Gun Control

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

I'm curious why this is.

I don't know. But Baltimore SWAT isn't a bunch of yokels. These are guys who police one of the most violent cities in the United States. You'd think they would be more competent in their abilities.

I *want* to believe it's because they typically go against soft targets that aren't prepared (the element of surprise is a critical factor in combat situations, which is why the ambush is such a deadly and preferred tactic). I want to believe it's because they're just not used to facing a coordinated group of armed people who are on equal footing in terms of cohesiveness, arms, and training.

I sincerely hope it's NOT because they flat-out suck at their job.

Originally Posted by Baneblade

On topic, if I had been armed in a theatre (I shouldn't be in the first place), I wouldn't have even drawn my weapon without assessing the situation. Civilians fuck things up.

This is exactly my point. The majority of gun rights advocates are using this as a talking point to show how one or two or even a hundred gun owners would have made this guy swiss cheese before he even opened fire.

There are, in my mind, two ways that more guns would have played out. These are scenarios that none of the gun-hawks (of which I am one) have bothered to factor in, in their effort to show how this scenario could have been prevented:

1) Theatre shooter walks in, pops CS or smoke, starts shooting. Gun owners pull their own and start shooting back. Random gun owner gets the idea, in the heat of combat, that he's being attacked by more than one shooter. He starts shooting at other shooters.

2) One single sheepdog with a sidearm sees the "the silhouette of a person materialize near the screen, point a gun at the crowd" and shoots the fucker dead before he gets a single round off. Everyone else in the theatre panics, another gun owner shoots the guy dead. People panic.

Let's also not forget that screaming panicked people running around shoving each other do NOT do as gun range-trained civilians want and hit the deck. Not a single one of you has factored in the random chaos of panicked people. How many of you would sit there calmly with your Smith & Wesson or your Glock as a guy tears into the crowd, waiting for that one single shining moment where your golden bullet can be used A.) without fear of striking an innocent and unarmed person, and B.) would penetrate the unarmoured critical area required to incapacitate a person wearing what amounts to SWAT armour?

Not even I would attempt such a thing. Maybe that makes me less of a Rambo motherfucker than some of you. Maybe it also makes me more likely to survive an encounter-other-than-war.

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

@Firefly, James Holmes made himself an early target for an armed citizen. Ignore it all you want. It is what it is.

Every person in that theatre thought it was part of the movie until four rounds had been fired. Ignore the fact that this wasn't optimum conditions at your local pistol range all you want. When the day comes and you're on the line being measured, I pray to G-d I'm not sitting near you because you're just as likely to kill innocent people as you are hitting a moving, shooting target in a dark, smoke-filled theatre with screaming panicked people between you and your attacker.

Because that is what it was.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

He killed 12 people btw.

That's twelve people who aren't going home after the movie. He also injured how many people? Not bad for a REMF doctoral-candidate geek civilian with zero training other than gun ranges.

You should recruit him for your Planetside vidya-game team.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

I think the assumption that the American military will obey orders to combat Americans is a little on the high side.

I've been over this. If you give a mob of civilians firearms and put them on the other side of a barricade from armed police/military units, it's just a matter of time before someone fires either accidentally or intentionally, and the soldiers or whoever return fire out of self-preservation. Firearms for civilians in the modern world are probably more of a liability than anything.

Originally Posted by Accuser

So if it's 10% of the total population that are armed civilians, alongside 1% of the population that are military defectors against maybe 2% of the population that are military and loyal to the regime... somehow that makes the civilian fighters irrelevant?

You're pulling numbers out of your ass.

But yeah, it makes them irrelevant. You roll an armored car into a mob of civilians with small arms and start firing indiscriminately with a 25 mm chaingun and you see how many of those civilians don't remember how much they love their families and turn for home. Look at how fucking massively we ISAF guys dominate the shit out of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan if they ever engage us directly. They don't stand a chance. I assume the US army gave the Iraqis a what-for anytime they were engaged in direct combat with them as well.

The best civilians manage in places where it's them vs. a powerful, modern military is sniping and, especially, IEDs and suicide bombers.

I'd love to see how you came to that conclusion. By 2012 numbers, Syria has a population of 20.8 million. They have a standing army of 220,000. That's slightly more than 1% of the population, or about 2.5% if you include reservists. So if a full HALF of Syria's military were to defect (and it hasn't) it would only take 1.5% of the civilian population taking up arms to comprise half of the resistance.

http://www.understandingwar.org/site...21June2012.pdf

[ItsTheSheppy]

Props to Firefly, he's straight owning this thread. Good stuff, man. It's like listening to my army-vet dad. Real talk.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

You overlook James Holmes bad tactic of making himself a target early on
into his shooting spree. He made himself an easy target for even Grandpa.

Unfortunately Grandpa would have never been allowed into theatre armed.

I didn't overlook a goddamned thing. I factored that in and countered your pathetic argument. You're overlooking reality, which amuses me greatly considering you've discussed how awesomely trained you are in another thread. If he made himself such an easy and obvious target early-on before the shooting start then please tell me, Internet Rambo, why the fuck not a single person, armed or not, was able to get off a warning shout. Please tell me why it took more than three rounds BEING FIRED INTO THE FUCKING CEILING for ANYONE in that theatre to react. Three real-life bullets - not movie sound effects - were fired, after people saw the guy, and yet nobody was able to say "OH MY GOD, HE HAS A GUN!"

Also, before you even trot out the whole "nobody else was armed" argument, don't pretend that not a single person in that movie theatre had ever owned a gun or been exposed to gun training or was, in fact, a disarmed gun owner. Because I will straight-up own your face with that weak attempt at an argument. Fair warning.

[ziegler]

Columbine...gun free zone
V tech....gun free zone
Theater....gun free zone

Highest murder rates in the country...gun free zones....


Pattern maybe?

I am not saying some armed guy in the theater could have stopped this. I will say though, that perhaps if there was the possibility of armed people being present, the guy just might have decided against his actions. Not likely in this case with all the other things he was doing, he probably would have taken a different approach...ie...bombing the theater instead.

What is for sure, is he picked a very soft target with a potential for a high kill count.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

So movie goers noticed after 3 rounds. Before it was 4. Improved odds for Grandpa.

This was when I realized Dj was just trolling.

[Baneblade]

Which part of the movie was it.

[ziegler]

initial reports were that they thought it was a promotion or event that was part of the movie.....this was afterall, the premiere of the movie. So, understandable that nobody reacted at first.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by ziegler

initial reports were that they thought it was a promotion or event that was part of the movie.....this was afterall, the premiere of the movie. So, understandable that nobody reacted at first.

Which means that DjEclipse, internet delta force operator, was just as likely to have done fuck-all to take the guy down. Which means that all of his Bravo posturing about being able to Win At Combat in a movie theatre would have occurred right around the same time that people started screaming and running.

In the dark.

With teargas burning their eyes or smoke obscuring their vision.

So basically DjEclipse is telling us he'd willingly draw his sidearm and shoot into a panicked crowd so he can be a hero. Good plan, guy. Good plan.

I certainly agree that the POTENTIAL of having a well-armed audience could have been a significant deterrent. I also agree with ziegler's assertion that he chose his target well. On that point, I agree. Were I a criminal, I would be less likely to attack a place where there was a chance that armed people would return fire. But that's not the case.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Firefly

Which means that DjEclipse, internet delta force operator, was just as likely to have done fuck-all to take the guy down. Which means that all of his Bravo posturing about being able to Win At Combat in a movie theatre would have occurred right around the same time that people started screaming and running.

In the dark.

With teargas burning their eyes or smoke obscuring their vision.

So basically DjEclipse is telling us he'd willingly draw his sidearm and shoot into a panicked crowd so he can be a hero. Good plan, guy. Good plan.

I certainly agree that the POTENTIAL of having a well-armed audience could have been a significant deterrent. I also agree with ziegler's assertion that he chose his target well. On that point, I agree. Were I a criminal, I would be less likely to attack a place where there was a chance that armed people would return fire. But that's not the case.

I don't feel that the prospect of a well-armed populace is a deterrent, I agree, though I imagine by the end of this post you won't agree with me. I mean the guy walked into the place decked out in body armor; he was at least on some level expecting resistance, otherwise why bother?

Also, I don't think there's been much research to show that a populace with a high gun-to-person ratio has any less crime than one with a smaller ratio. I think, if you're the type of person who goes into every situation with critical thought given to all possible outcomes, who plans for the future carefully and considers every possibility in a critical sense, you're not a criminal.

Criminals more think along the lines of "That guy's got a nice TV, I'm gonna take it and sell it so I can afford more drugs/jewelry" or suchlike. If the thought that the homeowner might be armed occurs to them at all, it only manifests itself in the criminal making sure to arm himself before he goes.

I think too many people try to think like a criminal, and put themselves in that position. Oh, they say, I wouldn't break into a house if I thought the guy inside had a gun! Well of course not, you dolt. That's why you don't break into houses; you're aware of the consequences and have weighed them not to be in your favor. If you're breaking into a house, you've done all the critical thinking you're gonna do.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

I don't feel that the prospect of a well-armed populace is a deterrent, I agree, though I imagine by the end of this post you won't agree with me. I mean the guy walked into the place decked out in body armor; he was at least on some level expecting resistance, otherwise why bother?

Also, I don't think there's been much research to show that a populace with a high gun-to-person ratio has any less crime than one with a smaller ratio. I think, if you're the type of person who goes into every situation with critical thought given to all possible outcomes, who plans for the future carefully and considers every possibility in a critical sense, you're not a criminal.

Criminals more think along the lines of "That guy's got a nice TV, I'm gonna take it and sell it so I can afford more drugs/jewelry" or suchlike. If the thought that the homeowner might be armed occurs to them at all, it only manifests itself in the criminal making sure to arm himself before he goes.

I think too many people try to think like a criminal, and put themselves in that position. Oh, they say, I wouldn't break into a house if I thought the guy inside had a gun! Well of course not, you dolt. That's why you don't break into houses; you're aware of the consequences and have weighed them not to be in your favor. If you're breaking into a house, you've done all the critical thinking you're gonna do.

There are a number of criminals who think things through with some degree of thought. This is one such example.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Firefly

There are a number of criminals who think things through with some degree of thought. This is one such example.

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or offering a counterpoint. Regardless, I see that as a definite example of individuals who saw the possibility of armed resistance as a call to fortify themselves with armor, not to avoid committing crimes.

To be honest though, everything about how those guys operated struck me as individuals who were looking for an opportunity to die in a blazing shootout, and was bound to happen sooner or later.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or offering a counterpoint. Regardless, I see that as a definite example of individuals who saw the possibility of armed resistance as a call to fortify themselves with armor, not to avoid committing crimes.

To be honest though, everything about how those guys operated struck me as individuals who were looking for an opportunity to die in a blazing shootout, and was bound to happen sooner or later.

I agree with certain parts of what you said in that post, but I was making a counterpoint. A lot of criminals seem to put a moderate amount of thought into their crimes, and this is why we have the terms "criminal mastermind" and "premeditated". Granted, not all premeditated crimes and not all masterminds are smart. Don't get me wrong. The example that I cited was one example. People who case joints or perform some other type of surveillance are also other examples.

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

You the one making James Holmes sound like a member of Delta Force.

This pretty much tells me that not only do you have any clue what you're talking about, that you have no idea what I'm talking about even though my point, I feel, was clearly explained to you. One thing that I specifically said, in either this thread or the other (Colorado death penalty thread), that his actions weren't bad for a REMF doctoral-candidate geek whose sole training was going to a gun range.

Because you can't seem to make a decent point that isn't refutable by anyone with two days in Iraq or any other combat zone, I'm pretty much done discussing this with you. When you have some new material that doesn't come from watching Hollywood action movies, let me know - preferably via PM, as I've essentially stopped reading what you write as it's the same shit over and over.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Which part of the movie was it.

15 minutes in, right during a gun scene apparently.

Originally Posted by ziegler

Columbine...gun free zone
V tech....gun free zone
Theater....gun free zone

Hmhm

Highest murder rates in the country...gun free zones....

Uhm. No. Highest murder rates are found in poor areas, typically by more focused fire of independent, more stable people.

Highest murder rates per incident are per default those situations where insane people fire at dense crowds.

Presence of other guns has nothing to do with it. Such incidents occur in malls and banks as well, where armed security is present.

Pattern maybe?

I am not saying some armed guy in the theater could have stopped this. I will say though, that perhaps if there was the possibility of armed people being present, the guy just might have decided against his actions. Not likely in this case with all the other things he was doing, he probably would have taken a different approach...ie...bombing the theater instead.

What is for sure, is he picked a very soft target with a potential for a high kill count.

Or you could consider the fact the guy obtained a large variety of heavy caliber, rapid fire guns and tear gas legally in the first place he would never have been able to produce or acquire on his own (unlike say bombs or knives).

And that the more consistent pattern is that the people who committed these crimes are always able to legally acquire high killing potential weapons.


I'd rather see the guy try creating such a massacre with a machete or sword in the same environment and under the same conditions than with a heavy assault rifle, shotgun or even handguns.

Because then you'd get this the moment law enforcement turns up and he refuses to throw down his weapon:



Noted how melee is a different from ranged weapons?