Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Guns GUN CARRYING MAN ENDS STABBING SPREE AT SALT LAKE

EDIT: I was able to track down the source of the photo. It is not from the Aurora theater, but from a theater in Fort Collins, CO.

(The whole sign thing is a giant red herring anyway, as Holmes anticipated the possibility of armed resistance, wearing body armor - if he thought everyone was unarmed, why would he bother?)

What I noticed was the illogic of your claim, Pi. Your statement is that criminalizing an action/product will force criminals to obtain the criminalized action/product from illegal sources causing attrition of those illegal sources until they are gradually put out of business resulting in them no longer being able to acquire the criminalized action\product. Is there anything you can think of that has been criminalized that has then ceased to be available to a criminal, Pi?
Yours,
Issodhos

Iss, I think you are missing the center of rp's point, either deliberately or inadvertently: He suggests that outlawing activity will reduce criminal activity, not eliminate it. There are thousands of studies that demonstrate that criminalizing activity reduces its prevalence in the area where such laws are enforced, including gun control measures. For example:
Australia — Gun Facts, Figures and the Law;
Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2010:...plican ts Denied by a NICS Check in 2010;
The data is clear; gun control works.

I think, rather, the burden is on the one claiming a point: Do you have any citations that show criminalization does not reduce (not eliminate, not the metric), criminal activity?

Good job. But there was a sign posted at the Cinemark Theater in Aurora from all the reports I've read. And it was established policy of Cinemark not to permit guns in their theaters. And I'll take your word that the picture was from Ft. Collins, CO., but it was from a Cinemark Theater, no?


He also dyed his hair Bozo orange. What was up with that? You may be looking for logic in a place where logic never lived.

Point is, until they release the information we won't know and we may never know what his motivations were. The guy was away with the fairies and I think we can all agree on that.

The Cinemark wasn't the theater closest to his house. They found pictures of another theater, including pictures of exit doors, on his cell phone. He chose the Cinemark. Why? The Cinemark was posted. How about other theaters in the area?

Did Holmes get into battle dress expecting to encounter opposition at the theater? We don't know? Was he expecting to eventually encounter police opposition? We don't know. In his Bozo brain was he Sgt. John Rambo; dressed for the role? We don't know. Was he taking precautions just as someone might wear a life jacket when canoeing? Just in case? The same reason people wear bicycle helmets? We don't know.

Sign thing a giant red herring? I don't know that. Who's red herring? Why?

Depends. What is the DSM classification for "unstable"?


It's a bit more involved and a little more complex than that, isn't it?



Well, yeah when "unstable" is an undefined and very broad term.

It was discussed it a bit on another thread how psychotropic drugs can be extremely useful for some people in varying dosages with or without certain additional drug combinations and cause other people to become unstable. You certainly don't seem to me to be in any way a violent person. However, the wrong combinations/dosages of prescribed drugs might quite possibly make you dangerously violent. Would you then be unstable or criminally insane? When and if you discontinued taking those prescribed would you then become stable and sane? If so, would that occur immediately? If not, immediately how long would it the transition take?



Honestly, I don't know if research has been conducted. In that more than a few of the mass killers committed suicide, it would seem to make the possibility of valid research somewhat difficult, though probably not impossible.

I suggested in another thread that there is a possible correlation between psychotropic drugs and mass murders. There is some documentation. There is seemingly more readily available data there for research than there is data concerning target selection. Interestingly, no one here wanted to pursue that discussion.

As to soft/hard targets certainly there are possible factors worthy of research. Why don't mass killers target police stations and gun ranges or gun shows? We there is little history of it. Why do they target schools, malls, shopping centers, places of worship? History tells us those places are frequently targeted.

Are you suggesting that we ignore the possibility that hard targets are rarely selected because the possibility of armed response is much higher?

Are you advocating that soft targets should not be hardened?

Why do you suppose it is that the vast majority of people who own guns never commit a gun related crime? Would it be important to know? If so, then wouldn't it also be important to determine why some people commit gun crimes?

Here is my frustration, Mick: "All the reports I've read." What reports? What citations? Yes, there are many unsourced "reports" on gun forums that allege this, or that, or the other thing. It's a matter of selective "reading." How is someone to evaluate the veracity or credibility of a "report" if one is unwilling to reveal it?

Again, selective reading. I know the source of this little nugget, too, but there is a very thorough analysis, in part based upon those very photos, which clearly explains the most plausible reason he picked this theater, and that it was the closest appropriate theater to his house: Did The Aurora Shooter Seek Out A “Gun Free” Zone?

And then we get to selective reasoning: On the one hand, Micky, you want us to believe that Holmes was so selective about his choice of target that he was cognizant of the fine print on the bottom of a sign that may or may not have been there, but then you want to dismiss any planning when the "Bozo brain" theory suits the argument, even when it is in the same sentence. Do you appreciate the inconsistency?

RE: "Soft target theory"-
Cops Shot, Corrections Worker Dead in NJ Police Station Shootout
Suspect shot officer, then himself, investigators say
Police Station Shooting In Southfield, Michigan Leaves Suspect Dead, Officer Wounded
Then there was the tragedy in my home town: Lakewood, Washington police officer shooting
and of course, Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt

Can't get less "soft" than armed, trained police officers.

Putting this issue in another light (which I tried to do with some humorous analogies on another thread), according to a really coarse metric, you have about a 1/30,000 chance of being killed by a gun in the U.S. each year (Wikipedia gun death stats table). Of course, a large percentage of those deaths are concentrated in the world of gangs, many are suicides, many are accidents.

I live in a county with a population of 30,000. There are gun related deaths here, I'd estimate most by suicide, maybe equal between accidents and homicide. All of the homicides that I recall were gangers shooting gangers. Who knows how many deaths result from the escalation of a situation caused by someone pulling out a gun, even for self-defense.

The bottom line is this - I feel absolutely no need to carry a weapon for protection, no more than I would feel a need to carry a chainsaw on a backpacking trip in case a tree might fall on me.

An objective look at guns for self-defense, unless you are a member of a gang, implies an overwrought imaginary fear of personal threat. The anecdotes fail to account for scale, which lets the paranoid imagination see an imminent threat around every corner, when the fact is you'd probably have to hunt for opportunities to defend yourself and probably wouldn't have any luck at that. Unless you are George Zimmerman.

Fundamental to our discussion is the position that for you the number of deaths from gun related violence is acceptable simply because of J Scalia's amendment to the Constitution. I find the number unacceptable and therefore believe, since we as humans have a seemingly infinite imagination, we can devise a methodology which would reduce that number within the constraints imposed by J Scalia. Universal background checks is the simplest paradigm to ensure some modicum of reduction in those numbers. It is not the panacea which would eliminate unnecessary deaths. It is however a statement of belief that there are some folks who envision a better future. It is nothing but a weak elegy for those who have lost loved ones.

Looking for scapegoats doesn't advance anyone's understanding of these tragedies.

The reason I suspect no one wanted to pursue is the data is small and understudied, underfunded, and at this time mostly speculative.

or the more relevant question, why do people behave as they do? After studying humans for 58 years I have come to the conclusion, I can not predict what some people will do in any particular situation (non-scientific).

As to the proverbial target rich environments (high population density venues which would include all of your sites plus police stations etc) the Giffords shooter had a beef with her personally .... the Columbine shooters had a beef with the school ... etc (and sorry of the details are slightly in error as I do not follow this kind of thing) ... following the motivations of the perpetrators in these cases the site selection was personal and did not include police stations ... I'll let you think about the possibilities

I don't ignore anything but it would appear you have ignored and tried to rebut every possible suggestion which may reduce gun related deaths

This is apparently the only response from the NRA ... more guns.

I have not seen a study which indicates that arming more folks in high density areas deters a determined perpetrator. You got a study in mind or it is the appeal of a superficial statement?

You really didn;t ask that question???

Follow this ... the vast number of Americans do not commit crimes ... among that number of people (unless reality is skewed) there are people who own guns ... therefore the vast number of gun owners do not commit crimes (obviously we made an assumption about distribution of gun owners in the general population but it is the point which is important)

So more generally we should be asking why the vast number of American s don't commit crimes?

why yes it would, but you only offered speculation

It is unfortunate that the NRA has tied the hands of everyone who wants to do research, so the data is old and may not be valid.

A background check does not prevent a law-abiding citizen from buying, keeping, or bearing a firearm but it may prevent one person from committing some heinous, unnecessary crime. Would it be worthwhile to enact a piece of legislation which may save a single life? You be the judge.

Here is my frustration, Mick: "All the reports I've read." What reports? What citations? Yes, there are many unsourced "reports" on gun forums that allege this, or that, or the other thing. It's a matter of selective "reading." How is someone to evaluate the veracity or credibility of a "report" if one is unwilling to reveal it?

Open carry patrons asked to leave Alaska Cinemark. The were politely informed that gun possession was against Cinemark policy.

You noted the Cinemark box office sign I posted previously.

John Lott in the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences reported that his investigation determined that Cinemark in Aurora was posted.

All information available to the public supports Aurora having posted prior to the murders. It was corporate policy. Other Cinemark theaters practiced Cinemark gun prohibitions. Here is a picture of a sign at the box office in Ft. Collins (according to you) that prohibits guns. What would a reasonable person conclude then regarding Cinemark Aurora having a posted sign?

Yet your selective reading completely ignores all of this. In fact, at one point you stated that Cinemark Aurora did not post a sign.

What we haven't been able to find it a direct statement from Cinemark regarding the signage at Aurora. Why? Litigation. Lawyers seeking to sue the hell out of the theater and make a pile of money will keep Cinemark on information lock down for years to come.

Where, NW, are your sources that prove Cinemark Aurora did not have a posted sign? What leads you to that conclusion?




ARMED PATROLS!!! Do you mean, hardened target???


Perfect soft target, no?


I don't want you to believe anything. You are the one telling us that Holmes was meticulous and assessed another nearby theater and determined it too risky. He took pictures and surveyed parking and traffic, according to you. But, somehow, you believe, Holmes' attention to posted gun prohibition on box office windows would have been unreasonable. That's a rather, ahem, selective perspective, innit?


No, I don't appreciate the inconsistency. If anything Holme's behavior is inconsistent. At one moment he scouts possible targets, plans and even takes pictures. The next he dyes his hair baboon ass orange. You may want to read my post just above to reporter where I address the complexity of mental states.