Colorado Theater Shooting Victims and Relatives Demand Guns Be Discussed In Upcoming Presidential De - Polidicks

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;37879907]cool. are they experienced in talking down potentially dangerous individuals? are they experienced in mediating disputes to diffuse dangerous situations? because right now the only skill you've argued for CCW holders is the ability to shoot a target but a world where people just start shooting at other people the moment it seems like the situation is getting dangerous seems way more dangerous than one with the occasional spree shooting. There are a lot of problems with american police forces but the depth of their training goes beyond just being able to shoot a target and, more importantly, they can be expected to be accountable for every action they take[/QUOTE] You're assuming CCW holders are all gung-ho cowboys when they really aren't. They're just people like you and me, and I dunno about you but I hope I never find myself in a shootout. However, in the event that there [i]is[/i] a shootout that involves me, I want a gun to defend myself with. I don't want to be rendered unable to lawfully defend myself because of the false belief that any law preventing law-abiding citizens from getting weapons would prevent criminals doing the same. I see your point about police training extending beyond shooting. But sometimes it comes down to who can shoot better, and if the police officer can't shoot better than his adversary he will die. If everyone in the world listened to logic and reason we wouldn't need to worry about defending ourselves. But they don't, so we do.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;37880045]You're assuming CCW holders are all gung-ho cowboys when they really aren't. They're just people like you and me,[/QUOTE] eh no sorry. we have plenty of cases of gung-ho cowboys but thats beside the point. the issue isn't that everyone is gung-ho cowboys, its that no matter how good you are at target practice, you're a danger to everyone around you when you decide you're going to try taking another person's life under the assumption you're doing the right thing. you can easily cause collateral or just straight up misunderstand the situation and wind up with someone dead who didn't deserve it. the reason people are against CCW is because they don't trust people like you with a loaded weapon in a high stress situation, and they have every right to be concerned when you're asking for us to approve of you walking around with a machine that has the capacity to kill lots of people

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37880076]you're a danger to everyone around you when you decide you're going to try taking another person's life under the assumption you're doing the right thing. you can easily cause collateral or just straight up misunderstand the situation and wind up with someone dead who didn't deserve it[/QUOTE] Citation needed. How come the states with shall-issue CC licenses are usually pretty safe, and this sort of stuff simply doesn't happen? [QUOTE]the reason people are against CCW[/QUOTE] Which is why millions of people have a CC license [QUOTE]people like you[/QUOTE] You don't even know him, yet you assume he's some dangerous idiot just because he's into firearms. Good job. [QUOTE]they have every right to be concerned when you're asking for us to approve of you walking around with a machine that has the capacity to kill lots of people[/QUOTE] Yet the ones that lawfully carry are simply not going to do that. Cases of self-defense where nobody gets hurt (or the criminal is the only injured guy) outweight crimes en masse, and that's coming from the United States Bureau of Justice.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;37880164]Citation needed. How come the states with shall-issue CC licenses are usually pretty safe, and this sort of stuff simply doesn't happen? [/QUOTE] [img]http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy252/aphilosophicalcock/ironicat.gif[/img] [QUOTE=jimhowl33t;37879960] While a CCW holder wouldn't? I'm not following you here. Most of them know very well what repercussions they'll encounter if they choose to use their firearm to protect themselves, it's not like a CC license has "feel free to go cowboy on his ass" or "the law does not apply to you, have fun" written on it.[/QUOTE] well actually it sort of does? because citizens can't be expected to understand as much legal nuance as trained officers so lots of the really aggressive firearm self-defense laws (castle doctrine, stand-your-ground, etc) operate with these sorts of carte-blanche "you're allowed to use deadly force if you [i]feel[/i] threatened" attitudes that really don't hold civilians who use deadly force accountable

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;37880208]ironicat.gif[/QUOTE] That is a really well-thought rebuttal. It totally shows facts and sourced statistics disproving my claims. [QUOTE]citizens can't be expected to understand as much legal nuance as trained officers so lots of the really aggressive firearm self-defense laws (castle doctrine, stand-your-ground, etc) operate with these sorts of carte-blanche "you're allowed to use deadly force if you [i]feel[/i] threatened" attitudes that really don't hold civilians who use deadly force accountable[/QUOTE] Do you honestly think that killing a dude (or sending him to the ER with some holes poked in him) is going to let you off with zero consequences and no investigations, because you have a piece of paper? [I]Please.[/I] [editline]2nd October 2012[/editline] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Legal_liability]Here, knock yourself out.[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#Immunity_from_civil_lawsuit]Here, this too.[/url] Despite what you might think, CCW licenses, Castle Doctrine, Stand your ground etc. are not get-out-of-jail-for-free cards and the majority of gun owners know that pretty well, as serious issues are always ahead.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;37880250]That is a really well-thought rebuttal. It totally shows facts and sourced statistics disproving my claims.[/QUOTE] You mean like all the facts and sourced statistics you cited making your original statement? HINT: [URL="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014481889800012X"]The actual math ain't on your side, so asking somebody to cite it just makes you look dumb.[/URL]

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;37880356]You mean like all the facts and sourced statistics you cited making your original statement?[/URL][/QUOTE] The articles I later linked to include several sources. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Research_on_the_efficacy_of_concealed_carry]This one too[/url], albeit the consensus is pretty mixed. However, I've already cited the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the NCVS when saying how firearms are more used in deterring/stopping crimes rather than committing them. I doubt the US Government could be classed as a pro-gun biased source.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;37880445]The articles I later linked to include several sources.[/QUOTE] Wikipedia isn't a source. Nobody is supposed to scour a page of rambling for whatever particular thing you're too lazy to cite directly. [QUOTE=jimhowl33t;37880445]However, I've already cited the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the NCVS when saying how firearms are more used in deterring/stopping crimes rather than committing them. I doubt the US Government could be classed as a pro-gun biased source.[/QUOTE] You haven't linked directly to any figures from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. BJS never published anything analyzing their own data and suggesting a link between concealed carry and crime. I assume you're referring to one of the stereotypical [URL="http://www.springerlink.com/content/n47g8cbtgd140un3/"]and discredited[/URL] studies that cite BJS data incorrectly. Meanwhile, in the actual academic journals on criminology, they find there is [URL="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2003.tb00002.x/abstract"]little[/URL] to [URL="http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/9/4/292.short"]no evidence that the laws reduce or increase rates of violent crime.[/URL] There is no "mixed consensus" any more so than for climate science, the consensus is there is no evidence concealed carry affects crime rates. Nobody claiming otherwise can put up a statistically sound argument.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37880076]eh no sorry. we have plenty of cases of gung-ho cowboys but thats beside the point. the issue isn't that everyone is gung-ho cowboys, its that no matter how good you are at target practice, you're a danger to everyone around you when you decide you're going to try taking another person's life under the assumption you're doing the right thing. you can easily cause collateral or just straight up misunderstand the situation and wind up with someone dead who didn't deserve it. the reason people are against CCW is because they don't trust people like you with a loaded weapon in a high stress situation, and they have every right to be concerned when you're asking for us to approve of you walking around with a machine that has the capacity to kill lots of people[/QUOTE] If the situation was as bad as it is described, I doubt a police officer, or even a soldier, would have any easy time defusing it. Not too much more of an advantage over a trained CC holder, if any. Chaos is chaos, being better trained doesn't mean you can see through the smoke better or aim straighter while people run and scream around you.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;37881565]If the situation was as bad as it is described, I doubt a police officer, or even a soldier, would have any easy time defusing it. Not too much more of an advantage over a trained CC holder, if any. Chaos is chaos, being better trained doesn't mean you can see through the smoke better or aim straighter while people run and scream around you.[/QUOTE] so because a situation might be too hard for even a police officer or soldier this somehow means we should let the CC holders try defuse it?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;37881818]so because a situation might be too hard for even a police officer or soldier this somehow means we should let the CC holders try defuse it?[/QUOTE] I won't get into that. I'm just saying, anyone would likely be fucked over in a situation like that, regardless of training or experience. It was practically an ambush, [I]everyone[/I] was caught off guard. Being an LEO or a Soldier wouldn't give you a huge advantage over a well trained citizen.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37879800]oh ok thanks that completely puts to rest my concerns that a CCW holder might do something stupid [editline]2nd October 2012[/editline] like seriously are you invalidating the risk of a CCW holder playing hero with "well hopefully he doesn't play hero"[/QUOTE] there's a risk but in most CCW courses and gun safety courses for that matter it's taught that you shouldn't shoot if your backstop and targets(s) are unclear. It's a fundamental rule and I doubt many shooters would be willing to "play hero" and break it, even in an emergency situation.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37880076]eh no sorry. we have plenty of cases of gung-ho cowboys but thats beside the point. the issue isn't that everyone is gung-ho cowboys, its that no matter how good you are at target practice, you're a danger to everyone around you when you decide you're going to try taking another person's life under the assumption you're doing the right thing. you can easily cause collateral or just straight up misunderstand the situation and wind up with someone dead who didn't deserve it. the reason people are against CCW is because they don't trust people like you with a loaded weapon in a high stress situation, and they have every right to be concerned when you're asking for us to approve of you walking around with a machine that has the capacity to kill lots of people[/QUOTE] When you say "people like you," do you mean ordinary citizens or specifically people like me? Because I'm arguing that CCW holders should be sensible and not be heroes. Besides, while there are cases of gung-ho cowboys, there are plenty of cases in which CCW holders defused dangerous situations merely with the threat of force and no actual application. You can't assume ALL CCW holders are irresponsible based on a few cases.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;37881863][B]I won't get into that[/B]. I'm just saying, anyone would likely be fucked over in a situation like that, regardless of training or experience. It was practically an ambush, [I]everyone[/I] was caught off guard. Being an LEO or a Soldier wouldn't give you a huge advantage over a well trained citizen.[/QUOTE] ok well sorry but thats what the entire argument is about, so you stating the obvious and saying "but police would have had trouble too!" contributes nothing to the conversation

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37879112]yeah pretty much i mean sorry i don't have much faith in a CCW holder to stop a gunman in a tear gas filled dark theatre full of terrified frantic moviegoers what happened to the ignore list thing you were talking about bud? [editline]2nd October 2012[/editline] it would have only led to more panic, more confusion, more injuries and even more confusion for the police trying to root out a confirmed second gunman[/QUOTE] Did you even bother reading my post I'm not talking about the movie theater gunman

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;37879809]it's not just about the ability to stop criminals, it's about judgment and accountability Shooting at targets as they pop up in a range is one thing, but having the knowledge, information, and judgment to [i]choose[/i] whether or not to use the weapon is a totally different thing. The 'bad guys' don't start flashing or something as soon as it becomes justified to shoot them. A state of affairs wherein the laws have been adapted to permit all sorts of vigilante justice via CCW seems to be a lot worse than the occasional spree shooting to me (as if that were even a valid dichotomy)[/QUOTE] Vigilante justice? Shooting someone in self defense or the defense of another is generally within the legal rights of citizens depending on what state they reside in. It isn't vigilante justice if it follows the laws in place. That is exactly the opposite of vigilante justice.

i am the law

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37880076]eh no sorry. we have plenty of cases of gung-ho cowboys but thats beside the point. the issue isn't that everyone is gung-ho cowboys, its that no matter how good you are at target practice, you're a danger to everyone around you when you decide you're going to try taking another person's life under the assumption you're doing the right thing. you can easily cause collateral or just straight up misunderstand the situation and wind up with someone dead who didn't deserve it. the reason people are against CCW is because they don't trust people like you with a loaded weapon in a high stress situation, and they have every right to be concerned when you're asking for us to approve of you walking around with a machine that has the capacity to kill lots of people[/QUOTE] So basically your argument is that, because someone [I]might[/I] accidentally get shot, we should let shooters have free reign of [I]intentionally[/I] shooting people until the police arrive? I can't say I agree with that mindset. If I am wrong in my assessment of your opinion, please clarify.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37877772]ya this is a silly pipe dream and anyone who legitimately believes in a violent revolution taking place in america is [B]insane[/B][/QUOTE] You are so so wrong. Please give me some reasoning on why this could never happen? You are talking about one of the most armed populations on the planet with a history of revolution and warfare. If your argument is that American's are too apathetic you are wrong about that too, I don't think it would take much to spark off an armed revolution here in the United States.

[QUOTE=GunFox;37887535]So basically your argument is that, because someone [I]might[/I] accidentally get shot, we should let shooters have free reign of [I]intentionally[/I] shooting people until the police arrive? I can't say I agree with that mindset. If I am wrong in my assessment of your opinion, please clarify.[/QUOTE] yeah basically, i would rather take my chances running out of the theatre in a hail of bullets coming from one gunman rather than 2 [editline]2nd October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Strider*;37887601]You are so so wrong. Please give me some reasoning on why this could never happen? You are talking about one of the most armed populations on the planet with a history of revolution and warfare. If your argument is that American's are too apathetic you are wrong about that too, I don't think it would take much to spark off an armed revolution here in the United States.[/QUOTE] sorry, normally i'll argue with even the most asinine ridiculous points on fp but like i said you are absolutely delusional if you think armed revolution in the united states present day is remotely feasible and i'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who is legitimately illogical

[QUOTE=Strider*;37887601]You are so so wrong. Please give me some reasoning on why this could never happen? You are talking about one of the most armed populations on the planet with a history of revolution and warfare. If your argument is that American's are too apathetic you are wrong about that too, I don't think it would take much to spark off an armed revolution here in the United States.[/QUOTE] i wouldn't rule anything out entirely, but people in america share so many different beliefs (considering the country has a massive population in comparison to the populations of previous revolutions across the world), they could never unite under one banner. we've already seen how aggressively the government and powers that be respond in pacifistic situations (such as OWS)- the people would either be to apprehensive, too scared or simply too divided to have a revolution. and if there were a revolution, it would likely only represent a minority, a minority which believes that their actions are morally justified through the use of lethal force. how many people do you know are willing to [i]kill[/i] for their beliefs? and what kind of situation in the US would it take for a violent uprising?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37887642]yeah basically, i would rather take my chances running out of the theatre in a hail of bullets coming from one gunman rather than 2[/QUOTE] Dunno why you think the retaliatory shooter is going to be shooting at you and not the bad guy trying to kill everyone.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37877907]It's like saying, "We need to take down the oppressive government of Norway!" - except it is even more impossible and just as ludicrous.[/QUOTE] My grandfather took down the oppressive government of Norway back in May 1945. [editline]2nd October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Protocol7;37879043]because average CCW holders are trained for high stress operations involving tear gas and threats wearing body armor[/QUOTE] He wasn't wearing body armor.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;37887724]Dunno why you think the retaliatory shooter is going to be shooting at you and not the bad guy trying to kill everyone.[/QUOTE] there's a little thing called crossfire (as well as panic, confusion, poor aim, etc)

[QUOTE=XxPsychoxX;37879467]Holmes ignored multiple theaters, including one that was a fraction of the distance from his house, to go to the only one with a "gun free zone" policy in their company, how about we discuss that. And a CCW holder would have at least been able to draw fire away from the unarmed while they fled the theater.[/QUOTE] The article that said that was based entirely on conjecture. I've been to many of the theaters around Aurora, and all of them have had no guns signs.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37887642]yeah basically, i would rather take my chances running out of the theatre in a hail of bullets coming from one gunman rather than 2[/quote] And when you can't flee? When you are by yourself? When you are stuck in a room, unable to flee because the gunman is simply walking down the hall, going room to room? [quote]sorry, normally i'll argue with even the most asinine ridiculous points on fp but like i said you are absolutely delusional if you think armed revolution in the united states present day is remotely feasible and i'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who is legitimately illogical[/QUOTE] Because Afghanistan has worked out great so far. An educated and heavily armed population spread out over an area fifteen times larger than Afghanistan and a population ten times greater coupled with a culture based around the notion of revolution = freedom won't be a problem at all for the US military completely unaided by NATO allies.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;37879907]they can be expected to be accountable for every action they take[/QUOTE] Because we've all heard about the punishment faced by the two cops in NYC that shot 8 people besides the suspect.

[QUOTE=GunFox;37887772]And when you can't flee? When you are by yourself? When you are stuck in a room, unable to flee because the gunman is simply walking down the hall, going room to room?[/quote] golly i guess in that one perfect CCW holder's wet dream scenario i'd be in a lot of trouble, i'm willing to take that risk to avoid a million other scenarios where CCW holders can cause more trouble than otherwise. [QUOTE=GunFox;37887772]Because Afghanistan has worked out great so far. An educated and heavily armed population spread out over an area fifteen times larger than Afghanistan and a population ten times greater coupled with a culture based around the notion of revolution = freedom won't be a problem at all for the US military completely unaided by NATO allies.[/QUOTE] the afghans aren't winning and they have the home advantage lol. we're still demolishing and decimating them, we're just pulling out because we have no reason to be there. trying to compare the 1st world, relatively spoiled and well off population of america to a nation of fighters living in a much harsher and brazen civilization is completely moronic, which is par for the course for people on your side of the argument

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;37879512]i always thought the second amendment thingy was about militia's bearing arms? but whatever. i think talking about greater gun safety training in regards to this situation is kinda pointless, holmes clearly didn't care about gun safety he was a loony toon[/QUOTE] Honestly, psych evals would be the way to go. Yearly psych evals.

[QUOTE=GunFox;37887772]Because Afghanistan has worked out great so far. An educated and heavily armed population spread out over an area fifteen times larger than Afghanistan and a population ten times greater coupled with a culture based around the notion of revolution = freedom won't be a problem at all for the US military completely unaided by NATO allies.[/QUOTE] Mayhap you lads want to take this outside this thread, but as long as it's here, that's a pretty shit analogy and you know it. Afghanistan has a populace armed primarily with old soviet weaponry either smuggled in or left over from the 80s and modern shit brought in by Iran. Last I checked farmer Brown in Minnesota wasn't being sold rocket launchers by the Canadians.