wmw999 2,114
Yep.
Wendy P.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
in regards to #3, is the theater a "Public" building?
Matt
Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!
So, start being safe, first!!!
muff528 3
Quotein regards to #3, is the theater a "Public" building?
Matt
Well, if it's not then it seems they can't prohibit concealed carry at all. There is no #4.
Edit -It appears that even if they do make "rules" it is not illegal to carry unless one of the 3 listed conditions are met. I suppose they could deny your entry but why would you tell them you were carrying?
If it is not a public building are you saying the owner has no rights of his own?
Wouldn't that be like me carrying a gun in your house, and you have no say against it?
I do not agree with their decision to exclude fire arms, they made it for their reasons, but it is their right as the owner.
Matt
Wouldn't that be like me carrying a gun in your house, and you have no say against it?
I do not agree with their decision to exclude fire arms, they made it for their reasons, but it is their right as the owner.
Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!
So, start being safe, first!!!
muff528 3
QuoteIf it is not a public building are you saying the owner has no rights of his own?
Wouldn't that be like me carrying a gun in your house, and you have no say against it?
I do not agree with their decision to exclude fire arms, they made it for their reasons, but it is their right as the owner.
Matt
1. how is a public building defined in Colorado?
2. see edit above.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/
C.R.S. 18-12-214
#5 I think applies.
Again, I do not agree, but it is their right as property owners.
But to some, they seem to have failed their patrons, there is already lawsuit talk on the web, seems every incident the "sue them" chant is a real close second to the actual issue.
Matt
C.R.S. 18-12-214
#5 I think applies.
Again, I do not agree, but it is their right as property owners.
But to some, they seem to have failed their patrons, there is already lawsuit talk on the web, seems every incident the "sue them" chant is a real close second to the actual issue.
Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!
So, start being safe, first!!!
muff528 3
Quotehttp://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/
C.R.S. 18-12-214
#5 I think applies.
Again, I do not agree, but it is their right as property owners.
But to some, they seem to have failed their patrons, there is already lawsuit talk on the web, seems every incident the "sue them" chant is a real close second to the actual issue.
Matt
"(5) Nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity."
Thanks. That clears the public/private question. But, I do agree with the right of private property owners to disallow weapons on their property if that is their choice. It just doesn't appear to be against the law to carry on their property in spite of those rules. But, if they ask you to leave and you don't you would then be illegally trespassing.
QuoteQuotehttp://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/
C.R.S. 18-12-214
#5 I think applies.
Again, I do not agree, but it is their right as property owners.
But to some, they seem to have failed their patrons, there is already lawsuit talk on the web, seems every incident the "sue them" chant is a real close second to the actual issue.
Matt
"(5) Nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity."
Thanks. That clears the public/private question. But, I do agree with the right of private property owners to disallow weapons on their property if that is their choice. It just doesn't appear to be against the law to carry on their property in spite of those rules. But, if they ask you to leave and you don't you would then be illegally trespassing.
Am I wrong in understanding that #5 is the Statute/Law and if you carried, you would be violating that?
I agree with you. I agree they get the choice to make that call, but don't agree with the call.
Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!
So, start being safe, first!!!
riddler 0
QuoteSo at best, 1/3 of his arsenal was a scary "assault" weapon.
It will be interesting to see what the weapons are, and how they were outfitted. In City of Denver, just a couple miles west of this tragedy, a shotgun can be considered an assault weapon if it has more than 5 round capacity, or a folding stock, or both. Aurora has no such regulation, and the state of Colorado has no formal definition of an assault weapon.
This has literally gone back and forth, as at one time, several Colorado municipalities had their own definitions and rules about what was allowed, but in 2004, one judge removed most of those restrictions, and left a modified version of the Denver ban in place.
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD
muff528 3
QuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/
C.R.S. 18-12-214
#5 I think applies.
Again, I do not agree, but it is their right as property owners.
But to some, they seem to have failed their patrons, there is already lawsuit talk on the web, seems every incident the "sue them" chant is a real close second to the actual issue.
Matt
"(5) Nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity."
Thanks. That clears the public/private question. But, I do agree with the right of private property owners to disallow weapons on their property if that is their choice. It just doesn't appear to be against the law to carry on their property in spite of those rules. But, if they ask you to leave and you don't you would then be illegally trespassing.
Am I wrong in understanding that #5 is the Statute/Law and if you carried, you would be violating that?
I agree with you. I agree they get the choice to make that call, but don't agree with the call.
Matt
I dunno. I looks to me that #5 restricts the law from violating a property owner's rights (to make rules, etc.) ...not the CC holder. Individual property owners can't write laws, only rules. Maybe a lawyer can weigh in.
QuoteQuoteI answered that but it didn't post
Yeah. I saw the Bonfire thread was locked out.Quote
No I have not, But I would give it a try if put in the situation. What would you do, lay there and die?
I would like to believe that we all would. After all, it's the human condition to believe we can make a difference. But to say one would opt to "lay there and die" as the defensive response to inability of action doesn't work here. This is just beating one's chest and being over optimistic of a situation many have never experienced. . . You have never experienced. You would have failed. I have trained in emergency enviromments like these. Most with the knowledge of what's coming up have failed. I sure didn't do my "best". Ancedotal, yes, but very telling. Truth is, the most bad assed, war-fighting expierenced, well trained person will never trump planning, surprise and preparation. This is documented many times over in the history books and all Military syllabuses in the DOD.
In the mass confusion that obviously ensued inside that theater, you have no way of knowing who or what might have made a difference. Being hit by a bullet might have been enough to stop him. Someone knocking him down might have.
Failure/winning in a training scenario is different from failure/winning in the real thing. The people training you are not going to stop. You have no idea what might have stopped this guy.
I don't understand the militant anti try stance.
QuoteBans are just to hold control of an entire populace, not for its "protection". That is just the excuse used.
This is just insurrectionist nonsense.
QuoteQuoteBans are just to hold control of an entire populace, not for its "protection". That is just the excuse used.
This is just insurrectionist nonsense.
And yet, history shows it to be true.
Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!
So, start being safe, first!!!
QuoteQuoteQuoteBans are just to hold control of an entire populace, not for its "protection". That is just the excuse used.
This is just insurrectionist nonsense.
And yet, history shows it to be true.
Matt
You've been reading too many Texan history books, my friend.
kallend 1,619
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAgain, have you had to perform in tear gas? Trust me. It's very hard to do a lot of things in this environment.
I answered that but it didn't post.
No I have not, But I would give it a try if put in the situation. What would you do, lay there and die?
Your eyes are burning and producing tears in abundance, so taking careful aim is out of the question. It also hurts to breathe, and if your perspiring at all, any exposed skin will feel like it's burning. Add the effect of being caught completely off guard, the panicking crowd, and the low light situation, and the probability of an armed movie watcher stopping the body armored gunman without causing significant collateral damage is extremely low, near zero.
That's all good to know. The alternative to trying would be doing nothing and that would not be an option.
So you can't see clearly, the perp is dressed in black and has a flak jacket on, the theater is dark, and is full of innocent people including women and children. And you intend to start shooting. There may be other hero wannabes with the same idea as you and have guns out. How will you identify the correct target?
Somehow I don't think you are going to improve the situation.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
tsisson 0
Quote
QuoteGood job all those CCW holders were around to prevent this.
They were probably the first one's hitting the exits.
Yep...carrying a firearm is for self protection...last resort/last stand. It has nothing to do with protecting anyone other than the person carrying it. If an exit is the quickest way to remove myself from the incident, then so be it. If trapped, at least I'd take some comfort knowing I had a .45 that might get me out of that fucked up situation in that theatre.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAgain, have you had to perform in tear gas? Trust me. It's very hard to do a lot of things in this environment.
I answered that but it didn't post.
No I have not, But I would give it a try if put in the situation. What would you do, lay there and die?
Your eyes are burning and producing tears in abundance, so taking careful aim is out of the question. It also hurts to breathe, and if your perspiring at all, any exposed skin will feel like it's burning. Add the effect of being caught completely off guard, the panicking crowd, and the low light situation, and the probability of an armed movie watcher stopping the body armored gunman without causing significant collateral damage is extremely low, near zero.
That's all good to know. The alternative to trying would be doing nothing and that would not be an option.
So you can't see clearly, the perp is dressed in black and has a flak jacket on, the theater is dark, and is full of innocent people including women and children. And you intend to start shooting. There may be other hero wannabes with the same idea as you and have guns out. How will you identify the correct target?
Somehow I don't think you are going to improve the situation.
No, I don't just plan to start shooting. You people are fucking maddening. I would intend on getting myself out alive.
Like I said before, a theater is not completely dark unless they turned off the projector and this guy didn't have a crowd around him once he started shooting. I can safely bet you dollars to doughnuts that no one was running toward this guy.
I can come up with as many positive scenarios as you can negative ones and none of them mean a damn thing.
One thing not being considered here is Adrenalin and the will to live. People do amazing things under pressure as I'm sure we will learn as all of this plays out.
jclalor 12
QuoteQuoteQuote
***Good job all those CCW holders were around to prevent this.
They were probably the first one's hitting the exits.
Yep...carrying a firearm is for self protection...last resort/last stand. It has nothing to do with protecting anyone other than the person carrying it. If an exit is the quickest way to remove myself from the incident, then so be it. If trapped, at least I'd take some comfort knowing I had a .45 that might get me out of that fucked up situation in that theatre.
Allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons as you have described for self defense is a plausible argument, however, this argument is rarely heard. After the recent shooting, and most other mass shootings, the argument most often made by proponents of concealed weapons, is that CCW holders will be a deterrent to mass shootings, and the CCW holder can drop a shooter once the rampage begins.
quade 3
QuoteAfter the recent shooting, and most other mass shootings, the argument most often made by proponents of concealed weapons, is that CCW holders will be a deterrent to mass shootings, and the CCW holder can drop a shooter once the rampage begins.
Which, as I think most people here agree, is highly implausible.
Oh sure, there are the Walter Mitty hero wanna bees who will say they're as good as SEAL Team Six, but the reality is they're not.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
skypuppy 1
QuoteQuote
QuoteGood job all those CCW holders were around to prevent this.
They were probably the first one's hitting the exits.
Yep...carrying a firearm is for self protection...last resort/last stand. It has nothing to do with protecting anyone other than the person carrying it. If an exit is the quickest way to remove myself from the incident, then so be it. If trapped, at least I'd take some comfort knowing I had a .45 that might get me out of that fucked up situation in that theatre.
I disagree. It is to protect yourself, and your family or other persons you are responsible for.
As for other ccw being able to help, it could have in the situation at Luby's in texas. quote
In response to the massacre,[5] the Texas Legislature in 1995 passed a shall-issue gun law, which requires that all qualifying applicants be issued a Concealed Handgun License (the state's required permit to carry concealed weapons), removing the personal discretion of the issuing authority to deny such licenses. To qualify for a license, one must be free-and-clear of crimes, attend a minimum 10-hour class taught by a state-certified instructor, pass a 50-question test, show proficiency in a 50-round shooting test, and pass two background tests, one shallow and one deep. The license costs $240 to $290, depending on the added instructor's fee.
The law had been campaigned for by Dr. Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the time of the shootout where both of her parents were shot and killed. She later expressed regret for obeying the law by leaving her firearm in her car rather than keeping it on her person due to the fact that it could have cost her her chiropractic license.[6] She testified across the country in support of concealed handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996.[7] The law was signed by then-Governor George W. Bush.[8]
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
QuoteQuoteAfter the recent shooting, and most other mass shootings, the argument most often made by proponents of concealed weapons, is that CCW holders will be a deterrent to mass shootings, and the CCW holder can drop a shooter once the rampage begins.
Which, as I think most people here agree, is highly implausible.
Oh sure, there are the Walter Mitty hero wanna bees who will say they're as good as SEAL Team Six, but the reality is they're not.
I think very few CCW holders believe they are "as good as Seal Team 6".
One thing being ignored here for all that are throwing up the training scenarios is this. Those training schools are run by professionals who plan for you to fail so they can teach you something. If you went through one of those schools and aced everything you did it wouldn't be worth your time.
This guy was not a trained professional any more than I am. Other than gathering guns and an outfit you have no idea how or if he trained for this. You have no idea how many rounds were fired, what his kill ratio was, if he fixated on targets or if he randomly fired at movement.
To many unknowns for any of you to say nothing would have helped.
But of course we are just "what if"-ing the situation to death.
Facts is a murderer planned and carried out a mass murder. He appears to have been alone and had no connections at the time to any politics.
That isn't stopping the Anti-Gun crowd, Pro-Gun crowd, Tin Foil hat wearers, and what ever else is out there, from trying to use this for their own political and personal gain.
Matt
So, start being safe, first!!!
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites