Another case of Gun Control -Backfiring.

[Danno 1,228]

""After talking to officials the Aurora Police Department, we found that counties can now issue concealed-and-carry permits, BUT in Aurora, it is still against the law to fire the weapon unless at a shooting range (or if you are an officer on duty). Therefore, it would have been illegal for anyone to fire in the theater. Also, the theater banned any and all weapons. Anyone without a conceal-and-carry permit in Aurora must also keep their guns unloaded unless at a range.""

Aurora's Strict Gun Laws Didn't Prevent Shooting, But If One Law-Abiding Person In The Theater Had Been Carrying One...

Correction/Clarification: The fifth paragraph has been corrected and clarified with citations inserted at the end of this post and denoted by asterisks added to the text of the fifth paragraph.

Purdue student and Young America's Foundation Intern Scholar Hillary Cherry provides her thoughts on the Colorado shooting, stressing the importance of protecting our Second Amendment rights:

A masked gunman opened fire yesterday on one of the 3,700 midnight showings of The Dark Knight Rises, leaving 12 dead, 50 injured, and one in custody. Liberals everywhere are wasting no time to use this massacre in an effort to push gun control and gut the Second Amendment.

Mayor Bloomberg asks the Obama administration for stricter gun laws following Colorado shooting. Comedian DL Hughley tweeted, "Aurora is 13yrs and 13 miles from Columbine! Since the 60s over 500,000 ppl have bn killed by guns in the US we have no right 2 b shocked!"

How will stricter gun laws bring an end to criminals having guns, when the laws against murder have not been able to stop them from killing innocent people?

Currently in Aurora, Colorado, where the shooting took place, there are already laws prohibiting the carry of a concealed dangerous weapon (though unenforced, due to state law),* discharge firearms,** unless by law enforcement on duty or on shooting range, and have a loaded firearm in motor vehicle within the city limits.***

Yet these laws were unable to stop James Holmes.

Crime rates alone of cities such as Chicago and Washington D.C. prove that gun bans only increase crime. The D.C. police response rate is eight minutes; most crimes are done in less than one. Gun bans create a trouble-free world for criminals considering no one can defend themselves. If I were ever to face a situation like this, I would want to be prepared.

I cannot help but think, if one person in that audience was carrying a gun with them, that person could have saved lives. Unfortunately - despite what some of the Left have said - this tragedy is an example of the importance of our Second Amendment Rights.

As I look into the history of mass shootings, one detail stands out: most of the gunmen are between the ages of 17 and 24. In the Columbine High School massacre of 1999, students Eric Harris, 18 and Dylan Klebold, 17, opened fire at their school. In 2007, the worst mass shooting in our nation's history took place on the campus of Virginia Tech by 23-year-old Seung-Hui Cho. Currently, police have 24-year-old James Holmes in custody for the mass shooting that took place in theater 9.

Why do these young people feel the need to take innocent lives? That question I do not know, but as a young individual, I have a Constitutional right to protect myself. I should not be scared to go to the movies, walk around campus, and attend class.

Some people seem to think guns are to blame for these murders. Not only did Holmes reportedly gas his victims, but his apartment is completely rigged with explosives. Now tell me, did his guns set up explosives and throw tear gas at his victims, too - or did he?

Mass shootings can be stopped. People need to arm themselves with the facts (and with weapons). If one law-abiding person in the theater had been carrying a gun, lives could have been saved.

Editor’s Note: Hillary Cherry is a Sarah T. Hermann Intern Scholar for Young America's Foundation.

Corrections/Clarifications:

* This ordinance banning the carrying of "dangerous weapons" was deemed "unenforceable" when Colorado state prohibited cities and counties from enforcing such laws in 2003. After talking to officials the Aurora Police Department, we found that counties can now issue concealed-and-carry permits, BUT in Aurora, it is still against the law to fire the weapon unless at a shooting range (or if you are an officer on duty). Therefore, it would have been illegal for anyone to fire in the theater. Also, the theater banned any and all weapons. Anyone without a conceal-and-carry permit in Aurora must also keep their guns unloaded unless at a range.

** See Aurora Code Sec. 94-146a: "It shall be unlawful for any person to fire, shoot, or discharge any firearm; crossbow; bow and arrow; slingshot; blowgun; BB gun or pellet gun, whether powered with gunpowder, compressed air, or gas cartridges; gas gun; or any weapon whatsoever within the city limits. However, such discharge, firing, or shooting by any law enforcement officer, federal, state, county, or city, in the course of his or her official duty shall not be deemed a violation of this subsection, and such discharge, firing, or shooting at commercial, private, or public shooting ranges or by authorized classes of schools or universities at all times under proper instruction and supervision as may be authorized or permitted by law shall not be deemed a violation of this subsection."

*** Aurora Police Department confirmed this is the case within the city limits and without a conceal-and-carry permit from the appropriate county. See Aurora Code Sec. 94-144.5.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/ron-meyer/auroras-strict-gun-laws-didnt-prevent-shooting-if-one-law-abiding-person-theater-had

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

[Danno 1,228]

I think many people assumed the theater had a policy of no firearms inside but now we may be finding out even in a state with conceal=carry provisions this town did everything possible to disarm and even outlaw the discharge of a weapon... no matter the circumstances except by law enforcement (on duty only) and at a fireing range.

In other words, you can carry conceal if licensed (because of state law) but it can't be loaded and you can't actually shoot.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I think many people assumed the theater had a policy of no firearms inside but now we may be finding out even in a state with conceal=carry provisions this town did everything possible to disarm and even outlaw the discharge of a weapon... no matter the circumstances except by law enforcement (on duty only) and at a fireing range.

In other words, you can carry conceal if licensed (because of state law) but it can't be loaded and you can't actually shoot.

In this case can county law trump state law? I'm wondering whether those laws actually have an effect on CCW. Also, in many private locations the no gun policy doesn't have much teeth - at best you'd be thrown out if discovered (excluding things like government buildings etc where its probably a felony). I'd like to discover penalty for that county.

[Danno 1,228]

In this case can county law trump state law? I'm wondering whether those laws actually have an effect on CCW. Also, in many private locations the no gun policy doesn't have much teeth - at best you'd be thrown out if discovered (excluding things like government buildings etc where its probably a felony). I'd like to discover penalty for that county.

Sounds to me like they have a loop-hope where they comply with state law by letting the person carry but they restrict the spirit of the law with limitations.

Yes private businesses can (and should) decide who packs on their property.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I keep hoping someone in that theatre will come out as having had a CCC, was indeed carrying, so this moronic 'just needed one person in there with a gun' nonsense will stop. It does not sound to me like this incident would have been helped at all by an in theatre exchange of gunfire.

[Harsh_77 716]

I keep hoping someone in that theatre will come out as having had a CCC, was indeed carrying, so this moronic 'just needed one person in there with a gun' nonsense will stop. It does not sound to me like this incident would have been helped at all by an in theatre exchange of gunfire.

What makes you think it would had not been helpful?

Did you not see the case from Florida few days back where a 70 yr old grandpa saved life of ppl in internet cafe coz he was conceal carrying.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

This "if only one person had been carrying" nonsense is crazy. If one person had been carrying, what? You have no idea if it would have made a difference.

Survivors themselves state that they could barely see in front of them, some even state they didn't even SEE the shooter. It was dark, loud (the movie was still going on, gunfire on screen) and there was smoke everywhere.

And people want to add another shooter into the equation, HOPING MAYBE someone could shoot the killer.

Sure, maybe someone could have shot him.

Or maybe someone would have tried to shoot him, and instead in all the chaos, shot another innocent victim by mistake.

You don't know what would have happened. Nobody does because it didn't happen.

Enough of using this incident as if it's some kind of proof that people should be able to conceal and carry.

What makes you think it would had not been helpful?

Did you not see the case from Florida few days back where a 70 yr old grandpa saved life of ppl in internet cafe coz he was conceal carrying.

One on one in the light of day sure is a lot "easier" than in a dark, crowded, chaotic space full of loud noises and smoke.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Evylin

[rocks 494]

What makes you think it would had not been helpful?

Did you not see the case from Florida few days back where a 70 yr old grandpa saved life of ppl in internet cafe coz he was conceal carrying.

Were they dressed like Holmes? Did they use tear gas? You're good at comparing apples and oranges.

When Holmes launched his attack he was dressed in black, outfitted in a gas mask, ballistic helmet, vest and leggings, black tactical gloves and protectors on his throat and groin. He was armed with an assault-style rifle, a shotgun and Glock handgun.

[Harsh_77 716]

This "if only one person had been carrying" nonsense is crazy. If one person had been carrying, what? You have no idea if it would have made a difference.

Survivors themselves state that they could barely see in front of them, some even state they didn't even SEE the shooter. It was dark, loud (the movie was still going on, gunfire on screen) and there was smoke everywhere.

And people want to add another shooter into the equation, HOPING MAYBE someone could shoot the killer.

Sure, maybe someone could have shot him.

Or maybe someone would have tried to shoot him, and instead in all the chaos, shot another innocent victim by mistake.

You don't know what would have happened. Nobody does because it didn't happen.

Enough of using this incident as if it's some kind of proof that people should be able to conceal and carry.

One on one in the light of day sure is a lot "easier" than in a dark, crowded, chaotic space full of loud noises and smoke.

lol there can be never an exactly same situation...but sometimes just knowing the ppl in theater could be carrying works.

The Gun man would have given few thoughts before going forward with his plan.

Rocks - for someone like you who has never fired a weapon even in dark... the sound can be heard and muzzle flash can be seen.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

lol there can be never an exactly same situation...but sometimes just knowing the ppl in theater could be carrying works.

The Gun man would have given few thoughts before going forward with his plan.

Rocks - for someone like you who has never fired a weapon even in dark... the sound can be heard and muzzle flash can be seen.

Which would make you a lovely target wouldn't it.

This situation is extreme and conceal carry would not have helped.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Sousuke

[rocks 494]

lol there can be never an exactly same situation...but sometimes just knowing the ppl in theater could be carrying works.

The Gun man would have given few thoughts before going forward with his plan.

Rocks - for someone like you who has never fired a weapon even in dark... the sound can be heard and muzzle flash can be seen.

The gunman wouldn't have given a few thoughts, he was intent on killing people. You constantly bring up cases that bare no relevance on anything to back up your argument. Do I need to repeat this for you? It was dark, there was gas in the room so that people couldn't see. "he was dressed in black, outfitted in a gas mask, ballistic helmet, vest and leggings, black tactical gloves and protectors on his throat and groin. He was armed with an assault-style rifle, a shotgun and Glock handgun."

No concealed weapon would have helped. This is a stupid argument.

Edited July 23, 2012 by rocks

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Gotta love all these people saying how someone having a concealed weapon wouldn't have helped...like they know this for sure. I know I would much rather have the option to find out if a concealed gun would help than not to have that option. I mean lets get real here for a moment. Would you want that option or not? How many here would like the option to live over the option of catching a bullet upside the head?

[rocks 494]

Gotta love all these people saying how someone having a concealed weapon wouldn't have helped...like they know this for sure. I know I would much rather have the option to find out if a concealed gun would help than not to have that option. I mean lets get real here for a moment. Would you want that option or not? How many here would like the option to live over the option of catching a bullet upside the head?

What is a concealed weapon going to do against this? You gonna kill him by shooting him in the arm?

"he was dressed in black, outfitted in a gas mask, ballistic helmet, vest and leggings, black tactical gloves and protectors on his throat and groin. He was armed with an assault-style rifle, a shotgun and Glock handgun."

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Gotta love all these people saying how someone having a concealed weapon wouldn't have helped...like they know this for sure. I know I would much rather have the option to find out if a concealed gun would help than not to have that option. I mean lets get real here for a moment. Would you want that option or not? How many here would like the option to live over the option of catching a bullet upside the head?

I would rather live. Lets say I had a 9mm cz 82. I would NOT have started shooting...i would have kissed the floor because I know at best I would have just pissed the guy off.