Those who make the effort to go through a licensing process (including a background check and fingerprinting) are generally not inclined to shoot up movie theaters. Luckily they don't need your permission.

Actually this is the correct response to this kind of tragedy. Police can't be everywhere at once. We need to start acting like a community again and start protecting the commons.

ima gunna purtek mah fambly! (though you're more likely to use that gun on them)

You're either too late to stop someone from shooting the place up or you're the type of person who shoots someone else on suspicions of violence instead of the confirmation of it. The best anybody can hope for is to mitigate an incident that's already taking place. Everybody loses in all cases.

@2 - Right, so when someone decides to pull out a gun and start shooting people and you decide to pull out your gun and start shooting back and then someone else pulls out their gun to start shooting and someone else pulls out their gun to start shooting I'm sure you'll ALL be crystal clear as to who's on who's side.

More people with guns just results in more people dead.

@4 Sorry, but simply isn't true. Stats can (and are) argued, but you can't claim with any basis in reality that legal concealed carry owners are shooting innocent people left and right. Anecdote alert:

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios…

Anyway, getting a CPL immediately after a tragedy like this is to a fair degree an emotional response. Ideally it would only be after careful consideration of the responsibility that comes with carrying. That said, when the response of many is to call for eliminating rights, you can't blame people for wanting to get them while they can.

The "opposite"? Really? So we should what? Turn in our guns? Oh yeah THAT makes sense...

I'm looking at getting a .22 pistol for self-protection.

Any recommendations?

@6

I can't claim innocent people are getting shot left and right, and I didn't.

There is no data that supports the thesis that an armed population reduces homicides, gun-related, or other. Dream on open-carry masturbaters, dream on.

Brawndo™ : It's got what plants crave.

@2 That's all good in theory but look at the fuck ups that occur with well trained police. Untrained amateurs are worse. Much worse. Some of the most disgusting episodes of our history stemmed from exactly that.

Doing it ourselves is a last resort, lets try fixing the problem first, you know, like most of the rest of the world has.

@9 No, but that is basically what you (and @5) are implying. Guns have legitimate self defense uses, and are used for that purpose regularly. The situation you describe is vanishingly rare if it occurs at all. Dan Savage (who I agree with on most things) won't admit but, but he pointed out a good use of a gun for self defense yesterday:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

@8 - Nobody with any credibility will recommend a .22 for self defense, it doesn't have the power to quickly and reliably stop a threat. A .380 is generally considered the minimum acceptable, if not 9mm. This guide to buying a pistol is written for CA and has some stuff that won't be relevant in WA, but is a great guide to buying a pistol in general:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showt…

It really depends on if you want it solely for home or for carry also, as you will probably need to make more trade-offs in size, capacity, etc if you want to carry.

@13

Vanishingly rare! I guess I just have to take your word for it. In the meantime I'm gonna feel much safer knowing that that many more people in Seattle are going to be sizing me (and everybody else) up at any given moment and deciding if I need to be killed.

The correct response to the threat of being killed by a lawbreaker is to kill them first.

Letting them kill you? Not the right response. Because then *you're dead*. You can't undie. It's just not in the cards. This is a sane, rational response.

Hoping that the government will protect you? *That* is the incorrect response.

@14 You made the claim, I encourage you to back it up with evidence, otherwise it seems you are speaking out of fear and ignorance.

Paul Constant posted earlier about how Romney is ignorant of the details of gun laws. That is certainly true and I'm no fan of his (voted for Obama, will again), but I find that the most strongly anti-gun people are generally even more ignorant on the subject. Sadly I don't live in Seattle anymore, I would be happy to take people shooting to demystify guns a little bit. It is much better when people at least get over the emotional fear of an object when thinking about the complex issues that come with it.

@17

Yes, I understand the burden of evidence is on my shoulders alone, as it is in arguments like this. I honestly should have known better. Gun culture has long been here to stay and pansy libs like me need to learn to accept it.

"The correct response to the threat of being killed by a lawbreaker is to kill them first."

You are a dumb asshole who watches too many movies. You know what would have happened if you were in that theater and you decided to play Dirty Harry? You'd have died.

Because you, and the rest of the pro gun crew, are dumb assholes who watch too many movies and think more guns make you safer.

This son't keep you safe.

But it will increase the body count of innocent people.

@21

Switzerland.

Every adult in Switzerland has a weapon/gun because everyone serves in a militia and they bear arms. This is in place of having a standing Army.

Yet, it has the lowest rate of gun violence in the world!

@20 - It would be nice to live in a country with a lower crime rate than the US. Gun laws are simply one part of the equation and you have to acknowledge the many other cultural factors that create higher rates of violence in the US independent of gun ownership. You can't simply compare violence and gun laws across countries and act like their is a direct relationship, and I certainly won't claim Switzerland is comparable to the US. The fact is, the US has a lot of guns and that isn't going to change. Pass new laws to keep them out of the hands of the law abiding and you do nothing to stop criminals, or has the clear failure of the war on drugs taught people nothing? Accept the reality as it is and work to reduce the root causes of violence and improve the mental health system in the US. You can't create a perfectly safe and happy world as much as we might like to, but there are things everyone should agree on that would reduce violence of all kinds without infringing on individual rights.

@18
"Yes, I understand the burden of evidence is on my shoulders alone, as it is in arguments like this."

I think your original statement was pretty sound.

"You're either too late to stop someone from shooting the place up or you're the type of person who shoots someone else on suspicions of violence instead of the confirmation of it. The best anybody can hope for is to mitigate an incident that's already taking place."

Although I would add that it is also possible to make a bad situation even worse by introducing more guns and shooters.

And I would not trust the mental state of someone who is carrying a loaded gun who is not working for the government or private security.

"Gun culture has long been here to stay and pansy libs like me need to learn to accept it."

Work on the baby steps, first.
Like requiring trigger locks to keep children from accidentally shooting themselves or their friends.

We might actually be able to have an intelligent conversation about firearms in this country if all of the gun enthusiasts hadn't gotten most of their opinions from a combination of Clint Eastwood movies and Beverly Hillbillies re-runs.

#26

And yet, you could not create the more perfect opportunity for self-defense than the theater in Aurora.

1. The assailant stood alone on stage or in the aisle.
2. Everyone was down to the ground after his first shots.
3. There was no way to hide or escape -- luckily his gun jammed because the bullets pierced the theater adjacent and caused injuries.

Literally there would be no better option than to have a weapon and fire back.

I am surprised that no Coloradans were armed that night given the high numbers of military personnel!

And again, remember...the money for all those weapons and bombs came from...the NIH!!

#28

How about Wikipedia?

Gun politics in Switzerland

In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles stored at private homes, mostly SIG SG 550 types. Additionally, there are some 320,000 semi-auto rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million

And yet...

Police statistics for the year 2006[14] records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000.

This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politic…

Here are your anecdotes:

23 year old doofus Todd Canady, who has a concealed carry permit, reaches for his wallet to pay at the local Walmart. He accidentally discharges his handgun into his buttocks. He also injures a woman and child behind him in line. When confronted by an off-duty police officer, he runs.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/20…

In 2006, Chavez’s son accidentally shot him in the back after the off-duty officer forgot that he had left the loaded .45-caliber pistol under the front seat of this Ford Ranger.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/25/pa…

@28 - And if anti-gun folks spent less time insulting people with stereotypes.

@24 (and several earlier posts) - I would challenge you to back up self defense claims. How many instances are there of chick with crazy boyfriend uses gun to hold off rapist stories vs. guy walks into theatre and kills 12 people stories?

And re: your anecdote @6, what if that guy had bought a gun instead of a knife? I'm willing to bet that the death toll would have been significantly higher.

I admit to picking up my concealed carry permit after the Mt. Rainier gunman incident. I don't carry in the city, that's some faux hero bullshit. But if I'm out past the wilderness boundary, yeah.

@29
"And yet, you could not create the more perfect opportunity for self-defense than the theater in Aurora."

There are all kinds of problems with that situation.
But most importantly, people are in more danger from driving than from guns.
So anyone carrying a gun into a theater is more likely to be an idiot as in #31's links AND EVEN WORSE.
Because an accidental firing ... in a movie theater ... where everyone is arranged in straight lines ...

Most gun owners are responsible and would not carry a gun into a theater.
Those are the gun owners who do not make the nightly news.

@33 - Statistics are always flawed and biased to some degree, but here is a starting point:

---------

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgu…

---------------

This document (.pdf warning) is clearly pro-gun but offers a lot of citations:

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/…

The relevant section is "Concealed carry laws and weapons"

What I want to know is if the NIH, who vetted James Holmes and awarded him the $26,000 a year (which he used to buy WMDs) will come under scrutiny. Of course, Obama, as the titular head of the NIH, bears the ultimate responsibility.

Why did Obama's administrators pick Holmes as a leading light and give him the capacity to commit this crime...rather than the care and isolation from society he needed?

Very mature way to debate, a credit to your cause.

Is the DOJ study I cited above "cooked" by the firearms industry? The Clinton administration was strongly anti-gun when that study came out. Concealed carry licensing has expanded to numerous states since then with a steady drop in violent crime. I won't claim it is the result of expanded gun rights because it's not possible to draw a direct relation like that in the context of larger changes and drops in violence, but the point is that legal concealed carry IS NOT THE PROBLEM. States that have legalized concealed carry have not seen increases in gun crime.

Amnt dear, the second ammendment doesn't protect you from feeling like a victim. Whine on your own time.

When rational firearms advocates step forward, and make non-idiotic, reality-based arguments, not having to do with how Granpaw took his guns to the outhouse to read the Sears Roebuck catalog, or how some slob like me could have intervened in Aurora, I'm here to listen. Until then, I'm not impressed. The ball's in your court.

I cited academic and DOJ studies above, which you don't seem to acknowledge. I'm not whining, you and others are throwing childish insults. I'd rather stick to facts, and I don't see you providing any. Acting condescending doesn't make you sound smarter.

Unsurprising gun sales would increase. People, especially Americans, want a security sensation. In this particular instance, one perceives a firearm provides control and security. After the initial event*, survivors have two main options**: 1) hide/play dead or 2) self-defense. Put yourself in a situation where you are hiding and the perpetrator finds you. It's the stuff of nightmares and horror shows, not a secure position. It is helplessness.

Now imagine you have a gun. At a minimum, a person feels more secure, or at least having some control. It is a better result.

I suppose most folks discount the risk of accidental discharge or other negative results. Sort of like the prisoner's dilemma.

*Few want to believe they would be killed first. They are instead imagining surviving the "surprise" of the initial event. It's a "what would I do" exercise. Short exercise if one imagines being immediately shot and killed.

**Assuming it is an enclosed venue and fleeing is impractical.

#42

Oh please, get off your podium.

There were numerous valid responses...you just choose to ignore them and repeat the same 'if only someone would...'

We did answer all your challenges several times, so cut out the drive by false ignorance and speak to the thread.

@23:

Switzerland.

This isn't a fair comparison. The War on Drugs, firearms training, and more effective mental health services are variables that need to be accounted for. The US has a much more violent culture than the Swiss and we don't seem to care about that. Unless you have some secret to fixing our broken and violent culture, we are going to have to look for other solutions to gun violence.

@29:

I am surprised that no Coloradans were armed that night given the high numbers of military personnel!

Why? If you live on base you have to contact base security to check out your guns when you leave base and again when you return. And if you work on base, you can't bring a gun. The only time you would carry a gun would be when you live off base and are only doing things off base. And you don't want to forget it, because if you are caught trying to bring a gun on base accidentally, you are going to be punished and probably demoted (and probably restricted to base for a time as well). Military personnel don't carry guns around. It is too much of a hassle.

@ 45 -

Oh please, get off your podium.

Coming from one that regularly uses SLOG for his own Mudede-like ramblings—am I right, Bailo?

Here's the thing, my peoples: unless you or someone close to you gets harmed/assaulted/threatened and you bear witness in some shape or form, you really cannot make a blanket statement about the right to bear arms.

About seven years ago, I visited my parents on the Kitsap Peninsula for a seemingly innocuous weekend. Upon our return from lunch one afternoon, we pull up in their driveway onto their property only to discover some random dude walking around the yard and suddenly making a quick getaway once we were a few feet away. My first instinct was to run after this mf and scare him away. I also wish I had a weapon on my person to drive the point home.

I was a gun control liberal zealot like most of you before this happened, but now I totally get why some people choose to carry a firearm. Does a firearm guarantee escape from impending doom? Not completely. But I like my chances armed vs. not. Just sayin'...

@48 - Yes, because the random dude walking suspiciously around your property and them making a quick getaway clearly deserved to die.

Is it the correct response? I dunno. But I just ordered two sets of Zen Magnets given today's news.

I was in there the other day renewing my license. Everyone else in the place was pretty chatty and mostly cited this as the reason they were getting a CPL.

@48

So in other words, you probably were going to try to kill the guy who was fleeing even though you didn't have a gun, and then perhaps lie about what he was doing when you shot him to the police.

@48

Since you were not harmed/assaulted/threatened in the situation you described, why do you feel like you have the right to make a blanket statement on gun control?

Oh, and I'm not your fucking "peoples".

If I was directly involved or knew someone more closer to me that was involved I would probably consider this action. Living in Seattle though these events are far and few between, and while tragic I still don't think it rises to the level of getting the kind of training I would need to use such a weapon properly. I can't speak for all those people, but I have my doubts that 50% of them will get the training needed to act appropriately if shit goes down. I'd rather duck, cover and run then cause more problems.

@54 Training? Why do you hate America?

The guardian has posted a map of gun ownership by country, along with homicide by gun data.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/…

This is the opposite of the correct response to "a big major, tragic event like what happened in Colorado."

Right. Best response is to cower under your bed and never leave. Someone might hurt you someday if you don't.

Everyone in this thread that has cited the 2nd Amendment needs to spend 5 minutes listening to the short fat bald guy on Seinfeld. He lays it out very logically. Bravo, Jason Alexander.

Amnt, dear, I was being insufferable. I admit it. Perhaps it's because I've been down here in San Antonio all week, where everywhere you go, there is a simple-minded celebration of firearms. As I've said before, I really don't care about guns. I think it's a silly hobby, but so is my pole lamp collection.

What I suppose really bothers me the most is that things like a spike in concealed permits is a stupid reaction to a chronic problem. It's like redecorating the living room upon finding out that you have carpenter ants in the floor joists.

These large shootings all have one common thread: the people who do them are mentally ill. Something has gone wrong with them. Sometimes they are loners. Other times, friends and loved ones try to get them help, but are stymied by laws that make involuntary commitment difficult at best, and even if you can do it, who pays for it? Insurance companies still balk at paying for most mental health care.

But instead of even talking about that, we sidetrack into silly macho posturing, and speculation about how if only more people had guns, stuff like this wouldn't happen, which is nonsense. Adding more guns into a panicked situation will only add to the confusion and the body count. There is no way around that.

I concede that not every situation is equal: in the case of my dear friend who was executed in front of a restaurant full of people, a *qualified person* (meaning someone with much more experience than target shooting or hunting - someone with infantry or police experience, for example) might have been able to save her life: the room was brightly lit, and everyone was seated. But who knows? It could have turned into a shooting range with more people than just her and her co-worker dying.

But I will say that more than anything, I despise the folksy, MGM-esque glurge we are treated to anytime firearms or the second amendment comes up. A person, or a group of persons, will never be able to be victorious over a government that possesses the firepower the US has. A person has a right to defend their home in that time between alerting the police and the police arriving. That is the reality of the situation, but we always end up wandering into crazy land where the myth of the Rugged Individual still rules the roost.

Oh, and Supreme Ruler- do shut up.

@59: Except of course pretty much everything he says about "Assault Rifles" is factually incorrect, but ya know, whatever.

I'm a little surprised that anti-gun folks are upset by the spike in people seeking CWAs actually. When you get one it means that there is a permenent record of you including your description and finger prints. It makes it easier to track gun owners which I would assume y'all would think is a good thing yes?

That being said I have to say I'm pretty much in agreement with most of what Miss Vel-DuRay has to say @60.

@61 - yes, I'll feel so much better knowing that the asshole who shot me because I looked 'suspicious' will have that used against him in trial.

Oh wait, I won't feel shit, because I'll be fucking dead.

When did the US switch from the home of the brave to the land of cowering wussies? Fear is mainlined into our heads 24/7, because it serves the power structure, and then we obediently go buy whatever we think will protect us.

If cigarette companies had an organization like the NRA, say the "National Cigar Association", every time someone died of lung cancer they'd trot out politicians to tell us the real problem is we don't have enough cigarettes, "medical thinking" is attacking our Judeo-Christian values, liberal doctors hate your freedom, and the victim was an irresponsible tobacco owner. Then they'd sell a million cartons and sign up a thousand new members.

Chicago and DC utterly restrict the right to concealed gun ownership to politicians. Chicago and DC compete yearly for the top spot in shooting-related deaths per capita.

In Vermont, one does not need a license to conceal-carry. Vermont ranks absolutely last in the nation according to violent crime.

What does and will restrict crime is not the individual with the conceal-carry firearm defending himself; he is unlikely to be successful if set upon anyways, but rather the response of other bystanders also carrying a firearm. As the likelihood of being shot in return increases for criminals, the danger of the violent behavior will eventually exceed any of its merits, and violent crime will naturally decrease.

The merits of unrestricted conceal carry is the militia-like response to violence it entails.

@64
"When did the US switch from the home of the brave to the land of cowering wussies?"

August 29, 1949.
That is when the Soviet Union tested their first nuclear weapon.
After that, even school kids were taught fear and how to "duck and cover".
While their parents purchased backyard bomb shelters and canned food.

At least there's a plan to deal with the deadly violence of Buckyballs.

@67: good answer. I wasn't thinking that far back, but we certainly couldn't have enjoyed the Cold War without the Fear.

@63: But if the aim of anti-gun folks is to eventually get rid of guns in this country wouldn't you need to know who has them? There are million of guns in this country, and no central list of even the guns that are registered. A CWA follows you. It will show up in every background check. There's no way to track most guns, but you can track a person with a CWA. That should make you happy, shouldn't it?

I have no problem with trained, licensed individuals carrying firearms. And really, the call for more gun control is not a call to ban all guns. What we need is better training requirements, registration and licensing to purchase and own guns AND ammunition.

The real issue is, more could and obviously should be done because these kinds of events keep happening. I'd love to see the Pro-Gun Lobby step up to the challenge. Take responsibility for your toys. Understand that, yes, they are dangerous in untrained hands, and proactively try to prevent these tragic events that are ultimately contrary to your own political interests. "My cold, dead hands" fixes nothing. You think more of us should be armed? Fine. Come up with a constructive and safe way to make that a realistic proposition.

It amazes me that people still think that the 2nd amendment says you have to be in a militia to legally have a gun. We can debate whether or not the amendment is a good thing, but it clearly says that because a militia is necessary, the people have a right to bear arms.

The comma seperates the two ideas:
1. a militia is necessary
2. so ordinary people need to have the right to be armed

The amendment is to ensure that the people can be armed so that they can form a militia if the government becomes tyrannical. Pretending it means something else does not get anyone anywhere.

The militia and the people are two seperate entities in the sentence.

I support improved gun control and enforcement of those codes.

I also don't think it will do as much to solve the problem as many of you naively believe. The root of this sort of violence goes way beyond the availability of firearms or mental health issues. It's a societal problem stemming from how badly we treat each other. We all have a breaking point, one that doesn't require mental illness to reach. James Holmes hit his and in his irrational pent-up rage decided the only way to deal with it was to shoot up a theater.

Fear won't keep you safe.

I loved the scene in Newshour where the Republican pro-gun-control newscaster showed the gun-owner that her gun could easily be used against her.

But, hey. live in your fantasy world. Even when I was a level 7 marksman with a 9mm handgun, I would miss most running targets more than 100 yards away. Which is why I prefer rifles and submachine guns, quite frankly.

Your best defense is a walking stick or cane. Second best is a shotgun. People freeze, weapons jam, stuff happens too quick, most people won't react in time - forget handguns unless they are a required tool of your trade.

@75: A firearms instructor named Clint Smith once said: "the only purpose for a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should have never laid down." Applies a lot more to military, but the idea is the same.

Sorry. CWL not CWA . I hate my phone.

@30

I'm going to regret responding to you, but there are whole list facts you delightfully omit when blithely referencing the Swiss model for citizen firearms. (From the same Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politic…)

- The Swiss DON'T allow CONCEALED CARRY AT ALL excepting with extremely strict licensing. They allow trasport - non-concealed- of militia with rifles, again with special permission.

- A Waffenerwerbsschein (a special license) is required to purchase ANY firearm. And you can only ever own THREE at any one time.

- The Swiss require regular mandatory testing and inspection in both stringent firearm safety procedures and defensive firearms use. You don't pass, you're fucked.

- Any violations of firearms laws may ban you for LIFE from owning a gun.

- They also have mandatory conscription. Read that again. Mandatory military service.

- When their military service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon. If so, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed.

Lastly: The Swiss, heathen commies that they are, have a much broader social safety net than the US and—hold on to your tiny little hat—the Swiss have an eeeevil socialist health insurance mandate JUST like Romneycare! Funded with an exceptionally high corporate tax rate. Ohes noes!

If you think for one second the pussies in the GOP or NRA would allow any of those laws on firearms, mandatory service, and social welfare system in the US you are far, faaar, more insane than you sound.

What the hell is a "Level 7 Marksman?" There is no such designation in the US military that I have ever heard of. In the US military Marksmanship is designated with Bronze, Silver, etc.

Do you mean in Nintendo?

@66 I am all for people owning firearms if they want. I have trained both tactically, via the military, and in civilian defensive firearms so let me confidently inform you there exists only a very narrow set of circumstances where a firearm can be used in self defense successfully.

A dark theater filled with CS gas, six hundred panicked bystanders running around, and perpetrator with assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and head-to-toe ballistic armor IS NOT ONE OF THOSE TIMES. The last thing needed is a bunch of untrained cow boys with Glocks thinking their Covenant Elite in Halo.

When Gabby Giffords was shot there were people there packing - Joe Zamudio for one - and they almost all shot each other.

From Zamudio

"I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "
But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess"

No. Defending your home is one thing. But. We need whole lot fewer people packing guns around. Not more. In fact, ultimately, we need whole lot fewer people who feel the NEED to pack guns.