Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

They've apparently now disarmed the explosives in the man's booby-trapped apartment so it is safe for law enforcement to enter.

I keep thinking about David's version of utopia, where everyone is armed, and what happens in the theater under those circumstances. Let's call the original madman with the guns X, and the "good guys" who are armed A,B,C, etc. X comes in with his multiple guns, throws an apparent smoke grenade, and starts shooting. When the audience realizes it's not a special effect, A knowing he's a good guy, pulls his gun and fires somewhere in the general direction of X, whom he can't see very clearly if at all. Now I've seen calculations that trained soldiers in battle actually hit something no more than 1 time in a hundred, and all these guys are almost totally untrained, certainly untrained under combat conditions, so A's shot more likely hits someone innocent. B, knowing he's a good guy, but having no knowledge of who else is, sees A's muzzle flash, thinks he's a bad guy and aims at him, probably hitting someone else, if anyone. C, knowing he's a good guy, but assuming the other shooters are in league, pulls his gun and fires at A's or B's muzzle flash, or maybe at X in the smoke. In seconds there's a murderous crossfire among all the "good guys" firing at all the other "good guys" wwhom they assume are bad guys because they're shooting, and X, amidst people running and screaming, trying to get away and hit by all those other 99 shots that go nowhere near the shooters. The carnage is far worse.

The ONLY thing that works is taking the guns away.

I keep thinking about David's version of utopia, where everyone is armed, and what happens in the theater under those circumstances. Let's call the original madman with the guns X, and the "good guys" who are armed A,B,C, etc. X comes in with his multiple guns, throws an apparent smoke grenade, and starts shooting. When the audience realizes it's not a special effect, A knowing he's a good guy, pulls his gun and fires somewhere in the general direction of X, whom he can't see very clearly if at all. Now I've seen calculations that trained soldiers in battle actually hit something no more than 1 time in a hundred, and all these guys are almost totally untrained, certainly untrained under combat conditions, so A's shot more likely hits someone innocent. B, knowing he's a good guy, but having no knowledge of who else is, sees A's muzzle flash, thinks he's a bad guy and aims at him, probably hitting someone else, if anyone. C, knowing he's a good guy, but assuming the other shooters are in league, pulls his gun and fires at A's or B's muzzle flash, or maybe at X in the smoke. In seconds there's a murderous crossfire among all the "good guys" firing at all the other "good guys" wwhom they assume are bad guys because they're shooting, and X, amidst people running and screaming, trying to get away and hit by all those other 99 shots that go nowhere near the shooters. The carnage is even worse.

The ONLY thing that works is taking the guns away.

Maybe the mission was complete. If the gear was to keep him alive long enough to complete the mission and the mission was done then there was no need to get into a shoot out with the cops. Another explanation is that he cant deal with pain and wanted to make sure he suffered none.

Your hypothesis that he wanted to live to see the result of his action is possible, but is unproven, and is but one of many reasonable hypothesis

That is the instinctive response of the nanny state and its fear riddled citizens, but it is illegal, is practically impossible, and is by far not the best solution. The best solution is to not grow citizens who want to shoot up movie theaters.

You have a vivid fantasy life, MJ.

Hawkeye says:

It is the completely exasperated response of angry citizens who look at all the assholes who advocate chaos rather than a civil society, like you. It is not illegal. The second amendment applies to militias, not everyday use, as anyone who is for original interpretation, like the rational four on the USSC, realize, gun control laws work in rational countries.

EWhile you're right, the best solution is to not produce citizens who want to shoot up theaters, we have not been able to do so. Do you have any actually workable suggestions rather than pie-in-the-sky? Glorification of guns, a la David, does not help at all in that aim.

Yeah, Tico? Make a rational case for something other than that happening in those circumstances.

Man pulls out handgun and shoots bad guy walking up aisle shooting innocent victims.

Man can't see shooter because of smoke. Shooter armored, shot has no effect on him. He apparently stood in front, didn't walk up aisle. Man misses, as people usually do even at pointblank range. Someone else having no idea what's going on shoots at man. Carnage ensues. You are hpyothesizing the best case scenario, which didn't fit the facts and almost never happens anyway. Won't wash, Tico.

.

Let see first there are more guns then citizens in the US so taking the guns away just for that reason would be a fun task next there is not enough force in the whole society to disarmed the citizens by force as just for example there are more legal carriers of firearms in Florida alone then there are law enforcement in the whole nation at all levels.

So how do you plan to disarm the citizens ask petty please perhaps?

Would be a short second American revolution.

Lots. Lets start with this one....lets make a detailed study of this mans life up till the killings and make note of all of the places were we the collective could have made a better effort to steer him onto a path of not eventually wanting to kill a lot of people.

Pass the law. One way: Illegal gun ten years in the can, no excuses. Other countries have done it successfully.

Hawk, you consider that "workable"? LOL

we cant afford the incarceration rate we already have.

NEXT!

re Hawk:
We can't afford the murder rate we already have, is what we can't afford.

Education and understanding must come first before action. I understand that you dont even understand that far.

I blame the failed education system.

Oh yeah, and I forgot, Tico: armored shooter walking up aisle (tho he apparently didn't) is unaffected by guy shooting him, kills him, and continues shooting innocents.

The facts are still becoming known, but I read an account where victims were describing him as walking slowly and calmly shooting at people. Witnesses described him as walking up steps toward the back of the theater. Witnesses described the shooting stopping while the bad guy either reloaded or switched weapons.

LINK


You are imagining the worst case scenario, which also almost never happens anyway.

Regardless of your irrational fears of there being an armed citizenry, I'd rather take my chances with some armed heroes in the audience, than a lone bad guy shooting indiscriminately at innocents.

This is not other countries you come to take the first person to jail for keeping his weapons there will be a wall of arm citizens around him and far more waiting to jump in.

Far more then the whole law enforcement numbers and if you go for the military I would not bet that the majority would side with you either.

Can not think of anything more likely to set off a second American revolution then your plan.

It would be interesting however.........