Shooting at Dark Knight in CO. What is WRONG with some people?

[CaliHwyPatrol]

I'll start off by saying that I am not against firearms ownership and the right to defend oneself - using deadly force, if necessary. But, a common statement in this thread seems to be "if only there was another armed person in that theatre, far fewer people might've been shot". Well, that's like saying: "if only there was no hunger", "if only there was no pollution", "if only there were no corrupt politicians". In other words - pie in the sky. I'm not trying to ridicule and I apologize if anyone takes offence. I just want to put a different perspective out there.

Totally agree about the pie in the sky. The problem is that it has been going both ways. I keep running into people who are adamant that an armed patron would have made the situation worse, with nothing other than speculation to back it up. I can't prove that someone else in there with a gun would have made it better, just like they can't prove it would have made it worse. The only logical thing I can think to turn to would be similar historical events. Compare the number of crimes that involve an armed citizen with the number of crimes that involve an armed citizen where innocent bystanders were hit. There's still a flaw in that because what would have been the outcome if in those instances there were no armed citizens? Again, more what if's, but it can still give you an idea of the frequency of these things happening.

Just for arguments sake, consider armed civilians in every single crowd, in every single venue, 24/7/365. That would be millions, upon millions of gatherings. How many accidental or mistaken shootings would occur every year in the USA? I'm pretty certain that it would dwarf - by a wide margin - incidents such as this. It's just the laws of probability.

That's pure speculation, and doesn't prove anything. This can only be backed up by facts in where you look at number of armed people at events vs accidental shootings vs murders prevented (which we will never know). However, I find this whole argument flawed because all it is saying is that accidents will go up with more armed citizens, which may be true, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. How many people would be killed in car accidents if nobody had a car? Over 30,000 people a year less. That's not the case though, and it doesn't stop you from getting in your car and driving. What do you do though? You practice safe driving habits and are very aware of your surroundings. The same goes for carrying a gun. Like driving, it is a huge responsibility and shouldn't be taken lightly.


Of the millions of sane, law-abiding, armed citizens that would be required in order to have at least one in attendance at all public gatherings, how many would have the training and fortitude to act in an effective manner?

I would love to see more safety and defensive classes available, to help educate people on proper gun safety. Even something on a volunteer basis from qualified individuals would be helpful, and be low cost to the government.

On a deeper note, this brings in to question why the 2nd amendment exists in the first place. One aspect is that the citizens are supposed to be able to form their own militia to combat threats, so the way I see it, it is your duty as an American to at least be somewhat educated on the matter. That's a whole different sack of potatoes though.

The likelihood of innocent bystanders being shot by somebody trying to take down the lunatic is pretty high as well. I would think that the probability of a lawsuit in such a case is about 101%. Of course, a possible future lawsuit isn't something one can really worry about in the moment. I'm just sayin'...

You can't say that. Can't. You have nothing to back that statement up except speculation. What if there was nobody between the armed patron and the shooter? What if? There are too many variables to be so sure that someone else would have been shot.

I'd rather be sued by some yuppy than be dead.

How about this option? What if we invested as much into treating mental illness as we do into protecting ourselves from such individuals? A lot (not all, of course) of these incidents could be stopped before they happen. I guess the problem is, how do you quantify the incidents that you prevent? It ends up becoming a catch-22: If such problems aren't occurring, why should we invest in preventing them?

Responses in bold.

Nobody noticed this guy bought 6000 rounds in a short amount of time? Isn't that a pretty BIG red flag?

I don't think that should even be a concern. Ammo has only been getting more expensive, it's not that rare that people buy bulk ammo cans and sit on them. Yes, 6000 rounds is a lot, but in the end, he's only one person. I'd be interested to know how many rounds were actually fired that night, I bet it wasn't even 10% of that. Sure, his AR jammed, but even then, shooting at 100 rounds a minute would still take him an hour.

I don't know, I guess I don't understand why people are even bringing that up. I could definitely use some other views on the subject.

I can only speculate but if I was placed in a situation like that I don't think I would have been able to effectively engaged the suspect with my .45 before the damage was done. Dark, loud, smoke, caught by surprised, filled to capacity theater, and once he started firing you would have movement(pushing, shoving) from every which direction.

It's one of those worst case scenarios that I don't think even someone with CQC training, armed with a side arm would have been effective in stopping him unless you were in the seats near him and could get right up on him for a head-shot.

I've been in the "sh*t" before and it takes some deep down intestinal fortitude to charge someone as he's unleashing some serious firepower.

If there was a CCW owner present I believe the death toll would probably been around the same, just the likelihood of the suspect having been killed would have been higher.

Just my .02

All valid speculation. Yes, there was a lot going on and sometimes there is nothing you can do, but that's not a good reason to not be prepared anyway. Another fallacy I've been seeing a lot is that people think that an armed patron would fire on the shooter simply because they had a gun with them. That's discounting the discretion of the carrying individual. It may very well be the case that someone else with a gun in there wouldn't have shot back at all because of all the reasons you described. Again, there are too many variables to say without a doubt that an armed citizen would have not helped the situation.

 

[j_garcia]

I don't think that should even be a concern. Ammo has only been getting more expensive, it's not that rare that people buy bulk ammo cans and sit on them. Yes, 6000 rounds is a lot, but in the end, he's only one person. I'd be interested to know how many rounds were actually fired that night, I bet it wasn't even 10% of that. Sure, his AR jammed, but even then, shooting at 100 rounds a minute would still take him an hour.

I don't know, I guess I don't understand why people are even bringing that up. I could definitely use some other views on the subject.

In the last month alone I bought ~1500 rounds or more, so I would red flag myself Trust me, I understand if I found a great price, I would buy a bunch more ammo too. But realistically, 6000 rounds? It would take me a while and my arms and trigger finger would probably be tired. I DO know people who have that level of ammo around too.

 

[CaliHwyPatrol]

In the last month alone I bought ~1500 rounds or more, so I would red flag myself Trust me, I understand if I found a great price, I would buy a bunch more ammo too. But realistically, 6000 rounds? It would take me a while and my arms and trigger finger would probably be tired. I DO know people who have that level of ammo around too.

I think it's hard for me to grasp because I have a number of friends who enjoy shooting as a frequent form of entertainment. Some of these guys go through 500 rounds a month easy, which is a year supply at 6000 rounds.

 

[j_garcia]

I think it's hard for me to grasp because I have a number of friends who enjoy shooting as a frequent form of entertainment. Some of these guys go through 500 rounds a month easy, which is a year supply at 6000 rounds.

Yeah, I would be in that category as well, just not every month. Last month I shot more than that easily (more like 750rds) and this month already shot at least that much. I call it "relaxation". The job has been pretty hectic, and going to the range lets me get out plenty of that work stress while also practicing.

 

[sholling]

In the last month alone I bought ~1500 rounds or more, so I would red flag myself Trust me, I understand if I found a great price, I would buy a bunch more ammo too. But realistically, 6000 rounds? It would take me a while and my arms and trigger finger would probably be tired. I DO know people who have that level of ammo around too.

You buy it when you can catch a sale and/or before the next price hike because it's the only way to keep up with the hobby. 5 years ago you could buy surplus 7.62 NATO for $180-200/1000 and now its often $500+ when you can find it. The price of raw lead and brass have also gone through the roof driving up the price of commercial ammo and then there are the shortages. 3 years ago you couldn't find a 9mm handgun or a box of pretty much anything but birdshot for love or money and it was like that for better than a year. Walmart was actually forced to ration what little ammo they could find and my favorite chain gun shop had a grand total of one revolver, two or three bolt action hunting rifles and one shotgun instead of the usual 100 or so on display and more in the warehouse. And they had zero ammo. Three years later the local Walmart still can't keep .223 or 45acp or even 22LR on the shelves for even a few hours. Gun and ammo manufacturers were working at capacity and couldn't keep up with demand and the only thing that's changed 3 years later is that running 24/7 they are almost able to keep up with demand.

One thing that has gotten better is leather holsters. One popular manufacturer was so swamped that he only accepted orders for a week or two at the beginning of the year and then spent the rest of the year filling those orders. That's now open order periods and delivery is down to 16-26 weeks .

Something else to keep in mind (no disrespect to CHP) but the average police officer isn't a very good shot. Most aren't gun people and as a result they just don't put in the time to build and maintain the skill set which is why so many shootouts have 8-10 officers firing 100-200rds for 2-3 hits (or none). There are good odds that a private citizen legally packing heat is as good or a better shot than the officer they are waiting for.

 

[CaliHwyPatrol]

I'm not a police officer, so no offense taken haha. The screen name I usually use was taken when I signed up here and there was CHP flyer sitting near me and was the first thing I saw when looking around the room for random words to make a name out of. (my brother is CHP though, so you can make fun of him for being a crappy shot)/derail

I don't really know anything about police shots fired vs hits statistics, but one thing I can think of is that hand guns aren't all that accurate past 10-15 yards, especially the smaller caliber guns like the S&W .40s that the CHP carries, so the officer might not always be to blame. If I remember correctly, they have mandatory range time to keep proficiency with their firearms, but I don't know the frequency.

 

[Tomorrow]

I'll start off by saying that I am not against firearms ownership and the right to defend oneself - using deadly force, if necessary. But, a common statement in this thread seems to be "if only there was another armed person in that theatre, far fewer people might've been shot". Well, that's like saying: "if only there was no hunger", "if only there was no pollution", "if only there were no corrupt politicians". In other words - pie in the sky. I'm not trying to ridicule and I apologize if anyone takes offence. I just want to put a different perspective out there.

Just for arguments sake, consider armed civilians in every single crowd, in every single venue, 24/7/365. That would be millions, upon millions of gatherings. How many accidental or mistaken shootings would occur every year in the USA? I'm pretty certain that it would dwarf - by a wide margin - incidents such as this. It's just the laws of probability.

Of the millions of sane, law-abiding, armed citizens that would be required in order to have at least one in attendance at all public gatherings, how many would have the training and fortitude to act in an effective manner?

The likelihood of innocent bystanders being shot by somebody trying to take down the lunatic is pretty high as well. I would think that the probability of a lawsuit in such a case is about 101%. Of course, a possible future lawsuit isn't something one can really worry about in the moment. I'm just sayin'...

How about this option? What if we invested as much into treating mental illness as we do into protecting ourselves from such individuals? A lot (not all, of course) of these incidents could be stopped before they happen. I guess the problem is, how do you quantify the incidents that you prevent? It ends up becoming a catch-22: If such problems aren't occurring, why should we invest in preventing them?

Go-Nad, allow me to provide a slightly different perspective.

Hospital malpractice blunders kill more than 100,000 Americans EVERY YEAR. Everyone has access to hospitals. If we limit the number of people who can go to hospitals every year, we can lower that unnnecessary death rate. That really is the essence of your argument.

You also use your common sense to tell you that the more gun packing owners, the higher the death rate will be (Dodge City?). Research shows otherwise. Dr. Gary Kleck is a professor at the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. He and a couple of other researchers did a couple of landmark studies on gun violence and usage. I would suggest reading his studies, particularly those penned with Don B. Kates: The Great American Gun Debate: Essays on Firearms and Violence and again for Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control. I don't suggest that you blindly accept or reject their propositions...but that you at least read it and make an informed decision about the issue at hand.

Here are some of his findings:

•For every use of a gun to commit a crime, there are three-to-four cases of guns being used in self-defense of a crime.
•Assault and robbery rates are lower when victims are armed with a gun.
•A gun is used in self-defense to protect its owner from crime 2.5 million times per year, an average of once every 13 seconds.
•Fifteen percent of the gun defenders interviewed believed someone would have died if they had not been armed. If true, that’s an average of one life saved due to firearm self-defense every 1.3 minutes.
•In nearly 75% of the cases, the victim did not know his attackers. In nearly 50% of the cases, he faced at least two attackers and in nearly 25% of the cases, there were three or more attackers. A quarter of the incidents of self-defense occurred away from the home.

Lastly, here is the response of a former critic of Kleck's, Marvin Wolfgang, another noted criminologist and an previous advocate of strong gun control (even those carried by peace officers) who ended up saying Kleck's survey was "nearly foolproof" ... He says, “What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator…I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.”

As has been stated in this thread, no one can know the probable results of an event that never happened (like a CCP holder actually firing back at the Aurora creep). We only have history and rigorous, peer reviewed studies such as Kleck's to go by. And each individual violent circumstance is unique. It requires quick and careful thinking by an individual to survive such a thing. While getting into a shootout with a guy in a crowded theater may result in additional harm, running helter skelter, in a panicky crowd, away from the shooter/violence is not a real sound strategy at times, either. And with regards to lawsuits, there is an old idiom that is pertinent in some cases..."I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

I believe, as oft stated by a superb friend, Col. Jeff Cooper, recently passed...
"An armed society is a polite society".

One additional thing...another friend of mine had this great idea. He suggested using the phone book to note who did and who didn't own firearms...perhaps with a bullet or no bullet next to the name, phone number, and address. Who do you think would suffer the most break-ins?

And, I don't agree that cops are generally worse shots than the average gun owner. (My wife works at the local PD, so I may be biased.) They generally have mandatory monthly shooting practice and annual qualifying tests. Not so with Joe Average (sorry Joe). Fine schools are out there for anyone. Some of my wife's co-workers are trainers at prestigious shooting schools such as Thunder Ranch and Gunsite Ranch. They actually practice dealing with these kinds of situations and can be very valuable if you have the time, inclination, and cash.

Lastly, I agree with you that more can be done to filter bad elements from gaining guns and ammo. But what would you have us do about Molotov Cocktails and fertilizer bombs?...ban gas and cows? See? It's sometimes easier to protect yourself (or the ONLY way) when no one else is around to do it.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Christian Bale visits Colorado shooting victims | Movie Talk - Yahoo! Movies

 

[GO-NAD!]

Jeez! I turn my back for a few hours...

Hmmm, where to begin....

Well yes, my points are purely speculative. But, can anyone seriously argue that an exponential increase in the number of civilians carrying firearms in public will not result in an increase in accidental discharges and mistaken (a la Zimmerman) shootings? That would just defy the laws of probability. A statistician could probably calculate the number of innocent lives saved vs the increase in lives lost by accident. But I'm not a statistician...

I was simply trying to counter the "if only an armed upstanding citizen had been present" argument that gets tossed around when these incidents happen. That, of course, is even more speculative, because the statement is made each time as it might've pertained to a specific incident. I have the law of probability on my side.

In order for there to be a reasonable chance of someone like the Aurora shooter being intercepted by an armed civilian would require an almost incalculable increase in publicly armed civilians.

I'm not arguing against protecting yourself and your family from criminals at home . I just have concerns about so many people being armed in public. I'm retired military. I'm accustomed to being in the presence of armed people whose training and motivation I am familiar and comfortable with. If I was in the public presence of an armed civilian who I don't know, I would not be at all comfortable with that. I don't know what his training or motivation is. You could say that if the firearm is concealed, I won't know that it is present and have no reason for discomfort. Well, the "ignorance is bliss" argument isn't much comfort to me.

Just for arguments sake, consider armed civilians in every single crowd, in every single venue, 24/7/365. That would be millions, upon millions of gatherings. How many accidental or mistaken shootings would occur every year in the USA? I'm pretty certain that it would dwarf - by a wide margin - incidents such as this. It's just the laws of probability.

That's pure speculation, and doesn't prove anything. This can only be backed up by facts in where you look at number of armed people at events vs accidental shootings vs murders prevented (which we will never know). However, I find this whole argument flawed because all it is saying is that accidents will go up with more armed citizens, which may be true, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. How many people would be killed in car accidents if nobody had a car? Over 30,000 people a year less. That's not the case though, and it doesn't stop you from getting in your car and driving. What do you do though? You practice safe driving habits and are very aware of your surroundings. The same goes for carrying a gun. Like driving, it is a huge responsibility and shouldn't be taken lightly.

Yes, I am speculating. And, I'm not trying to prove anything. However, if you increase the number of armed civilians in public by an exponential amount you will see a proportional increase in accidents. That is guar-own-teed! As to the cost vs benefit, I couldn't hazard a guess. I just would not assume that there would be a net benefit, that's all I'm saying.

The likelihood of innocent bystanders being shot by somebody trying to take down the lunatic is pretty high as well. I would think that the probability of a lawsuit in such a case is about 101%. Of course, a possible future lawsuit isn't something one can really worry about in the moment. I'm just sayin'...

You can't say that. Can't. You have nothing to back that statement up except speculation. What if there was nobody between the armed patron and the shooter? What if? There are too many variables to be so sure that someone else would have been shot.

I'd rather be sued by some yuppy than be dead.

Yes, I can say that - I just did. I should've been more clear though. I was thinking about the situation in Aurora. In a crowded theatre like that? Yeah, I stand by what I said. As has been mentioned, pistols are notoriously inaccurate. As for "What if there was nobody between the armed patron and the shooter?". Well, a person needn't be between both shooters to be in danger - they only need to be in the vicinity. I'm a very good shot with a rifle. My experience with pistols is pretty limited. Just enough to tell me that they are inaccurate. From what I've seen and read of gangbanger shootings, they all seem to think the movies are a reflection of real life. I think most people on this forum know otherwise. With more practice, I know I'd become pretty proficient, but I just ain't that interested. It would take a lot of practice, i.e. time and expense, to be a good pistol shot. More than the majority (speculation, of course) of pistol owners would be willing or able to endure. What I could never know is, how I would respond in such a situation - until it happened.

And yes, I agree - I'd rather be sued than shot. I was just pointing it out.

Tomorrow, the data you quote relates to overall gun use in self-defense. I was referring specifically to carrying fireams in public places.

I believe, as oft stated by a superb friend, Col. Jeff Cooper, recently passed...
"An armed society is a polite society".

Really? To me, an armed society is one that is afraid of itself.

What it boils down to is that being in the presence of armed civilians wherever I went in public, would not make me feel safer.

Perhaps I'm looking at this issue from the perspective of living in a society that doesn't suffer from gun crime to the same extent as in the US. That has been changing in recent years though. More and more guns are being smuggled in from the US. So, although the overall crime rate is dropping, gun crime is almost unique in that it is rising. Still much lower than the US though...

 

[3db]

If the guy is crazy, he isn't exactly likely to go to go down to the doctor's office and say "Hey, I'm crazy, please treat me." It is fine to say "treat them" but if you can't identify them, you can't treat them. That's how they slip through the cracks right now.

Nobody noticed this guy bought 6000 rounds in a short amount of time? Isn't that a pretty BIG red flag?

However, making access to firearms prohibitively harder to acquire may have prevented this guy from owing a gun thus preventing this from happening.

6000 rounds should have raised the flag. Are there no controls in place for tracking something like this?

 

[Adam]

Thanks to all in this thread. A good, intelligent, polite discussion!

I might have missed it being mentioned already, but I see another option to discuss. Non-lethal weapons. We're probably a long way off from public places deploying microwave systems, but if enough people had the means to deliver a debilitating but non-lethal attack from a standoff distance, perhaps it would have made a difference. Perhaps. I'll admit that I for one would (a) be scared s***less in a situation like that, and even if I got past that, I'd still be afraid to discharge my gun into a dark and smoky theater, but (b) I'd be less afraid of collateral damage if I was knew that I had a chance of stopping the person without killing someone else. I'm not an expert on what's out there in a easily-carried form factor (i.e. I'm not packing a shotgun with bean bags into a movie), but others here might be.

Jeez! I turn my back for a few hours...

...and...oh, forget it.

 

[GO-NAD!]

However, making access to firearms prohibitively harder to acquire may have prevented this guy from owing a gun thus preventing this from happening.

6000 rounds should have raised the flag. Are there no controls in place for tracking something like this?

Well, to an extent, I agree with those who say that making it harder to legally access firearms just gives the advantage to criminals. Maybe they should ban the production of handguns (which, as far as I know, are the firearms most often involved in gun crime) for civilian use. The supply would dry up eventually.

(Hides under desk to avoid flak headed his way)

 

[GO-NAD!]

...deploying microwave systems...

That'll never work! How are you gonna persuade him to climb into the oven? And, just imagine how big that sucker would have to be. Plus, you have to make sure you take all the metal bits off of him...

I was under the impression that you were an engineer. Apparently, I was mistaken.

...and...oh, forget it.

You know you can't....

 

[sholling]

Jeez! I turn my back for a few hours...

Hmmm, where to begin....

Well yes, my points are purely speculative. But, can anyone seriously argue that an exponential increase in the number of civilians carrying firearms in public will not result in an increase in accidental discharges and mistaken (a la Zimmerman) shootings? That would just defy the laws of probability. A statistician could probably calculate the number of innocent lives saved vs the increase in lives lost by accident. But I'm not a statistician...

The statistics show that crime usually goes down down once carry laws are eased. That's because criminals who have no way of knowing which potential victims have the means to fight back effectively find other ways to make a living. Gary Kleck's study was mentioned earlier but what was left out was his original goal was to prove that guns caused crime. What was was unusual for a modern academic is that when his study proved his beliefs to be mistaken and that guns reduce crime he went with the facts.

Anyway when you get down to the US depending on the laws of the state you visit somewhere between 0 and 3% of those around you will probably be licensed and armed or just legally armed.

I stand by what I said. As has been mentioned, pistols are notoriously inaccurate.

Pistols are not notoriously inaccurate. Most of mine are easily capable of 1" groups at typical confrontation distances of 3-10yds (9-30ft) and at least one is capable of holding that out past 25yds. The limitation is the tool user and not the tool and the key is training and practice.

However, making access to firearms prohibitively harder to acquire may have prevented this guy from owing a gun thus preventing this from happening.

No not really the guy had a clean record. Unless you're willing to violate the rights of law abiding citizens there isn't much that could have kept guns out of his hands.

6000 rounds should have raised the flag. Are there no controls in place for tracking something like this?

Not really. I bought 1300 last week with no plans to hurt anything but paper should I be reported? It's just not unusual.

 

[3db]

Well, to an extent, I agree with those who say that making it harder to legally access firearms just gives the advantage to criminals. Maybe they should ban the production of handguns (which, as far as I know, are the firearms most often involved in gun crime) for civilian use. The supply would dry up eventually.

(Hides under desk to avoid flak headed his way)

I agree. However, this guy who went loony wasn't a criminal until this event happened. I also realize that if one wants something bad enough, one will find a means of acquiring it. Yet I wonder how many random acts of shooting would decline if the access to firearms were made that much more difficult. aka the f'in elderly moron who followed and killed a black youth in FLA about 6 monthes ago.

 

[3db]

No not really the guy had a clean record. Unless you're willing to violate the rights of law abiding citizens there isn't much that could have kept guns out of his hands.

How about the right to live one's life until natural causes does one in? How are the victims lifes not been violated? Maybe that's the ticket.. If one owns a gun, than maybe some freedom has to be given up in the form of periodic checks on gun owners. This is not an easy issue nor is it a black n white case and I understand this. But from a victims point of view, there rights have been violated and as a victim, I rather see some preventive measures but into play to reduce the chances of a repeat offence by somebody else. The sad reality is that this sort of **** happens again and again and until preventative measures are at play, this type of **** will continue to happen. (This is by no means an attack on you Sholling. )

 

[GO-NAD!]

Pistols are not notoriously inaccurate. Most of mine are easily capable of 1" groups at typical confrontation distances of 3-10yds (9-30ft) and at least one is capable of holding that out past 25yds. The limitation is the tool user and not the tool and the key is training and practice.

I meant in comparison to rifles. I should've made that clear. Thanks. Actually, I used the wrong word totally. "Notorious" would imply well-known. I don't think the majority of the population realizes how difficult it is to fire a handgun accurately in comparison to rifles. That's the influence of action movies, I suppose. That's why gangbangers tend to fire off so many rounds at their targets and still miss, or take down bystanders.

...the key is training and practice.

Absolutely. That's why so many people can't fire a handgun straight.

 

[Tomorrow]

Really? To me, an armed society is one that is afraid of itself.

What it boils down to is that being in the presence of armed civilians wherever I went in public, would not make me feel safer.

Perhaps I'm looking at this issue from the perspective of living in a society that doesn't suffer from gun crime to the same extent as in the US. That has been changing in recent years though. More and more guns are being smuggled in from the US. So, although the overall crime rate is dropping, gun crime is almost unique in that it is rising. Still much lower than the US though...

A couple of thoughts.....

You know that the bad guys will be armed. Are you more bothered by "potential", speculated accidents if the good guys are also armed ("presence of armed civilians") in order to protect themselves and others?

Would you be more comfortable if gun and defense-specific training were mandatory for gun ownership? I wouldn't be opposed to that.

Lastly, I know a quick way to keep a couple thousand semi-auto ("assault" ) rifles from being exported from the U.S. But it involves no future idiotic ("anti-gun" motivated) plans from our POTUS and the Attorney General.

Just curious...in what country do you live, G-N?

Like Adam, I appreciate the polite nature of this discussion.

 

[GO-NAD!]

.... aka the f'in elderly moron who followed and killed a black youth in FLA about 6 monthes ago.

Are you talking about Zimmerman? He's a young guy. He's also stupid. If he had just listened to the cops and not confronted the kid, he'd still be alive and Zimmerman wouldn't be going on trial.

Then there are idiots like Rodney Peairs:

Yoshihiro Hattori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will repeat: I do not have a problem with anyone defending himself with a gun, where it is justified. I do have a problem with people being armed, but not able to exercise even minimal good judgement in such situations as cited above.

Such incidents don't happen every day, but neither do ones such as happened in Aurora.

 

[3db]

Are you talking about Zimmerman? He's a young guy. He's also stupid. If he had just listened to the cops and not confronted the kid, he'd still be alive and Zimmerman wouldn't be going on trial.

Then there are idiots like Rodney Peairs:

Yoshihiro Hattori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will repeat: I do not have a problem with anyone defending himself with a gun, where it is justified. I do have a problem with people being armed, but not able to exercise even minimal good judgement in such situations as cited above.

Such incidents don't happen every day, but neither do ones such as happened in Aurora.

Thanks for the correction. I though zimmerman was a retiree for some reason.