4 people killed during Batman premiere
07-21-2012, 10:19 AM
Quote: (07-20-2012 10:45 AM)Blackhawk Wrote:
The thing consistent in all these assholes is they go to places where they know large groups of people will be unarmed and unable to fight back. They will be the only guy with a gun in the entire place.
Columbine? They wanted to commit suicide, and decided it'd be fun to kill a lot of people before they did. School campus. Unarmed kids.
One L. Goh in Oakland did a Richard Spec. Goes to a gun free campus. Corners a bunch of unarmed female students and shoots them at his leisure. Then drives off to brag to his check-out clerk friends about his one moment of power.
Add VA Tech to that. 'Gun free zones' are just soft target kill zones.
Why don't mass shooters go to shooting ranges or gun matches and do their dirty deed? Plenty of targets, and they can carry their guns without causing suspicion. Yet they don't. Because even psychopaths don't like getting shot. So they choose places where they can be sure they will be the only ones with a gun.
If the politicians think labeling something a 'gun free zone' is effective, why is the Capitol Building surrounded by heavily armed men? Why not just slap some "No Guns" signs on the property and save millions of dollars annually?
Quote: (07-20-2012 03:35 PM)Moma Wrote:
Worldwide I have lived in multiple heavily populated countries and I don't hear of the same mass slaughters happening like they do in the US to the same frequency. What is the common denominator?
How many group killings have I heard of now? Imagine if this clown had a machete? How many lives would he take before the crowd stomp him to death as opposed to his firearm.
How many chops a minute with machete or switchblade compared to the amount of rounds discharged by the semi?
Yes, firearms make one-time mass murder more likely. But plenty of serial killers get by with a knife. And let's put this in perspective. The kills in that theater are just the norm for a weekend in Chicago - the city with the strictest gun control in the country.
Quote: (07-20-2012 09:30 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:
Quote: (07-20-2012 09:25 PM)x2d4d Wrote:
A shooting like this is a massacre because of gun control, not the lack of it. Had the theater been full of armed men ready to fight for their life and the lives of their loved ones, substantially fewer people would have been killed and injured. Not to say that, in aggregate, gun control isn't worth it, just that this was a sardines-in-a-barrel situation and the gunman was massively outnumbered. Fighting back would have been far and away the best option for survival if they'd had suitable weapons.
So are you suggesting that we walk around suited up in body armor and carry automatic weapons every time we leave the house? In a state like Colorado citizens can easily obtain guns, so your argument makes no sense to me.
That theater chain has a no guns policy. So it's quite possible that people with concealed carry permits left their guns in the car. That's exactly what happened in the Libby's restaurant massacre in Texas - woman leaves her concealed carry firearm in her car because the restaurant has a "no guns" sign. Then she watches a psychopath burst in and start shooting, killing both of her parents.
Another aspect here is deterrence - see earlier point - mass murderers choose soft targets where they know no one else will have a gun.
I don't know how good his armor was, but even if a handgun caliber round wouldn't have penetrated it, that doesn't mean it wouldn't have knocked him down or hurt like a motherfucker. At the very least, it buys more time for people to get out and for the cops to get there. And if someone was seated close to him when he started, they could have shot him in the face. Gas masks aren't bulletproof.
Quote: (07-20-2012 10:13 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:
In theory, this might not be wrong. The problem with this logic is when you apply it to reality: the other 364 days of the year, every little beef is going to end up with guns drawn. Every douchebag that fronts you in a bar is now going to have a gun behind the roid rage. Every bitch that instigates a confrontation in a club is going to do so in crowd of armed-ass dudes. Bitch might have a gun herself. Fewer people might die at once, but I'd venture to say--in aggregate--you're going to have a lot up shot-up-ass people. The deterrent argument just doesn't take real human nature into account. All of sudden, every little dude is going to go head up with big-ass dudes because the playing field is suddenly leveled. The court will be packed with "self-defense" cases.
If it'd been legal for me to carry, and use a gun, this whole time, do you know how many people would have been capped (or at least seriously threatened) by now? Dudes start beef with me all the time. I de-escalate first, until I can't do so without getting punked or endangering myself or my people. After that, it's whatever I got.
Not good logic.
The problem with your logic is that while it seems to make sense, the evidence fails to back it up. Years ago, the town of Kennesaw, GA enacted a law requiring every head of household to own a firearm. The liberals were screaming that the streets would run red with blood. Of course, this didn't happen and Kennesaw boasts one of the lowest, if not the lowest, violent crime rate for a city of its size. Same thing when the Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004 - "Oh noes, people will be mowing each other down with AR15s and AK47s and our streets will become war zones." Again, didn't happen. Millions of these semiautomatic "evil black rifles" have been sold since 2004. Yet use of these rifles in crimes is the rare exception, not the rule. Yet this logic is used over and over again, without regard to the fact that it is utterly unsupported by the data.
The reality is that an armed society is a polite society. I carry a gun and I've been in stores in the boondocks where I know gun ownership and concealed carry are relatively high. Guess what - the people are the nicest and most civil people you can imagine. Much nicer than the northeast where I came from. When law abiding citizens are armed, they are not looking to escalate every disagreement into something larger because of all the ramifications.
Quote: (07-20-2012 11:34 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:
Quote: (07-20-2012 11:26 PM)Enfant_Terrible Wrote:
I think that people will be a lot more careful and respectful with their words and actions if it's common knowledge that people might be carrying concealed weapons with them.
That's the myth, but you could argue the exact oppposite: I think people would get a lot bolder, more impatient, and ruder knowing they have a concealed gun on their waist to back them up.
Again, this logic fails when you look at the reality. I have found unarmed NYC residents to be far more bold/impatient/rude and ready to escalate than the armed residents of NC.
For those who are interested in what the actual data shows, John Lott's work is a great place to start (Tuth, you're a smart cat, you'll appreciate his work and I think it might open your eyes). For the die-hard antigunners who will stick to their emotional arguments (much like the feminists; remember how Andrea Dworkin said that widespread porn would lead to an explosion of rape? Didn't happen, huh? Just the opposite.) with disregard to the data, carry on.
As for the notion of banning guns, look at Mexico. Law abiding citizens cannot own firearms. Yet the criminals are heavily armed. So much so that the police are scared. Same for Rio. Ever been to the favelas? The police cannot go there without military style gear.
Guns are the great equalizer, and allows the people to defend themselves against the wolves in society. Take the guns away from the citizens and you have nothing but defenseless sheep. The wolves, who care not about your laws, will find guns, and if they cannot, will use whatever they can get their hands on. Look at the UK and knives.
People have been killing people since the dawn of man. That is never going to change. All you can do is decide whether you want good, honest people to have the ability to defend themselves against the predators.
