[Politics]The Right to Arm Bears in a Crowded Theater

Ted the Flayer · Post by **Ted the Flayer** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:45 am

Gunman kills 14 and wounds 50 at a early Friday showing of the new Batman movie

Already in a shouting match with people who say that no one would have been shot if the audience had guns like good 'mericans.

K · Post by K » Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:49 am

[sarcasm]

Yes, a crossfire in a crowded and dark and smoky theater would have been a vast improvement.

Also, the fact that he was wearing body armor and a riot helmet would not have made untrained shooters almost ineffective and those same untrained shooters would not have been shooting each other in the dark and smoke and confusion.

[/sarcasm]

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 1:36 am

The general thought is that if everyone had guns, they'd have pulled them out and aimed them at him, and he'd have surrendered.

Which of course he wouldn't have, he was wearing body armour and would have trusted to that.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 1:41 am

Kind of expected for a neurosci grad student.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 1:44 am

Guy walks in with body armor, and several guns, throws some kind of tear gas thing, and starts shooting people.

A couple of guys pull out their guns and shoot at him, he shoots back, he gets wounded, one of them gets killed.

A couple of other guys who heard the shooting from outside the room, come in, they see a guy standing with a gun in his hand, and a bunch of people dead around him. They draw and shoot him.

The cops finally show up, and they storm in, and see two guys with guns drawn. They shout police freeze, the guys are still in shock over having killed the wrong guy, and don't react quickly enough. They get shot by the police.

That's the most likely thing to happen if 'more people had conceal carries'

Ted the Flayer · Post by **Ted the Flayer** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:04 am

I mean, don't get me wrong. I love guns. Guns are fucking awesome. But I know a gun doesn't turn me into someone more powerful than The Terminator, The Punisher, and Rambo combined. Fuck, I don't even know if I could hit a target if I'm flipping the fuck out because I've never been in that situation before. (The only legitimate attempts on my life were either when I was very young, or by inanimate things. I don't think a gun would help solve a poison gas leak).

So I don't carry my guns around, and I treat them as weapons that can and will kill people if I'm careless with them for even a moment.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:25 am

sabs wrote:Guy walks in with body armor, and several guns, throws some kind of tear gas thing, and starts shooting people.

A couple of guys pull out their guns and shoot at him, he shoots back, he gets wounded, one of them gets killed.

You're being way too generous. It's dark, it's smoky, and they're not a coordinated group. They have basically no way of knowing what the hell's going on or who's shooting at who. Imagine playing capture the flag paintball in an indoors arena except you have no idea who's on your team and who's on the other guy's team; it was assigned by random lot and you only know your assignment, no communication or identifying marks. Now, fill the paintball arena with 50-100 people running around screaming, turn off the lights, and turn on a fog machine near the flags. See what happens.

The final result is a bunch of untrained amateurs sitting in the dark looking for muzzle flashes, and trying to make half-second decisions if the guy on the other end of the muzzle flash is the original shooter (probably be able to find him by his position), an accomplice, or another amateur shooter. And when they finally decide and fire, there'll be a civilian running in the way and they'll hit them instead. And then anyone who sees that has to decide whether he just gunned down a civilian on accident or on purpose and then decide whether or not to shoot him.

Anyone who thinks "guns, fuck yeah" was an appropriate solution to this is exactly the sort of person gun control laws should be aimed at. Not criminals, just idiots who think a loaded firearm turns them into Rambo, as opposed to a dangerous untrained killing machine.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:12 am

Ted the Flayer wrote:I don't think a gun would help solve a poison gas leak).

That isn't very American of you.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:56 am

Being American is about being resourceful! Did you even try shooting the leak? What about shooting something, then using its corpse to plug the leak? Threatening to shoot someone to get them to fix the leak (which counts as solving the problem by shooting it under the Jack Bauer Act of 2007)? Thought not, you commie terrorist eurotrash.

Ted the Flayer · Post by **Ted the Flayer** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:11 am

Koumei wrote:
Ted the Flayer wrote:I don't think a gun would help solve a poison gas leak).
That isn't very American of you.

I wouldn't BE American if I knew exactly how to emigrate to a place that wasn't shittier than the place I live now. Still working on a skill that another country values...

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 1:28 pm

Ironically, I think a very apt Dark Knight quote belongs here:

"Nobody panics when things go “according to plan.” Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it’s all “part of the plan. But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds."

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 1:15 am

DSMatticus wrote:
sabs wrote:Guy walks in with body armor, and several guns, throws some kind of tear gas thing, and starts shooting people.

A couple of guys pull out their guns and shoot at him, he shoots back, he gets wounded, one of them gets killed.
You're being way too generous. It's dark, it's smoky, and they're not a coordinated group. They have basically no way of knowing what the hell's going on or who's shooting at who. Imagine playing capture the flag paintball in an indoors arena except you have no idea who's on your team and who's on the other guy's team; it was assigned by random lot and you only know your assignment, no communication or identifying marks. Now, fill the paintball arena with 50-100 people running around screaming, turn off the lights, and turn on a fog machine near the flags. See what happens.

The final result is a bunch of untrained amateurs sitting in the dark looking for muzzle flashes, and trying to make half-second decisions if the guy on the other end of the muzzle flash is the original shooter (probably be able to find him by his position), an accomplice, or another amateur shooter. And when they finally decide and fire, there'll be a civilian running in the way and they'll hit them instead. And then anyone who sees that has to decide whether he just gunned down a civilian on accident or on purpose and then decide whether or not to shoot him.

Anyone who thinks "guns, fuck yeah" was an appropriate solution to this is exactly the sort of person gun control laws should be aimed at. Not criminals, just idiots who think a loaded firearm turns them into Rambo, as opposed to a dangerous untrained killing machine.

A better endorsement of civilian gun ownership might be the Texas University Clock-tower sniper. That's a case where armed civilians directly provided support to the police, mostly in the form of suppressive fire, which probably saved lives in the end. But that was a prolonged event where everyone had time to assess what was happening and there were police at the scene to provide leadership. It also happened in 1966 and the weapons in question were rifles, not pistols.

Gen

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 1:21 am

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-romney-view ... 46394.html

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:05 am

hyzmarca wrote: A better endorsement of civilian gun ownership might be the Texas University Clock-tower sniper. That's a case where armed civilians directly provided support to the police, mostly in the form of suppressive fire, which probably saved lives in the end. But that was a prolonged event where everyone had time to assess what was happening and there were police at the scene to provide leadership. It also happened in 1966 and the weapons in question were rifles, not pistols.

Gen

Don't forget that LA shootout in the 90s. Civilians were involved to varying degrees. I don't know if any shot at the robbers, but I know at least one guy leant rifles to the LAPD. And then never got them back.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:40 am

"Welcome to LA, where even the cops'll steal from you if your shit is nice enough."

K · Post by K » Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:40 am

Meikle641 wrote:
hyzmarca wrote: A better endorsement of civilian gun ownership might be the Texas University Clock-tower sniper. That's a case where armed civilians directly provided support to the police, mostly in the form of suppressive fire, which probably saved lives in the end. But that was a prolonged event where everyone had time to assess what was happening and there were police at the scene to provide leadership. It also happened in 1966 and the weapons in question were rifles, not pistols.

Gen
Don't forget that LA shootout in the 90s. Civilians were involved to varying degrees. I don't know if any shot at the robbers, but I know at least one guy leant rifles to the LAPD. And then never got them back.

In the LA shootout, the cops took guns from a nearby gun dealer. There were no citizens involved in the shooting. (Also, the guns didn't even win the gun battle... one guy killed himself and the other was shot when he tried to surrender).

There really are no documented cases of civilians using guns to stop crime. At best, there are a few anecdotal cases where the cops chose to believe the story of the guy who was left alive (the Trayvon Martin case, for example). Set against the obscene number of documented gun killings, gun suicides, and gun massacres, there is no compelling case for civilian gun ownership. There isn't even a compelling case for police gun use.

We allow gun ownership out of tradition and not any rational reason.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:42 am

So you think that only criminals should have guns, K? What happens when a guy has a black market rifle, and the police are armed with batons?

K · Post by K » Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:45 am

Prak_Anima wrote:So you think that only criminals should have guns, K? What happens when a guy has a black market rifle, and the police are armed with batons?

You call in the SWAT team and the rifle owner dies or goes to jail for the rest of his natural life. That's how England does it.

It's not like gun-wielding criminals rule England. They just have a fuckload less number of gun deaths (5% of us by population, basically).

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:48 am

I thought the SWAT was part of the police. I'm not exactly well versed on the various law enforcement divisions. But so you mean that patrol cops and detectives shouldn't have guns?

K · Post by K » Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:52 am

Prak_Anima wrote:I thought the SWAT was part of the police. I'm not exactly well versed on the various law enforcement divisions. But so you mean that patrol cops and detectives shouldn't have guns?

Right. That just leads to a lot of people dying for little to no reason. Patrolmen with guns don't catch more criminals (just look at crime rates by nation and gun ownership by nation... they don't correlate at all).

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:53 am

Hard for me to admit, but that makes sense. For some reason I'm loathe to say that detectives shouldn't have guns, though...

Though at the same time, that creates, to me, little difference between security guards and patrol cops and I'm tempted to be a dumbass and say "why not just privatize this shit entirely at that level, get rid of patrol cops and people can just hire security guards if all a patrol cop can do is call the people with guns"

K · Post by K » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:06 am

Prak_Anima wrote:Hard for me to admit, but that makes sense. For some reason I'm loathe to say that detectives shouldn't have guns, though...

Though at the same time, that creates, to me, little difference between security guards and patrol cops and I'm tempted to be a dumbass and say "why not just privatize this shit entirely at that level, get rid of patrol cops and people can just hire security guards if all a patrol cop can do is call the people with guns"

You still need police because they need to be held to a higher standard. Security guards are basically paid witnesses and so don't need to be regulated, but I'd get very scared of a police force that didn't have Internal Affairs to catch the corrupt and abusive.

It's not like corporations have a good track record with policing themselves.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:19 am

Yeah, that's why I'm willing to admit the "lol, just privatize patrol level" thing is dumb, the internal affairs and all that.

You have a good point with the disarming of patrol cops, but it would still be weird. It would mean that patrol cops are just regulated paid witnesses. Seriously, what do they do if all they can do when they see an armed perp is call the next level up?

At the same time, this country needs a serious reeducation on guns. We practically worship them, thinking that they are power and authority and the weapon of a "real man." I would bet you that I could find a painting of Jesus holding an assault rifle in about five minutes, courtesy of some redneck with a paintbrush. We are at once terrified of criminals with guns, and think that guns are our sole salvation and protection.

Really, if a "no guns" law was passed tomorrow, drug dealers who laugh at the idea of compliance wouldn't even be my biggest worry. A drug dealer, at least any that I might accidentally cross the path of on a rare trip to the actual city, will have, at worst, a high power pistol, and will likely have little experience using it. The real worry is some redneck in the country who has a stockpile of rifles and shotguns and assault rifles who doesn't hand them in and is actually angry that the president would try to take them, and will shoot at anyone who thinks is going to. Now, granted, that's even less likely for me to run into that the enforcers of a major organized drug operation with military grade weaponry and something approaching training, but still, that's the real issue. The sister-raping dumbass in the country who literally thinks that god gave him the right to have a fucking bazooka and will defend that belief with said bazooka at a moments notice.

edit:that didn't even take five minutes.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:30 am

Prak, do you actually think that the majority of police work involves pointing guns at things? Police investigate and make arrests, and the vast majority of these investigations and arrests do not require firearms.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:33 am

No, but my mental image of police does involve a lot of waving guns around. And not much investigative work by beat cops. Yes, my mental image of police work is quite informed by bad cop dramas.