Another Movie Theatre Shooting

[StrangeSox]

Interestingly enough, turns out he did not have a gun, but an air soft pellet gun, a hatchet, and pepper spray.

 

Nobody died (except himself) but there was one "superficial" arm injury.

 

Your joke was hilarious though.

yeah but if everyone in the theater had a gun, then the situation would have turned out even better!

[greg775]

I love going to the movies but if I start getting patted down and going through metal detectors every time, I'd stop going so often

But it is proven to be a risk now to go see a movie. Are you at least going to bring a knife? There is a real and present danger and we should be allowed legally to arm ourselves. Scary to get bludgeoned by a hatchet when wanting to watch Trainwreck.

 

yeah but if everyone in the theater had a gun, then the situation would have turned out even better!

Yeah there were 8 people in there so the guy with the hatchet woulda been shot. I don't understand why some of you don't want a level playing field. If some asshole wants to behead me in a movie theatre, I should be allowed to arm myself to make it a fair situation. It's pretty terrifying to be sitting there unarmed when some bastard decides to kill 50 people then kill himself.

Edited August 6, 2015 by greg775

[Kyyle23]

It seems like this guy went for suicide by cop

[Jenksismyhero]

But it is proven to be a risk now to go see a movie. Are you at least going to bring a knife? There is a real and present danger and we should be allowed legally to arm ourselves. Scary to get bludgeoned by a hatchet when wanting to watch Trainwreck.

 

 

Yeah there were 8 people in there so the guy with the hatchet woulda been shot. I don't understand why some of you don't want a level playing field. If some asshole wants to behead me in a movie theatre, I should be allowed to arm myself to make it a fair situation. It's pretty terrifying to be sitting there unarmed when some bastard decides to kill 50 people then kill himself.

 

Because there's a realistic possibility that you will also snap and start killing people, and then others with guns will snap and start killing people and before you know it, all of you once sane and law abiding concealed carry moviegoers will be dead!

 

Duh.

[StrangeSox]

you guys are the best at beating down imaginary arguments.

[illinilaw08]

Because there's a realistic possibility that you will also snap and start killing people, and then others with guns will snap and start killing people and before you know it, all of you once sane and law abiding concealed carry moviegoers will be dead!

 

Duh.

 

Because tens of thousands of movies are shown in theaters in the US every week and there have been (to my knowledge) three shootings since Aurora, CO making it such a statistically insignificant thing that it doesn't mean going to a theater is unsafe or requires an armed populace.

 

Because no one has actually been bludgeoned with a hatchet in a theater in the US (that's in response to Greg).

 

Because people who are paranoid about mass shooters in a theater, and arrive armed, might be trigger happy and mistakenly respond with gunfire when there isn't a threat.

 

Because if the military (extremely trained with firearms and high pressure situations) have people killed by friendly fire, we probably shouldn't assume that an armed and less trained populace will necessarily be able to subdue an active shooter in a chaotic and dark theater.

 

Because we don't require specific training in high pressure situations to conceal and carry, so we can't expect any of the armed populace to be able to properly assess the situation and help it rather than hinder it.

 

It's not that the armed populace will snap and go on shooting sprees of their own, it's that I don't buy the argument that an armed populace makes anyone safer in an active shooter situation.

[greg775]

Because tens of thousands of movies are shown in theaters in the US every week and there have been (to my knowledge) three shootings since Aurora, CO making it such a statistically insignificant thing that it doesn't mean going to a theater is unsafe or requires an armed populace.

 

Because no one has actually been bludgeoned with a hatchet in a theater in the US (that's in response to Greg).

 

Because people who are paranoid about mass shooters in a theater, and arrive armed, might be trigger happy and mistakenly respond with gunfire when there isn't a threat.

 

Because if the military (extremely trained with firearms and high pressure situations) have people killed by friendly fire, we probably shouldn't assume that an armed and less trained populace will necessarily be able to subdue an active shooter in a chaotic and dark theater.

 

Because we don't require specific training in high pressure situations to conceal and carry, so we can't expect any of the armed populace to be able to properly assess the situation and help it rather than hinder it.

 

It's not that the armed populace will snap and go on shooting sprees of their own, it's that I don't buy the argument that an armed populace makes anyone safer in an active shooter situation.

But please respond to my basic premise: Don't I have the right to protect myself and my family from lunatics who come to a darkened theatre to kill me?? I mean is it not my RIGHT? It's unfair to let a madman have such an advantage. Risk of Death is a BIG DEAL IMO.

[Balta1701]

But please respond to my basic premise: Don't I have the right to protect myself and my family from lunatics who come to a darkened theatre to kill me?? I mean is it not my RIGHT? It's unfair to let a madman have such an advantage. Risk of Death is a BIG DEAL IMO.

Do I have a right to protect myself by not having people like you armed and randomly firing in dark rooms?

[illinilaw08]

But please respond to my basic premise: Don't I have the right to protect myself and my family from lunatics who come to a darkened theatre to kill me?? I mean is it not my RIGHT? It's unfair to let a madman have such an advantage. Risk of Death is a BIG DEAL IMO.

 

I believe I did respond to your basic premise. Certainly you have the right to defend yourself in a life-or-death situation. Does that right mean you should be able to carry a firearm everywhere you go? No, I don't think that's your right.

 

Let me put my phrase my argument another way - you having a gun in a movie theater actually makes the environment MORE dangerous, even in the event that an active shooter enters the theater. Why? Because the shooter is moving in a dark and chaotic environment - an environment that non-military and non-police (and maybe not even the police or military) are adequately trained to properly, and accurately respond. Now, instead of one shooter, you have two. The likelihood of more innocent bystanders being hit goes up.

 

Every one of your posts assumes that you, because you are armed, are more likely to help the situation rather than hurt. But I am extremely skeptical that is reality.

[StrangeSox]

the proliferation of guns in the first place also makes it more likely that these dangerous situations happen in the first place

[bmags]

the proliferation of guns in the first place also makes it more likely that these dangerous situations happen in the first place

 

Right, there is a moral element to not carrying a gun, in refusing to participate in the 'arms race'.

[greg775]

Do I have a right to protect myself by not having people like you armed and randomly firing in dark rooms?

"People like me" is kind of an insult but maybe you didn't mean it that way. I am an educated, moral, law abiding citizen. I've been ticketed for speeding a handful of times in my life but that's it. Plus if I am firing randomly and hit an innocent person, I go to jail forever. Law abiding citizens will be careful as their freedom is at stake. You kill somebody besides the killer u are going to jail forever. I think you are not considering the fact deeply enough that I deserve the right to not die in a movie theatre. In a free country shouldn't I have a fighting chance to live??

 

I believe I did respond to your basic premise. Certainly you have the right to defend yourself in a life-or-death situation. Does that right mean you should be able to carry a firearm everywhere you go? No, I don't think that's your right.

 

Let me put my phrase my argument another way - you having a gun in a movie theater actually makes the environment MORE dangerous, even in the event that an active shooter enters the theater. Why? Because the shooter is moving in a dark and chaotic environment - an environment that non-military and non-police (and maybe not even the police or military) are adequately trained to properly, and accurately respond. Now, instead of one shooter, you have two. The likelihood of more innocent bystanders being hit goes up.

 

Every one of your posts assumes that you, because you are armed, are more likely to help the situation rather than hurt. But I am extremely skeptical that is reality.

Thank u for a more thoughtful response IMO than Baltas. But your first two paragraphs are contradictory. You say I have the right to defend myself in a life or death situation. My point is going to a movie now is a life and death situation in many instances. It's a pretty darn popular way of causing havoc. You say I'm making it more dangerous with my gun. Yes. And I'd hate one innocent person to be killed or harmed by "someone like me ... or Tex." But like I said, I go to jail for life if I make a mistake in protecting me and my family sitting at the movies. I have to be sure or I pay the price.

Please respond.

[Balta1701]

"People like me" is kind of an insult but maybe you didn't mean it that way. I am an educated, moral, law abiding citizen. I've been ticketed for speeding a handful of times in my life but that's it. Plus if I am firing randomly and hit an innocent person, I go to jail forever. Law abiding citizens will be careful as their freedom is at stake. You kill somebody besides the killer u are going to jail forever. I think you are not considering the fact deeply enough that I deserve the right to not die in a movie theatre. In a free country shouldn't I have a fighting chance to live??

Frankly I do consider it an insult. I don't think that any person, even a well trained one, is going to figure out how to, under fire, pull out a weapon, take aim, in a crowded room, with people panicking, in a dark room, with loud sound being piped in around you, and actually hit the right person. Moreover, I question the judgment of anyone who thinks that is a shot they could take so much that I don't want them carrying a weapon in the first place. The idea that you'd be able to pull that shot off and hit the right person under fire is so far-fetched that I have no issue saying your judgment is flawed if you think you could pull that shot off. How often do things go wrong in war zones? How often do the wrong people get hit? You're saying you could pull off a shot as difficult as that and I'm just supposed to trust you. I can even give counter examples. The shooter in the case that started this thread was able to walk out of the theater without people recognizing he was the shooter. In the Arizona shooting of Gabby Giffords, a person carrying a concealed weapon was across the street and nearly shot the wrong person because there was a mob and chaos as people tried to tackle the shooter. There's zero reason to believe this hero scenario you're dreaming of actually happens, yet because it makes you feel good you can't let it go. Call that an insult if you want, but if you're dreaming about being the hero and you just push the consequences out of your mind because they're bad...then yes your judgment deserves questioning.

 

Now turn it around the other way. I also don't believe we should die if we are going to movie theaters, or walking down the street, or wherever else. I also don't believe that untrained people who dream of the fantasy of how they're going to be the hero are going to do anything but make the situation worse, because there's virtually no evidence they do anything else. There are about as many cases of kids under 16 shooting themselves or others accidentally as there are of successful self defenses during the year. So I say, given that there's so little evidence this fantasy actually happens, the only way you're actually going to prevent these things is to stop letting every person get their hands on guns so easily. Until we do that, we're just going to have to put up with these things.

 

Eventually it will happen that someone will stop one and the gun rights people will say this proves everythign works, and then in another case someone will shoot two bystanders and that will prove nothing, and in the end we'll just put up with these shootings, with thousands of bodies per year, we'll pretend that having guns around makes us safer and we'll mourn the 7 year old who gets shot by the 5 year old who thought he had a toy and we'll eulogize the victims in the next mass shooting because that's easier than recognizing that there's a reason why it happened and that it could have been prevented or at least much less deadly if everyone in the country didn't have a tool for instant killing easily available.

[Jenksismyhero]

Frankly I do consider it an insult. I don't think that any person, even a well trained one, is going to figure out how to, under fire, pull out a weapon, take aim, in a crowded room, with people panicking, in a dark room, with loud sound being piped in around you, and actually hit the right person. Moreover, I question the judgment of anyone who thinks that is a shot they could take so much that I don't want them carrying a weapon in the first place. The idea that you'd be able to pull that shot off and hit the right person under fire is so far-fetched that I have no issue saying your judgment is flawed if you think you could pull that shot off. How often do things go wrong in war zones? How often do the wrong people get hit? You're saying you could pull off a shot as difficult as that and I'm just supposed to trust you. I can even give counter examples. The shooter in the case that started this thread was able to walk out of the theater without people recognizing he was the shooter. In the Arizona shooting of Gabby Giffords, a person carrying a concealed weapon was across the street and nearly shot the wrong person because there was a mob and chaos as people tried to tackle the shooter. There's zero reason to believe this hero scenario you're dreaming of actually happens, yet because it makes you feel good you can't let it go. Call that an insult if you want, but if you're dreaming about being the hero and you just push the consequences out of your mind because they're bad...then yes your judgment deserves questioning.

 

Now turn it around the other way. I also don't believe we should die if we are going to movie theaters, or walking down the street, or wherever else. I also don't believe that untrained people who dream of the fantasy of how they're going to be the hero are going to do anything but make the situation worse, because there's virtually no evidence they do anything else. There are about as many cases of kids under 16 shooting themselves or others accidentally as there are of successful self defenses during the year. So I say, given that there's so little evidence this fantasy actually happens, the only way you're actually going to prevent these things is to stop letting every person get their hands on guns so easily. Until we do that, we're just going to have to put up with these things.

 

Eventually it will happen that someone will stop one and the gun rights people will say this proves everything works, and then in another case someone will shoot two bystanders and that will prove nothing, and in the end we'll just put up with these shootings, with thousands of bodies per year, we'll pretend that having guns around makes us safer and we'll mourn the 7 year old who gets shot by the 5 year old who thought he had a toy and we'll eulogize the victims in the next mass shooting because that's easier than recognizing that there's a reason why it happened and that it could have been prevented or at least much less deadly if everyone in the country didn't have a tool for instant killing easily available.

 

I provided a link a couple of weeks ago with hundreds if not thousands of examples involving people with guns who were able to prevent death or more deaths because of their actions. You, on the other hand, keep with the myth making that people with guns who think they can be heroes always, without a doubt, without exception, make situations worse. That's just factually inaccurate.

 

When you can start citing some examples of "heroes" accidentally shooting and killing people in their attempts to stop the bad guy, then your point is well taken. Until then, your opinion on this is completely unfounded. Citing to friendly fire incidents with the military in battle is pretty poor. Again, cite some examples when you have soldiers in close quarters with a single gunmen, and the ensuing fire fight involves friendly fire. I bet that's an EXTREMELY rare occurrence. Friendly fire incidents are almost always communication f***-ups, not "oh my god I have a gun and it has a mind of its own and its going to shoot every person in the room because they're so dangerous!"

Edited August 7, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Friendly fire incidents are almost always communication f***-ups, not "oh my god I have a gun and it has a mind of its own and its going to shoot every person in the room because they're so dangerous!"

you guys are the best at beating down imaginary arguments.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

It's called hyperbole, but that's essentially his argument. Guns are so dangerous and people are so inept other people will die. It's based on nothing but his own fear and it's completely unfounded.

[illinilaw08]

I provided a link a couple of weeks ago with hundreds if not thousands of examples involving people with guns who were able to prevent death or more deaths because of their actions. You, on the other hand, keep with the myth making that people with guns who think they can be heros always, without a doubt, without exception, make situations worse. That's just factually inaccurate.

 

When you can start citing some examples of "heros" accidentally shooting and killing people in their attempts to stop the bad guy, then your point is well taken. Until then, your opinion on this is completely unfounded. Citing to friendly fire incidents with the military in battle is pretty poor. Again, cite some examples when you have soldiers in close quarters with a single gunmen, and the ensuing fire fight involves friendly fire. I bet that's an EXTREMELY rare occurrence. Friendly fire incidents are almost always communication f***-ups, not "oh my god I have a gun and it has a mind of its own and its going to shoot every person in the room because they're so dangerous!"

 

Jenks - how do you imagine this working in a theater shooting (the subject of this post). The shooter is at the back of the theater randomly shooting. It's dark, people are screaming and running to get away.

 

If somebody is armed and the shooter is right next to them, yeah, certainly they could safely eliminate the threat. No argument from me there.

 

But if somebody in the middle of the theater decides to fight back, they are firing over rows and rows of bystanders, in the dark. I'm no expert on marksmanship, but I have to imagine someone would have to be a really good shot or incredibly lucky to safely and effectively take down the shooter in that scenario.

 

I've said this before and I'll say it again here in this thread. I don't have a problem with firearm ownership for sport, hunting, protecting crops/livestock, and even for home safety. But none of those scenarios add firearms to where I am. I'm incredibly against open-carry. I'm fine with conceal and carry if the testing requirements are strict enough (including mental health evaluations).

 

There are middle grounds on firearms... people have a tendency not to look for them.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks - how do you imagine this working in a theater shooting (the subject of this post). The shooter is at the back of the theater randomly shooting. It's dark, people are screaming and running to get away.

 

If somebody is armed and the shooter is right next to them, yeah, certainly they could safely eliminate the threat. No argument from me there.

 

But if somebody in the middle of the theater decides to fight back, they are firing over rows and rows of bystanders, in the dark. I'm no expert on marksmanship, but I have to imagine someone would have to be a really good shot or incredibly lucky to safely and effectively take down the shooter in that scenario.

 

I've said this before and I'll say it again here in this thread. I don't have a problem with firearm ownership for sport, hunting, protecting crops/livestock, and even for home safety. But none of those scenarios add firearms to where I am. I'm incredibly against open-carry. I'm fine with conceal and carry if the testing requirements are strict enough (including mental health evaluations).

 

There are middle grounds on firearms... people have a tendency not to look for them.

 

I'm not saying it's a great situation. I don't even know that I am ok with it. But i'm open to it and I think the arguments that more people will die are based on nothing but myth. You're again assuming that someone with a gun will start shooting randomly in hopes of hitting the bad guy. I don't think the vast majority of people in those situations suddenly become morons with a gun. The logical assumption is that someone who has concealed carry is a big enough fan of guns that they recognize the gun's danger and have practiced with it. They know it's not a good idea to just start shooting into a crowd of people in hopes they hit the bad guy. They have to have a clean shot before they can take it and if they don't, they won't.

 

99% of my support of guns is for sport, hunting and crop/livestock/home protection. However, while I don't personally think i'll ever get CC or have the need to buy a handgun, who am I to prevent someone from doing that? I don't have a problem with some kind of mental health check/back ground check. I don't have a problem with some type of reasonable training/license requirement.

 

I also, btw, think it should be 100% legal for an owner of a business to refuse entry to someone with a gun (just like they should be able to refuse entry to anyone, for any reason). If they go out of business, they go out of business. If they do fine, they do fine.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[illinilaw08]

"People like me" is kind of an insult but maybe you didn't mean it that way. I am an educated, moral, law abiding citizen. I've been ticketed for speeding a handful of times in my life but that's it. Plus if I am firing randomly and hit an innocent person, I go to jail forever. Law abiding citizens will be careful as their freedom is at stake. You kill somebody besides the killer u are going to jail forever. I think you are not considering the fact deeply enough that I deserve the right to not die in a movie theatre. In a free country shouldn't I have a fighting chance to live??

 

 

Thank u for a more thoughtful response IMO than Baltas. But your first two paragraphs are contradictory. You say I have the right to defend myself in a life or death situation. My point is going to a movie now is a life and death situation in many instances. It's a pretty darn popular way of causing havoc. You say I'm making it more dangerous with my gun. Yes. And I'd hate one innocent person to be killed or harmed by "someone like me ... or Tex." But like I said, I go to jail for life if I make a mistake in protecting me and my family sitting at the movies. I have to be sure or I pay the price.

Please respond.

 

Greg - you have a legal right to self-defense. You do not have a legal right (and you shouldn't have a legal right) to carry a gun wherever you want. Those statements are not contradictory.

 

You have ignored stats on this in the past, but society has gotten safer, not more dangerous. Yes, these mass theater shootings are disturbing and terrible, but they are also statistically extremely unlikely to happen when you are in a theater. Let's say 10,000 movies are show in theaters in the US per week. That's 5.2 millions per year. There have been three theater shootings since 2012. Going to the movies is still a significantly safer event than many of the things you do on a day-to-day basis (including driving).

 

There are plenty of examples of guns emboldening people - making them do stupid things. There are certainly more examples of that than theater shootings. Someone could make an argument, then, that the mere act of having a gun in a theater is more likely to be dangerous than the act it seeks to prevent.

 

So breaking down your response, I think it includes two major, incorrect assumptions. First that going to the movies is a dangerous activity. Second that being armed in the theater reduces the risk that something bad will happen to you. It's not a dangerous activity. It doesn't reduce the risk that something bad will happen to you.

 

 

 

 

[DrunkBomber]

yeah but if everyone in the theater had a gun, then the situation would have turned out even better!

 

 

you guys are the best at beating down imaginary arguments.

 

So you introduce an imaginary argument (That gun advocates are saying EVERY person in a theater should be carrying a gun) when clearly they mean if theyre licensed and trained with a firearm they should be allowed to carry it for protection, and in situations like this you may be able to prevent a tragedy if the circumstances are right. Then you go on to accuse people who dont agree with you of "beating down imaginary arguments."

Edited August 7, 2015 by DrunkBomber

[StrangeSox]

ha well played

[Balta1701]

I provided a link a couple of weeks ago with hundreds if not thousands of examples involving people with guns who were able to prevent death or more deaths because of their actions. You, on the other hand, keep with the myth making that people with guns who think they can be heros always, without a doubt, without exception, make situations worse. That's just factually inaccurate.

 

When you can start citing some examples of "heros" accidentally shooting and killing people in their attempts to stop the bad guy, then your point is well taken. Until then, your opinion on this is completely unfounded. Citing to friendly fire incidents with the military in battle is pretty poor. Again, cite some examples when you have soldiers in close quarters with a single gunmen, and the ensuing fire fight involves friendly fire. I bet that's an EXTREMELY rare occurrence. Friendly fire incidents are almost always communication f***-ups, not "oh my god I have a gun and it has a mind of its own and its going to shoot every person in the room because they're so dangerous!"

Yes, thousands of people do successfully defend themselves with guns. But no one keeps stats on when someone tries and fails and winds up dead. The only stat we have is things like the FBI stats showing

 

There was an interesting study released a couple weeks ago. It only featured 77 people so it's not statistically significant in any of the groups which means it needs to be done on a larger scale, but its interesting to highlight. They took groups with varying levels of firearms training, including police and down to novices, and put them through 3 scenarios including a carjacking and a convenience store robbery, gave them a weapon and watched how they used it. The people without police level training overwhelmingly got themselves killed and occasionally shot a bystander. They didn't take cover like the police-trained people did, so the assailant with the gun had an easy shot, and they hesitated before pulling the trigger leading to the same result - the armed person shot them as they were preparing to fire. It's a pretty obvious explanation for why as we weaken gun laws we constantly see increasing homicide rates - people who don't deal with these things every day, who aren't constantly training on them and keeping their training up to speed, act like they're untrained. They pull weapons in cases where they don't need to, escalating situations, and when they do pull them in an appropriate situation they make enough mistakes that they get themselves killed.

 

We've had over 600 people killed by police in this country this year. Even the person making this thread keeps making comments about how we need to have police do a better job. They're actively trained on a regular basis and still they make mistakes. Maybe we should actually stop and think about that - if people who train constantly can't be 100% accurate in making those decisions, how on Earth do we expect people who don't train constantly or even, in the case of several states including the one where this first theater shooting happened train at all, to do anything different?

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes, thousands of people do successfully defend themselves with guns. But no one keeps stats on when someone tries and fails and winds up dead. The only stat we have is things like the FBI stats showing And yes, there are plenty of times when a person does hold someone at bay with a gun, but there are plenty of accidental shootings not caught in the criminal homicide list.

 

Said with zero evidence to back it up. As Alpha pointed out before, don't you think if that situation happened in the last 10 years, even once, that anti-gun nuts would be screaming about it from the mountaintops? I've literally never heard of that happening, where a would-be vigilante ending up killing or hurting someone. Never. I'm sure it's happened, but obviously not to a degree that we hear about it as a legitimate problem.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[EvilMonkey]

Said with zero evidence to back it up. As Alpha pointed out before, don't think if that situation happened in the last 10 years, even once, that anti-gun nuts would be screaming about it from the mountaintops? I've literally never heard of that happening, where a would-be vigilante ending up killing or hurting someone. Never. I'm sure it's happened, but obviously not to a degree that we hear about it as a legitimate problem.

Although you do get Balta screaming about how someone ALMOST did something wrong during the Giffords episode...

[greg775]

I provided a link a couple of weeks ago with hundreds if not thousands of examples involving people with guns who were able to prevent death or more deaths because of their actions. You, on the other hand, keep with the myth making that people with guns who think they can be heroes always, without a doubt, without exception, make situations worse. That's just factually inaccurate.

 

When you can start citing some examples of "heroes" accidentally shooting and killing people in their attempts to stop the bad guy, then your point is well taken. Until then, your opinion on this is completely unfounded. Citing to friendly fire incidents with the military in battle is pretty poor. Again, cite some examples when you have soldiers in close quarters with a single gunmen, and the ensuing fire fight involves friendly fire. I bet that's an EXTREMELY rare occurrence. Friendly fire incidents are almost always communication f***-ups, not "oh my god I have a gun and it has a mind of its own and its going to shoot every person in the room because they're so dangerous!"

 

I have to cite Jenks as being the winner of this argument. I appreciate the long responses from the others, but Jenks I feel has the right position on this.