Shooting with multiple fatalities at theater in Lafayette, Louisiana.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Answer

Just asking some rhetorical nd'/or ironic questions, dude. Cool your jets.

My jets are completely cooled. I'm just addressing your questions.

To you, those questions might be ironic but plenty of people think "solutions" like that are reasonable.

a reply to: Answer

Why is outlandish?

If your back is to the shot, you turn around and see two or more people now with firearms out, how do you know who is defending and who is attacking?

I would agree we shouldn't argue hypotheticals, just don't see that one as all that outlandish.

Except for the cop part, I agree those with CCW's would be able to make it clear.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Answer

Why is outlandish?

If your back is to the shot, you turn around and see two or more people now with firearms out, how do you know who is defending and who is attacking?

I would agree we shouldn't argue hypotheticals, just don't see that one as all that outlandish.

Except for the cop part, I agree those with CCW's would be able to make it clear.

Considering how rarely a single CCW permit holder is able to draw their handgun against an active shooter, the idea that multiple people will all draw at the same time and start shooting each other is ludicrous.

I still say, how about if a place is declared a "Gun Free Zone" they should be required by law to install and use metal detectors at every entrance to assure it is a gun free zone? Putting up a sign alone is as effective as those "employees must wash hands" signs in the food service restrooms. The ones that respect it will follow it, the ones that don't will not and risk giving food poisoning to a customer, potentially killing them.

It's an idea that will affect EVERYONE equally, and not just those that exercise their rights protected under the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
I still say, how about if a place is declared a "Gun Free Zone" they should be required by law to install and use metal detectors at every entrance to assure it is a gun free zone? Putting up a sign alone is as effective as those "employees must wash hands" signs in the food service restrooms. The ones that respect it will follow it, the ones that don't will not and risk giving food poisoning to a customer, potentially killing them.

It's an idea that will affect EVERYONE equally, and not just those that exercise their rights protected under the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

That's fine by me. If a place chooses to have a no-gun policy, they need to put forth a little effort and do something that will actually enforce that policy since the signs are only disarming law-abiding folks while doing nothing to stop people with nefarious intent.

Many of these mass shooters are choosing gun-free zones for a reason.

It won't stop all mass shootings but it would at least do something about bad people with guns walking into a place where they know all of their victims are disarmed.

The policy should be simple: allow people with permits to carry a gun inside your establishment or take steps to ensure that NOBODY can bring in a gun. The honor system doesn't work on murderers. Of course, metal detectors won't stop anything if the maniac shoots his way into the building like Adam Lanza did so it's certainly not a 100% effective method.

a reply to: Answer

The fallacy is that there is a 100% solution. Once folks face the fact that there is no 100% solution protecting you 100% of the time from a psycho intent on killing, and they accept that life has risks, they will sleep better. This is the "bubble-wrap" mindset that we can protect ourselves from all risk. It is not possible. You need to assess the risks for probability and impact, and have a mitigation strategy for the high-level ones. If the probability is low, like being shot in a theater, then it is a very low risk. If the probability is high, like being in a drug-dealing and crime infested area, at night, alone, waving cash around, then, the mitigation strategy is don't do that.

It's not rocket science....its forethought and situational awareness skills. Unfortunately for many, that is a foreign concept. They are so afraid that they want to strip everyone of their rights so they can feel safe.....but that feeling of safety is an illusion.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I tend to agree with that idea. If these establishments are going to prevent their customers from having the legal means to defend themselves in such a situation, then perhaps they should have more responsibility to provide for the safety and security of their customers than is currently required of them.

And yes, I also agree with you that we, as a society, are going to have to accept, at least to a certain extent, that nothing is ever 100% and nothing is ever foolproof. Well, I suppose it can be, but then you get into the old argument of the balance between freedom vs safety, and to be quite honest, I'd rather live in a society where the government trusts its citizens, the people trust each other, and I don't have know-it-all nanny state bureaucrats telling me they know what's best for me and what I can't do all the time.

originally posted by: Answer
Our founding fathers stated multiple times that the right to own firearms was important for personal protection. I know that the folks who don't understand love to say "you don't need a gun to defend from your government anymore" but that was not the sole purpose behind the 2nd Amendment.

The constitution was written at a time when the population was far smaller, it took 30 seconds to load one round, that round only traveled a limited distance, and the injuries from those guns would be far more easily treatable today than they were back then.

Those who like to wave around the constitution to support their gun rights always seem to completely ignore the historical context of that document when it's convenient to their point, but openly embrace the historical context when it suits their argument.

If you want to quote the historical context that it was intended to provide defense for the citizen, you also have to admit the historical context that TIMES HAVE CHANGED, as have the weapons.

a reply to: Kali74

A CCW permit holder knows that he/she is responsible, legally, financially, morally and ethically, for every single bullet discharged from their firearm. In your scenario, they have a three out of four chance of being WRONG. Rather than the 'wild west' scenarios imagined by those who oppose concealed carry (which never seem to materialize with legal carriers, BTW), the most likely outcome is that the permit holders aren't going to fire unless they know with absolute certainty who the nutjob is.

a reply to: Rocker2013

The founders weren't morons, though. They knew full well that weapons technology would advance far beyond the limitations of their day, yet they didn't see fit to include limitations on the amendment. And why would they? The ultimate goal of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the citizens of the United States to act as a last line of defense for the safety and security of the nation. That's not possible with weapons that are obsolete.

BTW, weapons technology of the day was not limited to just single-shot muzzle loading rifles. Primitive lever action rifles (Kalthoff and Lorenzoni repeaters), for example, had been around for 100 years at the time of the Revolutionary War. Those could fire a round once every couple of seconds until the magazine was empty. The were rare, but that was due to the cost and time involved in their manufacture. The basic design of the revolver was also invented sometime around 1720 in the form of a revolving cannon, the puckle gun.

It wouldn't surprise me if someone hadn't thought up the basic design of a functional semi-automatic or even fully automatic firearm in that same time period, either, but that the lack of self-contained cartridges made them impossible as a practicality. Note that it certainly didn't take long, just a few decades, from the invention of those self-contained cartridges until Hiram Maxim invented the first machine gun in the early 1880s.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Answer
Our founding fathers stated multiple times that the right to own firearms was important for personal protection. I know that the folks who don't understand love to say "you don't need a gun to defend from your government anymore" but that was not the sole purpose behind the 2nd Amendment.

The constitution was written at a time when the population was far smaller, it took 30 seconds to load one round, that round only traveled a limited distance, and the injuries from those guns would be far more easily treatable today than they were back then.

The constitution was written at a time when the population was far smaller, it took a long time to write a letter, you had to send that letter to the local "news" publication, then they had to publish that letter and it would usually only be read by the local townspeople.

Obviously, times have changed and we need to limit free speech as it applies to the internet, typewriters, ball point pens, etc.

Luckily, our founding fathers were a lot smarter than you. Your statement about the injuries is more of your ignorance showing through... the revolutionary-era muskets fired a very large round ball that did a lot of damage. A wound from those rifles would be just as destructive as a modern bullet.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about and you don't live here so I hardly consider you qualified to lecture anyone about the US Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers. Stick to your own country's issues... there are plenty you should be focusing on. I find it incredibly ironic that the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are the result of colonists saying they've had enough of living under the crown and being told what to do, including being disarmed by the British, and now the main foreigners who add their 2 cents in EVERY SINGLE gun related thread are folks from the UK. The 2nd Amendment is the result of the Brits trying to take our guns and they're still pushing for it. You just have to laugh at that.

This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.

Source

a reply to: vor78

I don't oppose concealed carry, I just don't think it's logical to think someone(s) carrying in mass shooter scenario is going to result in anything but in greater tragedy.

originally posted by: Answer
I find it incredibly ironic that the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are the result of colonists saying they've had enough of living under the crown and being told what to do, including being disarmed by the British, and now the main foreigners who add their 2 cents in EVERY SINGLE gun related thread are folks from the UK. The 2nd Amendment is the result of the Brits trying to take our guns and they're still pushing for it. You just have to laugh at that.

Now there's the truth if I've ever read it. Here we are, 239 years later, and some of them still haven't figured out that we don't want to be ruled by them and that we don't have to agree with them.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: vor78

I don't oppose concealed carry, I just don't think it's logical to think someone(s) carrying in mass shooter scenario is going to result in anything but in greater tragedy.

The intention of CCW isn't really to engage someone in an active shooter scenario. I know I'm not the only one to feel that way either. When I carry concealed, I'm not carrying with the mindset of stopping a shooter. I'm carrying with the mindset to get my family and I, and possibly people in the immediate vicinity if they choose to follow, to an exit safely. Carrying concealed at least gives me the ability to challenge whomever is in the way of me and that exit.

In the case of the theatre, it's harsh to put it like this, but when you're in the killzone there's not a lot you can do anyway... carrying or not.

a reply to: Kali74

I understand why, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I believe that, in the vast majority of cases, those concealed carry holders will act rationally and logically, and at worst, they know the dire consequences of being wrong.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: vor78

I don't oppose concealed carry, I just don't think it's logical to think someone(s) carrying in mass shooter scenario is going to result in anything but in greater tragedy.

Several mass shooter scenarios have involved someone carrying concealed trying to fight back. Some POTENTIAL mass shooter scenarios have been ended before the "mass" part because of someone carrying concealed.

Never has a person with a concealed carry permit made an active shooter scenario worse.

You're imaging scenarios that don't jive with reality.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: vor78

I don't oppose concealed carry, I just don't think it's logical to think someone(s) carrying in mass shooter scenario is going to result in anything but in greater tragedy.

The intention of CCW isn't really to engage someone in an active shooter scenario. I know I'm not the only one to feel that way either. When I carry concealed, I'm not carrying with the mindset of stopping a shooter. I'm carrying with the mindset to get my family and I, and possibly people in the immediate vicinity if they choose to follow, to an exit safely. Carrying concealed at least gives me the ability to challenge whomever is in the way of me and that exit.

In the case of the theatre, it's harsh to put it like this, but when you're in the killzone there's not a lot you can do anyway carrying or not.

Also this.

A smart person who is carrying intends to get themselves away from danger. They aren't going to rush in and try to play the hero.

a reply to: EternalSolace

That's a stance I can respect but unless I'm mistaken the original purpose of this line of the discussion was to take out the shooter.

a reply to: Answer

That's not to say that if I were in the right place at the right time and had the complete drop on a shooter, I wouldn't stop him. But my point is that I'm not going to play "search & destroy" to do it instead of getting out... and neither should any person carrying concealed.

a reply to: Kali74

It's one thing if a scenario kicks off and you find yourself behind the shooter. By all means end the situation right there. I just mean to say that if it were in a theatre or mall, and the shooter is three stores or two rooms away, it's stupid to go into the area with the intention of stopping him.