Now, to the gun advocates: Seriouly? In a dark, teargassed theatre with people running everywhere screaming, and shots ringing out, you're going to stand up, identify the shooter, evaluate his armour situation, and then pick him off with a prefectly placed shot in the neck right in-between his vest and helmet? Or clip his thigh and put him on the ground? Oh yeah, and with a handgun? Please. I support the notion of protecting oneself in an emergency, but appempting this shot is plain reckless. It's a panic reaction which has a slim possibility of being effective and a large possibility of contributing further to the chaos and confusion.
I know this is a polarizing topic, and I'm going to take a ton of crap for this, but really. Think about this honestly and tell me if you could make that shot without a chance of killing an innocnet bystander and adding to the chaos and tragedy. If you can, you're already taking that shot as part of your job, as the best SWAT marksman in the world. The notion of a civillian attempting that shot is reckless.
Now, you stand up and attempt this shot, and a split second later, someone else does the same, only they see you, arm outstretched, blasting away before they see the psycho who started all this. Guess what happens? At least your grieving friends and family can call you a hero through their tears at your funeral.
Multiply this by 3, or 7, or 22 "heroes". How many kill each other before the shooting stops? What happens when the cops show up in the middle of this gunfight? How do they know who to shoot?
As a concealed weapon carry, I have to agree, and most of my friends that also carry agree. Situations like that are unfortunately bad all around and the bad guy has the upperhand. How do you defend yourself and others without looking like part of the attack? How do you do it without harming others?
To make this one worse, it sounds like he was dressed like on of the good guys which even the ones that had no means to defend themselves now have to wonder who's a cop and who's just dressed like one.
Even soldiers are dying because of bad guys dressed like good guys. That's honestly what scares me the most about this incident. What do I do in the face of a guy intent on killing a crowd who I think is really a cop until he opens fire?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and this is mine: a handgun is a weapon with one practical purpose, which is killing people. Law enforcement are the only people who have any reason whatsoever to posess one. Part of their job is learning all of the proper moves in these tactical situations. Not a weekend hobby, a career. It shoud be a serious crime to have one if you're not required to have one as a part of your duties. Makes it simple. Posess a handgun, go to jail for 25-life, before you even shoot someone with it. Makes it a lot easier for the cops to sort out who is the bad guy.
Unfortunately cops are still human and the best response time in the country has been a minute and a half to the scene of a shooting, and only because he was already nearby on patrol. Around my city, it has taken as long as half an hour for police to respond. We also had several cops recently go to prison for beating an unarmed man to death for suspicion of robbing an ATM. Turns out the report was false and the surveilence video also shows the cops beating him down before he even attempted to resist (it's hard to blame the guy for resisting when he's being beaten to death for no apparent reason).
For example, when I was a teen, loads of people in my school smoked pot. It was considered "cool". People openly did it, and openly admitted it. People constantly asked if I wanted to partake, tried to convince me it was harmless, encouraged me to try it, etc... Cocaine, however, was regarded as a serious drug. Sure, people did it, but they kept to themselves. Cocaine was a rumour. Nobody was walking up at lunch and offering it up.
Despite society's disapproval of both of them, they've become cool on their own. Despite both being illegal, they're still rampant. I have no illusion that guns would have the same allure whether legal or illegal. Weapons have always equated to power, which is their true allure. Where weapons have been banned, citizenry have lost power to both criminals and governments.
In an essay I read, entitled "The Gun is Civilization", the author says that there are only two ways to convince someone to do something, force or persuasion. I agree. Often the mere presense of a weapon causes one trying to use force to drop the use of force, leaving only persuasion on the table. Most who use force are cowards, targeting only those who have no chance of defending themselves. Look at wars. I don't think we'd have ever gone against Iraq or Afghanistan so brazenly had we expected a fair fight.
Young people see "gun culture" and they want to emmulate it. They see "gangsters" in music videos and movies and think it's cool. They want to be cool. Change the message. Guns aren't cool, they kill people. They ruin families.
The gun culture seems, to me, most prevalent in the places where there aren't as many guns. Growing up in rural societies, there were a lot of guns, but they were never cool, never toys. They were dangerous tools and treated as such. I don't wave them around, show them off, or act cavalier around firearms.
So I agree, change the message. You don't need to ban them or even discourage owning them, but change the message in pop culture that makes them seem like fun, harmless toys. A lot of people have more respect for the danger of farm and construction equipment than they do firearms.
That needs to change.
Change the message. Make handguns illegal, and portray them as the instruments of terror they are. The psychos will always be out there, but this will push them further in to the shadows.
The psychos are already far in the shadows, removing one tool still leaves them with thousands of others. He could easily have dragged a bomb in there and blown it up, using just materials readily available at Wal-Mart. He could have drove his SUV through a crowd of people. Thanks to the internet, all the info to make weapons of mass destruction from just the stuff we keep under our sink is available at the tips of our fingers. Men intent on killing will kill. Banning guns does nothing to stop it. It only moves the field advantage in their favor by leaps and bounds.
If you have a notion to go on a killing spree, and everyone is walking around with a gun, you blend in. If you're the only one with a gun, people notice. If handguns were illegal, there would have been more opportunities along the path the gun took from manufacture to this psycho's hand to intercept it. If handguns were illegal, it would have been harder for this psycho to even get one. It's better odds that a handgun ban would have prevented this crime than a cowboy in the theatre with his six-shooter locked and loaded.
The trouble is, handguns are easily concealed. So really they blend in on that fact alone. There could be lots of guns present or none at all, you don't know. Making them illegal won't make concealed weapons suddenly unconcealed.
There's also so much talk of banning guns, yet I still want to know how this guy got ahold of body armor and tear-gas grenades. Those aren't things I could just go get if I wanted to. I'd have to spend time talking to feds for a while before they'd even consider giving my a permit for the body armor. I'm not sure I can even legally get access to the teargas. This guy probably would have no trouble getting illegal handguns.
Change the message. Guns are not cool. They are not even as effective a defense tool as many people think. The solution to people shooting people is not more people shooting people.
Guns are the most effective defense tool people can have. That said, you're right — they're not a guarantee as some believe. I can only guarantee that it works better than my 130 pound self trying to defend myself against a 180 pound guy with any other means available. I'm sorry, but any other weapon I bring into play would be ripped out of my hands and used against me in that scenario.
The funny thing about handguns for self defense is that most scenarios are not escalated, as many anti-gun advocates claim, but in fact deescalate the situation. What is often reported is that the assailant retreats when he sees his weak target isn't weak. He's now faced with a gamble when he was looking for a sure thing.
The real topic here is the victims. To them, my sympathy. Whatever the solution, I hope as a society we all make a concentrated and honest effort to reduce these types of crime in the future.
Hear, hear.
I think this will allways happen until society takes responsibility for their own safety.Even with a cc permit, and if you carry a 1911.What are you gonna do, stop a purse snatcher with a knife or .22?If a criminal gets the drop on you, all you have left is finding cover or getting out of range.Drawing, then acquiring a sight picture isnt a smart option at that point.
If people weren't instantly viewed, and labeled as a criminal upon sight carrying a carbine.This might of been stopped out in the parking lot, safely.Even just a .17 varmint rifle could of been a game changer here.But not a .45 with a 5'' barrel and sights.
But I do think if you were in the audience, with a .380.The only responsible thing to do is to not use it.I agree they should be illegal inside.It would add to much confusion, panic, and badly placed shots.But if your in the parking lot, have a deer rifle in the car, and see a guy in a gas mask thats armed.I say game on!
I dont see why we have drivers ed, but nothing for gun safety.If people are against owning, or carrying then I support them.If someone wants to learn and make efforts to protect themselves and others then I support that even more.
But ill never be able to support a person thats anti gun, has never made an effort to develop security in their own community, and thinks that 911 will save them.
A scary looking carbine doesnt mean your carrying a m60 like people tend to think.Carrying a carbine like the ruger pc9 should be more common place imo.It uses the same 9mm cartridge and magazine as a very popular line of handguns.All it does is give you the ability to defend yourself beyond handgun range, or take a more positive shot in hg range.
I just honestly think modern society led to this just as much as the shooter.Educated gun owners add to the economy, not just safety.Restricting those people just does damage.Education is the only way.
Police couldnt stop the 2 LA bank robbers from 97 with handguns.Swat did with a 5.56.Now police carry more than just a handgun.We need to demand that as well.
If im staying in a hotel out of state, and had to leave my carbine at home.Im gonna be pretty pissed off at society if the craigslist killer kicks in my door, and I have to fight a gun with a phone..
Iv never made a irresponsible decision with a gun.Why am I judged like I will?
A carbine won't do much against body armor either unless you get armor-piercing bullets or a large caliber. They're also not very portable or convenience for defense. They're also much harder to bring to bear on a target, and useless in most defense situations, since most are at close quarters. I don't know too many people defending themselves from rifle range who couldn't have just fled and let the cops deal with it.
You also say it's difficult to draw a pistol and get a sight picture in a hurry, yet seem to imply that a carbine would be better in such a situation. I have never been able to get a rifle to bear and lined up in the time it takes with my handgun. There's a reason handguns are viewed as a defensive weapon by military and law enforcement and rifles/carbines as offensive weapons.
Also, if everyone was carrying a carbine in the open, how do you expect to have stopped it in the parking lot? He'd just be another guy carrying a gun. The gas mask? Maybe just a guy in costume going to some movie.
Although I'm fully in support of the right to carry and have had my CC for years, keep in mind that the circumstances probably would not have changed much. The odds were completely in the shooters favor.
1. He was wearing armor including a bullet proof vest and a swat helmet.
2. He used tear gas in the theatre (yeah you can't breathe and your blind now)
3. The theatre was packed with moviegoers including small children as young as 3 months old
4. All these people were running in different directions, diving over seats, etc.
Not to mention the CC is typically illegal in theatres (because it stops bad guys right?)
So the likelihood of pulling out your weapon, yelling, "Die scumbag!", shooting the guy dead with no muss and no fuss would be highly unlikely without hurting or killing someone else and maybe losing your own life.
And if you do happen to hurt or kill someone else while stopping this guy, your life will end as you know it. You will be arrested and convicted of a number of crimes which may include a felony. You will be sued by the family or families. You're not a hero, your the guy who got in the way.
Armed civilians can create possibilities to change the outcome for good or bad. As I said, I'm in favor of it. But each situation is different. If you plan to carry, please take some advanced courses which teach situational awareness and what to do in different scenarios, not just the silly CC course. That course only teaches the law and general info about weapons. It gives you the ability to learn much like an "M" endorsement or MSF does for bikes. Don't just get the CC, carry it and assume you're solid and can make the right decision when the time comes.
You pretty much speak my mind on the particular situation. The man created a situation that was incredibly chaotic and in his favor. Your only hope would be that he or you got close enough to you without his noticing and you had a "sure" shot. That seems unlikely. I haven't taken any classes since I never seem to have the several hundred bucks they ask for, but I do read up on the subject to at least have the head knowledge. Hopefully I'll never have to use any of it.
