Colorado tragedy: THINK IT THROUGH!

[Taichiliberal]

Tell us Clarbaell......how much does an enlisted serviceman with 25 years service get compared to a fireman or policeman with 25 years service.....

Look it up then stfu.....

What in the hell are you babbling about now, Bravo? The topic is about the recent shooting the Cololrado theatre and the foolish idea that a more liberal CWP law would have saved the day. I really don't giver a damn about STY's attempts to change the subject with his dubious claims and silly assed assertions, as I've already settled his hash on that matter. So if you've got nothing to add regarding the OP, take up that other stuff with STY.

Oh, and you do realize that calling me "Clarabell" puts more of an emphasis on just how obsolete and preposterous you are than insulting me, don't you. Just saying

 

[Taichiliberal]

It was a church in Aurora, not a theater.

I am not saying that cops don't help. The fact that they find and cpature the criminals is a large part of why we don't live in crime ridden slums.

But their ability to prevent crimes is seriously limited. Their ability to prevent crimes like this one, where the perpetrator had no criminal record, is almost nil.

The simple fact is that the chances of a cop being able to prevent tragedies like the one in the theater in aurora are somewhere between slim & none. However, a CWP holder carrying a gun could have done plenty in that theater.

FYI: Police have undercover units to prevent robberies, murders, drug crimes, etc. The mere presence of a uniformed policeman is a deterent to many crimes. Is it perfect? Nope, but like I suggested earlier you need to research exactly how police work and what they prevent and stop regarding crime instead of hypothesizing.

Yes, further tragedy was prevented in that Aurora church, but that is a specific case that does NOT translate into a generality that's applicable to the theatre shooting.

Think it through: If YOU are stating that a trained police officer would not have made a difference in the theatre shooting, how in the world do you figure that a NON-trained civilian would have?

P.S.: the man who shot the perpetraitor in the Aurora church was an OFF DUTY POLICE OFFCIER WHO IS TRAINED AND LICENSED TO CARRY HIS WEAPON WHILE OUT OF UNIFORM.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

FYI: Police have undercover units to prevent robberies, murders, drug crimes, etc. The mere presence of a uniformed policeman is a deterent to many crimes. Is it perfect? Nope, but like I suggested earlier you need to research exactly how police work and what they prevent and stop regarding crime instead of hypothesizing.

Yes, further tragedy was prevented in that Aurora church, but that is a specific case that does NOT translate into a generality that's applicable to the theatre shooting.

Think it through: If YOU are stating that a trained police officer would not have made a difference in the theatre shooting, how in the world do you figure that a NON-trained civilian would have?

P.S.: the man who shot the perpetraitor in the Aurora church was an OFF DUTY POLICE OFFCIER WHO IS TRAINED AND LICENSED TO CARRY HIS WEAPON WHILE OUT OF UNIFORM.

Where did I state that a police officer in the theater would not have helped? If the police are there, I am sure they will help. But they are too few and too far between. The training that the police receive is great. But there is not way to tell whether someone will respond properly under fire unless they have been under fire.

I think an armed civilian could have ended the debacle in the theater, or at least allowed more people to escape.

Just as an FYI, I shoot fairly often with some cops in my area. I am as good a shot as they are, and better than some.

 

[Taichiliberal]

How many crimes ARE prevented by cops Clarabell.....is that like Obama 'saving' jobs.....lol

An imaginary number and figment of your simple mind.?

since you're too damn proudly ignorant and drunk, I'll have to do guide you as usual. All one has to do is just enter "Compstat crime prevention" in a Google search, and you have a choice of federal and individual state information. But then, this is OLD information.


As for crime prevention programs, it's a work in progress:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/works/wholedoc.htm/

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
FYI: Police have undercover units to prevent robberies, murders, drug crimes, etc. The mere presence of a uniformed policeman is a deterent to many crimes. Is it perfect? Nope, but like I suggested earlier you need to research exactly how police work and what they prevent and stop regarding crime instead of hypothesizing.

Yes, further tragedy was prevented in that Aurora church, but that is a specific case that does NOT translate into a generality that's applicable to the theatre shooting.

Think it through: If YOU are stating that a trained police officer would not have made a difference in the theatre shooting, how in the world do you figure that a NON-trained civilian would have?

P.S.: the man who shot the perpetraitor in the Aurora church was an OFF DUTY POLICE OFFCIER WHO IS TRAINED AND LICENSED TO CARRY HIS WEAPON WHILE OUT OF UNIFORM.

Where did I state that a police officer in the theater would not have helped? If the police are there, I am sure they will help. But they are too few and too far between. The training that the police receive is great. But there is not way to tell whether someone will respond properly under fire unless they have been under fire.

I think an armed civilian could have ended the debacle in the theater, or at least allowed more people to escape.

Just as an FYI, I shoot fairly often with some cops in my area. I am as good a shot as they are, and better than some.

My error: I should have stated that "If YOU are stating that a trained police officer would have made a difference in the theatre shooting, how in the world do you figure that a NON-trained civilian would have?"

Sorry, but YOU ARE NOT A COP TRAINED TO RESPOND TO SUCH INCIDENCES....WHAT YOU "THINK" IS JUST THAT, A "THOUGHT", which DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO REALITY.

Bottom line: what makes you believe that an off duty cop sitting in the darken theatre would NOT have been hit in the volley of fire? See, wanna-be and arm chair cops keep trying to create the perfect scenario to justify expanding CWP. But the FACTS just keep getting in the wayh of that fantasy.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

My error: I should have stated that "If YOU are stating that a trained police officer would have made a difference in the theatre shooting, how in the world do you figure that a NON-trained civilian would have?"

Sorry, but YOU ARE NOT A COP TRAINED TO RESPOND TO SUCH INCIDENCES....WHAT YOU "THINK" IS JUST THAT, A "THOUGHT", which DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO REALITY.

Bottom line: what makes you believe that an off duty cop sitting in the darken theatre would NOT have been hit in the volley of fire? See, wanna-be and arm chair cops keep trying to create the perfect scenario to justify expanding CWP. But the FACTS just keep getting in the wayh of that fantasy.

If an armed civilian or an off duty cop had been in the audience, and had been hit in the first volley, things would have been the same.

If they weren't hit in the first volley, they could have returned fire. If the guy was wearing bullet proof gear, the impact would have still punched him hard enough to throw him off, and he would have probably tried to shoot the person shooting at him. This would allow the people jamming the exits to get out.

With all the veterans in this country, there are plenty of civilians who have had training and been under fire. To make this claim that ONLY cops can handle this is ridiculous.

Civilians use their guns to stop crimes all over the country. The lower estimates say up to 1.5 million times a year.

 

[Taichiliberal]

If an armed civilian or an off duty cop had been in the audience, and had been hit in the first volley, things would have been the same.

NO SHIT?!??! I Just said that.
If they weren't hit in the first volley, they could have returned fire. If the guy was wearing bullet proof gear, the impact would have still punched him hard enough to throw him off, and he would have probably tried to shoot the person shooting at him. This would allow the people jamming the exits to get out.

Pure fantasy on your part! Returned fire from where in the theatre? Would they be blinded by the smoke bombs in the darkened theatre? If they were close enough for that not to matter, wouldn't Holmes have spotted them first? With civilians running around in a panic, what's to guarantee a "hit" that didn't wound or kill a civilian?

With all the veterans in this country, there are plenty of civilians who have had training and been under fire. To make this claim that ONLY cops can handle this is ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that in order for your scenario to work, these fantasy CWP heros of yours would have to have a perfect storm of events in order to pull off what you assert. As YOU youself have conceded, even a trained off duty police officer wouldn't have made much of difference GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Civilians use their guns to stop crimes all over the country. The lower estimates say up to 1.5 million times a year.

"lower estimates" from whom? Did you do the google search I suggested? Enter "CWP accidental shootings statistics" Interesting stuff.

Look, I've learned over the years that one can rarely overcome someone's belief even when the FACTS contradict that belief. So I seriously doubt if you are going to wholly agree with the OP.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

"lower estimates" from whom? Did you do the google search I suggested? Enter "CWP accidental shootings statistics" Interesting stuff.

Look, I've learned over the years that one can rarely overcome someone's belief even when the FACTS contradict that belief. So I seriously doubt if you are going to wholly agree with the OP.

I have learned over the years that, in a crisis, some keep their cool and some people come unglued. And while training may help, the person's innate reaction to crisis make also make it worthless. I have seen trained professionals come unglued and people you would have thought would be worthless come thru the crisis like a champ.

Yes, I did do the Google search you suggested. And there have been accidents with people who have a permit to carry. But that does not mean all CCW permit holders would do the same.

My apologies, I thought I had posted the link to the estimates of the number of defensive gun uses. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually."

The news had several shots of the men who shielded their ladies with their own bodies, and paid the price. Wouldn't it have been better to have something more proactive to do than simple be a human shield and die?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

"lower estimates" from whom? Did you do the google search I suggested? Enter "CWP accidental shootings statistics" Interesting stuff.

Look, I've learned over the years that one can rarely overcome someone's belief even when the FACTS contradict that belief. So I seriously doubt if you are going to wholly agree with the OP.

I have learned over the years that, in a crisis, some keep their cool and some people come unglued. And while training may help, the person's innate reaction to crisis make also make it worthless. I have seen trained professionals come unglued and people you would have thought would be worthless come thru the crisis like a champ.

Yes, I did do the Google search you suggested. And there have been accidents with people who have a permit to carry. But that does not mean all CCW permit holders would do the same.

My apologies, I thought I had posted the link to the estimates of the number of defensive gun uses. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually."

The news had several shots of the men who shielded their ladies with their own bodies, and paid the price. Wouldn't it have been better to have something more proactive to do than simple be a human shield and die?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I have learned over the years that, in a crisis, some keep their cool and some people come unglued. And while training may help, the person's innate reaction to crisis make also make it worthless. I have seen trained professionals come unglued and people you would have thought would be worthless come thru the crisis like a champ.

Yes, I did do the Google search you suggested. And there have been accidents with people who have a permit to carry. But that does not mean all CCW permit holders would do the same.

My apologies, I thought I had posted the link to the estimates of the number of defensive gun uses. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually."

The news had several shots of the men who shielded their ladies with their own bodies, and paid the price. Wouldn't it have been better to have something more proactive to do than simple be a human shield and die?

Your link will be dismissed and ignored, not because it isn't true and factual; but because, it totally goes against the agenda of the "scared shitless of guns" group.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I have learned over the years that, in a crisis, some keep their cool and some people come unglued. And while training may help, the person's innate reaction to crisis make also make it worthless. I have seen trained professionals come unglued and people you would have thought would be worthless come thru the crisis like a champ.


So what? Given the factual circumstances regarding Holmes in Colorado, you are STILL proposing a hypothesis that would REQUIRE a perfect storm of events to take place in order for your CCW heroism to happen.

Yes, I did do the Google search you suggested. And there have been accidents with people who have a permit to carry. But that does not mean all CCW permit holders would do the same.

My apologies, I thought I had posted the link to the estimates of the number of defensive gun uses. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually."

The news had several shots of the men who shielded their ladies with their own bodies, and paid the price. Wouldn't it have been better to have something more proactive to do than simple be a human shield and die?

And do what, potentially shoot more human being by accidents? Or give Holmes more target areas to concentrate on? Why the hell do you think he was armored?

As for that old hat of the Kleck study, here's just one of the reputable folks that disprove his methods and results:

“The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year?” Journal of Police Analysis and Management, 1997 http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by WinterBorn
I have learned over the years that, in a crisis, some keep their cool and some people come unglued. And while training may help, the person's innate reaction to crisis make also make it worthless. I have seen trained professionals come unglued and people you would have thought would be worthless come thru the crisis like a champ.

Yes, I did do the Google search you suggested. And there have been accidents with people who have a permit to carry. But that does not mean all CCW permit holders would do the same.

My apologies, I thought I had posted the link to the estimates of the number of defensive gun uses. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually."

The news had several shots of the men who shielded their ladies with their own bodies, and paid the price. Wouldn't it have been better to have something more proactive to do than simple be a human shield and die?

Your link will be dismissed and ignored, not because it isn't true and factual; but because, it totally goes against the agenda of the "scared shitless of guns" group.

And once again, the braying ass who goes by the screen name USFreedom911 blows smoke without knowing what is going to happen next http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...agedy-THINK-IT-THROUGH!&p=1047889#post1047889

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

And do what, potentially shoot more human being by accidents? Or give Holmes more target areas to concentrate on? Why the hell do you think he was armored?

As for that old hat of the Kleck study, here's just one of the reputable folks that disprove his methods and results:

“The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year?” Journal of Police Analysis and Management, 1997 http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf

Holmes made no attempt to hide, so shooting at him would have likely not resulted in more people being shot by accident. After the first volley fired by Holmes, he was surely standing alone, as the people fled.

If the gunman was focused on returning shots, he was not focused on shooting people trying to escape. That alone could have saved lives.

That "old hate" study was only one of the studies I quoted. Another was commissioned by the Dept of Justice and came up with similar numbers. The "disproving" is simply questioning the validity of the respondents. And the supposition that the uses of a gun to defend against a crime would result in shots being fired. Obviously a gun can be used to stop a crime without a shot being fired.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Holmes made no attempt to hide, so shooting at him would have likely not resulted in more people being shot by accident. After the first volley fired by Holmes, he was surely standing alone, as the people fled.

If the gunman was focused on returning shots, he was not focused on shooting people trying to escape. That alone could have saved lives.

That "old hate" study was only one of the studies I quoted. Another was commissioned by the Dept of Justice and came up with similar numbers. The "disproving" is simply questioning the validity of the respondents. And the supposition that the uses of a gun to defend against a crime would result in shots being fired. Obviously a gun can be used to stop a crime without a shot being fired.

Would have, likely.....you are STILL hypothesizing, and Holmes would have to react in a SPECIFIC manor in order for your scenario(s) to work....which is HIGHLY IMPROBABLE GIVEN THE FACTS OF THE SITUATION AS IT UNFOLDED.

This is the problem with many pro-gun lobby folks....they focus more on what they feel should be than what is. And as the study I sourced demonstrated, Klerk MISCONSTRUED the DOJ study ("similar" is NOT the same conclusion, perse). There wasn't just a questioning of the validity of the respondents, there was pointing out the FLAWED methodology of Kleck's study....type of questions, who was questioned, what was left out, etc. If you like, I can provide more valid source material that disparages Kleck's validity.

No one said a crime can be stopped without firing a shot....hell, the average street cop proves that during his career. What I am sick and tired of is this BS fantasies by gunners with regards to tragedies like Colorado to further the agenda of their gun manufacturing handers.

 

[leaningright]

No one said a crime can be stopped without firing a shot....#%€£, the average street cop proves that during his career. What I am sick and tired of is this #% fantasies by gunners with regards to tragedies like Colorado to further the agenda of their gun manufacturing handers.

I get sick and tired of the knee jerk reactions that occur every time something like this happens.

"You don't need 'those guns.'"
"You don't need 'that much ammo.'"
"You don't need 'that large of a clip.'" - see threads on this topic to note concessions here
"You don't need to 'carry concealed.'"

With all of the things said and the focus brought to bear by the anti gunners in this country and other countries for some reason, it is no wonder that responsible gun owners would go on defense. What do folks expect them to do....give the anti gunners a hug and tell them how smart and right they are and how we should have Austraila'd our guns long ago? I don't see that happening for some reason. Nor do I see us allowing many one sided debates on the issue when we can contribute.

It appears you have summarily dismissed WB's link and his surmising of how someone with a CCW 'could' have made a difference as as been done before because he was "hypothesizing" about how things could have played out. What do you think the anti gunners are doing but "hypothesizing" about how some sort of gun law could have kept this tragedy from happening?

 

[Taichiliberal]

I get sick and tired of the knee jerk reactions that occur every time something like this happens.

"You don't need 'those guns.'"
"You don't need 'that much ammo.'"
"You don't need 'that large of a clip.'" - see threads on this topic to note concessions here
"You don't need to 'carry concealed.'"

With all of the things said and the focus brought to bear by the anti gunners in this country and other countries for some reason, it is no wonder that responsible gun owners would go on defense. What do folks expect them to do....give the anti gunners a hug and tell them how smart and right they are and how we should have Austraila'd our guns long ago? I don't see that happening for some reason. Nor do I see us allowing many one sided debates on the issue when we can contribute.

It appears you have summarily dismissed WB's link and his surmising of how someone with a CCW 'could' have made a difference as as been done before because he was "hypothesizing" about how things could have played out. What do you think the anti gunners are doing but "hypothesizing" about how some sort of gun law could have kept this tragedy from happening?

First off, you need to stop lying....I didn't "dismiss WB's link, I provided a valid, documented link that surmmarily debunked Kleck's study. I can provide others if you 've got the stones to deal with it.

Secondly, if you had bothered to read the OP, you'd have noted that I stated in no undertain terms that I am NOT about confiscating guns or restricting them to an elite few...I'm about putting out and reinforcing reasonable systems of control to prevent or minimize insanity like we've seen in done by Holmes. That gunner's immediately try to create a scenario that defies the FACTS of the actual events proves that it's not about reality, but their ideology and fears.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

And once again, the braying ass who goes by the screen name USFreedom911 blows smoke without knowing what is going to happen next http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...agedy-THINK-IT-THROUGH!&p=1047889#post1047889

The only one blowing smoke, is you.
You were presented with proof of times that guns were used in defense and instead of disproving it with other facts, all you did was dismiss it and refer to it as a mythical number.
You've been weighed and measured and found to be wanting.
But feel free to make yourself look more stupid.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Would have, likely.....you are STILL hypothesizing, and Holmes would have to react in a SPECIFIC manor in order for your scenario(s) to work....which is HIGHLY IMPROBABLE GIVEN THE FACTS OF THE SITUATION AS IT UNFOLDED.

This is the problem with many pro-gun lobby folks....they focus more on what they feel should be than what is. And as the study I sourced demonstrated, Klerk MISCONSTRUED the DOJ study ("similar" is NOT the same conclusion, perse). There wasn't just a questioning of the validity of the respondents, there was pointing out the FLAWED methodology of Kleck's study....type of questions, who was questioned, what was left out, etc. If you like, I can provide more valid source material that disparages Kleck's validity.

No one said a crime can be stopped without firing a shot....hell, the average street cop proves that during his career. What I am sick and tired of is this BS fantasies by gunners with regards to tragedies like Colorado to further the agenda of their gun manufacturing handers.

It's apparent that you would rather attach yourself to the BS fantasies by anti-gunners who are scared shitless of their own shadows.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And once again, the braying ass who goes by the screen name USFreedom911 blows smoke without knowing what is going to happen next http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...89#post1047889

The only one blowing smoke, is you.
You were presented with proof of times that guns were used in defense and instead of disproving it with other facts, all you did was dismiss it and refer to it as a mythical number.
You've been weighed and measured and found to be wanting.
But feel free to make yourself look more stupid.

As usual, the chronology of the posts makes USFreedom out to be a liar. All I've been mostly given are a bunch of hypothetical situations designed to supplant the actual facts of teh Colorado case. As with others, when Winterborn did provide a source link, I countered with FACTS that debunked the validity of his source. As I said, I can provide more if you and those like you have the honesty and courage to read.

So as usual, you've earned the title of "FREEDUMB" with your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Taichiliberal]

It's apparent that you would rather attach yourself to the BS fantasies by anti-gunners who are scared shitless of their own shadows.

As usual, USFreedom has no real or rational argument, so he just parrots a line to malign people who disprove his personal beliefs. Worse, USFreedom is incapable of original thought, so he reverts to childish mocking. Sad, but not unexpected.

As the chronology of the posts shows, I created no "fantasy"...I merely extrapolated from the actual facts of the case in relation to the scenarios that others put forth to bolster the belief that one or more patrons of that theatre would have lessened and/or prevented Holmes kill rate if they were CWC. Too bad for you if don't like the conclusions, but I don't see you at least attempting a rational discussion like Winterborn.