The first link is the reason wise people don’t let stupid interns write things. Concealed carry laws don’t affect a person’s ability to purchase guns and assault rifles–which is the kind of gun control ‘liberals’ are calling for–and no one could have possibly stoped James Holmes. He was wearing SWAT gear and police were only able to arrest him because he let them.
A good samaritan with a gun would have fought very bravely and died very quickly, just like the other 12. The escalation of arms sales is PRECISELY the reason there are murders like this, and anyone ignoring that fact in the public policy arena is responsible.
The argument that the pro-gun control crowd will make is that local gun laws don’t work, either because they are not enforced or not known of by many people passing through the area who don’t live there. Thus, stronger federal and state laws must be enacted.
My prediction: They are going to push to regulate ammo, magazines, etc. They will lie and call it something like the “The National Ammunition Regulatory Act of 2015” or something to that effect.
No David, a good person who was also a good shooter would have shot Holmes.
Someone with a conceal carry permit who knew how to shoot would not have saved *12* lives – they probably would have saved 7 or 8. Therein lies part of the justification for conceal carry laws. If enough sane and responsible citizens are armed, violence will be checked. In that sense, violence will not and cannot be prevented entirely, but at least it can be limited.
I take it you probably support the government having a national firearms database containing a list of what every citizen owns and also limiting the number of firearms a person can own.
The health coach: they help you get enough exercise, eat a balanced diet and manage stress.
I understand the concept of a personal trainer. They teach your how to work out more effectively and also how to eat more healthy. But the idea of hiring a health coach sounds like a service for someone with more money that brains.
No, I don’t support having a database–that will do no good. I would support banning automatic guns and semiautomatic rifles. That wouldn’t be a problem for hunters or anyone else who has peaceful reasons (if you consider hunting peaceful) for owning a weapon. I would also support limiting the size of magazines.
There’s absolutely no reason a person should have the kinds of weapons that James Holmes did. There’s no reason anyone should have SWAT gear. There’s no reason anyone should have smoke grenades.
Had he walked in with a small handgun that only had, say, six bullets in it, it wouldn’t even take someone with a concealed gun to stop him. Maybe he gets 6 shots off, probably killing 2 at most (if he’s well-trained). At that point, anyone can stop him.
To penetrate the armor he had, someone with a concealed gun would have to have a REALLY big gun or be a REALLY good shot while simultaneously being shot at (in a crowded, panicked theater full of smoke).
And even if we ignore all the holes in the idea of concealed carry saving lives, it still rests on there being an armed person everywhere there is danger, and that doesn’t happen.
Most people quite simply don’t like guns. They don’t want to carry guns, even if it might be that they could stop someone like Holmes (even though they couldn’t, and it’s unlikely anyway).
Economists don’t operate on possibilities, but probabilities, and that it would have been POSSIBLE for someone to stop him with a concealed carry (which it wasn’t) is not enough to say, ‘OK, no need to propose a different solution.’
The second amendment says “a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state.” We have those already, there’s no reason for people to have military-grade weapons.
There is no reason to believe that another person with a weapon could not have saved lives in the Aurora theater. Body armor makes it more difficult to kill or wound someone with a gun, it does not make it impossible. Especially given that a number of survivors report having been close to the killer as he walked around. At minimum, having to engage someone who was armed might have shifted the shooter’s focus, allowing more people to escape.
The claim that gun posession by law abiding citizens saves lives is well supported by law enforcement data, surveys, and international comparisons. Making guns available to people for defensive use reduces hot burglaries, violent crime, and homicides.
For a specific example of a mass murder prevented by concealed carry, look up the events at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs in 2007.
The NLC gunman did not have body armor, smoke grenades, or an automatic rifle, and was shot by a former police officer who was serving the church as a security guard. That’s quite a different scenario than Aurora.
“No law enforcement officer has ever been killed or even injured because an armor piercing bullet penetrated a bullet-resistant vest.”
The United States has the highest homocide rates among the developed world and we also have some of the least stringent gun regulations. We have a higher homocide rate than Afghanistan AND Israel!
There is absolutely no way anyone in that theater could have stopped him. If he had resisted police, they probably would not have been able to stop him either without calling in bigger guns. That’s just a fact, there’s no need to argue with it.
While a good guy with a gun might be able to stop some crimes, the claim that an armed citizen could have stopped James Holmes is absolutely ridiculous and anyone ignoring the truth about it is completely irresponsible and their opinions don’t deserve to be heard.
The first link is the reason wise people don’t let stupid interns write things. Concealed carry laws don’t affect a person’s ability to purchase guns and assault rifles–which is the kind of gun control ‘liberals’ are calling for–and no one could have possibly stoped James Holmes. He was wearing SWAT gear and police were only able to arrest him because he let them.
A good samaritan with a gun would have fought very bravely and died very quickly, just like the other 12. The escalation of arms sales is PRECISELY the reason there are murders like this, and anyone ignoring that fact in the public policy arena is responsible.
The argument that the pro-gun control crowd will make is that local gun laws don’t work, either because they are not enforced or not known of by many people passing through the area who don’t live there. Thus, stronger federal and state laws must be enacted.
My prediction: They are going to push to regulate ammo, magazines, etc. They will lie and call it something like the “The National Ammunition Regulatory Act of 2015” or something to that effect.
No David, a good person who was also a good shooter would have shot Holmes.
Someone with a conceal carry permit who knew how to shoot would not have saved *12* lives – they probably would have saved 7 or 8. Therein lies part of the justification for conceal carry laws. If enough sane and responsible citizens are armed, violence will be checked. In that sense, violence will not and cannot be prevented entirely, but at least it can be limited.
I take it you probably support the government having a national firearms database containing a list of what every citizen owns and also limiting the number of firearms a person can own.
The health coach: they help you get enough exercise, eat a balanced diet and manage stress.
I understand the concept of a personal trainer. They teach your how to work out more effectively and also how to eat more healthy. But the idea of hiring a health coach sounds like a service for someone with more money that brains.
No, I don’t support having a database–that will do no good. I would support banning automatic guns and semiautomatic rifles. That wouldn’t be a problem for hunters or anyone else who has peaceful reasons (if you consider hunting peaceful) for owning a weapon. I would also support limiting the size of magazines.
There’s absolutely no reason a person should have the kinds of weapons that James Holmes did. There’s no reason anyone should have SWAT gear. There’s no reason anyone should have smoke grenades.
Had he walked in with a small handgun that only had, say, six bullets in it, it wouldn’t even take someone with a concealed gun to stop him. Maybe he gets 6 shots off, probably killing 2 at most (if he’s well-trained). At that point, anyone can stop him.
To penetrate the armor he had, someone with a concealed gun would have to have a REALLY big gun or be a REALLY good shot while simultaneously being shot at (in a crowded, panicked theater full of smoke).
And even if we ignore all the holes in the idea of concealed carry saving lives, it still rests on there being an armed person everywhere there is danger, and that doesn’t happen.
Most people quite simply don’t like guns. They don’t want to carry guns, even if it might be that they could stop someone like Holmes (even though they couldn’t, and it’s unlikely anyway).
Economists don’t operate on possibilities, but probabilities, and that it would have been POSSIBLE for someone to stop him with a concealed carry (which it wasn’t) is not enough to say, ‘OK, no need to propose a different solution.’
The second amendment says “a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state.” We have those already, there’s no reason for people to have military-grade weapons.
There is no reason to believe that another person with a weapon could not have saved lives in the Aurora theater. Body armor makes it more difficult to kill or wound someone with a gun, it does not make it impossible. Especially given that a number of survivors report having been close to the killer as he walked around. At minimum, having to engage someone who was armed might have shifted the shooter’s focus, allowing more people to escape.
The claim that gun posession by law abiding citizens saves lives is well supported by law enforcement data, surveys, and international comparisons. Making guns available to people for defensive use reduces hot burglaries, violent crime, and homicides.
For a specific example of a mass murder prevented by concealed carry, look up the events at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs in 2007.
The NLC gunman did not have body armor, smoke grenades, or an automatic rifle, and was shot by a former police officer who was serving the church as a security guard. That’s quite a different scenario than Aurora.
And, yes, it is impossible to stop a guy with body armor. Even the NRA agrees: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2000/armor-piercing-ammunition-plastic.aspx
“No law enforcement officer has ever been killed or even injured because an armor piercing bullet penetrated a bullet-resistant vest.”
The United States has the highest homocide rates among the developed world and we also have some of the least stringent gun regulations. We have a higher homocide rate than Afghanistan AND Israel!
There is absolutely no way anyone in that theater could have stopped him. If he had resisted police, they probably would not have been able to stop him either without calling in bigger guns. That’s just a fact, there’s no need to argue with it.
While a good guy with a gun might be able to stop some crimes, the claim that an armed citizen could have stopped James Holmes is absolutely ridiculous and anyone ignoring the truth about it is completely irresponsible and their opinions don’t deserve to be heard.