View Single Post
      07-23-2012, 04:38 PM   #40
ericruiz911's Avatar

Drives: 2014 Chevy Silverado
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MIAMI, FL

iTrader: (1)

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
That thinking is the exact problem. Lets say out of a theater full of what, 200 people, that 1% of that sample population was responsibly armed and relatively proficient. Suddenly the shooter has 2 people in the theater also armed and able to return fire. Sure, he was wearing body armor, but you get hit by a JHP round in a protected area and it's going to have some kinetic energy behind it and you're not going to be standing afterwards. Suddenly the shooter might not want to continue his engagement and withdraws, and you potentially save lives.

Now lets pretend that on average, 5% of the population carries concealed, and you have 10 people who carry a concealed weapon in that senario. What are the chances the shooter walks into a theater in the first place, knowing more likely than not that people who are armed will be able to defend themselves. What do you think that's going to do to the average criminal, or worse, a guy like this one who isn't your average criminal?

I couldn't believe it when I read those reports. School out or not, 3am is not a reasonable time for infants and 6 year olds to be at the movies.

Hopefully this practice stops as well.

On the one hand, I agree with your points at the beginning completely. Gun control laws will only affect those concerned with abiding by them. If someone really wants a firearm, they're going to get one, legally or otherwise. The only people affected are the responsible owners attempting to abide by the law.

On the other hand, your point about the consequences needing to be severe is incorrect. Studies have shown that an increase in severity on punishment does not correlate to a statistically significant decrease in perpetration. I'm not saying not to increase the scope of the death penalty, because I agree that we're too lenient on our criminals in general. However, the hope that it would deter people is incorrect. You're just as likely to drive without a seatbelt if the fine is $100 or $200. People only think about the severity of the consequence when faced with it (ie caught). Before that, it's a potential risk.

I agree. The right to bear arms was afforded to us so that we had the right to defend ourselves from danger and oppression, either foreign or domestic. Militia being the foreign aspect of that, and crime being the domestic. As citizens, it's our right and frankly our duty to arm ourselves if we're willing and able to.

I've had my CC permit for two years, and I'm at the range at least once a month or more. I used to carry everywhere it was legal... Grocery store, movies, dinners. My ex used to give me crap, asked why. This event reminded me that you never know where you might be when the situation arises and you might need your weapon. I've been a lot more proactive in having it with me again since I read about what happened. I saw the movie last night, and guess what, I had it right at my side.

So, that's my .02. People need to stop blaming the weapon, and need to start blaming the person. We don't blame the car when it kills someone in a car crash, we don't blame a bat or a knife or a brick or a bottle or a lead pipe when used to harm a person. Stop blaming the tool, start blaming the person. He easily could've chosen another way and set the entire building on fire instead, which likely could've cost a lot more people their lives.
All in with you. Great reply