Bill Angel Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) On the question of penalties for gun law violations, would you support sentencing this fellow to life in prison without the possibility of parole? Or should he be punished less severely? After all one half of the issue is the legal regulations, the other half is the severity of the punishments handed out. "And in Maine one man was arrested when he told authorities that he was on his way to shoot a former employer a day after watching "The Dark Knight Rises," state police said. Timothy Courtois of Biddeford, Me., had been stopped for speeding, and a police search of his car found an AK-47 assault weapon, four handguns, ammunition and news clippings about the mass shooting that left 12 people dead early Friday, authorities said." Edited July 24, 2012 by Bill Angel
iNow Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 On the question of penalties for gun law violations, would you support sentencing this fellow to life in prison without the possibility of parole? Or should he be less severely. After all one half of the issue is the legal regulations, the other half is the severity of the punishments handed out. I have deeper issues with our corrections system that disallow me from giving you a simple answer to this question. We focus far too much on punishment and far too little on rehabilitation. http://thescienceforum.org/topic187.html
Phi for All Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 Here, we see a marvelous example of how your study is biased. Is the study actually *saying* that people who get a gun out in self-defense actually end up shooting their loved one instead of the invader? No? Precisely. Because that's insanity. Or, is your study dishonestly looking at homes, then looking at the number of gun accidents (most of which are children accidentally shooting themselves or a cleaning gone wrong), and then comparing that number to the number of cases in which a gun stopped a home intruder? The simple fact is that there is no way you can say that having a gun in your home *while dealing with a home intruder problem* results in your family members being *more* at risk. That is a shameless spin, ydoaPs.. I don't think there's any question that having a gun in your home while dealing with a home intruder problem results in your family members being more at risk. Many intruders are unarmed burglars willing to risk getting caught stealing but not willing to risk being caught with a weapon, or they're simply thieves and not murderers. In these cases, any harm from a gun to your family is going to come from you. If there is anything misleading about that study, it's that it includes suicides. But then again, how many suicides would have been avoided if the quick and relatively certain gun-to-the-temple alternative wasn't available? I was unaware that we were able to produce helmets that could stop high-caliber bullets (.32+) from penetrating the visor. He would still have been vulnerable to a well-placed head shot. Am I mistaken in this? And, no, I'm not saying that in the midst of chaos and tear gas that there would've been a clear shot, I'm just saying he was not at all as impervious as everyone describes. And nor is everyone that would carry a gun in public a bumbling fool that has no idea how to shoot. Many of us are quite good marksmen with decades of experience. While I'm sure accuracy deteriorates under live fire, I don't think it would be the "randomly shooting bullets everywhere palooza" that I see being described in this thread. In the midst of this chaos, how do you know multiple gun-wielders wouldn't be mistaken for accomplices? If you open fire, how do I know you're shooting at the bad guy instead of BEING a bad guy? At that point, paranoia often creates panic fire, especially if you're protecting family members. This may be off-topic, but I've never understood this. It completely defeats the purpose of owning a gun for self defense. Do you really have the 2 or 3 minutes it takes to unlock your safe during an emergency? Is it not better to keep the gun somewhere out of the way and still accessible? I don't keep these guns for home defense, at least not in the sense of stopping an intruder. They're rifles, a shotgun and a western style six-shooter for fast draw practice (I used to do some acting). There exist quick-opening nightstand safes and such just for this purpose. There are even gun safes designed to be easily opened in seconds in the dark. I simply don't trust the concept of using a gun against an intruder. The odds that he's there to kill us are dwarfed by the odds that it's a teenager breaking in to steal something, and I don't think I could ever justify killing someone over some insured electronics just because he MIGHT be a murderer instead of a burglar. If you're protecting your home on the grounds that EVERY intruder is a possible threat to your lives, you're very much more likely to shoot and then sort things out later. 3
ecoli Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 The second amendment doesn't say "guns", it say "arms". We already accept a restriction on arms that we can bear. I don't think a new amendment is necessary. Its interesting how the second amendment issue is one of pure semantics. Some say that the right to bear arms is only protected in the context of a militia. OF course, this view has been overruled by the supreme court in the DC handgun ban overturning.
ewmon Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 Aren't the Aurora Cinema Killings simply the three- or four-sigma (or more) "tail" of a society already gone wrong, and that "guns" matter, but not in the way you would expect? Gun ownership in America has been around for centuries, and it was even less restricted "back then" than it is now. But there wasn't this kind of violence back then. When I was a prepubescent "kid", we would "shoot" each other with cap guns. When we got only a couple years older (teenagers), playing with cap guns was deemed "stupid", even though we had snowball fights with each other, which was still pretty tame. Now, we have kids and teenagers and young adults playing MMORPG's, where they can "shoot" and "kill" strangers as well as friends. Added to that, we have real-life paintball games, which are cap guns with a punch — literally. Shooting each other, whether with real (paint) guns or not, has advanced out of early childhood into adulthood. Our younger generations are not growing up. Am I the only one who sees how American society has shifted radically toward the violent end of the spectrum? Am I the only one who is not surprised that someone shot up a theatre full of people watching a so-called action movie called "The Dark Knight Rises", and not a chick flick or a fun adventure for the whole family? Modern superheroes have taken on a few different forms. Superman was born with natural abilities to fly through the air, see through walls, and pick up and toss locomotives. Spiderman has natural abilities to do a bunch of otherwise impossible things caused by the bite from a radioactive spider. But Batman is just a regular human whose abilities are mostly in the form of "gadgets". Guns are gadgets, aren't they? Even if someone wanted to be the hero in real life, it's impossible to be Superman or Spiderman, but it's relatively easy to be Batman. I stopped watching Batman movies a few reincarnations ago. At that time, he was an anti-hero rather than the archetypal hero (for example, a cowboy wearing a white hat, riding a white horse, someone unquestionably well-founded in goodness and decency, etc). Batman, who attempts to be a heroic protector of the public, suffers from strong, unresolved demons that draw him toward being a dark and brooding vigilante. How much more confused or ambiguous would be the villains, such as the Joker, compared to him? Are we really surprised after all? Guns don't shoot people; adults who never grew up do.
Arete Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) If they remain after hearing that sound (pumping one into the chamber), then they're likely in my home with seriously ill intent and a trigger pull becomes much more likely. I live in the US - but as a non-immigrant I am not allowed to own a gun (there are loopholes, but I've never really had the burning desire to own one). 1) One concern I've always wondered about with home protection firearms is how one deals with wall penetration - e.g. http://www.theboxotr...docs/bot3_2.htm Ammunition powerful enough to stop a human will go through several internal walls, and even external walls of a house. So even if you hit the bad guy you might hit a family member in another room, or even your neighbor asleep in his/her own bed... Ammunition that won't go through walls might not stop a bad guy intent on doing you harm... So you're a bit damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess. 2) Trolling Xenophobic NRA types is fun - "Hi, I'm interested in a home defense weapon." "Well here's your options..." "I'm not an American citizen or resident." "GARGHHH NO GUNS FOR YOU!!!111!!! 'MERICA, TOOK ER JERBS..!" "I pay US taxes, have a SSN, a driver's license, own a house..." "GARGHH NO AMENDMENT FOR FERINGERS! GO BACK TO UR OWN COUNTRY - TOOK ER JERBS!" lolololol Edited July 24, 2012 by Arete
Greg H. Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 Personally, as a gun owner, I am all for training requirements, licensing, and title/tag registration for firearms. I spent time as a kid with my dad learning how to handle a weapon appropriately (mostly while hunting), spent time in the service learning how to use one effectively, and accurately, and now I go out about once a month and burn through a couple magazines just to make sure I still feel comfortable in my skill to handle one and hit what I'm aiming at. Proper training, and maintaining that training should be required, and I am definitely for restrictions on who can own a gun. The real problem is that this topic is as polarizing for most people as abortion. You say the words "gun control" and they either nod sycophantically ("Yes yes ban the guns!"), or they turn into raving rage monsters ("You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers!"). The moderate group in the middle can't even be heard over the gnashing of teeth. Responsible gun ownership is not the same as taking away guns from the people. What it should be, if done correctly, is insuring that those people that own guns know how to use them properly and, much more importantly, when not to use them. 3
Phi for All Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 The real problem is that this topic is as polarizing for most people as abortion. You say the words "gun control" and they either nod sycophantically ("Yes yes ban the guns!"), or they turn into raving rage monsters ("You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers!"). The moderate group in the middle can't even be heard over the gnashing of teeth. Responsible gun ownership is not the same as taking away guns from the people. What it should be, if done correctly, is insuring that those people that own guns know how to use them properly and, much more importantly, when not to use them. I think you've scored a bullseye. Imo, it's the media and the political spinners who've turned every issue into some quick sound bytes that polarize everyone into as few belief-camps as possible. "Welfare". "Immigration". "Healthcare". "Military spending". They don't discuss anything, they just hit the buzzwords and already everyone has their minds made up. This is not how the most cooperative, intelligent, socially organized species on the planet should behave. 1
Moontanman Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) I live in the US - but as a non-immigrant I am not allowed to own a gun (there are loopholes, but I've never really had the burning desire to own one). 1) One concern I've always wondered about with home protection firearms is how one deals with wall penetration - e.g. http://www.theboxotr...docs/bot3_2.htm Ammunition powerful enough to stop a human will go through several internal walls, and even external walls of a house. So even if you hit the bad guy you might hit a family member in another room, or even your neighbor asleep in his/her own bed... Ammunition that won't go through walls might not stop a bad guy intent on doing you harm... So you're a bit damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess. To prevent the shot from going through walls you use #5 shot in 2.5 inch shells in a short barreled gun. #5 shot has less penetrating power and the smaller shell give it less energy but in a situation where you are in close proximity to your antagonist it is quite deadly.... You do not use 00 or 000 shot indoors because it will go through walls and has the potential to kill something quite far away. Edited July 24, 2012 by Moontanman
hypervalent_iodine Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 ! Moderator Note Could this perhaps get back on topic? A reminder that the question posed in the OP was as follows: Now, moving from the specific to the general case, I found this article citing studies showing the obvious conclusions that more guns means more gun violence and more strict gun laws mean fewer shooting deaths. 1
Bill Angel Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 On the question of penalties for gun law violations, would you support sentencing this fellow to life in prison without the possibility of parole? Or should he be punished less severely? After all one half of the issue is the legal regulations, the other half is the severity of the punishments handed out. "And in Maine one man was arrested when he told authorities that he was on his way to shoot a former employer a day after watching "The Dark Knight Rises," state police said. Timothy Courtois of Biddeford, Me., had been stopped for speeding, and a police search of his car found an AK-47 assault weapon, four handguns, ammunition and news clippings about the mass shooting that left 12 people dead early Friday, authorities said." Here is a link to an Associated Press video about this fellow in Maine that is even more disturbing than the print story quoted above. Take a look at the firepower this disturbed individual had amassed! http://news.yahoo.com/video/maine-man-tells-police-had-174311118.html
rigney Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) Here is a link to an Associated Press video about this fellow in Maine that is even more disturbing than the print story quoted above. Take a look at the firepower this disturbed individual had amassed! http://news.yahoo.com/video/maine-man-tells-police-had-174311118.html What is the answer Bill? This guy looks like he has a arsenal equal to that of the rebel forces in Syria. While he does look a little off course, that doesn't make him a nut. Looks and even actions can be very deceiving.at times. Question is, how did he get all of these weapons? Someone had to make the sale to him. I have a friend whom I've known for over forty years who is a gun dealer. If I was to beg him to sell me a fire arm without a background check, he would probably think I was a nut. Before he makes a gun sale to anyone, their background is run through local police departments probably to include the ATF and FBI? I'm not sure where the buck finally stops, but done correctly it is a lengthy process sometimes taking days. Some years ago I purchased an M-1 Garand rifle from him as a momento of my time in the military. Seven or eight hundred bucks as I recall, without bullets. Buying it required my valid state drivers licenses, where I was born, my current local address and phone number. And that from a friend that I have known for years. To have the money this guys weapons must have cost is amazing in its self. A small fortune at least. Can you imagine what they would cost through illegal sales? No way could he have made these purchases legally without someone being wise. I have witnessed a furnace at Ford's Brookpark Casting Plant eat up literally thousandss of guns confiscated by the several police forces surrounding Cleveland, Oh. Since that foundary has recently been closed and razes, I have no idea of where or how the guns are disposed? Just remeber the old agage "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Edited July 25, 2012 by rigney
ParanoiA Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) These people are suggesting that it wouldn't have been nearly as bad if someone in the crowd had a gun. Not only do I disagree with this premise, but I think it is insanely ridiculous. Discharging a firearm into a crowded room is extremely dangerous even when trained professionals in ideal conditions. To think that untrained civilians could have safely stopped the tragedy while under a cloud of teargas is insane and dangerously so. There is a disturbing insistence on the ideal here. If I can't have the ideal hero, then let the slaughter continue? I must have a "properly trained" hero in the midst of a tragedy taking place? This is where idealism becomes a suicide pact. I would happily welcome a 14 year old with a .357 in that room. Everyone is running *away* from the gunman, which suggests a certain amount of buffer area around him. Even if folks are running in all directions, such that my bullet misses him and travels right in the direction of innocents - I firmly believe that less people will be shot by said 14 year old accidentally while *not being* aimed at than will be shot deliberately by the gunman while directly *being* aimed at. Put another way (as Pangloss used to say) go ahead and fire off rounds in a crowded room and see if you get more people when aiming for them or if you get more when not aiming for them. The non-ideal hero is not aiming at the innocent folks. Some of the greatest American heroes were not ideal. The revolutionary war was fought with a pretty non-ideal, quite untrained army against an arguably ideal army for the time. And they still won. This non-ideal army and it's inability to stand between the people and the English caused many Americans their lives in raids and seizures - including Americans that did not ask for war and did not want war. Tragedies demand action, which inherently carries risk. We would like people to be perfect, but it's unrealistic and extremely dangerous to society to reject any reaction to tragic events that is not ideal. Edited July 26, 2012 by ParanoiA 1
mooeypoo Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 There is a disturbing insistence on the ideal here. If I can't have the ideal hero, then let the slaughter continue? I must have a "properly trained" hero in the midst of a tragedy taking place? This is where idealism becomes a suicide pact. I would happily welcome a 14 year old with a .357 in that room. Everyone is running *away* from the gunman, which suggests a certain amount of buffer area around him. Even if folks are running in all directions, such that my bullet misses him and travels right in the direction of innocents - I firmly believe that less people will be shot by said 14 year old accidentally while *not being* aimed at than will be shot deliberately by the gunman while directly *being* aimed at. There are certainly some unfortunate shooting events that would be prevented if there was a responsible person with a gun around. This is (PARTLY) why in Israel soldiers go off-base with their weapons; they can be the best first-responders in case some tragedy happens, and there's a risk of that type of tragedy happening in Israel as we all know. Of course, we need to be realistic; a bus explosion could not be prevented with an m-16. A rapid-fire into a crowd by a terrorist/madman probably can be reduced in severity. A kidnapping attempt could be thwarted. A mass stabbing event (which is at a risk of happening) can be stopped with a gun. That's also partly why some trips and hikes with masses of people (usually school children) are accompanied by some sort of armed security person. I was one of those for a while. I personally carried a geezer of a gun - a somewhat improved Carabine M1 rifle. It's originally a sniper rifle, and it's extremely accurate and rather reliable in terms of quick-to-fire. It's also big, so it works well as a deterrent. However, as a security person who was armed (and had other security people around with the other groups) I also knew my limits. If someone runs into the group with a bomb around their waist, I can do my best to shoot them in the head before htey blow, but there's a slim-to-none chance I succeed. Hence, my role if THAT happens, was to (a) get everyone on the floor to avoid injury as much as possible, (b) to jump on the terrorist and prevent him/her from getting too close, © provide medical assistance after-the-fact in case I live. Great. Then again, that's what I signed up for when I became an armed security escort -- I was responsible for the security of others. A random person with a gun might not see things this way, though I do hope that if something happens, they try to save the crowd as well as themselves. But that's beside my point. My point is this: The shooter in Aurora, CO had three guns that we know of on his person. An AR-15 assault rifle, a shotgun and an automatic hand gun. He was fully dressed in a FULL tactical suit, and according to several news sources, he was dressed even more than what SWAT team members use. He had a tactical helmet, which is bullet resistant; He had a pair of goggles and a gas mask (both); He had neck protection, bullet resistant; He had a bullet proof vest with arm protection and shooting gloves He had crutch protection; He had leg armor, bullet resistant This above scenario would be extremely difficult for a *trained soldier* to stop. Do you really suggest that a lone person with a self-defense gun (even one who's fully trained) could do anything other than draw fire to himself or accidentally hurt others? I do agree that if you *can* stop the shooter, then (sadly) the risk of hurting innocent bystanders for the purpose of making sure you stop the carnage may be acceptable. But in this case, the guy was more than just "prepared"; he was almost a walking fortress. I think my view on guns is clear by now, I think people can have them for self-defense within some reason, and hope that they know how to use them. But I'm also realistic. I don't think any person - knowledgeable or amateur - could stop the shooter in the cinema with a hand gun. Honestly, I think this type of thing is unrelated to whatever safety measures we take. Even if we outlaw guns altogether, this was a madman criminal - and we all know they can just find illegal guns. Even if we have guns to everyone in the room - that was a well-thought-out tactical "mission" almost, and the guy was dressed so damn fortified you'd have a hell of a hard time stopping him. I think we're pretty lucky he was caught off guard next to his car and surrendered. Could have been a lot worse with what he was carrying. We can't make laws just for madmen, because madmen and criminals will find a way to bypass laws anyways. We need to make laws and regulations for the average law-abiding citizen. This shooting was horrible, and it raised the issue of gun control, but I don't think this can be used as a reason whatsoever to either ban guns or allow guns. This is not the scenario for that. The only thing we can really examine off this case is, maybe, what should and shouldn't be allowed to be sold online or maybe how big of a magazine people should be allowed to have, etc. But the guy was dressed to kill, and you would likely have needed a sniper to shoot his face through the mask to really get him down -- or some heavy firepower through his bulletproof vest to get him down long enough for someone to jump him and get his helmet and vest off. I don't think that's reasonable at all. Even if there was an armed citizen in that cinema, I don't think it would have helped. ~mooey 1
Greg H. Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 The shooter in Aurora, CO had three guns that we know of on his person. An AR-15 assault rifle, a shotgun and an automatic hand gun. He was fully dressed in a FULL tactical suit, and according to several news sources, he was dressed even more than what SWAT team members use. He had a tactical helmet, which is bullet resistant; He had a pair of goggles and a gas mask (both); He had neck protection, bullet resistant; He had a bullet proof vest with arm protection and shooting gloves He had crutch protection; He had leg armor, bullet resistant This above scenario would be extremely difficult for a *trained soldier* to stop. Do you really suggest that a lone person with a self-defense gun (even one who's fully trained) could do anything other than draw fire to himself or accidentally hurt others? I have to agree with mooey here. Dressed like he was, with the equipment that he had, you would have needed someone with an anti-material style rifle to punch through that armor and be sure of a kill. Not the sort of thing one normally takes the movies, and probably next to useless is those kinds of close quarters anyway. In a situation like this, the best thing for everyone to do is get the hell out of the way.
mooeypoo Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 I have to agree with mooey here. Dressed like he was, with the equipment that he had, you would have needed someone with an anti-material style rifle to punch through that armor and be sure of a kill. Not the sort of thing one normally takes the movies, and probably next to useless is those kinds of close quarters anyway. In a situation like this, the best thing for everyone to do is get the hell out of the way. Honestly, in a situation like this, a security guard in the ENTERANCE to the building should have noticed a guy carrying a big duffle-bag or several bags (whatever he used, there was way too much equipment for this not to appear weird in a cinema). This SHOULD have been odd enough in the cinema to start asking questions, which would likely have exposed at least some of the risk. I am much stronger proponent of preventative measures -- like training the security officers in places with large crowds, increasing the training of police officers, and teaching people how to notice weird shit -- than arguing that once the shooting starts, we should know how to respond. The chaos in that room, the tear gas, the methodical shooting of the attacker as well as what he was wearing and his extensive fireower simply made this unreasonable for the average 'joe' (or jane) to respond to, no matter how well trained they are with a hand gun. ~mooey P.S -- as a side note, in Israel most of the population is well trained with guns, since most of the population goes to the army and at the very minimum goes through bootcamp taht teaches you self defense and how to handle guns. That said, the absolute vast majority of thwarted attacks were stopped *BEFORE* something happened. Either a security person (or even average people on the street) noticed something and did something with it, or a security person prevented a terrorist from going into the building and preventing worse damage. Once this type of incident starts, it's a lot harder to stop than if you have people trained to spot weird crap BEFORE they happen. It might be unreasonable to expect average american citizens to spot suspicious behaviors because they are not entirely used to this (and by god, I hope they never need to be) And it's also a much larger country, with a lot of different people. Citizens, in an ideal situation, should NOT be walking around the streets worrying about these things. But it absolutely *is* reasonable to expect a security person to know and be aware of how to spot these things. Their job is to worry and be suspicious. They're just not trained well enough, in my opinion, as the past few examples show. Again, this is my personal opinion alone, and I say it from my own personal observation and experience. 2
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 I have to agree with mooey here. Dressed like he was, with the equipment that he had, you would have needed someone with an anti-material style rifle to punch through that armor and be sure of a kill. Not the sort of thing one normally takes the movies, and probably next to useless is those kinds of close quarters anyway. Not really. An assault rifle or hunting rifle would penetrate a bulletproof vest or helmet easily. A military vest would include trauma plates over important organs to stop rifle fire, but he would not be impenetrable. It may be difficult to carry a concealed hunting rifle to the movies, though.
mooeypoo Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Not really. An assault rifle or hunting rifle would penetrate a bulletproof vest or helmet easily. A military vest would include trauma plates over important organs to stop rifle fire, but he would not be impenetrable. It may be difficult to carry a concealed hunting rifle to the movies, though. Mister petty details, are you really suggesting people go with their assault rifles or hunting rifles to the cinema? There we go. I think the point was that the claim that "this could have been stopped if someone else had a gun in the theater" is moot. Suggesting someone had a hunting rifle isn't exactly realistic. Then again, if the guard at the entrance was more trained, the situation could have been prevented. I think that would likely be a lot simpler and more realistic of a solution than having people conceal hunting rifles in their undies when going to see a movie. 1
Greg H. Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Honestly, in a situation like this, a security guard in the ENTERANCE to the building should have noticed a guy carrying a big duffle-bag or several bags (whatever he used, there was way too much equipment for this not to appear weird in a cinema). This SHOULD have been odd enough in the cinema to start asking questions, which would likely have exposed at least some of the risk. While I agree with you, security guards at many American corporate facilities tend to be laughable to the point of "Why bother?" The security guard at my office is probably 97 years old (ok, that's an exaggeration, but not much of one - he's got to be at least 70) and he only sits at one entrance. The other one they simply rely on the RFID badge device to make sure no one who isn't supposed to be there gets inside. Penetrating this office for someone intent on doing harm is so easy it's laughable. Public venues such as malls, shopping centers, and theaters (movie and otherwise) are even worse. You might have eight or ten on duty guards to cover a mall of a couple hundred thousand square feet. Even if they do see something on the cameras, by the time they get to that location, the guy is already inside buried in a crowd of thousands. At a small facility, such as the theater standing on it's own, you'd be lucky if there is a single security guard, and if there is, he's out front, not in the back, so getting inside is just a matter of waiting until someone comes out one of the exit doors and using it to get inside. Once again I have to agree with Mooey that stopping the attack before it starts is always the best answer. But that required a diligence in observation that comes with a price tag. The over-arching issue is that people in America feel relatively safe, and security costs money. We'll pay more attention for a few months (maybe longer in the area the event actually happened in) but after a while, we get lulled back into complacency. Until the next time. 2
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Then again, if the guard at the entrance was more trained, the situation could have been prevented. I think that would likely be a lot simpler and more realistic of a solution than having people conceal hunting rifles in their undies when going to see a movie. Holmes didn't enter the building with his armor and guns. He left the movie 20 minutes in, propped the emergency exit door open, and retrieved his weapons and vest from his car. Most emergency exit doors have the good sense to set off alarms when you open them, but I guess this theater didn't mind people letting in their friends through the back door for some free movies. This is the trouble with merely increasing security presence: we will never run out of places with large concentrations of targets, and we will never run out of easy ways of entering and exiting those places without being noticed. Add security to movie theaters and the next Holmes will target a mall. Add security to malls and the next Holmes will target a kindergarten or an opera or the local supermarket.
swansont Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Saw this and thought I'd throw it out there: The Consumer Product Safety Commission has just banned the sale of Buckyballs, those magic magnets that can be shaped any which way, because the balls are a serious health hazard for children. It's the first stop-sale order by the CPSC in 11 years. http://gizmodo.com/5929064/buckyballs-have-been-banned-by-the-feds http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/story/2012-07-25/buckyballs-ban/56481316/1 Dozens of children have ingested the tiny magnets in Buckyballs and similar products sold by competitors. At least 12 of the ingestions involved Buckyballs and many required surgeries, the CPSC says. Wow. Dozens of people were harmed and some required surgery over the past couple of years, and that's enough for the feds to swoop in and ban the sale. Good thing they can do this, because there's no constitutional right to have magnets. Two dozen is about the US daily death toll from gun homicides, BTW. ———— This is the trouble with merely increasing security presence: we will never run out of places with large concentrations of targets, and we will never run out of easy ways of entering and exiting those places without being noticed. Add security to movie theaters and the next Holmes will target a mall. Add security to malls and the next Holmes will target a kindergarten or an opera or the local supermarket. Agree. That's the problematic TSA mindset of guarding against the last observed threat. It's a poor approach.
imatfaal Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 ! Moderator Note Can we keep this thread on topic please. I have split off the discussion about gun safety at home.
A Tripolation Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 I think the point was that the claim that "this could have been stopped if someone else had a gun in the theater" is moot. Suggesting someone had a hunting rifle isn't exactly realistic. I'm inclined to agree that three or four other people with guns in the theater would've only made things worse. But I am still skeptical of the implication that a .44 magnum couldn't have blown through his helmet. Even if the round hit his chest, the concussive force of the bullet would be more than enough to stagger, if not completely topple him. From there, it is an easy matter to incapacitate him with more rounds. He was not wearing Abrams tank plating. Wow. Dozens of people were harmed and some required surgery over the past couple of years, and that's enough for the feds to swoop in and ban the sale. Good thing they can do this, because there's no constitutional right to have magnets. Two dozen is about the US daily death toll from gun homicides, BTW. I don't think you can equate these two, actually. And if you are advocating a stop-sale on firearms, I would like to know how you anticipate stopping the sell of firearms to people who do not go through legal venues to purchase their firearms.
mooeypoo Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Holmes didn't enter the building with his armor and guns. He left the movie 20 minutes in, propped the emergency exit door open, and retrieved his weapons and vest from his car. Most emergency exit doors have the good sense to set off alarms when you open them, but I guess this theater didn't mind people letting in their friends through the back door for some free movies. In this case, there was almost nothing that could be done. We could discuss other scenarios where we might be able to prevent this, and maybe discuss how to pay more attention to troubled people (if there was any sign at all) but I really don't see how we could treat this case as any sort of "example" to any discussion about gun control - pro or con. This is the trouble with merely increasing security presence: we will never run out of places with large concentrations of targets, and we will never run out of easy ways of entering and exiting those places without being noticed. Add security to movie theaters and the next Holmes will target a mall. Add security to malls and the next Holmes will target a kindergarten or an opera or the local supermarket. In THESE cases, yes. ALL security is limited, all the time, everywhere, no matter how trained the people are. The job of true security people is to be aware of those holes, try to patch them up as much as possible, and do what they can. You cannot prevent everything, and you will always have the exceptional planner madman who executes this type of horrific act despite your attempts. If I continue from my experience, Israel is quite well "trained" in preventing terror attacks, and we do prevent 90% of those, but there ARE terror attacks still. You can't prevent everything. I also agree with Greg H.'s point: While I agree with you, security guards at many American corporate facilities tend to be laughable to the point of "Why bother?" The security guard at my office is probably 97 years old (ok, that's an exaggeration, but not much of one - he's got to be at least 70) and he only sits at one entrance. The other one they simply rely on the RFID badge device to make sure no one who isn't supposed to be there gets inside. Penetrating this office for someone intent on doing harm is so easy it's laughable. I know this. I actually notice it fairly early in my existence in the USA when I reported a rather suspicious bag to a police officer and he, as a reply, kicked the bag hard and said "see? nothing to worry about." Needless to say, I was horrified. I was also working as a security personnel for EL AL airline. I've seen how the TSA works and I'm not too encouraged, hoenstly. Then again, the experience Israelis have is very very different than that Americans have. Also, this country is huge, and it's not easy to change the way you treat these jobs and positions. It isn't an easy thing to train people properly, especially since a lot of those "training properly" features are thinking outside the box, knowing what to look for, and doing your job responsibly. In Israel, this type of job is considered relatively elite (even though it doesn't pay well). Here, it seems to be considered very low in the ladder of awesomeness, to say the least. I assume this is part of the problem. But this is not impossible to do. We're discussing solutions that aren't easy anyways -- whether we discuss banning guns outright, or whether we discuss trying to get people to be more trained / have a bit of regulations on owning a gun -- or if we say we remove all restrictions and let anyone own a gun -- any one of those requires quite a bit of effort, and won't be easy. It will likely be something done over some period of time, and a solution "for the long run". Same goes with training security officers. I'm not talking about retraining citizens to pay more attention; all I'm saying is that if a person already has the job of being responsible for the security of others, they need to be aware of the risks, actually LOOK around them, and not be afraid to report and do something when they suspect something or someone. We have a problem with mall cops in Israel too. That, unlike airline security abroad, is cionsidered one of the lowliest jobs you can do. And yet, they go through some form of training, repeated drills, etc. Noticing a suspicious person with suspicious behavior is not easy, it takes experience -- but it CAN be done (and I say this out of 3+ years experience of doing that in the airport). I think that it's a valid point to make, that we need to put effort into our guards, our security people, our policemen, to prevent these things from happening. Admittedly, that is a separate issue from gun control (or lack thereof). But I really do think it's an issue we (and the media) tend to ignore when these things happen, and I wanted to make sure it's raised as an important issue to follow ALONGSIDE whatever gun regulations are discussed. ~mooey At a small facility, such as the theater standing on it's own, you'd be lucky if there is a single security guard, and if there is, he's out front, not in the back, so getting inside is just a matter of waiting until someone comes out one of the exit doors and using it to get inside. Actually, as far as I understood, guards at that particular place were off duty cops. But your point is well taken, especially since I don't think it's a general occurence to have off-duty cops doing mall guard duty (or cinema-guard duty). Once again I have to agree with Mooey that stopping the attack before it starts is always the best answer. But that required a diligence in observation that comes with a price tag. Yes. But so is any form of gun control or lack thereof. ~mooey 1
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 I'm inclined to agree that three or four other people with guns in the theater would've only made things worse. But I am still skeptical of the implication that a .44 magnum couldn't have blown through his helmet. Even if the round hit his chest, the concussive force of the bullet would be more than enough to stagger, if not completely topple him. From there, it is an easy matter to incapacitate him with more rounds. He was not wearing Abrams tank plating. I have no idea what kind of helmet he wore, but the US military wear helmets capable of taking a .44 Magnum; they're class IIIA on this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_vest#Performance_standards It would not, however, feel very good. Also, the goggles and gas mask would not take the shot, and most bulletproof vests would struggle with a .44. You're going to have a hard time carrying a .44 Magnum as your concealed carry weapon, though. If someone in the theater had a 9mm or .45 handgun, they could have opened fire, but they probably wouldn't be able to disable Holmes before getting shot themselves.
Recommended Posts