4 ms·

It was dark. It was crowded. The guy set off a smoke grenade. Everyone was panicking. Firing a gun in those conditions, you could hit anyone -- by sheer force

It was dark. It was crowded. The guy set off a smoke grenade. Everyone was panicking. Firing a gun in those conditions, you could hit anyone -- by sheer force of numbers, you'd be far more likely to wound a hapless bystander than the shooter. Especially as he was wearing body armour. As such, I hold that the death toll would have been considerably higher if some of the cinema-goers had been packing heat and decided to shoot back. There's no way this incident is a valid argument for more guns.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
nollidge 14y ago
Further, let's imagine there were 2 "good guys" in that theater with guns. Good Guy #1 shoots at the lone "bad guy". Good Guy #2, with heightened adrenaline and compromised senses, thinks GG #1 is another bad guy and shoots at them. GG #1, if they weren't hit, now is being shot at by someone else. Now add more good guys with guns to this scenario. There's no way the whole thing would've worked out better with more armed people.
- Symmetry 14y ago
  Two to five "goodguys" exchanging fire is still a vastly better outcome than the one that occurred.
  - kevinh 14y ago
    That's an unverifiable statement and it would depend heavily on the shooters involved. It's as much conjecture as if I were to say that each bullet fired from each shooter's gun would only hit people without weapons.
    - Symmetry 14y ago
      Huh? I'm not sure how you can construct a plausible scenario where you're actually worse off with five armed citizens in the theater. Even if they each manage to accidentally shoot two additional people besides each other and even if the madman is half finished before one manages to take him down you still have many fewer people ending up getting shot.
      - nollidge 14y ago
        You're assuming that they take him down at all. He had body armor and the element of surprise.
  - nollidge 14y ago
    Oh, do tell.
colinshark 14y ago
>It was dark. Hmmm... Which person do I engage? Maybe the guy with the rifle, down in front of the screen, who is facing the audience, shooting everyone, with a clearing around him? >Everyone was panicking Not everyone panics in emergency situations. >I hold that the death toll would have been considerably higher if some of the cinema-goers had been packing heat and decided to shoot back. He shot about 60 people in about 90 seconds. Anything to trip him up would have lowered the death toll.
- pyre 14y ago
  > Hmmm... Which person do I engage? Maybe the guy with > the rifle, down in front of the screen, who is facing > the audience, shooting everyone, with a clearing around > him? Imagine every person in the theater was packing. They all pull out their weapons. Through the smoke and the dark, which is the good guy, which is the bad guy? Just shoot everyone that has a gun?
  - bdunbar 14y ago
    You may be assuming that 'guns' are the only added factor. What appears to happen is that people who carry on a routine basis are more aware that they _are_ carrying and act accordingly. It's a theater. The good guys are in stadium seating, the bad guy is in front. It's a perfect setup for that kind of a thing - everyone is carrying a weapon, everyone keeps their seat, fires over the heads of the row in front. Problem solved. But in reality, guys like this never pick an armed crowd of people. They never show up at the police station, never at a gun show, at an NRA convention, never at a shooting range. I submit if everyone were armed at the theater he would have gone somewhere else.
    - pyre 14y ago
      Right now most of the people that are packing legally concealed weapons are generally people that are obsessive about their guns and practice a lot (and generally take them seriously). If everyone started carrying concealed weapons, that would be another story.
danielweber 14y ago
The shooter did not confront police and surrendered immediately. People who shoot up bunches of unarmed people seem to stop right away in the face of any resistance. (As a counterpoint to me, you could point out that he was wearing body armor, as if he were expecting resistance. I'd say it was more like he was acting out some costume in his head.) An armed moviegoer wouldn't need to shoot the gunman to stop him. Even just firing in the air would have let the gunman know "someone else in here is armed and maybe shooting at me, I need to seek cover" and have significantly slowed him down. (Note that "firing in the air" is of course dangerous, since the bullets will hit stuff and stuff will fall on people. However, since we're talking about a gunman purposefully targeting unarmed people, that risk is much much less than the original risk being mitigated.)

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

nollidge 14y ago

Further, let's imagine there were 2 "good guys" in that theater with guns. Good Guy #1 shoots at the lone "bad guy". Good Guy #2, with heightened adrenaline and compromised senses, thinks GG #1 is another bad guy and shoots at them. GG #1, if they weren't hit, now is being shot at by someone else. Now add more good guys with guns to this scenario. There's no way the whole thing would've worked out better with more armed people.

Symmetry 14y ago
Two to five "goodguys" exchanging fire is still a vastly better outcome than the one that occurred.
- kevinh 14y ago
  That's an unverifiable statement and it would depend heavily on the shooters involved. It's as much conjecture as if I were to say that each bullet fired from each shooter's gun would only hit people without weapons.
  - Symmetry 14y ago
    Huh? I'm not sure how you can construct a plausible scenario where you're actually worse off with five armed citizens in the theater. Even if they each manage to accidentally shoot two additional people besides each other and even if the madman is half finished before one manages to take him down you still have many fewer people ending up getting shot.
    - nollidge 14y ago
      You're assuming that they take him down at all. He had body armor and the element of surprise.
- nollidge 14y ago
  Oh, do tell.

colinshark 14y ago

>It was dark. Hmmm... Which person do I engage? Maybe the guy with the rifle, down in front of the screen, who is facing the audience, shooting everyone, with a clearing around him? >Everyone was panicking Not everyone panics in emergency situations. >I hold that the death toll would have been considerably higher if some of the cinema-goers had been packing heat and decided to shoot back. He shot about 60 people in about 90 seconds. Anything to trip him up would have lowered the death toll.

pyre 14y ago
> Hmmm... Which person do I engage? Maybe the guy with > the rifle, down in front of the screen, who is facing > the audience, shooting everyone, with a clearing around > him? Imagine every person in the theater was packing. They all pull out their weapons. Through the smoke and the dark, which is the good guy, which is the bad guy? Just shoot everyone that has a gun?
- bdunbar 14y ago
  You may be assuming that 'guns' are the only added factor. What appears to happen is that people who carry on a routine basis are more aware that they _are_ carrying and act accordingly. It's a theater. The good guys are in stadium seating, the bad guy is in front. It's a perfect setup for that kind of a thing - everyone is carrying a weapon, everyone keeps their seat, fires over the heads of the row in front. Problem solved. But in reality, guys like this never pick an armed crowd of people. They never show up at the police station, never at a gun show, at an NRA convention, never at a shooting range. I submit if everyone were armed at the theater he would have gone somewhere else.
  - pyre 14y ago
    Right now most of the people that are packing legally concealed weapons are generally people that are obsessive about their guns and practice a lot (and generally take them seriously). If everyone started carrying concealed weapons, that would be another story.

danielweber 14y ago

The shooter did not confront police and surrendered immediately. People who shoot up bunches of unarmed people seem to stop right away in the face of any resistance. (As a counterpoint to me, you could point out that he was wearing body armor, as if he were expecting resistance. I'd say it was more like he was acting out some costume in his head.) An armed moviegoer wouldn't need to shoot the gunman to stop him. Even just firing in the air would have let the gunman know "someone else in here is armed and maybe shooting at me, I need to seek cover" and have significantly slowed him down. (Note that "firing in the air" is of course dangerous, since the bullets will hit stuff and stuff will fall on people. However, since we're talking about a gunman purposefully targeting unarmed people, that risk is much much less than the original risk being mitigated.)