Batman Violence Remedy

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Agreed, real gunfire rarely sounds like movie gunfire. But I really don't expect that people will always be able to tell the difference.

Especially to do so instantaneously and with such a degree of confidence to justify risking more harm (and especially given the low probability of doing any good).

And the fact is that witnesses said just that--they were at least momentarily confused (as were people outside the auditorium) as to whether or not it was real.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Especially to do so instantaneously and with such a degree of confidence to justify risking more harm (and especially given the low probability of doing any good).

And the fact is that witnesses said just that--they were at least momentarily confused (as were people outside the auditorium) as to whether or not it was real.

And how many of said people do you think had actually heard a rifle fired before?

[Travis]

Well I wasn't going to let you all in on it but now I feel compelled: if I was there and armed not only would I have instantly ascertained that the armed man at the front of the theater was a real threat (and not some overly jubilant fan) but I would have drawn my own gun, laid out a bullet dead set on his forehead that curves around the Italian exchange student in the first row Wanted style while in the middle of a slow motion dive but I would have done it with such awesomeness that every fertile woman in the place found herself pregnant afterward. As would Emma Stone....somehow.

Don't question it! Awesome!

[Bill Thompson]

Originally Posted by Spindrift

Really? Like where? Can you give a specific example?

Brit friends have told me this time after time. And they cite examples to me. I live in the world. I do not live on the internet.

YOU want ME to search on the INTERNET and give you an example?

I am not without meaning in my life, nor is my schedule free, nor do I care if you doubt me.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

YOU want ME to search on the INTERNET and give you an example?

Yes. You maid a claim. Seemingly that knife sprees are more common because there are no guns, the implication be the guy who would have gone on a shooting spree would have gone on a knife spree. It would be nice if you could support that claim with evidence, on this subject as you would be expected to do on any other thread. Preferably with comparative studies to show that knife attacks trend higher when guns are unavailable and not just a random example of "Hey look, somebody did the same thing with a knife so there is no difference."

[Spindrift]

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

Brit friends have told me this time after time. And they cite examples to me. I live in the world. I do not live on the internet.

YOU want ME to search on the INTERNET and give you an example?

I am not without meaning in my life, nor is my schedule free, nor do I care if you doubt me.

That's pretty funny coming from the guy who said this:

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

Liberals say what people want to believe. To hell with facts.

And yes I want you to back up your statements. This is a skeptical forum, you make the assertion, you back it up with proof or the only conclusion that could be drawn is that you just made it up. You just said something you want people to believe. To hell with facts.

[elbe]

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

Brit friends have told me this time after time. And they cite examples to me. I live in the world. I do not live on the internet.

YOU want ME to search on the INTERNET and give you an example?

I am not without meaning in my life, nor is my schedule free, nor do I care if you doubt me.

Why did you bring it up if you're unable to back it up?

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

Places that ban guns have psychos that go on stabbing sprees, by the way.

So then they ban knives and they come back with crossbows. And after that, catapults. I tell you, when these psychos decide to go on a spree, no weapon ban can stop them. Look it up yourself.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

Brit friends have told me this time after time. And they cite examples to me. I live in the world. I do not live on the internet.

YOU want ME to search on the INTERNET and give you an example?

I am not without meaning in my life, nor is my schedule free, nor do I care if you doubt me.

If you're too ashamed to admit you can't back up a claim, don't make it in the first place.

[NoahFence]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler
Especially to do so instantaneously and with such a degree of confidence to justify risking more harm (and especially given the low probability of doing any good).

And the fact is that witnesses said just that--they were at least momentarily confused (as were people outside the auditorium) as to whether or not it was real.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quad4_72
And how many of said people do you think had actually heard a rifle fired before?

Probably not many. As I said before, you can't make assumptions based on your own personal history. Myself? I would most likely be confused, just like everybody else in that auditorium. Mass chaos, extreme volume, gas, etc..etc...etc...

One would think that it would be easy to be confused about movie gunfire and real gunfire, if you weren't experienced. I would assume most people in that auditorium would fit into the "not experienced" catagory.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Tricky

So then they ban knives and they come back with crossbows. And after that, catapults. I tell you, when these psychos decide to go on a spree, no weapon ban can stop them. Look it up yourself.

This lot scares the **** out of me;

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Puppycow]

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...deaths/260189/

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Spindrift

This is a skeptical forum, you make the assertion, you back it up with proof or the only conclusion that could be drawn is that you just made it up.

Good luck. One of the last times I asked a person on this forum to back up their weapons claim with evidence I got insulted for my trouble and the forum membership backed him up for the most part.

Ranb

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Amen.

In fact, I don't think a guy does this sort of thing with much hopes of getting away or even getting out alive, so there is no deterrence value at all. (That is, he wouldn't have done anything different if he'd known there was likely to be people carrying in the theater.)

I can't even imagine how horrifying it would be to have been in that theater. I like to imagine I would have tried to do something heroic (even helping to swarm the guy), but I doubt I would have even realized it was a real shooting (or that there was only 1 shooter so that swarming him would have a chance of doing much good) until it was largely over.

I've seen it conjectured that the 100 round clip was a probable reason the gun jammed, and that the smaller straight magazines can be changed in just a few seconds, so had he had a few extra such magazines he would have likely had many more shots fired. Later in the day CA's Finestein was advising that 100 round clips should be made illegal to purchase. It might be better to mandate they be supplied as original equipment, and that straight magazines couldn't be purchased. I don't believe the Military uses the 100 round clips.

Press secty Carney, presumably speaking for Obama, stated that the best idea was to add people with 'mental illness' to the list that now includes felons who cannot own, and certainly not buy, a gun.

What would a potential purchaser need to do to demonstrate he-she was not 'mentally ill'?

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...deaths/260189/

Interesting bit from that article. They claim Tunisia had "the lowest firearm ownership rate in the world (one gun per thousand citizens, compared to America's 890) when its people toppled a brutal, 24-year dictatorship and sparked the Arab Spring."

While that might be a bit of exaggeration, I suspect it is not off by too much. So the argument that we need all these guns to prevent a dictatorship is contradicted by at least one real-world example.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Interesting bit from that article. They claim Tunisia had "the lowest firearm ownership rate in the world (one gun per thousand citizens, compared to America's 890) when its people toppled a brutal, 24-year dictatorship and sparked the Arab Spring."

While that might be a bit of exaggeration, I suspect it is not off by too much. So the argument that we need all these guns to prevent a dictatorship is contradicted by at least one real-world example.

The real barrier preventing a dictatorship is the makeup of our modern armed forces. Dictators often build key army units out of a single ethnic group. Then play on the tribal, ethnic or religious loyalty of those troops to suppress citizens of other groups. Saddam's Republican Guard is a good example. Alabama could use it's all white National Guard against innocent black citizens in the days of segregation, but that wouldn't work with the racial makeup of the current Alabama Guard.

When all citizens have the right to join the militia, the militia becomes the army of the people instead of the army of the King.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by AlBell

I've seen it conjectured that the 100 round clip was a probable reason the gun jammed, and that the smaller straight magazines can be changed in just a few seconds, so had he had a few extra such magazines he would have likely had many more shots fired. Later in the day CA's Finestein was advising that 100 round clips should be made illegal to purchase. It might be better to mandate they be supplied as original equipment, and that straight magazines couldn't be purchased. I don't believe the Military uses the 100 round clips.

If those high capacity mags were popular or used by the military, it is a good bet that they would be made more reliable. Right now they are only curiosity.

Originally Posted by AlBell

What would a potential purchaser need to do to demonstrate he-she was not 'mentally ill'?

No idea, but it does not work that way here. The government has to prove that a person is mentally ill.

Ranb

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The real barrier preventing a dictatorship is the makeup of our modern armed forces. Dictators often build key army units out of a single ethnic group. Then play on the tribal, ethnic or religious loyalty of those troops to suppress citizens of other groups. Saddam's Republican Guard is a good example. Alabama could use it's all white National Guard against innocent black citizens in the days of segregation, but that wouldn't work with the racial makeup of the current Alabama Guard.

When all citizens have the right to join the militia, the militia becomes the army of the people instead of the army of the King.

That's certainly been true in the Middle East. Indeed the collapse of Syria seems to be coinciding with the inability of Assad to control his army, because he's ordering them to slaughter their own people. They're defecting right and left, and the bomb attack that killed some of his top ministers was almost certainly an inside job.

The rule of Saddam Hussein was fueled by his oppression of all but the Sunni Muslims (which are actually a minority in Iraq), which is why I feel like the invasion was such a waste. That was an unstable situation which would have resolved itself eventually.

Your example of Alabama is another good one. Lincoln recognized that he could neither suppress the slaves forever, nor the free whites who had turned against slavery.

A powerful minority can oppress a downtrodden majority for a while. In feudal times, it was quite a long while. But times are changing.

Okay, wandering off topic. Maybe need a new thread.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by Tricky

While that might be a bit of exaggeration, I suspect it is not off by too much. So the argument that we need all these guns to prevent a dictatorship is contradicted by at least one real-world example.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. Should it ever get to that point, FSM forbid, the country will be awash in arms, and the Constitution will have been reduced to a mere scrap of parchment, whether or not the citizenry is well armed before it happens.

Keep in mind, however, the Founding Fathers were not trying to prevent a dictatorship. That they could have with or without arms, as they demonstrated back in the day. What they were trying to do was prevent another revolution. Apart from the ultimate result, the glorious American Revolution was a disaster without parallel to those who had to live in it, and this is a truth they understood, and we tend to forget. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, exist to strike at the root causes of their Revolution and render another one permanently unneeded.

Toppling a dictatorship is one thing, building stability on the other side is something much harder. Tunisia indeed appears to have gotten extraordinarily lucky. But much better to never have to rebuild in the first place.

[Travis]

It is one of those sad points of history that "people revolutions" tend to result in some sort of heavy handed authoritarian government. The times that they actually end up with something close to their intended result are so rare you can count them with your fingers.

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

You think people were STILL and calm? Perhaps looking at each other with rolled eyes and shakes of the head as they stood or lay still? Or do you think people were scared and trying to get their families the [ahem] out of there?

I do not think the version of events you are basing your argument on is described in a way that resembles any form of reality.

Frankly, this was never about what I think. I have no idea what the situation would have been for any hypothetical CCW holder.. What if I told you that I trust Mr. Hypothetical to be responsible with his gun? Does that make me crazy?

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Interesting bit from that article. They claim Tunisia had "the lowest firearm ownership rate in the world (one gun per thousand citizens, compared to America's 890) when its people toppled a brutal, 24-year dictatorship and sparked the Arab Spring."

While that might be a bit of exaggeration, I suspect it is not off by too much. So the argument that we need all these guns to prevent a dictatorship is contradicted by at least one real-world example.

Two unless you consider Japan a dictatorship. Japan might be an even better counterexample, as it hasn't been a dictatorship since world war 2.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl

Frankly, this was never about what I think. I have no idea what the situation would have been for any hypothetical CCW holder.. What if I told you that I trust Mr. Hypothetical to be responsible with his gun? Does that make me crazy?

No. But your descriptions of how a CCW might have helped, in the face of the information we have about the situation, makes you wrong.

More guns in the theatre, regardless of which citezen carried them, would have been no help, and would have been a hindrance.

And of course this is about what you think. I was responding to your posts containing your opinions.

[JihadJane]

Perhaps the guns are a red herring.

Perhaps it is pharmaceutical drug control rather than gun control we should be discussing:





Follow The Trend: Batman Shooter James Holmes Was On Hardcore Pharmaceutical Drugs

Originally Posted by truththeory.com

Like virtually all massacre shooters before him, the notorious Batman shooter James Holmes is now reported to have been taking hardcore pharmaceutical drugs. In Holmes’ case, they happen to be the very same drugs that ultimately led to the early death of actor Heath Ledger. With a fix for ‘altering his state of mind’, the ‘Batman shooter’ was heavily hooked on the prescription painkiller Vicodin. Holmes even reportedly dosed up on a pharmaceutical cocktail just before the shooting.

Side effects of Vicodin use, even at ‘recommended’ levels which Holmes likely far exceeded, include ‘altered mental states’ and ‘unusual thoughts or behavior’.

While also abusing the same prescription pharmaceuticals as Heath Ledger (who played The Joker in a previous Batman), Holmes actually told police that he was The Joker. The statements made by Holmes were even curious to many friends and relatives, who said just a year ago Holmes was seen as an ‘all-American boy’ with an affinity for his family. It appears what changed was the Batman shooter’s decision to begin altering his mental state with prescription drug abuse. Abuse which may have far extended beyond painkillers and potentially included psychotropic drugs — the very same drugs that almost every single massacre shooter have taken.

...

Just as the Columbine incident continued to develop into a horrific story of drug abuse and an obsession with mind alteration, it appears this case will follow a similar trend.

************************************************** ********

Originally Posted by Tricky

That's certainly been true in the Middle East. Indeed the collapse of Syria seems to be coinciding with the inability of Assad to control his army, because he's ordering them to slaughter their own people. .

Do you have any evidence to back up this damning assertion [hilited]?

You might like to explore this thread before making any further, similarly unsubstantiated claims: 'Houla Massacre, Syria: What If?'

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

So I am having trouble finding any military unit that trains for use of concealed weapons in a dark room full of civilians with tear gas, with out respirators.


Would you please describe that part of your training mr Quad.

I'm not Quad, but the go-fast elements of the various military branch anti-terrorist units regularly train with concealed weapons, and not just handguns.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Yes, all of these things create sound waves. You still haven't said what this "sound pressure" that is not normal sound waves is, and why comparing decibel readings of them isn't valid.


So?

And the sound of a rifle going off in a shooting range will sound very different from one going off in a cinema. And that sound will be perceived differently than one going off in a cinema while a loud movie is playing. Again, it's a novel experience, and I don't trust anyone's ability to distinguish and identify the sounds instantaneously with enough certitude to justify taking a shot.



And I compared those sound levels to the sound levels of actual gunshots (120-160db) to argue that one won't necessarily be able to instantaneously distinguish a real shot from a movie shot (or a blank shot) with enough confidence to justify opening fire.

And again, Quad says he would have taken his chance right after the tear gas cannister concussion (described by witnesses as very loud) when the guy fired off some shots into the ceiling.


I've shown that the sound levels at movies are at and above the loudness required to cause damage to hearing. Is that what you're questioning? That sounds from 120 to 140db can damage hearing?

I hope you realize that the argument that you couldn't find law suits is somehow evidence that it doesn't cause damage isn't sound [ahem] reasoning.

Also, there's a bit of a flaw in the reasoning that says people who've been exposed repeatedly to gunshots (that cause permanent hearing damage) are the most able to distinguish the identity of very loud sounds.

Joe,

If you go back in this or the other threads on the Aurora shootings, I don't assert in any post that had I been there, I would have engaged the shooter - I've said repeatedly that imo the best course of action for me would be to cover my girls body with mine - I'm not advocating for a shooting solution in this scenario.

As somebody who burns through approx. 24K rounds a year in practice, even in retirement, and has been a professional user of firearms in every aspect since 1974 and a recreational user before that, if you believe that I or anyone like me really couldn't distingush between live fire and a movie, I don't even know what to say.

Read that bolded portion - you really want to assert that somebody exposed to gunfire in a context where they lost their hearing from it - like in combat - is not going to tell the difference between live and on film?

Tonight I'm going to a one night only showing of the new Who documentary on their album Quadrephenia.

There will be film footage included showing the opening night of the tour, at the Cow Palace in Daly City, 11-20-73, the night Moon passed out on stage at the end of the set.

I was there.

I'll come back and report if the sound level is the same, quieter or louder.

I'll also be going to the support group I attend at Swords to Plowshares on Wed, and run it past the guys if any of them has attended a movie and thought the gunfire in the movie was as loud as the real thing.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Joe,

If you go back in this or the other threads on the Aurora shootings, I don't assert in any post that had I been there, I would have engaged the shooter - I've said repeatedly that imo the best course of action for me would be to cover my girls body with mine - I'm not advocating for a shooting solution in this scenario.

As somebody who burns through approx. 24K rounds a year in practice, even in retirement, and has been a professional user of firearms in every aspect since 1974 and a recreational user before that, if you believe that I or anyone like me really couldn't distingush between live fire and a movie, I don't even know what to say.

Read that bolded portion - you really want to assert that somebody exposed to gunfire in a context where they lost their hearing from it - like in combat - is not going to tell the difference between live and on film?

Tonight I'm going to a one night only showing of the new Who documentary on their album Quadrephenia.

There will be film footage included showing the opening night of the tour, at the Cow Palace in Daly City, 11-20-73, the night Moon passed out on stage at the end of the set.

I was there.

I'll come back and report if the sound level is the same, quieter or louder.

I'll also be going to the support group I attend at Swords to Plowshares on Wed, and run it past the guys if any of them has attended a movie and thought the gunfire in the movie was as loud as the real thing.

This. All of the scenarios aside, this is one of those things that really isn't up for debate. The sound of an actual rifle firing, whether it be in a movie theater or any where else, is COMPLETELY different from the sound a rifle makes in a movie. For example, go to an indoor range and stand 10 feet BEHIND someone who is shooting a rifle. Try this without wearing ear protection and your ears will be ringing and very painful after the first couple shots. We also haven't discussed the very bright muzzle flash that would have been immediately apparent as well in a dark movie theater (But this depends on what kind of flash suppressor he had on).

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by BStrong

I'm not Quad, but the go-fast elements of the various military branch anti-terrorist units regularly train with concealed weapons, and not just handguns.

Unfortunately there are other qualifiers to my statement I can't validate, that are applicable to this incident.

[Bikewer]

I was just shooting a near-identical rifle this weekend; our annual rifle qualification. Even with ear protection, the AR is LOUD and as well highly directional.

I'm inclined to agree, as I said earlier, that unless circumstances were near-perfect, having an additional shooter under the circumstances in that theater would likely have only added to the panic and confusion, and made things more difficult for responding police. They'd have been looking for the other gunman....

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

I was just shooting a near-identical rifle this weekend; our annual rifle qualification. Even with ear protection, the AR is LOUD and as well highly directional.

I'm inclined to agree, as I said earlier, that unless circumstances were near-perfect, having an additional shooter under the circumstances in that theater would likely have only added to the panic and confusion, and made things more difficult for responding police. They'd have been looking for the other gunman....

Exactly.

Muzzle device plays a big part in the report as well - try shooting an SPR or Mk 12 Mod 0 variant with the issued OPS Inc. muzzlebrake device v. say a Surefire FH - the Surefire equipped piece will be much quieter to the shooter and people nearby.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by AlBell

I've seen it conjectured that the 100 round clip was a probable reason the gun jammed, and that the smaller straight magazines can be changed in just a few seconds, so had he had a few extra such magazines he would have likely had many more shots fired. Later in the day CA's Finestein was advising that 100 round clips should be made illegal to purchase. It might be better to mandate they be supplied as original equipment, and that straight magazines couldn't be purchased. I don't believe the Military uses the 100 round clips.

Leave it to that vulture to pounce on a tragedy for more legislation.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Leave it to that vulture to pounce on a tragedy for more legislation.

Leave it to a politician to pick low-hanging fruit.

[R.A.F.]

I really don't see what everyone is upset about. This is the type of country you "want".

Mouthing empty platitudes is pointless...until a concerted effort is made to elimintate guns, there WILL be uncontrolled gun violence.

If anyone has a "problem" with that, then they should take it up with their legislators....who have been bought and payed for by the gun lobby.

Even Obama isn't immune from criticism on this...

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

I really don't see what everyone is upset about. This is the type of country you "want".

Silly straw man noted.

Quote:

Mouthing empty platitudes is pointless...until a concerted effort is made to elimintate guns, there WILL be uncontrolled gun violence.

Wishful thinking, suggesting the impossible, hyperbole, and scare mongering noted.

Quote:

If anyone has a "problem" with that, then they should take it up with their legislators....who have been bought and payed for by the gun lobby.

If anyone has a problem with what? Your rather ridiculous suggestion to eliminate all the guns, and the associated implication that such a thing can even be done? No legislators made that suggestion. Taking it up with them doesn't seem like a reasonable approach.

Quote:

Even Obama isn't immune from criticism on this...

Obama didn't manufacture any guns or ammunition, buy or sell any guns or ammunition, and he certainly didn't go into a theater and shoot a bunch of people. And whether you like it or not, he doesn't have switches and dials on his desk to do things like turn up and down the price of gas, make all the guns go away, or fix any other social ills at his whim.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by BStrong

I'm not Quad, but the go-fast elements of the various military branch anti-terrorist units regularly train with concealed weapons, and not just handguns.

Do they also train with seeing in the dark and not being effected by tear gas without equipment?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Do they also train with seeing in the dark and not being effected by tear gas without equipment?

And what happens when a shooter opens up like this and two or three armed persons respond? How can you tell the difference between a shooter and an accomplice of the shooter when the muzzle flashes start and people are panicking around you?

Entirely possible that the person you plug could be just another citizen trying to help.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Do they also train with seeing in the dark and not being effected by tear gas without equipment?

Concealed carry in the context of military anti-terrorist operations usually dictates civilian clothes, and obvious gear like NV and gas masks are pretty much out of the question.

There is indoor night firing with live ammo, and irritant gases are part of the training program.

In LE, we also do quite a bit of low light/no light training, primarily for SWAT/SERT scenarios, and we use irritant exposure during training as well.

Not easy, but indexing your sights on the muzzle flash of the shooter gets you in the ballpark for stopping him/her.

Again I want to point out I'm not selling this as a possible shooting solution in this case.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

I really don't see what everyone is upset about. This is the type of country you "want".

Mouthing empty platitudes is pointless...until a concerted effort is made to elimintate guns, there WILL be uncontrolled gun violence.

If anyone has a "problem" with that, then they should take it up with their legislators....who have been bought and payed for by the gun lobby.

Even Obama isn't immune from criticism on this...

Contrary to public and media talking head opinion, the NRA is absolutely bush league when it comes to political money - banks and insurance companies donate millions of dollars to every candidate in a presedential election.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/co...?cid=N00009638

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/co...p?id=N00000286

What the NRA can do is motivate single issue voters - that's the limit of their influence.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Ever hear of a successful mass murder at a gun show?

No, I never heard of a dark gunshow full of teargas with a soundtrack of a bunch of guns shooting with a guy in body armor suddenly shooting an attack rifle and a shot gun.
Have you?

[Piscivore]

Russell Pearce is in the ranks of the Larsenites:

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blo...Insider/167238

He all but says "if I see a man with a gun in the theatre..."