Or, if you wanted to start ****, you'd wear a lot of armor and attack with a maximum of surprise and distraction.

Then there's the question of how exactly the police should charge into a room containing dozens of armed people in a mood to shoot things.

Because psychopaths are known for their reasoning?

No, but Holmes defies so much typically known about mass murderers, and now people want to take this new "type" into account. He did not want to go down in a blaze of glory or take his own life; rather, he's the first to peacefully surrender. Also, he's a very intelligent guy who may be psychopath, but not an idiot. In fact, there's quite a few murderous psychopaths are uber-smart - and yes, might not view a crowded room as shooting ducks in a barrel if it was assumed a few of the ducks could shoot back.


I don't agree with ANY of this concealed carry stuff, or even with the modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but I do see how this might be a modicum of deterrent to march into a movie theater or pizza parlor or brothel and start shooting.

Here's my view on what has happened to my risk:

The odds of me being shot in a movie theater were not changed by by what happened in Colorado. At best, all it has done is highlighted that I had never really given any though to the odds of me being shot in a movie theater, and being freshly aware that such odds exist they, through a psychological illusion, seem larger than they were before.

Therefore, since the odds of me being shot in a movie theater are infinitesimally small I suspect that the odds of my life beign saved by 20 people in every given movie theater being armed and prepared to defend me against such an unlikely event is outweighed by the increased risk of one of those guns being in the possession of an idiot who will find a humorous (to everybody but me) way to accidentally shoot me.

However, that's still a small risk. And seeing as we are saddled with a 2nd Amendment that was horribly written in terms of anticipating the technological future, I generally go along with concealed carry and open carry.

That said, if I learn that you're a person who needs to be able to shoot someone at any time to feel safe in a remarkably safe society (even if not as safe as some others) I will probably judge you poorly. Whether you care that I've judged you is at your discretion.

You're assuming a psychopath would think twice... Or even care.

Just as with capital punishment, cases like these are all make weights. We say that we need a death penalty for Hitler or Bin Laden or Gacy when what we really want to do is execute the poor black kid who never had the chance to know better.

With guns, we use absurd cases like Holmes to get to our goal of being Bernard Goetz or George Zimmerman.

I'm also generally struck by the fact--perception?--that the people who want to carry guns in the interest of perfect and impenetrable security are the same people who want to drive overly large vehicles at unregulated rates of speed on the theory that you can't remove all risk--read, risk to others--from daily life.

V3894M

Looks like Romney is doubling down on his commitment to represent the wealthiest Americans.

Well, now 3894 will have to vote for Romney to support her state.