Yay, GUNS!

[mooeypoo]

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....mance_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.

 

You would also need to be very accurate; shooting at an angle wouldn't do much. You could also shoot his face through the gas mask, as those are not bullet resistent. Sure. But then again, how many people do you know (even those who know guns) that can be that cool, collected, rational and especially ACCURATE and FAST while being shot at by surprise through a cloud of tear gas?

 

I do see the point people are trying to make about self defense, but I honestly think this type of case just goes against this point anyways. There are other examples to give that are much better in demonstrating how people carrying guns (and knowing how to use them properly) would save the day.

 

I don't think this is one of them, Trip.

[Greg H.]

 

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).

 

 

As a rule of thumb, no. In general, you'll only see the off duty cop approach when it's some kind of special event, and then only if the city/county code requires them for crowd control. The theater (in this case) has to pay for them after all, and that cuts into their profits for the event.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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".

You omitted the biggest drawback: it's just not sufficiently effective. Our population is so large and the number of crazy men with guns so small that the vast majority of any security guard's training would go towards annoying innocent people.

 

For example: there will be an estimated 1.3 billion movie tickets sold in 2012 (source). Suppose for the sake of argument that ten mad gunmen burst into theaters this year.

 

Now, suppose a well-trained guard can prevent or respond effectively to 90% of attacks, either by directly noticing suspicious behavior or by locking doors, establishing security procedures, and watching surveillance cameras. So we're down to one mad gunman successful.

 

On the other hand, the guard wastes one minute of time for innocent movie-goers, because he deems them suspicious and must search their bags, or because a theater must be evacuated due to an unattended bag, or because crowds wait longer in lines due to security procedures. That is 1.3 billion wasted minutes.

 

Now, a quick math based on the federal government's estimated value of a human life (three million dollars as of 2004 - source) shows that, at perhaps fifteen people per massacre, the guard has averted the deaths of 405 million dollars worth of people.

 

On the other hand, if we value those wasted minutes at the federal government's estimated cost of wasted time ($28.60/hr - same source), we find that the guards have wasted 619 million dollars of time.

 

That doesn't include the cost of training or employing the security guards, either, and I'm estimating ten massacres per year, not one. In most years there'd be no saved lives at all.

 

Treating humans as three million dollars of assets may seem callous, but it's essentially the only way to sensibly determine the economic impact of a policy.

 

If we want to save lives in a cost-effective way, we should focus on major killers like road accents, ordinary gun crime, and obesity, not random crazy people with guns. Perhaps we should train our security guards to shout at people and tell them to walk faster. It'd burn some calories.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Cap'n Refsmmat
adjust scenario realism

[mooeypoo]

You omitted the biggest drawback: it's just not sufficiently effective. Our population is so large and the number of crazy men with guns so small that the vast majority of any security guard's training would go towards annoying innocent people.

I disagree. I think this is a lot more effective than, say, allowing every citizen (almost) to own a gun. It is not as hard as people make it seem, we're talking about a change to the way the training goes (and improvement through time). Start with police officers -- they get training ANYWAYS. Train them for these things too -- continue "down" the ladder to the rest of the security personnel.

 

I think this is more effective not just for these type of events (and, again, this particular one is a non-example in my opinion) but also for terrorism, and other such threats. Your TSA, for example, have got to be trained better for the current threats. Sure, you could also allow individuals with gun permits to board the plane - that would prevent another 9/11 type hijacking, probably. Then again, it wouldn't prevent bombings, and while I don't have a problem with people owning guns for their own defense, I don't see this as a solution to public safety.

 

You see what I mean?

 

 

For example: there will be an estimated 1.3 billion movie tickets sold in 2012 (source). Suppose for the sake of argument that ten mad gunmen burst into theaters this year.

Actually, I'll stop you here for one second, because I think you're actually making my point for me.

 

One of the biggest problems I personally have with a security behavior of the TSA for instance, is that they go by examples. Someone tried to light their shoes on fire = let's get everyone's shoes off. Someone tried to blow up their underwear = let's check people's undies (or scan them "naked"). Someone said they're going to blow a plane up by mixing liquid chemicals = let's ban liquid chemicals at checkpoints.

 

This method is temporarily effective, but it's NOT truly effective. People who want to hurt others, especially organized terrorist groups, are increasingly creative. They will look for the holes and find ways to abuse them. You start with checking shoes, but the next bomb might be in their hats, or part of the hand luggage, or dissembled and activated with a watch, etc etc etc. You can't plan for those things.

 

What you can (and in my opinion, should) do in these cases is go by generalities. There are certain behaviors you can expect from terrorists as well as crazed (or rational, by the way) gunmen. I know people hate this term "profiling", but if you actually do it right -- as in, psychological profiling, rather than what people tend to think as racial profiling which doesn't work -- you can prevent 90% of attacks.

 

You can't guess necessarily where or how the next attack will come, but you CAN anticipate the type of personality that carries it. Now, this, admittedly, is oversimplified -- I simplify this (1) because there are more than one "types" you're looking for and a number of ways of dealing with each one, and (2) I can't talk about some of it publically.

 

The point, I hope, is clear though. I think the problem is not with how many people do security, or where they do security necessarily. The problem is *how* to do security.

 

You will always find places this fails in. The case in the cinema, as I explained before, is, in my opinion, not an example. Would it happen in Israel? Likely not, but that's because our security measures override people's freedoms at times; for instance, we check people's bags (even casually, still) at EVERY entrance to EVERY populated public place. Our security guards are trained in what to look for in those places too.

 

We're a tiny country under constant threat. We cannot make this comparison to the USA, and as I said before, I truly hope we don't need to.

 

But you guys CAN take a few of those aspects to make security more effective. You dont need to have people check bags at entrances of malls, but if you train your security personnel better, you might not have to. You don't need to talk and "interview" every passenger on an outgoing (or incoming) flight, but if your security personnel know what to look for, you don't have to.

 

You see what I mean?

 

On the other hand, the guard wastes five minutes of time of 1% of innocent movie-goers, because he deems them suspicious and must search their bags, or because a theater must be evacuated due to an unattended bag, or because crowds wait longer in lines due to security procedures. That is 65,000,000 wasted minutes.

The guard doesn't have to waste time. If they know what to look for, they don't need to do anything differently other than watch for what they know they should, and do what they know they should once they spot it. Israel for that matter is not the only place that does this type of thing... I think we're talking about two relative extremes (too much security vs. virtually no security) while there *is* a middle ground.

 

 

That doesn't include the cost of training or employing the security guards, either, and I'm estimating ten massacres per year, not one. Also, more than 1% of movie-goers would be inconvenienced in all likelihood, but I'm being generous.

True. If we're just talking about preventing massacres, then my point wouldn't be valid. But I think there's more to it than these random massacre shootings. These are just part of the problem - there are inherent risks now of terrorism, especially after 9/11. Security personnel need to be trained better, and then by proxy they will be able to prevent massacres better (though not all, probably) -- but this is, in my opinion, more than "just" those senseless massacres.

 

Treating humans as three million dollars of assets may seem callous, but it's essentially the only way to sensibly determine the economic impact of a policy.

 

If we want to save lives in a cost-effective way, we should focus on major killers like road accents, ordinary gun crime, and obesity, not random crazy people with guns. Perhaps we should train our security guards to shout at people and tell them to walk faster. It'd burn some calories.

 

I agree, this is a lot about money. I am just disagreeing with you about the potential waste here. If we were talking only about the random shootings, there probably aren't "enough of those" (sorry to be so blunt and horrible) to justify the expense. But in my opinion, we're talking about more than that, and I think that even if we JUST start with police officers and TSA personnel first, it's worth it.

 

And it might prevent these type of things by proxy, so all the better.

 

~mooey

[A Tripolation]

I don't think this is one of them, Trip.

 

I said that in my post, Mooey. I just don't think that he was as invincible as everyone claimed, nor do I think that concealed-and-carry is reckless behavior.

[mooeypoo]

I said that in my post, Mooey. I just don't think that he was as invincible as everyone claimed, nor do I think that concealed-and-carry is reckless behavior.

 

Agreed, providing the one carrying the concealed weapon knows how to use it properly.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What you can (and in my opinion, should) do in these cases is go by generalities. There are certain behaviors you can expect from terrorists as well as crazed (or rational, by the way) gunmen. I know people hate this term "profiling", but if you actually do it right -- as in, psychological profiling, rather than what people tend to think as racial profiling which doesn't work -- you can prevent 90% of attacks.

Citation needed.

 

Yet a growing number of researchers are dubious — not just about the projects themselves, but about the science on which they are based. "Simply put, people (including professional lie-catchers with extensive experience of assessing veracity) would achieve similar hit rates if they flipped a coin," noted a 2007 report from a committee of credibility-assessment experts who reviewed research on portal screening.

 

"No scientific evidence exists to support the detection or inference of future behaviour, including intent," declares a 2008 report prepared by the JASON defence advisory group. And the TSA had no business deploying SPOT across the nation's airports "without first validating the scientific basis for identifying suspicious passengers in an airport environment", stated a two-year review of the programme released on 20 May by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of the US Congress.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100526/full/465412a.html

 

According to TSA, no other large-scale security screening program based on behavioral indicators has ever been rigorously scientifically validated.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10763.pdf

 

The Israeli airport method has a better chance of success because it involves direct interviews by security officers, rather than passive observation of behavior. Passive observation has not been demonstrated to have any effectiveness whatsoever.

 

The guard doesn't have to waste time. If they know what to look for, they don't need to do anything differently other than watch for what they know they should, and do what they know they should once they spot it. Israel for that matter is not the only place that does this type of thing... I think we're talking about two relative extremes (too much security vs. virtually no security) while there *is* a middle ground.

Even if the guard's passive observation technique causes him to falsely believe someone is suspicious just 0.0000008% of the time, he will pull aside more innocent people than crazy gunmen. Not even a full-body scanner has that sort of incredibly good false-positive rate.

 

I disagree. I think this is a lot more effective than, say, allowing every citizen (almost) to own a gun. It is not as hard as people make it seem, we're talking about a change to the way the training goes (and improvement through time). Start with police officers -- they get training ANYWAYS. Train them for these things too -- continue "down" the ladder to the rest of the security personnel.

Aurora police had actually recently trained with the Department of Homeland Security for similar attacks:

 

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/aurora-mumbai/

[mooeypoo]

Citation needed.

Sadly, I can't, since the absolute majority of thwarted terror attacks are not publicized, and are kept secret for various security reasons.

 

If you want to discard my statement out of that, feel free, I understand your request but cannot comply with it. I guess it shall remain a matter of opinion.

 

The Israeli airport method has a better chance of success because it involves direct interviews by security officers, rather than passive observation of behavior. Passive observation has not been demonstrated to have any effectiveness whatsoever.

We do more than just speaking to people. Also, the interview itself matters a LOT less than how the person behaves in general. It's our method of creating a "bottleneck". However, you can still do something like that in the airport while looking at people talking to the airport check-in rep.

 

This is really difficult to discuss, I am aware I can't give out a lot of specific information which makes this tough to argue -- or believe. I don't blame you. I just can't really do anything other than say this is from my experience, and suggest that the published statistics in things related to terror and national security are not entirely complete.

 

Even if the guard's passive observation technique causes him to falsely believe someone is suspicious just 0.0000008% of the time, he will pull aside more innocent people than crazy gunmen. Not even a full-body scanner has that sort of incredibly good false-positive rate.

Despite everything I said in the reply above, I think that this relates to my point about 'extremes'. We seem to be talking "extreme measures" vs. "almost no measures". There is a middle ground, and while it might not be AS effective as the extreme, it is still effective somewhat.

 

Isn't "somewhat effective" security better than none?

 

Aurora police had actually recently trained with the Department of Homeland Security for similar attacks:

 

http://www.wired.com.../aurora-mumbai/

 

Yeah I read that. Only serves to show that this particular event was not really an example we can make rules by. Though I must say, it seems (from what I've read) that the police and rescue response was quite impressive once they were called.

 

~mooey

[swansont]

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.

I'm not advocating or proposing anything at the moment. Merely showing the scale of a problem. We spring into action over a small number of injuries of one sort and are paralyzed and polarized by an issue that causes orders of magnitude more.

 

But, in the several recent gun-spree killings, were any of the weapons or ammunition illegally obtained? The alleged perp in the Aurora incident got his legally. Loughner (Tucson) bought his Glock at a gun store. Seung-Hui Cho (Va Tech) purchased legally and even got his 10-round magazines on ebay. So, to whom are you referring that are not going through legal venues?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Sadly, I can't, since the absolute majority of thwarted terror attacks are not publicized, and are kept secret for various security reasons.

 

If you want to discard my statement out of that, feel free, I understand your request but cannot comply with it. I guess it shall remain a matter of opinion.

The JASON defense advisory group was commissioned by the Pentagon and its final report was classified. I don't think access to information was their problem. But I can ask Dr. Schwitters, the head of JASON; he's probably going to be my thesis adviser this fall.

 

We do more than just speaking to people. Also, the interview itself matters a LOT less than how the person behaves in general. It's our method of creating a "bottleneck". However, you can still do something like that in the airport while looking at people talking to the airport check-in rep.

At movie theaters or malls or kindergartens you have little to no opportunity to create a bottleneck, unless you can deduce intent from "Two tickets for Gigli, please". (Although people buying tickets for Gigli should be treated suspiciously anyway.)

 

Despite everything I said in the reply above, I think that this relates to my point about 'extremes'. We seem to be talking "extreme measures" vs. "almost no measures". There is a middle ground, and while it might not be AS effective as the extreme, it is still effective somewhat.

 

Isn't "somewhat effective" security better than none?

No, not if it's security at the cost of a great deal of time and money. Not if we end up interrogating nervous fetishists who just want to feel up some panties at Victoria's Secret as well as guys with guns. Certainly we can stand to inconvenience some fetishists for security, but the security payoff is so low and the inconvenience potential so high that I don't see the point here.

[Joatmon]

There is a problem that has been touched on in other posts, but not really in this way :-

A high velocity rifle round can pass through several people, particularly if it doesn't hit much in the way of bone. In the action of bringing down an assassin, particularly if he/she isn't wearing body armour, you may be directly responsible for killing innocent people. This is, of course, even more likely to be true if you are in a crowded space. Also should you miss then innocent people are likely to get hurt or die. I note that marshals on aircraft use low velocity rounds - but believe that is mainly to minimise puncturing the cabin walls. Perhaps also to ensure their bullet stays within their target?

Perhaps if we get to the stage where all public venues have armed security guards and gunfire starts the public should be trained to dive to the floor to give the guard(s) a clear view of the source of gunfire? There remains the question of what type of ammunition should be used.

[padren]

Out of curiosity, would a staffer or even patron would have been more effective in this situation with a high pressure fire hose than a firearm, especially if you threw a taser on top of the soaking gunman trying to keep on his feet (and breathing enough under exertion) in bulky gear?

 

 

Honestly when it comes to security - I just don't trust the "American Security Improvement Process" which, seems like a really expensive way to not improve safety. That's not to say it can't be done right... I just don't think this sort of security is something we have the skill set or mindset for at the moment, and personally I think there are far more effective ways of preventing massacres than the bottleneck points.

 

 

I am not that educated on the topic - but domestically, we don't tend to deal with foreign terrorists trying to attack the country - we mostly deal with people who loose it. As a specific case type, can the state of the "social community" be partly at fault here? What I mean is: people snap, break down, and occasionally loose it. Most people tend to drink themselves into dysfunctional states or otherwise get in yelling matches with neighbors, police... essentially little more harm is done than disturbing the peace and while some form of embarrassing rock bottom tends to follow there's the person's social support group of friends and family to both help them and make sure they get help if they start acting mentally unhinged. I don't mean people should "drop a dime" on their friends to the Men In White with butterfly nets the moment they vent a little and whatnot... but taking an interest in how friends and family are doing are another matter, where people can be supportive in a complementary way.

 

 

To apply this to guns:

 

Just an odd thought - what if we had higher rates, taxes etc on loose firearms, but allow gun clubs to get discounts for their members based on the club's safety track record? It wouldn't have to be socially oriented like a typical club (I mean it could be too) but really exists more as a framework for helping people who do want to own guns, to be part of a "well regulated" community that is effectively self regulated not by the government per se but by the members' peers. There would be federal or state operating requirements to get the tax breaks etc, but for the most part it would be self regulating. If members report higher than average stolen guns or accidents or criminal activity using guns, it would reflect on the club's community - giving them the incentive to self-manage.

I wouldn't even have a problem with club members having access to assault rifles if they are part of a responsible community - I don't even need that community to "answer" to me as long as "answering to themselves" keeps them responsible.

 

It would allow a crazy group of terrorists to all get together and form a club (even inner city gangs could, technically) - but I do think we could pick that up on the DHS/FBI/ATF/police radars.

 

Most importantly though, through clubs - when somebody sees someone just becoming more unstable, and fail to steadily keep things together, there's a personal sense of connection both to the harm that person could do and to that person's well being.

 

There will always be loners, and sometimes crazy ones. I think we can though, improve our capacity for strong communities enough to both help and catch a lot of these cases before they turn into massacres.

[zapatos]

This comment is not intended to suggest arming the public is good or bad, but if I was in the theater when the shooting started I would have liked to have a gun. I would have emptied it at the shooter and hoped for the best. Doesn't matter if I was successful or not, or if it resulted in my being shot, I would have liked the chance to shoot back.

 

I would also hold no ill will toward anyone who shot back at him and accidentally hit me. At least an effort to end the bloodshed was made.

 

While in hindsight we may have found that shooting back was not the best idea, I think at the moment it was happening the only reasonable response, if possible, was to shoot back.

[mooeypoo]

 

No, not if it's security at the cost of a great deal of time and money. Not if we end up interrogating nervous fetishists who just want to feel up some panties at Victoria's Secret as well as guys with guns. Certainly we can stand to inconvenience some fetishists for security, but the security payoff is so low and the inconvenience potential so high that I don't see the point here.

 

I see your point. I think that my personal experience is creating a bias on my part to disagree with this statement, but, admittedly, I have no shareable evidence, only my personal opinion. I think the fact that it is something I lived with all my life also might make it seem easier-to-accomplish (in terms of training) than it might actually be.

 

 

So it's weird for me, because I don't quite agree with your judgment that it would not be worth the cost; as far as I'm concerned, it absolutely would worth the cost of saving people's lives, especially when the potential threat usually involves *multiple* people at once.

 

If a subway car explodes, for example, or if a plane goes down, we're talking about (at a minimum) hundreds of dead. I think that the "price" of increased training for people who are *meant* to be security personnel is well worth the potential prevention of this. In my personal experience, this type of "shift" in training doesn't take much, it's mostly a matter of using a different perspective on HOW to detect things, even if you don't go "all the way" to actually stopping people and search their bags. I don't think this costs much, but it may require a bit of time to implement. Some of this, by the way, is already underway to being implemented in airports around the US and around the world through new measures by Homeland Security. It takes time to change a big system. And money. I think the cost is worth it.

 

But, admittedly, I might have both cost *and* benefit skewed on my own personal bias experience, which makes this whole thing a bit moot on my end.

 

I'll have to think of either a way to prove (to myself mostly) whether I'm right or wrong, or accept that my experience is so radically different than many others, that I probably can't be completely unbiased in this case.

 

~mooey

[ParanoiA]

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

 

Very thoughtful points there.

 

Human beings aren't static and we aren't all the same (surprise!). How do you know return fire would not send him away? He wore body armor (well, for brevity's sake) - he did not want to die. He surrendered to the police in his "body armor" - he did not want to exchange fire with them, did he? That could be a nod to trained intervention, or it could be that he was scared to test out that suit. He's not exactly combat tested and clearly not on a suicide mission.

 

I'm not so sure anyone needed to be a perfect shooter, but a counter shooter.

 

And note, that anyone who returns fire in that theater will have a concealed carry permit, which requires training, unless they're illegally carrying - which I still wouldn't have a problem with in the midst of a slaughter. (I'm not aware of any state that does not require training for a CCW, and despite some open carry laws, it's extremely rare to see anyone open carry. Police harass open carriers, a whole 'nother issue, so not a lot of people think it's worth the trouble).

 

So, while you wouldn't have what I call the "ideal hero", a CCW carrier is going to know how to handle a gun safely, and shoot it fairly. Shooting is part of CCW training. Again, not perfect, but I think that's ok.

 

I can't predict what would happen and I'll never claim that untrained interference with a gun will never hurt an innocent person or make things worse. I think an increase in CCW carriers interfering with mass shootings will however:

 

1) Create a general check on mass shooting before they even begin fantasizing about it. Dead shooters with thwarted plans that didn't get to enjoy themselves on the news kinda takes the fun out of it, I suspect.

 

2) More often will result in less dead innocents than more. (It only takes saving that one guy that's going to cure cancer to make that worth it - a problem I have with placing a price on a human life, even if 3 million bucks is way more than I thought they would give it).

 

So, I don't know. We disagree on returning fire in the theater because I'm not so sure he couldn't be shot in the face (however incredibly difficult that shot is even for my wife, the bull's eye queen) or that he wouldn't retreat. Especially if there were several people returning fire. (Only in my dreams does he die a spectacular death where 3 people stand up and gun him down before his tear gas can fill up the whole of the room).

[iNow]

Take the theater out of the equation for a moment. Would it be better to have others return fire in a nursery school? What about at a Chucky Cheese where the place has dozens of kids running in every damned direction? Are more shooters and more bullets our best approach there?

 

How about if more people were returning fire from different directions? Are ten citizens returning fire better than one or two? What about cross fire as people from opposite sides of the room start adding their own bullets to the mix?

 

What if someone takes a bullet to the head from a regular citizen trying to take down the aggressor? Is the person who mistakenly shot them subject to the death penalty, murder chargers, manslaughter, or do they get off scot free because their intended target was someone else? Would it be different if the fellow audience member who took an unnecessary bullet were wearing a hoodie?

Edited July 26, 2012 by iNow

[Phi for All]

I mentioned it before, but you guys are ignoring the fact that the shooter was the only person there who knew he was doing this alone. If multiple conceal/carry heroes start firing in the dark with all that smoke, aren't they just as likely to assume everyone firing a gun is the enemy and start aiming at all the muzzle flashes? In that situation, I think it's the firing of the weapons and not the gear you are or aren't wearing that would determine who you turn your gun on.

 

The only way that scenario gets any better is if there's only one other person with a gun besides the shooter.

[Moontanman]

The recent yeah guns thread has inspired me to share my thoughts on this, first of all i carry a hand laser with me every place i go in my pocket, my wife keeps one in her purse and I keep one in my cars glove box.... I know big deal, hand held lasers are not going to make a difference in a crisis.... or would they?

 

I started this idea of carrying lasers with me every where I go when a car driving the local interstate ran off the road into the swamp, the people were trapped in their car and died of exposure, it was winter. A simple hand held laser could have been used to signal for help, at night a laser shown skyward or toward tree tops would attract attention like no flash light could. A laser can be used to signal for help even in day light if you have a reasonable line of sight with someone else.

 

How does this tie in with defense, I use old style red lasers that are weak and harmless, i have looked into them and it's just a dazzling light but new hand held lasers can ignite flammable materials at close range and blind an assailant easily. They are even dangerous to an air liner pilots miles away a good green or blue hand held laser could have blinded the guy in the theater shooting instantly, the tear gas was not immediately thick enough to stop such a laser and his goggles would have been a joke.

 

More reasonably a gun with a laser sight could have been used to hit him directly in the face, I stopped using hand guns because I felt my aim wasn't good enough to actually hit something but I have used laser sighted pistols and they are death, the bullet goes where the dot is, or very close to it. I think a 9mm with a laser sight could have taken out that suspect with one shot... even if the person wasn't a "expert" marksman...

Edited July 26, 2012 by Moontanman

[zapatos]

Take the theater out of the equation for a moment. Would it be better to have others return fire in a nursery school? What about at a Chucky Cheese where the place has dozens of kids running in every damned direction? Are more shooters and more bullets our best approach there?

 

How about if more people were returning fire from different directions? Are ten citizens returning fire better than one or two? What about cross fire as people from opposite sides of the room start adding their own bullets to the mix?

 

What if someone takes a bullet to the head from a regular citizen trying to take down the aggressor? Is the person who mistakenly shot them subject to the death penalty, murder chargers, manslaughter, or do they get off scot free because their intended target was someone else? Would it be different if the fellow audience member who took an unnecessary bullet were wearing a hoodie?

From my perspective, if someone is right now doing deadly harm, you take action right now to stop it. I have no doubt that shooting in a nursery school is a dangerous proposition (you may hit a kid), but not shooting is also a dangerous propostion (the perpetrator may shoot every kid in the place).

 

If you are quick enough to make a good decsion regarding angle of attack, number of shooters, cross fire, etc., then more power to you. I doubt very many people would handle that situation well, so I would only expect them to do as well as they can. If someone is shooting at my kids, and someone returns fire, I am not going to criticize the defender for having the wrong gun or not shooting from the best position. He is putting himself at risk to help others. That is generally how I define a hero.

 

When it is a matter of life and death, I will always choose doing something rather than doing nothing, even when you have incomplete or incorrect information. I hated it when police would not enter Columbine because they weren't sure it was the exact right thing to do yet, all the while hearing additional shots ringing out, refusing to enter the building to try to get out the wounded who were waving for help from the windows.

 

As far as how mishaps are addressed legally I am unsure, but I believe that acting in good faith is generally a good defense, such as giving medical aid to an injured person even if you are not an EMT.

[iNow]

How would you feel if it was the return shooter who accidentally killed your kid?

[zapatos]

I mentioned it before, but you guys are ignoring the fact that the shooter was the only person there who knew he was doing this alone. If multiple conceal/carry heroes start firing in the dark with all that smoke, aren't they just as likely to assume everyone firing a gun is the enemy and start aiming at all the muzzle flashes? In that situation, I think it's the firing of the weapons and not the gear you are or aren't wearing that would determine who you turn your gun on.

 

The only way that scenario gets any better is if there's only one other person with a gun besides the shooter.

I'm not ignoring the fact, I just don't think it justifies inaction. Guns are going off, people are dying. Do I take a chance and shoot back, or stand meekly by as more and more people are gunned down? How many would have to die before you could justify shooting back?

 

It sucks. I recognize that. But the choices are shoot or don't, and I like to think I wouldn't go down without at least trying to save myself and others.

 

How would you feel if it was the return shooter who accidentally killed your kid?

Horrible. I'd probably want to die myself.

 

How would you feel if your kid was drowning and someone had some wooden crates they could throw down in the water for your kid to float on, but they didn't because they were afraid they might accidentally hit your kid and kill him? And as a result your kid drowns?

[mooeypoo]

How would you feel if it was the return shooter who accidentally killed your kid?

 

Honestly, I don't think this claims is valid to anything other than emotional appeal, iNow.

 

I was actually in a similar situation, only instead of my child (which I have none) it was a friend who got shot because of a "return fire" as you called it. They didn't die, but that was touch-and-go for a couple of weeks, and they have permanent damage. For the first 24 hours, we thought he was dead.

 

And yes. It's horrible, and senseless, and you feel like "fate" (whatever it is) is the cruelest thing in the world. But I wanted to know what had happened; I wanted to know if the person that shot back was acting responsibly -- and he was, in that circumstance. I wanted to know that he knew how to use the gun, aim, and that he was aiming at the return shooter. He was. He also probably saved quite a lot of people that day.

 

Any death is horrible, especially such a senseless death from random shooting. And even more so from this irony of fate from someone who dies from the shooting of a "friendly" fire (I *hate* that term)

 

And yet, the "return shooter" killed the terrorist, and likely saved the lives of a dozen others in the street. My friend was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and to be perfectly honest with you, if he wouldn't have been shot by that guy trying to help, he might have (likely so) been killed by the terrorist. Maybe. Maybe not. We won't ever know. The only thing we CAN know for a fact is that the terrorist was planning to kill a whole lot more people, and that he was killed before that could happen.

 

Shit happens.

What I would like to do is make sure is that whoever has a gun on them knows what they're doing, so a shitty situation goes as shitty-less as possible.

 

This isn't about making bad situation good - in real life, there's rarely "good" solution coming out of this, these type of "good" scenarios are usually reserved to theoreticians and movies. In real life, crap happens, and while I don't think people should replace cops, I also don't think your claim is valid as an opposition.

 

For that matter, iNow, what would you do if that child died from a cop's fire as he killed the attacker? Isn't this the same type of question? Other than being emotionally involved, how does that make any judgment about reasons to carry (or not carry) weapons?

 

As long as the so-called "savior" didn't act recklessly and as long as they were acting responsibly with their weapon for the sake of saving others - I can't see this as a reason to prevent people from having a gun, or responding to such event.

 

 

~mooey

[Bill Angel]

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.

 

For the sake of discussion assume that there was a policeman in the theater equipped with a typical police sidearm .Would not the stopping power of one of those weapons be sufficient to prevent the shooter from continuing to aim and fire his own weapons? Also this fellow was not a trained soldier with knowledge of what to do when he himself comes under return fire.

[rigney]

For the sake of discussion assume that there was a policeman in the theater equipped with a typical police sidearm .Would not the stopping power of one of those weapons be sufficient to prevent the shooter from continuing to aim and fire his own weapons? Also this fellow was not a trained soldier with knowledge of what to do when he himself comes under return fire.

Most "nut jobs" are not, nor have ever been in the military. And such a loon usually doesn't really give a damn about himself, only his crazy mission; although this one came pretty well prepared. Question is, how long will this murderous incident be remembered; to remind us that it can and will likely happen again?

[Arete]

Most "nut jobs" are not, nor have ever been in the military.

 

Timothy McVeigh (US Army, Oklahoma City Bombings)

Charles Whitman (US marines, Texas University tower shootings)

John Allen Muhammad (US Army, Beltway Sniper attacks)

Howard Unruh (WWII veteran, Camden NJ killing spree)

David Berkowitz (US Army, Son of Sam killer)

Arthur Shawcros (Vietnam veteran, Genesee River Killer).

....

Edited July 27, 2012 by Arete