3 ms·

I understand what you're saying, but really "there is nothi that can be done to stop it"? What about outlawing firearms for civilian use, or even just not letti

I understand what you're saying, but really "there is nothi that can be done to stop it"? What about outlawing firearms for civilian use, or even just not letting the assault weapons ban lapse? And don't tell me every angry/depressed yuppie kid who was going to go on a rampage when guns were easier to get than a drivers license is going to negotiate some black market underworld he knows nothing about to get his guns.

grandalf 14y ago
Guns aren't necessary to wreak havoc. He could have brought in explosives, poison gas, knives, etc.
- vacri 14y ago
  Explosives are much harder to obtain and use effectively, poison gas is much less lethal than people think (blame movies - even the Nazi purpose-designed gas chambers took 20 minutes to kill people), and knives aren't anywhere near as effective as guns - for example, police don't use them to control suspects, and soldiers don't use bayonets anymore. If you get into a knife-fight with someone, you are going to fuck them up... but you are at high risk of also being fucked up yourself due to poor stopping power and close quarters. Now repeat for each of the 12 deaths and 58 maimings seen in this event. The Tueller drill says that it is dangerous to have an opponent within 21 feet even when you have a firearm, because they can cover that distance and be on you in 1.5 seconds, a short time even if you're ready and aware of their location and their intention. Now consider that all knife fights happen inside that distance. Seriously, it's not a valid comparison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
  - grandalf 14y ago
    Those are good points, but if someone is crazy enough to want to harm lots of people in a theater it's unlikely that the difficulty of surviving unscathed will be a deterrent. And if the attack were not simply someone being insane (if for example it was terrorism intended to strike fear into people) then the success criterion is even lower b/c much fear would still be caused even if the only injuries were 5 people with smoke inhalation, and both "sides" in the issue benefit from amplifying the perceived severity. My point is that the specific munitions used does not significantly alter the strategic aspect of this (if there is any).
jsz0 14y ago
negotiate some black market underworld he knows nothing about to get his guns Why not? Many people do it to obtain illegal drugs.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Consider what might have happened if an individual as wealthy and as determined as this could not have gained access to guns. He spent thousands of dollars on the equipment he used for this killing. With that amount of money he would have been able to acquire guns easily on the black market, but even if that wasn't an option he could have instead resorted to bombs. And in that case he would have easily killed just as many if not more people. As an example, look at the 2009 Chengu bus fire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Chengdu_bus_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Chengdu_bus_fire. No guns were involved, only gasoline, but 27 people died and 76 more were injured or maimed in this murder suicide. Or, look at this event from 1988 where 31 people were killed using dynamite: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7EJYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3vkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6787,38053 http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7EJYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3...
- jberryman 14y ago
  His goal was obviously to wreak as much havoc as possible and he used guns; I'm not sure how it follows that if he didn't have access to guns he would have done just as much damage. Also I don't know what the point is of arguing about how easy it would be to buy guns on a hypothetical black market, but I imagine it would be much closer to (I imagine) trying to hire a hitman than buy pot: you have to have connections, and if you don't you'll probably hire an FBI agent.
csense 14y ago
The problem is that too many guns exist already in the USA. If guns had just been invented and only a few of them existed, or if we were a moon colony that had never imported guns, or if we were some country where, due to social/cultural/political circumstances very few people have guns, then gun control would stand a chance of working. But we have to work with what we've got. The situation we're actually in is this: Even if we could get the massive political coalition it would take to repeal a Constitutional amendment, there are still millions of guns that exist in the USA. There was an article on HN very recently about a site that allows buyers and sellers of guns to find each other and go through transactions using Tor and Bitcoin for anonymity. So I think it's fair to say that the advancing state of software and Internet technology will make it increasingly easier for people to obtain firearms illegally. So if you outlaw guns in the USA, the practical effect is disarming responsible, law-abiding citizens, whereas anyone who's bound and determined to get a weapon and doesn't care about the law, can still get one. (Presently I believe there is a federally mandated waiting period and check for felony records for those buying firearms, called the Brady bill; the idea is to make sure you have time to think about what you're doing and have a few days to "cool off" if you're angry about something.) My state recently passed a concealed-carry law, whereby any citizen can become certified to carry a concealed weapon. The controversy surrounding that has made me aware of an interesting argument: What if we go in the opposite direction? If we assume most people are responsible enough to handle firearms, and a non-negligible percentage of the population carries concealed firearms wherever they go, then it's harder for mass tragedies to occur. When the crazed maniac begins his massacre, the would-be victims can start shooting back. Concealed carry can also serve as a deterrent to violent crime like armed robbery. If you're desperate enough to try something like that, and you know you're gonna be the only one with a gun, you also realize that the worst thing that will happen is you get three squares a day and a roof over your head at taxpayer expense. Whereas if you know there's a decent chance somebody else will have a weapon, suddenly the worst-case scenario becomes a hole in the head, which might affect your calculations enough to change your decision. That's the argument, anyway; I'd be interested if anyone can find holes in it.
- nowarninglabel 14y ago
  The one glaring hole is in the idea that people with concealed carry will be ready and able to effectively "start shooting back". Are there objective examples of this? I've seen counter-examples, such as how in the Giffords shooting in Arizona the victims actually brought down the perp through physical force, even though some of them were carrying. Are there similar examples of concealed carry folks bringing down a shooter? It should be noted, I'm pro gun ownership, but I'd still like to see you prove your point rather than just regurgitating what all pro-gun people are saying without any data to actually back it up.
mcantelon 14y ago
>What about outlawing firearms for civilian use Amend the US Constitution? Probably not going to fly.

grandalf 14y ago

Guns aren't necessary to wreak havoc. He could have brought in explosives, poison gas, knives, etc.

vacri 14y ago
Explosives are much harder to obtain and use effectively, poison gas is much less lethal than people think (blame movies - even the Nazi purpose-designed gas chambers took 20 minutes to kill people), and knives aren't anywhere near as effective as guns - for example, police don't use them to control suspects, and soldiers don't use bayonets anymore. If you get into a knife-fight with someone, you are going to fuck them up... but you are at high risk of also being fucked up yourself due to poor stopping power and close quarters. Now repeat for each of the 12 deaths and 58 maimings seen in this event. The Tueller drill says that it is dangerous to have an opponent within 21 feet even when you have a firearm, because they can cover that distance and be on you in 1.5 seconds, a short time even if you're ready and aware of their location and their intention. Now consider that all knife fights happen inside that distance. Seriously, it's not a valid comparison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
- grandalf 14y ago
  Those are good points, but if someone is crazy enough to want to harm lots of people in a theater it's unlikely that the difficulty of surviving unscathed will be a deterrent. And if the attack were not simply someone being insane (if for example it was terrorism intended to strike fear into people) then the success criterion is even lower b/c much fear would still be caused even if the only injuries were 5 people with smoke inhalation, and both "sides" in the issue benefit from amplifying the perceived severity. My point is that the specific munitions used does not significantly alter the strategic aspect of this (if there is any).

jsz0 14y ago

negotiate some black market underworld he knows nothing about to get his guns Why not? Many people do it to obtain illegal drugs.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Consider what might have happened if an individual as wealthy and as determined as this could not have gained access to guns. He spent thousands of dollars on the equipment he used for this killing. With that amount of money he would have been able to acquire guns easily on the black market, but even if that wasn't an option he could have instead resorted to bombs. And in that case he would have easily killed just as many if not more people. As an example, look at the 2009 Chengu bus fire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Chengdu_bus_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Chengdu_bus_fire. No guns were involved, only gasoline, but 27 people died and 76 more were injured or maimed in this murder suicide. Or, look at this event from 1988 where 31 people were killed using dynamite: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7EJYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3vkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6787,38053 http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7EJYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3...

jberryman 14y ago
His goal was obviously to wreak as much havoc as possible and he used guns; I'm not sure how it follows that if he didn't have access to guns he would have done just as much damage. Also I don't know what the point is of arguing about how easy it would be to buy guns on a hypothetical black market, but I imagine it would be much closer to (I imagine) trying to hire a hitman than buy pot: you have to have connections, and if you don't you'll probably hire an FBI agent.

csense 14y ago

The problem is that too many guns exist already in the USA. If guns had just been invented and only a few of them existed, or if we were a moon colony that had never imported guns, or if we were some country where, due to social/cultural/political circumstances very few people have guns, then gun control would stand a chance of working. But we have to work with what we've got. The situation we're actually in is this: Even if we could get the massive political coalition it would take to repeal a Constitutional amendment, there are still millions of guns that exist in the USA. There was an article on HN very recently about a site that allows buyers and sellers of guns to find each other and go through transactions using Tor and Bitcoin for anonymity. So I think it's fair to say that the advancing state of software and Internet technology will make it increasingly easier for people to obtain firearms illegally. So if you outlaw guns in the USA, the practical effect is disarming responsible, law-abiding citizens, whereas anyone who's bound and determined to get a weapon and doesn't care about the law, can still get one. (Presently I believe there is a federally mandated waiting period and check for felony records for those buying firearms, called the Brady bill; the idea is to make sure you have time to think about what you're doing and have a few days to "cool off" if you're angry about something.) My state recently passed a concealed-carry law, whereby any citizen can become certified to carry a concealed weapon. The controversy surrounding that has made me aware of an interesting argument: What if we go in the opposite direction? If we assume most people are responsible enough to handle firearms, and a non-negligible percentage of the population carries concealed firearms wherever they go, then it's harder for mass tragedies to occur. When the crazed maniac begins his massacre, the would-be victims can start shooting back. Concealed carry can also serve as a deterrent to violent crime like armed robbery. If you're desperate enough to try something like that, and you know you're gonna be the only one with a gun, you also realize that the worst thing that will happen is you get three squares a day and a roof over your head at taxpayer expense. Whereas if you know there's a decent chance somebody else will have a weapon, suddenly the worst-case scenario becomes a hole in the head, which might affect your calculations enough to change your decision. That's the argument, anyway; I'd be interested if anyone can find holes in it.

nowarninglabel 14y ago
The one glaring hole is in the idea that people with concealed carry will be ready and able to effectively "start shooting back". Are there objective examples of this? I've seen counter-examples, such as how in the Giffords shooting in Arizona the victims actually brought down the perp through physical force, even though some of them were carrying. Are there similar examples of concealed carry folks bringing down a shooter? It should be noted, I'm pro gun ownership, but I'd still like to see you prove your point rather than just regurgitating what all pro-gun people are saying without any data to actually back it up.

mcantelon 14y ago

>What about outlawing firearms for civilian use Amend the US Constitution? Probably not going to fly.