Take Your Guns To A Movie?

[Mikey 16,550]

Say four armed citizens had been scattered about the Colorado theater. A lot of lives could have been saved. Same thing elsewhere. Any "gun free zone" is nothing but a notice to the madman that says "do it here". Just as convenience stores with a "No guns inside" sign are saying "Rob me with confidence and security".

The 2nd amendment is the law of the land, it should be followed.

Yeah, start a firefight in the movie theatre!

No. The firing was already started by the madman. The responsible armed citizen causes the shooting to cease before the madman continues to kill others.

From my experience with a CWP class, that's pretty funny.

Share your humor. What in this discussion makes you think a responsible citizen will START the shooting? It's all been about response to an attack by some idiot. So what's funny?

What in my post makes you think I said that?

Gee, I don't know. Maybe this Quote of yours: "Yeah, start a firefight in the movie theatre!"

That was my quote, genius.

Good. Now explain how a responsible citizen starts the firefight when it's the idiot that started shooting. Since Homer says he agrees with this inane statement of yours, his ideas would be interesting too. Here's a tip: When calling others things such as "genius" , it's probably a good idea to use your spell check.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Say four armed citizens had been scattered about the Colorado theater. A lot of lives could have been saved. Same thing elsewhere. Any "gun free zone" is nothing but a notice to the madman that says "do it here". Just as convenience stores with a "No guns inside" sign are saying "Rob me with confidence and security".

The 2nd amendment is the law of the land, it should be followed.

Yeah, start a firefight in the movie theatre!

No. The firing was already started by the madman. The responsible armed citizen causes the shooting to cease before the madman continues to kill others.

From my experience with a CWP class, that's pretty funny.

Share your humor. What in this discussion makes you think a responsible citizen will START the shooting? It's all been about response to an attack by some idiot. So what's funny?

What in my post makes you think I said that?

Gee, I don't know. Maybe this Quote of yours: "Yeah, start a firefight in the movie theatre!"

That was my quote, genius.

Good. Now explain how a responsible citizen starts the firefight when it's the idiot that started shooting. Since Homer says he agrees with this inane statement of yours, his ideas would be interesting too. Here's a tip: When calling others things such as "genius" , it's probably a good idea to use your spell check.

Since we are into giving each other tips, here is my tip to you, Never attack a person for a quote that is not theirs!!! Now tell me what I misspelled so I can apologize, ye queen of the linebacker moaners.

[tgr4lfe 220]

Say four armed citizens had been scattered about the Colorado theater. A lot of lives could have been saved. Same thing elsewhere. Any "gun free zone" is nothing but a notice to the madman that says "do it here". Just as convenience stores with a "No guns inside" sign are saying "Rob me with confidence and security".

The 2nd amendment is the law of the land, it should be followed.

This is not a problem that can be addressed at the time someone starts shooting. The problem has already occurred by that time.

This is something that has to be addressed before that happens, not after. The problem we have is with gun access by people who have no business possessing a gun.

What are you going to do? Require mental health evals for everyone? Violate HIPAA to check medical records on those buying guns? If someone wants to buy a gun, they don't have to go about it legally. I don't think more stringent gun laws is going to solve it at all.

[alexava 6,973]

Stop making all these people crazy and let them be held accountable would help I think as well

?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Say four armed citizens had been scattered about the Colorado theater. A lot of lives could have been saved. Same thing elsewhere. Any "gun free zone" is nothing but a notice to the madman that says "do it here". Just as convenience stores with a "No guns inside" sign are saying "Rob me with confidence and security".

The 2nd amendment is the law of the land, it should be followed.

This is not a problem that can be addressed at the time someone starts shooting. The problem has already occurred by that time.

This is something that has to be addressed before that happens, not after. The problem we have is with gun access by people who have no business possessing a gun.

What are you going to do? Require mental health evals for everyone? Violate HIPAA to check medical records on those buying guns? If someone wants to buy a gun, they don't have to go about it legally. I don't think more stringent gun laws is going to solve it at all.

You don't have to violate HIPPA to check mental health records. Set up a national background check that is consistent across the board. If the person is rejected, the seller doesn't have to know why. All they have to be told is that they can't sell the gun to the buyer at that time and the buyer can either call a toll free number or go to a secure website to see what criteria they didn't pass.

I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to come up with means of restricting easy gun acquisition by unstable people.

[cooltigger21 0]

Say four armed citizens had been scattered about the Colorado theater. A lot of lives could have been saved. Same thing elsewhere. Any "gun free zone" is nothing but a notice to the madman that says "do it here". Just as convenience stores with a "No guns inside" sign are saying "Rob me with confidence and security".

The 2nd amendment is the law of the land, it should be followed.

This is not a problem that can be addressed at the time someone starts shooting. The problem has already occurred by that time.

This is something that has to be addressed before that happens, not after. The problem we have is with gun access by people who have no business possessing a gun.

What are you going to do? Require mental health evals for everyone? Violate HIPAA to check medical records on those buying guns? If someone wants to buy a gun, they don't have to go about it legally. I don't think more stringent gun laws is going to solve it at all.

You don't have to violate HIPPA to check mental health records. Set up a national background check that is consistent across the board. If the person is rejected, the seller doesn't have to know why. All they have to be told is that they can't sell the gun to the buyer at that time and the buyer can either call a toll free number or go to a secure website to see what criteria they didn't pass.

I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to come up with means of restricting easy gun acquisition by unstable people.

What is the standard to be used to determine who is and isn't able. Is it as simple as going to mental health professional? Is it like what was recently announced for Social Security recipients where simply being unable to mange your affairs disqualifies them? I get the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of these unstable people but I want to see the details first.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

What is the standard to be used to determine who is and isn't able. Is it as simple as going to mental health professional? Is it like what was recently announced for Social Security recipients where simply being unable to mange your affairs disqualifies them? I get the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of these unstable people but I want to see the details first.

I don't know, but that doesn't mean I think it would be impossible to come up with a reasonable standard. I think if we put our heads together with professionals in the field, we can have some criteria that would eliminate people from being legal gun owners.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

What is the standard to be used to determine who is and isn't able. Is it as simple as going to mental health professional? Is it like what was recently announced for Social Security recipients where simply being unable to mange your affairs disqualifies them? I get the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of these unstable people but I want to see the details first.

I don't know, but that doesn't mean I think it would be impossible to come up with a reasonable standard. I think if we put our heads together with professionals in the field, we can have some criteria that would eliminate people from being legal gun owners.

I think that is very logical and responsible. However, I do not believe the current version of the NRA would be willing to participate and, they are an extraordinary political force.

[homersapien 11,353]

Say four armed citizens had been scattered about the Colorado theater. A lot of lives could have been saved. Same thing elsewhere. Any "gun free zone" is nothing but a notice to the madman that says "do it here". Just as convenience stores with a "No guns inside" sign are saying "Rob me with confidence and security".

The 2nd amendment is the law of the land, it should be followed.

This is not a problem that can be addressed at the time someone starts shooting. The problem has already occurred by that time.

This is something that has to be addressed before that happens, not after. The problem we have is with gun access by people who have no business possessing a gun.

What are you going to do? Require mental health evals for everyone? Violate HIPAA to check medical records on those buying guns? If someone wants to buy a gun, they don't have to go about it legally. I don't think more stringent gun laws is going to solve it at all.

Well, start by addressing the problems in these most recent shootings. Neither the shooter in Charleston or the shooter in LA should have been eligible to purchase a gun, yet they did.

[Weegle777 78]

Look, I get the concerns about relatively untrained people with guns in high presure, active shooter environments. What I don't get is the tendency for the gun control crowd to argue from a position of false morality- the sense that preferring people be placed in a scenario with an armed madman, no method of escape, no means of defense, and no one coming to save the day for at least five minutes is morally superior than saying "You know what? If a few of those people in the crowd feel like placing the responsibility for stopping additional loss of innocent life on themselves, maybe we should let them."

As a CC holder, the last thing I'm looking for is a confrontation. In fact, the day I became one, I understood I now had an obligation to back away from potential conflict whenever I could, since the other combatant might be able to snatch the gun from my hip and kill me. I think the vast majority of CC permit holders feel the same way. Most of us realize that this ain't the movies, and the thought of taking another life isn't something to be undertaken lightly. We just feel like should circumstances allow a clear shot at an armed assailant, we should be allowed to make that choice in defense of self and those around us.

Excellently stated.

[Weegle777 78]

Look, I get the concerns about relatively untrained people with guns in high presure, active shooter environments. What I don't get is the tendency for the gun control crowd to argue from a position of false morality- the sense that preferring people be placed in a scenario with an armed madman, no method of escape, no means of defense, and no one coming to save the day for at least five minutes is morally superior than saying "You know what? If a few of those people in the crowd feel like placing the responsibility for stopping additional loss of innocent life on themselves, maybe we should let them."

As a CC holder, the last thing I'm looking for is a confrontation. In fact, the day I became one, I understood I now had an obligation to back away from potential conflict whenever I could, since the other combatant might be able to snatch the gun from my hip and kill me. I think the vast majority of CC permit holders feel the same way. Most of us realize that this ain't the movies, and the thought of taking another life isn't something to be undertaken lightly. We just feel like should circumstances allow a clear shot at an armed assailant, we should be allowed to make that choice in defense of self and those around us.

One :

Two... I think gun free zones theory is a myth:

http://www.armedwith...murder-magnets/

Three... Obese people are already spilling over into other seats. Now we will need seats for the guns also? Cause if you CC they are gonna wanna Open Carry:

Four... I don't want to be shot when a waitress has a bad day and snaps cause her crappy service got her a crappy tip:

Five....I want to go to a Rangers game and not worry about this guy drinking to much and shooting someone that didn't take it serious enough that Darvish walked someone when he was ahead in the count:

So maybe I just want to go somewhere and the streets not look like some damn third world country controlled by warlords with everyone walking around with guns strapped over their shoulders. Especially since the majority of the individuals will have a false illusion that having a gun gives them CONTROL and the majority will do more harm than good.

If I can get in my car everyday in a college town with the texting and driving and drinking and driving then I can damn sure go to a movie without armed people being there. Cause statistically there really is more of a chance that one of you guys will come down here and drink too much and hit me than there is of me getting shot by a madman at a movie theater.

One of the weirdest posts I have read.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

So... Do you believe we live in a fairytale land in which people intent on doing harm to you will stop because people carrying guns hurt your feelz? Be realistic.

Lawlz. Zero clue where you come up with that. It was fun with your mortality comment and the inability to get away. I actually fully embrace the concept that some idiot might gun me down. Just like someone texting and driving might kill me, or drinking and driving might kill me.

I had to stop reading that link when it discredited defensive gun use because instances of defensive use hadn't been reported enough for their liking. Very often, defensive gun use isn't reported for any number of reasons- the individual was in a hurry, nerves were shot, not wanting to trouble the police- or even involve them unless they have to, etc. Case in point, the only time I've ever drawn my weapon in an emergency scenario. I was leaving for work, putting a bag in the trunk of my car. The sound of me opening and shutting the trunk startled the occupants of a car parked across the street, who promptly cranked the car after muttering a few words I couldn't hear. To my eyes, it appeared as if they were casing either my house or one of my neighbors. I pulled the pistol from my hip, walked about halfway into the driveway, and "saw them out." Haven't seen them since. Now as I said before, I was headed for work, and my employer is rather short staffed. Since the threat had dissipated (and because I'm no fan of my local sheriff's office, due to an unrelated situation beyond my control I'd rather not delve into here), I notified my neighbors to BOLO, and went to work, rather than go through the rigmarole of filing a report. Something like that happens more often than we think.

Congratz you are so alphaz and the most responsible gun owner in America omgz. Unfortunately I believe that you fall into the rarity category these days. There are many valid points in that article, no article these days on a topic such as this is perfect.

We're talking about concealed carry here, not a bunch of pimple faced basement dwellers trying to look cool and get a rise out of people. Stay with us.

I was with you till you went off on the feelz thing. People are not content with concealed carry. They want to open carry everywhere they go also. Restaurants, Target, athletic events etc.

If this is a serious concern of yours, I don't know how you manage to leave the house on any given day. Most waitresses want to live to see another good tip on another day. What a myopic view of your fellow man/woman to think we'd all go postal the first time something didn't go our way.

No not really a serious concern at all. I just prefer my waitress isn't armed. More to do with them being treated like crap and psychological build up theory. The same potential for a waitress to snap and shoot a customer is there as an idiot walking into a movie theater and opening fire. Plus I already said I will sit in a gun free movie theater unarmed and with noone armed around me. According to this thread that makes me the most courageous person to ever walk the earth... so ^$&%#$*$$ alpha.

See three and four. Let's not craft public policy based on what the lowest common denominator (Bammers) do. Its just going to make the rest of us downright miserable.

Yet in Texas where open carry recently passed you already have open carry people complaining about where they cant take them. Already looking for ways to get them into businesses that will display signs stating they don't allow open carry. Looking for that altercation with the business owner to make them verbally tell them to leave. Already forming websites listing business that will not allow open carry and calling for boycotts and protests of them. These battles are already going on.

Honestly the majority of the post I did last night was goofing off and having fun with it.

[Mikey 16,550]

This has been touched on several times above, but there hasn't been an answer.

Scenario 1) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and continues killing people unfettered until law enforcement arrives.

Scenario 2) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and some nearby armed citizen stops or attempts to stop the slaughter well before law enforcement arrives.

Why do some think scenario 1 is preferred?

[Mikey 16,550]

Say four armed citizens had been scattered about the Colorado theater. A lot of lives could have been saved. Same thing elsewhere. Any "gun free zone" is nothing but a notice to the madman that says "do it here". Just as convenience stores with a "No guns inside" sign are saying "Rob me with confidence and security".

The 2nd amendment is the law of the land, it should be followed.

Yeah, start a firefight in the movie theatre!

No. The firing was already started by the madman. The responsible armed citizen causes the shooting to cease before the madman continues to kill others.

From my experience with a CWP class, that's pretty funny.

Share your humor. What in this discussion makes you think a responsible citizen will START the shooting? It's all been about response to an attack by some idiot. So what's funny?

What in my post makes you think I said that?

Gee, I don't know. Maybe this Quote of yours: "Yeah, start a firefight in the movie theatre!"

That was my quote, genius.

Good. Now explain how a responsible citizen starts the firefight when it's the idiot that started shooting. Since Homer says he agrees with this inane statement of yours, his ideas would be interesting too. Here's a tip: When calling others things such as "genius" , it's probably a good idea to use your spell check.

Since we are into giving each other tips, here is my tip to you, Never attack a person for a quote that is not theirs!!! Now tell me what I misspelled so I can apologize, ye queen of the linebacker moaners.

After further review, it seems two spelling variables are acceptable, so I'll retract that. I'd still like to see your explanation for claiming that a bystander would be the one that started a firefight when a madman is already shooting away. That should be entertaining.

[homersapien 11,353]

This has been touched on several time above, but there hasn't been an answer.

Scenario 1) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and continues killing people unfettered until law enforcement arrives.

Scenario 2) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and some nearby armed citizen stops or attempts to stop the slaughter well before law enforcement arrives.

Why do some think scenario 1 is preferred?

I don't think that represents the argument. The argument is how best can we, as a society, deal with this problem.

(Again) I say that by the time some madman starts shooting the problem has already occurred. Maybe someone who is packing can stop the mad man without shooting even more people in the process. Maybe - if I am close enough - I can grapple him, cut his throat with my clip knife, or at least subdue him long enough to get help.

The issue is do those scenarios represent a practical strategy for dealing with this sort of thing? I say no. Better to focus on how to keep mentally disturbed people from getting guns.

And there's a lot more we can do in that regard that we aren't doing.

[alexava 6,973]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/13/florida-man-accused-shooting-movie-goer-for-texting-sent-text-moments-before/

another good reason to have several armed "good guys" in a theater.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

This has been touched on several times above, but there hasn't been an answer.

Scenario 1) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and continues killing people unfettered until law enforcement arrives.

Scenario 2) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and some nearby armed citizen stops or attempts to stop the slaughter well before law enforcement arrives.

Why do some think scenario 1 is preferred?

Two scenario's does not represent what all can potentially happen.

Scenario 3) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and can't aim for crap and wounds 3 people. Armed citizen with gun attempts to stop madman and can't aim for crap either and kills 4 and wound 4.

Scenario 4) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and kills citizens. Ex/current military guy gets the jump on him with a knife. Armed citizen guns down military guy that has the jump and madman continues to gun down citizens while using dead military guy as a shield killing even more.

Scenario 5) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting citizens. Armed father with children shoots citizens in his way going up the stairs getting his children out cause he is willing to take the rap or chance it that he can get off due to confusion.

And you can go on and on.

Like Homer said how do you really deal with the situation without having to have a theater of armed individuals. So that way someone doesn't snap cause you texted during the previews and guns you down.

[AUTUmike 79]

This has been touched on several times above, but there hasn't been an answer.

Scenario 1) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and continues killing people unfettered until law enforcement arrives.

Scenario 2) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and some nearby armed citizen stops or attempts to stop the slaughter well before law enforcement arrives.

Why do some think scenario 1 is preferred?

The titanic assumption that the more-guns=better-outcome folks are discounting is that all of the "good guys" are going to act responsibly and make these situations better. Theaters are dark. And loud. And often crowded. The likelihood that the good guys with firearms could stop a madman before he attacks is almost zero. However, the likelihood that a well-intentioned good guy accidentally discharges his or her weapon, or that they mistakenly fire at an individual is greater than zero. We all agree that there is a problem, but adding more guns to the equation is a very poor solution.

[JoeBags7277 734]

This has been touched on several times above, but there hasn't been an answer.

Scenario 1) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and continues killing people unfettered until law enforcement arrives.

Scenario 2) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and some nearby armed citizen stops or attempts to stop the slaughter well before law enforcement arrives.

Why do some think scenario 1 is preferred?

The titanic assumption that the more-guns=better-outcome folks are discounting is that all of the "good guys" are going to act responsibly and make these situations better. Theaters are dark. And loud. And often crowded. The likelihood that the good guys with firearms could stop a madman before he attacks is almost zero. However, the likelihood that a well-intentioned good guy accidentally discharges his or her weapon, or that they mistakenly fire at an individual is greater than zero. We all agree that there is a problem, but adding more guns to the equation is a very poor solution.

You know, at some point, you guys are going to need some evidence if you're going to keep making that claim. As of now, all we have solid evidence of is that: bad guys seem to be attracted to dark areas with large groups of people, good guys who might be able to stop said bad guys generally obey the rules that the bad guys ignore, and thus, madmen with guns can do an awful lot of damage in a movie theater that posts a magic sign.

Of course the likelihood that a madman could be stopped BEFORE he starts shooting is almost zero. Since we don't have ESP, its a little hard to stop an attack before it happens,and no one has claimed otherwise. If one well intentioned man with a good aim may be the difference between two deaths and 10, why tell him to leave his gun at home?

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

This has been touched on several times above, but there hasn't been an answer.

Scenario 1) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and continues killing people unfettered until law enforcement arrives.

Scenario 2) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and some nearby armed citizen stops or attempts to stop the slaughter well before law enforcement arrives.

Why do some think scenario 1 is preferred?

The titanic assumption that the more-guns=better-outcome folks are discounting is that all of the "good guys" are going to act responsibly and make these situations better. Theaters are dark. And loud. And often crowded. The likelihood that the good guys with firearms could stop a madman before he attacks is almost zero. However, the likelihood that a well-intentioned good guy accidentally discharges his or her weapon, or that they mistakenly fire at an individual is greater than zero. We all agree that there is a problem, but adding more guns to the equation is a very poor solution.

You know, at some point, you guys are going to need some evidence if you're going to keep making that claim. As of now, all we have solid evidence of is that: bad guys seem to be attracted to dark areas with large groups of people, good guys who might be able to stop said bad guys generally obey the rules that the bad guys ignore, and thus, madmen with guns can do an awful lot of damage in a movie theater that posts a magic sign.

Of course the likelihood that a madman could be stopped BEFORE he starts shooting is almost zero. Since we don't have ESP, its a little hard to stop an attack before it happens,and no one has claimed otherwise. If one well intentioned man with a good aim may be the difference between two deaths and 10, why tell him to leave his gun at home?

According to the National Association of Movie Owners there were 40, 024 screens in the US.

http://natoonline.org/data/us-movie-screens/

We have had what? Two movie theater shootings in the last 5 years. Meaning there is a 0.00005% chance of a person being in a theater with a mass shooter over the next 5 years as of today. I am betting there is a higher percentage chance of accidentlly shooting someone than of getting shot in a theater.

So should I be more concerned about arming people in movie theaters or this:

• Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold’s medical records have never been made available to the public.
  
• Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.
  
• Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.
  
• Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.
  
• Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.
  
• Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.
  
• Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.
  
• Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.
  
• A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.
  
• Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..
  
• A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.
  
• Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.
  
• TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.
  
• Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.
  
• James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.
  
• Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania
  
• Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) – school shooting in El Cajon, California
  
• Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.
  
• Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.
  
• Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic’s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.
  
• Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.
  
• Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.
  
• Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.
  
• Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.
  
• Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family’s Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.
  
• Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet. Kara’s parents said “…. the damn doctor wouldn’t take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil…”)
  
• Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002,
  
• (Gareth’s father could not accept his son’s death and killed himself.)
  
• Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hung herself in her family’s detached garage.
  
• Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school. The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead, hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.
  
• Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill.
  
• Woody ____, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness symptoms.
  
• A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.
  
• Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and “other drugs for the conditions.”
  
• Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine.
  
• Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.
  
• Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.
  
• Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon was on Trazodone.
  
• Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his New York high school.
  

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/every-mass-shooting-in-the-last-20-years-shares-psychotropic-drugs/#axzz3hATz526I

Aurora shooter (lets not forget this guy used protective gear (some bulletproof) and tear gas that had adverse physicall effects on the patrons):

Newly released court documents confirm that ‘Batman’ shooter James Holmes was taking the anti-depressant drug Zoloft before he conducted his

http://www.infowars.com/confirmed-batman-shooter-james-holmes-was-on-psychotropic-drugs/

Charleston Shooter:

He was like a pill popper, from what I understood. Like Xanax, and stuff like that.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/18/everything-known-about-charleston-church-shooting-suspect-dylann-roof.html

The Chatanooga shooter (not sure atm if he was on anti deppresants),

A troubled profile that includes drug abuse and a history of depression emerged this weekend in Tennessee

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/chattanooga-shooting/chattanooga-tennessee-shooter-mohammad-abdulazeez-history-drug-abuse-n394841

Lafayette shooter used them in the past. Sure in the coming weeks we will find out if he is on any.

Then in the large article that you chose to dismiss cause you didn't like one part. It does discuss that nearly half of the shootings occur in areas that were not considered gun free. It also discusses that many times it doesn't matter if it is gun free or not cause the shooter has a relationship of some sort with the area. It also (might been another article I read) points out that the mass majority of the weapons used in these type of shootings are purchased legally.

[JoeBags7277 734]

Yeah... not gonna defend Big Pharma and the zombie drugs they out these kids on.

Beyond that, I see no use in going around in circles on this. Not with someone who fails to see how basing presuppositions on a statistic as dubious as "reported" defensive gun use calls the validity of the source into question. And not to spook you, but you've probably seen at least a dozen movies with an armed patron in your general area, and lived to tell the tale.

[Strychnine 1,802]

This has been touched on several times above, but there hasn't been an answer.

Scenario 1) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and continues killing people unfettered until law enforcement arrives.

Scenario 2) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and some nearby armed citizen stops or attempts to stop the slaughter well before law enforcement arrives.

Why do some think scenario 1 is preferred?

The titanic assumption that the more-guns=better-outcome folks are discounting is that all of the "good guys" are going to act responsibly and make these situations better. Theaters are dark. And loud. And often crowded. The likelihood that the good guys with firearms could stop a madman before he attacks is almost zero. However, the likelihood that a well-intentioned good guy accidentally discharges his or her weapon, or that they mistakenly fire at an individual is greater than zero. We all agree that there is a problem, but adding more guns to the equation is a very poor solution.

You know, at some point, you guys are going to need some evidence if you're going to keep making that claim. As of now, all we have solid evidence of is that: bad guys seem to be attracted to dark areas with large groups of people, good guys who might be able to stop said bad guys generally obey the rules that the bad guys ignore, and thus, madmen with guns can do an awful lot of damage in a movie theater that posts a magic sign.

Of course the likelihood that a madman could be stopped BEFORE he starts shooting is almost zero. Since we don't have ESP, its a little hard to stop an attack before it happens,and no one has claimed otherwise. If one well intentioned man with a good aim may be the difference between two deaths and 10, why tell him to leave his gun at home?

As I said previously in this thread, I spend a ton of time at shooting ranges. Most CCW holders that I know personally visit the range once or twice a year. Their accuracy is decent enough when they are taking their time with zero-pressure aimed shots. Introduce speed and pressure into the equation, and their performance plummets. I see the same thing with the average shooter at the range that I do not know personally. They could likely defend themselves well enough against a home invasion, an armed robbery, or an attack (where the attacker is clearly defined and bystanders minimal). A dark, crowded theater, or a crowded public gathering changes my opinion. My reasoning is simple: in a "normal" self-defense situation, the mistakes made in seconds under pressure have less chance to create unintended casualties, as there are simply far less innocent bystanders nearby. In a crowd, with lots of noise and yelling, and many people moving rapidly in multiple directions across your field of vision (and fire) as they try to escape the random gunman, the odds of the CCW that shoots maybe once or twice a year making one or more fatal mistakes in seconds (while under extreme pressure) increase substantially. They increase even more if the crowded venue also happens to be dark. In those circumstances, I consider those CCW shooters to be just as likely to be an additional hazard as they are to be the crowd's savior.

Personally, I think CCW should come with mandatory training and proficiency testing. Law enforcement agencies undergo that training and proficiency testing, so the apparatus is in place to rather easily implement such a thing. After implementing that, I would fully support removing concealed carry restrictions from everywhere other than bars.

[Mikey 16,550]

This has been touched on several times above, but there hasn't been an answer.

Scenario 1) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and continues killing people unfettered until law enforcement arrives.

Scenario 2) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and some nearby armed citizen stops or attempts to stop the slaughter well before law enforcement arrives.

Why do some think scenario 1 is preferred?

Two scenario's does not represent what all can potentially happen.

Scenario 3) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and can't aim for crap and wounds 3 people. Armed citizen with gun attempts to stop madman and can't aim for crap either and kills 4 and wound 4.

Scenario 4) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting and kills citizens. Ex/current military guy gets the jump on him with a knife. Armed citizen guns down military guy that has the jump and madman continues to gun down citizens while using dead military guy as a shield killing even more.

Scenario 5) Madman with gun and plenty of ammo starts shooting citizens. Armed father with children shoots citizens in his way going up the stairs getting his children out cause he is willing to take the rap or chance it that he can get off due to confusion.

And you can go on and on.

Like Homer said how do you really deal with the situation without having to have a theater of armed individuals. So that way someone doesn't snap cause you texted during the previews and guns you down.

Discussing guns in a movie with an armed bad guy in there wanting to kill people: What's your solution that's better than a few good guys with guns? Stand very still and hope somebody else gets shot instead of you?

If gun owners in general were as incompetent/crazy as some of you in this thread think they are there would be tens of thousands of shootings on the streets every day. Your average gun owner is no more likely to start random blazing away than your average movie goer is likely to leap over the counter, steal all the popcorn and Goo-Goo bars and return to his seat. It happens on rare occasion but it's a long, long way from normal and people inclined to do such won't be deterred by a sign anyway.

I think a sign informing a madman bent on evil that there will be nobody inside that will be a threat to him is a bad thing.

[Mikey 16,550]

Quoting Strychnine: "...many people moving rapidly in multiple directions across your field of vision (and fire)..."

In that situation you don't fire your weapon. You wait for better circumstances and if they don't present themselves, you don't fire. Whether a person trains weekly or once yearly, that's pretty simple common sense.

[autigeremt 6,569]

I think the signs should look like this...