Colorado theater chose to prohibit concealed carry

by NW Spotlight

Century Theaters created a pretend gun-free zone

In the wake of the 1999 Columbine murders, Colorado passed eight specific gun-law reforms: three “gun control,” and five “gun rights”. Writing this week in National Review, Dave Kopel noted “[The gun-law reforms] are all based on the same principles: Guns in the wrong hands are very dangerous, and guns in the right hands protect public safety.”

Kopel writes that the most important of the reforms was Colorado’s 2003 Concealed Carry Act, which has already thwarted at least one massacre in December 2007. A man murdered two teenagers at a church training center, drove to a church in another location where he killed two people in the parking lot, and then entered the church carrying hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Inside, the attacker was quickly shot by a volunteer female security guard carrying a licensed handgun. The pastor estimated the female security guard’s actions saved over 100 lives.

Kopel then goes on to describe how Colorado law forces the government to make good on promises of “gun-free zones” if they prohibit concealed carry in a building, but protects the property rights of business owners and allows them to prohibit concealed carry on their property. Unlike the government, businesses are not required to actually make their premises “gun-free” when they prohibit concealed carry. Century Theaters was one of very few Colorado businesses to prohibit concealed carry, and they did nothing to actually make their premises “gun-free”.

“Colorado law allows government buildings to be declared ‘gun-free zones,’ but Colorado law insists that when a government promises a gun-free zone, the government must keep the promise: Licensed carry may be forbidden in a government building only if all entrances to the building are controlled, and if the public entrances have metal detectors manned by armed guards. Under Colorado law, therefore, government entities may not simply post a no guns sign and leave law-abiding, licensed citizens defenseless against violent criminals.”

“The Concealed Carry Act did not disturb the property rights of business owners — if they wish to, they may prohibit concealed carry on their business premises. Fortunately, very few Colorado businesses have done so. But one that did was Century Theaters. Compounding the problem, Century Theaters did not create an actual ‘gun-free zone’ (as some government buildings in Colorado have). Instead, Century Theaters created a pretend gun-free zone. Century Theaters did nothing to prevent armed criminals from entering the theater.”

“As is common in mass homicides, the killer in this case chose to target victims in a ‘gun-free’ zone — with predictable and horrific results. When armed police finally confronted him, he surrendered quickly. This, too, is common; mass killers tend to be cowards who crumble at the first resistance.”

 

Notes on 1999 Columbine murders of 12 students and one teacher:

  • A concerned parent had notified the sheriff’s office more than a year in advance, and the sheriff’s office had detailed information on one of the Columbine killers (including lists of targeted victims, a count of guns acquired, status of bombs built, etc.) well in advance of the attack, but did nothing – something which the sheriff’s office later tried to cover up. (additional information in 2001 and 2004 articles)
  • “The [attackers] hoped that after setting off home-made explosives in the cafeteria at the busiest time of day, killing many hundreds of students, they would use their guns to shoot survivors as they fled from the school. Then, as police vehicles, ambulances, fire trucks, and reporters came to the school, bombs set in the [attackers'] cars would detonate, killing the emergency personnel, media, and law enforcement officers; this original plan backfired when the explosives did not detonate.”
  • “Using instructions acquired upon the Internet, the attackers constructed a total of 99 [bombs].”
  • “The perpetrators committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, even before the massacre began.”

UPDATE: 9/10/2012 article by John Lott – Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns?

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in 2nd Amendment | 68 Comments | Email This Post | Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    Interesting the way news reports were instant in their investigation, and in some cases declaration, that Orange Juice was a tea party member. Yet for some reason little facts like Century Theaters prohibiting concealed carry, and the legal carry incident mentioned above are not newsworthy.

    Frankly the Century Theaters policy sounds like a sweet lawsuit. If you remove peoples ability to protect themselves, you have taken it upon yourself to do so.

    • Military Family

      I totally agree! Many CC’er don’t report a situation when the BG(s) discover that their target was armed and they run away. I would swear on a stack of Bible if I waw involved in this situation. My wife would definately file if I was killed in the situation.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        > My wife would definitely file if I was killed in the situation.

        As she should. A few good lawsuits would make business realize there is a cost to policies such as this.

        The bottom line here is you had a guy who had probably never fired a gun before in his life, or if he had, had done so very rarely.

        How do we know this? He jammed an AR15 right off the bat and switched to a conventional pump shotgun, which didn’t jam.

        In other words, this idiot didn’t know that firing a semi auto from the hip, especially one as low powered as an AR15, will generally result in a jam right away.

        That’s why they make pump shotguns. It’s also why it is very unfortunate he was not armed with a high capacity “assault weapon” style shotgun. Had he been so armed, he would have jammed that as well

        Would several CC holders firing from the cover of the movie seats have made a difference?

        Very likely. .

        Id sue the movie theater like crazy.

    • ardbeg

      I hope there is no lawsuit. Why should there be. No one forced any of those people to go to that movie theater. I routinely choose not to patron business that forbid CC. It’s their right, and it’s our right to do business with them or not. Great, lets start suing people for encouraging a gun free non violet evening at the movies.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        You have three problems with your argument:

        First – the theater did not “encourage”, they prohibited people from carrying firearms.

        Second – Prohibiting firearms has nothing to do with non violence. Generally areas where it is hard to carry a firearm tend to be some of the most violent areas in the country.

        Third – Why should lawsuits be prohibited in this instance. The only known defense against a lunatic with a gun tends to be another guy with a gun. That’s why police carry firearms, and that’s why people regularly defend themselves, as they have done in several mass murder cases like this, with firearms. Theater prohibited people from using that right. On what basis should the theater not be sued since their policy prevented the only defense there is in such a situation?

        • Military Family

          Exactly correcr Rupert. Some States have attempted to pass Bill that would require Gun-Free zones to be liable for failing to provide protection to thier customers.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Sounds like a good law. I really don’t see a lot of difference between requiring CCL holders not to carry on the premises and a motorcycle rental shop demanding one not wear a helmet.

            You have diminished my ability to protect myself, thus you assume the liability.

            Seems like a hell of a lawsuit to me. Id certainly file one if I had been injured in that theater.

          • ardbeg

            You have diminished my ability to protect myself-not true. GO TO A DIFFERENT THEATER.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            > GO TO A DIFFERENT THEATER.

            Sorry, you don’t understand the concept of a public accommodation. It is not incumbent on me to solve the problem, it is incumbent on the accommodation.

            Please read up on this at least a little. I would suggest really figuring out the difference between a right and a law as well as laws regarding public accommodations. The entire concept of public accommodations seems to be something you are totally ignorant of.

            Thanks

          • ardbeg

            How a about you just try and understand the concept of a law, try googling it.

          • Military Family

            Jeez? Have we traveled back in time to the ’60′s? Should we have to drink from certain water founation, use a certain Buses and designated toilets too? Why can’t I use these open to the public accomodations? The 2A was around longer then the Civil Rights movement!

          • 3H

            Right, because not being able to carry your weapon into a theater can be equated with not being able to enter the theater because you’re black. Not all restrictions are equally odious.

          • valley person

            Are you so afraid that you can’t go anywhere without a gun?

            I can’t use buses or go to cafes if I am totally naked. Isn’t this discrimination against naked people?

          • Military Family

            Do wear your seatbeat because there no chance at all that you might be involved in an accident? I wouldn’t say that I’m afraid rather alarmed with the increasing violence that I take extra precautions. For being afraid would imply that I would be fearful from doing something or going some where I would normally go too. The “Naked” agruement is so apple and oranges you should be embarassed. One, it is legal for me to CC in public where as you being naked in public (aside from SF) is not illegal.

          • ardbeg

            There are many places CC holders can’t go. The “laws” differ from state to state about private business either allowing or not allowing CC on their premises. To me, I respect their rights to either allow or not allow CC. As a CC myself I choose to not go into those business (actually , very few in Oregon) that restrict CC. Public accomodations has nothing to do with this. Why don’t you (and Ruperet) go get the ALCU to fight against what you see as discrimination. I see it as respecting private businesses.

          • Military Family

            !’m also CC’er, as a law-abiding CC’er I respect the Laws. Most government gun-free zones step up and protect some form of providing security for anyone entering the areas. Of course, these steps are paid for by the tax payers.
            Businesses are currently not required to provide any form of protection to those that temporary waive thier constitutional rights. If they were held to the same standards aas government buildings, I really woundn’t mind. A little uncomfortable, but, better then nothing. Which is what we have now is nothing. If a Business decides on thier own to restrict firearms and a CC’er is injuried why shouldn’t the CC be atleast allowed to sue the business? I would bet that a jury in a Shall Issue or Carry States would win the case on negligence.

            Businesses that are open to the public would be allowed to post a No-freedom of Speech signs in thier business? The left and right wings would be all over the policy. But why it is they private business, right? Why is one Right any different then another? Let’s remember that most, if not all States proir to issuing a CC have background checks ran. So, there are not too many criminals carrying CC.
            I’m for changing the laws, but until then I can’t enjoy going to places like many other law abiding citizen, becuase one of my Rights, not a privilege, is being denied.
            Look how wacky the Chick-Fil-A situation has gotten out of hand with Freedom of Speech. People demonized the actual business that doesn’t practice discrimination. The Nation is going nuts.

          • Military Family

            The Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act. I beleive a few States, like AZ, have attempted to pass it. IMHO, the Chamber of Commence probably lobbied aganist. But, it is still out there.

        • valley person

          So you are saying a private business can’t ban guns from its premises? Interesting theory. If I had you over to my house (God forbid,) would I be in the same boat?

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >So you are saying a private business can’t ban guns from its premises?

            Nope, you are saying that, I never said any such thing.

            > Interesting theory.

            More like yet another dull attempt by you to argue against a statement nobody ever made in an attempt to redirect the argument to one you think you might win.

            >If I had you over to my house (God forbid,) would I be in the same boat?

            Id imagine that boat would be named the USS IDIOT, since apparently you are unaware that homeowners get sued regularly, often by burglars shot by the homeowner.

          • valley person

            You claimed above that people “have a right”, your words, to carry a weapon into someones place of business. And you say a CC permit holder who may have left her weapon in that theater behind has grounds for suit. Now you say you never said any such thing.

            Don’t you ever get tired of your own head spinning around?

          • ardbeg

            Do burglar sue homeowners? Yes, but rarely do they win, another great argument (read up next time) from Mr. “I know everything”. Kinda like your “Prohibiting firearms has nothing to do with non violence. Generally
            areas where it is hard to carry a firearm tend to be some of the most
            violent areas” I think there are many countries who would disagree. The US with it’s liberal gun laws has an average of 270 citizens shot per day. Gee Mr K-I-A, how does Canada, Germany Sweden, etc compare to the US in gun violence? Doofus!

          • Rupert in Springfield

            > Yes, but rarely do they win, another great argument (read up next time)

            Read up on what? you have absolutely no citation or evidence for your claim.

            I would imagine you are completely unaware that in most parts of the country, it is a relatively novel concept that the homeowner does not have to retreat out of the home rather than use deadly force.

            > how does Canada, Germany Sweden, etc compare to the US in gun violence?

            And with this you lose. This is a standard losing argument that is so easily defeated all it is really indicative of is a persons lack of knowledge on the issue.

            Since you aren’t I will school you.

            Yes, Those countries do have lower homicide rates with guns. Yes they have more restrictive laws. However, they have always had lower rates of that nature, both before and after passage of such laws. In other words, passing of the laws has absolutely no correlation in a drop in homicides with guns in those countries, they simply have always had a lower rate than the US.

            Look, again, it’s clear you don;t know much about this issue. Thanks for your input though. Maybe read up and learn something? Look at what you learned here already – that the country comparison argument loses you the argument. So now you won’t make it again.

            Thanks

          • ardbeg

            “This is a standard losing argument that is so easily defeated all it is
            really indicative of is a persons lack of knowledge on the issue.” Only your lack of knowledge Rupert-your gear shift is stuck on stupid. So by your reasoning, or obvious lack there of-America has more gun violence because Americans are anthropologically more prone to violence? If that is true we should remove all guns and put nutjobs like you on some serious meds. Look again R, it is clear you don’t know as much about this issue as you think you do. I imagine you are completely uninformed. Sitting in your room looking stuff up on the internet doesn’t make you an expert.

        • ardbeg

          Bottom line is it is private property and they have the right to say no guns, or are you not in favor of private property and the rights that go with it? Maybe you want the Government telling property owners what they can and can’t do with their own property?

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Bottom line is it is private property and they have the right to say no guns

            Wrong, in a public accommodation you have very limited rights in what you can or cannot do.

            It was the law that they could ban guns, but there is no inherent right to do so ion a public accommodation.

            Apparently this is news to you. Are you aware a store cannot ban people based on race? Yep, been that way for quite a while. Private property rights in a public accommodation and a private one a very different things. Sounds like you need to read up a little
            .

          • ardbeg

            O.K. then it’s the “law” as you say. Doesn’t the law give them ‘rights’, as usual your logic makes no sense. Get the government to change the law then. But until they do, private business have the right/law (call it what you want) to do what is legal. I’m not sure what race has to do with your position. Private business often denied non-whites into their business until a law was passed making it illegal. Your saying I can’t forbid someone coming on to my private property (my house or my business) from bring concealed weapons? I choose not to go into an establishment if they have a no CC sign on their front door. My choice is take off the gun or don’t go in and I choose not to go in. I’ll say once again, sounds like you want the government taking more control of private property and that means your home and your place of business. Knock off the “read up” comments it make you look like an arrogant ass.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Doesn’t the law give them ‘rights’, as usual your logic makes no sense.

            Obviously you don’t understand the difference between a right and a law. Very different things in our legal system and in fact that difference is the foundation of our government.

            Look, you don’t even know the difference between a right and a law, hard to imagine you know much about the situation at hand either.

  • valley person

    Did the theater search people for weapons on the way in? Would concealed carry owners really check their guns at the door? were any checked at the door?

    And had someone been packing, how would they have taken out a guy firing 60 or more rounds a minute in a dark, smoke filled theater with panicked people all around, and the guy in full body armor? It would have taken a miracle shot.

    You guys need to get over yourselves.

    • Military Family

      I
      think you missed the point. When the Theater chooses to declared itself
      Gun-Free they would be expected to provide some form of security i.e. armed
      security i.e. to ensure the public that is was in fact in a Gun-Free zone. A law-abiding
      CC’er would likely secure their firearm in their vehicles IF the theater held
      up its end of the bargain.

      The
      point of whether or not a CC would have made a difference in the situation
      might have actually helped.

      IMHO,
      if a CC person had engaged the shooter. The shooter would have focused on the
      new threat (CC’er) thus not spraying the Sheeple. Which would allow more
      Sheeple to run away from the Shooter and allowed the LEO more time to get
      inside and control the situation? Even in a crowded theater, shooting in the
      ceiling to distract the shooter for few moments’ means more time for Sheeple to
      run.

      I’m
      retired Army, so those that never actually experienced wearing a “Gas
      mask” don’t realize the limited vision and restrictive breathing it
      causes. The shooter would be at slight disadvantage. Since they claim it was
      actually Smoke and not CS used. It makes a big difference for a CC’er.

      It
      would also be safe to say that most serious CC persons carry better quality
      weapons and ammo then that the normal limited budget LEO. Many CC’er fires
      their weapons more often than the yearly requirement … depends on the budget
      … then your local LEO. The CC’er normally spends more of THEIR money into the
      weapons, ammo and training for the sole purpose of saving their own lives and
      their loved ones. The local LEO might carry 9mms, but one CC’er with a 4″
      .357/.44/.45 would have put a serious hurt on the shooter.

      You
      and your anti-gun media continue to demonstrate our naive knowledge about the
      reality of the real world. Have you ever asked a LEO that has the budget
      bulletproof vest what happens if, God-forbids is shot? You and your L-media may
      want your Sheeple audience to think that bulletproof vest react to gun fire
      like the Ironman suit. The Vest, depending on what threat level it was designed
      for, will absorb the impact of the first round. The individual will still have
      the trauma of the effects of being shot i.e. bruising or cracked rib and mental effect
      of just being shot. Once the vest has been damaged from the first shot, its
      design integrity has been weaken with additional impact of more rounds.

      This
      Shooter is not a season war veteran. More likely he had the same incorrect
      mentality just like yourself and Left-wing media on bulletproof vests. He would
      have been dumbfounded to learn this lesson the hard way had a CC’er had got
      even one shot had hit its target! Just like getting hit in the chest with a
      baseball bat! Your wind is knocked out of you and ohh you will feel pain! But,
      you won’t be injured directly by the round.

      Also,
      the “Riot Gear” is normally not bulletproof. Instead of flapping our
      gums, try researching something? Most riot gear has a disclaimer that the gear
      is not what??? Bulletproof.

      If there was one CC’er in the crowd, I would
      not “expect” him or her to engage the shooter unless to defend
      themselves or loved ones. It was the Theater’s responsibility to provide
      adequate armed security since it was their choice to declare the theater a
      gun-free zone without backing it up! I pray that the Surviving Sheeple mount a
      class action lawsuit on the theater. Maybe then businesses will think twice
      about restricting law-abiding CC/OC’er into their businesses or cut into their
      profit line for providing armed security.

      How many wake-up calls does a person get in
      life? Those survivors and their family members have to accept the fact that
      they and they alone are responsible for defending themselves. They don’t have to be paranoid about when or
      if they will be attacked it is about precautions.

      Most people wear seatbelts not because they
      are paranoid but because it as a precaution, if something happens. The only slight difference is that a seatbelt
      will only protect you from the “effects” of an accident. It won’t stop an accident. It is never an accident that a Bad Guy(s)
      target you and our loved ones … it is intentional! The normal run-of-the-mill bad guys look for
      easy and defenseless targets … low to no risk on their part. Otherwise, we would hear never-ending stories
      of bad guy running straight at Fort Knox and dying in groves.

      That my
      2 cents.

      Retired MP PSG GW OIF & OIF III

      • valley person

        That was far more than 2 cents in volume, but about 2 cents worth of analysis.

        I’m personally not interested in being subjected to you and your crazy Rambo wannabe friends thinking you can hold shootouts in places I might patronize. I’ve been patronizing movie theaters, restaurants and lots of other public places for 59 years and have yet to be shot at. The fewer chance of bullets flying around the better as far as I’m concerned.

        This idea that brave people with little pistols would stand up and take fire for others is beyond silly. This guy was spraying bullets. I doubt he was even doing much actual aiming, and given the weapons he had he would not have to. Smoke, panic, bullets flying about, people screaming and running for their lives or trying to find cover. Reports I’ve seen say police were on the scene within 1.5 minutes of when the shooting began. It would have taken any sane person at least a long minute to assess the situation, find a target, find a good place to shoot from, which would be from cover, not standing up like in some move, and then he or she would have had to find a place to shoot this guy where he wasn’t protected. AND, he was not standing still. He was moving around.

        Have you ever been in a shootout remotely resembling this one, or any shoot out? I know many cops who have never fired a shot at anyone in their full careers.

        Calling the victims “sheeple” is disgusting. Had you been there with your pop gun, I expect you would have been on the floor for a full 30 seconds to a minute. If you managed to compose yourself, you may have gotten your gun out and found a target to shoot at. And likely as not you would have done no good at all, because in that situation you would miss or hit body armor, or worse, hit an innocent person.

        More guns equals more gun deaths.

        • 3H

          And, most people with CC are not trained to shoot at people, or to shoot in chaotic conditions like what happened in Colorado. What happens if an innocent gets killed by the good samaritan instead of shooter?

          • Liberty1959

            They will be prosecuted.
            The law of natural selection, always works for liberal victims. It gets proven time & time again in the safe “Gun Free Zones” of the world.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Um, you would be sued at the very least. Kind of like if you have a drivers license and run over somebody.

            Why are you guys who, apparently, have zero knowledge about CCL laws commenting on a CCL post? I mean this is basic basic stuff.

          • valley person

            Why do you keep asserting your knowledge and posting nonsense?

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Because I obviously know more about the issue than you. After all, I can actually list the guns that were used whereas you think there are magic guns that require no aiming and are under the impression mass murders have not been stopped by CCL holders

          • valley person

            Anyone can list the guns used by spending 30 seconds doing an internet search. And once again, pointing is not aiming. And I’d still like to see you example of mass shooters stopped by a non cop, military, or security guard with a CC permit. I’ve searched and can’t find any examples.

            I have however found hundreds of murders by CC permit holders over the last few years.

          • Military Family

            Valley Person, you talk and talk …
            What is the data to back your statement about all the hundreds of murder by CC’ers? You may need to understand the difference between murder and Justifiable Homicide.
            In Texas they posted the criminal convictions each year, which included if the person had a CHL. They also note that any conviction is reported to the TX CHL bureau for which the convicted individual held a license to carry handgun at the time of the offense was committed.
            But, doesn’t imply that a firearm was actually used during the offense just that they were licensed at the time.
            Texas total Murders / CHL Holders:
            2011 461 CHL 3 .0065%
            2010 458 CHL 4 .0087%
            2009 406 CHL 1 .0024%
            2008 346 CHL 3 .0086%
            2007 371 CHL 2 .0053%
            You have to admit that the Republic of Texas being the 2nd largest State, it should be a suitable sample? Of the hundreds of murder each year in Texas not even 1% of the had CHL’s.
            Valley Person, you are again talking out your rear! Most reasonable and level-headed person would not assume that CC’ers have a history of being murders, at least in Texas That is just the Liberal Anti-gunners spreading fear to the Masses.
            Spouting off what the Brady Campers posted is mostly BS. You should verify sometimes what you read or hear. Otherwise, your creditable is shot!
            I’m not an NRA member, but I would recommend going to thier website and read some of the Armed Citizen News stories. Now, before you scufff. All the stories have hyperlinks to the actual newspaper or tv News Online websites to read the entire news reports. You would suprised at the number of Citizens that stand-up and refuse to be a victim. Most stories are local and that is where the National Media netowrks prefers them to stay based on thier agenda. If the media source agenda is anti-gun everything then they will not cover it nationally. God-Forbid the Masses found out that citizens are protecting themselves legally more and more everyday.
            Understand CC’ers are not trying to be Mass Killer Stoppers. We just want to protect OURSELVES and our loved ones. It doesn’t matter what the bad guy(s) intentions are, we have a right to defend ourselves. If you and others don’t … then run away so we can get a clean shot! I don’t intend to be shot in the back. Since you are a Veteran, you know what a person is called when they ran away when facing the enemy???? Right! So Sheeple is not that disgusting is it?
            For myself, I always read it from the sources. In this day and age, reading something on a Blog, opinion page, or bias survey doesn’t make it truth …. especially if it is too good to be true.

          • 3H

            Question was rhetorical. Sorry I confused you and diverted you from the major point of the post.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Yet again, take a little more time with your writing so you don’t have to keep stumbling to correct yourself. Saves time. Thanks!

          • 3H

            Please feel free to start leading by example.

          • ardbeg

            Very true, check out the amount of ammo flung by trained police and their rates of targest hit. It’s astounding how often even trained police miss their target once it’s for real and not just at the range. BUT, I still have a CCP and believe in individuals right to carry WHERE LEGAL (are you listening Mr. K-I-A)

          • Rupert in Springfield

            I don’t think anyone here is arguing against your ability to carry where legal. Nor can I see anyone arguing that citizens should carry where illegal.

            However I would argue that someone with your anger level should probably take pause before carrying at all.

            It’s not the kind of thing those of us who advocate for the second amendment regard as a net positive.

          • ardbeg

            No anger here. Never hit my wife, never spanked my kids, I don’t even kick my dog. Just tired of your incessant arrogance, I’m assuming you live alone or with a very submissive partner.

            You have to be the only person in the world who says crap like: “WARNING – I AM SETTING YOU UP”, “you will lose definitively in one
            iteration.”

          • valley person

            I would argue that someone with your deliberate (I hope) obtuseness should take a pause before carrying.

            What does “advocating for the 2nd amendment” even mean? What you are advocating is the most liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment you can get away with.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >This idea that brave people with little pistols would stand up and take fire for others is beyond silly.

          Remarkably incorrect since this does happen from time to time.

          >This guy was spraying bullets.

          No he wasn’t. Where in the world did you get this crazy idea?

          > I doubt he was even doing much actual aiming, and given the weapons he had he would not have to.

          Wrong, Every weapon he had required one to aim to hit anything at all.

          The fact that he was shooting at a wall of people meant aiming was not particularly important, it had nothing to do with the weapons involved.

          Please – Unless you actually know something about guns, or have at least fired the guns involved, even informally, do not put yourself forward as some sort of authority on what the gun is capable of.

          If you want to maintain that you do hove some knowledge on this topic, which I don’t think you do, can you please name either the model, or type, of gun that the shooter had that requires no aim to hit something.

          Thanks

          WARNING – I AM SETTING YOU UP – I am fully aware of, and familiar with, the two long guns used in the attack, you will lose definitively in one iteration unless you name a different gun from those two.

          • valley person

            Ok Rupert, so enlighten me with the following comparative data.

            1) How many instances have there been in the US over the past 5 years where a CC holder who was not a trained present or former cop military person or security guard stopped a mass killer in his tracks? I’ve searched for this and can’t find any instances.

            2) How many murders have CC holders committed in the US in the past 10 years? I’ll save you the trouble. The answer is 442 as of today.

            Why didn’t a CC permit holder stop the mass shooting in broad daylight at the Gabriel Giffords event last year? Guns were not prohibited there. Arizona has one of the more permissive carry laws in the nation no?

            Shooting into a crowd dude, is not “aiming”. Its pointing. His guns were clearly capable of firing hundreds of rounds in the 2 minutes he was shooting in that theater.

            He didn’t have to aim any of his 3 guns to hit people. He only had to point and squeeze the trigger. If you think pointing in a general direction amounts to aiming at a target, you haven’t spent much time around guns.

            Yes, you really set me up with a load of utter nonsense.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            OK – so you can’t answer any of my questions, you cant find the magic gun that doesn’t need to be aimed, and you somehow think whatever gun was used, it sprayed bullets, but you have no idea what gun was used. So you have established you know nothing about the event. That’s fine.

            Lets see if your questions indicate you have any knowledge of anything related to this shall we?

            > How many instances have there been in the US over the past 5 years where a CC holder…I’ve searched for this and can’t find any instances.

            Here is one from last Friday idiot.

            http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

            >The answer is 442 as of today.

            So?

            I can promise you, there are more than 44.2 murders a year in gun free zones. I mean even just Chicago gets you that much in a matter of months.

            Nice try though.

            >Why didn’t a CC permit holder stop the mass shooting in broad daylight at the Gabriel Giffords event last year?

            One of the men who stopped Loughner was a CCL holder who stated categorically he would not have taken action had he not been carrying.

            Three for three, you are done.

          • valley person

            Dude, he did not need to “aim” any of his 3 guns, an assault rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun, and a 40 caliber semi automatic pistol, in a crowded theater. Law enforcement experts at the scene said he could have been shooting with his eyes closed and hit just as many people in there. Had he been aiming, he would have killed fewer people because he would be firing fewer rounds. His most effective gun was the shotgun, which sprayed bullets. You think he “aimed” his shotgun?

            So your one single example of a CC permit holder saving lives in a mass shooting is…wait for this…a guy stopping another guy with a knife. I don’t know…mass shooting equals knife fight? And your other example is that one of the 3 guys who tackled the Giffords shooter had a gun on him? And he wouldn’t have…get this…tackled the shooter unless he had a gun on him? So why didn’t he simply pull his gun and shoot the damn guy? What about the other guys who tackled the shooter? Did they only do it b ecause they knew one of them had a holstered gun?

            You are seriously tweaked. Why don’t you just admit you can’t find a single instance of a mass shooter ever stopped by a non law enforcement, non military, non security guard? Which makes your entire premise, that armed people in that theater would have or even could have stopped this guy a belief not backed up by any facts.

            The number of murders in states with relatively strict gun laws is far lower than the number of murders in states with few rules. You can look up the data on this yourself.

          • ardbeg

            Rupert-the question was 1) How many instances have there been in the US over the past 5 years
            where a CC holder who was not a trained present or former cop military
            person or security guard stopped a mass killer in his tracks? Now it is painfully obvious you are not intelligent enough or educated enough to realize the question concerned nut jobs going in with multiple firearms and huge amounts of ammo to movie theaters, college campuses, churches and shopping malls with the expressed intent to kill as many people as they could. There, do you understand the question now? I’ve learned, like little children, your social skills are lacking and your ability to understand the meaning of most questions is limited, little children are very literal. Just like you. Your attachment of a guy with a knife trying to get $100 out of a 7-11 is not relevant. So once again, your the idiot here. Maybe it’s time you let the grownups talk.

          • valley person

            Isn’t he a piece of work? I picture Rupert at home in his basement, like Rupert Pupmick from the King of Comedy, with cardboard cutouts of various “liberals.” He argues with them and always wins.

            Rupert’s intuition and personal experience trump any statistic known to man. Confusing a guy with a knife with a guy with 3 high capacity guns? How many people in that theater would this guy have killed or harmed with a knife Rupert?

          • ardbeg

            A legend in his own mind

          • Military Family

            Three men Killed in Winnemucca shooting on Sunday

            Rebecca Bessler May 26 2008

            Channel 2 News

            http://www.ktvn.com/Global/story.asp?s=8378732

            Deputies with the Humboldt
            County Sheriff’s Office are investigating a shooting in Winnemucca early Sunday
            morning that left three people dead and others injured.

            The shooting happened at
            the Player’s Bar & Grill on South Grass Valley Road.

            Investigators say a feud
            between two local families is behind the early-morning shooting inside the bar.
            Three men from Winnemucca died from gunshot wounds, and two others are in
            critical condition at the hospital.

            Deputies say about 2:25
            a.m., 30-year-old Ernesto Villa Gomez walked into the bar and starting
            shooting. 20-year-old Jose Torres and his 19-year-old brother Margarito Torres
            were killed. When Villa Gomez was reloading his semi-automatic gun, a man from
            Reno took out a gun and shot Villa Gomez. That man has a concealed weapons
            permit.

            The unidentified man who shot
            Villa Gomez is not expected to be charged in this incident; law enforcement
            call it a justifiable homicide.

            Local police, the Sheriff’s
            Office and the Nevada Highway Patrol are preparing for retaliation from one or
            both of the families, and rumors are already circulating in the small town of
            Winnemucca. There is a sense of sadness for losing three local men in this
            violent incident.

            The Player’s Bar & Grill was full of about
            300 people, because a local biker event “Runnemucca” is going on this
            holiday weekend.

            April 30, 2012

            The Salt Lake
            Tribune, Salt Lake City, Utah 04/27/12, KTVX, Salt Lake City, Utah 04/27/12

            A crazed man entered a Smith’s
            grocery store in Salt Lake City, Utah, purchased a knife, exited the store and
            began stabbing nearby customers while yelling “you killed my people.” The
            criminal viciously attacked two patrons before a man with a Right-to-Carry
            permit arrived on the scene, drew his gun and ordered the attacker to drop the
            knife. The criminal complied, which allowed other bystanders to subdue the
            attacker until police could arrive. Salt Lake City Police have hailed the armed
            citizen as a hero who likely saved lives, with Lt. Brian Purvis noting, “This
            was a volatile situation that could have gotten worse. We can only assume from
            what we saw it could have gotten worse. He was definitely in the right place at
            the right time.” An investigation revealed that the knife-wielding man has a
            lengthy criminal record with convictions for criminal trespass, attempted
            aggravated assault, attempted aggravated assault on a police officer and sexual
            battery and lewdness. The attacker’s latest stint in jail occurred less than a
            week before the rampage, after he was arrested for joyriding and possessing
            false identification.

            April 30, 2012

            The Salt Lake
            Tribune, Salt Lake City, Utah 04/27/12, KTVX, Salt Lake City, Utah 04/27/12

            A crazed man entered a Smith’s
            grocery store in Salt Lake City, Utah, purchased a knife, exited the store and
            began stabbing nearby customers while yelling “you killed my people.” The
            criminal viciously attacked two patrons before a man with a Right-to-Carry
            permit arrived on the scene, drew his gun and ordered the attacker to drop the
            knife. The criminal complied, which allowed other bystanders to subdue the
            attacker until police could arrive. Salt Lake City Police have hailed the armed
            citizen as a hero who likely saved lives, with Lt. Brian Purvis noting, “This
            was a volatile situation that could have gotten worse. We can only assume from
            what we saw it could have gotten worse. He was definitely in the right place at
            the right time.” An investigation revealed that the knife-wielding man has a
            lengthy criminal record with convictions for criminal trespass, attempted
            aggravated assault, attempted aggravated assault on a police officer and sexual
            battery and lewdness. The attacker’s latest stint in jail occurred less than a
            week before the rampage, after he was arrested for joyriding and possessing
            false identification.

        • Military Family

          Of
          course you wouldn’t be interested in being subjected to me and my crazy Rambo
          wannbe friends. You clearly believe that you and your loved ones should be
          subjected to criminals and deranged individuals to be their defenseless
          victims, gotcha. Bleat

          IMHO,
          that is why most CC/OC’ers sees it as their adult American responsibility to protect
          themselves and their loved ones rather than expecting others to do it for them.
          Have you ever heard the phrase “Leading the Sheep to the slaughter”? Just
          knowing that there are real threats in the World and just ignoring them doesn’t
          make them go away nor your responsibility to protect yourself and your loved
          ones. People that refuse to take responsibility which is given by the 2nd
          Amendment and not exercising this right are “Sheeple” just begging to
          be fleeced or worst by the criminal elements that for centuries has descend
          like wolves on sheep that wouldn’t defend themselves.

          I
          guess I could understand your position, if I felt it wasn’t my responsibility
          to protect my family. The difference actually
          is that I love my family too much.

          As far as the LEO arriving in 90 seconds is
          what was reported on the media. You might have recalled that the initial LEO
          arrived in record time, BUT had to wait outside until gas masks were sent to
          them prior to them going in. That gave the shooter more than 90 seconds to
          continue shooting defenseless people. The LEO did an outstanding job with what
          they had to work with for the given situation. This doesn’t stop the remaining survivors,
          who are not aware whether the LEO have even arrived, must continue to defend
          themselves the best way that they can. Whether it be playing dead or curling up
          behind something for concealment or if allowed to be armed to defend one’s self
          with return fire.

          As far as my experience, as stated at the
          bottom of my comment. I retired from the US Army as a Military Police Platoon
          Sergeant that served in 3 combat tours.
          I have been shot at in the Gulf War, Operation Iraq 2003 and 2005 and
          killing some in return. As a Military
          Policeman, I also protected the innocent Kuwait and Iraqi non-combatants and
          provide first aid to wounded children.

          Sir, you call my term “Sheeple” disgusting and
          yet assume what my actions would have been in the theater that night after I
          referred to my background at the end of my comment? I can and have demonstrated to my Country in
          3 combat tours to engage and defeat the enemy that I encountered and those
          lives I protected, BUT according to YOU, I can’t be trusted to reaction
          accordingly in a live fight encounter in public place be it a Park or theater? What public selfless service have you
          provided in the last 24 years, Sir?

          As side from your Physic powers to know the
          future where to take your family to places where it is guaranteed to be
          violence-free each and every time. What
          would you have done had you took your family to the theater that night? I would not assume what you actions would
          have been. So, please enlighten us as to
          your Armchair quarterbacking in the situation?

          It is regrettable that Americans were guaranteed
          the Right to defend themselves …. It just couldn’t guarantee that some Americans
          would have the internal fortitude to exercise this right responsibly or at
          all. Those that don’t greatly depend on others with internal
          fortitude to protect them and their “loved” ones is what is truly disgusting, Sir.

          • valley person

            I’ll assume for the sake of argument that as a well trained former military police who has seen combat, that you would likely be responsible with a weapon.

            How many CCr’s have anything like your training and experience? Precious few, since no real training or experience is required. And what would the odds be that CC holders in that theater, if there were any, would have the first clue about how to react in a way that doesn’t make the situation worse? Very low indeed.

            I don’t worry about reasonably sane ex military or off duty cops being armed and able to step in when a situation presents itself. I worry about the millions of Rambo wannabees. And they far outnumber you.

            So let me ask you this. Tear gas or smoke filled theater, people panicking, its dark, shots start ringing out, which could be from the movie itself, Even with your training, do you really think you would have been able to react effectively in time to save a single life in that place? Because I doubt it,for reasons stated.

            As for me and mine, the last thing my family would want is me walking around armed in the name of protecting them. Something like 80% of gun deaths would never happen if there had not been a gun in the home. Most gun deaths other than suicide are getting shot by a family member or acquantance after all. So my families odds of not getting shot are better than your families by far.

          • Military Family

            “I’ll
            assume for the sake of argument that as a well trained former military police
            who has seen combat, that you would likely be responsible with a weapon.”

            You don’t have to assume anything for the sake of argument. If you don’t believe me than just have the
            internal fortitude to say it and move on with the “World According to Valley
            Person” mentality where you know all. I joined a great Institution that
            provides the protection for your Right to exercise Freedom of Speech. Even though you blatantly want to restrict my
            Rights that I exercise, you are hypocrite.

            “How
            many CCr’s have anything like your training and experience? Precious few, since
            no real training or experience is required. And what would the odds be that CC
            holders in that theater, if there were any, would have the first clue about how
            to react in a way that doesn’t make the situation worse? Very low indeed.”

            My training was nothing compared to the training in the Combat Arms
            branches of the Services. My experiences
            honed my training. Again you assume the
            worst if you feel it supports your argument.
            The Veterans Administration reports for Colorado as having 421,300 vets
            in Colorado. The US Census states that
            there are 47,895 Active Duty/ Reserve and National Guard in the State of
            Colorado. The grand total of 469,195 is
            in the State of Colorado. The US Census reports that Colorado population over
            18 is 3,888,165. So, roughly 12% of Colorado
            population has been trained for combat. This
            doesn’t included retired LEO, off-duty Armed Security Officer and LEO. Nearly half-million military trained in the
            State of Colorado lone is Very Low in your great knowledgeable opinion? I don’t believe any number would be enough
            for your argument.

            “I
            don’t worry about reasonably sane ex military or off duty cops being armed and
            able to step in when a situation presents itself. I worry about the millions of
            Rambo wannabees. And they far outnumber you.”

            Valley Person you are more concern with Rambo-wannabees trying to do
            the morally right thing that you are not willing to do yourself, then millions
            of criminals that would Murder and/or Rape your loved ones? Really? Think about it for a moment. I and others don’t have our military resumes
            hanging off our sleeves for people like you to be judgmental whether or not we
            are worthy enough to protect ourselves and loved ones in any given situation.

            “So
            let me ask you this. Tear gas or smoke filled theater, people panicking, its
            dark, shots start ringing out, which could be from the movie itself, Even with
            your training, do you really think you would have been able to react
            effectively in time to save a single life in that place? Because I doubt it, for
            reasons stated.”

            How about you wait until the Police and NOT the media actual produce
            the facts of the shooting situation that occurred before you What-If the
            situation to death until you feel that you somehow validated your point? You continue to demonstrate you lack of
            complicity of the many variables in your limited what-If scenario. How about if I was blindfolded and had one
            arm tired behind my back too? You are so
            desperate! If allowed to carry my G30, I
            would take the shot if I was cleared to do so and within range. From your lack of common sense about gun
            fights, gun fire from the Movie won’t produce the actual distinctive muzzle
            flash from any of his weapons. As you
            stated the movie was still running, so the theater room wouldn’t be “Dark” but
            the just opposite! If he was between the illuminated screen and me he would be
            well silhouetted for an improved shot.
            As far as the crowd panicking, maybe in your virtual world your crowd
            would be standing up and running immediately around the shooter. In reality, the crowd ducks and runs away
            from the sound of gun fire. This would
            quickly reduce the innocent targets.
            Those that remain hurdled on the floor immobilized with fear behind the
            seats even decreases the innocent targets also. Smoke/CS would be hastening my reaction, but
            if I had any elevation to the shooter this would buy me more time and decrease
            his visibility. With his gas mask and
            smoke his visible would drastically reduced.
            Since your What-If scenario has serious holes in it, it would be a moot
            point. If it saved my life or my loved
            ones then that is all that really matters at the end of the day.

            You still never answer my question of what would had you done if you
            were there? IMHO, you might be the
            person that would have shoved the elder out the way and stomped on any child
            that fell in front of you to save your hide.

            “As
            for me and mine, the last thing my family would want is me walking around armed
            in the name of protecting them. Something like 80% of gun deaths would never
            happen if there had not been a gun in the home. Most gun deaths other than
            suicide are getting shot by a family member or acquantance after all. So my
            families odds of not getting shot are better than your families by far.”

            What does that say about your family’s
            concerns for your mental health? Your
            jaded view point could be your resentment of those that are NOT barred from
            carrying due to mental health issues thus keeping you from possessing a
            firearm. I hope for your family’s safety
            you seek professional help. Trolling the
            forums for validation is not helping.

            Please back up your BS stats from a reliable
            source… not the Brady Gun group! The
            FBI UCR reports and the CDC don’t even break down the deaths by residential
            dwellings. So, where did this 80% figure
            come from? FBI UCR puts Gun violence at
            67% based on crimes not locations. CDC
            ranks Firearms as #14 on the death rankings.
            Who is the boogeyman that has been whispering in ear that Guns are so
            evil and bad that CDC doesn’t even list them in the top ten list?

            But
            the good News is that according the FBI UCR reports that Justified Homicide by
            private citizens is up! Currently for 2010 there were 387 citizens that
            protected themselves and their family.
            OMG! How it is that a normal citizen without the Police and Military
            forces to protect them was able to protect themselves from harm and all by themselves? It must have been some responsible adults
            protecting themselves and family members by exercising their 2nd
            Amendment Right or Maybe? If you had
            your way back in 2009, those 387+ would be added to families’ murdered because
            they couldn’t protect themselves. Pat
            yourself on the back! You showed us
            alright!!

            As far as Gun safety at home, responsible
            gun owners secure their weapons at home from young children. Home violence involving guns and any other
            tools immediately available is a moot point but it does reflect to the mental
            health of the persons involved. Anger
            Management is always available in most communities for free or see your Priest
            or Chaplain for guidance. According to
            your own words above, maybe your family could convince you to take an anger
            management class? A firearm in the home
            is like any other tool with a specific task as is your steak knife or washing
            machine. Some tools require additional
            safeguards like wearing goggles when using power tools. Educating everyone in the family with firearm
            safety should be important.

            There are consequences in everything we do
            or don’t do in life. If you it is your
            choice not to protect your family and god forbids they die by a preventable
            violence. You and you alone have to live with it. What is even worst, in my mind, is if the
            preventable violence was rape of one’s wife or little daughter. Neither action is reversible and if you
            could have prevent it? That would be
            unforgettable to see into their eyes every day for the rest of your miserable
            life. But, that might be you? That will not be me or those that actual love
            their families more by exercising our Right to Bear Arms for defending what we
            love the most … our families and second our other Rights.

            I hope in some way this discussion has been beneficial for you. I will be very secure in my mind that I will
            protect my family using one of my precious Rights. Did it ever occur to you why of all the
            Rights that were written by our Founding Fathers that the Right to Bear Arms
            was second on the list of importance after Freedom of Speech? It is the teeth of the Bill of Rights to
            protect all other rights as a last resort!
            Who are you to take or restrict my Rights?

            http://www.va.gov/vetdata/Veteran_Population.asp

            http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/national_security_veterans_affairs/military_personnel_and_expenditures.html

            http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf

          • valley person

            Oh Lord. Send this guy an editor.

            In 2003, there were 30,136 firearm-related deaths in
            the United States; 16,907 (56%) suicides, 11,920 (40%) homicides
            (including 347 deaths due to legal intervention/war), and 962 (3%)
            undetermined/unintentional firearm deaths.
            CDC/National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports
            I don’t know that all of those suicides took place in the home. But I guess the vast majority did.

            And this from the American Journal of Epidemiology:

            Abstract

            Data from a US mortality follow-back
            survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home
            increases the
            risk of a violent death in the home and whether
            risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the
            home.
            Those persons with guns in the home were at greater
            risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in
            the
            home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence
            interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a
            firearm
            homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the
            person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying
            from
            a suicide in the home was greater for males in
            homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds
            ratio
            = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9).
            Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from
            suicide
            committed with a firearm than from one committed by
            using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence
            interval:
            19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of
            storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having
            a gun
            in the home was associated with an increased risk
            of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

            You joined the military to protect my freedom of speech? Thanks, but don’t do me any favors. I’m capable of standing up for my rights, and I don’t need a gun or your help. Seriously.

            So 12% of the adult population of Colorado has had some combat training at some point in their lives. We don’t know how many of these are a bit crazy, or are substance abusers, or are physically disabled, or otherwise would not be much good in a firefight. But lets say this combination reduces your 12% to 8%. Now lets assume that of this 8%

            There are about 6 million CC permit holders in the nation. Colorado has about 1% of our total population, so that means it only has around 60,000 total CC holders. Meaning most of those vets are not armed. And by most I mean vast majority.

            All of which adds up to this. Some fraction of CC permit holders has had some military or law enforcement training. The odds of this fraction being in that theater, or any other mass shooting site, are pretty small. So the odds of some capable person having a gun and being able to respond are also very small.

            The vast majority of vets must, like me, must be sheeple, because they go out in public without arms.

          • Military Family

            You had to use CDC stats from nearly 10
            years ago to partially support your argument? Since the CDC stats don’t directly support
            your claims, so you make your own assumption to interpret the data to support
            claim. Your assumptions clear make your case!

            Valley Person you are Class Act! Those in this forum should be cautious of blindly
            accepting anything Valley Person states as honest or factual. The American
            Journal of Epidemiology article you cite, Volume 160, number 10, November 15,
            2004! The authors state their material and
            a method is from Data for a study that is from the 1993 national Mortality
            Followback Survey, which is based on a nationally representative 10 percent
            systemic samples! Your article is not even current for this decade, and it uses
            data from 1993’s! Plus the data is
            based on a survey? You are like the Liberal Media … half truths to support your agenda.
            It wasn’t a favor, it was an honor to
            protect you and your family’s Freedom of Speech and other Constitutional Rights. Of course, you “could” stand up for your Rights …
            if something else like the police and military has your back. As you stated
            before, “As for me and mine, the last thing my family would want is me walking
            around armed in the name of protecting them.”
            Who has your family’s back? They must know you don’t have theirs.
            They must pray that thier 911 call is answered and the Police can response in a few minutes after the crime has been committed.

            “Meaning
            most of those vets are not armed. And by most I mean vast majority.” Valley Person, you continue to think your “assumptions”
            somehow validate your position? It is strictly your opinion based on your perceived
            assumptions.
            “The vast majority of vets must, like me,
            must be sheeple, because they go out in public without arms.”
            Again, you don’t have the stats or figures
            to back this “vast majority” claim. It
            is in your mind and you convinced yourself that since you are part of the “vast
            majority” of vets that choose not to exercise one of their Rights as US
            citizens that in my opinion they are Sheeple?
            Yes, they would be if placed in a
            situation that they could have defend themselves and didn’t. I would based it on previous thier firearm training and the higher moral standards expected other they while they served.

            Valley
            Person, you still refuse to understand it is not about who is a veteran or LEO
            with firearm experience. It is about
            being a US Citizen and the Constitutional Rights for ALL US Citizens. Some citizens exercise some Rights more than
            others. There are consequences for exercising or not their Rights. It is being responsible for one’s own actions or inaction.
            If a US Citizen chooses to exercise their right to vote and you don’t like the way they voted, who are you to demand that they shouldn’t have this certain Right anymore? That is either facism or socialism that is definately not American Democracy as I know it.

        • Ballistic45

          “brave people with little pistols” stop crime over 6,000 times a day, but you will not hear about it on the Liberal Media… Nah, you will hear about one shooting for weeks or months…..

          The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. D.C. the court stated “courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.”—— Reference (Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A. 2d 1 (1981). See also Richard W. Stevens, Dial 911 and Die (1999) which gives the laws and cases in all 50 states to support the statement that government (police) owes no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack.)

          Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. ——- Reference (Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun,” 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164. +++++ Even those who don’t like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In “A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed,” Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, “What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence.” Wolfgang, “A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed,” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188.)

      • Liberty1959

        Great comments brother!
        U.S.N. Veteran
        NRA Life Member
        Ohio Conceal Carry Permit Holder

        • Military Family

          The many that never served never appreciate thier Rights others died for or live with a crippling disability currently.
          Congress has the lowest number of veteran serving then ever before.

          • 3h

            Sadly, the greatest threat to our rights comes from well-meaning citizens who fight against the building of mosques, or trying to have books that offend them removed from their libraries, etc… A threat that both the police and the military are ill-equipped to handle.

            We have not had a serious external threat to our liberties in at least fifty years. Sadly, most of our recent wars have been more about geo-political concerns than they have been about actually defending the United States from foreign powers.

    • Ballistic45

      If the theater was full and had it been CC friendly, I would guess their would be at least 4 or 5 CC in the crowd.. If they all took shots at the perp, you can bet he would focus on limiting his injuries by getting out of their as most of these idiots do, Or at least divert his attention to the new threat of 4 or 5 people shooting at him.. You like most misinformed ignore the fact that over 6000 criminal acts a day are stopped by armed Citizens… Of course you and the gun grabbers will NEVER acknowledge this fact…

      See: http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
      It includes references for its statements……

      • Military Family

        I bet the 65 year old lady that shoot at the 5 armed robbers a few days ago wouldn’t had been hiding behind a chair or getting stampled by all the healther younger men and women that fled.

    • cow elk

      Really……if I were a would be attacker, I would most definitely seek out a location that had little or no resistance, vs a place that I knew would increase my chances of return fire!

      • Military Family

        I think you are correct. The anti-gun crowd will never admit that all recent mass shootings occured in No-Gun zones! Heck, even the military bases, like Fort Hood, are not immune from complacency.

  • Liberty1959

    Tell the lamestrream media this, I’m tired of their lies.

  • Liberty1959

    While I dispise “Gun Free Killing Zones” for criminals, and I will not spend my money at these locations, if someone in that theather had a conceal carry, they should sue the compnay bankrupt.

  • Matt V

    When I took my concealed carry course in OH when it was first available, the instructors predicted that something like this would happen, and it would be the end of the “no guns allowed” signs because private businesses could be held liable. I sure hope that happens here. Sue that theater chain out of existence!

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)