14 dead and 50 injured in mass shooting in Colorado.

Page 17 of 19 [ 277 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

26 Jul 2012, 1:12 am

Anarbaculardrop wrote:
Look, all you need are some dogs who can sniff out bombs and guns. Then the hostile can be removed by the police in a safer manner. I expect to talk sense into you. Maybe a security camera in every subway station, hospitable, movie theater, or other places where a lot of people will go would help too. Just saying.

Also, where do you get your information about security guards from? Movies and TV shows? If that is so, then you must need more information.

Dogs and handlers are expensive and in short supply. The dogs take 2 years to train if they make it all the way through training and can cost as much as $1 million each, a dog's time on duty is limited- even more so for bomb sniffing dogs due to sensory overload. The handlers aren't cheap either since they require natural talent as well as extensive training. Security guards might deter a few copycats, but the shopping center security guards are typically unskilled and are outclassed in just about all respects by the stereotypical active shooter's profile. I cannot go any deeper into a crowd or security team's psychology without writing a manual here. Cameras won't help because active shooters don't think about consequences, most of them don't live through the attack so you don't need the video for evidence- the body of the shooter is right there, and even with a camera and a little advance warning, the police would not arrive before the shooter was almost out of ammo in the majority of cases. When (or if) the police show up in a timely manner (or at all), their first priority is to establish a perimeter and THEN once enough cops have arrived, assemble a team(s) to sweep the area.

In actuality, the cops have no obligation to protect you. The DC Court of Appeals ruled in 1981 that they are not civilly or criminally liable even if they never show up! Even a promise from a dispatcher that help is on the way is not legally binding!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,985
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

26 Jul 2012, 6:56 pm

Anarbaculardrop wrote:
Look, all you need are some dogs who can sniff out bombs and guns. Then the hostile can be removed by the police in a safer manner. I expect to talk sense into you. Maybe a security camera in every subway station, hospitable, movie theater, or other places where a lot of people will go would help too. Just saying.

Also, where do you get your information about security guards from? Movies and TV shows? If that is so, then you must need more information.


No, more like a few of us trying to talk some sense into you.
Like John_Browning said, these security resources that you think are so simple are anything but simple not to mention prohibitively expensive. And, yes, money is an object to be taken into account.
The only way to deal with an active shooter is to be armed, able, and willing then maybe they can be stopped.
You're looking for a simple bloodless solution where there is none.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


PlainJane28
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2011
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Posts: 33
Location: My room, my home

28 Jul 2012, 5:23 am

I've heard some people say that banning machine\automatic guns from being sold legally, it would make them more expensive in the black market, preventing your average homicidal Joe from being able to obtain one even through illegal means. Thoughts?



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

28 Jul 2012, 6:53 am

Machine guns are basically already banned for all functional purposes. You need an educational video. It's about 20 years old but just as valid as when it was made.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbIIjIFKYYg[/youtube]


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,000
Location: Turkey

29 Jul 2012, 1:36 am

noname_ever wrote:
marshall wrote:
RICKY5 wrote:
marshall wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
John Browning, the guy is a PhD candidate ffs, he had it planned out. Don't you think he would make sure he had a damned good vest on, the best he could afford. The guy is a smart dude and calculating. He had all his basis covered, even a gas mask to protect him from the smoke he unleashed on the crowd. He was not going to be easy to take out. The cops did it only because he was completely out of bullets, I bet, and he was too afraid of getting shot by them.

Just admit this is one case a concealed weapon would not have harmed James Holmes and it might have even hurt an innocent civilian in the theater.

The vest was described as a flak jacket, which is different, either way running or hiding sure wasn't a practical means of defense. If I was there and packing I would have preferred to try and at least drive him back if I couldn't get a clear shot at him. Running like a stampede of cattle trying to get through the door all at once with their back to the shooter, otherwise known as a 'choke point', was probably part of his plan and a damn efficient tactic to achieve his goals.

I'll admit that defending against an armored adversary in a crowded theater is probably one of the worst scenarios you could realistically come across, but acting on animal instinct and finding yourself caught in a crowd huddled together in a concentrated (efficient use of ammo) crowd is far less appealing than standing your ground and exchanging fire with the attacker. If nothing else, you at least go out dignified and respected.


The room was dark and full of smoke. I don't know how easy it would be to spot him if he was sneaking around in the dark between shots.


Given that he is popping off an AR-15 (which is VERY loud) the bad guy is not doing much sneaking.


Uh, would be able to tell exactly where the shots were coming from in a dark smoky room? It's not easy to aim and shoot someone you can't see clearly. The lights were dimmed and the movie was still playing, so the people in the seats would be illuminated by the light coming from the screen as soon as they stood up. They were sitting ducks. The shooter was standing at the front of the theater, near the outside exit door, out of the light. The bravado of gun nuts is annoying.


The crack of an AR-15 is loud. He would not be able to sneak around. If you've never shot one without ear protection you wouldn't understand (like most anti-gun nuts).


I'm not an "anti-gun nut" and I'm not so stupid to think guns aren't loud. The point is just because you can hear loud gunshots doesn't mean you can easily locate exactly where the shots came from. :wall: The majority of people in the theater didn't see the gunman because it was f***ing dark. A lot thought it was pyrotechnics or special effects of some type, until they saw people on the ground bleeding to death.



wayne_da_doctor
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2011
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 22

30 Jul 2012, 1:28 am

How much skill would one need to shoot these weapons?



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

30 Jul 2012, 2:14 am

wayne_da_doctor wrote:
How much skill would one need to shoot these weapons?

That depends on what you want to do: you could probably start putting bullets through a static paper target in an hour. To shoot moving targets while on the move yourself is more complicated. Not only do you have to be proficient in the subtle nuances of the weapons you carry, but also with working your gear. It is possible to be a natural at marksmanship, as was apparently the case in Aurora, but if you are talking about the difficulty of a massacre then that takes time and experience that involves more than shooting a gun. I won't go into details. Suffice to say that James Holmes is extremely intelligent despite being out of his mind, but he also made a lot of rookie mistakes that someone with military training wouldn't make and it wouldn't surprise me if that reduced the casualty count by at least a third.
It's easy for the media and the gun control lobby to say "if we only did this, none of this would have happened". In reality, you need a real-deal operator to even come close to figuring out all the possible logistical ways it can happen. Some metrosexual social science professors and democratic politicians will never figure that one out. However, such a consultant cannot figure out why it happens and how to prevent it and the mental health community is not having any luck either and furthermore appears to be on the wrong track!

If you want to try out shooting sports, I highly recommend it! :D
If you have a score to settle, you might as well get counseling. The effort required to learn the skills to commit a similar masscre will help take you places in life if you apply that effort to something more constructive.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

30 Jul 2012, 2:21 am

^
The mistake that really jumps out at me was using the drum for the AR, anyone who's ever tried one out knows that those things aren't reliable, and the fact that this shooter didn't and jammed up his main weapon certainly helped lower the body count. Certainly ironic, given the political spin, that the extended magazine actually contributed to less people being shot than if he'd stuck to more reliable standard capacity magazines.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


graywyvern
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Aug 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 657
Location: texas

30 Jul 2012, 11:29 am

http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/ ... ult-rifle/

soon you can make your own


_________________
"I have always found that Angels have the vanity
to speak of themselves as the only wise; this they
do with a confident insolence sprouting from systematic
reasoning." --William Blake


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,000
Location: Turkey

30 Jul 2012, 12:50 pm

John_Browning wrote:
wayne_da_doctor wrote:
How much skill would one need to shoot these weapons?

That depends on what you want to do: you could probably start putting bullets through a static paper target in an hour. To shoot moving targets while on the move yourself is more complicated. Not only do you have to be proficient in the subtle nuances of the weapons you carry, but also with working your gear. It is possible to be a natural at marksmanship, as was apparently the case in Aurora, but if you are talking about the difficulty of a massacre then that takes time and experience that involves more than shooting a gun. I won't go into details. Suffice to say that James Holmes is extremely intelligent despite being out of his mind, but he also made a lot of rookie mistakes that someone with military training wouldn't make and it wouldn't surprise me if that reduced the casualty count by at least a third.
It's easy for the media and the gun control lobby to say "if we only did this, none of this would have happened". In reality, you need a real-deal operator to even come close to figuring out all the possible logistical ways it can happen. Some metrosexual social science professors and democratic politicians will never figure that one out. However, such a consultant cannot figure out why it happens and how to prevent it and the mental health community is not having any luck either and furthermore appears to be on the wrong track!

If you want to try out shooting sports, I highly recommend it! :D
If you have a score to settle, you might as well get counseling. The effort required to learn the skills to commit a similar masscre will help take you places in life if you apply that effort to something more constructive.


I'm not sure he needed to be that great at marksmanship. The theater was packed full. He had a ton of targets to shoot at indiscriminately, and it wasn't easy for his victims to move about when wedged between the rows of seats. Seated in the middle of a movie theater is the absolute worst place to be gunned down by some psycho killer. The bullets easily went straight through the seat backs so it wasn't like there was any good cover. Even if some movie goers did happen to be armed and a good shot it was still totally unfair.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

30 Jul 2012, 3:43 pm

graywyvern wrote:
http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2012/07/fabbed-assault-rifle/

soon you can make your own


I can make my own now, (am a traditional gunsmith), but that looks much easier. I've been curious for years about the effect that greater home access to CNC equipment and rapid prototyping machines will have on gun laws, guess I'll get to see sooner rather than later.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Mayel
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 493

02 Aug 2012, 1:23 am

Quote:
The University of Colorado Denver psychiatrist seeing accused murderer James Eagan Holmes was so alarmed by his behavior that she notified the campus-wide threat assessment team that she helped create years before, a source told The Denver Post.

Dr. Lynne Fenton, identified in a court document as Holmes' psychiatrist, in June took her concerns to members of the campus' Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment team but no further action was taken, a source with knowledge of the process told The Post.

7News reported Wednesday that a source said Fenton first contacted the BETA team in "the first 10 days" of June, but the matter did not move forward because Holmes began the process of leaving CU.

denverpost

And something about legal issues:
Quote:
If Mr. Holmes does stand trial, his lawyers are likely to argue that he should be declared not guilty by reason of insanity because he did not know the difference between right and wrong when he entered the Aurora movie theater.
To fend off that defense, prosecutors will point to Mr. Holmes’s elaborate preparations — his booby-trapped apartment, his purchase of weapons and ammunition, and his wearing of a ballistic helmet and vest — as evidence of planning, which they will say are signs of sanity.
Dr. Appelbaum, of Columbia, said the jury would measure the atrociousness of Mr. Holmes’ crime against the degree of his impairment and decide whether it is fair to punish him. “There is a point where the crime is so heinous that impairment will not move many jurors,” he said.
Jeffrey S. Weiner, a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, agreed and said what many of his colleagues believe: “The likelihood that he won’t be sentenced to death is slim.”

NYtimes


_________________
Knowing / that I could walk seventeen miles through a ravine / in the heart of Toronto,
and never / directly see the city/ is of some comfort


Kalinda
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jan 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 192
Location: West Virginia

04 Aug 2012, 10:08 am

There's a difference between being smart and being rational. That's the best way to put it I think. I do pity the victims as well as the suspect, because I think he lost his mind and didn't do it intentionally. He was seeing a specialist for schizophrenia who may have prescribed him medications. There could have been an adverse reaction to the meds or either withdrawing from them and assuming he'd be ok. Although I don't know for certain he wasn't just being cruel it sounds like he slipped completely. he may have been smart enough to carry out the actions, but it sounds like he wasn't thinking of consequences at all. It's really sad, this is murder by insanity IMO. No one does this rationally and then turn themselves over.

I watched a few conspiracies linking the manchurian candidate to it, but I think that's mostly conspiracy and the inconsistencies are because a gag order was placed so they can't tell us everything. The psychiatrist apparently tried to warn to school or authorities. I assume she was ignored because they didn't find the bombs until afterwards.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 30,662
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

04 Aug 2012, 11:27 am

Mayel wrote:
And something about legal issues:
"If Mr. Holmes does stand trial, his lawyers are likely to argue that he should be declared not guilty by reason of insanity because he did not know the difference between right and wrong when he entered the Aurora movie theater.
To fend off that defense, prosecutors will point to Mr. Holmes’s elaborate preparations — his booby-trapped apartment, his purchase of weapons and ammunition, and his wearing of a ballistic helmet and vest — as evidence of planning, which they will say are signs of sanity.
Dr. Appelbaum, of Columbia, said the jury would measure the atrociousness of Mr. Holmes’ crime against the degree of his impairment and decide whether it is fair to punish him. “There is a point where the crime is so heinous that impairment will not move many jurors,” he said.
Jeffrey S. Weiner, a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, agreed and said what many of his colleagues believe: “The likelihood that he won’t be sentenced to death is slim.”



That says much about humanity.....that even if it is proven that he was in fact delusional and or psychotic and thus not in control or aware of the wrongness of his actions, the jury would still choose a sentence of death with no second thoughts. So I guess everyone does have a cruel streak. I mean what point does a penalty of death in that context serve revenge? because someone has to pay? I mean if the guy was in fact psychotic or if he had a brain tumor or something that led to this it would not sit well with me giving him the death penalty.

Hell it doesn't sit well with me to begin with because as far as I can tell the death penalty does not solve anything...I do understand why it exists and the logic behind it and all that but its never really sit well with me in general.



Anarbaculardrop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2012
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 910
Location: Somewhere in the USA...which doesn't really help.

04 Aug 2012, 11:35 am

Alright, a going to say a new thing:

Maybe people shouldn't be able to own machine-guns or assualt weapons of any sort. It makes complete sense if you realize that this is what the Founding Fathers pretty much said:We only need our citizens to take up arms for a militia.

Now, I am not going to say that hunting or hobbies involving guns should be outlaw; just restrict it to the sane levels of no assualt weapons or light machine-guns: That's probably the most reasonable way of not getting the American Gun Association too riled up, while also having people feel a bit more safe on the street. Also, if a crazy person enters your store to buy a gun, he must not be allowed to buy one, no matter what the price he pays.

Another thing: the makers of the country also lived in a time where guns were not yet able to hit a target within 20 feet. They where inaccurate, loud, made a lot of smoke, and took a minute just to load the weapons and fire it.


_________________
Respond please, I love comments.