Topic: Bring your gun to the cinema !!

[vfourfreak]

"US presidential hopeful Rick Perry has said filmgoers should be able to take their guns into cinemas in order to help stop fatal shootings."

Can anyone explain this man's logic to me ?

Kev

[calj737]

The premise is simple, though controversial: the presence of firearms by "would be defenseless victims" should be enough of a deterrent to a whacko who might otherwise shoot the place up.

Think about this: if you were intent on robbing a place, and knew there were no armed occupants, wouldn't you feel emboldened to do so?

Now, reverse it. Would you walk into a place where the occupants were all armed (or might be) and rob the joint? Probably not. It's why Police Stations are very low on the hit list of places to rob.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Gov Perry's idea. But I do understand his point. It's similar to that opinion expressed by many that properly trained faculty/staff of public schools should be allowed to carry concealed if they desire. Disarming them subjects them and their charges (kids) to complete a completely defenseless condition.

It's certainly controversial and bound to open both sides of the argument on whether more guns or less in the hands of private, law abiding citizens is sufficient deterrent to evil doers.

I have a DVR and DBD player so I can avoid the whole mess 

[70CB750]

This is the typical joke on gun free zones; if it works so well, why does not it apply to everybody?

[BobbyR]

The logic is simple if I were sitting behind him, I would have put one or two in the back of his head and it would have ended. There was an attempted Church shooting, the guy was shot. Seems he did not expect Church folk to be armed. It was not very well publicized.

There is no way to collect all of the guns in private hands since there really is no list and over the last 100 years. The Cops can't be everywhere, people have to defend themselves. I know his sounds odd in Europe, but that is how it is.

[calj737]

Seems he did not expect Church folk to be armed.

This is interesting. Federal law prohibits carrying of a firearm in a place of Worship. Oddly enough, I wonder if the shooter of the criminal himself was charged with a crime?

But that is exactly the point Gov Perry is making. If the occupants are unarmed, there is no one to stop the shooter until the Police arrive.

Flip side is: now you end up with a civilian firefight and how many other people might be shot inadvertently? Police officers by and large are not good marksmen (patrolmen). They don't practice frequently enough, qualify under generous circumstances, and themselves aren't trained "warriors" like the military. Certainly their SWAT team members are excellent marksmen and do train for active shooting environment.

But I'd almost rather take my chances with a civilian shooter defending masses than a cop. Largely because most of the guys I know that carry concealed, actually practice regularly. Some are decent marksmen, some are fair. But the sound of gunfire back at the shooter (unexpected) might just be enough to have him suspend his intentions and run.

Or we can just close down the movie theaters and solve that problem. Then the shopping malls, and public marathons, and public schools, and...

[vfourfreak]

I can follow the point that you would be discouraged from robbing a place where any number of people might be armed.

But if someone is intent on killing innocent people, and themselves into the bargain to end their miserable worthless lives, I don't think anything will stop them.

My concern is, if I am watching Batman or some such, and a guy comes in to the cinema with an assault rifle, and is responded to by any number of carrying citizens, is the auditorium not now more dangerous ? Even the military suffer from friendly fire. I just suspect one's chances of getting out unhurt are further diminished.

Kev

[70CB750]

Seems he did not expect Church folk to be armed.

This is interesting. Federal law prohibits carrying of a firearm in a place of Worship. Oddly enough, I wonder if the shooter of the criminal himself was charged with a crime?

Virginia CCW states:

Section18.2-283: To a place of worship while a meeting for religious purposes is being held at such place, without good and sufficient reason.

Not sure about the case BobbyR mentioned, just saying that in some cases, you can have a gun in church legally.

[demon78]

 Kev I couldn't live in the states anymore problem I see it starting to creep north of the border and it really pisses me off. Edit I think if spot one of the ones here who want to go the same route I will crush their tiny heads. To watch them bleed. We have people that want to own guns here I have absolutely no problems with that but now we are starting to see innocents killed because some #$%* want's to be a gangsta I'd give him a wee gangsta, #$%*, popular culture indeed.
Bill the demon.

[dave the welder]

in Michigan you have to have permission from the preist,father,preacher,or who ever is in charge(not god)

[vfourfreak]

Like Cal says, if OK for cinemas, then next might be the shopping malls, and public marathons, and public schools etc

And aircraft ?? Why not ?

That would be one fine mess. A slippery slope.

Kev

[calj737]

Virginia CCW states:
Section18.2-283: To a place of worship while a meeting for religious purposes is being held at such place, without good and sufficient reason.

Proved after the fact, right!  I've always maintained, I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

I wonder, is intuition a legal justification? Maybe it should be-

Hey Kev- in the 70s, there were more armed Air Marshalls on the plane (stateside) than people realized. Even today, they are scattered on high target lists. They are issued pre-fragmented ammo to avoid piercing the fuselage though. The presence of them, seems to have stemmed the popularity of hijacking planes though.

[vfourfreak]

Virginia CCW states:
Section18.2-283: To a place of worship while a meeting for religious purposes is being held at such place, without good and sufficient reason.

Proved after the fact, right!  I've always maintained, I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

I wonder, is intuition a legal justification? Maybe it should be-

Hey Kev- in the 70s, there were more armed Air Marshalls on the plane (stateside) than people realized. Even today, they are scattered on high target lists. They are issued pre-fragmented ammo to avoid piercing the fuselage though. The presence of them, seems to have stemmed the popularity of hijacking planes though.

Controls on what people can take on board, esp after 9/11, but be a major factor in the reductions in plane hijackings. The slippery slope I refer to is, with a trend that Mr Perry seems to be trying to initiate (possibly for the sake of votes as opposed to a clearly thought out security strategy), could not US citizens insist on the right to feel equally "secure" everywhere ? So possibly there would be no further controls.

I just find it hard to see where it would stop. And yes, living in Europe does make it difficult to understand.

Kev

[calj737]

A very valid argument, Kev. Hence the vigor of a two-sided debate!

[Duke McDukiedook]

The more I think about it the more I don't think I like the idea of the general populace packing in large assembly places such as these.
Imagine the normal, average mouthbreather at these types of events, WITH A LOADED GUN.
Makes me not want to go out the door and have everything delivered to my doorstep. 

[WhyNot2]

The more I think about it the more I don't think I like the idea of the general populace packing in large assembly places such as these.
Imagine the normal, average mouthbreather at these types of events, WITH A LOADED GUN.
Makes me not want to go out the door and have everything delivered to my doorstep. 

He!!, I darn near have everything delivered now.

Wouldn't have to leave the house if living in Europe where they deliver beer.

[vfourfreak]

Beer and wine !!

Sounds like a business opportunity in the USA is the home delivery of ammo.

Do you think I could get an "alien visa" if I proposed that plan to my local US embassy !

Kev

[BobbyR]

I can follow the point that you would be discouraged from robbing a place where any number of people might be armed.

But if someone is intent on killing innocent people, and themselves into the bargain to end their miserable worthless lives, I don't think anything will stop them.

My concern is, if I am watching Batman or some such, and a guy comes in to the cinema with an assault rifle, and is responded to by any number of carrying citizens, is the auditorium not now more dangerous ? Even the military suffer from friendly fire. I just suspect one's chances of getting out unhurt are further diminished.

Kev

Point well taken. If that Movie shooting had happened in my friends area in South Carolina standing as he was in front  of the screen, more bullets would be coming his way.

The Gov't put me in a Gunship to support the men on the ground. No matter how many of us there were and how hard we tried, we could not protect them all. On the other hand many were protected and that is the best you can do.

So far this discussion has been civilized. We should keep it that way and forget emotions.

[calj737]

Absolutely, Bobby. I find the answer to this age old question is; there is no easy answer. Both sides have valid arguments, and until we find a solution to the real problem, then this debate (and others like it) will wage on.

Regardless of which side of the argument you prefer, I find it tragic that it needs addressing. Population growth worldwide has spawned too many derelicts and evil doers. It would be curious to actually find the "cause" of their disturbed ideas, and rid the world of that.

Aside from my enjoyment of firearms for hunting and sport shooting, I'd much rather not ever feel the need to protect myself with one again. Twice was 3 times too many for me.

[Duke McDukiedook]

EVILDOERS!!
Sorry about that, that term brings back bad memories for me.

[MCRider]

http://controversialtimes.com/news/remember-this-sc-concealed-carrier-stops-mass-shooting-during-church-service-zero-casualties/

There is no accounting for crazy. Only hope is a gun.

[BobbyR]

Absolutely, Bobby. I find the answer to this age old question is; there is no easy answer. Both sides have valid arguments, and until we find a solution to the real problem, then this debate (and others like it) will wage on.

Regardless of which side of the argument you prefer, I find it tragic that it needs addressing. Population growth worldwide has spawned too many derelicts and evil doers. It would be curious to actually find the "cause" of their disturbed ideas, and rid the world of that.

Aside from my enjoyment of firearms for hunting and sport shooting, I'd much rather not ever feel the need to protect myself with one again. Twice was 3 times too many for me.

You are right Ca. Beyond the cultural there is a numbers game. NY passed a law that certain "Rifles" must be registered as "assault weapons" by Jan 15, 2015.  There is no list of the owners. It is estimated from sales figures there may be close to 1M in the State.

To date about 45K have been registered and the Sheriffs have no intention of going looking for them. The Lawmakers say that the people are repealing the bill themselves. Americans are big on non compliance.

[Duke McDukiedook]

Sometimes being the good guy with the gun gives you a free ride on the bullet train.

http://gawker.com/its-really-hard-to-be-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-1588660306

[vfourfreak]

Quote :

"But as the years go on and the country gets crazier—stirred up by paranoiacs, political hardliners, lobbyists, and simple gun-fetishists—I come nearer to my wife's side. The universe of scenarios in which carrying a gun seems prudent or useful just keeps shrinking and shrinking, even as the legal freedom to wield personal firepower keeps expanding. The NRA has recalibrated its message for the 21st century: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." But in many ways, the 21st century has already overtaken us good guys."

Ouch.
Maybe it's different here in Europe because we have had actual shooting wars on our territiory twice in the last 100 years (not to mention what happened in Ireland in pretty much all the 20th century). Have we learned a lesson about firearms that the USA has not ? I'm not judging anything, just trying to learn.

Kev

[ekpent]

Most all these cases have one thing in common-Mental Illness. We used to have a large State Hospital here in Kalamazoo, now they all live at the homeless shelters and hang out in the parks, libraries and bus stations etc.. Gotta get the crazies the help they need and a better way to monitor them    Friends and family members have to do their part also.  "Gun Free" zones are a billboard to these people.

[vfourfreak]

Most all these cases have one thing in common-Mental Illness.

Has that been established ? I ask cos I don't think the USA has a monopoly on mental illness.

Kev