Trucker Murdered

This is 2024 stop with the nonsense

 

The Aurora shooting hits close to home for me. My daughter lived a few miles away from the theater. She loves Batman. She loves opening night. She loves midnight movies. I freaked out pretty bad when I first heard the news. Thankfully, she decided not to go that night, though she was thinking about doing so. Also, my wife helped organize a group to remember the victims every July 20th. It's really very annoying that you're using that mass murder to make a silly political straw man argument on a thread about a trucker getting shot a thousand miles from there.

To answer your question, James Holmes mentioned two targets in his diary: the airport and a movie theater. He noted that the airport had security. Further, since Colorado has strong laws protecting concealed carry, the particular theater he chose was the only one of seven near to where he lived that was a gun free zone. It was designated as such by the owner of the theater, which is their right. There were six theaters nearer to Holmes' apartment showing Batman that night which were not gun free zones. It is a reasonable inference that that fact influenced his decision, but of course it is not "provable" for us since a) the investigators and shrinks who questioned him have never said anything specifically about whether they determined that it influenced his decision, and b) he's nuts.

How he got to be nuts is a far more interesting study than this question, but totally beyond the discussion here.

Why not just stick a sign on your truck door and in your yard at home that says "Gun Free Zone"? That would at least prove to me that you really believe what you are saying here.

 

I understand your reaction to my post, but please understand I was not the person who introduced the Aurora shooting into this thread.

Where I grew up there were 5 movie theaters. We always went to the one furthest away. Why? Because despite being farther away, it was actually closer in terms of total travel time. The closest has ZERO nearby parking, it's sound system sucked and as soon as kids got their driver's license they never stepped foot in it again. The second closest in terms of distance was actually the furthest in total travel time - there was no way to get there from here. The third closest meant having to walk into the center of a mall. The next closest just wasn't part of our gestalt - yeah, it was within range but who would ever think to go to Elk Grove? The furthest was on a mall out lot, which meant it was easy to park. It also had more screens, more comfortable seats, and was known for being lax on checking ids for Rated R movies. O'Hare was also down the street. So if I were a mentally disturbed individual looking to commit atrocities, which location would I select? The movie theater I've been going to forever, an airport, or one of four other theaters that are 'closer'? Is there any evidence that James Holmes consistently went to any of the other 'closer theaters'? If there is, I haven't seen it.

Beyond that, there is no indication that James Holmes chose that theater because it's owner restricted firearms. He chose it because it was easy to use an emergency exit from a packed theater into the parking lot to arm himself and then return into the theater through the same emergency exit. I cannot speak about the other theaters 'closer' to his residence because I have no information about them, but it is telling that the other 6 movie theaters aren't mentioned in his diary.

It is accepted fact in some circles that the Aurora Theater was chosen because it was a 'gun free zone' despite there is no evidence that is true. There is evidence that by being a 'gun free zone' the owners of the theater avoided being held civilly liable for James Holmes actions. A key part of their defense was having a policy restricting firearms, which allowed them to escape liability for a an unalarmed emergency exit which allowed unrestricted access to the theater. There are reasons that every pro sports stadium or music venue have had rules restricting weapons for at least 40 years.

 

Then why do you constantly spew the anti gun talking points? Are you scrutinizing the opinions that agree with your own thought process? I highly doubt it. Unless by "partisan" you only mean people who disagree with you.

I've personally asked my pastor and the members of our church if they were comfortable with me open carrying. It was a resounding yes. I've made posts in the past about me carrying in church during Vacation Bible School. Our pastor actually called me and requested I attend because we had a threat and didn't want to be a "soft" target.

Give it a rest @gentleroger

I agree with @Bud A. Get a sign that says "gun free zone" and sleep easy. I'll continue to do what I do.

 

The Winchester rifle. And the fencing of the open range.

 

Why do I consistently "spew the anti gun talking points"? Because it's something I believe in. Do you ask why Cuzzin or Artic_fox or Mack E6 why they consistently "spew the pro gun talking points"?

I know I'm a minority on TTR, and I know I have a reputation for being the 'second man in' that makes threads political. I was done with this thread until a mod thanked several posts and posted his own thoughts.

If your pastor thinks you open carrying makes him/her safer - Bully for Bixby. If there is a specific threat and you're providing active security - go with grace. But if there is a specific threat and you're asked to attend so as to not be a 'soft target' - are you letting anyone with a firearm through the door without a thorough vetting? Yeah, didn't think so.

If you want to convince me that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy" or "an armed society is a polite society" then let the academics have free reign to study gun violence. Let them come up with accepted definitions of 'gun free zone' and 'soft target'. I'm a data guy, show me the data and I'll follow it. Post a 'study' with a headline saying "XXX happened from 1950 to 2018" with no footnotes past 2013 and I'll call BS. Give me a peer reviewed study and I'll read it start to finish. Curiously enough, no one does that.

 

'Fencing of the open range' means property rights defined by law and force of government, please see the amount of violence that tried to prevent the fencing of the open range.

More to my point - almost every town in the West started restricting the carrying of firearms in town. Particularly towns at rail heads or other consolidation points. Just like towns and villages 'back east' restricted the carrying of weapons from the day after the Constitution was ratified.

 

Openness and accessibility are what makes a target "soft."

https://2017-2021.state.gov/protecting-public-spaces-and-soft-targets/

 

No, I mean the building of actual fences across rangeland including that which was privately owned.

No counter-argument for the Winchester rifle, huh?

Which worked incredibly well at preventing the gunfight at the OK corral.

 

Don't disagree with you here. Any block party is a soft target, regardless of how many participants are armed.

Conversely, if security forces detect a weapon and step to the threat and step to the threat - is that a good thing or a bad thing?

A couple five years ago a couple of yokels did a "2nd amendment audit" in Beaver Dam, WI. They intended to just walk through downtown with long guns slung across their backs (entirely legal in WI), but on the way walked through Wayland Academy, which initiated a lock down and called 911. So who is in the right? The property owner who freaked the f out or the citizens who were walking along public access ways? Who would have had liability if the yokels had bad intentions? As your link provides there is "Protecting soft targets is complex. It is a perennial and practical struggle to balance security and access, and the target set is virtually unlimited. If casualties are the paramount terrorist metric for success, then every undefended group of people becomes a lucrative target." If everyone is carrying, then the threats can camouflage themselves, but if anyone carrying a weapon is considered a threat by security personnel then the threat can be identified and dealt with, hopefully before tragedy occurs.