Fallout: Massacre @ Cinema 9

[grbeck]

He wasn't a criminal at the time (criminals CAN'T buy guns) and the fact that he did not choose molotoves is a sidestep. EVERY SANE LAW ABINDING CITIZEN can buy a gun. What they do with it is up to them. the same as a car or any other instument to be used to kill. Your sidestepping the issue and blaming the tool for the damage the wingnut did. The fact that he didn't choose a molotov is irrelevent, he wanted to kill and he patiently set up a killing spree using the laws as required. He could of used a molotov or bought a little car that would fit through the doors of a mall and went on a rampage running over people on a saturday morning when the mall was full.

 

Again, it's the idiot using the gun/baseball bat/car...not the car!

 

So to be clear, "And the statement was that criminals do not wait to buy guns when in fact they do." is completely wrong. He was a legal citizen, purchased a gun, ammo etc the same as you or I would. The only difference is that he was a wackjob who went on a rampage. NOW if he tried to buy a weapon or ammo, according to law, HE WOULD BE DENIED.

So, to reiterate...legal = can buy gun

not legal = can't buy gun

 

And if he was hell bent on killing and couldn't get a gun for whatever reason, he just might of used a molotov or a car and there might be even more deaths!

 

Maybe fill a water type fire extiguisher with gas and spray down the crowd after lighting it? Steal a tractor trailer and drive it through the building in the middle of a movie? Hide underneath a bridge and chip/cut away at the foundation of a pedestal? (he had months to prepare remember)

 

Let's outlaw anything that could potentially be used as a weapon.....

 

There's not even any proof that Holmes is certifiably insane at this point. He could just be a mean, heartless SOB. Like it or not, no amount of laws can stop evil people bent on causing mayhem and suffering.

[cal50]

He wasn't a criminal at the time (criminals CAN'T buy guns) and the fact that he did not choose molotoves is a sidestep. EVERY SANE LAW ABINDING CITIZEN can buy a gun. What they do with it is up to them. the same as a car or any other instument to be used to kill. Your sidestepping the issue and blaming the tool for the damage the wingnut did. The fact that he didn't choose a molotov is irrelevent, he wanted to kill and he patiently set up a killing spree using the laws as required. He could of used a molotov or bought a little car that would fit through the doors of a mall and went on a rampage running over people on a saturday morning when the mall was full.

 

Again, it's the idiot using the gun/baseball bat/car...not the car!

 

So to be clear, "And the statement was that criminals do not wait to buy guns when in fact they do." is completely wrong. He was a legal citizen, purchased a gun, ammo etc the same as you or I would. The only difference is that he was a wackjob who went on a rampage. NOW if he tried to buy a weapon or ammo, according to law, HE WOULD BE DENIED.

So, to reiterate...legal = can buy gun

not legal = can't buy gun

 

And if he was hell bent on killing and couldn't get a gun for whatever reason, he just might of used a molotov or a car and there might be even more deaths!

 

Maybe fill a water type fire extiguisher with gas and spray down the crowd after lighting it? Steal a tractor trailer and drive it through the building in the middle of a movie? Hide underneath a bridge and chip/cut away at the foundation of a pedestal? (he had months to prepare remember)

 

Let's outlaw anything that could potentially be used as a weapon.....

 

 

Ignore the troll.

 

(You cant fix stupid)

[Langston Hughes]

The point I was making is that in the absence of guns being available, he could still have created just as much carnage (if not more) with other readily available material.

 

Mass killings by individuals occurred long before guns were readily available and they will continue even if they are banned.

 

 

The "proper and correct channels" included road blocks and checks demanded by gun-control advocates, and they still didn't stop either event.

 

I don't believe that they will stop every event, nor do I expect that increasing regulations will. It is time to step out of the old notions on both sides and find something that works better. The thought criminals won't wait to purchase guns and the subsequent argument surrounding it does nothing to get to the bottom of the problem. People like this and the VA Tech shooter will wait and follow purchasing protocols so there has to be a better way to keep those on the margins from moving from troubled to murder.

[TomServo92]

 

 

 

 

 

I don't believe that they will stop every event, nor do I expect that increasing regulations will. It is time to step out of the old notions on both sides and find something that works better. The thought criminals won't wait to purchase guns and the subsequent argument surrounding it does nothing to get to the bottom of the problem. People like this and the VA Tech shooter will wait and follow purchasing protocols so there has to be a better way to keep those on the margins from moving from troubled to murder.

 

You're finally starting to come around. Let's stop focusing on the tools these people use to commit these atrocities and start focusing on why they want to commit them in the first place.

 

After all, people aren't obese just because they use knives and forks.

[Langston Hughes]

You're finally starting to come around. Let's stop focusing on the tools these people use to commit these atrocities and start focusing on why they want to commit them in the first place.

 

After all, people aren't obese just because they use knives and forks.

 

If you have read my posts from the beginning I was also around on the idea that neither truly made us safe. My point was only that you can't tell me people won't wait to legally buy guns to commit crimes.

[Mark B. Morrow]

I stand corrected. If these go through, terrorists will just switch to gasoline.

 

Gasoline wouldn't have done the damage McVeigh did in Oklahoma City.

[fmccap]

I don't believe that they will stop every event, nor do I expect that increasing regulations will. It is time to step out of the old notions on both sides and find something that works better. The thought criminals won't wait to purchase guns and the subsequent argument surrounding it does nothing to get to the bottom of the problem. People like this and the VA Tech shooter will wait and follow purchasing protocols so there has to be a better way to keep those on the margins from moving from troubled to murder.

Since you believe they will never go away why don't we start true second amendment rights and let all carry? The guy(or woman) in the 5th row could have shot him after killing only one person. I'm tired of only hearing one side of the story.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Since you believe they will never go away why don't we start true second amendment rights and let all carry? The guy(or woman) in the 5th row could have shot him after killing only one person. I'm tired of only hearing one side of the story.

 

The whole Aurora shooting took around 90 seconds and was accompanied by exploding tear gas canisters. No civilian armed with a gun would have had the time or presence of mind to stop it. If anything an armed audience would just as easily have shot more innocent by-standers. The idea of an armed civilian saving the day is a myth.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Mark B. Morrow

[Versa-Tech]

 

 

The whole Aurora shooting took around 90 seconds and was accompanied by exploding tear gas canisters. No civilian armed with a gun would have had the time or presence of mind to stop it. If anything an armed audience would just as easily have shot more innocent by-standers. The idea of an armed civilian saving the day is a myth.

You just lost all credibility whatsoever. You do realize that many citizens, armed or not, are ex military, with higher situational awareness than law enforcement. Furthermore, CHL licensed shooters tend to be far better shots than local law enforcement. Last, cowards only represent about 30% of the country. The remaining 70% percent support the second ammendment and could easily neutralize an assailant in a matter of seconds, provided the right to carry. Edited August 1, 2012 by Versa-Tech

[TomServo92]

 

 

The whole Aurora shooting took around 90 seconds and was accompanied by exploding tear gas canisters. No civilian armed with a gun would have had the time or presence of mind to stop it. If anything an armed audience would just as easily have shot more innocent by-standers. The idea of an armed civilian saving the day is a myth.

 

There was a video going around recently of a robbery attempt by two armed men of an Internet cafe in which an elderly armed civilian pulled his concealed handgun. Several shots were fired and none of the many other civilians were hit. The robbers weren't so lucky as each sustained non-life threatening wounds. The robbery was foiled, the criminals apprehended, and no collateral loss of life due to a licensed CCW civilian.

[Langston Hughes]

You just lost all credibility whatsoever. You do realize that many citizens, armed or not, are ex military, with higher situational awareness than law enforcement. Furthermore, CHL licensed shooters tend to be far better shots than local law enforcement. Last, cowards only represent about 30% of the country. The remaining 70% percent support the second ammendment and could easily neutralize an assailant in a matter of seconds, provided the right to carry.

 

To be completely honest I expect that there was someone with a weapon inside of that theater. The problem that I see is that I don't feel that everyone carrying a CL is capable of stopping someone in this situation. I've been gassed before during the service and I don't think a majority of people are able to handle this situation in the time frame. Not that they couldn't handle it eventually but not within the time frame nor in the panic of people rushing everywhere. I think many trained individuals would first think to protecting their spouse of significant other. When your eyes are burning, snot is running out your nose, your struggling to breath and people are running everywhere there is most likely little that can be effectively done. This is different than a gas station robbery or the VA Tech situation where the shooter seemed to take his time.

[Mark B. Morrow]

There was a video going around recently of a robbery attempt by two armed men of an Internet cafe in which an elderly armed civilian pulled his concealed handgun. Several shots were fired and none of the many other civilians were hit. The robbers weren't so lucky as each sustained non-life threatening wounds. The robbery was foiled, the criminals apprehended, and no collateral loss of life due to a licensed CCW civilian.

 

That's a different situation from Aurora. I'm not saying it couldn't happen. Just that it is very unlikely to have happened in Aurora under the cirumstances of a dark theater and the tear gas, along with the element of surprise the shooter had on the audience. When the point is to shoot indiscriminately, aiming isn't necessary.

 

BTW, what if the elderly citizen had missed and killed a bystander? Would you feel that was a success?

[TomServo92]

 

 

That's a different situation from Aurora. I'm not saying it couldn't happen. Just that it is very unlikely to have happened in Aurora under the cirumstances of a dark theater and the tear gas, along with the element of surprise the shooter had on the audience. When the point is to shoot indiscriminately, aiming isn't necessary.

 

BTW, what if the elderly citizen had missed and killed a bystander? Would you feel that was a success?

 

You stated "The idea of an armed civilian saving the day is a myth.". I was providing an example to the contrary.

 

As to your last question, no, it wouldn't have been a success if he had hit a bystander. But he didn't.

 

If you want to see the video I referenced, search "Internet cafe robbery" on YouTube.

[Versa-Tech]

 

 

There was a video going around recently of a robbery attempt by two armed men of an Internet cafe in which an elderly armed civilian pulled his concealed handgun. Several shots were fired and none of the many other civilians were hit. The robbers weren't so lucky as each sustained non-life threatening wounds. The robbery was foiled, the criminals apprehended, and no collateral loss of life due to a licensed CCW civilian.

I could linkbomb at least ten videos of such instances. I'm guessing Marc has never watched someone get shot before, been shot, or been forced to shoot someone. I have experienced all three in various situations. The one time I did not respond to a threat, it took police 47 minutes to respond. By that time, the shooter was well gone. Six years later, the same guy killed again and went to prison. To this day, I hold myself responsible for the second death. I like to think if I would have had a firearm on me, I could have at least prevented the second crime. The police respond to crimes. It's citizens responsibility to stop them. Edited August 1, 2012 by Versa-Tech

[rn4]

I could linkbomb at least ten videos of such instances. I'm guessing Marc has never watched someone get shot before, been shot, or been forced to shoot someone. I have experienced all three in various situations. The one time I did not respond to a threat, it took police 47 minutes to respond. By that time, the shooter was well gone. Six years later, the same guy killed again and went to prison. To this day, I hold myself responsible for the second death. If I would have had a firearm on me, the killer would not have lived to do it again. The police respond to crimes. It's citizens responsibility to stop them.

 

What makes you so sure that you would have been able to stop the perpetrator without getting yourself killed too.

[grbeck]

Gasoline wouldn't have done the damage McVeigh did in Oklahoma City.

 

They'll simply switch to whatever causes more damage, then. At any rate, even if they do carefully track sales of various types of fertilizer, it won't necessarily deter anyone. Timothy McVeigh didn't care if he got caught. (He fled Oklahoma City in an old Mercury Grand Marquis with a cardboard license plate - a surefire way to attract the attention of local and state police. If he didn't want to be caught, he would have taken steps to avoid standing out to authorities after the bombing.)

[cal50]

The people that find firearms offensive to own let alone carry have blinders on. Once in a while something impacts them to open their eyes and have a different view but you will never talk that mindset into having an objective view. A lot of that has to do with a persons upbringing.

 

Take similar disasters and look at the different results. Tsunami and earthquake in Japan, thousands of people fleeing and fending for them selves and it was reported that many people helped one another in an orderly fashion.

 

Katrina rolls into the deep south. A lot of looting by people and some police. Deaths reported and many demanding outside help well after they were instructed to leave and after the governor refused federal aid. Police confiscate all firearms they find or see from people.

Lots of looting and not much of a police presence.

 

A similar flood our west and and most people from accounts help one another. No desperate screams for outside assistance. Police see people with firearms and continue on their patrol route and do not find it an issue.

 

Perception comes from opinions (imagined) or experience (real). The cries of magazine bans, ammo limits or the number of firearms owned changes nothing in the real world. If you own 1 million rounds of ammo you can only carry so much. If you have 100 guns you can only fire a maximum of 2 at once or maybe carry a couple more maximum. It all stems from people that focus more on the inanimate object of their dislike instead of the person or people that are the ones truly responsible and not dealt with swiftly and accordingly.

[grbeck]

What makes you so sure that you would have been able to stop the perpetrator without getting yourself killed too.

 

Somehow, I don't believe that the person who was killed by the gunman who threatened Versa-Tech would be too worried about hypotheticals such as this.

[Langston Hughes]

The people that find firearms offensive to own let alone carry have blinders on. Once in a while something impacts them to open their eyes and have a different view but you will never talk that mindset into having an objective view. A lot of that has to do with a persons upbringing.

 

Take similar disasters and look at the different results. Tsunami and earthquake in Japan, thousands of people fleeing and fending for them selves and it was reported that many people helped one another in an orderly fashion.

 

Katrina rolls into the deep south. A lot of looting by people and some police. Deaths reported and many demanding outside help well after they were instructed to leave and after the governor refused federal aid. Police confiscate all firearms they find or see from people.

Lots of looting and not much of a police presence.

 

A similar flood our west and and most people from accounts help one another. No desperate screams for outside assistance. Police see people with firearms and continue on their patrol route and do not find it an issue.

 

Perception comes from opinions (imagined) or experience (real). The cries of magazine bans, ammo limits or the number of firearms owned changes nothing in the real world. If you own 1 million rounds of ammo you can only carry so much. If you have 100 guns you can only fire a maximum of 2 at once or maybe carry a couple more maximum. It all stems from people that focus more on the inanimate object of their dislike instead of the person or people that are the ones truly responsible and not dealt with swiftly and accordingly.

 

We might be better able to have a discourse if you leave your "Imagined" opinions of the Katrina disaster out of a already contentious debate concerning gun control and the recent massacre. We will forever differ on that subject and bringing up partisan theories about it doesn't do anything except show that you can hijack a thread effectively.

 

If i may get the last part of your hijack, opinion comes from perception which is flavored not only by your experience but by your own latent tendencies and upbringing. Opinion is merely the premises you form using both A Priori and A Posteriori through the lens of your own perception. I do not subscribe to the theory that any opinion is made up entirely of A Posteriori, as we all see things in a different manner. Now that I've said that, it's my experience that those who feel the need to horde things like ammunition have some trust issues with society. It is also my perception of what trust is and what is an acceptable level of unease with which we can function. They may feel that they don't have trust issues as they are perfectly okay with their level of unease.

[xr7g428]

Gasoline wouldn't have done the damage McVeigh did in Oklahoma City.

 

McViegh's weapon used diesel fuel to create the actual explosion the ammonium nitrate was just the oxidizer.

 

You need to take a look at FAEs. Basically one explosive device is used to spread the fuel, and a second device ignites it. Because it uses available oxygen to instead of a mixed oxidizer, it delivers a much longer duration shock wave.

 

Guns are not the most effective devices for mass murderers regardless of magazine sizes. As it turns out, a modern jet airliner is the first choice and high explosives are number two. (Well, not counting the governments that kill off their own people....)

[Versa-Tech]

 

 

What makes you so sure that you would have been able to stop the perpetrator without getting yourself killed too.

I have never really thought about it. I guess the risk is always assumed, but it's pretty hard to reflect on at the stake of others lives. In a way, a part of me died that day anyway. But I was raised by old-school soldiers; the kind of guys that preffered an honorable death over a demoralized life. That mentality is all but lost in modern society. These days, most people act on self preservation alone. I still cry everytime I hear a story of someone who sacrifices themself for another; tears of joy, that in the most threatening circumstances, the more selfless aspects of human nature still shine through the darkness of this dehumanizing era. People these days say that such ideals are crazy, but there was a time when a quick honorable death was the most a man could ask. First world society is spoiled by security IMHO.

[cal50]

McViegh's weapon used diesel fuel to create the actual explosion the ammonium nitrate was just the oxidizer.

 

You need to take a look at FAEs. Basically one explosive device is used to spread the fuel, and a second device ignites it. Because it uses available oxygen to instead of a mixed oxidizer, it delivers a much longer duration shock wave.

 

Guns are not the most effective devices for mass murderers regardless of magazine sizes. As it turns out, a modern jet airliner is the first choice and high explosives are number two. (Well, not counting the governments that kill off their own people....)

 

 

Diesel fuel is a AN sensitizing agent. Similar to nitro methane and others that make the AN more sensitive to detonation. Even then it take a good booster or large blasting caps to initiate properly. I doubt McVeigh could get a successful FAE detonation as the timing and fuel atomization cloud it critical. He used the AN as a blasting agent which it is.

 

The Marine trunk bombing in Lebanon was a gas enhanced FAE using propane. Properly done its a poor man's nuke and effective.

 

Most amateur bombs inside the US are pipe bombs or incendiary by nature. McV used commercial explosives and det cord as boosters and the 34-0-0 fertilizer was the blasting agent.

Its nice he got a quick date with the needle.

[Versa-Tech]

 

 

 

Diesel fuel is a AN sensitizing agent. Similar to nitro methane and others that make the AN more sensitive to detonation. Even then it take a good booster or large blasting caps to initiate properly. I doubt McVeigh could get a successful FAE detonation as the timing and fuel atomization cloud it critical. He used the AN as a blasting agent which it is.

 

The Marine trunk bombing in Lebanon was a gas enhanced FAE using propane. Properly done its a poor man's nuke and effective.

 

Most amateur bombs inside the US are pipe bombs or incendiary by nature. McV used commercial explosives and det cord as boosters and the 34-0-0 fertilizer was the blasting agent.

Its nice he got a quick date with the needle.

Call it what you like, but I think he deserved a much slower painful death. That said, mercy is always a virtuous offering... Even for genocidal psychopaths. It's what seperates us from the less civilized elements of society.

[Langston Hughes]

McViegh's weapon used diesel fuel to create the actual explosion the ammonium nitrate was just the oxidizer.

 

You need to take a look at FAEs. Basically one explosive device is used to spread the fuel, and a second device ignites it. Because it uses available oxygen to instead of a mixed oxidizer, it delivers a much longer duration shock wave.

 

Guns are not the most effective devices for mass murderers regardless of magazine sizes. As it turns out, a modern jet airliner is the first choice and high explosives are number two. (Well, not counting the governments that kill off their own people....)

Diesel fuel is a AN sensitizing agent. Similar to nitro methane and others that make the AN more sensitive to detonation. Even then it take a good booster or large blasting caps to initiate properly. I doubt McVeigh could get a successful FAE detonation as the timing and fuel atomization cloud it critical. He used the AN as a blasting agent which it is.

 

The Marine trunk bombing in Lebanon was a gas enhanced FAE using propane. Properly done its a poor man's nuke and effective.

 

Most amateur bombs inside the US are pipe bombs or incendiary by nature. McV used commercial explosives and det cord as boosters and the 34-0-0 fertilizer was the blasting agent.

Its nice he got a quick date with the needle.

 

Is anyone else noting that these two are having a proper way to make a McVeigh bomb discussion? I'm just saying.

[fmccap]

The whole Aurora shooting took around 90 seconds and was accompanied by exploding tear gas canisters. No civilian armed with a gun would have had the time or presence of mind to stop it. If anything an armed audience would just as easily have shot more innocent by-standers. The idea of an armed civilian saving the day is a myth.

Where are your chances better? An armed civilian or police, FBI or any other government entity of your choice? You can give me all the what ifs you want but in a situation like this the civilian has the best chance for the best outcome.

 

Please tell me what government agency would of prevented this or made the outcome better? Do you really think the police had any chance to respond better than that 90 seconds to make the outcome better?