A great solution to prevent future shooting sprees in America

I've just found a great solution: when going to work, theaters, restaurants or schools, everyone should carry a gun, so that if a shooter opened fire in a public place, he'd gunned down instantly.

Better solution: Kill everyone.

Tada...no more crime.

Better solution: Kill everyone.

Tada...no more crime.

br0kenrabbit

so that if a shooter opened fire in a public place, he'd gunned down instantly.

jackfruitchips

He had smoke bombs to conceal where he was. So you're telling me a bunch of people in the audience, most of them untrained, firing randomly into the smoke would reduce deaths? Are you totally insane?

[QUOTE="jackfruitchips"]

so that if a shooter opened fire in a public place, he'd gunned down instantly.

JML897

He had smoke bombs to conceal where he was. So you're telling me a bunch of people in the audience, most of them untrained, firing randomly into the smoke would reduce deaths? Are you totally insane?

If there's so much smoke that they can't see the shooter, then the shooter can't see them.

Muzzle flash in pretty visible through smoke, anyway.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

Better solution: Kill everyone.

Tada...no more crime.

thriteenthmonke

Thank you, thank you. I'm here all evening.

yea thats just what we need, more people with guns.

stupid idea is stupid.

Better solution: Kill everyone.

Tada...no more crime.

br0kenrabbit

This is the best solution out there.

[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="jackfruitchips"]

so that if a shooter opened fire in a public place, he'd gunned down instantly.

br0kenrabbit

He had smoke bombs to conceal where he was. So you're telling me a bunch of people in the audience, most of them untrained, firing randomly into the smoke would reduce deaths? Are you totally insane?

If there's so much smoke that they can't see the shooter, then the shooter can't see them.

Do you think he really cared who he could see? My guess is that for the most part he just sprayed bullets. A movie theater is a jampacked area. He knew that if he just shot randomly he would be able to hit a lot of people.

[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="jackfruitchips"]

so that if a shooter opened fire in a public place, he'd gunned down instantly.

br0kenrabbit

He had smoke bombs to conceal where he was. So you're telling me a bunch of people in the audience, most of them untrained, firing randomly into the smoke would reduce deaths? Are you totally insane?

If there's so much smoke that they can't see the shooter, then the shooter can't see them.

Muzzle flash in pretty visible through smoke, anyway.

A massacre happens (which is pretty rare) and all the sudden everyone is so uptight on banning guns.

Jeez, everyone sure does like to overreact.

Do you think he really cared who he could see? My guess is that for the most part he just sprayed bullets. A movie theater is a jampacked area. He knew that if he just shot randomly he would be able to hit a lot of people.

JML897

We're (supposedly) assuming the hypothetical 'hero' scenario here, right? If that's the case, two things:

1. Muzzle flash. Aim for it.

2. Flank the bastard. He can't see you.

and while we're at it lets rig our homes with nuclear bombs that detonate when someone breaks in.

yea thats just what we need, more people with guns.

stupid idea is stupid.

konvikt_17

[QUOTE="konvikt_17"]

yea thats just what we need, more people with guns.

stupid idea is stupid.

jackfruitchips

just because you give everyone a gun doesnt mean they will use it the right way. a simple argument, could turn into a gun fight.

its not a good idea. especially in that atmosphere where drugs are likely involved.

[QUOTE="JML897"]

Do you think he really cared who he could see? My guess is that for the most part he just sprayed bullets. A movie theater is a jampacked area. He knew that if he just shot randomly he would be able to hit a lot of people.

br0kenrabbit

We're (supposedly) assuming the hypothetical 'hero' scenario here, right? If that's the case, two things:

1. Muzzle flash. Aim for it.

2. Flank the bastard. He can't see you.

should we still blame rap music?Nengo_Flow

Yesterday I saw a show where some guy was blaming paintball.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="JML897"]

Do you think he really cared who he could see? My guess is that for the most part he just sprayed bullets. A movie theater is a jampacked area. He knew that if he just shot randomly he would be able to hit a lot of people.

LJS9502_basic

We're (supposedly) assuming the hypothetical 'hero' scenario here, right? If that's the case, two things:

1. Muzzle flash. Aim for it.

2. Flank the bastard. He can't see you.

From my understanding, he had came in the emergency exit door where he started firing. This would mean the only thing behind him was the screen and the exit door.

As more of the details came out from the shooting in Colorado, I don't think more guns would have been a solution. That doesn't mean that more concealed weapons in the hands of responsible citizens is necessarily a bad thing, however. I'm sure it would do far more good than harm if it was ever implemented.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

We're (supposedly) assuming the hypothetical 'hero' scenario here, right? If that's the case, two things:

1. Muzzle flash. Aim for it.

2. Flank the bastard. He can't see you.

br0kenrabbit

From my understanding, he had came in the emergency exit door where he started firing. This would mean the only thing behind him was the screen and the exit door.

Let's say someone in the crowd starts firing too. Considering the theatre was dark and people were panicked, how is the rest of the crowd supposed to know that 2nd guy is on their side and there aren't two shooters?

Let's say someone in the crowd starts firing too. Considering the theatre was dark and people were panicked, how is the rest of the crowd supposed to know that 2nd guy is on their side and there aren't two shooters?

JML897

Situational Awareness is actually a whole section of the C&C course. So basically, you shoot at the guy shooting into the audience, not at the guy shooting at the guy shooting into the audience.

Let's say someone in the crowd starts firing too. Considering the theatre was dark and people were panicked, how is the rest of the crowd supposed to know that 2nd guy is on their side and there aren't two shooters?

JML897

Are you saying you wouldn't have been able to tell that the person who stood up and engaged the person that was shooting at you wasn't friendly?

I believe the TC was being facetious.

[QUOTE="JML897"]

Let's say someone in the crowd starts firing too. Considering the theatre was dark and people were panicked, how is the rest of the crowd supposed to know that 2nd guy is on their side and there aren't two shooters?

airshocker

Are you saying you wouldn't have been able to tell that the person who stood up and engaged the person that was shooting at you wasn't friendly?

In a dark smoke-filled theatre all I'd know is that there were two people shooting. It's dependent on just how low visibility was, of course.

In a dark smoke-filled theatre all I'd know is that there were two people shooting.

JML897

The shooter was silhouetted by the movie and the doorway and smoke takes time to disperse in an area as big as a movie theater. Please answer my question: Are you telling me you don't have the situational awareness to perceive the threat, the response to that threat, and determine which is friend or foe?

[QUOTE="JML897"]

In a dark smoke-filled theatre all I'd know is that there were two people shooting.

airshocker

The shooter was silhouetted by the movie and the doorway and smoke takes time to disperse in an area as big as a movie theater. Please answer my question: Are you telling me you don't have the situational awareness to perceive the threat, the response to that threat, and determine which is friend or foe?

[QUOTE="JML897"]

In a dark smoke-filled theatre all I'd know is that there were two people shooting.

airshocker

The shooter was silhouetted by the movie and the doorway and smoke takes time to disperse in an area as big as a movie theater. Please answer my question: Are you telling me you don't have the situational awareness to perceive the threat, the response to that threat, and determine which is friend or foe?

Okay I concede that point assuming people were able to actually see in the theater. I still don't think firing back in a crowded movie theater where there's a high risk for innocent casualties is the right way to go.

Ban assault weapons.

Although that would make it harder to figure out who has a small penis...

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="JML897"]

In a dark smoke-filled theatre all I'd know is that there were two people shooting.

LJS9502_basic

The shooter was silhouetted by the movie and the doorway and smoke takes time to disperse in an area as big as a movie theater. Please answer my question: Are you telling me you don't have the situational awareness to perceive the threat, the response to that threat, and determine which is friend or foe?

Which is where 'assessing the situation' comes in.

Until I had my incident in Atlanta, I never really understood what time dilation really meant. I tell you what, if you had written a message on an arrow and fired it past my head at that moment, I could have probably read it. In the time it took the intruder to scale three steps, I had already determined what kind of weapon he was carrying, where it was pointed, where I needed to maneuver for the best shot, and where exactly I wanted to shoot him.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

The shooter was silhouetted by the movie and the doorway and smoke takes time to disperse in an area as big as a movie theater. Please answer my question: Are you telling me you don't have the situational awareness to perceive the threat, the response to that threat, and determine which is friend or foe?

br0kenrabbit

Which is where 'assessing the situation' comes in.

Until I had my incident in Atlanta, I never really understood what time dilation really meant. I tell you what, if you had written a message on an arrow and fired it past my head at that moment, I could have probably read it. In the time it took the intruder to scale three steps, I had already determined what kind of weapon he was carrying, where it was pointed, where I needed to maneuver for the best shot, and where exactly I wanted to shoot him.

Could you say for a fact that it was a lone shooter when all you perceive is shots from two distinct areas? That's a rather risky calculation.....

LJS9502_basic

Probably not, but that's not what I'm asking: What I'm asking is that once the shooter threw the smoke and opened fire, a reasonable person would determine that a threat. Now if that person hears a shot from behind them and sees the shooter being engaged, they should also be able to reasonably determine that the second shooter is a friendly.

I walk around with my pistol everywhere I go Bucked20

:lol: Squirt guns don't count, kid.

Open carry of weapons is part of my state constitution....

*sigh* You're the second Rambo I've seen in these threads. If you can tackle or take out the shooter....that's fine. But firing into a panicked crowd seems a bit dangerous.LJS9502_basic

Here's where you're mistaken, though...why would you even fire into the crowd?

Yeah! Or, how about nobody carries guns?harashawn

Okay I concede that point assuming people were able to actually see in the theater. I still don't think firing back in a crowded movie theater where there's a high risk for innocent casualties is the right way to go.

JML897

I don't know, it all depends on how far away someone with a firearm is. I don't expect people to be superheroes and see through smoke, but I do expect someone who is armed to put thoughts of their well-being aside and take the shot, if they have it of course. That's the inherent responsibility you have if you choose to go out in public armed.

The government should create more hoops for people to go through to buy guns. At the same time there should be more people openly carrying in public.

The government should create more hoops for people to go through to buy guns. At the same time there should be more people openly carrying in public.

dr_cosmonaut

I can agree with this. I think even minor offenses against another person (such as simple assault, domestic violence, etc.) should disqualify you from owning a firearm for life.

If a person cannot control their temper, they shouldn't be permitted to go armed.

Screw pistols. I'd say we carry automatics. If I'm gonna go down you all sure as hell will be going down with me.Wilfred_Owen