Former ASIS Chapter Chairman Shoots Guy Texting In A Movie Theater

Oh Florida. At it again.

And this time it's a retired police captain and former ASIS Tampa Chapter Chairman doing the shooting. The offense? A guy texting in front of him in a movie theatre.

UPDATE: Here's the surveillance video of the shooting:

This is ironic since we were just hotly debating gun rights / use / restriction.

Did he really need to bring a gun into a movie theatre? Was he 'standing his ground'?

US gun enthusiasts, set me straight!

Guns make people crazy (thinking they are on top of things)! The vast majority of animals in the wild do not kill each other (other than to feed their stomach). But give all those wild animals guns and things might change. Even we, humans would be in serious trouble if animals would arm themselves.

Well, people might say, if guns didn't exist, people would kill each others with knifes. Well, not all knifes are dangerous, only those with blunt end (which we could literally live w/out as well).

I would imagine that if you really consider a theater to be a place where you need to bring a gun, then why are you even going there in the first place?

Let's just say that you feel that someone like James Eagan Holmes is not going to deter you from going to the movies, and that if someone like him does shows up, you'll show him who's boss. But if there's one thing to learn from Aurora, it's that the crazy gunman that you are trying to protect yourself against, already expects you to have a gun. That's why James Eagan Homes was wearing protective gear, fired off smoke bombs and what have you? So why didn't you bring a bulletproof vest and a gas-mask to the cinema too? Case in point: in the Aurora shooting, people in adjacent theater got hit too, so sittin' pretty with your concealed handgun when stray bullets are flying through the walls, seems like a dumb idea. Vest, helmet and gasmask should be the first thing you pack, only then should you think of your sidearm.

When I was a soldier (in peacetime), we had guard duties around the base. We carried live ammo and a fully automatic rifle, but it was never locked and loaded. It may seem stupid to walk the premises without being fully prepped for action, but the reality is that the number of people killed because of stupidity by people carrying guns far outnumbered those killed by intruders. People got killed for all sorts of reasons, but cheifly because of stupidity. Being forced to spend that one split second it takes to arm your weapon, is enough that your brain kicks in going "are you sure this is a good idea". In 99 out of a 100 times, you back down. Killing drunk kids climbing the fence for kicks is a terrible choice to make, just as it is killing people that are pissing you off in a theater.

So, by all means, when you've packed your bulletproof vest, helmet and gas mask, then pack your gun, but make sure you keep gun and ammo separate, so you have that split second to think about your actions. In Aurora you surely would have had time to grab your magazine and load your gun before you got shot.

But remember - James Eagan Holmes was expecting gun-carrying audience members, so you'd have to shoot through the smoke, aiming for a head-shot to take him out cold. Granted a few good body shots might have stopped him too. But James didn't care who HE is hitting, so he's just firing at random. But you - on the other hand - only have one target. A target that is moving, wearing protective gear and hard to see on account of the smoke. A real challenge for any wannabe hero.

Now the chances of James Eagan Holmes walking in while you are watching the 4 pm matinee are slim. Very, very slim. And the likelyhood of you becoming some sort of hero, when people are screaming and running all over the place are zero to none. I'm not denying that shootings do happen, and that the shootings happen (seemingly) quite often, but people win the PowerBall too, yet I am not constantly contemplating what to do if I should win, making precautions, updating my will in the event that I become a multimillionaire next week. Something else that is rare, is the chance that you, in a heated argument, kill the father of a 3-year (not accidentally, but on purpose and out of sheer stupidity), that your 6 year old son found your loaded gun and shoots himself, a friend or even you, to death.

We tend to remember the dramatic episodes, the big bangs, much more vividly than the smaller, almost everyday occurences. When a single kid is shot, it's one of those things we - as observers - almost immidiately shrug off and call it part of life, but when mass murder happens, we make movies about it, we demand legislation to be written to prevent this from ever happening again, and we carry loaded guns around in public as if it was a war-zone.

We had movies like Elephant and Bowling for Columbine made when these tragedies happened, naturally the media will instill fear in you, just to keep you glued to their broadcast - making you think "this could happen to me too". You don't see any movies being made about the hundreds of people that every. single. year lose their children for something so - demostrably irrational - as having a gun in the house.

There's no argument that can be made, that will convince someone with an irrational fear of something, to change their minds. We are beyond rationalization here. It's like fear of flying - it doesn't matter what statistics you show people, they will always remember those episodes when the fear crept in, and now there's no arguing with them.

Granted, there are many other situations where a gun might come in handy - being mugged is a typical scenario that gun-proponents bring up. But if a lot of people carry guns, the assailant will simply shoot you from behind before robbing you, armed or not, you will lose in the long run.

I'm pretty sure Nancy Lanza has made a lot of the pro-gun arguments we hear all the time.

P.S. Writing this longwinded essay, I looked up Aurora shooting, Newtwon shooting, James Eagan Holmes, Adam Lanza and so on. So now I'm waiting for NSA come a knocking.

P.P.S. I don't think it is "ironic", it's a tragic coincidence.

"So, by all means, when you've packed your bulletproof vest, helmet and gas mask, then pack your gun, but make sure you keep gun and ammo separate."

I couldn't agree with this more.

It's not some accessory to increase your power over a situation. It's a tool you use if YOU WANT TO KILL SOMEONE. People need that time to stop and think about that before they pull the trigger.

People have asked me if I would use my gun if someone broke into my house. The answer is probably not. Why? Because adding a gun to a situation escalates the situation (just look at this move theater incident). If I have a gun and he doesn't then he's going to be fighting against me for his life so who knows what he's going to do. If we both have guns, then it becomes a matter of who shoots first.

I don't know where people get these macho attitudes about guns. Both when I was young and in the military, I was taught guns were something to be handled carefully -- you didn't point them at people (unless you really were planning to shoot that person), you don't walk around with a round in the chamber (I've seen a person drop a rifle butt end first and almost have a bullet through his chin), you didn't show it off.

I'm a gun owner, but I would gladly turn mine in if I woke up tomorrow and guns were outlawed completely.

I was in a theater twice this week with a loaded handgun and one in the pipe. I also was texting at one point, since I had my gun on I felt I would be safe to text :-) .

Seriously, anyone that carries a gun without it being ready to use should not have a gun as they obviously lack the training and confidence to handle it properly. i can say without a doubt that one would not have the skill and time to get one in the chamber if someone walked up with a gun. Don't take my word for it, try it yourself. Get two handguns, clear them and run a short rope from the magazine chamber to the barrel to prove that they are safe. Have a buddy take one and hold it at his side. You do the same and see if you can rack the slide before he can raise the gun and pull the trigger. Now try it with his back to you, I bet you lose 95% of the time. Now finally start with your gun pointed at him as if it already has a round chambered, and his at his side. Hqve him raise his gun as the signal to go and I bet you see it is a tie almost every time. Why would anyone carry an unloaded firearm? If you do make sure it is hammerless so when the other guys takes it from you and shoves it up you butt it won't hurt as bad.

Also, statistically speaking, the chance of a person shooting an attacker using a gun increases dramatically when the guy defending himself actually has a gun (Go figure). So with that in mind, i carry. I don't carry because I am looking for trouble, I carry to stay out of trouble. I carry for the guy that wants to carjack me and then shoot me when I give him the keys, or the two guys that want my wallet at the gas station and are beating the hell out if me. Not for the active shooter situation, but if I have it I am far better off than they guy who doesn't.

Keeping your kids safe and your guns out if their hands is very important I agree, but how to achieve that is where the question lies. I myself have taught all my kids to shoot, it takes all of the curiosity out of it when they can shoot with you on a regular basis. Also, the safest gun is the one on your hip as far as I am concerned. How many kids died by taking the gun off the hip of the parent to show a friend...I would say none. All the others should be locked up and put away, that's a safe, with a key and/or code and the ammo in a separate safe.

Also, the NSA doesnt care, if they did, they would have looked into Lanza, he was a little obsessed with mass shootings. Here is an article discussing that Here. The author, Greg Ellifritz is a phenomenal trainer and he spends most of his time researching and training on all kinds of defensive situations. Check him out, he posts a wealth of information and he lives it as well.

Very impressive

I carry for the guy that wants to carjack me and then shoot me when I give him the keys...

So hypothetically speaking if this perp gets the 'jump on you', because maybe you left your safety on, does that mean you shoot him when you give him the keys, proactively?

If not sooner (assuming he has a weapon displayed). And my gun does not have a safety that requires me to do anything but pull the trigger. Your fine motor skills really fall off when you are pooping your pants.

The time to shoot a guy confronting you with a gun is as soon as you feasibly can...and waiting until he actually points it at you is not the time to do it. See my description about and try the drill for yourself with a toy gun. Have a buddy hold one down at his side, and you aim yours at him and start verbalizing. "Put it down!, Drop the gun!" Dont shoot until you see him raise the are both going to pull the trigger at about the same time. That part of the training I took was a real eye opener on at what point in a situation is your life in jeopardy. I, like manyothers, used to think the gun had to be pointed at you.

Other food for thought, what distance from a person with a knife would cause you to be in fear of your life? In Ohio, the precident is 21 feet, that is a long way away. Mark 21 feet and stand back to back with a friend. At the buzzer he runs as fast as he can to the 21 foot mark and you simply turn around and draw a toy gun from your holster and shoot him. You cannot believe how fast someone can move 21 enough to be right in your face when you can get a shot off.

Duane of course its speculation, but would you mind taking a 'stab' at how things might have been different had you been in the theatre, say maybe a couple of rows away from the incident, lets say without your family present to simplify your choices?

Was he a legal, permitted concealed carrier or police officer?

Haven't we been making a distinction between the two in our discussions?


Ex-police are allowed to carry concealed weapons by federal law:

"The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, (often referred to as H.R. 218) is a federal law, first enacted in 2004, that allowed two classes of persons— the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer" -- to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of any state or local law to the contrary, with certain exceptions. H.R.218 became effective when signed by President Bush, as Public Law 108-277, which is found at 18 U.S.C. Sections 926B and 926C. The law was revised in 2010 through S. 1132" -

"A “qualified retired law enforcement officer” is defined as an individual who:

  • has separated from service in good standing with a government agency as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of ten (10) years or more or separated from such an agency due to a service-connected disability after completing any applicable probationary period of such service;
  • was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or the incarceration of any person for any violation of law;
  • had statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under the Uniform Code of Military Justice;
  • is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or
    substance; and
  • is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm."

Would that have made it more appropriate to shoot someone for texting?

I have no good answers here. What is wrong with people?

Yes, he had a right to bring a gun into a theater. It lawfully happens thousands of times every day, and no one involved then gets shot. The world over, people argue with cops... nobody gets shot. I'm even relatively sure that people have loudly texted in front of ASIS chairmen before... they haven't been shot.

Trying to amplify this and generalize it as a normal risk of 'too many guns' is wrong. The USA could have '100% gun controlled citizens', and this poor guy in FL gets shot by a former policeman. Are we going to argue that policemen shouldn't have guns now? (Constibles and Bobbies in the US?)

The impulse for sane, rational people is to fix the problem. Unfortuantely, being sane and rational is not the proper criteria for understanding the problem here.

This makes me think of people who say that drunkiness is not the alcohol's fault, but those who drink excessively. If alcohol didn't exist no one would get drunk! I personally don't drink nor own a gun and I sure don't see why I would need to drink or carry a gun.

Police officers who wear guns. Well, I don't trust them either. They get angry and out of control just like everybody else, or worse more than others. Twice as many police officers beat or kill their wifes over the average population, according to U.S. statistics.

More crimes are committed using computers than with guns. Where's the outcry to ban computers?

Besides, the US indeed abolished alcohol for a period. (See: Prohibition) The net result? All the criminals had the alcohol, controlled the alcohol, and got filthy rich because of it. Only the poor, law abiding schmucks observed the law.

How exatly are computers more dangerous than guns?

I'm not saying prohibition is the answer. It's the mentality that needs to be changed. It's the culture that needs to be seriously changed. The mentality among fundamental christians is different and with good results. Mentality is the keyword. As someone who lives outside the U.S.A., we think the U.S. mentality is well depicted in TV programming. Good entertainment value, but scary at the same time. I always dreamed of immigrating to the U.S. due to the power of a larger country (economically and socially), but after watching CSI and Criminal Minds, that makes me feel lucky not to live in the States.


"after watching CSI and Criminal Minds, that makes me feel lucky not to live in the States."

Are you serious? You're actually using fictional TV programs as the basis of judging life in the U.S.? On that basis, I wouldn't want to live in Great Britain because of all crazed zombies depicted in 28 Days Later.

Someone needs to watch more Modern Family.

Sounds like fun, but I've never heard of it. I must admit, the crime programs from the States are really good though. Very entertaining!

When you hear about bombings in Irak, do you feel like scheduling a trip there?

If you own guns for personal protection, YOU must think the U.S.A. is unsafe, I suppose.

You can always move to a low crime area like


Or somewhere with more restrictive gun ownership laws like Brazil..

Brazil - "Some 39,000 people died in 2003 due to gun-related injuries nationwide.[8] In 2004, the number was 36,000.[7] Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths;[10] other sources indicate that homicide rates due to guns are approximately four times higher than the rate in the United States.[11]" - Wikipedia, "Overview of Gun Laws by Nation

Of course there are safer countries that are a lot more restrictive on gun ownership according to Wikipedia such as China, North Korea and Vietnam.

But even in the US, unless you are in a gang or drug dealing, the probability of being murdered is astronomically low.

Thanks for trying to re-asure me (I truly mean it), but I hear there are 32k people getting murdered every year in the States. Multiply that by 100 years, that's 3.2 million people. I wonder how many people got killed in Irak (before the U.S. war) every year.

No, it's not 32,000 murders per year. It's more like 12,000 and those fatalities disproportionately are the results of drug dealing or gang violence (which presumably you do not participate in).

Oops! Sorry for the misinformation. That's what I heard, but I stand corrected. Here's what I found:

So, to my surprise the gap between the two countries is narrowing. I used to be 3:1, now it is 2:1.

Nonetheless, the U.S. statistic does show firearms as being the highest on the list. Screw drivers are not even mentioned. <g> You can't kill too many people throwing screw drivers at people in public places.

Most murders here also involve drug dealers as well. We seem to see more wife killers and children killers than in the States though which is troubling all of us.

Thanks John, I do feel safer about going to the States now! If only immigration would accept me. They seem to think we are all criminals here (because we harbored Bin Laden and other terrorists?), as they accept tons of people from other countries, but very restrictive with Canadians.

That's because as the late, great Benny Hill once pointed out, 80% of Candians live within 100 miles of the US/Canadian border........ That's only 2 days marching distance! We know what you are up too.

Yes, that's true. We live quite close. We do watch your TV stations for free! And yes, we do watch over what you are doing too. I often watch NBC/CBS nightly news.

The U.S. beefed up the border in recent years. Border towns who used to freely interact with each other were shunt. There used to be a public library in which a border line crossed inside the building, yes one part of the libary was in VT (or ME?) and the other in QC. There were no problems. But due to fear of terrorism, all hell broke loose. Even though Bin Laden once live near my place, no one ever feared him back then (I know, I didn't). It'd be a different story past 9/11 though. We, Canadians, tend to trust people too much, that's why we don't carry guns as much. <g>

Regarding Norway and crime statistics.

Protecting agains a lone crazy wolf is not easy. There are unfortunately a lot of school shootings and similar around the world to prove it.

Even I (being an anti personal gun man) can see that if everyone had a gun, this sick individual would have been stopped earlier. He would not have been stopped fast as he was imposing as a police officer, and generally we trus our poilce officers.

The problem is that the number of shootings done in situations of instant rage and passion would rise much more an in my oppinion outweigh the advantage of everybody cassying weapons.

According to this statistic:

the homicide rate(and suicide rate) of the US is very high compared to comparable countries and there has to be a reason for it.

There is also a significant difference between the states of the US according to That's really weird because it seems to be more homicides in the south and that's also where they execute the most people.

I don't think that it's only the gun laws, but something fundamental in the US mentality. Both Norway and Canada has realtively non-restrictive gun laws. In Norway you only have to register for a gun club or being a hunter.

Whatching US from the outside it seems like you are always on alert and anxious that something bad is going to happen.

Maybe the US as a nation needs to calm down?

It's amazing to see the difference between the U.S. and U.K., despite the strong interconnection and similar way of life. BTW, I don't see China in the list. I bet gun ownership there is MUCH lower.

U.S. needs to calm down? Well, blame it on the constitution! Rights?

Bombings in Iraq are non-fiction. CSI and Criminal Minds are fiction. I reiterate, what you are saying is that the two depictions are essentially equally valid.

However, I have no problem if people want to stay away from the U.S. due to misinformation based on works of fiction. In fact, people who base their opinions of life in the U.S. based on fictional representations can be my guest and stay away. I'll even provide additional incentive:

  • Don't come here because we have too many zombies in our malls (Dawn of the Dead).
  • Don't come here because we were recently invaded by Russia (Red Dawn).
  • Don't come here because the mafia is in control (The Godfather).
  • Don't come here because we're just a bunch of fifedoms (Revolution).
  • Don't come here because the vast majority of our people are stupid (almost any Sitcom).
  • Don't come here because the vast majority of our people are greedy (American Greed).
  • Don't come here because......

In fact, just don't come here.

I'm sure you've heard of the Charbonneau commission here, regarding government and trade organization officials having tight links to organized crimes (controlling the vast majority of the construction industry). So, no I won't say this place is perfect either (FAR FROM IT). There are evil people everywhere, that's why I'm in the security business here.

But, nonetheless, I think you are exaggerating with your last comment (in fact, just don't come here). So much so, you are scaring me a bit! I sure wouldn't want to meet you in a dark alley ... without a gun in my pocket. <G>

Where's the voting button when you need it?!?

One of the mayors (of the third biggest city) is in jail awaiting trials. Others were forced to quit awaiting investigation. Lots of things happening right now. A cleanup is under way with new city govermental structures to prevent organize crime from running the shows politically speaking and threatnening their competitors in the field. Lots of organized criminals (mostly hell's angels and the Italian mafia) here in this French-speaking province (much more than in the States). Lots of organized criminals were arrested in the past decade due to very strick laws against belonging to a criminal gang. Yes, belonging to a criminal gang alone is illegal here now, even if you don't commit a crime per se.

I found this in an article...

They say that truth is stranger than fiction. That's especially true on CBS' "Criminal Minds." Every case on that show is based on a real crime. The big problem for the writers-creators of the drama is how to tell the true story without shocking the wits out of the audience.

"We've had to tone down almost every single one of them," says executive producer Ed Bernero, who was a Chicago policeman for 10 years before he came to television.

"What is really happening is much worse than anything we could or want to do," he says. "Actually, there hasn't been a single one we didn't have to tone down."

Are you serious? Computer can be used to take out critical infrastructure leading mass causality. Ill bet if you were in the middle of it you might wish you were armed.

Also keep in mind people who justly and wisely use a gun to defend themselves from an attack, without a shot ever being fired (for example just brandishing it makes the would be assailent back off) rarely, if ever, make the news. It's only when shots are fired it ever makes the news and then usually only when there's a controversy associated with it.

That theater shooting was stupid. Never should have went that far. You'll probably see the law about retired police officers being able to automatically carry changed or challenged soon, and I think it should. I still believe in peoples right to own and carry, but people need to be more carefully screended and reviewed and it should be done on a regular basis.

One hot topic aspect of this not addresed, is when you get older, when does age start affecting your judgement? A LOT more people are killed or injured by elderly drivers than shooting. It was recognized by my state a long time ago and there were proposals to do extra screenings when people reach a certain age. But one thing senior citizens do better than anyone else, they vote, and proposals were quickly killed and silenced by senior citizen groups.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."



past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed

  1. 1. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).

"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"

See, most people have heard the 2nd amendment ad nauseam, and plenty of brilliant scholars have tried to decipher what it really means. The way that I read it, as an idiot (in the Greek sense), is that the people should be armed, so that they can fight an enemy of the free state. An enemy being an invading force (the English, the French or some other nation), or perhaps a dictator or some other type of oppressor who gains control of the government and thus threatens the free state.

Such a civilian militia would, today, need access to fighter planes, medium range missiles, tanks, heavy machine guns and that sort of thing. But, back in the day, the weaponry was not as advanced, so if the people had a few guns it would be a formidable force against any invader.

I don't think our founding fathers were contemplating a scenario where some old fool pulls a gun on an unarmed man in a theater when they wrote the 2nd amendment - although rumour has it that Honest Abe was engaged in a prolonged txting session at a showing of Our American Cousin.

In 2008 the supreme court took a look at the 2nd amendment (DC vs. Heller) and concluded that outright banning handguns was unconstituional - but also that the 2nd amendment does not give unlimited rights to carry concealed weapons wherever you want. The crux of the case was later reiterated in the McDonald v. Chicago case where Chicago enforced a de-facto ban on handguns. You can argue that the supreme court is wrong, and that the 2nd amendment means that confused old farts should be allowed to bring loaded weapons into cinemas and that the poor father was just collateral damage and a reasonable price to pay. I just disagree with that view.

Another day, another IPVM gun thread... :(

Was the shooting at least caught on a surveillance camera?

Lots of emotion in this thread. Misplaced emotion is useless. Matter of fact, much gun violence we read and hear about is based in misguided emotion. We will never be rid of guns....or gun violence. That ship has sailed long ago. You cannot un ring the bell, right? That simple fact must be accepted without reservation.

Where we can make a difference is addressing the central issue: Our mental health system is broken in this country. Most of the recent mass murders by gun were committed by the mentally ill. Until we have a viable way to document and categorize the truly mentally and criminlly insane, we are stuck right here. All the rules and hippa violation that go along with this. . Lets start there and maybe just maybe we can have some effect.

Otherwise, we are just spinning our tires in the mud.

Everybody is subject to mental health during his/her life course. Many times over, everybody has a burst of rage against someone else during their lifetime. Everybody snaps at others. Everybody wishes someone else dead at some point. But, those with a loaded firearms and alcohol or drugs in their system are way more DANGEROUS to others. I don't want live among those dangerous people. Isn't that my constitutional right?

No. That is not a constitutional right. You do not have the right to live in the US where there are no firearms (2nd amendment) You do not have a right to live in a alchohol and drug free country. Alcohol is a legal drug and in my opinion, the worst catalyst for violence. Prescription based opiates are everywhere and also legal. More people get high on Methadone then you can imagine. You have no constitutional right to be insulated from this!!

Regarding mental health, you mention it as if it is some minor inconvinience - like a case of the Flu. Of course we all feel rage. I am referring to the documented physcopathic individuals that may or may not display violent tendancies. They are just there Doctors have documented this. Cases like Virginia Tech, Aurora, Sandy Hook. There were clear signals these shooters should be on a "no fly list", so to speak. That is the broken mental health system I refer to. These individuals slip and will continue to slip between the cracks until this "loophole" is closed. Complicated issue? You bet. But until it is dealt with in a meaningful way, these events will continue...and so will the debate.

Yes on mental health problem. The guns are already here, over 300 million in this country. The "government" can never take them away as there are just too many. Our local paper runs a 2 page ad almost every day, to advertise the biggest gun seller in town. Sales are even better than ip cameras!

As for "blame", our world changed after 9-11. In particular "homeland security", right out of the George Orwell book "1984". I noted the law that allowed the crazy retired police officer to kill a guy over texting at a movie theater was part of the entire "Homeland Security" frenzy. The big question is, how do we start the pendulum going back the other way? NSA anyone?

And how many mental health "professionals" are whacky?

I am so glad to live in rural North Idaho. Life is pretty good, even though we have 'packin patriots in abundant supply.

I'm glad to hear rural Idaho is safe! I hear Mormon majority Utah is pretty safe too.

Personally, if I wanted to go out and purchase a handgun, I would have no idea where to go. I've never heard of a gun store anywhere in this country. They must exist, but I've never seen any publicity. I suppose it is like prostitution brothels. They exist but you won't find them in the yellow pages nor on street signs.

Nonetheless, the federal conservative government recently scrapped the gun registry program. Now, you can't have a dog without a permit, but you can purchase firearms without one. Brilliant! Reason given? Too costly and serves no useful purpose. Police officers totally disagree. The gun owners should pay (via special tax) for the registry, IMO.

The whole thing saddens me beyond belief. And this chain of notes is indicative of the problem. You're all correct - we need to address the issue of gun ownership & training but we also need to stop blaming "guns" for the shootings. Parents have few resources to find help for a troubled child in the early stages as the childs slip into poor mental health, we as a society see the 6 or 7 year old tyrant and blame it on the parenting making it difficult for the parents, and eventually the grown child, to be willling to seek out mental health healing. Before we know it, they're a teenager shooting up thier classmates. Lets take the stigma out of having mental health problems, provide avenues for people to get help when they're not acting/feeling right (this guy in Florida had some questionable behaviors in the weeks & days preceding this incident) Maybe then they'll think nothing of telling thier doctor and asking for help. As to guns, lets get reasonable - I'm a gun owner, I have a shotgun & a handgun. I don't need an UZI or a extended magazines or 100's of guns for my "personal" safety or pleasure shooting. I too was trained from age 6 to shoot and the loudest, most oft repeated instructions had to to with respecting the firearm and safety. It was not a toy, you didn't point it at anyone, you never touched another persons gun until they a: gave you permission and b: demonstrated to you that it was unloaded &/or on safety. So, I would not be against enforcing gun handling and safety training as part of owning a firearm. This is not a USA problem, our entire planet has lost its common sense and common courtesy. THATs what we should be discussing. Why can't we have a civilized, unthreatening conversation about both guns & mental health and come up with a viable solution to both issues. Instead we're (in this blog) being sarcastic and rudely suggesting anyone who doesn't agree with a particular position "don't come here". Are we any better "security professionals" than the guy in Florida when we discourse in this manner?


>I would never think of using one on another person unless my life or a family member was threatened with iminent death.<

You sound like a meek and stable person at best. Good to know ... But nonetheless, how do you know you'll never have mental issues in the future, at least temporarily??? I don't personally know you ... even if I knew you ... a lot of murders occur with people you would never think capable of such thing.

For instance, a 40 years old and good looking male cardiologist here (now infamous) who was married with a female emergency room doctor, killed his two children (two years ago) in revenge for her wanting a divorce. In an attempted suicide, he killed his two kids. Believe it or not, today he is free (not in jail). Reason, he was found not criminally responsible due to temporary insanity.

Back to your argument, how would you treat someone like him before he goes temporarilly crazy and commit murder. If he had had a gun (or other more powerful mass killing machine), chances are more people would have died that day, including himself.

Actually this discourse is a pretty good one and the reason I stuck my two cents in. Many, many other blogs, news story comments, etc are crazy with folks supporting the shooter in some slippery way. I like the security camera pros. You folks are pretty reasonable. I also totally agree with Meghan that we need to de-stigmatize the mental health issue. There are so many folks that need some guidance yet will not consider it and it will never be offered.

It is a crazy world now days. I thank my lucky stars for my genes and culture every day. We are getting way too tribal and are forgetting we are all a part of the big tribe of humanity. I was raised in the 50's and 60's. things really were different back then. I always say thank you and sir and 'Maam and sometimes get the scowl look. Young guys don't hold doors for women much anymore. I am glad to be late '60s and headed out to the wild blue yonder before too long as it is getting so crazy out there.

Good job opportunities for the security camera business but scary to me anyway. Hell, I use my cameras to watch my cows, pigs and Elk and wild turkeys. Sometimes I get to keep an eye on the grandkids. We are at the end of a one mile road, hidden in a heavily wooded draw with the closest neighbor a half mile away. Married 50 years. I'm one of the lucky ones and we have plenty of firearms around but I would never think of using one on another person unless my life or a family member was threatened with iminent death.

Sorry to get off topic abit. The Seahawks won tonight. It's their fault! And you are all great in my book.

Do I have the god given right to protect myself and my family from harm? If yes…then the whole ‘should we have guns’ debate is over. If no…then I suppose that gives you a sense of what America is today vs. the way our founders intended. Is there anyone that really believes that I don’t have an inalienable right to protect myself? Do those people really believe that there should be limits to my ability to protect myself? Who are you to tell me what is sufficient in terms of my means for protection? I don't need high capacity mags but the police do? Why? If there isn't a threat in our society great enough to demand 30 rounds... why do they need them and I don't? Makes no sense.

How does an unarmed society combat a tyrannical government? Oh…they can use their 6 capacity revolver? LOL!!

You indeed have the right to defend yourself ... It's a basic human right.

I once knew a guy from the city and I asked him why he was constantly carrying a knife. His answer? For protection. Well, 99 percent of people in this town probably don't carry any weapons and don't feel like they need to. This guy (a tough muscular guy that was an ex-con) feared what? Paranoia cannot be cured with weapons. When he got drunk one night and asked him to go away, he threatened me with a knife, I called the cops and got him arrested. He ended up in a mental institution. He had even threatened 911 operators and the local police station. Or, if you genuinely live in a tough area, then just move. Sanity is more important.

>How does an unarmed society combat a tyrannical government? <

There are civilized countries that have no tyrannical government.

That is the first time someone has referred to me as "meek". A new one to add to the list and I appreciate it.

As for blowing it in some sort of rage, no way Jose. We have been tested thoroughly over the last several years by an ex family member who went so far as to convince, through malicious lies, a part of "the tyrannical government" that we were bad people. We had over 40 police, 2 SWAT teams, 2 helicopters at our place at 6 AM one fine summer morning in 2012. AR 15s pointed at us with completely black clad officers with helmets and all the gear you could imagine. They left 6 hours later and arrested no one. They then liened our property which was paid off(that is why they liened it), took all computers and personal records besides trumped up criminal charges over three months later. This same person also caused us to lose most of our savings prior to that event hiring lawyers to allow our son to keep custody of his three sons. Even the "tyrannical government event" was over child custody. It is all gone now after the government spent well over $100,000 on us. They got nothing. But we were tested, big time.

All that did was mellow us even more. It taught us how to deal with life one day at a time. It taught us, again. "you get what you give". It taught us again that there is something greater than us and we love whatever that is with all our heart, mind and soul.

We decided over 40 years ago to become "rural". Maybe that is what saved us from the normal chaos of the real world. I will admit to being naive about much of the world but we are strong and calm and will always be that way.

We do have a right to defend and protect ourselves in this country but there are many ways to do that. Firearms are only one way and that option is extremely over played in these confusing times.

BTW, my name for something greater than me is "The Master Flow". I believe all life is about flows of some kind. I also find you Integrators prove that every day, every hour.

Our government became more tyrannical after 9-11 IMO and it was planned. Google "Project for a New American Century" which started in the late 1990s. It will send shivers down your spine. Nations do not have friends, they have interests. Fear works wonders for power, control and greed.

Rick, great feedback.

I drove through central and northern Idaho a few years ago and it was a complete eye opener for me, having grown up on the East Coast. Remote to me is that the nearest store is a few miles away.

Rural Idaho was completely different. Huge distances between even small towns, large/dangerous wild animals, etc.

I can completely understand why carrying guns in such an area would be important and even necessary.

Yes, bears can be dangerous at times. One has to protect him/helself from wildlife.

Well Rick, the bible mentions that the ruler of the world is Satan the Devil. Your story proves it even more. You've been tested like Job, and so have I many times. Life is not always fear, some abuse others, others get abused. The only thing to do is to keep faith that things will turn around. Good luck with that.

Once again my apologies for taking this discussion a bit off course but I must reply to undisclosed integrator 422 and thank John for his comments on North Idaho.

I graduated from the University of Santa Clara in 1970. One required class my senior year was comparative religions taught by a Jesuit. Every day of class he would take the Bible and use a verse or passage to support a different Christian religion, showing us the basis for each religion. From that class I learned the Bible is not for me. Any "word of God" that causes us to argue and dislike or hate other people who believe differently can not be good for us. Every year of my life since that time has only reinforced that opinion. I do not believe in "Satan the Devil". In my mind that is a violation of the First Commandment. I believe evil is simply us humans not knowing God, whatever we want to call God. You bet evil exists, we see it every day and it is the basis for this discussion. But it is not some power greater than us.

I could go on and on as this is one of my favorite subjects so I will close with something I heard long ago. "Gods light comes to us through an infinite number of Oracles". The Bible works for many folks but it also confuses many folks. It makes for alot of jobs(ministries) trying to explain all the different confusing messages. It has been the basis for much war and killing of our fellow humans. I also believe that same confusion contributes to the original topic of this discussion. Gods word is simple and has been taught repeatedly over the years by many great teachers only to be later twisted for power and control of the masses.

Thank you John for a great website that teaches us so much more about "security" cameras. I am learning much and am thankful I got in on a real deal here at IPVM. I love my IP cameras. I'm just a little guy using Blue Iris as my VMS but it is my main hobby besides a small Organic Farm we do every year, selling produce to a group of five star restaurants with real security cameras everywhere.

BTW 422, 'things' have always been turned around in a good way for us. Even the events I related earlier are good for us. Some day......some day.... I have an incredible story to tell........ The cup is always full.


I don't believe in Satan in the literal sense (an angel that turned against God). I don't believe in the supernatural facts layed out in the bible, but some passages are so powerful (true to life), that it is difficult to ignore.

>You bet evil exists, we see it every day and it is the basis for this discussion. But it is not some power greater than us.<

Evil exists! That's a start! If evil exists, the contrary should exists as well, right? I don't think people always choose to be good or bad. It's often your surrounding that is a greater power of evil or good. I'm sure one living on the streets of Chicago has more chance to encounter of power of evil than someone living in remote Idaho (close to nature -- God's creation).

>"Gods light comes to us through an infinite number of Oracles"<

Agree! Nature is the greatest power of God.

Well, all I can say is that people misuse religions a lot, I must agree. People pretend to be believers, yet liberally go to wars, or vividly support wars. Like any Muslims would tell you, their religion does not teach to kill others, so they distance themselves from the evil terrorists (the wolves among the sheep). Similarly, the Jehovah Witnesses refuse to salute the flag (against nationalism) and join the army (against war). In contrast, the U.S. catholic priests once blessed the U.S. soldiers against Germany and the German Catholic priests did the same on their side ... both sides belonging to the same religion! Likewise, Jesus considered the priests of his days as hypocrites, teaching one thing and doing the exact opposite themselves. Jesus warned his disciples that false religions would emerge. Jesus NEVER promoted war, on the contrary, he teached his followers to love one another just like God has loved them, so that people would know they are his [true] disciples. So, please don't blame the wars on Jesus, God or the bible.

UPDATE: Here's the surveillance video of the shooting with commentary from attorneys:

Ugh. So much went wrong here.

I didn't really see much improvement gained from 'enhancing' the video.

Where did the old dude go when he initially left? How long was he gone? Story says that he mentions that he was going to 'alert management', but this seems unlikely.

Maybe he didn't have his piece on him and had left it in his car's glove compartment or something. If there is video of the old dude leaving the theater and then re-entering, that would not bode well for the defense.

Not that the old dude has a chance in hell of being found not guilty based on any plea of self-defense.

This is definitely an interesting play-in to Arkansas now allowing firearms into football stadiums during games. No risk of anything going wrong there...

Sporting events just got exempted from that Arkansas law