Movie massacre proves need for armed citizens, says gun law expert
151 replies, posted
[QUOTE=David29;36959543]Aside from being irrelevant to my point, how do you intend to prove that?[/QUOTE]
How about the fact that since their invention, no two nuclear armed states have declared war on each other?
[QUOTE=Stalk;36957675]More guns? You can't solve this problem with the very thing that created the problem in the first place.[/QUOTE]
You can stop a spreading fire by starting a new one.
[QUOTE=Mythman;36959680]How about the fact that since their invention, no two nuclear armed states have declared war on each other?[/QUOTE]
Which is proof of Nuclear weapons discouraging war... how? Could be a whole host of reasons.
The concept behind MAD and discouragement of nuclear war is total bullshit.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkpoint_Charlie#Stand-off_between_Soviet_and_US_tanks_in_October_1961[/url]
These are two incidents out of dozens in which war, and severe destruction of most countries, was literally a hair-trigger away from happening. It's sheer luck it didn't occur.
[editline]28th July 2012[/editline]
Wait, I forgot this one too
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov[/url]
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;36959809]Which is proof of Nuclear weapons discouraging war... how? Could be a whole host of reasons.[/QUOTE]
It is just a correlation sure but it is fairly logical to assume that nuclear weapons has dissuaded conventional warfare between states. Most conflict now-a-days is unconventional, insurgent warfare. It could be down to the UN or it could be down to the interdependence of Capitalism but you cannot ignore the idea of MAD and nuclear deterrence.
The whole point of nuclear weapons is that they are not necessarily weapons but they are a deterrent.
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;36959838]The concept behind MAD and discouragement of nuclear war is total bullshit.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkpoint_Charlie#Stand-off_between_Soviet_and_US_tanks_in_October_1961[/url]
These are two incidents out of dozens in which war, and severe destruction of most countries, was literally a hair-trigger away from happening. It's sheer luck it didn't occur.
[editline]28th July 2012[/editline]
Wait, I forgot this one too
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov[/url][/QUOTE]
Nuclear weapons also seem to have an interesting effect on humans too it seems. No-one wants to be the one to initiate Armageddon so it causes restraint.
[QUOTE=Mythman;36959923]It is just a correlation sure but it is fairly logical to assume that nuclear weapons has dissuaded conventional warfare between states. Most conflict now-a-days is unconventional, insurgent warfare. It could be down to the UN or it could be down to the interdependence of Capitalism but you cannot ignore the idea of MAD and nuclear deterrence.
The whole point of nuclear weapons is that they are not necessarily weapons but they are a deterrent.
Nuclear weapons also seem to have an interesting effect on humans too it seems. No-one wants to be the one to initiate Armageddon so it causes restraint.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it's a restraint. The problem is that no restraint is permanent, and if nuclear weapons continue to be popular as a symbol of deterrence and power then, at one point, human error will happen and it won't be pretty. The reason everything's hunky dory at the moment is because everyone who has nukes are friends now, with Iran, etc. being pretty much smooshed into the dirt at the first whisper of any kind of nuklear shenaniganz. If there was real tension a la Cold War, it would be incredibly fucking terrifying tbh.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;36957916]The only decent citizens are armed citizens walking around with guns? That's a fairly massive generalization.
He used a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle and a Glock 34 semi-automatic pistol. The former can is legal as long as you have a permit (his was for deer hunting) and the latter simply required regular attendence to a shooting club. Neither are illegal; just restricted.
Two caveats about the weapons used however: First off, he would have used a heavier Ruger model but Norwegian gun laws specifically prohibited it, and the 30-round extended magazines for the Glock came from America.
It took less than an hour to reach the island the shooting took place. Also he didn't stop firing because he ran out of ammunition; he surrendered after police showed up and threatened to return fire.
Nothing will stop crazy people from doing crazy things, but as for specific gun conrol laws we have facts, and the facts say clearly that Norway has far less gun crime than the United States.
You don't make people safer by handing them guns, you make them safer by educating them.[/QUOTE]
TL;DR: "Snyder" has absolutely NO idea what he is talking about.
Knowing that there is a high possibility of multiple armed people in a location, a "sane" person is less likely to commit a crime there as there is a high chance that they're just gonna end up shot/dead. This dude was obviously not sane though so the chaos caused by his entry would have ended in a lot more shooting in the same time frame. Assuming he used the exact same pattern though, it would have ended a lot sooner as he would have been at extreme close range to a lot of people with guns. Granted that outcome would have likely ended with a dead suspect and a lot of dead/injured people still.
Given the information we have, the only different outcome that could have come from having multiple armed people in that theatre is a dead suspect and no leads. A difference in the number of injured/dead people is impossible to determine.
Does anyone know what level body armor he was wearing? Because I was told even if he had Type IIIA armor the shock from one of my .44 magnums hitting his vest would shatter his ribcage.
[QUOTE=Mythman;36959923]It is just a correlation sure but it is fairly logical to assume that nuclear weapons has dissuaded conventional warfare between states. Most conflict now-a-days is unconventional, insurgent warfare. It could be down to the UN or it could be down to the interdependence of Capitalism but you cannot ignore the idea of MAD and nuclear deterrence.
The whole point of nuclear weapons is that they are not necessarily weapons but they are a deterrent.
[/QUOTE]
Correlation does not imply causation. I'm not saying it doesn't do anything but saying there's a correlation followed by "fairly logical to assume" doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means exactly what it says: you're assuming it.
I think I've said this about a dozen or more times now:
He wasn't shooting anyone inside the actual theater. He was outside of the theater. For note, movie theaters really are [i]not[/i] that dark inside, and given the fact that most pistols have florescent sights, it'd be just like pulling a gun out on the street.
[QUOTE=Jackald;36958565]The gunman came in unexpectedly and took people by surprise. They were already incapacitated by tear gas before they knew what was happening. I seriously doubt anyone with a gun in that would have been able to stop him.
Only in America can a mass shooting be argued as evidence for a need to relax gun control. What are people supposed to carry guns everywhere in a paranoid state, ready to open fire on suspicious individuals? You're seriously telling me that that's safer than having very limited access to guns?
It's easier to buy a gun in America than it is to get fucking healthcare. It's easier to kill someone than it is to help them. You're telling me that that's a fair system to have in society?
Fucking lunatic.[/QUOTE]
[i]'Incapacitated' by tear gas.[/i] I'm sorry, but tear gas doesn't have as much effect on people as you'd think. It's why it is hardly used in wartime conflicts. It's only something used for crowd control and mass hysteria. From what I understand, the gunman himself didn't even have a mask. He used teargas to cause people to flood from the theater doors.
You can't compare purchasing an object to purchasing an insurance policy. Privatization of health care has absolutely no relevance to ownership of a firearm.
[QUOTE=Stalk;36957675]More guns? You can't solve this problem with the very thing that created the problem in the first place.[/QUOTE]
If you know magic way to remove EVERY weapon, please tell me.
[QUOTE=stupidass;36960335]I think I've said this about a dozen or more times now:
He wasn't shooting anyone inside the actual theater. He was outside of the theater. For note, movie theaters really are [I]not[/I] that dark inside, and given the fact that most pistols have florescent sights, it'd be just like pulling a gun out on the street.[/QUOTE]
Except, stupidass, the guy threw smoke and he [I]was[/I] in the actual theatre. Its hard to walk up the isle when you're outside. Enclosed area with light coming from the massive wall would have made it even harder to see and far easier to be confused, that plus an action movie audio, massive base, dialogue, and screaming people.
It would [I]not[/I] be like pulling a gun on the street. Its exactly the opposite.
[editline]27th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=stupidass;36960335]
[I]'Incapacitated' by tear gas.[/I] I'm sorry, but tear gas doesn't have as much effect on people as you'd think. It's why it is hardly used in wartime conflicts. It's only something used for crowd control and mass hysteria. [B]From what I understand, the gunman himself didn't even have a mask.[/B] He used teargas to cause people to flood from the theater doors.
You can't compare purchasing an object to purchasing an insurance policy. Privatization of health care has absolutely no relevance to ownership of a firearm.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Bxi3t.jpg[/IMG]
Question. What [I]do[/I] you understand?
[QUOTE=Mythman;36959680]How about the fact that since their invention, no two nuclear armed states have declared war on each other?[/quote]
What about that time where the USSR nearly launched an erroneous nuclear attack that was only stopped by one man disobeying orders?
And then there is the case of a certain South American country declaring war on a nuclear-armed European country...
[QUOTE=David29;36960499]What about that time where the USSR nearly launched an erroneous nuclear attack that was only stopped by one man disobeying orders?
And then there is the case of a certain South American country declaring war on a nuclear-armed European country...[/QUOTE]
First example was nowhere near a declaration of war, that was nearly a retaliatory strike.
Second example is moot, South America doesn't have nuclear arms.
[QUOTE=V12US;36957535][url]http://www.examiner.com/article/movie-massacre-proves-need-for-armed-citizens-says-gun-law-expert-1?CID=examiner_alerts_article[/url]
Let's ignore for a moment that the shooter was wearing bulletproof gear. Would it really have been better if people started firing more guns in a dark theater amidst a crowd of panicking movie goers? And what would the police do after they arrived on the scene and a dozen people were waving around guns?[/QUOTE]
It has come out now that he was not wearing bulletproof gear. He had tactical clothing, but no plates or anything like that.
[editline]27th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;36958053]Because the're been heaps of fearmongering that obama is going to take all your guns[/QUOTE]
I think that is part of it, but also people who want to defend themselves from a similar situation.
[QUOTE=Ridge;36960651][B]It has come out now that he was not wearing bulletproof gear. He had tactical clothing, but no plates or anything like that.
[/B]
[editline]27th July 2012[/editline]
I think that is part of it, but also people who want to defend themselves from a similar situation.[/QUOTE]
damn journalists.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;36960562]First example was nowhere near a declaration of war, that was nearly a retaliatory strike.
Second example is moot, South America doesn't have nuclear arms.[/QUOTE]
First example: it would still be a militaristic action and - due to being based on erroneous information - an unjustified attack amounting to a declaration of war.
Second example: not moot. The argument was that nuclear weapons act as a deterrent against war - both nuclear and conventional. The UK has nuclear weapons and was attacked, therefore the argument has been proven wrong.
It's probably true that there would be less mass shootings if more citizens in these places were armed, but it would still make me way more paranoid to know that there's a good chance of someone around me carrying.
[QUOTE=stupidass;36960335][i]'Incapacitated' by tear gas.[/i] I'm sorry, but tear gas doesn't have as much effect on people as you'd think. It's why it is hardly used in wartime conflicts. It's only something used for crowd control and mass hysteria. From what I understand, the gunman himself didn't even have a mask. He used teargas to cause people to flood from the theater doors.[/QUOTE]
I took a single deep breath of tear gas. It made me cough almost to the point of vomiting for the next 15 minutes, and I couldn't see shit.
The use of tear gas in war is prohibited by the Geneva protocol, as is the use of all gases.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36957576]I hate it when people use a tragedy to boost their own agendas. That said, unless this guy can somehow prove to me that the tragedy could have been prevented/lessened if some of the other moviegoers had firearms of their own, this guy is COMPLETELY wrong. This is all a "what-if" scenario rather than anything based on hard evidence.[/QUOTE]
70 people shot 12 dead
yep no room for improvement this is a best case scenario
I have a friend in the area who was near the theater during the shooting. He claims that if he had been in the theater the guy never would've gotten off more than one or two shots.
He's a college professor (maybe ex-cop or something) and carries around a Ruger S10 handgun everywhere he goes.
[editline]asda[editline]
I disagree with him.
[QUOTE=David29;36960780]First example: it would still be a militaristic action and - due to being based on erroneous information - an unjustified attack amounting to a declaration of war.
Second example: not moot. The argument was that nuclear weapons act as a deterrent against war - both nuclear and conventional. The UK has nuclear weapons and was attacked, therefore the argument has been proven wrong.[/QUOTE]
The statement was:
[QUOTE=Mythman;36959680]How about the fact that since their invention, no [B]two nuclear armed states[/B] have declared war on each other?[/QUOTE]
Not:
[QUOTE=Mythman;36959680]How about the fact that since their invention, no [B]two states[/B] have declared war on each other?[/QUOTE]
So, South America lacking nuclear arms and declaring war doesn't mean that South America suddenly has nuclear arms. Moot.
[QUOTE=Sie-Sveinhund;36960870]I have a friend in the area who was near the theater during the shooting. He claims that if he had been in the theater the guy never would've gotten off more than one or two shots.
He's a college professor (maybe ex-cop or something) and carries around a Ruger S10 handgun everywhere he goes.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://cinemasalem.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/mark-wahlberg-.jpg[/img]
While it can't be proven that people concealed carrying in that theater would have saved anything - it would have certainly shifted the odds.
I'm not sure but, it could have just taken a one guy with a pistol who's first reaction isn't to panic, but to take out the gun and take good aim at the shooter and.. shoot. Missing the target and hurting someone else is very likely here too, but there's always risks involved.
Also i'm not trying to piss people off by saying "this could have been avoided!" or argue about gun laws, but just saying that one "hero" who knows his gun could make a difference.
Hell, even a guy without a gun could make a difference in a situation like that by tackling down the shooter if strong and a good opportunity, not risking other people's lives by shooting yet another gun, but he would totally disregard his own life for trying to prevent more from dying.
I'm all for people wanting to express their Second Amendment rights, but this is blatant fear mongering used to further ones agenda.
This needs to be stopped because it makes gun owners look like trigger happy idiots who are just waiting for something to happen in public so they can use their guns. I'd just like the right to carry around a pistol for self defense.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;36960925]The statement was:
Not:
So, South America lacking nuclear arms and declaring war doesn't mean that South America suddenly has nuclear arms. Moot.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, except I wasnt talking specifically about wars between two nuclear-armed countries. If he is limiting argument to that specifically, then he is hardly disproving my statement since I have shown nuclear weapons don't stop wars. So, no, not moot.
Our gun laws in America are fine, I think. They don't need to be harder to get, and they certainly don't need to be easier to get. I was surprised to hear that no one in the theater started shooting at him, I figured at least one person would have kept a gun on them out of all the people at a packed midnight premiere.
Ohhh facepunch. You guys really need a reality check. People who carry handguns know how to use them, they wouldn't just start shooting blindly at the sound of gunfire. That's how you get your license, you learn how to safely use the fucking gun. There is [B][U]much[/U][/B] more reason to believe that less people would have died if some civilians had been armed.
[editline]27th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;36957690]Imagine, oh, around fifty people pulling out guns in a crowded theater, in the dark, in the smoke...yeah, that would have improved things.
About ten of them would have accidentally shot themselves just out of stress and adrenaline, another ten would have shot the person sitting next to them for the same reason, fifteen would have shot the first other person they saw with a gun, another ten would have been unable to fire at anyone because they couldn't bring themselves to hurt anyone, and the other five would have shot at the gunman while holding their guns with arms as floppy as the licorice sticks the theater sells. So maybe they hit the gunman, maybe they hit a bystander, maybe they hit nothing.[/QUOTE]
This is the most retarded thing I have ever read.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.