Gun laws

50 posts / 0 new
Last post
AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6545
Gun laws

My Facebook has been full of this debate.

Would fewer people have died if someone in the movie theater had a gun? Should private citizens be able to carry a gun in public?

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Probably, since there were military personnel there that had just recently been deployed, I would venture to say they MAY have chosen to conceal carry that day. Since he entered from the front, though even with the tear gas a person in the military would have known what to do more, and been able to use their weapon effectively. And if more than one would have been carrying, even with kevlar, bullets still hurt, and backs, necks, legs etc are still vulnerable to penetration.

On the otherhand.. one more may have died.. the shooter.

Should private citizens be allowed to carry ABSOLUTELY it is our right. And is being taken away. Our constitution supposedly covers it but there are so many places you can't.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1683

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Probably, since there were military personnel there that had just recently been deployed, I would venture to say they MAY have chosen to conceal carry that day. Since he entered from the front, though even with the tear gas a person in the military would have known what to do more, and been able to use their weapon effectively. And if more than one would have been carrying, even with kevlar, bullets still hurt, and backs, necks, legs etc are still vulnerable to penetration.

On the otherhand.. one more may have died.. the shooter.

Should private citizens be allowed to carry ABSOLUTELY it is our right. And is being taken away. Our constitution supposedly covers it but there are so many places you can't.

From what I read, the shooter was heavily protected. How would he have died?

The scene was very chaotic. IMO, it would have been irresponsible for anyone to try to take a shot at him.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4109

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

From what I read, the shooter was heavily protected. How would he have died?

The scene was very chaotic. IMO, it would have been irresponsible for anyone to try to take a shot at him.

Even if a shot to the chest wouldn't have killed him it could very well have knocked him down. Just because the bullet doesn't go through doesn't mean that the force of the bullet isn't enough to knock the breath out of you. It isn't like on TV. It could have very well slowed him down enough for more people to escape.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1683

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Even if a shot to the chest wouldn't have killed him it could very well have knocked him down. Just because the bullet doesn't go through doesn't mean that the force of the bullet isn't enough to knock the breath out of you. It isn't like on TV. It could have very well slowed him down enough for more people to escape.

Didn't his gun jam?

Sure, maybe. Maybe the gunman would have gone down and then a cop got killed opening the gunman's apartment door.

Or maybe one more innocent person would have died. There's no way to ever know for sure. But one thing remains fact: He purchased his weapons and ammo legally. Yes, he used them illegally, but that doesn't negate the fact that for him, the 2nd amendment remains intact. As is the 4th, 5th, and 6th.

He was the hunter; that movie theater audience was his prey. He used the element of surprise and planned his attack ahead of time. I sure hope everyone would act responsibly and access the risk to innocent lives.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

Practically no gun control in the States, yet people are being detained at the border for smuggling Kinder Eggs into the US. Seems pretty f-ed up to me.

It may be your constitutional right to arm yourselves, but with one of the highest gun-related homicide rates in the world, doesn't really seem to favour of the general peace-abiding US citizen to afford criminals that right either. I think there is close to as many guns in the US as there are people. I read that statistic recently. Must try to find it.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6545

I am torn on this. While I do believe we have the right to own a gun, but I have no desire to. I can just see DH having a very realistic dream and shoot someone in his sleep (probably me). Or our children finding it and firing it. That said, my father has had guns all my life for hunting deer. Bullets were always keep put up in a separate place from the guns. There is nothing at all wrong with him having them. As for taking a gun into a crowded movie theater, I do not think that is a good idea. It saddens me that now people will be nervous to go to any crowded place. I wish I know the right answer in this situation.

Danifo's picture
Joined: 09/07/10
Posts: 1377

I think there is a big difference between hunting/target practice and shooting a human (even one hurting other people). Based in what I've seen at the shooting range, there are very few people I want with the ability to carry a gun in public for safety purposes. A movie theatre seems really chaotic. I think if an average person had a gun there, best case is it wouldn't have made much difference or worst case, another innocent person would have been shot.

Without knowing the full details, I don't even know what a trained person would do in that situation. However, I would trust a trained person to make that call.

Regarding gun laws, I don't know if it is a law thing or a culture thing. My DH does target practice and because he is not a US citizen, he cannot own a handgun (fine with him because he would just leave it at the range, he doesn't want it at home). In Canada, he would just have to do the safety classes and register. To me that makes it seem like Canada is more permissive but there people don't want the guns in their house.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4109

"Danifo" wrote:

I think if an average person had a gun there, best case is it wouldn't have made much difference or worst case, another innocent person would have been shot.

Without knowing the full details, I don't even know what a trained person would do in that situation. However, I would trust a trained person to make that call.

There were actually 5 Sailors and 2 Airmen in the theater. I'm pretty sure all 7 of those men would have been trained on how to use a gun, probably even on what to do when civilians are around. 2 of them were killed and 2 of them were injured. 71 people were shot. He even had time to reload as he was walking up and down the ailes shooting people. I'm not sure how it could possibly have been worse if one of those men had been carrying a gun.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Pro-gun people love to speculate about what would have happened if someone with a gun was there. In that case, let's focus on guns and what we can do with them! Conversely, they don't like you to focus on the fact that someone with a gun (obtained legally) was there. And he killed a bunch of people and injured a bunch more, and traumatized the rest of them. In that case, we're not supposed to focus on the gun part, because guns don't kill people, people kill people. Or something.

Personally, I don't think more people shooting into a darkened smoky theater full of panicky people would have made the situation better.

I don't know if that means we need tighter gun control. Gun Control has never really been one of my pet causes and I haven't done enough research on it to really make an informed opinion.

What I do know is that this incident isn't terribly surprising. That's someone using a gun to do exactly what guns are built and designed to do. If you build something that is expressly meant to shoot projectiles at people and kill them dead, how shocking is it really that someone gets a hold of one, and uses it to shoot projectiles at people and kill them dead?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4109

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Pro-gun people love to speculate about what would have happened if someone with a gun was there. In that case, let's focus on guns and what we can do with them! Conversely, they don't like you to focus on the fact that someone with a gun (obtained legally) was there. And he killed a bunch of people and injured a bunch more, and traumatized the rest of them. In that case, we're not supposed to focus on the gun part, because guns don't kill people, people kill people. Or something.

The guy spent $8,000 on guns. Do you really think if he hadn't been able to get those guns legally it would have made a difference? I'm pretty sure he could have found someone to buy those guns from, legal or not. Cinemark theaters has a no-weapons policy ... wierd that he didn't follow the law and took his guns in there anyway. Gun laws only work on law abiding citizens.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

The guy spent $8,000 on guns. Do you really think if he hadn't been able to get those guns legally it would have made a difference? I'm pretty sure he could have found someone to buy those guns from, legal or not. Cinemark theaters has a no-weapons policy ... wierd that he didn't follow the law and took his guns in there anyway. Gun laws only work on law abiding citizens.

Well, and that's why I don't have a solid opinion on gun control laws. I would need more time (and frankly desire) to research gun violence in countries that do have strict gun control laws to see how effective they are. I agree that simply saying "Guns aren't allowed in the move theater" isn't going to keep a homicidal maniac out. And the "gun laws mean that only criminals have guns" does make a certain kind of sense, I'll grant you. I just don't know, in countries that actually have gun laws, how easy it is for Joe Criminal to actually get the guns now that they can't buy them at Wal-Mart. If I wanted to, I might go look at the statistics of gun violence in, say, Great Britian, and see if it's true that law abiding citizens now find themselves at the mercy of every criminal who has a hankering for a gun, or if it's hard for the criminals to get them too, unless they're part of like, organized crime and gun smuggling rings and whatnot. I could do that, but frankly this whole incident has kind of wrung all of my energy out of me as is. So yeah. Yay guns.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1683

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

The guy spent $8,000 on guns. Do you really think if he hadn't been able to get those guns legally it would have made a difference? I'm pretty sure he could have found someone to buy those guns from, legal or not. Cinemark theaters has a no-weapons policy ... wierd that he didn't follow the law and took his guns in there anyway. Gun laws only work on law abiding citizens.

What is your point? Guns are awesome and we could have saved lives if the law allowed everyone to carry a weapon into a movie theater?

I'm really not sure why the focus is on the laws that say no weapons in movie theaters rather than his legal access to all of these weapons. It would take me months to legally obtain that much Sudafed, yet he can acquire an arsenal.

Do you really think just one armed person in that theater would have saved the day? This man was prepared for return fire. In a dark, smoke-filled theater, with 300 people in various degrees of calmness/panic it would have been irresponsible to take a shot. Furthermore, the cops know they are showing up to a shooting, what happens when they see 2 gunmen and take a shot at the wrong guy?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4109

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

What is your point? Guns are awesome and we could have saved lives if the law allowed everyone to carry a weapon into a movie theater?

Possibly. We know what happened when they weren't allowed to carry guns into the theater don't we.

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

I'm really not sure why the focus is on the laws that say no weapons in movie theaters rather than his legal access to all of these weapons. It would take me months to legally obtain that much Sudafed, yet he can acquire an arsenal.

So are you saying that he couldn't have acquired an arsenal if he hadn't been able to do it legally? Because he is such a law abiding citizen that if the guns were illegal he wouldn't have gotten one?

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Do you really think just one armed person in that theater would have saved the day? This man was prepared for return fire. In a dark, smoke-filled theater, with 300 people in various degrees of calmness/panic it would have been irresponsible to take a shot. Furthermore, the cops know they are showing up to a shooting, what happens when they see 2 gunmen and take a shot at the wrong guy?

Who knows? Maybe not. They could have possibly have slowed him down and saved a few people. They might have had a chance. Survivors talk about looking him straight in the face so I'm pretty sure they were able to see. After the initial confusion he methodically walked around shooting people for several minutes. People talk about laying there for minutes playing dead. A minute is a long time when someone is shooting at you. Plenty long enough to take aim and shoot back.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1683

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wguncont.htm

It's quite a mix of legally and illegally obtained weapons. Among the most deadly, the guns were obtained legally. Even with the Secret Service, a man with a legally-obtained weapon managed to get a shot at the POTUS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
Whitman continued to shoot even after civilians brought out their guns. He had a more difficult time taking aim but still killed 16 people and wounded 31. In the end, it was the cops who killed him. Even the Lt. couldn't get a clear shot from the helicopter so didn't he didn't take it.

Should the movie audience (including civilians and service members) have shot willy-nilly at this man? What should be the goal? Take him out? distract him? injure him? Or try to take an aimed shot such as the Whitman shooting?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
The students who stopped the shooting were both off-duty LE.

Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 680

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

What is your point? Guns are awesome and we could have saved lives if the law allowed everyone to carry a weapon into a movie theater?

I'm really not sure why the focus is on the laws that say no weapons in movie theaters rather than his legal access to all of these weapons. It would take me months to legally obtain that much Sudafed, yet he can acquire an arsenal.

Do you really think just one armed person in that theater would have saved the day? This man was prepared for return fire. In a dark, smoke-filled theater, with 300 people in various degrees of calmness/panic it would have been irresponsible to take a shot. Furthermore, the cops know they are showing up to a shooting, what happens when they see 2 gunmen and take a shot at the wrong guy?

Somehow I doubt this. It seems to me in the kind of chaotic movie environment that people would have ended up shooting themselves by misfires, poor aim capability, adverse conditions, etc. Lots of people having guns in this case in one closed area sends shivers up and down my spine.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1683

This list of these shootings goes on and on. How is it possible that in all but 2 (or 3) there aren't people carrying weapons either legally or illegally?

I can't remember what show I was watching the other night, but it was about people pulling guns on robbers at business eg. convenience stores. The odds increase tremendously that it will end badly for the employee.

In this case, the gunman had methodically planned it out. He even created a diversion at his apartment AND the movie theater.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4109

I'm not sure where you are going with most of that information, since it makes my points just as much as yours.

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Should the movie audience (including civilians and service members) have shot willy-nilly at this man? What should be the goal? Take him out? distract him? injure him? Or try to take an aimed shot such as the Whitman shooting?

Anyone with a license to carry a gun has taken a course on gun safety. So no I don't think anyone who carries a gun would be shooting willy-nilly. I think any of the above would be a good goal when you have people who were pretty much at his mercy with little cover.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6545

I agree that if someone really wants a gun, they will get one even if it is not legal.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4109

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

In this case, the gunman had methodically planned it out. He even created a diversion at his apartment AND the movie theater.

Right. So what makes you think that the guns being illegal would have stopped him?

Danifo's picture
Joined: 09/07/10
Posts: 1377

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

There were actually 5 Sailors and 2 Airmen in the theater. I'm pretty sure all 7 of those men would have been trained on how to use a gun, probably even on what to do when civilians are around. 2 of them were killed and 2 of them were injured. 71 people were shot. He even had time to reload as he was walking up and down the ailes shooting people. I'm not sure how it could possibly have been worse if one of those men had been carrying a gun.

Colorado allows concealed carry after meeting various criteria (background check, fingerprints, safety course, fee). If those men felt the need to have the permit, I'm sure they would qualify. I'd actually be surprised if no one there had the permit. I think it is more that no one felt the need to take a gun there for safety.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Anyone with a license to carry a gun has taken a course on gun safety. So no I don't think anyone who carries a gun would be shooting willy-nilly. I think any of the above would be a good goal when you have people who were pretty much at his mercy with little cover.

Presumably then the gunman took the course to get the license since he bought his guns legally. And of course, he was shooting willy nilly.

My point is that taking a course isn't really a guarantee that you'll be responsible with your gun. Or that you'll be able to react appropriately in a crisis situation. I know that you've argued that there were servicemen there that might have been trained to react appropriately, but I'm assuming you think that anyone with a license should have been able to take their gun in and start firing at will, so that would include a lot of non-service members as well. So yeah, color me unimpressed with the argument that they would have "taken a class."

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4109

"Danifo" wrote:

Colorado allows concealed carry after meeting various criteria (background check, fingerprints, safety course, fee). If those men felt the need to have the permit, I'm sure they would qualify. I'd actually be surprised if no one there had the permit. I think it is more that no one felt the need to take a gun there for safety.

The theater had a ban on guns, and the city of Aurora has an ordinance that you cannot take a gun somewhere it is banned even if you have a concealed carry license. So no they weren't allowed to carry in the theater.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4109

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Presumably then the gunman took the course to get the license since he bought his guns legally. And of course, he was shooting willy nilly.

My point is that taking a course isn't really a guarantee that you'll be responsible with your gun. Or that you'll be able to react appropriately in a crisis situation. I know that you've argued that there were servicemen there that might have been trained to react appropriately, but I'm assuming you think that anyone with a license should have been able to take their gun in and start firing at will, so that would include a lot of non-service members as well. So yeah, color me unimpressed with the argument that they would have "taken a class."

You don't have to take a course to buy a gun. Just to carry it concealed. I haven't read anywhere that he had a license to carry. Someone that is going to take the time to go through a course to carry a gun is usually a more responsible gun owner.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/foghorn/ny-times-uses-deceptive-statistics-to-promote-anti-gun-agenda-again/

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Oh okay. I thought you had to have a license to buy a gun. Soooo....that means you don't have to take a gun safety class to own a gun? Haha, I get less and less impressed with this whole gun thing the more I learn about it.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Right. So what makes you think that the guns being illegal would have stopped him?

Did someone say guns should be illegal for the private citizen? I didn't read that. Gloria, don't you agree that gun-related violence is a disproportionately massive problem in the US compared to other countries where there is much tighter gun control legislation?
Why is it that a country like Canada (just to name one of many) with several million guns of its own has a mere fraction of gun-related death/suicide/homicide per capital than the US?

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

Expand the headings. You'll be shocked.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4109

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Oh okay. I thought you had to have a license to buy a gun. Soooo....that means you don't have to take a gun safety class to own a gun? Haha, I get less and less impressed with this whole gun thing the more I learn about it.

You don't need a license to buy a gun, but you do have to pass a background check. How would it be possible to look into someone's mind who has never been in trouble before to know that they are a homocidal maniac? He was determined to kill people one way or another, if he hadn't gotten the guns he probably would have used bombs since he also had booby traps set up in his apartment.

Danifo's picture
Joined: 09/07/10
Posts: 1377

There are many cases where people who have gone through the concel and carry course do something stupid and their child ends up getting a hold of the gun and hurting themselves or other children. A gun is more likely to be brought up in an argument if they have a permit to carry. That makes me believe that they are not necessarily more responsible, it is just they like to shoot and will follow the process to have a gun. The same way that registering you car does not mean you are a good driver.

In the theatre instance, yes, a handgun in the hands of some of the indviduals there could have made a difference. However, for those individuals to be allowed to do that would mean a whole bunch of idiots would have the same right. That is what could have made things worse there.

He had mental issues and nothing in any of the gun ownship processes in Canada or the US can stop people like this if there is no reported history.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4109

"Claire'sMommy" wrote:

Did someone say guns should be illegal for the private citizen? I didn't read that. Gloria, don't you agree that gun-related violence is a disproportionately massive problem in the US compared to other countries where there is much tighter gun control legislation?
Why is it that a country like Canada (just to name one of many) with several million guns of its own has a mere fraction of gun-related death/suicide/homicide per capital than the US?

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

Expand the headings. You'll be shocked.

Hmmm.... wonder why Mexico is so high then since their gun control laws are even tighter than Canada's?

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/mexico

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

You don't need a license to buy a gun, but you do have to pass a background check. How would it be possible to look into someone's mind who has never been in trouble before to know that they are a homocidal maniac? He was determined to kill people one way or another, if he hadn't gotten the guns he probably would have used bombs since he also had booby traps set up in his apartment.

Oh no, I wasn't commenting that I'm unimpressed because it means that this particular maniac could get guns. My "uimpressed" comes in at two different levels.

1) I am unimpressed that someone has to take a "Gun Safety Class" to carry concealed out in public, and this is used as an argument that a bunch of regular citizens with guns and a "Gun Safety Class" under their belt should be shooting at bad guys in public. I just don't think any Gun Safety Class is actually going to be good training for real crap going down in front of Joe Citizen.
2) I am unimpressed that you don't even have to take a "Gun Safety Class" to buy a gun. It seems like trying to make sure that people know the very basics of gun safety before we send them home with a deadly weapon would be like a good idea.

None of these are really about James Holmes who was crazy and psychotic and probably would have tried bombs or knives or whatever if he didn't have guns (although I gotta say, I like my odds better in a movie theater with a guy with a knife vs a guy with a bunch of guns and 6000 rounds of ammo.) I'm just saying in general, that seems kind of appalling, that you don't have to prove that you actually have any idea how to use/store/handle a gun safely before you purchase one.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"Danifo" wrote:

There are many cases where people who have gone through the concel and carry course do something stupid and their child ends up getting a hold of the gun and hurting themselves or other children. A gun is more likely to be brought up in an argument if they have a permit to carry. That makes me believe that they are not necessarily more responsible, it is just they like to shoot and will follow the process to have a gun. The same way that registering you car does not mean you are a good driver.

In the theatre instance, yes, a handgun in the hands of some of the indviduals there could have made a difference. However, for those individuals to be allowed to do that would mean a whole bunch of idiots would have the same right. That is what could have made things worse there.

He had mental issues and nothing in any of the gun ownship processes in Canada or the US can stop people like this if there is no reported history.

So then, how do you explain the huge number of gun-related deaths per capita in the US compared to other countries. Do you have a massive number of per capita cases of mental illness than the rest of the world?

In Canada, only licensed gun owners4846 may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
[h=4]Genuine Reason Required for Firearm Licence
[/h]Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Canada are not required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm except when the licence concerns prohibited50 and restricted5253 firearms

[h=4]Minimum Age for Firearm Possession
[/h]The minimum age for gun ownership in Canada is 18 years or 12 years, with limitations5556

[h=4]Gun Owner Background Checks
[/h]An applicant for a firearm licence in Canada must pass background checks which consider criminal, mental, addiction and domestic violence4857 records

[h=4]Reference Required for Firearm Licence
[/h]In Canada, third party character references for each gun licence applicant are required5758

[h=4]Partner to be Advised or Interviewed
[/h]In Canada, licensing authorities are required5758 to conduct interviews with, or to advise an applicant's spouse, partner, or next of kin before issuing a gun licence

[h=4]Domestic Violence and Firearms
[/h]Where a past history, or apprehended likelihood of family violence exists, the law in Canada stipulates485960 that a gun licence should be denied or revoked

[h=4]Firearm Safety Training
[/h]In Canada, an understanding of firearm safety and the law, tested in a theoretical and/or practical training course is required616263 for a firearm licence

[h=4]Gun Owner Licensing Period
[/h]In Canada gun owners must re-apply and re-qualify for their firearm licence every 5 years6465

[h=4]Licensing Records
[/h]In Canada, authorities maintain a record49636667 of individual civilians licensed to acquire, possess, sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition

[h=4]Limit on Number of Guns
[/h]Licensed firearm owners in Canada are permitted to possess any number of firearms39404142

[h=4]Limit on Quantity, Type of Ammunition
[/h]A licensed firearm owner in Canada is permitted to possess any quantity of ammunition39404142

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4109

"Danifo" wrote:

There are many cases where people who have gone through the concel and carry course do something stupid and their child ends up getting a hold of the gun and hurting themselves or other children. A gun is more likely to be brought up in an argument if they have a permit to carry. That makes me believe that they are not necessarily more responsible, it is just they like to shoot and will follow the process to have a gun. The same way that registering you car does not mean you are a good driver.

Can you back up those statements? Because all the statistics I have seen state just the opposite.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1683

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Possibly. We know what happened when they weren't allowed to carry guns into the theater don't we.

And we know after the fact what has happened in countless other shootings where people could have legally carried weapons.

So are you saying that he couldn't have acquired an arsenal if he hadn't been able to do it legally? Because he is such a law abiding citizen that if the guns were illegal he wouldn't have gotten one?

Not saying that at all. Up until Friday, he was a law-abiding citizen. We know he's a criminal; we know he illegally carried firearms into the building. What we don't know is how many (if any) citizens in all of the other shootings spanning 50 years have had firearms either legally or illegally. It's so easy to armchair quarterback the issue citing the law that they couldn't legally carry. This wasn't true in all of the cases - people could have legally carried in at least some of them.

Who knows? Maybe not. They could have possibly have slowed him down and saved a few people. They might have had a chance. Survivors talk about looking him straight in the face so I'm pretty sure they were able to see. After the initial confusion he methodically walked around shooting people for several minutes. People talk about laying there for minutes playing dead. A minute is a long time when someone is shooting at you. Plenty long enough to take aim and shoot back.

As a gun-owner, you would really assess that situation as worthy of the risk? You must be spot-on with a bullet straight between the eyes (because the rest of him was protected by body-armor) of a moving target who outguns you. If you're wrong, you may have cost yourself your own life and now the gunman would have a gun that wasn't jammed - yours.

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I'm not sure where you are going with most of that information, since it makes my points just as much as yours.

What point am I making for you? It's not going to end. There is no way of ever knowing an alternate outcome. Had someone taken a shot at the gunman and there were 11 victims, the one side would say, "See! We saved the 12th victim!" If there had been 13 deaths, they would say, "See! We saved the 14th victim!" In the first scenario, that would be correct; in the second scenario, it cost one more life. We only know the outcome of what has happened. In some of those cases people could have carried legally and perhaps some were carrying illegally.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1683

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

You don't need a license to buy a gun, but you do have to pass a background check. How would it be possible to look into someone's mind who has never been in trouble before to know that they are a homocidal maniac? He was determined to kill people one way or another, if he hadn't gotten the guns he probably would have used bombs since he also had booby traps set up in his apartment.

I think we all agree on his intentions. Which makes me even more firm in my stance that the audience shouldn't risk that. The shooter has nothing to lose.

"Danifo" wrote:

There are many cases where people who have gone through the concel and carry course do something stupid and their child ends up getting a hold of the gun and hurting themselves or other children. A gun is more likely to be brought up in an argument if they have a permit to carry. That makes me believe that they are not necessarily more responsible, it is just they like to shoot and will follow the process to have a gun. The same way that registering you car does not mean you are a good driver.

In the theatre instance, yes, a handgun in the hands of some of the indviduals there could have made a difference. However, for those individuals to be allowed to do that would mean a whole bunch of idiots would have the same right. That is what could have made things worse there.

He had mental issues and nothing in any of the gun ownship processes in Canada or the US can stop people like this if there is no reported history.

Do we know this for sure? I have not seen any released reports that he has a history of anything other than being a loner.

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Hmmm.... wonder why Mexico is so high then since their gun control laws are even tighter than Canada's?

Not an expert, but I think it might have something to do with the corruption in Mexico.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1530

All I have to do is look at the sheer inefficiency of the "war on drugs" to know that gun laws would not be effective either. The criminals will always find ways to get and have what they want.

Speaking to whether someone with a concealed carry permit would have been able to change the outcome, all we do is speculate. I would hope that each person with a CCpermit would know their capabilities and then react accordingly. We had dinner last night with DH's aunt and uncle, both carry at all times. DH's uncle is a bomb expert, and teaches some classes at Quantico. He feel confident that he could have taken the shooter down in that environment because he trains for it. Our aunt says she would not have pulled her weapon, she is not confident in her ability to shoot the suspect without hurting someone else.

Danifo's picture
Joined: 09/07/10
Posts: 1377

For unsafe handling from this year:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57383339/wash-boy-9-to-be-charged-in-shooting-of-girl-8/

Various statisitics

Every nine hours a child or teen was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide in 2002.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, "Deaths: Final Data for 2002." NVSR Volume 53, Number 5. 116 pp. (PHS) 2005-1120 .
Annual Totals (2002, 0-19 year-olds): Accidents=167, Suicides=828. (2002 is the most recent data available.)
On average, 4 children died every day in non-homicide firearm incidents from 1999-2002.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, 1999-2002.

Two-thirds of the 41 students involved in 37 school-shooting incidents from 1974-2000 got their guns from their own home or that of a relative.

U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center and the U.S. Department of Education, "Safe School Initiative," May 2002.
Two-thirds of students in grades 6-12 say they could obtain a firearm in 24 hours.
Harvard School of Public Health, cited in The Boston Parent?€™s Paper, August 1999.

Only 39% of homes with children and firearms keep their firearm locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition.

The RAND Corporation, "Guns in the Family: Firearm Storage Patterns in U.S. Homes with Children," March 2001, an analysis of the 1994 National Health Interview Survey and Year 2000 objectives supplement. Also published as Schuster et al., "Firearm Storage Patterns in U.S. Homes with Children," American Journal of Public Health 90(4): 588-594, April 2000.

I do believe most gun users are responsible and not homicidal maniacs. There are a few who ruin it for the rest. Obtaining a permit properly does increase the likelyhood that they are responsible but it does not guarentee it. I do believe that once obtaining a permit or growing up with guns does make it more comfortable and certain people are more likely to be lax about the rules. I'm not basing this just on guns but on various potentially dangerous activities.

For mental health issues:
While people do have to check off a box saying they do not have mental illness, there is no real way to check. For the most part, mental illness are medical records and only released to medical professionals. When purchasing a gun, they do check the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Only 17 states include non-voluntary medical incarceration. I think I read somewhere that a history of mental illness is also not a barrier to gun ownership. As long as a you can say you are not a threat now, you can own a gun.

A study by the MacArthur Foundation indicated that former mental patients were no more violent than individuals who were not mentally ill.

There is no guarantee that the prohibition on gun purchases by involuntarily committed individuals will weed out the potentially most dangerous gun purchasers. Schizophrenics, severe manic-depressives and other seriously ill individuals may legally purchase firearms. Many of these individuals are highly intelligent and may be notoriously difficult to diagnose. In a statement, the APA cautioned that "psychiatrists have no special knowledge or ability with which to predict dangerous behavior" by patients. Although schizophrenics and others with similar illnesses may be delusional and have distorted perceptions of reality, they may be able to control their symptoms long enough to complete the gun-purchasing process. Firearms in the hands of these acutely disturbed individuals are a menace to society.

In Canada, they say that treatment for violent mental illness will prohibit you from owning a gun but I don't know if that is also a check box. There are still horrible shootings in Canada. Most there seem to be gang related so I doubt they have legal guns though. I know there have been a few in the last decade where the mass shooter had obtained everything legally.

Looking at this case, up until June, there was no indication that he was mentally unstable. Gun forms just require a check box based on your honesty. He did buy a lot of guns in a short amount of time which I think should have raised some red flags. However, it is possible that they could have checked up on him and they might have thought he was weird but as long as he is doing nothing illegal, they still wouldn't have been able to to do anything.

Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 680

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Hmmm.... wonder why Mexico is so high then since their gun control laws are even tighter than Canada's?

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/mexico

Because Mexico is a third world country which like many third world countries thrives on bribery and corruption in very different ways than non third world countries.

Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 680

What is so odd here in these conversations is that everyone's throwing the laws around about licenses, courses, backgrounds, etc as if a criminal or someone desiring to harm really gives a flip about any of these things? Unless we get control of guns on the street AND stop smuggled guns then we can make up lots of fantastic laws which will cover every single imaginable yet we still have massacres.

I am not really sure laws are doing much good. Maybe I'm wrong and I hope I'm wrong but it seems like those who are criminals and want them have them .. so. That's what I see.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3179

I always think of The Simpsons gun episode. Homer wants to buy a gun and he goes to the gun store and they guy tells him he has to wait three days, and he whines, "Wait three days? But I'm mad NOW."

It's one of my favorite episodes.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4109

"myyams" wrote:

What is so odd here in these conversations is that everyone's throwing the laws around about licenses, courses, backgrounds, etc as if a criminal or someone desiring to harm really gives a flip about any of these things? Unless we get control of guns on the street AND stop smuggled guns then we can make up lots of fantastic laws which will cover every single imaginable yet we still have massacres.

I am not really sure laws are doing much good. Maybe I'm wrong and I hope I'm wrong but it seems like those who are criminals and want them have them .. so. That's what I see.

Ya doesn't help much when the very top of the government seems to be involved in allowing guns to be sold illegally. If we can't even enforce the gun laws we have now I don't see how making more laws is going to work.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Possibly. We know what happened when they weren't allowed to carry guns into the theater don't we.

So are you saying that he couldn't have acquired an arsenal if he hadn't been able to do it legally? Because he is such a law abiding citizen that if the guns were illegal he wouldn't have gotten one?

Who knows? Maybe not. They could have possibly have slowed him down and saved a few people. They might have had a chance. Survivors talk about looking him straight in the face so I'm pretty sure they were able to see. After the initial confusion he methodically walked around shooting people for several minutes. People talk about laying there for minutes playing dead. A minute is a long time when someone is shooting at you. Plenty long enough to take aim and shoot back.

A minute is a LONG time I can unload the clip of my 22 easily and reload and empty it again in 1 minute... Since he did enter from the front, anyone from the military would have had no problem IMO shooting his direction and missing innocent people.. how long they would have lasted no idea. It would have knocked him down... and others could have disabled him.

What I meant by killing at the beginning, is often mob mentality rules and if they got ahold of this guy they might have killed him. Or if a shot placed in the neck area or back got him. Otherwise I know most military are trained in hand to hand combat you eliminate the threat of the gun and killing the guy isn't that hard.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4109

Looks like there are a lot of people that would rather at least make an attempt to protect themselves than just wait for their turn to be shot.

Background checks for people wanting to buy guns in Colorado jumped more than 41 percent after Friday morning's shooting at an Aurora movie theater, and firearms instructors say they're also seeing increased interest in the training required for a concealed-carry permit.

"It's been insane," Jake Meyers, an employee at Rocky Mountain Guns and Ammo in Parker, said Monday.

When he arrived at work Friday morning ? just hours after a gunman killed 12 and injured 58 others at the Century Aurora 16 theater ? there already were 15 to 20 people waiting outside the store, Meyers said.

He called Monday "probably the busiest Monday all year" and said the basic firearms classes that he and the store's owner teach are booked solid for the next three weeks, something that hadn't happened all year.

"A lot of it is people saying, 'I didn't think I needed a gun, but now I do,' " Meyers said. "When it happens in your backyard, people start reassessing ? 'Hey, I go to the movies.' "

Between Friday and Sunday, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation approved background checks for 2,887 people who wanted to purchase a firearm ? a 43 percent increase over the previous Friday through Sunday and a 39 percent jump over those same days on the first weekend of July.

The biggest spike was on Friday, when there were 1,216 checks, a 43 percent increase over the average number for the previous two Fridays.

The checks are required before anyone may legally purchase a gun in Colorado. Because some purchasers may have bought more than one gun or decided against their purchase, the actual number bought may have been different from 2,887.

Read more: Aurora theater shooting: Gun sales up since tragedy - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21142159/gun-sales-up-since-tragedy#ixzz21YIZFx7t
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Looks like there are a lot of people that would rather at least make an attempt to protect themselves than just wait for their turn to be shot.

Read more: Aurora theater shooting: Gun sales up since tragedy - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21142159/gun-sales-up-since-tragedy#ixzz21YIZFx7t
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

Yeah, I don't think there is any surprise there. Some people are scared and thinking that a gun will protect them. Other people are worried that this will result in stricter gun control laws, so they want to get a gun now "while they still can." It's kind of like after 911 (maybe during the Anthrax scare?) when suddenly there was a big rush on gas masks. That doesn't actually prove that everyone needs and should have a gas mask (or a gun) it's just a really predictable reaction to a scary tragedy.

Just what we need in CO in the wake of a gun tragedy. More guns.

Joined: 05/18/07
Posts: 3

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Anyone with a license to carry a gun has taken a course on gun safety. So no I don't think anyone who carries a gun would be shooting willy-nilly. I think any of the above would be a good goal when you have people who were pretty much at his mercy with little cover.

***long-time lurker**
Couldn't resist commenting on this - here's a Dallas incident that happened last night - at Walmart- by an individual who was licensed to carry a concealed weapon:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48295773/ns/local_news-dallas_fort_worth_tx/

"Police were called to a Walmart in northeast Dallas after at least one shot was fired inside the store Monday night.

Dallas police said they arrested Todd Canady, 23, on a charge of evading arrest after he accidentally discharged a gun inside the store on the 9300-block of Forest Lane and then ran from an off-duty officer.

Canady, who has a concealed carry permit, had the .40-caliber semi-automatic gun near his wallet when it discharged."

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4109

"krislee" wrote:

***long-time lurker**
Couldn't resist commenting on this - here's a Dallas incident that happened last night - at Walmart- by an individual who was licensed to carry a concealed weapon:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48295773/ns/local_news-dallas_fort_worth_tx/

"Police were called to a Walmart in northeast Dallas after at least one shot was fired inside the store Monday night.

Dallas police said they arrested Todd Canady, 23, on a charge of evading arrest after he accidentally discharged a gun inside the store on the 9300-block of Forest Lane and then ran from an off-duty officer.

Canady, who has a concealed carry permit, had the .40-caliber semi-automatic gun near his wallet when it discharged."

And why did that make the news? Because it is unusual. Most concealed carry permit holders are more responsible, and he will lose his permit over this even if it was an accident. Look at the statistics yourself. Concealed gun permit holders in Texas commit 0.1541% of crimes. Not just gun crimes, all crimes.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2009.pdf

Joined: 05/18/07
Posts: 3

Just responding to your quote that "Anyone with a license to carry a gun has taken a course on gun safety. So no I don't think anyone who carries a gun would be shooting willy-nilly. " Regardless, it made the news because the first reports that the local newcasters heard was "shooting at Wal-mart" and oh my, it is another CO. By the time the correct information was update, it was well past being breaking news.

Believe it or not, I'm not opposed to concealed carry permits, but it is irresponsible to come out after these random incidents and claim that "had someone in there been allowed to carry their gun, the damage would not have been as bad". That is all you hear on the radio and television right now - which worries me more - the nutjobs that now think they need to attend an 8-16 hour concealed license class and they'll then be proficient enough not only be the hero in these random situations, but to think that they will be "trained" enough to know how to handle the situation without hurting anyone or making the situation worse. It is just ridiculous. Sure, had there been a highly trained Ranger or military sniper - they might have been able to take care of the gunman - a random concealed license holder, not likely.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1683

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

And why did that make the news? Because it is unusual. Most concealed carry permit holders are more responsible, and he will lose his permit over this even if it was an accident. Look at the statistics yourself. Concealed gun permit holders in Texas commit 0.1541% of crimes. Not just gun crimes, all crimes.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2009.pdf

What is required to get a license to carry a concealed weapon? I'm not going to look it up right now, but in CA many of the licenses are issued to LE. That would skew the statistics.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4109

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

What is required to get a license to carry a concealed weapon? I'm not going to look it up right now, but in CA many of the licenses are issued to LE. That would skew the statistics.

http://www.usacarry.com/texas_concealed_carry_permit_information.html
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/InternetForms/Forms/CHL-16.pdf

I checked to make sure... TX law enforcement officers are not required to have a CHL to carry off duty. They can if they want to but it is not required. So not sure why most of them would pay the $25 fee if they don't have to.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1683

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

And why did that make the news? Because it is unusual. Most concealed carry permit holders are more responsible, and he will lose his permit over this even if it was an accident. Look at the statistics yourself. Concealed gun permit holders in Texas commit 0.1541% of crimes. Not just gun crimes, all crimes.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2009.pdf

As is what happened in Colorado.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"myyams" wrote:

What is so odd here in these conversations is that everyone's throwing the laws around about licenses, courses, backgrounds, etc as if a criminal or someone desiring to harm really gives a flip about any of these things? Unless we get control of guns on the street AND stop smuggled guns then we can make up lots of fantastic laws which will cover every single imaginable yet we still have massacres.

I am not really sure laws are doing much good. Maybe I'm wrong and I hope I'm wrong but it seems like those who are criminals and want them have them .. so. That's what I see.

When a criminal can buy a gun privately, and there is no required background check on the gun, it's prior possession or the record of the person purchasing a gun, you don't see that as a problem?

So, it's better to sit back and do nothing? Because that's what the US and states do. Not a heck of a lot of anything. I think guns are just so ingrained in American culture, for the criminal and the law-abiding citizen. When there are more densely populated countries in the world, why is the US so much more violent? The number of criminals wanting to possess illegal guns and commit gun-related crimes is clearly, on a per capita basis, exponentially higher in the US than in other countries. Why is that? Why are Americans so disproportionately violent for a seeming civilized, first-world nation?

Gloria talked about Mexico having tighter gun laws, and I don't know a think about Mexican gun laws, but you can't compare the US to Mexico. Countries that are in constant upheaval, political unrest, civil war, fighting for a more democratic process have much higher per capita gun-related deaths than countries like the US.

Log in or register to post comments