RunInRed

Is it time for a serious conversation about Gun Control?

Recommended Posts

Assault rifles, armed with more than 6,000 rounds ... come on.

The suspect in a shooting spree at an Aurora, Colo., movie theater was packing as many as 6,000 rounds with the ability to shoot up to 50 a minute, the police chief said Friday evening, as authorities continue to work to identify the dozen people killed in the massacre.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/20/police-work-to-id-victims-colorado-massacre-delay-probe-suspect-apartment/#ixzz21DvS1WJl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




I tell you, even as a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, it's troubling that someone this disturbed could amass this kind of arsenal legally. My biggest criticism of most handgun and gun control initiatives is that they render law abiding citizens unarmed for criminals, who by definition don't give a s*** about your gun laws, to prey upon. But for what earthly reason does someone need an assault rifle like this?

Is there not some sort of very carefully crafted law that could keep this sort of weapon from being obtained easily by lunatics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A discussion yes, but a knee jerk reaction to push for stronger gun control no.

The overwhelming vast majority of people are law abiding citizens.

I'm sure it was illegal to bring a firearm to the campus of Va Tech a few years ago, but it didn't stop the guy from bringing one on campus and opening fire.

The elderly man at the internet cafe who pulled out his gun and stopped a potential bad situation.

Rep. Cummings decided to bring up the issue of gun control when discussing Fast and Furious( and no I'm not implying that they are trying to take away everyone's guns). Not really sure why he'd bring it up when the government had a hand in guns and cartels. one of the weapons found at the murder scene of Brian Terry was once in possession of the government.

Yes, several accidents happen too, such as kids coming across their parents weapons and hurting and killing themselves or someone else.

If guns had much stronger restrictions or even flat out banned, another weapon would take it's place.

Having said all of this, it's odd, strange, how something dangerous like... Sudafed is restricted and monitored so closely in a state like Alabama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, you could end up with people passing legislation to ban something when they don't know what it is they are banning.

Edited by Auburn85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for banning public access to military-style weapons, but I sure wish that a couple of people in that movie theater had been carrying handguns and had used them on the shooter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for banning public access to military-style weapons, but I sure wish that a couple of people in that movie theater had been carrying handguns and had used them on the shooter.

I believe he threw teargas into the theater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for banning public access to military-style weapons, but I sure wish that a couple of people in that movie theater had been carrying handguns and had used them on the shooter.

I believe he threw teargas into the theater

I believe that you are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own a few guns, all hunting related. I guess some folks want to own the semi automatic but they are not for hunting. I do not own a handgun but am considering one for the personal protection. That said I don't think I would ever wear it to a movie theater. What gets me is the purchasing of the body armor. That is a huge red flag and I would think should only be sold to those in law enforcement. As said the problem with additional regulation is only law abiders would follow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This particular situation was unusual. He had teargas, an automatic assault rifle, gas mask, bullet proof vest. He was armed to the hilt. It's one of the rare occasions where an armed person or persons probably wouldn't have had much success if any and might have even hurt more people unless someone spotted him in the parking lot first. But most shootings you hear about like Va Tech and such could be prevented or curtailed much earlier if more people there were armed and trained to use their gun well. And in many cases, the shootings wouldn't have happened at all because the criminal knows this chances to playing target range with sitting ducks is virtually nil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for banning public access to military-style weapons, but I sure wish that a couple of people in that movie theater had been carrying handguns and had used them on the shooter.

The NRA considers you a socialist who hates the Constitution. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no problem with the current gun laws.

You don't see any problem with a guy being able to legally amass this amount of ammo and an automatic assault rifle? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no problem with the current gun laws.

You don't see any problem with a guy being able to legally amass this amount of ammo and an automatic assault rifle? Really?

I don't see a problem with most guys having this stuff. And I don't believe it was an auto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no problem with the current gun laws.

You don't see any problem with a guy being able to legally amass this amount of ammo and an automatic assault rifle? Really?

Really! I know people who have similar arsenals to protect themselves should localized or nationwide anarchy ever break out. One freak goes whacko and everyone panics. This guy was pretty smart and could have found other ways to do this level of damage had he wanted to.

I don't own an assault rifle, but I live out in the country and it is on my wish list.

I see legitimate reasons that sane people want this type of arsenal and I'll guarantee you many more sane people have this stuff than batsh}t crazy fools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Automatic weapons are illegal.

Not illegal, just need to pay a fee for the tax stamp. It's not too hard to get, just a hassle.

Oh, and criminals can get them even easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Automatic weapons are illegal prohibitively expensive to the point of being banned for law abiding citizens.

I carry a weapon on a regular basis, legally, and consider myself proficient with many types of guns. I shoot relatively often to maintain proficiency. Shooting is a hobby of mine.

I guess I should go ahead and state for the record I have many firearms. How many? I'm not sure, that's how many. Yes, that includes ARs (plural). I own them all legally, and have more ammo than this punk had, also legally possessed.

My point is, this guy is an aberration, bad stuff happens to good people sometimes. You can't legislate your way around the outliers in the world without making life miserable for the "normal" people.

I wrote a critique of this engagement in a private group on Facebook, I am not a law enforcement officer, but I've been around...

Regarding the Aurora, CO shootings, I have spent a good deal of time thinking about the scenario presented. For those of you that don't know me, I'm a big time 2nd amendment "gun guy" and concealed carry advocate. In my life I would conservatively estimate I have sent 275,000+ rounds down range through a wide array of weapons. There was a period in my life when ammo was pretty much free for training purposes.

I spend a fair amount of time analyzing active shooter scenarios, and generally criticize weapons handling in action movies. In that regard, I absolutely loved the movie Act Of Valor, even though the acting was admittedly horrible. The weapons handling and transitions were fantastic to watch as I have personally observed guys of that caliber in action.

In regard to this shooting, I dwell on it simply because I'd like to think that, if I were presented a similar situation, I could have come up with some options for self defense or potentially eliminating the threat. Given the environment and course/field of fire, I find myself coming up sadly short.

Here is the set-up:

1. Completely full theater. Not conducive for movement by the victims. And, you have to go past the perp to get out.

2. A mix of varying age attendees, most who have probably NOT ever even heard live fire. This creates unpredictability as to how people react.

3. Movie plays throughout the engagement which means it's loud, and the light level is continuously varying. The sound may or may not be a big deal, but the lighting is a huge problem if you are trying to shoot back and maintain a clear sight picture on your weapon.

4. Perp is in the front right corner of the theater, which means the lighting is to his back and in the face of everyone else. Meaning it's way easier for him to see you, than you him.

5. He's wearing full body armor. Wonderful, with typical carry pistol ammunition you can't get a solid central nervous system hit unless it's a head shot, not an easy proposition.

6. He deploys gas of some kind, still not sure what type, so who knows what the affect was. He's the only one with a gas mask, I personally never go to the theater with one, but now you need a head shot through a mask. Low percentage shot to say the least.

7. The theater is a gun free zone. That pretty much guarantees the perp is the only armed person in the room.

8. The engagement is going to happen quickly, without warning, maybe 60-120 seconds total. No one is expecting anything like this.

This is what we used to call shooting fish in a barrel. Regardless of what the local sheriff said on TV, trust me, with a 100 round Beta C-mag drum AR magazine even I could empty one of those in 60 seconds. In close quarters and a room that full, you barely have to aim. Frankly I'm shocked, and glad, only 12 have died.

I have to ignore #7 above before even considering a response. The guy has almost everything working in his favor, and I have nearly none. In my mind, it all depends on seating location to dictate a response.

Here is what is in my/the concealed carry persons favor:

1. He doesn't know who is carrying a weapon or how many. This means he can't explicitly target his opposition or know from where shots may come.

2. #1 gives you a slight element of surprise even though the response will not be a coordinated one.

3. If you are actually close enough to get off a shot without risking others, 5-7 yards is a decent range to operate within. That one cuts both ways because if you are in the back of the theater, getting close enough in a crowded room full of panic is highly unlikely.

4. No matter where you are in the theater, you're probably in an elevated position. Generally considered an advantage, although marginal under these circumstances.

Given all that, it really adds up to a lose-lose situation. If it's only about self-preservation, take cover. If it is a protect my family deal, get them to cover, meaning eat carpet behind a row of seats. If it is an eliminate the threat scenario, you better pray. Actually, you should pray under all those scenarios.

Summary, even the police should be glad this guy quit and gave himself up, because this is one ugly course of fire. Just gives me chills. I like to take a modicum of comfort in knowing I can meet force with force with my concealed carry weapon but with a nut job like this the only answer is cover or to run a zig zag and hope its not your time to punch out.

My thoughts and condolences are with the families and friends of those who were killed or injured in this tragedy.

Sad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy purchased all his firearms & ammo legally and passed all background checks. He had no criminal record, not even a traffic ticket. He kept to himself and had no Facebook, twitter, etc. accounts. There was nothing from his outward appearance to indicate he had flipped out. The only indication anything was wrong was that he had recently had trouble in school passing some tests.

I'm curious to hear what "gun control" laws somebody thinks could have been put in place to prevent such a tragedy from happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy purchased all his firearms & ammo legally and passed all background checks. He had no criminal record, not even a traffic ticket. He kept to himself and had no Facebook, twitter, etc. accounts. There was nothing from his outward appearance to indicate he had flipped out. The only indication anything was wrong was that he had recently had trouble in school passing some tests.

I'm curious to hear what "gun control" laws somebody thinks could have been put in place to prevent such a tragedy from happening.

None I'm aware of short of a complete ban.

He did have some strange stuff going on (content warning):

http://www.tmz.com/2...ite-penis-cops/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw a comment under a Yahoo news article that makes you think: "You know what they call 12 dead and 50 wounded in Chicago? A SLOW WEEKEND."

And that's not much of an exaggeration, since they already have something like 247 shooting deaths so far this year (in a city where guns are illegal, of course). But how often do they make the national news for that? I guess it's just not as dramatic as a guy killing 12 people in a theater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly this individual, without access to guns, would have used explosive devices. Access to guns was not the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anytime someone brings up "ban firearms", they really mean something else.

They are asking you "should we give up the current U.S. Constitution"? Guns are not the problem, but to a Liberal, it's not the guns at all. It's the law that is the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly this individual, without access to guns, would have used explosive devices. Access to guns was not the problem.

He did have explosive devices setup in his apartment as a trap. I have heard the police are afraid of disarming them. Probably because they might destroy the building.

Controlling access to common household chemicals will be extremely difficult. The explosion in OK city used common products.

Edited by cptau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a deranged individual. I believe he thought he was going to pull off the massacre and get away. The loud music started at midnight and the apartment was rigged with explosives that would go off if anyone entered through the door. He probably expected someone to set-off the explosives which would draw the attention of the first responders, including the majority of available law enforcement, which would give him a better opportunity to escape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now