The future is still there.

 

You might want to go back and check the Aurora shooting. The shooter had a 12ga tactical shot gun (6 shots), an MP semi auto rifle (65 shots) and a Glock 22 (5 shots including the one to his own head).

Well you're right, no one with a gun inside that theatre would have shot him since they couldn't have known he was a bad guy. 76 shots fired from his weapon, 0 from anyone else there.

 

He certainly had his hands full. An alert concealed carrier would seem like an ideal solution, if we greatly broaden the definition of ideal.

 

@Bron
I'm very curious.

You kinda dance around this issue, making remarks about the idea that a few casualties could be considered acceptable, since we seem to have no other way of stopping such attacks.

Yet lingering back there is a thought that you are leaving unsaid, "we could do better".

Do you think we could.

 

Of course we could, but we won't. I'm being realistic.

We could have a better mental health care system, but we're not going to pay for it. We could restrict gun possession to just those who actually want to kill lower down on the food chain and security professionals, but we won't. We have created a system which legally puts guns in the hands of people who should not have them, and we are not going to change that.

As it stands, I need a gun because you have a gun and I don't trust you. It's not that a few casualties COULD be considered acceptable, it that a few casualties ARE considered acceptable. Each time it happens, we accept it and move on. The best idea anyone can offer is to try and kill the killer a little sooner. That pretty much guarantees a few bodies, but as our past behavior demonstrates, we can live with that.

 

Or we could outlaw all those psycho drugs that most all of the shooters were on, but good luck with that.
Pharma companies have a grip on our pols.

 

.....and I don't understand what they mean by they "want to start doing background checks" on a fire arm purchase? Don't they do that with the NICS background check?

And if we could carry in a school or theater and the bad guy popped up with a long gun or whatever I would still run to get the heck out of there. However if I were trapped from getting out, and the bad guy popped around the corner, sure would be nice to have something on ya so you could at least protect yourself. Guess there is no easy answer to it all.

 

You are right, there is no easy answer.

AdP, was partially correct on blaming the gun culture, but it goes far deeper than that. Inured populations are tough to change, it is foolish to try to apply the culture of Europeans upon the culture of the US, we are different than them.

We ahve a society that so fears offending someone, that we would prefer to let them act out before we take any action against them. Then the hand wringers say "why would someone do that, it just isn't right"? Answer: because you have inured him to the possibility of consequences.

 

This is screaming out for a brand new industry...... Bullet proof clothing in the latest fashions.

 

Someone beat you to it.

http://www.popsci.com/suit-these-3-pieces-bulletproof-businesswear

 

Would you like to prove to me where Oregon Schools are breaking federal law?

Israel finally came to grips with this in the early 1970s and have decisively stopped these attacks after a busload of children was massacred by Muslim terrorists. In the late 1990s, if you saw a busload of students, you saw at least one young teacher with a machine gun protecting the groups of students.

The Israelis have decisively stopped these school-related attacks and proved they want to live. Do we?

During the decade of the Clinton ban on semiautomatic rifles (the so-called assault weapons) and high-capacity magazines, crime did not go down. Reinstating it would simply be another example of repeating the same failed policy and being surprised with the same failed result.

We must tell our elected officials that they are acting as the criminals' friends as long as they continue to support legislation that protects only criminals, not decent people.

Oh, and we must also insist that these criminal-friendly elected officials not even try to blame gun owners and our "gun culture" for what a criminal did.

Had a few of us been available with guns at the Newtown school, the Oregon school, and every other school that has been used as the ''O.K Corral'', most of the victims might still be alive.

 

You have a point there. I'm sure a posse of armed guards could have kept the kids at Newtown safe. Adam Lanza was crazy, but he wasn't stupid. He probably would have gone to some other school or maybe a mall. As usual, the solution to a gun problem is more guns. No one is arguing that it's not.

It is strange that his mother was one of the best armed women in Connecticut and she was the first one killed. Up to that point, Adam was a law abiding citizen, who had every right to own a firearm.

The Israelis had a slightly different problem. It was not a good old American "Girls don't like me, so I'll shoot up the school," kind of thing. It was more of a "You bombed my sister's school, so I'll shoot your school bus," thing going there. We're dealing with random stuff and they know what's going on. You know how it is, once that shit starts, nobody remembers who killed who first. It just takes on a life of its own.

In our country, we don't have a well identifiable community we can fight back against. I mean, what are you going to do about disturbed young men who know they only have one shot at it, so they have to make it count. We just clean up the mess and wait for the next one.

 

You use a lot of ''probably's'' and ''assumptions'' in your replies.

No, I think I remember reading somewhere that young Adam was on the ''no gun ownership'' list, his dead mother was not on that list, some folks are just bat shit crazy nuts.

All the gun laws ,restrictions and control will not stop someone from enacting their own agenda, of killing, guns are just the popular choice of/for killing, knowing that schools are ''gun free zones''only help the killer, not the potential victims of the killer.

Gun free zones are typically the first targets.

For all of the dislikes towards law enforcement and the like, I cant say that I have ever heard of anyone going to a police station and just start shooting , why do you think that is?

 

We could enforce the laws on the books, do away with "gun free zones", and go back to teaching youth how to responsibly and safely use a firearm. Do any of you remember when they did that in school? How many mass shootings did we have then?

 

Adam Lanza had a number of mental and emotional problems, most of which were untreated, but as far as I can determine, he was under no sanctions concerning firearms.

The person who decides it's time to inflict maximum pain on his imaginary tormentors, chooses his target for personal reasons. Adam Lanza drove past a hundred gun free zones in order to get to a school where his mother was once a volunteer. There have been shootings in police stations, work places, shopping malls, and schools. If a future spree shooter chooses a place with an armed sentry, guess who his first target will be.

For all the Dirty Harry Rambo Chuck Norris feel-good nonsense about guns, having an armed guard on the premises does not guarantee safety. That's the same reason gun people demand to keep guns on site, because improved mental health service and restrictions on guns cannot guarantee safety, either.

 

I don't remember hearing about a mass shooting at a police station recently. Please refresh my memory. Where I live work places, shopping malls, and schools are gun free zones. The idiot in Colorado drove by 2 movie theatres to make it to one that was a gun free zone, and he wrote about that fact.

 

Dallas, June 13, 2015 Gloucester Township, New Jersey Dec 28, 2012.

Mass shooters want to inflict pain on other people. If killing their loved ones is not enough, they're likely to rub it in by saying something like, "I went to a gun free theater to increase the terror because everyone knew there was no one to shoot back."

I have been informed the Colorado shooter was equipped with multiple firearms. Even if he encountered another gunman, that guy would be out gunned. Put yourself in the place of an emotionally disturbed individual, who decides he wants to kill some people who never did him any harm. How much trouble would it be to find the armed sentry and take him out first? If you assume there is at least one concealed carrier in the crowd, you'll be watching for the guy in the well fitted jacket.

That's just a simple fact of life. If you don't care whether you survive the situation, it's easy to kill a dozen or more people, no matter what precautions are taken. Up to now, our standard response is "stop him as soon as possible," which is always after a bunch of people are dead. Dead people is an accepted part of our solution and no one has yet presented a better plan.

 

He actually wrote why he chose that theater before he commited the crime. It's not easy to pick out a concealed carry holder, especially in a dark theater, but it is easy to pick out an idiot walking in with an AR 15 and a shot gun. I can guarantee you if there had been trained concealed carry holders in the audience he would've got off 1 shot, 2 if he were extremely lucky. There is no way to tell if someone has the capacity to do something like this. It is impossible to predict. So what's wrong with giving law abiding citizens every opportunity to protect themselves? What does it hurt? 1 life saved is better than none, and I'm sure had someone been there to shoot back more than 1 would've been saved. Then there's the upside of not having to waste millions of tax payer dollars dragging the asshole through court.

 

I'm sure you have a extremely fast draw, but let's look at this realistically. An AR-15 semiautomatic can fire as fast as he can pull the trigger, so that could be a couple dozen rounds before the first return round. Unless you are standing behind him. limiting him to two rounds is just not realistic.

As much as I like your plan for lightning fast cat like responses to the sound of gun fire, while sitting in a theater watching a movie gunfight, and then shooting a spree killer before his third shot, I think your plan still results in a lot of dead people.

 

You didn't answer my question. What is wrong with giving law abiding citizens every opportunity to defend themselves? As I said saving just 1 person is enough, but in the case of the theater shooting he killed I think 12 and wounded 76. Had there been someone to shoot back, that was trained, and knew what they were doing, those numbers would've been far less. No loss of life except that of the psycho is acceptable, and allowing concealed carry holders may not save them all, but some is better than none. Allowing people to defend themselves doesn't completely solve the problem, but it goes a long way.