The senseless colorado shooting.

[dalesql]

  It's now been a full day since the horrible mass shooting in Colorado.   facts reported in the media are still thin on the ground, but 12 dead and dozens more injured at a movie screening is quite terrible enough.   Apparently just one shooter, and he's not talking as he wants a lawyer.  Armed with a shotgun, AR-15 type rifle, and two handguns. Also wearing lots of body armor, and used a cs gas grenade in his attack.  One interesting datum that the media hasn't elaborated on was that the alleged shooter surrendered immediately when confronted by a police officer.   Curious that a man with armed with a rifle and wearing body armor who has already murdered many persons, surrendered to a police officer armed with a pistol and maybe a shotgun.  

  I also see with dismay, but no surprise, that the Mayors Against Guns were out with a statement shortly after where they metaphorically danced in the blood to advance their political agenda.   Shame on them.   I expect, but haven't bothered to check, that all the other anti-gun groups are out with their own press statements dancing in the blood.   Shame on them too.  

  Now the slow process of investigation of the incident grinds on.   The careful gathering of the evidence.  Statements from all the witnesses.  Questioning of the alleged perpetrator.   and the lawyers are all gathering, manipulating everything for the benefit of their side of the legal battle.  I expect that proving that the accused did the deed is the easy part.  I don't know if colorado has a death penalty, but this cowardly perpetrator clearly deserves it.  The legal battle is likely to be over the insanity defense.   This fellow deserves a speedy and fair trial, and once he is proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, executed for the safety of the rest of us. 

And the next time I go to a movie theater, I'll be carrying my gun.  because I'd like a chance to shoot back at my attackers. 

Comments

[tervicz-renard.livejournal.com]

One problem though: suppose you're in this movie theatre and indeed you get into a gun battle with an attacker. Then the cops move in. How will the cops know it's the other guy and not you who is attacking? And what if a more than one person is pulling a gun and joins in? Will a second "defender" know it's not you but the other guy he must shoot? The thing is, without information your gun will be useless and may cause more harm than good. And even if you do have the information you need, seeing the attack start, others, including the cops, may not have the information or even have wrong information.

In a situation like that confusion and panic are common. Pulling out more guns will only add to the confusion. Is there only one attacker? What weapons is the attacker using? Maybe they used the same gun as you? And then who did the shooting?

[dalesql.livejournal.com]

The scenario you lay out is possible. But it is also possible I'll be killed by a runaway fire truck crashing or an airliner falling out of the sky. But I'll take the option that gives me a better chance of surviving the possibilities. Hopefully, I'll never need to point my guns at anything more targets at the range. But, the world is not perfect, and all I can do it do the best that I can. If that means I have to use lethal force to defend myself from a murderous rampager, I will. But without a weapon, my options are reduced to run or hide. None of the options are desirable, but some are less bad than others.

Again I note that in this particular case, the bad guy stopped shooting and surrendered as soon as another armed person confronted him. Even though that police officer probably only had a pistol. The times in mass shootings and ordinary armed robberies that the bad guy was confronted with someone else with a firearm, have in nearly all cases, resulted in the bad guy stopping and surrendering or running. (the other cases that I know of where actual gunfights ensued were nearly all fights between gangs of various sorts)

[tabbiewolf.livejournal.com]

This is a VERY assumptive thing, but I highly suspect this fellow wanted to be caught. Odds are, he only would have surrendered to someone in a position of authority (a policeman). As with many folks who do this sort of thing, he seems to want this to be a long, slow suicide; he wants to prove how clever he is by making the news. I would not be surprised if he attempts to represent himself in court (though that would be a really dumb move...as would pleading insanity, since it's obvious this was thought about months beforehand with the gun/explosive ingredient purchases. I suspect someone will try, though).

Again, this is assumptions -- I could be completely wrong! But I did a lot of research into serial killers/mass murderers when I was in college, because this is the kind of thing that interests me.

Personally, the idea of everyone carrying around a gun "for their own safety" scares the crap out of me. We haven't reached a point in our time where everyone could understand the effects of something like that -- and hence, things would happen that wouldn't happen if everyone wasn't carrying a gun. It's not dissimilar to legalizing all drugs (which is a concept I agree with); it'll take years before we get used to the causes and effects of it. Guns make it more complicated because they're designed to kill, and like with drugs, people can lose track of themselves easily -- we're emotional creatures. I wouldn't want to get into an argument over a seat in a movie theater with someone who's armed, thankyoukindly, but that is a situation that could present itself if folks start carrying guns around all the time.

I dunno. I've lived in places where the cowboy days haven't quite left yet and seeing folks carrying handguns is common. I never felt safer knowing folks were armed -- and reading the police beat in the paper, where those guns were used far too often for my tastes (and not always in acts of anger; accidents happen, and it wasn't uncommon to read about them), I wasn't the only one.

I find it curious that in every incident like this, the typical arguments come up: "We should probably regulate firearms a bit more," is usually presented quietly before being crushed by "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." "You can't take my gun away!" "Well, if he didn't use guns, he would have used something else...the crazies always find a way." They're the same arguments every time...and they'd have a point, admittedly, if incidences like this didn't keep happening =p

Edited to Add: And to be cheeky, you realize that by putting your faith in your firearm and bringing it with you see movies, this mindless terrorist has won, right? Fear over rational thought. *shrug*

[tervicz-renard.livejournal.com]

Well to hide and run will be the better options for survival anyway. When there is a shooting the only thing law enforcement may know is that "someone carrying a gun is shooting at people in this area". Once you pull that gun you'll become a potential suspect and target. And you will add to the confusion: instead of just one there will now be 50 plus gunmen shooting at each other and police may get to you before they get to the suspect. You might be helping the suspect to escape by adding to the confusion, both during and after the shooting if the law enforcement were to get lazy.

Another thing to add into the equation: each movie theatre, packed with people carrying guns every night! So the odds of some dumbass carrying a gun into the theatre, not a shooter but a dumbass, increase. A gun may go off by accident and then what happens? Panic, trampling and casualties.