At least 12 dead, 50 injured in shooting at Colorado movie theater, police say

[Bonnie]

Originally Posted by J.B.

I gotta weigh in on this "crossfire" or "friendly fire" topic. It's a point that I am seeing brought up more and more when the discussion of gun control comes up after tragedies like this.

It's a flawed argument from the get-go, because typically people are running AWAY from the psycho who is shooting into a crowd, so it's much less likely that any bullets fired TOWARD the psycho in question are in danger of killing any innocents. Obviously it's not 100%, but what do you want? We ARE talking about a psycho (or psychos in the case of Columbine) shooting at people without prejudice.

From that article Neezy posted, we might need to worry more about friendly fire from policemen. Their shot to target percentage doesn't sound too good:

Originally Posted by Neezar

The third assumption is that if the victims just wait long enough, those still surviving will no longer be at risk once police finally arrive. This is simply not true. The national data for the effectiveness of police shooting indicates that police officers involved in gunfights actually connect with one out of thirteen rounds fired (on average; the studies vary in result, from about one in seven to as much as one in thirty, depending on which study one selects). These missed shots by police go somewhere, and injury to innocent bystanders is not uncommon. Conversely, the "hit rate" by legally armed citizens is one in two, much better odds indeed for the safety of innocent bystanders.

How is gun control going to stop people like this guy, a guy who on the surface appeared to be a normal law abiding citizen? People are the problem and you're never going to be able to control people.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by J.B.

I gotta weigh in on this "crossfire" or "friendly fire" topic. It's a point that I am seeing brought up more and more when the discussion of gun control comes up after tragedies like this.

It's a flawed argument from the get-go, because typically people are running AWAY from the psycho who is shooting into a crowd, so it's much less likely that any bullets fired TOWARD the psycho in question are in danger of killing any innocents. Obviously it's not 100%, but what do you want? We ARE talking about a psycho (or psychos in the case of Columbine) shooting at people without prejudice.

Depends where the good guy is shooting from...If he's at the back of the auditorium, and the main shooter is at the front...then he will have to fire over/through a crowd heading towards him

Secondly...it depends how good visability is...the lights are off, the room is filled with gas...thats disorientating for the crowd who may not even know which direction the main shooter is shooting from...they may simply bolt, not knowing where their loved ones are, or which way is out...if they hear shots from behind them they will consider a second shooter and may even run towards the primary killer.

You may still have the film running really loudly in the background which could confuse you with sounds of firearm shots which are non existant off the screen, you might also find that there are other armed civilians, and even cinema employees that might consider you a hostile if they enter the auditorium after you and see you shooting from behind...how are they too know if you are shooting at a target, or if you ARE the primary shooter or an acoumplis

Usually I would consider crossfire...in the light of day, it just takes a reasonable gunfighter to be able to hit a target...but in the dark, with a room full of gas, where the primary target can not be seen, and an unpredictable crowd is going in all direction...would probably take a sniper, who could just watch and figure out what was going on...which takes the time you dont have.

I may know nothing about the mechanics of firearms....I may know nothing specific about the military either...but I know a fair amount about military strategy which from a purely theoretical point includes both...I thought it would be an easy modular option on my uni course...but it was far more difficult then I thought

Mindue...if they took a risk assessment before they did anything, they'd never ever do anything in terms of real combat

Perosnally...I'm very suprised there wasnt an armed civilian who at least tried...perhaps there are less people carrying firearms in America then I thought...Owning a gun isnt going to stop this sort of attack...coz you cant run home and collect it, its not good enough to be a hunter with some rifle nicely on the back seat of your car

So a society having access to firearms isnt really part of the argument here. Its not the legal possession...its the ability to carry, permanently, firearms for imediate use vs a hostile who might have a firearm legally, or illegally...its kinda mute point that this one got his through legitatmate channels

[TENNESSEAN]

A shooter in a dark smoke filled room is easy to spot.

[adamt]

Originally Posted by TENNESSEAN

A shooter in a dark smoke filled room is easy to spot.

good point..... shoot at the muzzle flash.... even the people the reporters were interviewing were all talking about the muzzle flash....

[J.B.]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

Depends where the good guy is shooting from...If he's at the back of the auditorium, and the main shooter is at the front...then he will have to fire over/through a crowd heading towards him

Secondly...it depends how good visability is...the lights are off, the room is filled with gas...thats disorientating for the crowd who may not even know which direction the main shooter is shooting from...they may simply bolt, not knowing where their loved ones are, or which way is out...if they hear shots from behind them they will consider a second shooter and may even run towards the primary killer.

You may still have the film running really loudly in the background which could confuse you with sounds of firearm shots which are non existant off the screen, you might also find that there are other armed civilians, and even cinema employees that might consider you a hostile if they enter the auditorium after you and see you shooting from behind...how are they too know if you are shooting at a target, or if you ARE the primary shooter or an acoumplis

Usually I would consider crossfire...in the light of day, it just takes a reasonable gunfighter to be able to hit a target...but in the dark, with a room full of gas, where the primary target can not be seen, and an unpredictable crowd is going in all direction...would probably take a sniper, who could just watch and figure out what was going on...which takes the time you dont have.

I may know nothing about the mechanics of firearms....I may know nothing specific about the military either...but I know a fair amount about military strategy which from a purely theoretical point includes both...I thought it would be an easy modular option on my uni course...but it was far more difficult then I thought

Mindue...if they took a risk assessment before they did anything, they'd never ever do anything in terms of real combat

Perosnally...I'm very suprised there wasnt an armed civilian who at least tried...perhaps there are less people carrying firearms in America then I thought...Owning a gun isnt going to stop this sort of attack...coz you cant run home and collect it, its not good enough to be a hunter with some rifle nicely on the back seat of your car

So a society having access to firearms isnt really part of the argument here. Its not the legal possession...its the ability to carry, permanently, firearms for imediate use vs a hostile who might have a firearm legally, or illegally...its kinda mute point that this one got his through legitatmate channels

Dave, Dave, Dave...

The point is that no matter where the psycho is shooting from, he needs to be taken out. I never said that "owning a gun will stop this" kind of nonsense.

You don't KNOW how he actually got those guns, and even if it was 100% legal that does'nt mean jack squat! The dude is obviously CRAZY! We don't stop selling Big Mac's because people have a fat ass. Are we not supposed to have some self control? Isn't that a part of the free will God gave us?

[Neezar]

Originally Posted by J.B.

Dave, Dave, Dave...

The point is that no matter where the psycho is shooting from, he needs to be taken out. I never said that "owning a gun will stop this" kind of nonsense.

You don't KNOW how he actually got those guns, and even if it was 100% legal that does'nt mean jack squat! The dude is obviously CRAZY! We don't stop selling Big Mac's because people have a fat ass. Are we not supposed to have some self control? Isn't that a part of the free will God gave us?

Excellent point.

[J.B.]

Originally Posted by Neezar

Excellent point.

I was trying to be blunt, like a baseball bat to the face. I'm glad somebody got the message!

[Bonnie]

Originally Posted by J.B.

Dave, Dave, Dave...

The point is that no matter where the psycho is shooting from, he needs to be taken out. I never said that "owning a gun will stop this" kind of nonsense.

You don't KNOW how he actually got those guns, and even if it was 100% legal that does'nt mean jack squat! The dude is obviously CRAZY! We don't stop selling Big Mac's because people have a fat ass. Are we not supposed to have some self control? Isn't that a part of the free will God gave us?

Originally Posted by Neezar

Excellent point.

At first, I thought you had posted that Denise! That got my Monday started off right with a laugh, thanks, JB.

[J.B.]

Originally Posted by Bonnie

At first, I thought you had posted that Denise! That got my Monday started off right with a laugh, thanks, JB.

Anytime. I'm always here to help!

[MattHughesRocks]

What? No one has posted in this thread all day?