Well, I wanted to say a few things about the Colorado theater shooting, but got tangled up in the bar.

Now the first side of this debate claims that an assault weapons ban would have prevented this.  For the purposes of this post I’ll just accept the common inaccurate definition of an assault weapon as used by the anti gun crowd.  Now, as I understand it, the shooter had with him a shotgun, a pistol, and an AR15 (the civilian variant of the M16).  We had a saying when I was in the Corps, “Pray your enemy is on auto.”  An automatic weapon is more likely to jam, and is far less controllable.  Were automatic weapons easier to procure and the shooter had an M16 instead of a semiautomatic AR15, there would most likely have been fewer death.

There is a fallacy among those that don’t understand guns, that somehow a round exiting an “assault weapon” somehow is more powerful than that in a common deer rifle.  The fallacy continues into the idea that each round seems to find its target and has a lethal result.  The 5.56mm round used by the M16 is generally used by civilians only as a varmint round.  Those that use it to hunt whitetail are often shunned for the lack of lethality of the round.  The military often complains of its lack of stopping power.

Consider next, Charles Whitman.  Whitman engaged in the same level of death and destruction.  What did he use?  A common deer rifle.  What then of the Virginia Tech shooter?  A pair of pistols, and he killed 34.  These assault weapons are not magical.

The second side claims that a “good guy” with a gun would have ended this.

There is no guarantee that a single armed person could have resolved this situation.  A crowded theater in which a person is woefully outgunned is hardly the place where you will likely make a heroic stand, John McClain style.

Now before you gunnies get your panties twisted, do not confuse this as putting me in bed with the gun banners.  The often advanced argument by the anti-gun crowd that a man in the theater with a gun would have made things worse is probably not likely either.  I often hear, “Well, then there could be a shootout and innocent bystanders will be hit!”  Yes, that’s possibly true, but what then?  Last I looked, being unchallenged, this guy got to kill 12 people.  So we shouldn’t challenge violent men?

Here’s the crux of what I’m trying to say:  Everything we do in this life is a roll of the dice.

The only way you knew for sure that you would be safe from this nutter would be to have not gone to the theater that day.  However, it’s also possible that by simply not going to the theater, some of those that did survive the shooting would have been killed in a car wreck.  An armed man in the theater may well have been able to sneak up on this guy and put a bullet in his brain pan, saving several from death and dozens from harm.  Maybe there’d be a crack shot from that could have taken him out from a distance.  But maybe a shooter would have missed and hit an innocent.  Maybe a shooter would have further enraged this guy and more people would have died.  Maybe a shooter would have distracted the police.  Maybe ad infinitum…

All we can do in this life is use our best logic and adjust the odds to put them as best in our favor as possible.  Sometimes we’re going to roll snake-eyes regardless of what we do.  Hell, I feel like that’s what happened with my marriage.  But it is my position that more armed men in the theater would have been a good thing.  Some of those times having armed men in the theater will make the situation worse.  But more often, it will make the situation better.

As a final aside, when someone asks you why you need “assault rifles” or “armor piercing ammunition”, well, maybe because occasionally, bad guys wear body armor.

And this of course disregards the entire purpose of the Second Amendment which isn’t necessary for this post. Now time for some Tonic for what ails ye’