Forced Perspective: Gun control is the theory that a dozen dead movie goers in a Colorado theater is morally and politically preferable to a live patron explaining to the police how James Holmes got shot.

If only Colorado were so enlightened to be considered a "gun-friendly" state, this never would have happened...

oh, wait...

/Gun supporter, but this whole idea of "more guns fixes the problem" is a farce...

If you really wanted to save lives, you'd walk around with a defibrillator.

SuperNinjaToad: ahh yes.. because the direct counter action to a 'former' law abiding citizen who legally purchase guns and then massacre a bunch of folks is to have even more citizens buy even more guns arming themselves to the teeth... yes makes perfect sense!!!

Your status quo just ended up with a bunch of dead folks. Chicago has strict gun laws and lots of bodies in the street.
If you can't defend yourself, you are at the mercy of anyone who wants to take advantage of you. It was true in the schoolyard and it's true everywhere else in every situation. In law, your lawyer, your "hired gun," protects you from being taken advantage of. He's trained in that kind of conflict. If you can't protect yourself physically, you can be taken advantage of. People making the choice to defend themselves makes sense. I don't advocate anyone just picking up a gun; I would recommend continual training so as not to be more of a danger, but I do think it's a good idea.

Antimatter: Bingo. Panicking crowd effect, plus the darkness, plus the teargas, plus his body armor means not a chance in hell of getting the shot off, and probably resulting in you killing a few innocence in the crossfire yourself.

He wasn't actually wearing body armor. Apparently someone straps on a tac-vest, and the media reports it as body armor.

Or maybe, just maybe, they learned their lesson from this guy, Samuel Williams, bent knees, two handed grip and I'm going to bet both eyes open and squeezing the trigger.

ongbok: Galloping Galoshes: Monongahela Misfit: If Dumb Dumb the Red had been unable to acquire the firearms he used,

Illegal guns are always available. They're just illegal. They'll still kill you just as dead.

Two or three citizens returning fire would have terminated this incident very quickly.

Self-defense: Not relying on someone who's probably not there, and won't be for a while, to save your butt.

Two or three citizens returning fire in a dark, smoke filled room with dozens of people running scared would have resulted in more people dead. And once everything was over and they found out how many people were either wounded or killed as a result of friendly fire from "Real Men", there would be an even bigger call to restrict gun sells and CCW permits because this incident would have shown that regular citizens don't know how to properly handle themselves with guns in these situations.

I guess I'm just not a pessimist. I know how to handle a firearm correctly, with both respect for it, and for Life. Am I the only one who has a sense of civic responsibility in my generation? Say it isn't so.
I do honestly believe that in our Nation, people with sound judgement still outnumber the dumb people. Despite Media focus on the latter.

mallorn: People aren't buying guns because they suddenly think they could protect everyone in a situation like Aurora.

They're buying guns because they like guns and are worried that the fallout will limit accessibility. Stock up before it's illegal.

in other words, america is playing out one of its favorite kabuki performances: "reactionary paranoia and batshiat delusions"

toraque: Screw that. I'd have shiat on someone else' panties. Because you know the gunman will stop, think to himself, 'what the fark is that sick pervert doing to that girl?' and then I'd escape in the confusion.

Now that¨s super funny.... and quite smrt. :-D

Let's once again discuss the concept of "just because I have the gun, does not mean i should use the gun..."

uttertosh: Bit'O'Gristle: uttertosh: Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

/yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.


except, IRL: you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

Just because your response to danger is to load your drawers, dont assume its everyones response. Hell, there was an article on Fark (yesterday IIRC) about a 70-something year old man who drew down and fired upon 2 robbers, one of whom had a gun.

An alarm on the emergency exit door the guy propped open to go outside and gear up then re-enter would have been more useful than more people carrying in the theater.

GladGirl: madman with an automatic weapon?

Wut?

I don't think, in this instance, gun control would have mattered much either way. By far most people prefer not to carry weapons even when they can legally.

I have no problem with people owning and even carrying guns.

It would be nice if the people allowed to do so could be regulated.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of fanatics out there that would use ANY regulation as a foot in the door to abolish guns. So, unfortunately they have left pro gun people with few options.

Stuff like this happens, no matter what you do.

redlegrick: uttertosh: Bit'O'Gristle: uttertosh: Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

/yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.


except, IRL: you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

I agree with that last one. I carry, and I've experienced tear gas. If I were in the theatre, the LAST thing I would've done would be to draw and fire. It's dark, there's confusing light sources (the screen), confusion, people darting this way and that. Add to this mix an incapacitating agent, and all someone'd do is add to the body count. Maybe if the dude were within spitting distance, I may have attempted, but other than that, I'd have been @ssh0les and elbows getting out of there too.

And yes, I consider myself well-trained, I have taken the FBI equivalent course and am an alternate on my club's PPC league, so I am not spewing ITG nonsense here.

amen, although one FBI equivalent course does not make one "Well-trained"...I've taken several dozen law enforcement training courses, and shoot competition regularly, that still doesn't make me "well trained", just someone interested in being good with the tools he chooses to carry, since i have a lot of textbook experience, little actual street experience in shooting at things or getting shot at...

Bendal: Galloping Galoshes: Monongahela Misfit: If Dumb Dumb the Red had been unable to acquire the firearms he used,

Illegal guns are always available. They're just illegal. They'll still kill you just as dead.

Two or three citizens returning fire would have terminated this incident very quickly.

I call utter bullshiat on your claim. "Two or three citizens" firing their handguns at an armored gunman in a dark, smoke filled theater means inaccuracy, hitting other citizens, perhaps even firing at each other thinking there are two or more gunmen, and attracting the attention of the gunman to yourself. Unless you're 5' from him and he doesn't see you (doubtful since you're choking on tear gas and he isn't), you are a target. His body armor stops your rounds unless you get incredibly lucky and shoot him under the helmet or arm.

/all more guns in the theater would have done is up the body count

There would be a strong possibility for confusion if someone didn't see the killer enter.
Helmets don't protect well from bullets, they're primarily for shrapnel protection. You hit him in the head, he knows it.
I'd still like a chance at a guy who's shooting at me, even if he's armored. The alternative is to die.

Galloping Galoshes: MasterThief: Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

FTFY. Just upping the sarcasm a notch.

mallorn: People aren't buying guns because they suddenly think they could protect everyone in a situation like Aurora.

In most situations, you have to rely on yourself for defense. The cops won't be there in time.
If you have to depend on someone else to defend you, you are defenseless. You might get to pick the predator that gets you, but that's the extent of your power.

You sound frightened.

I going today. I am going to get a 9MM with 15 round mags and with buy couple extra mags. I was thinking Ruger or Berretta.

doubled99: Galloping Galoshes Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 12:35:32 PM


Bit'O'Gristle: /yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.

I endorse this message. I like the ones that suggest you run. Last time I checked, you can't outrun a bullet.
I was always taught: run away from a knife, run toward a gun. If you can get inside of about 6 feet, you have a good chance. And throw anything you can reach in the gunman's face.

Of course, if you have a weapon and training, just pop him. From cover.



Please. The average Farker is offended by the thought that anyone would ever do anything in a violent situation. "You're dreaming, internet tough guy!"
Faking Bruce Lee could be in a thread here and all he'd get are "ITG" hurled at him.

bruce lee didn't use guns nor advocate gun ownership saturation of the public

/the more you know

GladGirl: Some of you people are terrifyingly delusional. A dark theatre, people crowded into seats, a gas bomb goes off, people running everywhere, and you think that an armed civilian would have the skill and clarity of thought to somehow take out the madman with an automatic weapon?
Who had an automatic weapon? Actually, I wish the guy did, he would have shot maybe one person and then unloaded the rest of his rounds into the ceiling.


I'm not saying that we need to ban guns entirely, nor are many pro-gun-control advocates. Instead, why don't we learn a thing from countries like Switzerland or Norway (sure, bring up the Norway mass killer, but he was an anomaly),
And so was the guy here. He was an anomaly, but I like how you can ignore one while suggesting the other is a result of our laws.


where rates of gun possession are very high, yet rates of gun-related violence are very low. Require training and course refreshers, ban automatic weapons, require disassembly when in a private home - these are steps that can help cut back on gun violence while still giving you trigger-happy nuts that sense of security you crave.
You have no idea what you're talking about. But we have to DO SOMETHING, amirite?

I'm right there with you gun dudes, relentless do-gooder liberals shouldn't be allowed to politicized this tragedy and start stripping rights, but is it nessecary to take a stand at "I could have got off the shot in a dark room full of panic and tear gas?" Really?

This incident is a terrible example to base arguments on. It is highly unlikely that either restrictive gun laws or armed citizens could have prevented this - and it's a vanishingly rare event - never a good basis for policy-making.

jso2897: He may not even be opposed to them. I am not opposed to CCWs. But I don't think they would have helped in this scenario. I don't think it's an argument for or against them.

Maybe. I don't want to go down without a fight. And I don't want to wait until I'm backed into a corner.

ronaprhys: soup: How about a mental health assessment for anyone looking to buy a firearm? Is that too much to ask? Background checks don't pick up crazy if crazy was never diagnosed.

How about a voter education quiz prior to casting a vote? Or a poll tax?

OK, so you're equating voting to the right to bear arms. Got it.

So let's allow anyone to own a tank. Or a RPG. Or a nuke. Since "arms" as written in the 18th century clearly was meant to cover every single possible future weapon. Oh, and even though they didn't have any real understanding of people with mental problems back then, we should just not worry about if that guy buying a few automatic rifles, handguns, and a shotgun or two is crazy.

In fact, let's do nothing since people die all the time anyway. Gotta let real 'Muricans play with their toys.

odinsposse: Pockafrusta: you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

Not what you would have done, He means someone with balls... and welcome to the retard list.

A truly tough and determined person with a CCW would have been able to draw and fire and possibly realize that the shooter was wearing body armor before he died.

Really, these idiotic ITG posts just confirm every bad stereotype about gun owners. Stop making normal people look bad you childish morons.

Funny you said childish moron. So you admit that you have no idea how body armor works and how to defeat it. There was nothing spectacular about this shooter that a couple of FMJ rounds would not have taken care of... The kinetic energy from being shot from MY pistol, regardless of his armor would have been enough to drop him. And welcome to the retard list... You only thing you proved is that you don't have a clue.

/Former LEO

I just love the ITG NRA cowboys that are coming out of the woodwork.

As a police officer, I'll tell you that the TACTICAL SQUAD doesn't want to go into that situation because the only thing harder than a dark movie theatre with 100+ panicking innocents in your arc of fire, an assailant in body armour, and teargas just for fun, is an airplane hijacking. Even if 10 people in that theatre had a weapon, 7 never even draw, and with visibility down to near zero, what the hell are the other three going to do with a Saturday Night Special? It looks real good when you have to explain to CNN that half a dozen kids also got caught in the crossfire - Anything to make the NRA newsletter, I guess.

NONE of you weekend warriors have any experience shooting while under the effects of tear gas, hell most of you haven't even done a night shoot. While it may look easy in Call of Duty, real life is a whole different game. What happens if things go sideways and you wind up with a hostage situation or barricaded subject? Are you cowboys negotiators as well?

Leave the heroics to the experts.

Uranus Is Huge!: Galloping Galoshes: MasterThief: Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

FTFY. Just upping the sarcasm a notch.

mallorn: People aren't buying guns because they suddenly think they could protect everyone in a situation like Aurora.

In most situations, you have to rely on yourself for defense. The cops won't be there in time.
If you have to depend on someone else to defend you, you are defenseless. You might get to pick the predator that gets you, but that's the extent of your power.

You sound frightened.

Wary.

Jim_Callahan: On a slightly different "perspective" note:

Colorado movie theater shooting (friday):
-- months or years of preparation
-- loads of expensive armaments
-- body count: 12
-- collateral damage: maybe some people will rethink visiting the theater for the next couple weeks

Coyote crash on highway 59 (sunday):
-- five seconds of negligence
-- single beat-up f150 worth about 500$
-- body count:14
-- collateral damage: shut down major shipping highway for several hours


Sideshow Bob wasn't even the most destructive individual criminal this weekend, and the other guy didn't need a gun or free time to top the body count. Real criminals are apparently more dangerous even without intending to be.

I guess no one cares, though. Maybe the victims don't count on account of being brown and looking for work.

//Alternate moral: obviously, we need to ban the use of automobiles by all non-law-enforcement personnel.

Perhaps because cars are designed for transportation, while guns are designed for killing people? Car operation requires training, registration and licensing. Also pretty sure that more people own cars than guns, and certainly use them more frequently.

/make it harder to get a gun than a car and warning labels on guns to NOT aim them at other people, and we can talk

eatsnackysmores: An alarm on the emergency exit door the guy propped open to go outside and gear up then re-enter would have been more useful than more people carrying in the theater.

It wasn't actually an emergency exit, though it could serve as one if needed. The exit was merely a theater exit, like people often leave from after the movie is over, so they don't have to walk all the way around the building at night.

So nobody can tell you that you're so crazy that you cannot have a gun? Which is the same logic of why the gentleman in question wasn't being treated within a facility despite concerns for his mental well-being. Which allowed his gentleman to go and buy several guns aaaand...

That a person can't even bring up the point that perhaps...just...perhaps...there are certain times when certain people should not be carrying a weapon just makes all of this stupid. If you can't at least come up with one situation where a person should yield their right to carry then I don't believe your opinion is relevant beyond the number of bullets you have in your chamber.

And *THAT* unfortunately is the ultimate fear of anyone even tentatively raising their hand vs. anything the NRA is feeding that very vocal minority.

ongbok: Galloping Galoshes: ongbok: Two or three citizens returning fire in a dark, smoke filled room with dozens of people running scared would have resulted in more people dead. And once everything was over and they found out how many people were either wounded or killed as a result of friendly fire from "Real Men", there would be an even bigger call to restrict gun sells and CCW permits because this incident would have shown that regular citizens don't know how to properly handle themselves with guns in these situations.

So is your opposition limited to this incident or all CCW in general? Link

Did I say anything about limiting it? I said that the response to 2 or 3 people returning fire at the shooter in a dark movie, smoke filled theater with people running around, and killing even more people with friendly fire, would be a call to further limit guns and CCW permits because it would be argued that civilians don't know how to handle themselves in these situations.

Do you think if there would have been 2 or 3 armed cops in that theater that they would have returned fire in that situation?

I am not a cop, so I don't know what they would do. If someone is trying to kill me, however, I'm going to object strenuously, with anything at hand.

the BIGGEST problem with most guns owners is they tend to think of themselves as uber rational, super cool, calm rational people who will only use it in the most extreme of danger and that they are also super sharpshooters.
Problem is most aren't sharpshooters and they are just as susceptible to stress, emotional distress, anger and irrationality than anyone else!
That's what makes gun owners so dangerous.

I would rather face a thug with an illegal gun who is trying to rob me than a 'law abiding' citizen with legally purchased AR-15s who just got dumped by his wife, lost his job because it got shipped to China, got everything taken away from him and was just told by his kids that they hate him and is going to call the new guy 'dad' instead of him...........and I just accidently cut him off in traffic .....and I look Asian...

GladGirl: elffster: Bit'O'Gristle: uttertosh: Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

/yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.

You are nuts and you probably would have shot someone else. If you were a superhero, you would be Aquaman.

Some of you people are terrifyingly delusional. A dark theatre, people crowded into seats, a gas bomb goes off, people running everywhere, and you think that an armed civilian would have the skill and clarity of thought to somehow take out the madman with an automatic weapon? Not going to happen. It's these delusional thoughts of perceived heroism that keep real talk on gun control from progressing in this country. Situations in which a gun-carrying civilian saves the day from a madman are far, FAR outpaced by situations in which small children shoot themselves with their parents guns, or in which young males shoot up their schools or families.

I'm not saying that we need to ban guns entirely, nor are many pro-gun-control advocates. Instead, why don't we learn a thing from countries like Switzerland or Norway (sure, bring up the Norway mass killer, but he was an anomaly), where rates of gun possession are very high, yet rates of gun-related violence are very low. Require training and course refreshers, ban autom ...

First of all, he did not have an automatic weapon. an AR-15 is nothing more than a scary looking hunting rifle that can hold more ammo. Having a disassembled wepaon in your house is no better than having nothing. what are you going to do, put it together while the bad guy waits for you?

uttertosh Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 12:57:14 PM


Pockafrusta: and welcome to the retard list.

Welcome to the ITG spastik list of "Hey If I had been there at that place at that time, that shiat'd have gone down soooooooooooooooo freaking different, fo shizzle, dawg" self deluding total farking liars.



I know there's "ignore" and others, but I didn't see that list in the options. Is that only on totalfark?

elguerodiablo:
So what happens in this fantasy when the cops finally burst in and see you holding a gun with a smile on your face and a bunch of dead bodies on the ground? Are they going to assume you handled the situation or that you and the other vigilanties are perps #2-5.

THIS.

Do any of these pieces of macho bullshiat think that far? Even if someone managed to take this guy down, he's now the 'second shooter' accomplice and would likely be arrested and convicted, if the police or ANOTHER lone wolf CCW holder didn't kill him first.

If Obama doesn't watch out, Sideshow might just take his title of "Salesman of the Year" from him in the gun manuf. inudstry.

Note that it was illegal to carry firearms into that theater in Aurora according to laws passed in that community.

If only there were some way we could go all socialist and use taxpayer money to hire a group of people who would be allowed to carry weapons with them and deter criminals. They could wear uniforms identifying themselves, too. The could have the power of arrest. If only that were possible. If only...

uttertosh

Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

Why is it that many Farkers project their inadequacies on other people.

I guess if someone would have taken this guy out, you would be deploring the lack of a trial (innocent until proven guilty) and been mocking the guy as bootstrappy for taking care of the problem.

IQof20: So nobody can tell you that you're so crazy that you cannot have a gun vote? Which is the same logic of why the gentleman in question wasn't being treated within a facility despite concerns for his mental well-being. Which allowed his gentleman to go and buy several guns influence and election aaaand...

That a person can't even bring up the point that perhaps...just...perhaps...there are certain times when certain people should not be carrying a weapon voting just makes all of this stupid. If you can't at least come up with one situation where a person should yield their right to carry vote then I don't believe your opinion is relevant beyond the number of bullets ballots you have in your chamber.

And *THAT* unfortunately is the ultimate fear of anyone even tentatively raising their hand vs. anything the NRA is feeding that very vocal minority.

How does your post look now? You can substitute any other right - speech, assembly, etc, and see why your argument is a failure.

I don't think more gun laws are necessarily the answer, but to all of the Doc Holidays in this thread, I'm wondering about a couple of things:

1) How do you sit comfortably in the theater with a handgun that is powerful enough to penetrate body armor?

2) How do you keep from getting lit up by the SWAT team when they arrive?

Bendal: His body armor stops your rounds unless you get incredibly lucky and shoot him under the helmet or arm.

A. No body armor in this situation.
B. He would get knocked down at the very least. It's not a video game; bullets have a great deal of energy and it has to go somewhere.

soup: Except none of those things can be used to go on a killing spree in a crowded place.

I think he was referring to those things being protected in the bill of rights as well... Study history and you will see many "free" societies loose their rights a little at a time through justifications like this. Some take longer than others, but it usually ends with a dictator or other oppressive government getting overthrown in a bloody revolution. Theoretically, you could just protect your rights up front and avoid all of the abuse and bloodshed later. That is, at least as I understand it, the argument he was hinting at.

/our founding fathers really believed gun ownership is essential to protect the rights of the public. I'm with them.
//the owner of the company I work for is a German immigrant. He remembers everyone's guns being taken away. He remembers the chants they were taught in the Nazi youth programs. He swears he will never be without a gun again. He is now a VERY PROUD American citizen and owns a manufacturing company doing about $6,000,000 a year in sales.
///anecdotal evidence is still anecdotal, even when provided by someone as awesome as me.

Galloping Galoshes: jso2897: He may not even be opposed to them. I am not opposed to CCWs. But I don't think they would have helped in this scenario. I don't think it's an argument for or against them.

Maybe. I don't want to go down without a fight. And I don't want to wait until I'm backed into a corner.

Well, fine. Whatever. The point is that the right to keep and bear arms is not contingent upon their being useful in this, or any other situation. And, therefore - why make the argument?