killed-072112w/ USAF SSgt and Navy Sailor among those killed. Not to get lost in the conversation but prayers go out to the families of these two gentlemen :beer: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prozac Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Anyone else find it distasteul that the conversation here and elsewhere almost immediately turned to fears about gun control when the families of 12 dead bystanders have barely had a chance to start mourning? Not trying to minimize people's concerns for their rights but mods, any chance we can get a seperate thread (not "gun talk") on said concerns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfargin Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 I don't see too much about gun control but I do see a bunch of guys trained to problem solve discussing the pros and cons of stepping out to stop a threat/problem. I find it similar to hangar flying except for gun owners. People pointing out fears and dangers and others pointing out ways to deal with the problem/threat and potentially fixing it before it gets worse. Since we don't know the victims it's easier to be cold sounding in the discussion but I think with problem solvers we want to try to figure out the best way to solve a problem rather than sit around mourning losses (regardless of the senseless and tragic nature). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toro Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Not trying to minimize people's concerns for their rights but mods, any chance we can get a seperate thread (not "gun talk") on said concerns? No. As long as it's civil, this is a completely appropriate forum for discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaver Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Not really "Instantly." The passengers on 93 had time to think, consider, plan, logically conclude there was no other option/escape/hope, etc., before they acted. Hardly the same as instantly reacting in the dark, choking on tear gas while being shot at. Valid point. Not "instant" but they still came to a relatively rapid conclusion considering the conventional wisdom at the time. I think we all (or most of us) would like to think we would have done the heroic thing but the reality is probably more complicated. People were scared, confused, covering their loved ones with their own bodies so as to take any bullets, etc. That's the thing: I don't look at it as being "heroic" in a sense. I look at it as being the best chance for survival. It's self serving in a way, but it benefits the whole as well. Would a concealed carry or a group of heroes charging the bastard have changed things? Maybe. I'd like to think so. But at this stage, who is to say that didn't happen and the good guys simply got gunned down trying before they could save the day? I have to believe that out of that entire theater of people (which included several military guys) at least someone had some of the courage the Monday morning crowd here proclaims to have, but that's speculation. I certainly bet if you presented this scenario to the men in that theater in a conversation a week ago most of the men would confidently proclaim they would do whatever it takes to try and take the guy down. But that didn't work out in the real situation obviously. I definitely get your point about Monday morning quarterbacking, and who knows what each of us would do in that situation. Unless you have already decided your best option is to do nothing, then I'm pretty sure you'll stick with that. Tragic all around. True Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy Spike Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) Buddy, you've made it abundantly clear what you would do in this situation - nothing. But not everyone will "What if..." themselves into a state of inaction. Lots of us have to mitigate risks on a day to day basis to keep from killing ourselves and our crew, yet still get the sortie complete. Just because some amount of risk (which you certainly can't quantify) exists, it doesn't mean you should just simply opt out and let fate run it's course. You've concluded that just because someone who was carrying in the theater and decided to act, that they've done so in blind ignorance of the risks involved. I actually have said nothing of the sort. At no point did I say I would do nothing. What I am saying is that if you set aside the bravado expressed by some of the keyboard cowboys here, you'll get that this is a very complicated situation. There is no 100% solution here, and saying you'll step up where others did not is just ego. It may not have been feasible. While you may think it is completely out of the question for someone to seize a brief moment of opportunity and put a stop to it, I think that it is entirely possible that at some point, someone who is carrying may be able to see a window of opportunity, quickly weigh the risks, make a move, and perhaps save a life. I don't think it's completely out of the question, but in this situation, the odds are stacked heavily in favor of the shooter. This is not a normal CCW intervention scenario. So you wouldn't attack him if you were unarmed, you wouldn't shoot him if you were armed, you wouldn't run away but you would roll up either? What course of action does that leave? Doing nothing. Which is exactly what happened in Colorado (and Virginia Tech). We don't have to wargame that COA to see how it turns out - it ends with at least 12 people dead and 50 wounded and the shooter having a smoke in the parking lot until the cops show up. Holmes didn't stop killing people until he decided to stop - the death toll could have been much higher. And you're main concern is not making it worse? It is an absolutely horrible tragedy, but I don't know in this situation if being able to shoot back would have made things any better. Have we established what level of body armor he was wearing? Was it a Level II / Level III vest or no shit body armor like the Hollywood bank robbery? I'm not advocating a lone hero going mano a mano with the shooter. My problem is with the passive victim mentality that has pervaded our culture. I mean, here we've got a FIGHTER pilot who says he wouldn't do anything to stop the shooter even if you had a gun! Please, show me where I said I would personally do nothing. I am not passive either. I teach Survival Krav Maga seminars to police departments as a certified instructor, and I am a CCW holder (as I mentioned, I've always got my Glock 36 on me). But it is absolutely wrong to think that this was a cut and dried scenario that could have been easily stopped whether via CCW holder, or even a uniformed cop. The lone gunman mass murder scenario will cease to be a viable tactic once enough people realize that the only way to counter the threat is with a group attack. The people on Flight 93 figured it out instantly and changed everything we think about airline hijacking scenarios. The same thing needs to happen with the active shooter tactic. That is very valid. Edited July 22, 2012 by Buddy Spike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 I'm sure this will come as a shock to some, but my belief is... The answer isn't less guns, but more! I've already stated I think it would be a horrendous situation to be in, a crowded, dark, smoky movie theater with someone shooting and people running and screaming in all directions. I would say there are numerous reasons as to why not to take a shot at the culprit, but there is one really damn good one as to why a person who is armed and capable should. It would have likely stopped the threat. Had there been several armed citizens in that theater who took action against the threat, it would have seriously changed the outcome. As stated, this guy was not brave, and the mere sight of a few muzzle flashes in his direction would most likely have caused him to go on the defensive and run. He does not strike me as the type to engage in a firefight, he is one of those gutless individuals who will only act when he has the advantage. Yes, as I have stated there are very good odds of hitting an innocent individual, but those persons' lives were already threatened by the shooter. How much more lethal would it have been with a person returning fire? Some would say double, I for one argue that it most likely would have stopped the slaughter much earlier. Sure, I can think of numerous reasons why returning fire wouldn't be the best choice in this situation; but the truth of the matter is that it still would have been the only choice. Most Americans have this inability to think beyond the "winner-loser" perspective, probably because we as a society are so sports-fanatical; but sometimes there just isn't a solution ("victory") to a problem but merely facts that must be endured and dealt with. This was one of those situations... Cheers! M2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Someone's been reading too many Vince Flynn novels. You're not Mitch Rapp, old man. LOL I will refriain since any response gives you the attention you want from me. Everyone's a keyboard cowboy, but odds are you would have been just as ineffective in this situation as everyone else. I would hope not. But please, tell us more how you would have single handedly disarmed and stood down the threat in the midst of chaos. I know you have an extreme hard on for me but please put it back in your pants, I'm not interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BolterKing Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 No it's not; actually one of the easiest answers ever. The same thing that keeps me from going around killing people with my CCW is the same thing that keeps me from randomly doing hit and runs with my truck, the same thing that keeps me from turning my propane tank into a bomb, the same thing that keeps me from dropping live bombs on a city instead of going out to the range, the same thing that keeps me from shooting down civilian airliners when doing Noble Eagle caps. Firearms are tools and a fundamental right. Just like freedom of speech, some use it for good, some evil, and most don't use it at all. The fact that skinheads advocate ethnic cleansing does not mean free speech should be revoked. The solution to people abusing freedom of speech is more speech, not less. The same is true of firearms. Post of the year on the subject. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZwildcat Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 You know they outlawed drugs too...no one does drugs now. I also think they outlawed booze not too long ago...it was great, all the country's problems were solved. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raimius Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) It's a tragedy, and my prayers and condolences go out to those affected by it. I know it hurts losing a friend to an active shooter. "I wish someone was there to stop him" crossed my mind pretty quickly, when I heard about a similar situation with someone I knew. I know some people don't like the scenario-playing that some people do after these events, but I think that it is useful for people who do carry. Not having a plan seldom leads to the best results. This case was particularly ugly for those responding. It would be bad enough as the armed good-guy in the room, but even worse trying to make it to the scene with hardly any info but bleeding people running out of the theater as the gunfire continues. I doubt I would have taken the shot, based on where I usually sit (upper middle), where a crowd would have to run to exit, lighting, adrenalin, tear gas, and incoming fire. I honestly doubt I could make accurate head-shots at 30ish yards, against a moving, shooting enemy, in a dark, gas filled room, with a crowd of people between me and him. I know my accuracy isn't that great with lots of adrenaline, and when my fundamentals break down, I shoot low. I'd be more likely to try to hustle the people next to me toward the exit than take a shot with a greater probability of shooting a movie-goer than disabling the shooter, unless they zeroed in on me. I'd feel pretty awful if I hit some random person and didn't stop the shooter. Perhaps, the option to close the distance without him noticing would exist, and that would improve the odds of a stop and decrease the risk to innocents quite a bit. It's a tactically awful situation. For those with good accuracy, and perhaps less distance and fewer innocents in the line of fire, maybe they should take the shot. It's kind of unlikely, anyway, as that cinema company tends to post "no carry" signs at all their theaters. Edited July 23, 2012 by raimius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old crow Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 It's kind of unlikely, anyway, as that cinema company tends to post "no carry" signs at all their theaters. *Some* people I know ignore those signs....unless it's the usual banned places (military bases, banks, federal buildings, post office, etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkFE Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 *Some* people I know ignore those signs....unless it's the usual banned places (military bases, banks, federal buildings, post office, etc) Yep. I have a "friend" who tends to do that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy Spike Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 *Some* people I know ignore those signs....unless it's the usual banned places (military bases, banks, federal buildings, post office, etc) BTW, it was banned in the city of Aurora too http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2908691/posts Aurora, Co 1. "Dangerous weapon" includes firearm 2. Revocation of license for furnishing a firearm to a minor or someone under the influence. 3. Window displays cannot include firearms with barrels less than 12 inches long. 4. Unlawful to carry concealed "dangerous weapon" 5. Unlawful to discharge firearms, unless by law enforcement on duty or on shooting range. 6. Unlawful to possess firearm while under the influence of intoxicant 7. Unlawful to have loaded firearm in motor vehicle. 8. Unlawful for a juvenile to possess a firearm. Now this does say In 2003, the state legislature and the governor deemed that the power to address gun violence in Colorado through laws SHALL NOT be in the domain of the affected communities, rather it should rest only in the hands of the state. By this legislation (SB03-25), all of the ordinances on this list have been declared unenforceable. http://www.coloradoceasefire.org/munilaws.htm So I dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old crow Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 state law wins. Omaha tries to implement stupid gun laws, but Nebraska state law renders them null and void. seems like the same with CO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsplayr Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Interesting stuff in this article here I hadn't read elsewhere yet. Summary: his Glock has a 40-round mag on top of the 100-round drum on his AR, the AR jammed during the shooting spree, the article calls his body armor "extensive" FWIW, says he started off with the shotgun before moving on to the other weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Everyone wants to focus on gun control, "what if" scenarios, and why someone would do such a heinous act... no one is bothering to find out what could have prevented the act in the first place. http://www.koaa.com/news/state-budget-cuts-decimate-mental-health-services/ http://www.nami.org/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm?ContentFileID=147763 http://www.pantagraph.com/blogs/erickson/erickson-state-budget-devastates-mental-health-care/article_6f263e74-90b2-11e1-9722-0019bb2963f4.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Great point. A good friend Is the director of operations of the Salvation Army shelter in Minneapolis. He works with prosecutors and law enforcement groups who are trying to develop mental health programs as a means for helping people and reducing crime. http://www.thesalarmy.org/enewsletter/Mar11/reducingmplscrime.htm Mental health programs have always been easy targets since the folks needing the help are unlikely to speak up...or vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tac airlifter Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 There is a degree of irony here. Everyone who is proclaiming that they would have saved the day with a CCP...what's to stop you from being the shooter in the theater? Not advocating gun control, but that is a difficult question to answer. This is an academic argument, if you come at me with you would never do such a thing, I'll skim past that. Focus on the logic of tolerating a CCP policy vice gun control. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. If a citizen legally purchased arms, and discharged them in a public forum...and you take that person down, with legally purchased arms...are we not on a merry go round? This is the single dumbest post I've ever read. What's to stop you from pulling a 9/11 everytime you fly? What prevents me from plowing into the line of pre-schoolers waiting for the bus when I pick up my son? If someone buys a hammer from Home Depot, then hits people with that hammer and is subsequently stopped by a person carrying another legally purchased hammer, are we not on a merry go round? We'll never know if CCW could have prevented this. All we know for certain is that existing laws failed to. If someone is determined to break the law, why on earth would you think making additional laws can stop them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaceman Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Fortunately, I don't believe this--people need to charge even when they're not prepared/equipped to do so. I'm mixing apples and oranges here--but a bunch of good dudes stormed the beaches of Normandy even though the beaches probably didn't look very appealing to the guys on the first wave. Interesting that you mention this since the same thing pretty much happens in Dark Knight Rises! I saw it last night and thought of this post right away when I saw that scene. Kind of ironic I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afthunderchief16 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Wow. Looks like someone really fell off the deep end (or at least that is the angle they will be trying to play...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Techsan Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 He looks totally sane to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now