Gunmen targeting gun-free zones

[Tipro]

So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer’s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.
Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned.
...
With just one single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater/

Wow.

 

[Sky]

Good article thanks for posting

 

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

Thanks for posting.... Great find.

 

[Skribs]

The author did a good breakdown of why other theaters might be a better tactical choice, but he did not specifically state that he KNEW that the gun-free zone was targetted.

Still, it makes sense. If you want to protect your patrons, a big way is to let them protect themselves.

 

[berettaprofessor]

IF the mentally-deranged perp would admit freely this was a reasoned, logical choice on his part it would mean a lot more than another pro-gun article by John Lott.

 

[xwingband]

They did attribute their sources... I've seen that quote elsewhere attributed to a professor.

 

[firecrackerktm]

Good article, saw that on my local 4x4 forum.

Funny part is the quote about Aurora being a low crime area. It's not.

 

[Brno]

In connection with the above, here's a column of mine that ran in our local newspaper in Loveland, CO. It generated quite a bit of feedback, almost all of it favorable.

www.reporterherald.com/columnists/homewaters/ci_21222932/more-gun-laws-wont-protect-us-from-evil


Brno

 

[230RN]

The author did a good breakdown of why other theaters might be a better tactical choice, but he did not specifically state that he KNEW that the gun-free zone was targetted.

That's why the article was headed with a question mark. Food for thought, to raise consciousness about our general opinion that gun bans, even by private companies, don't do any good.

Great thread, and thanks to you and Brno for the citations!

Terry, 230RN

 

[Kendahl]

Good editorials both places. I do disagree with two points in the Loveland newspaper.

The trivial one is that no bullet fired from a handgun will knock down the bad guy it hits. He may fall down due to the shock and surprise of being struck, but there isn't enough momentum to knock him off his feet.

My serious objection is to the allegation that we have no effective means of identifying the criminally insane before they strike. Consistently, after the attack, we learn that these mass murderers had longstanding mental problems well known to people close to them. The Aurora shooter was under psychiatric care. So was the Virginia Tech shooter. One professor refused to accept him in her classroom. The Tucson shooter's behavior led to his expulsion from a community college. His getting psychiatric treatment was a condition for readmission. However, nobody did anything to get them into a psychiatric facility for diagnosis and treatment before they went on their rampages.

Sometimes, they are caught in time. A couple of days ago, in New York City, a concerned relative reported to police that a man with a history of schizophrenia had threatened to go on a shooting spree in Harlem. The man is now being treated in a secure psychiatric facility. (His rifle and pistol were confiscated, not that it would matter if he were still loose in public without treatment.)

Many public school shooters have been victims of repeated bullying by the classmates they targeted. Despite all the publicity about bullying, school officials have a poor record of stopping bullying when it occurs. It's far easier to blame the victim than to take on the bullies. When school officials fail to act, parents need to remind them that the alternative is legal action against the bullies and the school.

 

[Skribs]

It's far easier to blame the victim than to take on the bullies. When school officials fail to act, parents need to remind them that the alternative is legal action against the bullies and the school.

While I agree that bullying is a problem, when someone goes on a shooting spree, we are no longer "blaming the victim."

My serious objection is to the allegation that we have no effective means of identifying the criminally insane before they strike. Consistently, after the attack, we learn that these mass murderers had longstanding mental problems well known to people close to them. The Aurora shooter was under psychiatric care. So was the Virginia Tech shooter. One professor refused to accept him in her classroom. The Tucson shooter's behavior led to his expulsion from a community college. His getting psychiatric treatment was a condition for readmission. However, nobody did anything to get them into a psychiatric facility for diagnosis and treatment before they went on their rampages.

A lot of this involves doctor-patient confidentiality, and I believe a lot of the answers you'll get from the doctor are PR answers that basically say the signs were there but there wasn't enough to notify anyone.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Funny how Lott does do breakdowns of so many non-gun-free zone shootings, particularly mass shootings like I did.

For all we know, the Colorado shooter was MOST familiar with the theater in question which would give it a particularly high tactical advantage for him, assuming such reasoing came into play.

The distance issue is non-relevant in terms of closer theaters being better choices. All were fairly close. He went by car and not on foot. If anything, theaters closer to home could equally be really bad choice.

Maybe somebody at the theater made him mad at some point in the recent past there and so he picked it for payback? Mass shooters often pick locations based on where they have had problems. Cho didn't shoot up some other school, but the one where he had relationship issues with a female and interaction issues with other students.

Loughner certainly didn't pick a gun free zone, nor did Arroyo.

So is it really that gunmen (plural) are doing this? Does the Colorado shooting really indicate this or is it just another crazy hypothesis like 'more guns less crime' that isn't actually true based solely on those traits?

 

[premier1]

One thing that we need in our country is a piece of national legislation that would allow citizens the gaurantee that they cannot be denied access to any public place if the are licensed to carry. Too many places invoke the "private property" bull and deny those of us who are permitted access to their place. That and also we need a national act of reciprocity that you ccw permit be allowed in all states. Just think about it when we travel from state to state we don't need a seperate drivers license for each state.

 

[j1]

It is far safer to attack an unarmed populace. Does not take too much smarts to figure this out either.

 

[Skribs]

DNS, that's why I said I'd like to know what the shooter said is the reason he chose that particular venue for his attack. But one cannot deny the tactical advantage of going up against an unarmed population. For example: the man who walked around a cop car to get into a gun store, draws, and says "this is a stickup". That Darwin Award is a case of bad tactics by choosing an armed group to rob.

Premier, I'm all for property owners to determine the rules of their own land. But I agree, nationally, we should get rid of all gun laws...make forcible felonies carry a higher penalty if a deadly weapon was used maybe, but make the weapon itself not the issue.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

So no one ever carries into gun-free zones like a movie theater or mall?

The perception is gun-free zones are gun-free. That isn't the case. To claim every crazy nut since the 50's was lucid enough and mindful enough to specifically plan a gun-free zone massacre is fallacy. Simply, most areas that routinely accept large concentrations of people are "gun free zones".

Furthermore, these are mostly private properties setting policy with the exception of public schools and government facilities. You can violate these policies without running foul of actual law unless you refuse to leave the premises. Plenty of people admit to carrying into non-government "gun-free zones", prepared for the risk of being asked to leave.

It's so easy to sell crap to people when it happens to align with their belief. Anyone want to tell the families of Sergeant Mark Renninger, Officer Ronald Owens, Officer Tina Griswold, and Officer Greg Richards, killed at the Forza Coffee shop here in Lakewood, that the gunman was in error and didn't pick a gun-free zone? That no criminal gunman has ever killed more than three people on public streets and byways since the 50's?

It is a remarkable claim that someone sat down and researched all archived records of every firearm homicide (roughly 11,500 annually), filtering it all out by "more than three dead", then going back through time, verifying if each homicide(s) occurred in a gun-free zone or not, until claiming the last one to ever occur in a non-gun free zone occurred in the 50's. That's award-winning research-level effort that would require thousands of manhours and flying across the nation to access physically archived materials in every major city and small town...for a tiny online opinion article.

 

[Skribs]

The perception is gun-free zones are gun-free. That isn't the case. To claim every crazy nut since the 50's was lucid enough and mindful enough to specifically plan a gun-free zone massacre is fallacy. Simply, most areas that routinely accept large concentrations of people are "gun free zones".

Actually, while most of these people are crazy, they are entirely capable of planning out their attacks. They select the target (although that might be based on personal reasons as opposed to tactics) and set up the plan of action. The Aurora shooter, for example, had the presence of mind to set a bomb in his apartment that was supposed to go off before the attack, sending police to the apartment and diverting their attention from the theatre. That level of planning suggests that this individual, while a deranged lunatic, was at the same time very intelligent. It's just a smart neighbor that chose to call the cops instead of entering the apartment that prevented the bomb from going off.

That is why, when people say "well, he was a lunatic, we should have stopped him from getting a gun..." well, he legally purchased the rifle, but he illegally built that bomb. Preventing him from getting a rifle would have just caused him to use a bomb in other venues (after all, he was emulating the Joker, and the Joker really liked to use fuel explosives in The Dark Knight).

Sorry that kinda went on a rant, but the fact is that no law would have prevented the Aurora shooter from doing this attack. After all, killing is already illegal. However, laws and personal policies to prevent us from fighting back. Had he used a bomb, would a gun on my person help? No, but it wouldn't hurt. Even so, I respect the right of the theatre owner to do as he pleases. I don't think the government should tell us what we can't do to protect ourself.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Your point is well taken. I wasn't suggesting new laws or legislation. The guy was a med student and if he discerned what you outlined above, he also had the ability to comprehend that the "gun free zone" was a company policy, not a law that would stop law-abiding citizens. It's just an extraordinary claim by the article's writer that there has never been a shooing in a non gun-free zone resulting in 3+ fatalities since the 50's. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not to mention I'm not exactly sure when the whole gun-free zone mantra really took hold in the mainstream culture.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

DNS, that's why I said I'd like to know what the shooter said is the reason he chose that particular venue for his attack. But one cannot deny the tactical advantage of going up against an unarmed population. For example: the man who walked around a cop car to get into a gun store, draws, and says "this is a stickup". That Darwin Award is a case of bad tactics by choosing an armed group to rob.

You mean like robbing armored cars, police evidence buildings, burglarizing SWAT vehicles, and probably 99% of the rest of the population? With most states, the number of CCW folks is so low anyway that folks get away with mass events just fine or are stopped long before a CCW person interacts.

That the theater was posted isn't the same as saying that the gunman would have gone up against a group of armed people if the theater wasn't posted.

While one cannot argue against the tactical advantage of going against an unarmed population, that certainly does not mean that the gunman made any sort of conscious decision to do that. For all we know, there were armed people in the theater who opted not to act. At the Tacoma Mall, Dan McKown had a gun but didn't bother to have it drawn when he opted to yell at the shooter who then shot him multiple times, though he was quick to point out how he carried a gun to protect others. Police also reported that there was at least one other person present with a CCW who also did not respond.

At the IHOP shooting in Carson City, NV, the guy on the phone with 911 in the business across the street made a point of telling the operator he had a gun, but he didn't do a darned thing either other than report the event and scream a lot about how bullets were flying. His son actually went outside, unarmed, and warned people on the street to take cover, but the guy with the gun didn't do squat with the gun.

The guy in Carson City, the CCW at the Tucson shooting (who was too late to use a gun but was all over TV talking about how he would have used it), and McKown like to take big about having guns and being ready to protect people and how they are ready to use them, but there are few Mark Wilsons in the world.

Here is the link from my previous thread on gun free zone pseudo myths...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=674889&highlight=mass+shooting

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The victims ought to sue.

The theater knew they were defenseless -- after all, they posted the sign, didn't they?

And they failed to provide adequate security and protection.

They ought to sue the stem-winding piss out of that theater.

 

[Skribs]

Cesium, you are right. Some people carry into "gun-free zones". However, many more people either disarm so as not to upset the company, or go to a different establishment because the company upset them. DNS mentioned the CCW population is already low, it will be significantly lower in a no-guns posted location.

That the theater was posted isn't the same as saying that the gunman would have gone up against a group of armed people if the theater wasn't posted.

No, but it lessens your chances. Like I have said in other threads recently: whether or not the BG chose that location for the reason that the no-guns sign was posted, these two statements I believe to be true:
1) If a BG were to look at the potential for armed resistance, two factors I would look at are distance to police station and whether or not guns are allowed.
2) If I were in that situation, I wouldn't want to be caught empty handed, and I am pretty sure that it would be a very unhappy coincidence that the BG chose a no-posted location for a lot of other people.

In essence, at the very best, gun free zones don't stop crime. People still bring guns in, and still commit crimes. At worst, gun free zones provide a palpable target-rich environment with very little repose against the attacker. So...it's a tie/lose situation, if you ask me, which pretty much defeats the purpose.

 

[JustinJ]

The articles states that he targeted this theater because it was "gun free" based on pure speculation. Might he not have also simply been more familiar with it or liked the lay out? Perhaps the selection was random. Unless he says otherwise nobody knows conclusively.

Also, the article states this:

With just one single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

Seems odd to limit it to cases in which three people have been killed. Why not more than three shot or shot at? Or better yet why not shootings in which there was no specific person being targeted. Sounds like statistic manipulations. And lastly starting from 1950 seems questionable given that before fairly recently there were very few public places in the US that were not "gun free" due to state laws.

The victims ought to sue.

The theater knew they were defenseless -- after all, they posted the sign, didn't they?

Why? The patrons of the theater knew the situation they were entering. Unless the theater mislead people to believe there was a higher level of security than was actually present each person attended fully aware of the situation and the lack of protection. If i don't like a private business's rules against concealed carry i can choose to simply not go there.

 

[Blackstone]

If someone shot the active shooter dead in the theater, could he face charges? I assume it isn't illegal to carry, even if the cinema posted no-gun signs?

 

[Skribs]

Why? The patrons of the theater knew the situation they were entering. Unless the theater mislead people to believe there was a higher level of security than was actually present each person attended fully aware of the situation and the lack of protection. If i don't like a private business's rules against concealed carry i can choose to simply not go there.

The problem is, the "gun free zone" leads sheeple to believe that there is INCREASED security, because those dangerous firearms aren't there. "Go hear, guns aren't allowed!" That's why people post these signs. They want their patrons to feel safe, even if they aren't.

It's why after Columbine "no exceptions" policies started for schools with regards to weapons, leading to the following expulsions:
1) the 6 year old kid who got his mom's lunch by mistake, turned in the paring knife to the office, and got expelled
2) the kid who brought a LEGO gun to school and got expelled
3) (more recently) the kid who bit his slice of pizza to look like a gun, pointed it at a fellow student, and got expelled

These people get hurt by the "no weapons" policy, but it won't prevent someone else from stabbing someone before they get caught with that pocket knife. However, schools insisted on having these policies to make parents feel safe.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Seems odd to limit it to cases in which three people have been killed. Why not more than three shot or shot at? Or better yet why not shootings in which there was no specific person being targeted. Sounds like statistic manipulations. And lastly starting from 1950 seems questionable given that before fairly recently there were very few public places in the US that were not "gun free" due to state laws.

Three killings in one act is the legal definition of "mass murder."