http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/investigators&id=7841676

Guns from VA used in NY

Holmes was wearing body armor so all of this discussion is moot. There is no way someone witha concealed weapon in the theater could have taken him down.

I recently read of two cases where someone with a concealed weapon disrupted a crime. In one case, the guy did not hit the criminal and was killed by the criminal. This was outside in broad day light. In the second case, an off duty police officer (in other words someone trained for such situations) was able to prevent a robbery. Again in broad daylight.

You think some guy could stand his ground while being shot at, found his target (who is in all black) in the dark and make a shot that would have made a difference? I think it is more likely he would have shot another movie goer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not mean to argue with you, but just think
If someone had had a concealed weapon they could have shot back

And guns do not kill people, people do.

Some rural hunting communities have guns and raise their kids surrounded by guns and nobody goes crazy and they do not have a problem
But I would not like my kid to be on a playdate in a house where the guns are not locked in a safe
That would scare me too.

But if only someone could have shot back

If someone had a concealed weapon in that theater and tried to shoot back, more people might have ended up dead.

Or the shooter might have been shot. There is really no way to know for sure, but it seems most likely that the shooter would have been the one shot.

Most likely the person with the concealed weapon would be shot by the police responding. I think any officer would be correct shooting anyone with a gun when they arrived.

Anonymous wrote:The shooter would have been an easy target. He stood away from the crowd.
Zimmerman case is totally different

It was dark, he had exploded two smoke canisters, people were panicking and chaos had broken out. Not such an easy target.

The shooter would have been an easy target. He stood away from the crowd.
Zimmerman case is totally different

The OP might be onto something. Cars kill more popel than guns so.....let's make it harder to regisdter cars.

Anonymous wrote:Stand you ground

Yes, because that worked out so well for Zimmerman and for that other idiot in Texas who just got 40 years in prison. All this after the lives of two people who'd done nothing wrong were snuffed out, but who cares about them, right?

Stand you ground

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not mean to argue with you, but just think
If someone had had a concealed weapon they could have shot back

And guns do not kill people, people do.

Some rural hunting communities have guns and raise their kids surrounded by guns and nobody goes crazy and they do not have a problem
But I would not like my kid to be on a playdate in a house where the guns are not locked in a safe
That would scare me too.

But if only someone could have shot back

If someone had a concealed weapon in that theater and tried to shoot back, more people might have ended up dead.

Or the shooter might have been shot. There is really no way to know for sure, but it seems most likely that the shooter would have been the one shot.

Anonymous wrote:I do not mean to argue with you, but just think
If someone had had a concealed weapon they could have shot back

And guns do not kill people, people do.

Some rural hunting communities have guns and raise their kids surrounded by guns and nobody goes crazy and they do not have a problem
But I would not like my kid to be on a playdate in a house where the guns are not locked in a safe
That would scare me too.

But if only someone could have shot back

If someone had a concealed weapon in that theater and tried to shoot back, more people might have ended up dead.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a liberal elite, and I don't happen to own a gun. But before you start worrying, I'd like to tell you what I really think about guns. I don't really care whether you own a gun for self-protection, hunting, or you're a collector. You can have as many guns as you want, I don't care. Heck, I've been duck hunting a few times and have even shot off an automatic weapon in Las Vegas - can see how they can be fun. But, what does bother me is some drug dealer from NYC coming down and buying 300 guns all at once at some store in Virginia, taking them all back to the city, and those guns being used to kill cops and innocent bystanders. It bothers me to think that, in church, school, or the grocery store, you have a concealed weapon you're ill-trained but over-prepared to use to try and stop a crime. It bothers me that your son could get that gun out to show it to my son and one of them accidentally gets shot. And it bothers me that some psychotic nut can buy a few automatic weapons and use them to shoot up a school or movie theater. So I ask you, 2d Amendment Fans, how would you propose to resolve those issues? We license people to own cars, register cars, inspect cars. Why can't we do that with guns?

With all due respect, the registartion of cars, the inspection of cars, etc. is primarily about levying taxes and feeding a stream of $ to repair shops. When guns are purchased out of state and then cross state lines, I beleive they call the buyers "straw purchasers". They have to meet the regulations of the state where the purchase is made. They have to pass the background check, and are subject to whatever the established regulations are for time between purchases. So a drug dealer in NYC is not purchasing handguns in VA unless they happen to be a resident of VA, and they are not purchasing 300 guns at one store (or many stores) unless they happen to be registered as a dealer or have passed the requirements for a concealed carry permit. It is the straw purchasers buying in VA and then illegally transferring the arms - possibly through a series of intermediaries - before the weapon winds up in the hands of the NYC dealer. I believe that the Washington Post ran a very indepth article - or maybe a series of articles - on straw purchase in VA and elsewhere several years ago. You might want to look it up. I guess the argument is that criminals will always find ways to easily obtain guns. It is their stock in trade. I believe the Post article I referred to some instances where shops were closed down for suspicious behavior, only to pop back up again under new legal ownership. Certainly it would be worthwhile to look at how we can reduce that type of thing.

Anonymous wrote:I do not mean to argue with you, but just think
If someone had had a concealed weapon they could have shot back

It was a crowded, dark, noisy theater in which chaos had broken out. If someone had a concealed weapon, he probably would have shot more innocent bystanders.

When Gabrielle Giffords was shot, a guy in the audience did have a weapon. He came very close to shooting the man who disarmed the shooter and had taken possession of the weapon.

Also, standing in the middle of a a bunch of people who have been shot while holding a weapon is a good way to get yourself shot by someone else carrying a concealed weapon or police arriving on the scene.

I do not mean to argue with you, but just think
If someone had had a concealed weapon they could have shot back

And guns do not kill people, people do.

Some rural hunting communities have guns and raise their kids surrounded by guns and nobody goes crazy and they do not have a problem
But I would not like my kid to be on a playdate in a house where the guns are not locked in a safe
That would scare me too.

But if only someone could have shot back

I'm a liberal elite, and I don't happen to own a gun. But before you start worrying, I'd like to tell you what I really think about guns. I don't really care whether you own a gun for self-protection, hunting, or you're a collector. You can have as many guns as you want, I don't care. Heck, I've been duck hunting a few times and have even shot off an automatic weapon in Las Vegas - can see how they can be fun. But, what does bother me is some drug dealer from NYC coming down and buying 300 guns all at once at some store in Virginia, taking them all back to the city, and those guns being used to kill cops and innocent bystanders. It bothers me to think that, in church, school, or the grocery store, you have a concealed weapon you're ill-trained but over-prepared to use to try and stop a crime. It bothers me that your son could get that gun out to show it to my son and one of them accidentally gets shot. And it bothers me that some psychotic nut can buy a few automatic weapons and use them to shoot up a school or movie theater. So I ask you, 2d Amendment Fans, how would you propose to resolve those issues? We license people to own cars, register cars, inspect cars. Why can't we do that with guns?