quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
As to the first responders, do you really envision them telling you to freeze or some such? I think it much more likely a cop would see you concealing your pistol and shoot you thinking you're the shooter attempting to escape.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
As to the first responders, do you really envision them telling you to freeze or some such? I think it much more likely a cop would see you concealing your pistol and shoot you thinking you're the shooter attempting to escape.

Shoot first/ask questions, later? No. I'm thinking if they see me holstering my weapon (slowly, of course), they'd certainly prefer to see me drop it but I think the pucker factor would be reduced from a 9.5 to a manageable 5(ish). I'll take my chances with responsible LEOs knowing what to do with an acquiescent possible "perp". It seems to me this dirtbag in Colorado didn't wind up with too many holes in him.

I do, actually, envision most first responders to follow their training and order me to drop my weapon (if I haven't already re-holstered). Also, if I am fairly sure that I dropped the guy and I've gone over and cleared his person of any weapons I can find, I would absolutely re-holster while waiting for LEOs to arrive. As you've made clear; it's better I not be seen with a weapon in my hand, when they show up.

But, all of this is a little off point.

Would there have been less deaths if there were some armed "solid citizens" in that theater? Would the death count have been higher?

It's an interesting question (to my mind) as I really am having trouble with this one.

As I said in my OP: I have always been for the right of individuals to carry firearms. My reasoning really had little to do with this (think: Jefferson and the spirit of '76 or personal protection ie; dark alley, you're alone and you're attacked. There's no one else around). This is one of those things that causes me to re-think or, at least, re-evaluate my long-held positions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I'm a trained gun user, trained both by the military and my father to an exacting standard. Faced with a dim figure in front of me in a movie theater who is firing into the crowd would I draw and return fire if I was carrying a concealed firearm? HELL NO!

First, there is no way to be sure of a clear target. People are going to be panicing and moving about erratically. The poor lighting coupled with the sounds and lights from the movie itself would make even being sure of who is shooting pretty dicey. For whatever reason he's ok with killing random strangers, I'm not.

Second, most concealed carry firearms are small caliber low power weapons, necessry to be truly concealable and comfortale for full time carry. Even in ideal lighting with no distractions that sort of weapon is of questionable accuracy beyond maybe 20 or 30 feet. Firing a weapon and missing just makes you a target, readily identifiable from the muzzle flash. An AR or AK knock off is far more accuarte and lethal so its unlikely the exchange of fire will go in your favor.

Third, this SOB was wearing some sort of "bulletproof" vest. So my training to shoot for center mass would be useless as there is no way a small caliber round is going through even a steel insert vest much less a decent kevlar one. So in the unlikely situation where my first shot does strike him it is unlikely to kill or even incapacitate him.

Finally if you do survive the gunfight you are now holding a smoking gun in a room full of gunshot victims. Do you realy think the first responders will bother trying to arrest you or will it be shoot first, ask questions later?

I'm also a trained weapons user although I choose not to own or carry, anymore.

Your first point is well taken but I'm also thinking that of the few people standing (I'm sure some hit the floor), with the light from the screen, one might be able to distinguish a target (especially since reports are that he entered through a fire exit which are almost always "down front").

Accuracy is also a fair assessment and you are correct but, again; as a reasonable, licensed weapon-carrying citizen, are you obligated to try and help your fellow man?

Your third point could not reasonably have been known at the time of the incident so, for the purposes of this discussion, I'm passing it by.

Lastly, once the dirtbag is down, why would you not re-holster or drop your weapon, when the first responders get there? Ballistics will tell your tale, at that point.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Seems at first the NRA thought the whole thing was funny

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/nra-tweet-colorado-shooting-twitter-american-rifleman-174200699.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanahX

I dont see any resolution in gun-control. Its kind of like the way I see the war on drugs - If people want to get their hands on it, theyre going to.

Theyre on the planet to stay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
as a reasonable, licensed weapon-carrying citizen, are you obligated to try and help your fellow man?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Seems at first the NRA thought the whole thing was funny

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/nra-tweet-colorado-shooting-twitter-american-rifleman-174200699.html

In fairness to the NRA (now those are words I never expected to type!), my hunch is that the tweet author hadn't heard the hideous news.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I don't carry to go to a movie. but I do carry for the parking lot and for my front yard where I was once mugged. By the way do you know what happens to a man in a bullet prove vest when he is hit by a 40 at 20 ft? cracked or broken rib, mine carries 15 I can beat him to death without ever penetrating the vest. At 20 ft. I know a number of people who can hit him with their eyes closed. I used to carry a ruger p90 45 cal conceled it is about the same size as a 1911 so your concept of how effective concealed carry weapons are is flawed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Really effective gun control can be done.

First require all gun manufacturers, distributers and retailers to track every individual weapon. End gun show sales not requiring background checks and paperwork. Any weapon used by someone other than its registered owner could then be tracked to where it entered the illegal market or at east to the last legal owner.

Second stop the nonsens of banning individual models of guns. Outlaw certain capabilities. For instance semi automatic action. Hunters can use bolt action. Same goes for removable magazines. Single shot or stripper clips work fine for hunting but do not permit the sort of mayhem an AR-15 with a 30 round magizine does.

Finally the nation would have to accept that in the short term these meaures would be imperfect but as illegal weapons are found and destroyed and the stream of straw purchases dries up the number of guns would decline.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Better idea...rather than issue hand guns to amateurs and have a shoot out in a crowded dark theater and hope for a super duper expert like our Annie Oakley wantabe thompsonx...why not hand out body armor at the door...that would work better in our 2nd Amendment nutcase society anyway.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Seems at first the NRA thought the whole thing was funny

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/nra-tweet-colorado-shooting-twitter-american-rifleman-174200699.html

In fairness to the NRA (now those are words I never expected to type!), my hunch is that the tweet author hadn't heard the hideous news.

The tweeter claims he didn't know. Nosathro was just trying to sensationalize, I'm sure he didn't even read the article.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

I see different issues here. One would be if this case provides an argument for gun control. I think it does not. Psycho killer will have access to weapons regardless of government actions. For an average person getting killed by a "random recreational act of violence" is rather small. So, I do not see much problem here, or the need for stepping up security. The cost can not be sustained as  the US is in process of significant economic decline and many cities are rather cutting the police force.
Guns are not for everybody but a responsible head of household in many areas should consider being armed. People understand it and gun sales have made significant jump-up recently.
As of gun control in general, the government does not want armed population. The Constitution is violated in many ways already, there is no doubt Obama administration wants to make a move against gun ownership.  The Constitution actually formally protects armed citizen militia. I do not think during "good old days" anybody even considered banning small personal weapons.
The rumors are Obama administration will try to move with UN weapons treaty, and then implement it in the US as an international law bypassing the constitution. The government seems to feel urgency, the real possibility of the economic collapse makes them very nervous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Seems at first the NRA thought the whole thing was funny

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/nra-tweet-colorado-shooting-twitter-american-rifleman-174200699.html

In fairness to the NRA (now those are words I never expected to type!), my hunch is that the tweet author hadn't heard the hideous news.

The tweeter claims he didn't know. Nosathro was just trying to sensationalize, I'm sure he didn't even read the article.

I am only reported what was already printed. If I wanted to sensationlize it I would not have used NRA..."The Gun Nuts" would have been used.