PDA

View Full Version : Colorado firearm sales surge after Aurora massacre



Tom Montgomery
07-24-2012, 05:35 PM
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-24/colorado-gun-sales-surge-after-the-aurora-massacre

Is this a great country or what?

Peerie Maa
07-24-2012, 05:46 PM
Whats your real question or point you wish to make?
That a significant number of Americans are not rational or just plain dumb?

LeeG
07-24-2012, 05:56 PM
Can you imagine a dozen armed people in a movie theater trying to figure out who the bad gunman is?

Waddie
07-24-2012, 06:13 PM
Can you imagine a dozen armed people in a movie theater trying to figure out who the bad gunman is?

There are lots of instances every week where armed citizens prevent violence against themselves and others.

Rev. Henry Guyton, 71, a Baptist church pastor, called 911 one afternoon when a man at the church began acting as if he was having a heart attack. The man, 38-year-old Jesse Gates, left the church after being examined by EMS. Gates returned to the church later that day carrying a shotgun. The reverend’s grandson, Aaron Guyton, 26, spotted the shotgun and locked the doors. Gates, however, kicked open a side door of the sanctuary and pointed the gun at the pastor and congregation. As a concealed carry permit holder, Aaron acted quickly to detain Gates at gunpoint until police arrived. Everyone was reportedly unharmed. (goupstate.com (http://www.goupstate.com/), Boiling Springs, S.C., 3/25/12)


Just after 2 p.m. one afternoon, a woman was home alone when she heard a knock at her door. The two men at the door began inquiring about a friend of hers. Suddenly she was forced back into the house at gunpoint and into a closet. That closet, however, was where the woman kept a gun of her own. She fired at the intruders causing them to flee. One of the intruders suffered a gunshot wound and collapsed on the sidewalk outside. He was later pronounced dead. The woman was uninjured. (KCTV5 News (http://www.kctv5.com/), Kansas City, Mo., 4/9/12)

When a resident returned home one evening, he was confronted in his driveway by a man with a gun. The victim was ordered inside the residence where his family was being held hostage. Once inside, the victim was shot in the back. Wounded, he still managed to get a firearm and return fire. The alleged assailant fled on foot and was later located at a nearby residence. Both men were taken to the hospital for treatment and the victim’s family was reportedly unharmed. (The Jeffersonian (http://www.daily-jeff.com/), Cambridge, Ohio, 2/29/2012).

http://www.americanrifleman.org/BlogList.aspx?cid=25&id=21

regards,
Waddie

John Smith
07-24-2012, 06:20 PM
I have no doubt that an armed citizen can prevent some crime, or that in other cases he makes a bad situation worse.

Zimmerman was an armed citizen. There are many ways the events of that night could have ended differently. Him not having a gun would have been one of them.

I'm sorry, but all of this is the cost of the freedom that is not free. For all the screams for more gun control we'll hear, I've yet to see someone explain a gun law that will actually work.

Laws against drugs don't work. Laws against alcohol didn't work. Laws against guns won't work either. If people are free to drink, that drinking will be the cause of some tragedies. If people are allowed to drive, it will result in some tragedies. If people are allowed to have guns, it will result in some tragedies.

This recent tragedy has apparently outlawed wearing costumes into theaters.

So many people believe freedom is not free, but they get so upset when the cost of that freedom manifests itself in something like this.

TomF
07-24-2012, 06:30 PM
... This recent tragedy has apparently outlawed wearing costumes into theaters.
....Please God - you're joking?

It's prohibited to dress the part while attending a midnight showing of the Rocky Horror Picture Show, because one might be concealing violent intent underneath one's fishnets and eyeliner, but it's still as legal as ever to carry an actual weapon into the theater? For personal protection against Frankenfurter or Janet? (Dammit!)

Only in America. Guns don't kill people, costumes kill people.

John Smith
07-24-2012, 06:34 PM
Please God - you're joking?

It's prohibited to dress the part while attending a midnight showing of the Rocky Horror Picture Show, because one might be concealing violent intent underneath one's fishnets and eyeliner, but it's still as legal as ever to carry an actual weapon into the theater? For personal protection against Frankenfurter or Janet? (Dammit!)

Only in America. Guns don't kill people, costumes kill people.

No, I heard that from a couple of sources today. Knee Jerk reactions: American as apple pie.

John Smith
07-24-2012, 06:36 PM
http://www.pressandguide.com/articles/2012/07/24/news/doc500efa904ea24486837502.txt

Maybe they should prohibit showing movies in movie theaters. That way they'd always be empty and there'd be no crowd to shoot.

Chip-skiff
07-24-2012, 06:44 PM
The only thing worse than being shot at by a crazy bugger in a movie theater would be to be caught in a crossfire.

Phillip Allen
07-24-2012, 06:46 PM
During the three days following the July 20 shooting, gun dealers submitted 2,887 requests for state background checks, compared with 2,012 during the same period a week earlier, according to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.


I wonder if the gun show over the weekend had anything to do with the additional applications? Nice spin though, lots of clever people out there not willing to let a serious crisis go to waste.

closer to hunting seasons too

Nicholas Scheuer
07-24-2012, 06:50 PM
When Colorado has a gun in every car, and another in every purse, and larger calibre ones tucked in every belt, just think how safe everyone will be then?j

Phillip Allen
07-24-2012, 06:55 PM
When Colorado has a gun in every car, and another in every purse, and larger calibre ones tucked in every belt, just think how safe everyone will be then?j

do you mean to be taken seriously?

wardd
07-24-2012, 07:21 PM
do you mean to be taken seriously?


why not, you want to be taken seriously

hanleyclifford
07-24-2012, 07:29 PM
Let's hope that the Colorado licensing authorities take their job seriously and ID the whackos; not a perfect solution, but the best available now.

BrianW
07-24-2012, 07:40 PM
The only thing worse than being shot at by a crazy bugger in a movie theater would be to be caught in a crossfire.

I'll just go ahead and disagree.

I'd prefer cross-fire, knowing someone was trying to help.

wardd
07-24-2012, 07:45 PM
I'll just go ahead and disagree.

I'd prefer cross-fire, knowing someone was trying to help.

when only one is shooting at you, you know which way to run

Peter Malcolm Jardine
07-24-2012, 07:45 PM
Whats your real question or point you wish to make?

I got it, why didn't you?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
07-24-2012, 07:48 PM
There are lots of instances every week where armed citizens prevent violence against themselves and others.

Rev. Henry Guyton, 71, a Baptist church pastor, called 911 one afternoon when a man at the church began acting as if he was having a heart attack. The man, 38-year-old Jesse Gates, left the church after being examined by EMS. Gates returned to the church later that day carrying a shotgun. The reverendís grandson, Aaron Guyton, 26, spotted the shotgun and locked the doors. Gates, however, kicked open a side door of the sanctuary and pointed the gun at the pastor and congregation. As a concealed carry permit holder, Aaron acted quickly to detain Gates at gunpoint until police arrived. Everyone was reportedly unharmed. (goupstate.com (http://www.goupstate.com/), Boiling Springs, S.C., 3/25/12)


Just after 2 p.m. one afternoon, a woman was home alone when she heard a knock at her door. The two men at the door began inquiring about a friend of hers. Suddenly she was forced back into the house at gunpoint and into a closet. That closet, however, was where the woman kept a gun of her own. She fired at the intruders causing them to flee. One of the intruders suffered a gunshot wound and collapsed on the sidewalk outside. He was later pronounced dead. The woman was uninjured. (KCTV5 News (http://www.kctv5.com/), Kansas City, Mo., 4/9/12)

When a resident returned home one evening, he was confronted in his driveway by a man with a gun. The victim was ordered inside the residence where his family was being held hostage. Once inside, the victim was shot in the back. Wounded, he still managed to get a firearm and return fire. The alleged assailant fled on foot and was later located at a nearby residence. Both men were taken to the hospital for treatment and the victimís family was reportedly unharmed. (The Jeffersonian (http://www.daily-jeff.com/), Cambridge, Ohio, 2/29/2012).

http://www.americanrifleman.org/BlogList.aspx?cid=25&id=21

regards,
Waddie


Cool, everyone had a gun. Just like gunsmoke. Stuff like this almost NEVER happens up here. You guys are soooo lucky.

WX
07-24-2012, 07:57 PM
Let's hope that the Colorado licensing authorities take their job seriously and ID the whackos; not a perfect solution, but the best available now.
The problem here is the assumption that if a person has a legal firearm then they are sane and or rational. I would consider that to be a false and potentially dangerous premise on which to base ones security.

hanleyclifford
07-24-2012, 08:07 PM
The problem here is the assumption that if a person has a legal firearm then they are sane and or rational. I would consider that to be a false and potentially dangerous premise on which to base ones security. The same line of reasoning can be applied to driver's licenses. Car crashes kill just as dead as firearms.

wardd
07-24-2012, 08:29 PM
The same line of reasoning can be applied to driver's licenses. Car crashes kill just as dead as firearms.

there are some risks society has decided are worth the risk

i drive, i don't walk around with a gun

i bet most of the people are with me

Waddie
07-24-2012, 08:37 PM
Cool, everyone had a gun. Just like gunsmoke. Stuff like this almost NEVER happens up here. You guys are soooo lucky.

Can you say Toronto, Canada; http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/06/20120603-085250.html

Can you say Scarborough, Canada; http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/man-charged-in-scarborough-shooting-was-very-intelligent-always-laughing/article4428471/

FOUR MORE in Canada; http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120722-700806.html

regards,
Waddie

hanleyclifford
07-24-2012, 08:40 PM
there are some risks society has decided are worth the risk

i drive, i don't walk around with a gun

i bet most of the people are with me If you don't mind I think I'll decide what is worth the risk for me.

RodSBT
07-24-2012, 08:41 PM
I'll just go ahead and disagree.

I'd prefer cross-fire, knowing someone was trying to help.

+++1

wardd
07-24-2012, 08:41 PM
If you don't mind I think I'll decide what is worth the risk for me.

your risk can become my risk if you suddenly start shooting randomly in all directions

RodSBT
07-24-2012, 08:43 PM
when only one is shooting at you, you know which way to run

Hate to break it to you wardd but bullets are faster.
You need to quit watching reruns of underdog.

Phillip Allen
07-24-2012, 08:45 PM
your risk can become my risk if you suddenly start shooting randomly in all directions

along that line of logic... you could be very dangerous if you decide to run people down on the sidewalks

wardd
07-24-2012, 08:46 PM
Hate to break it to you wardd but bullets are faster.
You need to quit watching reruns of underdog.

so are spit balls

but with bullets coming from one direction you have a better chance

read up on ambushes to see what i mean

Chris Coose
07-24-2012, 08:49 PM
I'll just go ahead and disagree.

I'd prefer cross-fire, knowing someone was trying to help.

Brilliant! say there were 6 heros shooting in the dark at the bad guy. You'd be 6 times more likely to get hit.
I'm telling ya. Montgomery has it 100%

LeeG
07-24-2012, 08:53 PM
Hate to break it to you wardd but bullets are faster.
You need to quit watching reruns of underdog.

ok, that was funny

RodSBT
07-24-2012, 09:15 PM
ok, that was funny

Gee, Thanks Lee. I feel all warm and fuzzy now.:d

wardd
07-24-2012, 09:18 PM
Gee, Thanks Lee. I feel all warm and fuzzy now.:d

that's a sucking chest wound from bullets flying from all directions

WX
07-24-2012, 09:33 PM
The same line of reasoning can be applied to driver's licenses. Car crashes kill just as dead as firearms.
Though a car can be used as a weapon a gun can only be used as a weapon, it can not be used as a car. I consider your argument invalid.

Phillip Allen
07-24-2012, 09:35 PM
Though a car can be used as a weapon a gun can only be used as a weapon, it can not be used as a car. I consider your argument invalid.

I use my firearms not as weapons but as a hobby... I've shot no one at all... even wardd can't claim that, I'd bet

wardd
07-24-2012, 09:37 PM
I use my firearms not as weapons but as a hobby... I've shot no one at all... even wardd can't claim that, I'd bet

i bet it wasn't your fault, you just don't know where i live

Garret
07-24-2012, 09:46 PM
Duh, I don't know. Maybe because I don't have the experience you have as a vacuum cleaner and used car salesman. That gives you insight into peoples thoughts I guess.

Jumpin Jiminy Art - who dropped a load in your oatmeal this morning?

I have done both of those jobs. Got a problem with that? Maybe you'd rather I went on welfare?

Phillip Allen
07-24-2012, 09:47 PM
i bet it wasn't your fault, you just don't know where i live

nonesense... as usual

RodSBT
07-24-2012, 09:58 PM
that's a sucking chest wound from bullets flying from all directions

The above quote assumes that who ever is in the movie theater who may have the inclination and tools to defend themselves and/or loved ones is obviously an incompetent and cuts loose with a hail of bullets, not having a clue as to who or what to shoot at.

With comments like this (your quote, wardd) one can only assume anti-gun/liberal/progressive/socialists have a very low view of themselves. They seem to have no self control when it comes to health, drugs, sex, deadly confrontations, whatever they deem necessary for gov control in order to remove personal responsibility. Whats worse, they assume that everyone else is at least as incompetent as they are if not more so, especially those who disagree with their view of inadequacy.

History is replete with contrary examples to their view yet they continue to prove Einstein correct.

Phillip Allen
07-24-2012, 10:01 PM
The above quote assumes that who ever is in the movie theater who may have the inclination and tools to defend themselves and/or loved ones is obviously an incompetent and cuts loose with a hail of bullets, not having a clue as to who or what to shoot at.

With comments like this (your quote, wardd) one can only assume anti-gun/liberal/progressive/socialists have a very low view of themselves. They seem to have no self control when it comes to health, drugs, sex, deadly confrontations, whatever they deem necessary for gov control in order to remove personal responsibility. Whats worse, they assume that everyone else is at least as incompetent as they are if not more so, especially those who disagree with their view of inadequacy.

History is replete with contrary examples to their view yet they continue to prove Einstein correct.

thank you

wardd
07-24-2012, 10:02 PM
The above quote assumes that who ever is in the movie theater who may have the inclination and tools to defend themselves and/or loved ones is obviously an incompetent and cuts loose with a hail of bullets, not having a clue as to who or what to shoot at.

With comments like this (your quote, wardd) one can only assume anti-gun/liberal/progressive/socialists have a very low view of themselves. They seem to have no self control when it comes to health, drugs, sex, deadly confrontations, whatever they deem necessary for gov control in order to remove personal responsibility. Whats worse, they assume that everyone else is at least as incompetent as they are if not more so, especially those who disagree with their view of inadequacy.

History is replete with contrary examples to their view yet they continue to prove Einstein correct.

can you guarantee they would be competent and level headed under the circumstances?

LeeG
07-24-2012, 10:06 PM
this thread is weird

wardd
07-24-2012, 10:11 PM
this thread is weird

lets hope walking into a crowded theater with weapons and killing people doesn't become comonplace

wardd
07-24-2012, 10:12 PM
i just wonder how many incidents of this kind have to take place before pa says enough?

BrianW
07-24-2012, 10:29 PM
can you guarantee they would be competent and level headed under the circumstances?

No guarantees, but if the only guy shooting in the theater is the bad guy, then every bullet is intended to kill innocent people. I'd be happy to have a few being fired with the intent to kill the bad guy.

There's a balance. The story doesn't have to be all idiots shooting into the crowd. If you need to go to extremes to make a point, maybe there's a problem with that point.

wardd
07-24-2012, 10:32 PM
"
According to a study unveiled at the Center for American Progress on Tuesday, 82 percent of 945 self-identified gun owners said they support requiring criminal background checks for gun purchasers. The sample was divided evenly between gun owners who were current or lapsed members of the NRA and non-NRA gun owners. 74 percent of the NRA members said they support the background checks.The study, which was conducted in May by GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz, revealed the following data points as well (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Luntz.GunOwners.Final.Embargoed.7.23.12.pptx):

74 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.
68 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.
63 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.
75 percent of NRA members believe that concealed carry permits should be granted only to those applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors."

Paul Girouard
07-24-2012, 10:34 PM
There's a balance. The story doesn't have to be all idiots shooting into the crowd. If you need to go to extremes to make a point, maybe there's a problem with that point.



You could use that line over on the Revisiting Obama remarks thread.

wardd
07-24-2012, 10:35 PM
No guarantees, but if the only guy shooting in the theater is the bad guy, then every bullet is intended to kill innocent people. I'd be happy to have a few being fired with the intent to kill the bad guy.

There's a balance. The story doesn't have to be all idiots shooting into the crowd. If you need to go to extremes to make a point, maybe there's a problem with that point.

what if some of those intended for the bad guy wearing body armor hit Innocent bystanders?

if the bad guy is standing in the middle of the crowd every bullet that misses him will hit somebody else

WX
07-24-2012, 10:54 PM
I use my firearms not as weapons but as a hobby... I've shot no one at all... even wardd can't claim that, I'd bet

A weapon is defined under various federal, state, and local laws, which vary by jurisdiction. A weapon is generally something used to injure, defeat, or destroy and may cover many types of instruments, such as a blackjack, slingshot, billy, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, pistol, revolver, or any other firearm, razor with an unguarded blade, and any metal pipe or bar used or intended to be used in a club, among others.
By this definition if it is used to destroy something it is a weapon...clay pigeons and targets included. You may however translate weapon as meaning rifle, shotgun or handgun. You still can't use one as a car.:)

RodSBT
07-24-2012, 11:31 PM
what if some of those intended for the bad guy wearing body armor hit Innocent bystanders?

if the bad guy is standing in the middle of the crowd every bullet that misses him will hit somebody else

You're right, wardd. Its a no win situation. Better to carry just one bullet.
That way you can plug yourself and prevent the stress of not knowing what to do next.

leikec
07-24-2012, 11:54 PM
You're right, wardd. Its a no win situation. Better to carry just one bullet.
That way you can plug yourself and prevent the stress of not knowing what to do next.

Rod, have you ever been in a situation where someone was shooting at you?

Jeff C

RodSBT
07-25-2012, 12:16 AM
Rod, have you ever been in a situation where someone was shooting at you?

Jeff C

No. But I've talked to enough people who have(some with multiple shooting incidences, not limited to but include thousands of SWAT entries) who's personal accounts led me to believe there are very good odds for success, if one is willing to get their head on straight.

The problem, as wardd has pointed out so many times, is that some here want guarantees. As life proves on a daily basis, there are no guarantees. Waiting around to get permission or for someone else to clean up a mess isn't always an option.
So when you get that box a' chocolates, it's up to you to decide what you're going to do with it.

htom
07-25-2012, 12:25 AM
Please God - you're joking?

It's prohibited to dress the part while attending a midnight showing of the Rocky Horror Picture Show, because one might be concealing violent intent underneath one's fishnets and eyeliner, but it's still as legal as ever to carry an actual weapon into the theater? For personal protection against Frankenfurter or Janet? (Dammit!)

Only in America. Guns don't kill people, costumes kill people.

The story that I read was that the theatre chains involved have now banned costumes (and have continued their ban on concealed carry.) Exactly what was meant by "banning costumes" I'm not sure, I suspect that clothing is still required. If I grow my hair out, I might be able to hid a derringer in my ponytail.

BrianW
07-25-2012, 02:29 AM
what if some of those intended for the bad guy wearing body armor hit Innocent bystanders?

if the bad guy is standing in the middle of the crowd every bullet that misses him will hit somebody else

What if the good guys hit him, and stop him in mid-massacre?

skuthorp
07-25-2012, 05:00 AM
The thread is pointless, guns are a US cultural phenomena and will continue to be so. Casualties are just a part of it and seemingly acceptable to the majority.

Phillip Allen
07-25-2012, 06:05 AM
What if the good guys hit him, and stop him in mid-massacre?

they'd never stop him in mid massacre... it wouldn't happen until the end of the massacre, by defination

Phillip Allen
07-25-2012, 06:08 AM
By this definition if it is used to destroy something it is a weapon...clay pigeons and targets included. You may however translate weapon as meaning rifle, shotgun or handgun. You still can't use one as a car.:)

what about self-propelled artillary? :)

TomF
07-25-2012, 06:28 AM
So, why the surge in firearm sales? Only the time of year etc., or is there also a possibility of people worrying about tighter laws restricting access? Or wanting to feel safer, so arming in response?

hanleyclifford
07-25-2012, 06:45 AM
The thread is pointless, guns are a US cultural phenomena and will continue to be so. Casualties are just a part of it and seemingly acceptable to the majority. I think this comment contains some truth. I've been in many situations where people were shooting at me, and on balance I would prefer to take my chances on being armed myself---understanding and accepting the risks.

Kevin T
07-25-2012, 07:10 AM
I'll just go ahead and disagree.

I'd prefer cross-fire, knowing someone was trying to help.

And you would know this wasn't some kind of a coordinated attack like that which happened in Columbine exactly how?

And if a third and fourth CC got up and started returning fire at shooter #2, you figure in a dark, chaotic theater these additional CC's will be able to sort everything out perfectly.

Remind me never to go to the movies with you BDub;)

Phillip Allen
07-25-2012, 07:22 AM
And you would know this wasn't some kind of a coordinated attack like that which happened in Columbine exactly how?

And if a third and fourth CC got up and started returning fire at shooter #2, you figure in a dark, chaotic theater these additional CC's will be able to sort everything out perfectly.

Remind me never to go to the movies with you BDub;)

you sure can think of a lot of what-ifs...

Phillip Allen
07-25-2012, 07:24 AM
So, why the surge in firearm sales? Only the time of year etc., or is there also a possibility of people worrying about tighter laws restricting access? Or wanting to feel safer, so arming in response?

I would think the 'surge' needs to be compared to several years at the same time

ChrisBen
07-25-2012, 07:24 AM
I've been in many situations where people were shooting at me, Damn, the Vineyard's gone downhill since I was there last. :d

Phillip Allen
07-25-2012, 07:25 AM
So, why the surge in firearm sales? Only the time of year etc., or is there also a possibility of people worrying about tighter laws restricting access? Or wanting to feel safer, so arming in response?

I suspect that you might want to ask what is the most profitable answer for the media

skuthorp
07-25-2012, 07:40 AM
I suspect that you might want to ask what is the most profitable answer for the media

Aint that the truth. The media here is making hay on the story, I imagine even more in the US.

Mrleft8
07-25-2012, 07:52 AM
I got it, why didn't you?
Is this a serious question?......
(Of course not!..... But I knew that already! :D)

John Smith
07-25-2012, 11:09 AM
The problem here is the assumption that if a person has a legal firearm then they are sane and or rational. I would consider that to be a false and potentially dangerous premise on which to base ones security.

At the risk of being accused of mixing apples and oranges, how many people buy booze for someone else? Why would guns be any different?

If someone can propose a gun law that has any chance of working, I'd like to see it. So far, i can't recall seeing any actual specific ideas that would work any better than our laws against drugs do.

John Smith
07-25-2012, 11:10 AM
The same line of reasoning can be applied to driver's licenses. Car crashes kill just as dead as firearms.

That is true, but the purpose of a car is not to kill people; simply transport them. What is the purpose of a gun?

John Smith
07-25-2012, 11:15 AM
The above quote assumes that who ever is in the movie theater who may have the inclination and tools to defend themselves and/or loved ones is obviously an incompetent and cuts loose with a hail of bullets, not having a clue as to who or what to shoot at.

With comments like this (your quote, wardd) one can only assume anti-gun/liberal/progressive/socialists have a very low view of themselves. They seem to have no self control when it comes to health, drugs, sex, deadly confrontations, whatever they deem necessary for gov control in order to remove personal responsibility. Whats worse, they assume that everyone else is at least as incompetent as they are if not more so, especially those who disagree with their view of inadequacy.

History is replete with contrary examples to their view yet they continue to prove Einstein correct.

Likewise you make the assumption that a movie goer with a gun would be an expert. All these are strange assumptions. Here's one that's not so strange. If Holmes hadn't had his guns, this incident would not have happened in this way. He MIGHT have made a bomb, or he might not have. He did use the guns.

John Smith
07-25-2012, 11:18 AM
No guarantees, but if the only guy shooting in the theater is the bad guy, then every bullet is intended to kill innocent people. I'd be happy to have a few being fired with the intent to kill the bad guy.

There's a balance. The story doesn't have to be all idiots shooting into the crowd. If you need to go to extremes to make a point, maybe there's a problem with that point.

I'd be happy if someone quickly shot this guy in the head. A lot of people would. However, this guy was wrapped in body armor, which the would be hero probably wouldn't have known. The hero shoots a couple of times, not killing Holmes, and Holmes responds with a couple of hundred more bullets, and more people are dead.

There is simply no way, in any set of circumstances, to know whether another gun would help or hurt. There was a guy with a gun when Giffords was shot, and he almost shot; the wrong man.

John Smith
07-25-2012, 11:21 AM
No. But I've talked to enough people who have(some with multiple shooting incidences, not limited to but include thousands of SWAT entries) who's personal accounts led me to believe there are very good odds for success, if one is willing to get their head on straight.

The problem, as wardd has pointed out so many times, is that some here want guarantees. As life proves on a daily basis, there are no guarantees. Waiting around to get permission or for someone else to clean up a mess isn't always an option.
So when you get that box a' chocolates, it's up to you to decide what you're going to do with it.

A simple question. My granddaughter is in the theater. She ducks when the shooting starts. YOU play hero and YOUR bullet kills her. What is your liability?

Flying Orca
07-25-2012, 11:30 AM
If someone can propose a gun law that has any chance of working, I'd like to see it. So far, i can't recall seeing any actual specific ideas that would work any better than our laws against drugs do.

You could always take a look at what's worked elsewhere. (Cue the "Nope, nothing that works elsewhere will work here because Amurica is special..." in 3, 2, 1...)

Phillip Allen
07-25-2012, 11:39 AM
Tell me, John, what about an off-duty policeman shooting wildly in the theater

leikec
07-25-2012, 11:54 AM
Tell me, John, what about an off-duty policeman shooting wildly in the theater


What do you think would happen, Phillip? Do you think there wouldn't be an investigation after a shooting--or that there wouldn't be any criminal and/or civil liability for such an action?

Jeff C

wardd
07-25-2012, 11:58 AM
Rod, have you ever been in a situation where someone was shooting at you?

Jeff C

obviously not, he seems to think he would preserve his cool and shoot straight and true

Phillip Allen
07-25-2012, 12:01 PM
What do you think would happen, Phillip? Do you think there wouldn't be an investigation after a shooting--or that there wouldn't be any criminal and/or civil liability for such an action?

Jeff C

being as how the policeman is 'trained', his defense of his people would work flawlessly... I've seen that writtin right here

wardd
07-25-2012, 12:01 PM
What if the good guys hit him, and stop him in mid-massacre?

how much collateral damage is acceptable?

in nam all charlie had to do was sneak up fire one round and we would pound the area for half an hour

wardd
07-25-2012, 12:05 PM
you sure can think of a lot of what-ifs...

the military has a saying, "fight the way you've trained, train the way you'll fight"

how much training have you had for such situations?

Phillip Allen
07-25-2012, 12:07 PM
the military has a saying, "fight the way you've trained, train the way you'll fight"

how much training have you had for such situations?

50 years of study... no actual experience

wardd
07-25-2012, 12:10 PM
want to control the whole carry issue, make securing carry insurance a requirement after all you need auto insurance to drive

wardd
07-25-2012, 12:11 PM
50 years of study... no actual experience

sorry, study is not training, i've read some articles on brain surgery does that count?

leikec
07-25-2012, 12:16 PM
50 years of study... no actual experience


Which is like telling people you'd be a great quarterback because you've watched a lot of football on TV.... :D

Jeff C

Phillip Allen
07-25-2012, 12:25 PM
Which is like telling people you'd be a great quarterback because you've watched a lot of football on TV.... :D

Jeff C

how many theater shootings have you been in?

leikec
07-25-2012, 12:28 PM
how many theater shootings have you been in?


None. I have been shot at though--it is a very unpleasant experience.

Jeff C

wardd
07-25-2012, 12:29 PM
how many theater shootings have you been in?

and this bears on proper training how?

remember we're the ones against carry

wardd
07-25-2012, 12:29 PM
None. I have been shot at though--it is a very unpleasant experience.

Jeff C

a person can get hurt

Phillip Allen
07-25-2012, 12:33 PM
None. I have been shot at though--it is a very unpleasant experience.

Jeff C

ya got me there, as far as I know, I have never been a target. That is one very important reason that I have qualified my statements by saying that I really do not know what I would do. I know what I'd like to do but remain untested

Phillip Allen
07-25-2012, 12:34 PM
Which is like telling people you'd be a great quarterback because you've watched a lot of football on TV.... :D

Jeff C

I notice that coaches never suit-up

RodSBT
07-25-2012, 12:38 PM
A simple question. My granddaughter is in the theater. She ducks when the shooting starts. YOU play hero and YOUR bullet kills her. What is your liability?

I don't play "hero". Besides, what is your grand daughter doing at a midnight showing and why would I shoot a little girl who has ducked down under the seats? (oh yeah, that "more incompetent than I am" thing).

leikec
07-25-2012, 12:38 PM
I notice that coaches never suit-up

Most coaches are ex-NFL or former college players.

Jeff C

Phillip Allen
07-25-2012, 12:40 PM
Most coaches are ex-NFL or former college players.

Jeff C

okay... let us get specific... how many coaches on a team? one for each position? That would be aprox 22 I think plus one each for kickers, etc

while we're at it, how many coaches (living or dead) were NOT professional players?

leikec
07-25-2012, 12:44 PM
okay... let us get specific... how many coaches on a team? one for each position? That would be aprox 22 I think plus one each for kickers, etc

while we're at it, how many coaches (living or dead) were NOT professional players?


Are we drifting, Phillip? :D

Jeff C

Phillip Allen
07-25-2012, 12:46 PM
Are we drifting, Phillip? :D

Jeff C

I'm just defending the notion that I don't have to have been shot at to have useful ideas of how to deal with it

wardd
07-25-2012, 12:46 PM
I notice that coaches never suit-up

coaches have very different jobs than players

wardd
07-25-2012, 12:48 PM
Are we drifting, Phillip? :D

Jeff C

no, we're floundering

hanleyclifford
07-25-2012, 12:48 PM
At the risk of being accused of mixing apples and oranges, how many people buy booze for someone else? Why would guns be any different?

If someone can propose a gun law that has any chance of working, I'd like to see it. So far, i can't recall seeing any actual specific ideas that would work any better than our laws against drugs do. Then you should study some of the state firearms laws, maybe even Massachusetts. When properly administered they work well. The trouble with you lefties is you want "absolutes" in matters like this ( except when you don't).

Phillip Allen
07-25-2012, 01:08 PM
Then you should study some of the state firearms laws, maybe even Massachusetts. When properly administered they work well. The trouble with you lefties is you want "absolutes" in matters like this ( except when you don't).

NAILED it!!!

LeeG
07-25-2012, 01:39 PM
That is true, but the purpose of a car is not to kill people; simply transport them. What is the purpose of a gun?

Increase potency

TomF
07-25-2012, 02:00 PM
What absolute do I want, that you don't also want? Only one I can think of is wanting no more lone gunman mass shootings.

I dunno what would be possible for an armed civilian good guy, if some looney in body armour with a fairly high cap military-style rifle opened fire in a dark theater. Across the theater, in the dark, surrounded by hundreds of panicked and screaming people, how many are better than 80% sure they could do a headshot with whatever weapon they'd likely be carrying concealed? On the first round, so as to not hit another civilian?

The guys I read on unarmed self-defence are very clear that the adrenaline dump messes with most fine motor control, meaning that most martial artists would have fairly little of their set of techniques reliably available. Taken by surprise like this, I can't imagine that you'd be more accurate in the dark with a handgun than a black belt would be with a roundhouse kick from close up. And usually, the black belt freezes, and loses a whole bunch of trained motor control.

Unless, of course, they've spent a lot of time doing their stuff in high-adrenaline, threatening situations. Is that type of pressure-training required to get a concealed carry pemit? Or are most carriers probably less used to adrenaline than the typical martial artist with moderate sparring experience?

Bob Adams
07-25-2012, 02:09 PM
Increase potency

Really Lee? I was plenty potent before I became a gun owner. Unsure of yourself? Go to a range, rent a gun, tear up a few targets then go home to the wife. See if it helps you.

hanleyclifford
07-25-2012, 02:30 PM
What absolute do I want, that you don't also want? Only one I can think of is wanting no more lone gunman mass shootings.

I dunno what would be possible for an armed civilian good guy, if some looney in body armour with a fairly high cap military-style rifle opened fire in a dark theater. Across the theater, in the dark, surrounded by hundreds of panicked and screaming people, how many are better than 80% sure they could do a headshot with whatever weapon they'd likely be carrying concealed? On the first round, so as to not hit another civilian?

The guys I read on unarmed self-defence are very clear that the adrenaline dump messes with most fine motor control, meaning that most martial artists would have fairly little of their set of techniques reliably available. Taken by surprise like this, I can't imagine that you'd be more accurate in the dark with a handgun than a black belt would be with a roundhouse kick from close up. And usually, the black belt freezes, and loses a whole bunch of trained motor control.

Unless, of course, they've spent a lot of time doing their stuff in high-adrenaline, threatening situations. Is that type of pressure-training required to get a concealed carry pemit? Or are most carriers probably less used to adrenaline than the typical martial artist with moderate sparring experience? Of couse we all want to have absolute safety but that is a dream, Tom. Your hypothesis that very few concealed carriers are qualified to return fire in a dark, crowded theatre is probably correct. Hold your fire until you have acquired a proper target. There are many situations much less problematical than the scenario under discusssion. In the Aurora situation I probably would have held my fire and gotten real tight with the carpet, armed or not!

Bruce Hooke
07-25-2012, 03:28 PM
If someone can propose a gun law that has any chance of working, I'd like to see it.

MANY countries around the world have demonstrated that it is very possible to regulate guns much more than we do in the US and the result is demonstrably a lot fewer guns in circulation in these countries. These countries in general also have MUCH lower rates of gun deaths. So, the idea that gun laws cannot be effective at reducing the number of guns in circulation and the number of gun deaths is quite absurd. The only question is if the US implemented such laws, what would the "transition period" look like while we went from lots of guns being in circulation to a much lower number of guns being in circulation. For a while it is likely that criminals would still have their guns while honest folks did not but over time the guns in the hands of criminals would be caught with the criminals, destroyed, or otherwise rendered useless. That point can reasonably be debated. What cannot reasonably be debated is whether guns can effectively be regulated. The evidence is very clearly in that they can be.

htom
07-25-2012, 06:42 PM
Historically, there are upticks in sales when there are mass killings, spree rapists, or calls for more gun control (as well as things like hunting season approaching.)

TomF
07-25-2012, 07:48 PM
Htom, the CBC website's running a story now observing just that. Uptick in sales both nationally and in Colorado - markedly up since just last week, compared with a bunch of time periods. And the guys running courses to enable concealed carry report doing a brisker business than usual too.

htom
07-26-2012, 12:07 AM
... and Obama just called for laws banning the AK-47? ! (presumably the semi-auto version, since we can't make or import automatic ones.) ncgunblog.com/2012/07/25/oh-lord-please-make-my-enemies-arrogant-and-stupid/ (http://www.ncgunblog.com/2012/07/25/oh-lord-please-make-my-enemies-arrogant-and-stupid/)

Phillip Allen
07-26-2012, 12:15 AM
... and Obama just called for laws banning the AK-47? ! (presumably the semi-auto version, since we can't make or import automatic ones.) ncgunblog.com/2012/07/25/oh-lord-please-make-my-enemies-arrogant-and-stupid/ (http://www.ncgunblog.com/2012/07/25/oh-lord-please-make-my-enemies-arrogant-and-stupid/)

but an AK was not used in the theater and none were listed anywhere else... do I hear the rumble of an engineered stampede?

Iceboy
07-26-2012, 06:56 AM
Maybe he reads the NYT.:D
but an AK was not used in the theater and none were listed anywhere else... do I hear the rumble of an engineered stampede?

Garret
07-26-2012, 07:42 AM
... and Obama just called for laws banning the AK-47? ! (presumably the semi-auto version, since we can't make or import automatic ones.) ncgunblog.com/2012/07/25/oh-lord-please-make-my-enemies-arrogant-and-stupid/ (http://www.ncgunblog.com/2012/07/25/oh-lord-please-make-my-enemies-arrogant-and-stupid/)

Have you looked @ what web sites say this? Absolutely none that I've ever heard of. Show me something real & I'll start to believe it.

htom
07-26-2012, 09:10 AM
Have you looked @ what web sites say this? Absolutely none that I've ever heard of. Show me something real & I'll start to believe it.

Breaking news comes with video, long before the narrative that explains to the mob.