12 Dead 53 Injured in Mass shooting @ Aurora Colo Movie Theater

pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
12 Dead 53 Injured in Mass shooting @ Aurora Colo Movie Theater

A lone gunman went on a shooting spree early this morning at a screening of the new Batman Movie : The Dark Knight Rises in the Denver suburb of Aurora.

So far 12 are dead and 53 injured. The shooter was captured in the parking lot, James Holmes, 24 a drop out student from UCD in a graduate PHD program who had moved to the Denver area last year.

Local news is updating this on channel 7 Denver to be possibly 18 dead, though that has yet to be confirmed.

See - http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/31289126/detail.html

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
The last of my grandfather's

The last of my grandfather's brothers was killed in a church shooting when I was six.  It was the first funeral I ever attended.  Messed up people everywhere.

http://www.safeatchurch.org/daingerfield-shooting.html

 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:The last of my

Watcher wrote:

The last of my grandfather's brothers was killed in a church shooting when I was six.  It was the first funeral I ever attended.  Messed up people everywhere.

http://www.safeatchurch.org/daingerfield-shooting.html

 

Was there ever a verdict why God didn't stop the killing of his children in his own house?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 692
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Watcher wrote:The

EXC wrote:

Watcher wrote:

The last of my grandfather's brothers was killed in a church shooting when I was six.  It was the first funeral I ever attended.  Messed up people everywhere.

http://www.safeatchurch.org/daingerfield-shooting.html

 

Was there ever a verdict why God didn't stop the killing of his children in his own house?

 

It's because he does NOT exist!!

There was actually a PASTOR who was killed in church near where I live a few years ago? Where or where was the mythical Jesus? Only in the delusions in their brains!

I could go on an anti gun rant and say how there are 30,000 gun deaths a year in America which is BY FAR the highest per capita on earth! England and Japan only have around 150 a year and (not surprisingly) a LOT fewer guns!!

Instead I'll just say this is just further proof that god doesn't exist!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
JesusNEVERexisted wrote:I

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

I could go on an anti gun rant and say how there are 30,000 gun deaths a year in America which is BY FAR the highest per capita on earth! England and Japan only have around 150 a year and (not surprisingly) a LOT fewer guns!!

Instead I'll just say this is just further proof that god doesn't exist!

Well, due to that fact that roughly 15,000 people commit suicide every year in America with a gun, then I think that figure is a little dishonest.

In Japan they prefer to jump into volcanoes.

My parents own around 40 guns.  Only one of them has ever killed anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, I won't leave that hanging.  My father still has the gun that his father committed suicide with.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
JesusNEVERexisted wrote:I

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

I could go on an anti gun rant and say how there are 30,000 gun deaths a year in America which is BY FAR the highest per capita on earth! England and Japan only have around 150 a year and (not surprisingly) a LOT fewer guns!!

 

  England is awash in murders where knives are the killing tool.   Murder is murder, methodology is secondary.  Guns may kill more quickly in a direct comparison but how long did it take the machete-wielding Hutus to massacre over 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda.  A couple of weeks ?

                www.guardian.co.uk/uk/knifecrime

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
US Citizens are much less

US Citizens are much less likely to kill with guns than the police. Less chance of shooting the wrong person, less change of using unnessecary force.

Guns, imho, give a important defence against burglaries and number of crimes. With a gun, imo you can keep your family safe, while you can be easily overwhelmed with only a knife against several thugs invading your home. On the plus side, while strict gun laws reduce the number of guns, and prevent a arms race between criminals and the Police, it also means if a criminal has a gun, a victim or a unarmed policeman is in serious trouble.

Guns may possibly give a important protection of citizens against unlawful martial law as well. This obviously hasn't been proven in the US as far as I know.

Unfortunately guns also allow disturbed individuals to do much more damage when they really fly off the handle.

These are just my opinions however, and they might be totally wrong. The shooting is very sad, and I was upset to hear about it.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4429
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:With a

ThunderJones wrote:

With a gun, imo you can keep your family safe, while you can be easily overwhelmed with only a knife against several thugs invading your home. 

 

Well, I don't know about "easily", if you are practicing good gun control (steady hand, breath control and a good trigger pull) you should be able to double tap two or three before they are close enough to stab you. The most obvious problem of using a gun for self protection is having access to it when you need it. I have a concealed carry permit but most of the time I don't carry because quite frankly carrying a gun isn't exactly comfortable and needing to conceal it requires wearing more clothes than I care to wear when it is 100 degrees. Nor do I carry it around home so if anyone intends to do me harm they only have to stop me before I reach a gun.

I think it is safe to assume that most gun owners are the same and since the odds of ever needing it are really low and if you ever need it you are in a situation where it really has to be in arms reach right now, odds are if you ever need the gun you won't have it. I wouldn't even consider having my gun on me if I was taking a date to go see Batman. Even after this shooting I still won't simply because the odds of me needing it are so low that it is not worth the bother. 

Even with liberal gun laws it is highly unlikely that anyone else in that theater would have bothered carrying, unless one of them happened to be part of that small percentage of the population that is so paranoid they go everywhere with their guns but some of them carry guns illegally and I presume none were there. Besides the hyper-paranoid also tend to avoid large groups of people. 

Unfortunately, there is little we can do about nuts like this guy, if they want to kill a lot of people they can find a way be it gun, bomb or airplane. If you desire to kill random people it really isn't a difficult thing to do, the only difficult part is getting away with it, which this crazy obviously wasn't concerned with. Fortunately, people this insane are rare.  

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
The historical roots behind

The historical roots behind gun ownership in America lies in a large distrust of government.  Which is well founded if you base your opinions on historical truth.

Disarming the populace makes it even more easy for any government to slide into more and more corruption, knowing that guns against pocket knives will keep them safe in their ivory towers.

But even not counting that.  There is no way with America's enormous borders with Canada and Mexico that we could keep illegal guns out.   So guns are here to stay.   Might as well allow citizens to legally own them.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

With a gun, imo you can keep your family safe, while you can be easily overwhelmed with only a knife against several thugs invading your home. 

 

Well, I don't know about "easily", if you are practicing good gun control (steady hand, breath control and a good trigger pull) you should be able to double tap two or three before they are close enough to stab you. The most obvious problem of using a gun for self protection is having access to it when you need it. I have a concealed carry permit but most of the time I don't carry because quite frankly carrying a gun isn't exactly comfortable and needing to conceal it requires wearing more clothes than I care to wear when it is 100 degrees. Nor do I carry it around home so if anyone intends to do me harm they only have to stop me before I reach a gun.

I think it is safe to assume that most gun owners are the same and since the odds of ever needing it are really low and if you ever need it you are in a situation where it really has to be in arms reach right now, odds are if you ever need the gun you won't have it. I wouldn't even consider having my gun on me if I was taking a date to go see Batman. Even after this shooting I still won't simply because the odds of me needing it are so low that it is not worth the bother. 

Even with liberal gun laws it is highly unlikely that anyone else in that theater would have bothered carrying, unless one of them happened to be part of that small percentage of the population that is so paranoid they go everywhere with their guns but some of them carry guns illegally and I presume none were there. Besides the hyper-paranoid also tend to avoid large groups of people. 

Unfortunately, there is little we can do about nuts like this guy, if they want to kill a lot of people they can find a way be it gun, bomb or airplane. If you desire to kill random people it really isn't a difficult thing to do, the only difficult part is getting away with it, which this crazy obviously wasn't concerned with. Fortunately, people this insane are rare.  

 

Very good points, although I would like to say is was talking specifically about people invading your home. Where, I would hope, your gun would be within access lacking total ambush and suprise.

It is true people do not generally carry around guns in the situation this crime happened, but in many other situation where people would want to carry a gun to protect themselves, I feel that legally allowing guns is the superior alternative to prohibiting them.

I agree with your last bit, and actually states part of my argument I didnt quite include. Suppressing guns does little to stop murder, just moving the issue around and shunting the crime onto other categories and methods imo. Whether they make certain crimes easier or not may be outweighted by the crimes they make much harder.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Very good

ThunderJones wrote:

Very good points, although I would like to say is was talking specifically about people invading your home.

 

  When protecting my home the only weapon that I rely upon is a 12 gauge shotgun which sits next to my recliner.   Pin point accuracy is not such an overriding issue with a shotgun ( as it is with a rifle or handgun ) because the tissue damage of even a peripheral hit is so extensive that even just hitting a perpetrator's arm will most likely mean that arm is damaged beyond repair.  

  People can use whatever they feel comfortable with but I chose a shotgun simply because at close ranges it can produce more destroyed flesh with a single blast than a full 15 round magazine fired from a semi-auto hand gun.  Anyone who doubts that claim should google "Shotgun, head wound" and see for themselves.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4429
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Very good

ThunderJones wrote:

Very good points, although I would like to say is was talking specifically about people invading your home. Where, I would hope, your gun would be within access lacking total ambush and suprise.

It is true people do not generally carry around guns in the situation this crime happened, but in many other situation where people would want to carry a gun to protect themselves, I feel that legally allowing guns is the superior alternative to prohibiting them.

I agree with your last bit, and actually states part of my argument I didnt quite include. Suppressing guns does little to stop murder, just moving the issue around and shunting the crime onto other categories and methods imo. Whether they make certain crimes easier or not may be outweighted by the crimes they make much harder.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm a big supporter of legalizing all guns. I always thought it was absurd that people think that by passing gun laws you will somehow prevent criminals from breaking them. I'm pretty sure anyone intending to carry out a mass murder isn't going to worry about breaking a few gun laws and in our current fucked up system it would be easier for me to purchase an illegal handgun than it is to purchase one from the gun store.

Although, I think the most important reason for people to own guns is Watcher's point, we have the 2nd Amendment specifically because the founders intended that someday we might have to use them against our own government. While I am not one of the conspiracy theorists that is convinced Obama isn't going to leave the White House if he loses, it is important to recognize that no system of government is immune to becoming a tyranny. So even IF it could be demonstrated that making guns illegal would save a few lives compared to complete legalization (which most evidence I've seen suggests the opposite) it is still important to maintain our freedom to own high quality firearms. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Very good points, although I would like to say is was talking specifically about people invading your home.

 

  When protecting my home the only weapon that I rely upon is a 12 gauge shotgun which sits next to my recliner.   Pin point accuracy is not such an overriding issue with a shotgun ( as it is with a rifle or handgun ) because the tissue damage of even a peripheral hit is so extensive that even just hitting a perpetrator's arm will most likely mean that arm is damaged beyond repair.  

  People can use whatever they feel comfortable with but I chose a shotgun simply because at close ranges it can produce more destroyed flesh with a single blast than a full 15 round magazine fired from a semi-auto hand gun.  Anyone who doubts that claim should google "Shotgun, head wound" and see for themselves.

I'm somewhat confused about your post Prozac, I wasn't discussing the effectiveness of a specific firearm in the defense of your home, but the helpfulness of firearms in general in protecting yourself. Are you responding to one of the posters before me?

Beyond Saving wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Very good points, although I would like to say is was talking specifically about people invading your home. Where, I would hope, your gun would be within access lacking total ambush and suprise.

It is true people do not generally carry around guns in the situation this crime happened, but in many other situation where people would want to carry a gun to protect themselves, I feel that legally allowing guns is the superior alternative to prohibiting them.

I agree with your last bit, and actually states part of my argument I didnt quite include. Suppressing guns does little to stop murder, just moving the issue around and shunting the crime onto other categories and methods imo. Whether they make certain crimes easier or not may be outweighted by the crimes they make much harder.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm a big supporter of legalizing all guns. I always thought it was absurd that people think that by passing gun laws you will somehow prevent criminals from breaking them. I'm pretty sure anyone intending to carry out a mass murder isn't going to worry about breaking a few gun laws and in our current fucked up system it would be easier for me to purchase an illegal handgun than it is to purchase one from the gun store.

Although, I think the most important reason for people to own guns is Watcher's point, we have the 2nd Amendment specifically because the founders intended that someday we might have to use them against our own government. While I am not one of the conspiracy theorists that is convinced Obama isn't going to leave the White House if he loses, it is important to recognize that no system of government is immune to becoming a tyranny. So even IF it could be demonstrated that making guns illegal would save a few lives compared to complete legalization (which most evidence I've seen suggests the opposite) it is still important to maintain our freedom to own high quality firearms. 

Well then, it appears that, atleast on this point, we agree completely!

As far as conspiracy theories, I think the idea of Bush refusing to leave office was somewhat likelier than Obama doing so, but still it did not happen. Imo a president flatly refusing to leave office in the United States would spark such a furious uproar that their public image would be completely destroyed and opponents and some supporters alike would be up in arms quite quickly. I doubt that most military officers or soldiers would go along with it. Refusal to leave office would have to be smuggled in with a disaster or societal trauma (probably worse than 9/11) for their to be any chance for people to accept it.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Oh don't

Beyond Saving wrote:

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm a big supporter of legalizing all guns.

  What class of firearms have yet to be legalized ?  I don't understand. 

In the States one can legally own .50 caliber anti-material rifles with no extra legal requirements, and with the proper ATF approved paper work a law abiding citizen can legally own everything from select-fire assault rifles, fully-auto shotguns, belt-fed GPMG's as well as belt-fed Browning M-2's and that's still only a partial list.  

   Yeah, I'd love to have my very own M198 155mm towed howitzer but I don't think my Honda Civic is quite peppy enough to pull it around.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:I'm

ThunderJones wrote:

I'm somewhat confused about your post Prozac, I wasn't discussing the effectiveness of a specific firearm in the defense of your home, but the helpfulness of firearms in general in protecting yourself. Are you responding to one of the posters before me?

   No, but I was simply speaking on my own initiative.  You phrased your previous comment concerning the threat of "people invading your home" which was the context that my post was based upon and was therefore ( to me ) germane to your point.  Sorry if it threw you off track.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4429
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Beyond

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm a big supporter of legalizing all guns.

  What class of firearms have yet to be legalized ?  I don't understand. 

In the States one can legally own .50 caliber anti-material rifles with no extra legal requirements, and with the proper ATF approved paper work a law abiding citizen can legally own everything from select-fire assault rifles, fully-auto shotguns, belt-fed GPMG's as well as belt-fed Browning M-2's and that's still only a partial list.  

   Yeah, I'd love to have my very own M198 155mm towed howitzer but I don't think my Honda Civic is quite peppy enough to pull it around.

Depends on the state, many states have laws that ban the possession and in some cases even the transport of certain firearms. For example, here in Ohio I cannot possess a firearm with a magazine larger than 30. It also remains illegal to import foreign made full auto weapons. But cheers for the expiration of the AWB, lets hope that federal laws like that shit don't make a comeback. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm a big supporter of legalizing all guns.

  What class of firearms have yet to be legalized ?  I don't understand. 

In the States one can legally own .50 caliber anti-material rifles with no extra legal requirements, and with the proper ATF approved paper work a law abiding citizen can legally own everything from select-fire assault rifles, fully-auto shotguns, belt-fed GPMG's as well as belt-fed Browning M-2's and that's still only a partial list.  

   Yeah, I'd love to have my very own M198 155mm towed howitzer but I don't think my Honda Civic is quite peppy enough to pull it around.

Depends on the state, many states have laws that ban the possession and in some cases even the transport of certain firearms. For example, here in Ohio I cannot possess a firearm with a magazine larger than 30. It also remains illegal to import foreign made full auto weapons. But cheers for the expiration of the AWB, lets hope that federal laws like that shit don't make a comeback. 

 

I have 4 (four) Australian Shepherds.  Enter my house at your own risk.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I think people should have

I think people should have guns if they want even if it's based in fantasy of vigilantism or defending themselves against government. If you were however in a crowded cinema and someone threw tear gas and started shooting indiscriminately, taking out your own gun to return fire would be a terrible idea.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:I think people

Gauche wrote:

I think people should have guns if they want even if it's based in fantasy of vigilantism or defending themselves against government. If you were however in a crowded cinema and someone threw tear gas and started shooting indiscriminately, taking out your own gun to return fire would be a terrible idea.

 

Now there's a reasonable attitude.

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
   Obviously, guns are not

   Obviously, guns are not the end all and be all for solving a crisis situation.  Nevertheless, what confounds me among those who reject out of hand the defensive use of firearms by citizenry is that they will resolutely reject the concept of a properly trained civilian employing firearms but will nevertheless embrace the concept of an armed police officer arriving on scene and using a firearm to take control of the situation.

  Another point to consider is that police officers, being human, miss their intended target.  Despite liability concerns relating to stray bullets hitting innocent civilians, police officers are still called upon to use deadly force and I don't see "progressives" calling for police to be barred from using firearms. 

 

Proficiency with a firearm, or even knowing when to use one, is not tied to wearing a badge and a radio.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Doesn't take proper credit

http://aminiatureclaypot.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/so-you-still-think-god-is-a-merciful-god/

Parent is heroic, protects one of their children, whole family manages to escape without harm. Huzzah!

But... also preaches. Ugh. Glad this person, and their children, got out alright but their statements are more doublethink.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

   Obviously, guns are not the end all and be all for solving a crisis situation.  Nevertheless, what confounds me among those who reject out of hand the defensive use of firearms by citizenry is that they will resolutely reject the concept of a properly trained civilian employing firearms but will nevertheless embrace the concept of an armed police officer arriving on scene and using a firearm to take control of the situation.

  Another point to consider is that police officers, being human, miss their intended target.  Despite liability concerns relating to stray bullets hitting innocent civilians, police officers are still called upon to use deadly force and I don't see "progressives" calling for police to be barred from using firearms. 

 

Proficiency with a firearm, or even knowing when to use one, is not tied to wearing a badge and a radio.

 

Um... I would just as soon police officers did NOT carry guns for most situations.  The only time I can see the value is when a swat team would be called out.  That is, you have a crazy or two shooting up some place and you really need fire power right now.

Otherwise, most incidents officers handle do not require fire power.  The gun on their hip doesn't reassure me, it only makes me nervous that they might mistake me for someone who is carrying.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

   Obviously, guns are not the end all and be all for solving a crisis situation.  Nevertheless, what confounds me among those who reject out of hand the defensive use of firearms by citizenry is that they will resolutely reject the concept of a properly trained civilian employing firearms but will nevertheless embrace the concept of an armed police officer arriving on scene and using a firearm to take control of the situation.

  Another point to consider is that police officers, being human, miss their intended target.  Despite liability concerns relating to stray bullets hitting innocent civilians, police officers are still called upon to use deadly force and I don't see "progressives" calling for police to be barred from using firearms. 

 

Proficiency with a firearm, or even knowing when to use one, is not tied to wearing a badge and a radio.

The police are at least working together. What if a dozen concerned citizens decide they want to return fire in a dark, crowded room filled with gas?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: Now there's a

cj wrote:

 

Now there's a reasonable attitude.

Welcome back. Nice to see you again.


 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
5 victims identified

So far 5 victims have been identified:

Jessica Redfield was an aspiring sports writer.

Alex Sullivan.

John Larimer a U.S. Navy sailor.

Micayla Medek

AJ Boik

See the link below for detail.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/31292318/detail.html

The alleged killer's apartment is being slowly disarmed from the IEDs he left.

see - http://kdvr.com/2012/07/21/second-triggering-device-disabled-in-suspects-apartment/

Most of the  local Denver TV stations have been 24/7 on this since it happened. Many stories of survival of the injured and those who escaped unscathed.

Yes there are lots of thank you Gods etc; whatever works for them at this point, they are all very traumatized.

Y'all should be considerate. One can ignore this for now.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:The police are

Gauche wrote:

The police are at least working together. What if a dozen concerned citizens decide they want to return fire in a dark, crowded room filled with gas?

 

   Well, given the "dark, crowded room filled with gas"  what do you expect a dozen police, even "working together" to do differently ?  You don't think the police could mistake a bystander for the bad guy and shoot some innocent person by mistake ?  We all know that's never happened before.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Y'all should be considerate.

I'm not aware that anyone in this thread has made light of the tragedy, what are you even talking about ?

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
One can ignore this for now.

 

 

     It's not as if we wouldn't have come across this news item if you hadn't posted it.  All the info you are supplying is as close as my computer keyboard.  So why did you even bother posting it if you want to discourage cross-talk among ourselves ?

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:  ....  The gun

cj wrote:

 

 

....  The gun on their hip doesn't reassure me, it only makes me nervous that they might mistake me for someone who is carrying.

 

  That kind of blunder would never happen cj because the police "are at least working together" and that changes everything. 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
The difference is that as a

The difference is that as a victim if you take out a gun and fire back, the people around you have no way of identifying you as their vigilante hero in the mold of Charlie Bronson or whomever and not the original shooter or someone working in tandem with him. For that matter neither do the police when they arrive or any other concerned citizen who decides to shoot back. If someone starts shooting into a crowd and people see police coming they can evacuate toward them and that's just common sense Charlie.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Y'all should be considerate.

I'm not aware that anyone in this thread has made light of the tragedy, what are you even talking about ?

No one has.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

     It's not as if we wouldn't have come across this news item if you hadn't posted it.  All the info you are supplying is as close as my computer keyboard.  So why did you even bother posting it if you want to discourage cross-talk among ourselves ? 

Cross talk all you want. Perhaps I've seen too much coverage on this. Time to go watch a movie and forget about it.

Have a good one PZDW.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:The difference

Gauche wrote:

The difference is that as a victim if you take out a gun and fire back, the people around you have no way of identifying you

 

  If a fellow citizen began concentrating all of his firepower against what was *obviously a threat ( ie, *who carries a rifle and a shotgun into a theater ? )  I think that I would be able to comprehend that this fellow citizen was acting defensively and was not a threat to his fellow citizens.   It doesn't require a genius intellect to determine who is being targeted and who isn't. 

 

Gauche wrote:
  ...as their vigilante hero in the mold of Charlie Bronson or whomever and not the original shooter or someone working in tandem with him.

 

     ....again, why would someone supposedly working in tandem with the shooter then attempt to shoot at their partner in crime ?   

 

Gauche wrote:
  For that matter neither do the police when they arrive or any other concerned citizen who decides to shoot back.

 

People who go through handgun training are advised to cooperate with police commands whether they have fired their weapon or not.  It's not as if law makers never considered this scenario.   In the Texas Penal Code GC 411.207. it is referred to as "Authority of Peace Officer to disarm."

 

Gauche wrote:
If someone starts shooting into a crowd and people see police coming they can evacuate toward them and that's just common sense Charlie.

 

    If you believe that people are so conditioned to trust a police officer's uniform then all a criminal has to do is show up wearing a police uniform.  That's  common sense from a criminal perspective.  

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Cross talk all you want. Perhaps I've seen too much coverage on this. Time to go watch a movie and forget about it.

Have a good one PZDW.

 

 

 

   Thanks.  You, too.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:If a

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
If a fellow citizen began concentrating all of his firepower against what was *obviously a threat ( ie, *who carries a rifle and a shotgun into a theater ? )  I think that I would be able to comprehend that this fellow citizen was acting defensively and was not a threat to his fellow citizens.   It doesn't require a genius intellect to determine who is being targeted and who isn't.

The original shooter can have a handgun and in this case did. Maybe in the middle of this dark smokey cinema your fellow citizen packing heat with the same idea you had will see you with a gun and stop to inquire "Excuse me sir, are you the original shooter or are you also seeking vigilante justice?" instead of just blowing your head off. If that's how you envision it then you would be relying completely on the forbearance of others so I hope for your sake people are a lot more discerning in such situations than they appear to be.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:
....again, why would someone supposedly working in tandem with the shooter then attempt to shoot at their partner in crime ?

Why do you assume everyone should realize that the person is shooting at the original shooter?
ProzacDeathWish wrote:
People who go through handgun training are advised to cooperate with police commands whether they have fired their weapon or not.  It's not as if law makers never considered this scenario.

So now the police have scenarios? They don't just come in shooting like 12 strangers in a panic? You're getting close to turning me around on this.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:
If you believe that people are so conditioned to trust a police officer's uniform then all a criminal has to do is show up wearing a police uniform.  That's  common sense from a criminal perspective.

I thought you said people are so discerning that they know who is shooting at them and who is Clint Eastwood coming to help them, so which one is it?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:ProzacDeathWish

Gauche wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
If a fellow citizen began concentrating all of his firepower against what was *obviously a threat ( ie, *who carries a rifle and a shotgun into a theater ? )  I think that I would be able to comprehend that this fellow citizen was acting defensively and was not a threat to his fellow citizens.   It doesn't require a genius intellect to determine who is being targeted and who isn't.

The original shooter can have a handgun and in this case did. Maybe in the middle of this dark smokey cinema your fellow citizen packing heat with the same idea you had will see you with a gun and stop to inquire "Excuse me sir, are you the original shooter or are you also seeking vigilante justice?" instead of just blowing your head off. If that's how you envision it then you would be relying completely on the forbearance of others so I hope for your sake people are a lot more discerning in such situations than they appear to be.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:
....again, why would someone supposedly working in tandem with the shooter then attempt to shoot at their partner in crime ?

Why do you assume everyone should realize that the person is shooting at the original shooter?
ProzacDeathWish wrote:
People who go through handgun training are advised to cooperate with police commands whether they have fired their weapon or not.  It's not as if law makers never considered this scenario.

So now the police have scenarios? They don't just come in shooting like 12 strangers in a panic? You're getting close to turning me around on this.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:
If you believe that people are so conditioned to trust a police officer's uniform then all a criminal has to do is show up wearing a police uniform.  That's  common sense from a criminal perspective.

I thought you said people are so discerning that they know who is shooting at them and who is Clint Eastwood coming to help them, so which one is it?

 

  I'm sorry but I was going to answer you point for point as we frequently do but it is just one huge block of text in my window and I don't have time at the moment to manually space everything out.

 

  Let me jump ahead for a moment.  You have identified yourself as ultra-liberal.   So instead of winnowing over such issues as smokiness and uniforms and such ( all valid issues ) I would like to know if there exists any situation where a legally armed citizen firing in self defense would be acceptable to you.   I have to leave now but I will return shortly.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I think if you're not in

I think if you're not in your own home then you should have to retreat first. Obviously if you can't retreat then no one can tell you that you have to stand there and be killed.

When someone starts shooting into a crowd most of the people will just immediately run away from where they think the gunfire is coming from. If they see they're running toward another person with a gun then maybe some of them will think it's a vigilante coming to help them by catching them in a crossfire.

Maybe others will think they're running in the wrong direction and turn back to where the killer is, and maybe some people are armed themselves and all they see is someone with a gun who's not a police officer between them and the door. It doesn't improve the situation at all.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
I'd rather risk getting shot

I'd rather risk getting shot by another armed but innocent civilian while I'm defending myself from a criminal than standing there like an unarmed sheep getting slaughtered or shot in my back as I try to scurry away.

My 69 year old mother packs a .45 with hollow points and 15 round clips.

She's a good shot too.

Disarming innocent civilians does not increase the safety of the innocent civilian.

America's forefathers knew this.

Regardless, once again, WE CAN'T KEEP GUNS OUT OF THE U.S..

That works pretty well for the UK which is an island.

We have millions of illegal immigrants in this country.  If people can smuggle themselves in, guns are no problem.

So any talk of disarming our population is retarded.   Now move us all to an island and we can talk.  But in our geographical spot?   Dead conversation.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:cj

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

cj wrote:
 

....  The gun on their hip doesn't reassure me, it only makes me nervous that they might mistake me for someone who is carrying.

  That kind of blunder would never happen cj because the police "are at least working together" and that changes everything. 

 

Since I didn't imply that, did not make a comment on the person's post who did say that, sarcasm is wasted on me.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:I think if

Gauche wrote:

I think if you're not in your own home then you should have to retreat first. Obviously if you can't retreat then no one can tell you that you have to stand there and be killed.

When someone starts shooting into a crowd most of the people will just immediately run away from where they think the gunfire is coming from. If they see they're running toward another person with a gun then maybe some of them will think it's a vigilante coming to help them by catching them in a crossfire.

Maybe others will think they're running in the wrong direction and turn back to where the killer is, and maybe some people are armed themselves and all they see is someone with a gun who's not a police officer between them and the door. It doesn't improve the situation at all.

 

   Okay, I'm back.   I'm trying to trap a mother cat and her two babies and the process is time consuming.

 

    You're apparently not against the use of deadly force even if it involves the use of firearms ?     Anyway, situations involving mass shooting are more the exception than the rule in terms of personal defense statistics.  Throngs of bystanders only complicate the options available to either armed police or armed citizens.  Every situation would have to evaluated individually as there is no cut and dried response and it's always easy to determine what should have been done but only in retrospect ( which is too late ).

 Also, there will never be perfect conditions in which the defenders will not have to risk making the wrong decision.  Hitting innocent victims is always possible and it does happen no matter if you're law enforcement or not.  It's a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils.  As a trained civilian the choice is either try and fight back and risk making a serious mistake ( and possibly civil / criminal prosecution ) or do nothing and hope the police get there before you start exhibiting rigor mortis.  It's a phrase that carries some real meaning but "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

 

Lastly, my comment about criminals wearing police uniforms to deceive their victims wasn't stated simply to provoke you ( although I admit to not always being emotionally detatched when replying ).  It's a tatic that is repeatedly used in Mexico for instance and sadly it works.  Also, in the panic of being threatened by an armed assailant how would a potential victim know a civilian from a plain clothes cop ? 

That's all for now.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: Since I didn't

cj wrote:

 

Since I didn't imply that, did not make a comment on the person's post who did say that, sarcasm is wasted on me.

 

 

                  I'll be sure to put that in my file.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

 Also, there will never be perfect conditions in which the defenders will not have to risk making the wrong decision.  Hitting innocent victims is always possible and it does happen no matter if you're law enforcement or not.  It's a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils.  As a trained civilian the choice is either try and fight back and risk making a serious mistake ( and possibly civil / criminal prosecution ) or do nothing and hope the police get there before you start exhibiting rigor mortis.  It's a phrase that carries some real meaning but "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

Actually, on a related note about law enforcement choosing the lesser of two evils is an article I read last week about the state of California debating whether they should allow police to engage in car chases.

Something like 3000 innocent civilians have died in California over the past decade or something because of car chases.

And something like 90% of the car chases did not involve a violent offender.   Just mundane things like not having a driver's license and things like that.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I only believe people can

I only believe people can kill in self defense because there can't be a rule that says people have to die. There'd be no point in following it no matter what the penalty was.

If random shootings are a rare exception and the majority of killings are the result of arguments then you can flee a shooting with the relatively safe assumption that you won't be shot while attempting to escape if you weren't involved. Even if you don't flee you probably won't be killed unless you are hit by stray bullets or ricochet. Further if you decide to shoot then you are possibly getting involved in a conflict you know nothing about other than that the participants are brazen enough to execute someone in public.

If the shooter was targeting you then I'm a little less concerned about your right to defend yourself by having a shootout in a public place and more concerned with why you are in an altercation that involves gunplay if you're just a concerned upstanding citizen.

The fact criminals can dress in ways that engender confidence in most only makes the idea of remaining at the scene to return fire more problematic. While acting as a vigilante do you comply with the person in a police uniform telling you to drop your weapon because it's part of your gun training or do you shoot them because you are not conditioned to trust everyone in a police uniform and they might be the real killer? Had you taken the only sensible option and fled the question never would have come up.

It's a terrible idea in almost any situation.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:If random

Gauche wrote:



If random shootings are a rare exception and the majority of killings are the result of arguments then you can flee a shooting with the relatively safe assumption that you won't be shot while attempting to escape if you weren't involved. Even if you don't flee you probably won't be killed unless you are hit by stray bullets or ricochet. Further if you decide to shoot then you are possibly getting involved in a conflict you know nothing about other than that the participants are brazen enough to execute someone in public.

 

The need for thoughtful discretion will always be a necessary requirement.  Still you only refer to"arguments" as a basis for wielding a firearm as if the only context for their use would be limited to some superficial motive.  Nevertheless the Texas Penal code establishes what qualifies as legally defensible and that includes "Defense of a Third Person" among other categories.  

  Yes, if I saw some wack job threatening to kill his girlfriend in a store parking lot ( it happened in Dallas where a guy named Todd Broom shot and killed  a guy threatening with a pistol ) I could take your advice and just run away and hope the cops show up before he blows her brains out.  If he kills her in the middle of my 911 call, well too bad for her, hunh ? 

 

 

Gauche wrote:
If the shooter was targeting you then I'm a little less concerned about your right to defend yourself by having a shootout in a public place and more concerned with why you are in an altercation that involves gunplay if you're just a concerned upstanding citizen.

 

  I see, because in your view it should be assumed that the altercation was the fault of the victim and your use of the term "concerned upstanding citizen" is only used jokingly.   It would never devolve into a legitimate case of self defense.  If a female CHL holder were the victim of a rape attack it would probably be her fault for provoking the rape as well.  

Gauche wrote:
The fact criminals can dress in ways that engender confidence in most only makes the idea of remaining at the scene to return fire more problematic. While acting as a vigilante do you comply with the person in a police uniform telling you to drop your weapon because it's part of your gun training or do you shoot them because you are not conditioned to trust everyone in a police uniform and they might be the real killer?

 

  That's a good point, actually.  Couldn't a real police officer be deceived as well ?  How far do you want to take this ?

 

Gauche wrote:
Had you taken the only sensible option and fled the question never would have come up.

 

   Would you say the same thing to the victims at the Aurora Movie-Plex ?    "Hey guys why didn't you just run away, then you wouldn't have got shot" ?

 

Gauche wrote:
It's a terrible idea in almost any situation.

  I think for you it would indeed be a terrible idea.  Thank you for sharing Gauche, always a pleasure.

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:cj

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

cj wrote:

Since I didn't imply that, did not make a comment on the person's post who did say that, sarcasm is wasted on me.

                  I'll be sure to put that in my file.

 

What else could be in that file????  Aren't you glad I'm not paranoid?  Shall I give you some more stuff to put in there or is it plenty thick already? 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10540
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I think the biggest problem

I think the biggest problem with the average citizen carrying and opening fire defensively in most of the situations laid out is that the average citizen has little to no training on the use of the gun (when compared to a police officer or especially a soldier), or guns in general, let alone guns in crisis situations. If even trained cops can screw up, the likelyhood of extra casualties increases exponentially for someone who's only shot a few pop cans in the back yard, and more so if the person has never even fired a gun.
They are also taking a big risk. What if ten different people had guns and started opening fire, and started mistaking the other defenders for other assailants? Cops are generally easy to identify for more than one reason. A bunch of random gun carriers in a crowded theatre are not easily identifiable as defenders.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
One major problem when

One major problem when something like this happens, is the element of surprise.

I mean, I am sitting in a theatre, relaxing and watching a movie, and all of a sudden gunfire erupts. I would like to think that I would have enough presence of mind to hit the floor and start trying to determine where it was coming from and what direction. If I had a gun with me, I would probably take it out, but that would probably only be as a just in case, rather than trying to cowboy up and take out the shooter. But, what if my mind took a tiny split second to register that it was gunfire ?

The problem with any situation like this, is how FAST everything can go down.

When your entering into a potentially dangerous situation with pre-existing knowledge, then your already on your guard and expecting trouble. But when your in a setting that seems innocous as a movie theatre, your probably more relaxed and not entertaining the possibility of eminent danger.

I can't tell you how many gas stations I have walked into at 2 o'clock in the morning, without ever even thinking about the possibility that I could be walking into the middle of a robbery. Same scenario with walking into a bank to cash a check.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4429
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 The vast majority of

 The vast majority of crimes prevented by armed citizens are prevented without even firing a shot. Most criminals are cowards and tend to run away when faced with the possibility of being shot. There is almost never a "shootout" where prolonged gunfire is exchanged, that type of shit pretty much happens in the movies or when the BATF is involved, armed civilians generally only fire a couple shots. Generally personal defense situations occur at extremely close ranges in uncrowded areas, by far the most common places are homes and then places of business and I believe the car is next. The most common crime it prevents is robbery, which makes sense since the odds of some random person murdering you are extremely low compared to the odds of you being robbed. 

Gauche's idea that you can simply "run away" while it is certainly a good idea if possible, is obviously not always possible. I am sure that every rape victim has attempted to run away and failed. I am sure that every unarmed person who has been assaulted by a mugger has attempted to run away. Since these crimes still happen, obviously running away didn't work. I suppose there is an argument that many of these armed robbers have no intention of actually using their weapon and so the armed citizen shooting them creates a violent situation but it is impossible to discern which person waving a gun around is actually going to use it and which is just using it to intimidate. Either way, I have no problem with either one being shot. If you are going to point a gun at someone that is a clear threat to kill them regardless of whether you actually intend to kill them and you deserve to have a little lead injected into your body.  

The idea that you are going to have dozens of people pulling out guns is absurd. In states where concealed carry permits are tracked only about 0.5% of the population gets them, when you consider that many of those people don't carry 24/7 the odds of having even two people in the vicinity of a crime being armed are slim. As it turns out, Colorado is actually a right to carry state and a "shall issue" state, apparently no one in the crowd was carrying- or if they were they were not in a position where they judged they could do any good. It is quite possible that the movie theater has a "no gun" policy and in some states it is illegal to carry into a store that has signs posted, I know many movie theaters here have those signs. Not sure about this movie theater or Colorado law. No sign is going to stop a murderer and I'm willing to bet that Holmes did not have a concealed carry permit. (I tried to google it but apparently the news media doesn't think it is relevant.... reporters are so worthless.) Gun laws only stop people who desire to follow the law.  

I could construct hundreds of scenarios of being in that movie theater and whether or not having a gun would have been able to stop this maniac. Obviously, the confusion, darkness and smoke add in a number of factors that make it less likely you could do anything practical. Any attempt to shoot him would require you to be rather close. From most of the witness accounts I heard, the vast majority of people never saw the shooter because of the confusion and seeing the shooter is a prerequisite to shooting him. Someone actually carrying their gun to the theater and being seated in a position where they could get a clear shot on the shooter would have been extraordinarily lucky. However, at least if there is a chance at saving a few lives it is worthwhile. We know what happens when no one is armed and a killer can go on a spree unopposed- it makes that national headlines every time. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:The

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
The need for thoughtful discretion will always be a necessary requirement.  Still you only refer to"arguments" as a basis for wielding a firearm as if the only context for their use would be limited to some superficial motive.  Nevertheless the Texas Penal code establishes what qualifies as legally defensible and that includes "Defense of a Third Person" among other categories. 

  Yes, if I saw some wack job threatening to kill his girlfriend in a store parking lot ( it happened in Dallas where a guy named Todd Broom shot and killed  a guy threatening with a pistol ) I could take your advice and just run away and hope the cops show up before he blows her brains out.  If he kills her in the middle of my 911 call, well too bad for her, hunh ?
I think whether one should defend others is a very different question from whether you have a need to shoot back in order to escape yourself. In most cases being either the intended victim or not I don't believe you do.

Maybe the victim will be an innocent girl who won't get hit with any of your rounds when you start shooting, or maybe she won't be innocent, it's gang related and the family and friends of the gang member you just killed in the street in front of half a dozen witnesses will forget all about it because it was an honest mistake.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
I see, because in your view it should be assumed that the altercation was the fault of the victim and your use of the term "concerned upstanding citizen" is only used jokingly.   It would never devolve into a legitimate case of self defense.  If a female CHL holder were the victim of a rape attack it would probably be her fault for provoking the rape as well. 

Yes, I think more often than not if someone wants to kill you then it's because of something you've done. That's not to say that they should kill you of course. I'm not sure how rape factors into that though. Who the fuck would shoot a rape victim first anyway?
ProzacDeathWish wrote:
That's a good point, actually.  Couldn't a real police officer be deceived as well ?  How far do you want to take this ?

I'm sure they can be but you can't deny that police are in a better position to make that determination.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Would you say the same thing to the victims at the Aurora Movie-Plex ?    "Hey guys why didn't you just run away, then you wouldn't have got shot" ?

No, because they did run away and they still got shot. I never said running away was a guarantee. It's just the only non-idiotic thing to do.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:
I think for you it would indeed be a terrible idea.  Thank you for sharing Gauche, always a pleasure.

Oh I wouldn't need to do that because I kill with my bare hands like anyone who's not a pussy.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Gauche's idea that you can simply "run away" while it is certainly a good idea if possible, is obviously not always possible. I am sure that every rape victim has attempted to run away and failed. I am sure that every unarmed person who has been assaulted by a mugger has attempted to run away. Since these crimes still happen, obviously running away didn't work.

I said you can flee a shooting, not a rape or mugging. If someone is going to rape or mug you then they will not come in and shoot you first. Maybe the NRA has a list of things you should say like if someone comes at you with a gun then you don't know if it's a shooting, rape or mugging. If they are shooting then it's a shooting.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Oh I wouldn't

Gauche wrote:

Oh I wouldn't need to do that because I kill with my bare hands like anyone who's not a pussy.

heh.  Gauche kills more people before breakfast than most people kill all day.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:I think whether

Gauche wrote:

I think whether one should defend others is a very different question from whether you have a need to shoot back in order to escape yourself. In most cases being either the intended victim or not I don't believe you do.

 

Have you ever tried to out run a bullet ?  Besides your continued insistence that one can simply run away borders upon lunacy.

 

Gauche wrote:
Maybe the victim will be an innocent girl who won't get hit with any of your rounds when you start shooting, or maybe she won't be innocent, it's gang related and the family and friends of the gang member you just killed in the street in front of half a dozen witnesses will forget all about it because it was an honest mistake.

 

   Jesus Christ Gauche are you just too terrified to take a risk in order to preserve someone else's life ?   You will do nothing unless the outcome is guaranteed ?

 

Gauche wrote:

Yes, I think more often than not if someone wants to kill you then it's because of something you've done.

   

     You steadfastly cling to this "you deserve to get shot at" scenario, why is that ?  

 

 

Gauche wrote:
That's not to say that they should kill you of course.

 

  How magnanimous of you to say, lol.  

 

Gauche wrote:
I'm not sure how rape factors into that though. Who the fuck would shoot a rape victim first anyway?

 

Based upon your nonsensical interpretation ( who shoots a rape victim first anyway ? ) as opposed to my easily understood example of a female CHL holder attempting to thwart a crime it is obvious that your replies are based simply upon your distaste for armed citizens. 

 


Gauche wrote:

I'm sure they can be but you can't deny that police are in a better position to make that determination.

 

The police have certain advantages based upon training and support systems, of course.

 


Gauche wrote:

No, because they did run away and they still got shot. I never said running away was a guarantee. It's just the only non-idiotic thing to do.

 

 Perhaps you should lobby the "idiots" who passed this law, who by the way usually are accompanied either by armed body guards or carry hand guns themselves (  Politicians, judges, etc )  Incidentally, I enjoy the irony of "progressive" politicians who pass laws that disarm their constituents but nevertheless rely upon armed defense to protect their own lives.

 


Gauche wrote:

Oh I wouldn't need to do that because I kill with my bare hands like anyone who's not a pussy.

 

Yes, but as you previously suggested, what if you accidentally killed a gang member by mistake ?  Do you think they'll forgive you because you only used your hands ?

 

  And at this point Gauche you may have the last word.  It is obvious that your fine intellect is fading into the background and you are simply grasping for any desperate scenario that would indicate that defending one's self ( or others ) is not a viable option.    Nice talking with you. It was fun.

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Beyond Saving

Gauche wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Gauche's idea that you can simply "run away" while it is certainly a good idea if possible, is obviously not always possible. I am sure that every rape victim has attempted to run away and failed. I am sure that every unarmed person who has been assaulted by a mugger has attempted to run away. Since these crimes still happen, obviously running away didn't work.

I said you can flee a shooting, not a rape or mugging. If someone is going to rape or mug you then they will not come in and shoot you first. Maybe the NRA has a list of things you should say like if someone comes at you with a gun then you don't know if it's a shooting, rape or mugging. If they are shooting then it's a shooting.

 

While I was a military wife in Hawaii, there was a news article about a shooting.  It happened on a Naval base.  Dad was out on his ship and mom had a gun she kept loaded in the nightstand by the bed - in case of rape.  The six year old son got out the gun and fatally shot his two year old sister.

Don't know what happened to the family.  I do know what it is like when CID - Criminal Investigation Department in the military - gets involved. 

For every story of someone defending themselves with a weapon, there is another story of some tragic unintentional shooting.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.