14 dead and 50 injured in mass shooting in Colorado.

Post Reply New Topic

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

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.

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?

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]

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. 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.

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!
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.

^
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.

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

soon you can make your own

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.

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.

denverpost

And something about legal issues:

NYtimes

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.

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.

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.

1) Do your homework. The 2nd amendment is made up of 4 components and the militia is just one and the US citizen IS the militia. That is still in the US Code. Furthermore, the founding fathers writings indicated that the 2nd amendment was intended to include army infantry weapons at a minimum.

2) Research gun laws. Your statement about "sane" levels of restrictions on assault weapons and what constitutes an assault weapon is part of a debate that has been raging since before you were born. Such a law was tried but it was unpopular and didn't work and made the gun lobby tired of gun control "compromises" since they just amount to a slow, incremental ban.

3) Research gun laws some more. There are already laws about people who have been committed to a hospital owning guns and laws to ensure that dealers comply with the background check. It's not always evident that someone is totally insane simply from a light, casual conversation with them.

4) A musket of that time had about a 100 yard accurate range. Hunting rifles were accurate out to about 400, which is similar to the effective range of an AK-47 when using aimed fire. Not only that, but the founding fathers embraced weapon innovations during their lifetime. They were not men that lost their spine at the thought or even the sight of innocent bloodshed. They saw many atrocities by the British and during their time in the French-Indian war and fully understood the need for the individual to be able to take their own initiative to stand up and defend themselves.

Gun control politics is extremely complicated. Take your time to learn the dynamics of it before you shoot your mouth off.