Deputy shoots gunman at San Antonio movie theater

[ms maggie]

So, it is ok then for OTHER people to die, so YOU can feel safe knowing that a potential Chuck Norris won't be legally armed with a lethal weapon?

Fine, self protection above anybody and everybody else's security.

Would you have the same opinion if it were YOU the lone person in the theater who got shot? I doubt it.

You and every other person on this bulletin board who fails to trust ordinary fellow citizens, would be screaming your collective heads off asking or begging for anybody to stop someone from shooting yourself.

I prefer guns to be in the hands of people properly trained. What a crazy idea.

The Aurora incident? How many people would have been injured if this nut couldn't have gotten his hands on the kind of weapons he had, with a magazine w what capacity? A hundred?

The notion that the average armed citizen who has never been under live fire in his life, in a dark theater, with people panicking could have stopped the shooter--fantasy. We're not talking about a video game or perching in a tree stand waiting fir a deer to saunter by, so grow up.

[Omaha Beach]

I prefer guns to be in the hands of people properly trained. What a crazy idea.

The Aurora incident? How many people would have been injured if this nut couldn't have gotten his hands on the kind of weapons he had, with a magazine w what capacity? A hundred?

The notion that the average armed citizen who has never been under live fire in his life, in a dark theater, with people panicking could have stopped the shooter--fantasy. We're not talking about a video game or perching in a tree stand waiting fir a deer to saunter by, so grow up.

But at least the armed citizen would at least have a chance to protect himself or herself from becoming a victim. An unarmed one has NONE. What is soooo hard for you to understand about that very simple fact? You assume the average citizen has had no training. WRONG! There are hundreds of thousands of retired police officers and military veterans among us who have been trained in the use of weapons, and have been under fire inVietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Would that be good enough or do you insist they also go unarmed? I think you are the one who should grow up.

[ms maggie]

But at least the armed citizen would at least have a chance to protect himself or herself from becoming a victim. An unarmed one has NONE. What is soooo hard for you to understand about that very simple fact? You assume the average citizen has had no training. WRONG! There are hundreds of thousands of retired police officers and military veterans among us who have been trained in the use of weapons, and have been under fire inVietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Would that be good enough or do you insist they also go unarmed? I think you are the one who should grow up.

An armed citizen would have been likely to add to the carnage IMO. Read up on this, and these are trained, active duty police officers.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justic...ing/index.html

And how many people have been under fire in Vietnam etc compared to the number of gun owners? Maybe one or two percent? About 20 million vets, say 10% ever under fire--which might be high, so yeah, one or two percent tops.

You insist on concentrating on the exception, not the rule. The average person/gun owner does not have the proper training for this kind of circumstance. Think of the word "average"--got it? The median, the norm, not the exception.

[jonsensback]

An armed citizen would have been likely to add to the carnage IMO. Read up on this, and these are trained, active duty police officers.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justic...ing/index.html

And how many people have been under fire in Vietnam etc compared to the number of gun owners? Maybe one or two percent? About 20 million vets, say 10% ever under fire--which might be high, so yeah, one or two percent tops.

You insist on concentrating on the exception, not the rule. The average person/gun owner does not have the proper training for this kind of circumstance. Think of the word "average"--got it? The median, the norm, not the exception.

I believe it's required to attend a certified training class prior to being allowed to conceal carry or open carry a firearm in most states that allow carry. Not to mention most people I know who own a handgun have at least put in some range time, so its not like they will empty a gun in a crowd when they get their panties wadded.

[ms maggie]

I believe it's required to attend a certified training class prior to being allowed to conceal carry or open carry a firearm in most states that allow carry. Not to mention most people I know who own a handgun have at least put in some range time, so its not like they will empty a gun in a crowd when they get their panties wadded.

I see. So you are under the impression that time spent at the range is similar to being shot at by a madman in a crowded theater with people in panic?

Alrighty then.

And some states have requirements for concealed and open firearms carry, not all. So there's that as well. With all due respect to most people you know, that's hardly projectible data.

[jonsensback]

I see. So you are under the impression that time spent at the range is similar to being shot at by a madman in a crowded theater with people in panic?

Alrighty then.

And some states have requirements for concealed and open firearms carry, not all. So there's that as well. With all due respect to most people you know, that's hardly projectible data.

You actually believe if one takes training on "don't shoot or shoot" pop ups once in their career are deemed more qualified than one who is proficient in the use of firearms?

I guess that would explain the multiple friendly fire shootings in a war zone or cops that end up shooting another cop cases that happen yearly.

As far as "projectible data" goes, I would take life experience over a 30 minute segment on MSNBC on the evils of normal ciitzens being armed.

[Daan]

I prefer guns to be in the hands of people properly trained. What a crazy idea.

The Aurora incident? How many people would have been injured if this nut couldn't have gotten his hands on the kind of weapons he had, with a magazine w what capacity? A hundred?

The notion that the average armed citizen who has never been under live fire in his life, in a dark theater, with people panicking could have stopped the shooter--fantasy. We're not talking about a video game or perching in a tree stand waiting fir a deer to saunter by, so grow up.

The Aurora shooter's semi-auto rifle jammed after less than 30 rounds. He shot into the audience with a shotgun and handgun. An AWB will not stop a deranged indivdual who is intent on mass murder.

.

[Phoenix]

An armed citizen would have been likely to add to the carnage IMO. Read up on this, and these are trained, active duty police officers.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justic...ing/index.html

And how many people have been under fire in Vietnam etc compared to the number of gun owners? Maybe one or two percent? About 20 million vets, say 10% ever under fire--which might be high, so yeah, one or two percent tops.

You insist on concentrating on the exception, not the rule. The average person/gun owner does not have the proper training for this kind of circumstance. Think of the word "average"--got it? The median, the norm, not the exception.

You and your opinion are in the minority. You live in a handful of states whose residents still do not "get it" as you collectively live in a fantasy land where evil is to be stopped by mere signs.

You might as well start hangings signs out proclaiming designated areas to be "flu free", "germ free" and "smallpox free" and stop taking innoculation shots altogether. But do this in your own city and state.

[ms maggie]

You actually believe if one takes training on "don't shoot or shoot" pop ups once in their career are deemed more qualified than one who is proficient in the use of firearms?

I guess that would explain the multiple friendly fire shootings in a war zone or cops that end up shooting another cop cases that happen yearly.

As far as "projectible data" goes, I would take life experience over a 30 minute segment on MSNBC on the evils of normal ciitzens being armed.

You make my point. There are multiple friendly fire shooting in a war zone or by cops. But a civilian who has never been in a hostile situation, they're bound to be cool as a cucumber.

I have never seen the MSNBC segment you reference. What's it called?

[ms maggie]

You and your opinion are in the minority. You live in a handful of states whose residents still do not "get it" as you collectively live in a fantasy land where evil is to be stopped by mere signs.

You might as well start hangings signs out proclaiming designated areas to be "flu free", "germ free" and "smallpox free" and stop taking innoculation shots altogether. But do this in your own city and state.

And you are entitled to your opinion. As am I. And I live in PA by the way, not exactly a gun-unfriendly place.

Don't be too sure who is in the minority.

92% favor closing the gunshow loophole
62% favor banning high capacity ammunition clips
58% favor stricter laws on buying guns

http://pollingreport.com/guns.htm

[Omaha Beach]

An armed citizen would have been likely to add to the carnage IMO. Read up on this, and these are trained, active duty police officers.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justic...ing/index.html

And how many people have been under fire in Vietnam etc compared to the number of gun owners? Maybe one or two percent? About 20 million vets, say 10% ever under fire--which might be high, so yeah, one or two percent tops.

You insist on concentrating on the exception, not the rule. The average person/gun owner does not have the proper training for this kind of circumstance. Think of the word "average"--got it? The median, the norm, not the exception.

You left out the number of retired police officers and combat veterans, from Iraq and afghanistan. Just an oversight by you im sure. And what makes you an authority on how much training the so called average person has in using a gun? The point you just cannot get around no matter how you twist into a pretzel is that at least an armed person has a chance to protect himself or herself. An unarmed person might as well be a target at a range.

[ms maggie]

You left out the number of retired police officers and combat veterans, from Iraq and afghanistan. Just an oversight by you im sure. And what makes you an authority on how much training the so called average person has in using a gun? The point you just cannot get around no matter how you twist into a pretzel is that at least an armed person has a chance to protect himself or herself. An unarmed person might as well be a target at a range.

I did not leave out the combat vets from Iraq and Afghan, that's part of the 2MM veterans total. And police I did leave out. But again, math, math, math, math, math.

Over 150 MILLION people in the US own guns.

How many of them are retired police or combat vets? Good luck getting to 10%.

My logic says an untrained person with a gun in that Aurora theater would have made TWO people likely to kill the other people there instead of one.

[Omaha Beach]

I did not leave out the combat vets from Iraq and Afghan, that's part of the 2MM veterans total. And police I did leave out. But again, math, math, math, math, math.

Over 150 MILLION people in the US own guns.

How many of them are retired police or combat vets? Good luck getting to 10%.

My logic says an untrained person with a gun in that Aurora theater would have made TWO people likely to kill the other people there instead of one.

Baloney. The law abiding person would have been shooting at the perp not the other movie patrons.

[slapshot]

Baloney. The law abiding person would have been shooting at the perp not the other movie patrons.

Talk about baloney.

Good luck with your theory. The theatre was darkened, and filled with tear gas, not to mention people scrambling over seats to try and hide.

You are delusional.

[Omaha Beach]

Talk about baloney.

Good luck with your theory. The theatre was darkened, and filled with tear gas, not to mention people scrambling over seats to try and hide.

You are delusional.

You dont know sheet about what was going on in that theatre because you were not there anymore than you were inVietnam you lying ahole!

[slapshot]

You dont know sheet about what was going on in that theatre because you were not there anymore than you were inVietnam you lying ahole!

Try reading reports, you jack arse.

What a clueless piece of crap.

[Phoenix]

Update today on media's non reporting of this incident:

Fox News aired this on the CDT noon hour today:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/17/gunman-injures-1-in-texas-movie-theater-parking-lot/

Good for Fox. They actually took time to BROADCAST this today as real NEWS.

About 2 weeks late, but late is better than never.

CBS finally got into the act, publishing an Associated Press story dated 12-17-12 by affiliate KENS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57559506/shots-fired-patrons-panic-at-san-antonio-theater/

The changed personal opinion of a mother in Connecticut is near the top of CBS’s website today, so the “media” is clearly telling us that an anti gun OPINION is of greater significance than a real life defensive shooting.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50138259n

Nothing still on ABC and NBC, I am not surprised in the least.