Facebook
Google
GitHub
Linkedin
How to prepare for THIS?
- Thread starter praondevou
- Start date
Only by breaking the law themselves. Cinemark Theaters has a corporate policy that firearms may only be carried by LEOs (law enforcement officers). Taking a firearm into a place that has posted a No Firearms policy (and my understanding is that this is posted on the showtime/ticket info board at the all theaters) is illegal.
Don't do it lightly or cavalierly. Be sure you are trained and be sure you think long and hard about under what circumstances you would consider drawing it and what circumstances you would not. When something happens is NOT the time to make that decision, because once you even look like you might be thinking of resisting, you have made yourself a prime target. Furthermore, always remember that you are not the police and it is not your responsibility to apprehend the person; if you are in a situation in which you decide to act, it should be because you have a reasonable concern for the life and safety of yourself or others. Under those circumstances, your best and most rational course of action is to eliminate the threat with extreme violence.
I had my CHL practically handed to me because I was active duty so I didn't have to sit through the classes and such. I did browse through the law though on my own, and IIRC carrying your gun into a government building, a school, a hospital, a sporting event, or any business with a posted "no guns" sign is grounds to have your CHL permanently revoked, and I want to say it may also be a felony, but not sure.
+1
I cannot imagine a situation where I would need to use it. Proper training is of course necessary. For everything other than rifles and shotguns (so-called unrestricted firearms) you need even an transportation authorization here, I won't go through the hassle for now.
I'm not sure but I think shooting someone at your home would be considered a crime here, even if it's in self-defense.
It can work well as a deterrence, without even using it.
Go for a pump action shotgun. Mossberg 500 like I just bought is the tactical type that cops carry and anybody who sees it knows what's about to happen. If the sight of it doesn't scare them, the signature "CHA-CHIK" sound will. It's unrestricted in your country and very inexpensive in comparison to other types of guns on the market.
Not quite, but the distinction is a pretty understandable one for them to make. It is illegal to take a gun into THAT movie theater, not movie theaters in general. Here are the current limitations in Colorado:
There has been a fair amount of discussion about eliminating restriction #2. I hope they do. I have no problem with any of the others, though I don't think that #3 is necessary. But I'm willing to accept that the potential for confusion and misunderstanding is high enough that I'm not going to make a fuss. I would just like to see if removed and #4 changed to cover it by including the owners or managers of public buildings.
I can imagine plenty. If I believe someone is a threat to the life of someone I care about (and probably the life of a total stranger, but that is admittedly more of an unknown), then regardless of whether either or both of us have a gun or nor, I will at least attempt to take that person out of the picture.
Notice what has happened on every American (and many foreign) flights since 9/11 when someone has been perceived as attempting a hijacking -- the old advice of "cooperate with the hijacker" is simply not in play any more.
There have been numerous robberies (though not for some time), including a couple in the Denver metro area when I was in high school, where the gunman robbed a fast food and herded everyone into the walk-in cooler and proceeded to then shoot them all. The Pizza Hut I worked at a few years later was robbed on Christmas Eve about an hour after I got off-shift and started out the same way. Everyone was herded into the cooler. Fortunately, the robber then simply put the pin in the door handle and left (he apparently was unaware that the walk-in had an emergency latch release on the inside, which many walk-ins at that time did not). So no one got hurt. But as soon as I got there the next day and heard what happened, I know that I would have grabbed the big kitchen knife (14" blade) and rammed it straight into the guys chest/stomach and then immediately withdrawn it and sliced his throat, aiming for his neck bone. The moment he started the robbery, his life was forfeit as far as I was concerned and I would NOT have gone meekly to the walking hoping that someone that had already demonstrated a complete and total disregard for the law and for the rights of others was going to somehow be nice and not decide to eliminate witnesses. Now, had I been there and had I done that, could I have made the situation worse? Yes. It's possible that by attacking him I could have failed and forced him to kill me and then he might have felt compelled to kill everyone else. I know that, I understand that, I accept that, and it would not have changed by course of action.
A few years later I was working in a Taco Bell on Halloween. I was working the cash register and two guys in masks (as were lots of people) came up to the counter and one pulled a gun on me. Had he not put his hand within inches of mine, I would almost certainly have just put my hands up and asked if he would like a taco to go with the money. As it was, I neither hesitated nor really even thought about it, I just grabbed his wrist and bodily pulled him over the counter slamming him head first into the tiled wall behind me. I was reaching for his gun, almost certainly with the intention of putting a couple of rounds into the guy on the floor and then turning on his accomplice. Whether I would have shot him depends -- hopefully I would have had the presence of mind to make sure there was no one behind him in the line of fire, but I'm not positive on that point. But then the fact that his "accomplice" was screaming, "It's a fake! It's a fake! It's a joke!" sank in.
Just having the laws in place that force the criminal to be unsure whether you have one, especially if they believe that there is a good chance that you do, is quite a deterrent.
As usual, the media can't get much of anything right. I have seen several reports claiming that the rifle he had was fully automatic, but at the same time say that he purchased it legally at a gun shop. Not very likely, since fully automatic weapons are extremely heavily restricted (at the federal level) with very special and onerous processes to go through to be authorized to purchase or possess one.
1) I don't know. I guess they are fun to shoot.
2) If 50 people in the cinema had whipped out their personal pistols and emptied them at the siloette of the man with the "AK looking" rifle, that would not have prevented this, but it would have ended sooner and fewer people would be dead.
2) If 50 people in the cinema had whipped out their personal pistols and emptied them at the siloette of the man with the "AK looking" rifle, that would not have prevented this, but it would have ended sooner and fewer people would be dead.
1. to fight off a foreign force that would attack us or to fight off the American government should it become oppressive. this is the main reason for our 2nd amendment after all. this is why gun control is such a soft spot here; any attempt to control guns is seen as a step toward opppression, and rightly so. granted, we still *shouldn't* need machine guns to do this, but when fighting fire with fire, its only fair that both parties are armed with flamethrowers.
2. he shot 59 people and killed 12. I would hope someone could have hit him once during that time.
There was no machine gun involved in the Aurora shooting. A machine gun is a fully automatic weapon, i.e., it fires when the trigger is pulled and continues to fire round after round as long as the trigger is held down, or until it is out of ammunition. The rifle used was an AR-15, which is a civilian version of a military rifle that was first used during the Vietnam war. The AR-15 is not a machine gun; it is not fully automatic, but is semi-automatic, i.e., it fires one round when the trigger is pulled, and when the trigger is released and pulled again, it fires another round. This process of pull, fire, release can be manually repeated until the gun is out of ammunition.
The AR-15 is called an "assault rifle," but there is no logical, consistent definition of what constitutes an assault rifle. Any gun of any type can be used as an assault weapon, but then so can a baseball bat. The media likes the term "assault rifle" because it is an attention getter, but they cannot define the term. Usually, any gun that is not obviously a hunting tool, or a target arm is called an assault weapon, especially if it is black in color.
Some people enjoy shooting guns while hunting, target shooting, "plinking," practicing defensive skills, or all of these. Some people enjoy collecting guns because of their history, their workmanship, their mechanics, as a part of preparedness, or simply the pride of ownership.
As to the "need" for gun ownership, if someone wants to participate in any of the activities previously named, owning one or more guns is almost a prerequisite, and is certainly the most convenient way to participate. If a person does not want to participate in those activities, there is no need for gun ownership. It is similar to a soldering station; if one doesn't want to solder, there's no need to own one.
In this case, probably not. The shooter was reportedly wearing body armor, and would likely not have been brought down by a handgun round to the body. A well-aimed shot to the hands or feet might have disabled him, or a shot to the face would have stopped him, but either of those would have been extremely difficult in a crowded, dark, smoke-filled room, on a moving target.
This is not about guns or objects used in violence, it's about the detection and early intervention of people with mental health problems. The reaction of the mom hearing the news about her son.
Her reaction to the news about her son being a mass murderer points to some awareness of his state of mind before it happened. I think there were signs that something was wrong with the shooter before this happened but who knows what could have been done to prevent it.
The fixation on the types of devices used in these rampages is a sideshow that detracts us from the effective means of prevention.
His room was rigged with explosives and hazardous chemicals that might have taken down a entire building filled with sleeping people if he had no guns.
maxpower097
- Joined Feb 20, 2009
- 816
But this kinda touches on my post that we really never know whats going on in someones brain. She may have been concerned and worried, but probably never thought her son would do something like this. The guys record was practiaclly clean and he was a nueroscience grad student. Who thinks someone with these kinds of credetials is gonna go crazy? Who knows to what degree he's venting and what degree he's serious. If people didn't know me and heard me tallk I'd have the cops called on me daily.
For some reason this kind of things are less likely to happen in other 1st world countries. Why?
This is probably one of the main arguments of people who oppose the current gun laws in the US. It just happens less often in Germany, France or any other country in Europe or Canada.
It seems kind of logical that if firearms are freely available to anyone it will be more likely that the wrong person gets one too, doesn't it?
The argument that anything could be used as a weapon doesn't count, it's just not the same thing...
Anyway, now it's to late to do anything about it since everybody seems to have one. Especially those who shouldn't.
Just to be clear, early intervention means by medical personnel not the police. High logical intelligence just makes them (many serial/mass killers tend to have high IQ's) harder to detect because they are 'Organized' and have low emotional intelligence. The extreme high logical/low emotional unbalance is often seen in 'Postal/Frustrated' behavior. People with the opposite unbalance are often in politics as they can manipulate other people and get what they want.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/040900rampage-killers.html
Last edited:
At the risk of sounding callous I will say that you just have to expect this kind of thing from time to time. In a country with hundreds of millions of people there has to be one complete nutbar emerge in a bad way every few years. Even in Norway and Australia this kind of thing has happened and we have smaller populations and tighter gun laws.
The fact that it is going to happen does not make it any less terrible, but it is still a fact and should not affect decisions or laws that much.
There's going to be a fistfight in a bar every now and then, and more so in bars with higher populations. Just don't get sucked into the propaganda that it's time to start handcuffing everyone who enters a bar or ban bars altogether.
Many years ago a friend of mine had a holiday in the middle east, and was telling me later that all the shopkeepers had, very visibly, an AK47 sitting behind the counter. I was horrified; "Wow they must really have a bad crime problem!" and he answered, "Are you kidding? Theres NO crime, nobody would dare!".
A country can create all the stupid laws it likes but in the end it only takes one freak to buy or make a weapon and cause a terrible incident. All the stupid laws achieve is to disarm all the good men who might have stopped the freak.
The fact that it is going to happen does not make it any less terrible, but it is still a fact and should not affect decisions or laws that much.
There's going to be a fistfight in a bar every now and then, and more so in bars with higher populations. Just don't get sucked into the propaganda that it's time to start handcuffing everyone who enters a bar or ban bars altogether.
And that's one very important point. There must have been hundreds of good and brave men nearby, but none of them armed with the means to stop the evil freak.WBahn said:
Many years ago a friend of mine had a holiday in the middle east, and was telling me later that all the shopkeepers had, very visibly, an AK47 sitting behind the counter. I was horrified; "Wow they must really have a bad crime problem!" and he answered, "Are you kidding? Theres NO crime, nobody would dare!".
A country can create all the stupid laws it likes but in the end it only takes one freak to buy or make a weapon and cause a terrible incident. All the stupid laws achieve is to disarm all the good men who might have stopped the freak.
What IS an "assault rifle". There have been (and are) numerous restrictions and bans on "assault rifles" in the U.S., both federally and at the state/local level, and the definitions range from a specific list of model numbers to vague characteristics that have included things like having any of the following: a collapsable stock, a non-wooden stock, being black, having anything mounted on the end of the barrel, capable of accommodating a magazine with a capacity in excess of ten rounds, having a bipod or a mount for one, etc., etc.
As for machine guns, those have been effectively banned in the U.S. since 1934. You have to jump through serious and costly hoops in order to get the special license needed to own one and then there are all kinds of hoops and costs needed to actually purchase one or sell one.
As for the "need" for private unregistered ownership of firearms, that is a political debate that has and will continue to rage. It's also a case in which I believe that, historically, the U.S. is like few, if any, other nations as a result of our heritage, culture, and the somewhat unique relationships between the government, the military, and the citizens that developed here. Having said that, those relationships change over time and I don't think we are as unique today as we were even fifty years. But the Framers of the Constitution did not see the 2nd Amendment as having anything to do with hunting, putting food on the table, or even defending yourself against criminals. They didn't even see it primarily arising from the need to protect against foreign enemies, but primarily as the final check against rising tyranny from our own government. This was an overriding concern for them, as evidenced by the extremely weak form of government set up originally under the Articles of Confederation which proved to be too weak to function. So when they went Round Two and put together the Constitution, they acknowledged that the federal government had to have broader and stronger powers, but they still wanted to prevent it from turning tyrannical. They did numerous things to this end, including forbidding a standing Army (they did allow for a standing Navy) because they had seen how such Armies were as often used as a means of oppression as a means of defense.
Prevented? In terms of the attack never taking place? That's a really hard question to get at. For instance, I don't believe I have ever heard of anyone, no matter how crazed, going into a gun show and shooting the place up. Nor am I aware of any shooting rampages occuring at shooting ranges. I know that there have been occasional murder-suicide events at gun ranges, but even then I believe it is less common than elsewhere (wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong on that one).
So would it have somehow made this madman decide not to carry out an attack? Possible, but probably not. Assuming he were aware that a few people at the cinema would be armed, would he have chosen another target? More likely. If he had believed that a significant number of people there would be armed would he have chosen a different target? Highly likely. But even then, we are primarily talking about where the attack would have taken place, not whether it would have taken place. Studies of general crime in the U.S. show that counties with looser restrictions on gun ownership and carrying tend to have lower crime rates in relevant categories (categories where the victim having a gun is a factor) but somewhat higher rates in some other categories (fewer robberies but more burglaries, for instance). But while it is pretty clear that run-of-the-mill criminals do make threat assessments (whether they realize it or not) that take into account the likelihood of facing an armed victim, I don't think there is anywhere near enough data to know whether madmen (such as this one) are influenced much, if at all, by such considerations. Fortunately, these events are sufficiently rare that we may never get a good handle on what does and does not affect their thinking. My gut feel is that most of them that are going to act are going to do so regardless and these considerations only affect choice of target, and then only because they want to kill as many people as they can before they are killed themselves (or kill themselves, which is what usually happens).
So it probably wouldn't have "prevented" it, but I believe that the death toll could have, and almost certainly would have, been considerably reduced. Yes, he was wearing body armour, but that doesn't render you immune and impervious. I remember a video I saw about 30 years ago of a news reporter (after some shooting happened some place that involved a vest somehow) getting the bright idea to "demonstrate" how effective vests were by being shot on camera by an assistant with a .22 cal pistol. It was hilarious. He's standing there almost in a Superman pose and then he gets shot and he yelps and stumbles backwards and bends over and starts shouting obsenities like, "$&#* that &*#&@(*ing hurts!". Vests and armour today are much better at spreading out the impact over a larger area, so the effect of getting hit with a .22 are much less pronounced, but if you give hit with a .45, you are going to be affected. I imagine this person would have been taken utterly by surprise and may even have dropped his weapon as he instinctively clutched at where the impact occurred. In that moment, he would have been quite vulnerable to being bodily tackled by anyone else with their wits about them (which there may or may not have been such a person around). But imagine the defender hitting him with several rounds one after another. Now imagine if there had been two or three defenders. If nothing else, the attacker must now honor the threat which largely stops the shooting of random civilians. So, yeah, I think even one armed patron that chose to engage him could have significantly reduced the death and injury toll.
Last edited:
