• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver [W:120]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thunder said:
a 20-round limit on all magazines would have slowed him down..and maybe allowed someone to jump his ass and crack his skull.

he may have also not been able to get a handgun permit, if they were required in CO.
Click to expand...
Nope. Doesn't take but a second or so to swap a magazine.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Agreed. As soon as I saw this on the news, I looked at my father in law and said "Here come the anti-gun nuts". Mayor Bloomberg didn't even wait 24 hours before he started up about it. Why is the mayor of a city on the east coast even commenting about something that happend in the mid west? Doesn't he have some Big Gulp sodas to confiscate or something? I applaud President Obama for not diving into that hackery. He and Gov Romney are handling it exactly the way they should, I believe. Knee jerk reactions to tragedy are what get us our worst policies IMO. Clearer heads need to prevail. Wait on the proverbial gun to stop smoking, then discuss attempts at preventing this stuff from happening again.
Click to expand...
I do join you in commending the president for that, I am certainly the polar opposite of an Obama fan but he handled this particular incident very well and I agreed with his statement.
 
Thunder said:
laws effect more than just the homicidal nut.

they also effect the sane gun-dealer..and the sane ammo-seller...and the sane magazine-seller.

this guy didn't make his own gun, bullets, and magazines.
Click to expand...
And what makes you think the shooter would have gone the legal route if magazine restrictions were ever allowed? God forbid.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Its the same as Prohibition. You outlaw guns, you create a nasty underworld that results in only the people dealing in it having guns. The law abiding citizens are left to tasers and knives. I actually agree that the 100 round drum should be illegal however. If the military doesn't need it, civilians definitely don't. There's no practical application for a 100 round drum.
Click to expand...
I don't favor any restrictions based upon need, someone who is a competitive shooter could find use for that under a timed event. Doesn't really matter because people at that level can do lightning fast reloads, BUT if people want the magazine capacity there is no good argument against them.
 
Thunder said:
yeah, but only if you are calm and in control.
Click to expand...
I can tell you don't shoot enough. It's not about "calm and in control" it's about logistics, magazines are meant to easily slide into their ports under any condition. Besides, this guy was calm and "in control", no one could defend themselves, this renders your point moot.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I can tell you don't shoot enough. It's not about "calm and in control" it's about logistics, magazines are meant to easily slide into their ports under any condition. Besides, this guy was calm and "in control", no one could defend themselves, this renders your point moot.
Click to expand...

no one in the theater had a gun.
 
Thunder said:
no one in the theater had a gun.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't have done any good if they did unless they had body armor piercing shells or could see through the smoke to get a shot at his head.
 
Mya said:
YES YES and YES!!!!!:applaud


edit to say


It makes me sick to read all about guns guns guns all this senseless chatter .... and nothing about the mind problems .....grrrrrrrr
Click to expand...

We aren't going to find an answer here, if that is what you are looking for. There's no "ah, there it is" in this guy's life. I doubt anyone will ever be able to point to the single tipping point because there probably wasn't one. It apparently wasn't obvious to people who legally sold him the guns. He had to complete a background check as everyone does. I don't think anyone knows what type of smoke or chemical he used in the theater or where he got that, or the explosives in his apartment. To this moment it appears he acquired everything legally. It also appears that his behavior didn't trip any warning switches.

If no one can pinpoint what might make a maniac do such a thing it may be impossible to prevent. Plan B then is how to stop someone once this kind of thing is in process. I see that you wouldn't use a gun. I can accept that. Many here feel there is no other alternative. Also, as you have seen here, most are honest in saying that while returning fire may have been the only option, the best option, it may not have been effective. Given the choice, many here would choose to be armed in that situation over laying on the floor waiting to die. THAT is one of the main reasons guns are being discussed.

If there is a better Plan B no one has mentioned it so far.

This thread attempts to address what happens after the sumbitch enters the theater with smoke grenades or whatever and guns.
 
Risky Thicket said:
We aren't going to find an answer here, if that is what you are looking for. There's no "ah, there it is" in this guy's life. I doubt anyone will ever be able to point to the single tipping point because there probably wasn't one. It apparently wasn't obvious to people who legally sold him the guns. He had to complete a background check as everyone does. I don't think anyone knows what type of smoke or chemical he used in the theater or where he got that, or the explosives in his apartment. To this moment it appears he acquired everything legally. It also appears that his behavior didn't trip any warning switches.

If no one can pinpoint what might make a maniac do such a thing it may be impossible to prevent. Plan B then is how to stop someone once this kind of thing is in process. I see that you wouldn't use a gun. I can accept that. Many here feel there is no other alternative. Also, as you have seen here, most are honest in saying that while returning fire may have been the only option, the best option, it may not have been effective. Given the choice, many here would choose to be armed in that situation over laying on the floor waiting to die. THAT is one of the main reasons guns are being discussed.

If there is a better Plan B no one has mentioned it so far.

This thread attempts to address what happens after the sumbitch enters the theater with smoke grenades or whatever and guns.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with what you say.

And I think there is not much people could have done to prevent the massacre, taking into account the attack happened so suddenly.
 
Moot said:
Wouldn't have done any good if they did unless they had body armor piercing shells or could see through the smoke to get a shot at his head.
Click to expand...

We don't know that it would have been useless to return fire.

I don't know about you but in the past when I was being shot at I had tendency to find cover soonest, even when wearing a flak vest. Those around me did the same thing. It takes a great deal of training a practice and to run in the direction of the gunfire. There are times when that is your safest option. I would bet all I have Holmes did not have the training nor the practice nor would he have had the need someone was returning fire. What he would have done was seek some measure of concealment. Get my point? It is damned hard and usually stupid to do otherwise, I don't care how much armor you are wearing.

Point 1. If someone had returned fire, Holmes would have stopped his movement other than to initially seek concealment. Believe it. He would also have had to address the person(s) shooting. It is logical to assume that others might have been able to get out of the theater while Holmes attention was focused elsewhere.

Pistols, Revolvers come in all different shapes and sizes. Some people carry .45 cal pistols, some carry .380s and so forth. If one or more people were returning fire it isn't likely that Holmes would know exactly what people were shooting at him.

Point 2. While a .45 caliber bullet would probably not penetrate his armor, if the bullet hit him it would hurt like hell and could knock the breath out of him. At that point he'd know he was getting hit with something big. He would have to act accordingly at that point. That's another plus for the good guys. A big plus, we don't know. Anything is better than nothing and more is better than less.

Point 3. Body armor is never perfect. People get shot in weird places like armpits, through the nose and in the seams of body armor. Holmes was/is probably insane, but he isn't reported to be a dolt. If he had been hit with one round it is very unlikely that he'd just stand there and fire away.

Other people having guns in the theater may have very well mattered.
 
What's starting to worry me is not what kind of impact this incident is going to have on gun laws.

What's starting to worry me is that already, the killer is being described as a very bright person who happened to be a loner and a recluse. Deja vu? Remember, we heard that from the Columbine killers, and that was right down the road from this theater. I really, really hope that that isn't cited as some sort of contributing factor, because we already have enough stigmas in our society as is.
 
Mya said:
I don't disagree with what you say.

And I think there is not much people could have done to prevent the massacre, taking into account the attack happened so suddenly.
Click to expand...

I too am interested in what makes someone like Homles want to commit mass murder. I mean it's fine with me if someone wants to be bat**** crazy as long as they don't hurt anyone.

Yesterday I read a brief article by a psychologist who apparenly studies this kind of thing (what a horrible way to make a living). He said there is often no way for most people to predict this bevior in others. Certainly, there were a lot of red flags regarding Lighener before he shot Gabby Gifford and others. The system failed in a number of places there. But with Holmes and others he said a therapist who.maybe knew him and his life history might have known but why would a therapist have known that much about him unless there was reported prior behavior?

I'll see if I can find the article and start a thread addressing the psychology behind someone like Holmes. I'll let you know if I start a thread.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Agreed. As soon as I saw this on the news, I looked at my father in law and said "Here come the anti-gun nuts". Mayor Bloomberg didn't even wait 24 hours before he started up about it. Why is the mayor of a city on the east coast even commenting about something that happend in the mid west? Doesn't he have some Big Gulp sodas to confiscate or something? I applaud President Obama for not diving into that hackery. He and Gov Romney are handling it exactly the way they should, I believe. Knee jerk reactions to tragedy are what get us our worst policies IMO. Clearer heads need to prevail. Wait on the proverbial gun to stop smoking, then discuss attempts at preventing this stuff from happening again.
Click to expand...

Nope. He banned them, remember? ;)
 
Risky Thicket said:
We don't know that it would have been useless to return fire.

I don't know about you but in the past when I was being shot at I had tendency to find cover soonest, even when wearing a flak vest. Those around me did the same thing. It takes a great deal of training a practice and to run in the direction of the gunfire. There are times when that is your safest option. I would bet all I have Holmes did not have the training nor the practice nor would he have had the need someone was returning fire. What he would have done was seek some measure of concealment. Get my point? It is damned hard and usually stupid to do otherwise, I don't care how much armor you are wearing.

Point 1. If someone had returned fire, Holmes would have stopped his movement other than to initially seek concealment. Believe it. He would also have had to address the person(s) shooting. It is logical to assume that others might have been able to get out of the theater while Holmes attention was focused elsewhere.

Pistols, Revolvers come in all different shapes and sizes. Some people carry .45 cal pistols, some carry .380s and so forth. If one or more people were returning fire it isn't likely that Holmes would know exactly what people were shooting at him.

Point 2. While a .45 caliber bullet would probably not penetrate his armor, if the bullet hit him it would hurt like hell and could knock the breath out of him. At that point he'd know he was getting hit with something big. He would have to act accordingly at that point. That's another plus for the good guys. A big plus, we don't know. Anything is better than nothing and more is better than less.

Point 3. Body armor is never perfect. People get shot in weird places like armpits, through the nose and in the seams of body armor. Holmes was/is probably insane, but he isn't reported to be a dolt. If he had been hit with one round it is very unlikely that he'd just stand there and fire away.

Other people having guns in the theater may have very well mattered.
Click to expand...

You seem to know what you're talking about so I have to bow to your expertise on the matter. But from what I understand there was a lot of confusion in the audience about what was real and what wasn't and then add the fact that people were panicing and trampling over each other trying to get out. Some were even injured from getting stepped on as they hunkered down between seats. Then there was the smoke factor that was burning peoples eyes and throat and making it difficult to see who was who or what. The whole thing transpired over a period of 30 minutes, which to me seems like an awful long time.

I think a lot of this after the fact talk about what someone woulda coulda shoulda done if someone only had a gun belongs more in the movies than in a real life situation like that. So without knowing Holmes real motives for the rampage, I think it be difficult to say how he would have reacted if someone did have a gun and started shooting back. He could have paniced and run out or he could have gone after the person shooting at him, who knows really.

I live in Utah and back in 2007 a similar situation occured in Trolley Square which is a two level shopping mall and some kid went on a shooting spree trying to take out everyone he saw. Luckily someone else was carrying a gun but he just happened to be an off duty police officer from another city so he knew better than most how to respond and I have no doubt he saved a lot of lives. But I just don't see the average Joe that carries a concealed weapon responding in the same way at least not without training or prior experience like serving in a war zone. But ugh, this kind of thing just seems to be happening more and more and more.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
You seem to know what you're talking about so I have to bow to your expertise on the matter. But from what I understand there was a lot of confusion in the audience about what was real and what wasn't and then add the fact that people were panicing and trampling over each other trying to get out. Some were even injured from getting stepped on as they hunkered down between seats. Then there was the smoke factor that was burning peoples eyes and throat and making it difficult to see who was who or what. The whole thing transpired over a period of 30 minutes.

I think a lot of this after the fact talk about what someone woulda coulda shoulda done if someone only had a gun belongs more in the movies than in a real life situation like that. So without knowing Holmes real motives for the rampage, I think it be difficult to say how he would have reacted if someone did have a gun and started shooting back. He could have paniced and run out or he could have gone after the person shooting at him, who knows really.

I live in Utah and back in 2007 a similar situation occured in Trolley Square which is a two level shopping mall and some kid went on a shooting spree trying to take out everyone he saw. Luckily someone else was carrying a gun but he just happened to be an off duty police officer from another city so he knew better than most how to respond and I have no doubt he saved a lot of lives. But I just don't see the average Joe that carries a concealed weapon responding in the same way at least not without training or prior experience like serving in a war zone. But ugh, this kind of thing just seems to be happening more and more and more.
Click to expand...

Other than the person sitting in front of Pee Wee Herman, I've never heard of anybody getting shot at in a theater. ;) I certainly haven't had the experience and don't want it. Everyone posting here, as far as I know, is, like me, trying to determine how to stop someone like Holmes once he has started. Obviously, getting the hell out without getting shot is everyone's ultimate goal, but you just can't force a theater full of people out of two exits that quickly.

The question is: If you cannot leave, how do you eliminate the threat? "Depend on others" is not a good solution. Given the option of defending yourself or not, I'm guessing you'd want to defend yourself and halt the threat. If someone is shooting a gun at you your options for self-defense are limited. I sincerely hope you are never in that situation, but I'm thinking, with few real options available, you'd probably be willing to shoot someone who was going to shoot you. If there is a better option where me and mine get to live, I'd take it in a second. Wouldn't everyone?

Holmes was smart to pop smoke in the theater. It added to the confusion, as did the way he was dressed. People just don't think something like mass murder would happen in a theater in Aurora on a Friday at midnight. That was to Holmes' advantage as well. Yes, even if there were people who were carrying concealed guns in the theater, it probably would have taken a few beats before they realized that Holmes was no theater promotion.

It's always good to plan ahead and think how you would react in any given environment. There are no safe places in America anymore, even at home. People should realize that. As an example, I never leave my house without looking at my surroundings and thinking how I would react to a threat.

Everyone here, I think is talking their way through what their options would be in a situation like the OP. The options are rather slim. All in all, I think most would prefer to have a way to defend themselves. The best thing you can do is prepare yourself.
 
Last edited:
MarineTpartier said:
Agreed. As soon as I saw this on the news, I looked at my father in law and said "Here come the anti-gun nuts".
Click to expand...

Never fear, the anti-public safety & bullet sales lobby (NRA) will get out in front of this debate and scare the living crap out of any sensible legislature that even proposes we have a discussion about smart gun regs.

God forbid we examine the problem and trace the path of a firearm used in a crime.
 
TurtleDude said:
Is impotent the word of the week?
Click to expand...

Actually IMPOTENT is the word to describe the WEAK. As in arguments presented by several people without benefit of verifiable evidence or proof to actually support their pontifications.
 
Thunder said:
laws effect more than just the homicidal nut.

they also effect the sane gun-dealer..and the sane ammo-seller...and the sane magazine-seller.

this guy didn't make his own gun, bullets, and magazines.
Click to expand...

explain then while we have a nation awash in dope, crack, blow and speed
 
hazlnut said:
The idiocy of your statements never ceases to amaze.
Click to expand...

the people who push gun control do so to control gun owners for political reasons

every bad thing someone can do with a gun is sanctioned by substantive criminal law


the idiocy of those who want to pretend otherwise never ceases to amaze me
 
TurtleDude said:
the people who push gun control do so to control gun owners for political reasons
Click to expand...

"Control gun owners" for what purpose?

You're now trying to defend and further articulate an idiotic statement... with more idiocy.


every bad thing someone can do with a gun is sanctioned by substantive criminal law
Click to expand...


I guess you think you're making a valid point.

You're not.
 
TurtleDude said:
gun control has nothing to do with public safety
Click to expand...

I was addressing your attitude toward other posters which, when you are challenged on an issue, is deplorable.

Indeed, individual freedoms and public safety are two bedrock principals interwoven in American life, some feel there is a nexus between the two and are even contingent upon one. For example, “the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.” (see National Education Association - Health Information Network, Children and Gun Violence).

Further, “each year, more than 20,000 children and youth under age 20 are killed or injured by firearms in the United States. The lethality of guns, as well as their easy accessibility to young people, are key reasons why firearms are the second leading cause of death among young people ages 10 to 19. Only motor vehicle accidents claim more young lives.” (see http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/12_02_ExecSummary.pdf)

Should someone hold the view that public safety and individual freedoms are interconnected they have a every good reason to draw that conclusion and every right to express that position.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom