davjohns

OK. You actually got me to laugh when you described your sheepdog. I think you are getting highly subjective when you describe access to guns as easy or when you describe the need for CCW holders to be well trained. I have to prove who I am, fill out a form and be run through an automated system to confirm I am legal before I purchase a gun. The gun dealer keeps those records and they are subject to inspection by ATF at any time. CCW holders that I know shoot regularly (monthly or so) to be reasonably proficient with their weapon. The cops I know shoot annually as required by their department (usually 50 rounds practice and 50 for qualification). So, the definition of well trained is going to need some help. Yes, I have great confidence that good men with guns will most often result in good. I have no confidence that laws will keep anyone from killing others. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

So, you want us to train people in the use of firearms and know what's in their heads? Don't ask much, do you? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

You're struggling here. I know you are intelligent. Take your time to put together a coherent argument. When I point out cars are used for mass killings, you say you'll take your chances. When someone else points out that there are plenty of other weapons, you say they aren't used. Those two really don't go together. The fact will always remain that those wishing to use a firearm for a crime will not be hindered by laws. It's pretty axiomatic. Making more laws will not make it less axiomatic. Therefore, we need to find other solutions. Given the fact of the second amendment, other solutions are really the only option. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

There was no premise. I just pointed out that mandatory military service would provide firearms proficiency training. Works for many countries. You are correct. I like my odds when I have a gun in my hand. I'm also unwilling to risk the lives of the children on the playground. I'm a sheepdog. I don't play odds that result in innocent people getting killed. I put myself between innocent people and the wolves. I understand that laws, rules, regulations, government agencies, etc. are not capable of doing that. It takes human beings. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

If he didn't have a gun, he could have easily driven his car through a playground full of kids. It has happened before. Didn't get much press. Nobody wants to take away other people's right to own a cadillac. I'll recommend that we go back a few decades (said this before). Some on this forum want to make sure gun owners are competent with guns. No sweat. Mandatory military service. Everyone gets trained early. Works for the Swiss just fine. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

When I was a kid, I called that person 'Dad'. Now, I am that person. Dad's still on the watch as well. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'll throw this out there. Not a perfect analogy and some will take issue with it, but it illustrates a point (my point). Elderly are not regularly screened to determine if they can still pilot a car safely. We all know there are elderly on the road that are a hazard. There's no government system to move them off the road. I recall a friend returning from leave one time to describe to me how he went to visit his parents and ended up taking his father's car away from him. He made provisions for his parents to get transported by his sister, but he had to be the one to take the car. Of course, his father unleashed hell on him about it. But my friend recognized that his father was a danger to others and took action. Legally, he had no authority. However, it was the right thing to do. He re-claimed authority and responsibility that friends and family used to have and exercise. I recommend that if people in our society were willing to take responsibility for those around them, rather than expect the government to do things, we could stop some problems. This massacre might or might not have been one of them. But government is just not the answer. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'd very much disagree with the idea that you can judge someone's mental state from a photo, certainly not to the extent that you'd be justified in taking away a constitutional right. The guy was living half-way across the country from his family. They didn't know that he had failed his oral prelim exam, or that he was withdrawing from the PhD program; do you think he forgot to mention those things, but told them about his plan for the theater (rhetorical question)? He apparently didn't have friends, and his neighbors never saw him. That's not normal, but also not as unusual as you may think. Some students are successful because they prefer to work instead of socialize, they just have different priorities than most people. He bought a lot of gear over the internet, where there is no human interaction so no chance to appear "unstable". It's not at all surprising that he was able to act normally for long enough for a short encounter with a gun store salesman, who after all has an incentive to "make the sale", and none at all to raise an alarm unless the guy were to be specific about his plans. Not inadvertent. I agree the best defense is "...people who care about you taking an interest in your life and problems." The problem is, you can't force people to have those kinds of interactions, and it's easy for people who are at risk of such behavior to go off the radar. Don I don't think I suggested taking away anyone's rights based on a photo. I said that I can tell from the images of this guy that something isn't quite right. Surely someone closer to him could have figured it out and taken some responsibility for their fellow human being. I understand (from your post) that he was far from family. Surely he was interacting with someone if he was in a PhD program. Moreover, if you are right and there was no reasonable expectation that someone close to him could have seen then, I have to return to my underlying premise that there is nothing the government can do. If people close to him did not know, what chance does the government have to intervene? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Q. How do you stop massacres by mentally unstable people? A. Publicly funded dropzones so they can easily participate in their regular activity. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Cigarette butts. (Littering in general) It's your habit. Take care of it. Don't throw the butt out for someone else to pick up after you. "I'm special" driving and parking. Wait in line like everyone else. Don't drive ahead on the shoulder and then try to get in. Park in one spot like the rest of us. Yes, your car is nice. If you don't want anyone parking near you, park on the other side of the lot and walk. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Ummmm....so nobody should have called the police? What do you think the police would do? My guess would be...fire back. And do you really want me to make you feel bad by telling you how often the average police officer practices with his or her weapon? Everyone I know who packs is a better shot than most police officers. You are right that the guy would have stormed the theater regardless of the presence of armed people inside. However, the length of time he had to wreak carnage would have likely been cut much shorter. I am willing to bet many people who were in that theater that day wish someone had been firing back at the attacker. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

LOL, funny guy. I can generally tell when someone around me is having problems. I think most people give off some signs when things are going really wrong for them. If not, we might as well just stop this whole discussion now. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I figured someone would take exception to this. I have no evidence that I can show you on the internet. I have to rely on common sense here. I can look at the pictures and video of this young man and tell he is not part of the Cleaver family. I would bet big money that someone...friends, family, neighbors, the guy who sold him a gun, wherever he got explosives, etc...knew this kid wasn't quite right. You are right. There is and will be no law implemented by the government that will effect this situation or others like it. I think you inadvertently supported my point. Laws can not fix things. People can. Search warrants are a poor substitute for people who care about you taking an interest in your life and problems. Responsibility placed on the government to keep an eye on this individual will never replace the responsibility of those who knew him. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

This is the only way any government can deal with individuals who are not kept in line by the people to their left and right. In Israel, school teachers on school buses carry military issue assault rifles. Most every household has one, because they all served on active duty and are still on reserve duty. Most stores have their own armed security. People carry assault weapons in the open. You get searched at any large gathering. Security is fierce. That's why they have suicide bombers. Whip out a firearm and see what happens...dead terrorist. The only way the terrorist can get in his shot is to make it the first and only one. But freedom? Not by my standards. Terrorism causes terror. Terror causes people to give up freedom for safety. In the end, they have neither. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I choose a movie seat for viewing the movie. I do not consider line of fire in my choice of movie seat selection. Careful you don't come across as more paranoid than you really are just to sell the debate. I understand. Keep in mind that I have been Army for 28 years (Reserve, National Guard and Active). I put myself through college as a cop. I am currently an intelligence officer. My last job was as a Combat Advisor in Iraq. A little situational awareness is natural after what I've been trained for. I think a corollary of Murphy's Law is that the more prepared you are for a bad event, the less likely it is to happen. Just for fun...When I go to lunch with certain friends, we vie for the preferred seat...back to the wall, full view of the door and cash register. We never have any dispute over which table we want. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I would recommend stepping back a few decades. Quit trying to figure out how the government can fix things. It can't. People have to re-learn responsibility for their friends, family and neighbors. People around this boy knew he shouldn't have weapons. They might have even spoken to police. The police would have told them there was little they could do. The friends and family should have disarmed him and found him some help. But, like some on this forum, people have learned that government is the all-purpose tonic to every problem. If only we had more laws... Government is the least efficient means of doing anything. It should be restricted to only those things that can not be done otherwise. The free individual with a strong respect for others; a profound sense of right vs wrong, and; the willingness to act selflessly to protect others; may be the most efficient means of accomplishing most things. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Assuming you would have been able to find a seat in the back at the first local viewing of a highly anticipated movie, it would have taken the CS a while to get to you if the canisters remained at the front of the theater. Sitting in the back might have delayed your CS exposure, but would have also significantly reduced your chance of having a clear line of sight to the shooter, as well as decreased your chance of hitting your target. (I know, I know; you're incapable of missing, even when taken by surprise with gunfire. ) I can't find anything in the OP about it being the opening night. I understand you are relating the hypothetical to the real, but I was not presented with the real. I answered the hypothetical. If you care to re-design the scenario and ask again, I will give you my honest opinion. Keep in mind, I have experienced quite a bit of CS. I know the smell. It would not alarm me like most. Also, the theaters I sit in are elevated in the back; thereby clearing fields of fire to the front more effectively. Why do you think I sit back there? And of course I miss. Just not quite as much as some others might. I've been a competitive shooter since the high school rifle team; heck, I took my wife to the range last week - she shot the body and I shot the head. I can generally make a target and a projectile connect. Thus, my answer to the original post. I'll also warn you that there are ordinary people walking the streets who can outshoot me regularly. Generally, when one of us drops a bad guy, it doesn't make the news. Not interesting enough. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I have some small knowledge of the mental health system and have to agree with you here. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

it's a marker, not a gun, and yeah, it's easy. Gimme my old automag and I'll hose the guy down. Upper end markers can throw out some serious paint in short order with plenty of accuracy. Now, change it to an old, singleshot pump, and things get interesting ;) When I used to play in the NPPL it was a paintball gun. You can have whatever marker you want but you only get a limited number of paintballs and I doubt given the situation any of those paintballs are going to hit the target. PS: Why do the pro-gun expect the anti-gun to be realistic in regards to criminals being able to get guns regardless of a ban but the pro-gun won't be realistic in situations like this? Come to the theater with me. You can come in the emergency exit, throw CS and start shooting at the front seats. I'll sit in the back and shoot at you. We'll see what's realistic and what's not. Heck, you can spray the whole place if you like. I'm pretty comfortable with the odds of a guy looking at a crowd and shooting vs me looking at a shooter and shooting. The shooter who came through the emergency exit is pretty obvious. Me in the back? Not so much. All in all, I'm more comfortable in a theater filled with people packing than in a theater filled with unarmed people and one armed coward. I'm more comfortable in that theater just knowing one good person is armed. Doesn't have to be me. Armed men with good intentions usually results in good things. Armed men with bad intentions usually results in bad things. When the two meet, any dead good guys tend to inspire other good guys; dead bad guys tends to discourage other bad guys. Still a win in my book. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Just came back to this thread. Went to see Dark Knight Rising yesterday. I always sit in the back. The emergency exits are always in the front. CS is nothing new to me. I was an NBC MOS formerly. I've sucked more of it than most. It still would have taken a while to get to me from the front. By the way, it's a dust; not a gas. I use meprolight sights on all of my carry weapons. Allows me to see the sights. If I can identify a target, I can hit it. I have no doubt I could easily hit a man-sized target at the emergency exit yesterday despite CS and panicked crowds. It might take more than one shot, but I could hit him in the head as well. There was always plenty of light to ID a target. Also, I assume the head shot was required in the OP because the perp wore armor. I haven't read all of the details of the incident. Unless he had a blunt trauma plate, a .45 might have still killed him. Body armor doesn't work like the movies. It might keep the bullet from penetrating and you can still die. You are almost always out of the fight when hit. If the defender was properly trained (like me) he'd put two to the chest and one to the head. As I understand it, the guy killed 12 and wounded 50 or so unarmed people. I think it reasonable that someone firing back at him would have improved the numbers in favor of the living / uninjured. Getting shot at tends to take the fight out of cowards like this guy. If nothing else, it's distracting. And then, there's always that chance that the person shooting back could hit him. And personally, I would rather get hit by the good guy trying to protect people than by the bad guy. Small consolation, but it beats dying in a theater at the hands of a coward. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Yup. No sweat. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Agreed. It should be implemented without passion, but with a profound sadness that it is necessary to destroy another. Some introspection should be practiced to determine how society could better prevent such aberant behavior in the future. It is regrettable, but sometimes necessary, to declare one of our number beyond saving. Like cancer, the harmful person must be excised. Unlike cancer, it should not be easy or leave us unchanged when we are forced to take these measures. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

That's because you don't realize how pathetic some men are. +1 I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/22/stacey-joy-bourdeaux-mom-_n_1619125.html It seems she may not have been in prison and then released. This story makes it sound different, but still doesn't make things clear to me. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'm surprised if they were given permission to wear the uniform at this event. Soldiers are trained regularly that the uniform is not be worn at any politically oriented event. Some posts specify that you have to go home after work and change. You can only stop en route for gas or at a convenience store before you violate the rule. As for the beret, it is no longer the primary headgear. We returned to a patrol cap a couple of years ago. But it was never permissible to wear the beret inside unless under arms. And the rule against drinking in uniform or on duty still stands with very few exceptions. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.