Colorado Gun Sales Shoot Upwards Following Batman Massacre

The lesson seemingly being drawn from the Aurora shooting is that it occurred because the public was not sufficiently armed. The Denver Post reports:

Background checks for people wanting to buy guns in Colorado jumped more than 41 percent after Friday morning’s shooting at an Aurora movie theater, and firearms instructors say they’re also seeing increased interest in the training required for a concealed-carry permit.

“It’s been insane,” Jake Meyers, an employee at Rocky Mountain Guns and Ammo in Parker, said Monday. When he arrived at work Friday morning — just hours after a gunman killed 12 and injured 58 others at the Century Aurora 16 theater — there already were 15 to 20 people waiting outside the store, Meyers said.

Between Friday and Sunday, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation approved background checks for 2,887 people who wanted to purchase a firearm — a 43 percent increase over the previous Friday through Sunday.

27 Comments on "Colorado Gun Sales Shoot Upwards Following Batman Massacre"

  1. Who knew!! Violence generating more violence!! You can bet that some of those dudes will make a killing of their own on the base of some horseshitlaw about taking a stand for some stupid reason.

  2. DeepCough | Jul 25, 2012 at 3:17 pm |

    Crisis Capitalism strikes again.

  3. I’m not sure if that’s anything more than a standard summer time weekend, and certainly less than the opening of hunting seasons …  “43 percent increase over the previous Friday through Sunday”.

    You have to look at several statistics, specifically the annual sales, hunting season openers and demographic of purchasers, not that 1000 more guns were sold than the previous weekend.

  4. Monkey See Monkey Do | Jul 25, 2012 at 4:21 pm |

    Fear is the NRA’s main marketing strategy.

  5. lifobryan | Jul 25, 2012 at 4:31 pm |

    In a crowded theater filled with tear gas, smoke, & chaos, with stunned & panicked people coughing, running, and diving under seats …. would any more guns in the situation been helpful.

    I’m not a dogmatic anti-gun person. But I do think this is a valid question.

    • iepuppetmaster | Jul 25, 2012 at 5:48 pm |

      In that particular situation it’s not likely a single armed citizen was going to stop that crazed gunman in all that riot gear. Unless they had some kind of military training or background. However, multiple armed citizens might have been able to do something, but that’s not my point. Perception is the key here. If criminals perceive an armed group of people rather than an unarmed group, they are much more likely to refrain from committing criminal acts against them. If criminals general perception was that any citizen could shoot and kill them at any given moment I’m sure they would be much less willing to commit these heinous acts. When I walk into a Walmart and look around, I realize that maybe only a couple people in that whole store are carrying a gun. So if I wanted, I could potentially kill anyone unabated (until police get there) with enough ammunition and the proper weapon. If I were to walk into a bar — lets say in the wild wild west — and start trying to mass murder everyone. I’m going to get a bullet to the head before I can squeeze off my second round. Do you see the point I’m getting at? More gun sales to law abiding citizens is a great thing for community protection.      

      • Of course, many of the people going on shooting rampages do not really plan to survive (or for that matter have any concrete plans about the future). So having people shoot around in gas-filled rooms is probably a more amusing prospect to them than a threatening one. The problem of your argument is that it departs from a normal person. By definition those do not tend to be the ones that flip and commit mass murder… Same is true for the death penalty. It lacks the desired effect because people who kill do not tend to think that they will go to jail nor that they will get executed afterwards.

        • That is a whole bunch of speculation with no ground in reality. I guess there is no such thing as an intelligent criminal.

        • Thorax1970 | Jul 26, 2012 at 12:28 pm |

          I think the fact that the dude was wearing full body armor and surrendered to police shows that he maybe did fear death at least a bit, eh?

          Puppetmaster was talking about the perception that people had guns, not that they had them and would “shoot around in gas-filled rooms”.

          And yeah, your comment is pure speculation with no basis in reality.

      • Linsang811 | Jul 25, 2012 at 6:44 pm |

        ” multiple armed citizens might have been able to do something” yeah, accidentally shoot each other.

      • Liam_McGonagle | Jul 25, 2012 at 6:49 pm |

        Sorry, but Bryan was spot on there.

        There is simply no way in hell multiplying the # of inexperienced, poorly trained and incredibly nervous guns is going to do anything but create more victims.  That’s just common sense. 

        The proportion of skillful users of any technology is always going to be a woefully tiny percentage of the total # of people who have access to it–which in the case of guns means more death, more injury.  That’s just objective common sense.

        I’m not opposed to gun ownership in principle, especially because the # of shooting fatalities each year is demonstrably tiny in comparison to more mundane, uncontroversial activities like swimming or driving. 

        But let’s not bullsh*t ourselves into the suicidal fallacy that 95% of us are above average in terms of firearms proficiency.

        • iepuppetmaster | Jul 25, 2012 at 7:46 pm |

          “There is simply no way in hell multiplying the # of inexperienced, poorly trained and incredibly nervous shooters is going to do anything but create more victims.  That’s just common sense.”
          Indeed it is. However, your assumption that “multiple armed citizens” are “inexperienced, poorly trained and incredibly nervous shooters” is subjective at best. You are generalizing, which is what I would have done If I were to try and make that same counter argument, so all is forgiven there. 😉 

          “The proportion of skillful users of any technology is always going to be a woefully tiny percentage of the total # of people who have access to it–which in the case of guns means more death, more injury.  That’s just objective common sense.”  

          I agree, to an extent. I’m not saying they should just give a gun to any citizen who asks for it. There needs to be a system in place that teaches the citizens how to use firearms and then test their individual skills. You need to take a driving test to get a licence, why not take a firearms test to own a firearm? Just better make the firearms test much more strict. Some people I see on the road make me wonder how the hell they ever passed their licence exam.

          So if “multiple armed citizens” were trained and knew how to use guns, would the outcome have been the same? I think not.


          • “So if “multiple armed citizens” were trained and knew how to use guns, would the outcome have been the same? I think not.”
             I question if we want a bunch of gun ready people with varying views looking over our shoulders, oh wait..

          • Seems to me that if somebody really wanted you dead, whether they have a gun or not really doesn’t matter.

          • mannyfurious | Jul 26, 2012 at 11:29 am |

            This is the point, now, really. I mean, I’m on the fence with the whole gun control issue. I think the “gun control” side actually has the better arguments, but I’m always railing against curtailing freedoms because of fear, so, because of that, I don’t really want to agree with the gun-control side. 
            With all that said, the gun-fetishists and their juvenile fantasies never cease to amuse me. I don’t think there’s any conceivable situation, short of batman himself being in that theater, that would’ve stopped what happened from happening. The nature of the attack was simply too much for ANYONE with any kind of weapon/training to overcome that night. 

      • mannyfurious | Jul 26, 2012 at 11:23 am |

        Read Randall Collins’ book “Violence”. It cites several studies which suggest that trained military personnel–while much more accurate and competent than just about anyone else– only have about 8-percent hit rates when they fire. I keep hearing that there were military members in the audience and that if they had guns, things “may have been different” but this ignores the fact that none of those military members were infantry members and even if they were, the odds still wouldn’t be that high of a successful counter-attack (due to the ambush-like nature of the attack, which included tear gas and a fully-body-armored gunner). I’ve been making this same point on other websites, any more guns in that situation would have, at best, been like spitting in the rain, at worst, a few other innocent people would’ve been killed or injured. 

        • Calypso_1 | Jul 26, 2012 at 5:14 pm |

          Much of Collins’s book uses statistics based on S.L.A. Marshall’s work from WWII.  Training methods were changed significantly based on what was learned.  There is also a BIG difference between a conscript force and a professional one.  You also can’t really base statistics for accuracy in coordinated military small arms tactics because you are dealing more with percentages of lethality in overlapping fields of suppressive fire not individual shooting skill. 
          When you get to real skill levels you have results like this:
          “A Navy SEAL Team was returning from a mission over North Vietnam in a chopper when it got hit pretty bad. The pilot and one crew member were killed and the copilot was wounded. Going into autorotation, the copilot managed to set the chopper down in a clearing. After landing, a few rounds of enemy fire were starting to come in. Seems the M60s were also damaged beyond use by the crash landing and initial RPG hit, the only M16 fell out on the way down.
          The only firearms left was M1911s.The remaining crew member was carrying a match conditioned M1911 and had a few boxes of ammo. As more enemy small arms fire started coming in, the copilot and crew member also noted that the VC were coming out of the jungle and approaching them; shooting as they came. The crew member took out his .45 and took careful aim as he shot at each attacking VC. About 30 minutes later it was all over. Between reloading magazines and radioing for rescue, the copilot was pretty busy, but a rescue chopper finally arrived on the scene.
          As the rescue chopper came in and landed, its crew noticed a lot of dead VC laying around. The downed helo’s remaining crew were picked up and on their way out, they counted the dead VC; 37 in all. Their distances from the downed helo were from 3 to about 150 yards; all shot by the crew member with his M1911 .45 ACP. About 80 rounds were fired by Petty Officer R.J. Thomas, a member of the USN Rifle and Pistol Team.”
          by Mark Eberhard-CEO & PresidentLtCol. USMCR (Ret.)American Marksman GroupA

          • mannyfurious | Jul 30, 2012 at 12:23 pm |

            Yes, the special forces trained specifically for “asymmetrical warfare” are much better at violence. Note, however, that Petty Officer Thomas is an outlier, even for that population, being a member of the USN Rifle and Pistol team.

            Nevertheless, Collins also uses studies and statistics from various asymmetrical warfronts. I don’t own the book, so I can’t go through its references at the moment, but his study of wartime violence suggests that soldiers have only gotten more proficient because their technology has gotten more proficient. In a typical battle during the first years of the latest Iraq War, Collins points out that thousands of rounds of ammunition are fired and only a handful of people are actually killed. Holmes’ attack in the movie theater has much more in common with this kind of battle–as there aren’t battles so much as ambushes in modern warfare and Holmes’ attack was most certainly an ambush. And as such, without the proper recon, preparation and strategy, even a fairly well-trained soldier would’ve had a difficult time keeping his head (and aim) straight.

          • Calypso_1 | Jul 31, 2012 at 1:22 am |

            So how are outliers brought together? Isn’t this the crux of the surveillance state?

          • mannyfurious | Jul 30, 2012 at 12:25 pm |

            Also, again, how many soldiers are there in this country trained to that level of efficiancy? And what are the odds of Petty Officer Thomas being in the audience at that particular theater on that particular night. It’s almost nil.

          • Calypso_1 | Jul 31, 2012 at 1:18 am |

            I don’t have the numbers, but I’d say they are in the few 10’s of thousands range. As to the odds, admittedly low but I am aware of the development of distributed active shooter response programs.

  6. Bohemianbarbarian | Jul 25, 2012 at 8:31 pm |

    too little too late. lol.

  7. this mass murder has been a real financial windfall for corporations
    more box office revenue, more gun sales & more gun club members
    plus all the other products advertised during the newscast of the horror

    mass murder is consumerism at its finest
    that’s nothing new
    it just usually goes unnoticed

  8. Guns should have a tracking device which the data everyone could see on a google maps style display online. Since this whole tracking chip technology was made to track valuable items, it was not made to be inserted into people.

    • kurisushiro | Jul 29, 2012 at 2:46 pm |

       How nice, then when someone invades your home they’ll know the places to go for first.

Comments are closed.