Even when compared to the whole Europe (740M), US is ahead per capita with about the same number of sprees.

EDIT: corrected wrong statement

If that's the case, that's the case. Not going to dispute facts as such. So, that being said, what's the solution? Try to disarm everyone in the US?

I have to admit. The US is full of freaking Nut Jobs. And it doesn't help that our mainstream media is just waiting in the wings for that one to snap. I swear something bad happens, they see dollar signs, sensationalize the hell out of it, then beg for that Pulitzer.

Completely Impossible. And If it were, I wouldn't recommend it anyway.

Making a few steps in this direction wouldn't hurt. Looking at statistics this phenomenon is on the rise, so it's reasonable to expect things to escalate further if there's no action.

Oh, I wouldn't recommend it either. For one, it'd be a massive hit to our industry. (Firearms manufacturing is, interestingly, one of the very few manufacturing industries that's booming right now) Secondly, it'd devalue a LOT of firearms collections. I myself have (way too much) invested into various historic pieces. Third, if it were put into law, all you would do is force people to go illegal with their firearms, that being, hiding them from the government. So at that point, you've taken a national asset (a well armed civilian populace) and turned it into a liability (a well armed criminal network).

I generally qualify Sharpshooter to Expert (unless it's with the machinegun, in which case it's Expert - but you can't exactly take one of those around with you wherever you go!). On a stress shoot, standing from three hundred yards and four hundred yards away from the target my accuracy is about 60-70% - and those misses are hits in 'less than vital' areas, not complete misses. A movie theater is somewhat less than that distance. I am so used to explosions (mostly 'cause I cause 'em) that I don't flinch at them anymore. CS gas has the effect of making me cough - and if you don't inhale it, it has no effect at all. (Aside: If you're ever in that situation, breathe shallowly and through your mouth. It'll hurt less.)

I haven't? How do you know this? You'd be amazed at what some people have had to do, Savayan. Might be that some of us speak from experience, not out our backsides.
If you knew anything about this subject, you'd realize it's really not something that you can really put a whole lot of useful data to - MOUT is an art, not a science. Techniques that work really well for me don't work well for the next guy, and vice versa. It might be that I'm perfectly capable of taking down a target in a crowded environment, but the guy next to me groups like a shotgun blast with just a little bit of stress. This isn't like the political debates about socialism vs capitalism, because the only ones who've made any real study of it are the military. You can only pick out the most general of trends, which aren't that useful when we start talking about specific individuals and training them.

And I thought that the point of what Phuse and I were saying was that we're not amazing, nor are we killing machines. Honest, we're really not, and those of you who're saying that are being unnecessarily rude and hostile by putting words into our mouths. I'm really only that impressive when I stand next to guys who haven't done anything of the sort - I know plenty of guys who're way better warfighters than me, and the SF cats make me look like a blundering idiot child. Heck, most of my post was devoted towards how anybody could get it done if they're responsibly prepared for firearm ownership and employment. All being shot at makes you good at is being shot at. The only deciding factors are internal to you, not experience and training. Experience and training can only improve what is already there, and it is my experience that every human being has what it takes. They just need the motivation to bring it out. There are no super-soldiers. There is no difference between you and me except for the fact that I already know I can do this, while you think you can't.

Honestly, my response would probably run along these lines:
1: That wasn't the movie. (Movie gunshots sound nothing like the real thing, especially when the real thing is aimed in your general direction. I'll probably ID it as 'big bullet pistol', 'little bullet pistol', 'big bullet rifle', or 'little bullet rifle', too. I'm not that good at telling the differences between different firearms.)
2: Holy Expletive! Oh, Expletive! Expletive!
3: End this expletive and all he loves.
Total time taken, less than it took to read this.

It's worth noting, however, that I do not have a family and that almost all of my friends are similarly trained and proficient. I would therefore not be concerned with ushering them to safety. I also have this problem wherein I really don't... relax. I'm pretty much always waiting for something to pop off. This has somewhat hindered my social life, as you might imagine.
My opinion, however, is that someone similarly experienced whose family is in the line of danger would respond better than I would. Whether they choose fight or choose flight, they would probably show much better courage and better thinking than I would simply because they have so much at stake.

Which kinda runs counter to what you said about there being one every year here. Frankly, I'm not impressed with one spree per year in a country the size of the United States.

Powderhorn: the comparison between countries suggests that putting some limitations on firearms can reduce this kind of incident. You don't have to put a complete stop, but this student legally bought a semi-automatic rifle. Maybe putting just a little more control into this area can have a major effect.

Look at the gun ownership data, do you really need twice as much guns per person as any other country?

But not every American has guns. Many of those guns are in single owners' hands. I for example far beat the national average of "two for every person". Why do Israel and Switzerland manage so much better when firearm ownership is in fact mandated?

As for training people how to shoot, maybe we SHOULD bring back the militia laws in the US. The reason guns overtook bows and arrows is simply because it is so ridiculously easy to train somebody how to shoot. The rest, the not panicking bit? Solaris has it right. All that runs through your mind is "Oh ----, oh ----, oh ----" The training just makes sure you can still act while you have that stream of consciousness going through your head.

I did no such thing. I provided un-snipped quotes, and picked up on the same thing that others have referenced (albeit less bluntly). If you'd like to explain where I took it out of context, I'm all ears.

And no, I am not a professional journalist, just a regular guy with an opinion.

This is a fair point. Even though the shooter started with no specific target and a theater full of potential targets, if he had to focus on just one, his chances of hitting would have gone down dramatically, so I'll concede you that.

The problem as I see it is that for every guy who is as skilled as some here are claiming to be, there are surely others who fancy themselves to be proficient, but are not. If you allow everyone to come to the movies carrying a weapon and then a firefight breaks out, I still feel the situation gets worse, not better.

Time? Most likely, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they would have been effective.


I don't feel that I was being unneccesarily rude or hostile. Blunt and accurate is more like it, maybe a little bit too judgemental, but nothing I said was meant to be hostile. I'm sorry if you took it that way.

And what you're missing again is that it's not that some of us "think we can't" do this. I'm fairly certain that if I chose to take firearms training, I could develop into a pretty decent shot. But I choose not to carry a gun because of the many consequences that doing so could bring to myself and those around me. I feel that by assuming a 100% chance of success, you're not fairly considering some of those consequences, and IMO, that is very dangerous.

Also, if you're relying on military experience in wartime to formulate your perspective on this, would it be fair to say that firefights in crowded, urban areas often result in unintended, civilian casualties? Or is it only military personnel on either side who make up the body count?

Gun Sales in Colorado up 41% since shooting

I think people are agreeing with the "if we had a gun" side of things here...