Reply With Quote
Recalling again why the call of my original question was phrased the way it was.
you don't love them enough. lol
clearly, yoni is disturbed. perhaps mentally.
Recalling again why the call of my original question was phrased the way it was.
Another thing not being considered.
How would the gunman have responded if he started taking return fire?
The place was chaotic and smoky for him, as well. Perhaps he would have fled out the exit door or, as in the case of the church shooting, killed himself.
He's human, too. With the same fright/flight mechanisms as the rest of us.
What if he was a courageous Republican?
He would have killed everyone even if all his guns had jammed, right?
Didn't the guy had full body armor too, including throat, legs, etc?
can you imagine if there had been 13 concealed hand gun heroes in that dark theater?
I can.
Bad guy #1 comes in, shoots a few people.
Hero A jumps up, shoots in direction of bad guy. Citizen A jumps up to run away at wrong instant, ends up hit by bullet of gun from Hero A.
Hero B jumps up, thinks hero A is bad guy #2 because he shot a citizen, shoots in direction of Hero A, only to hit Citizen B who has also jumped up to run away at the wrong instant.
Hero C jumps up....
repeat scenario until Hero M is the last hero alive.
Oh, and bad guy #1 is still alive.
Nice imagination. Any evidence to back that up?
Same evidence that you have.
That's precisely what we said to you.
You didn't back anything up.
Worked for Reag... I mean, John Wayne... if only the Lone Ranger would've been attending... (faps at the thought)
Interesting article in Slate -- not exactly a conservative bastion of gun rights:
Going Postal, Pre-Pistol
How did mass murderers operate before the advent of modern weapons?
How did people commit mass murder before the advent of automatic weapons?
Often with fire.
...
In 1932, Julian Marcelino, a Filipino immigrant of relatively small stature, managed to kill six and wound 15 on a Seattle street using only a pair of blades.
...
Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.
ok, and?
Although I personally find myself agreeing with the sentiment that a few people legally carrying might have changed, or even had a small chance of averting this tragedy, the fact is, it's a crowded, dark, and loud movie theater with a bunch of people wearing costumes. You are not going to positively identify the shooter unless you are very close to the action, and I doubt even the hardiest John Wayne wannabe's out there are willing to fire into a large crowd.
Additionally, AR, body armor, gas mask and tear gas > small handguns, FWIW.
What? Jeanne Assam?
Or...
Appalachian School of Law shooting
One active shooter and two concealed carry shooters who managed not to kill each other in terminating the situation.
Perhaps you're just projecting how you would react in such a situation. And, that's okay, I'm not sure how I would, either. I do believe, however, just like Jeanne Assam, there are people willing to walk toward the danger and -- if properly equipped, as she was -- eliminate the threat before there's more carnage.
Imagine if Jeanne Assam hadn't been there or if she weren't armed and the shooter had proceeded into the crowded church.
Why's this evidence?
Again, I'm all for armed lesbian policewoman guarding every movie screening in the US for free.
They can't go any further than my church foyer, though. Jesus sez.
You've saved the world again, yoni.
Muzzle flashes are very distinctive, even in a crowded, smoky room.
There's a question about the body armor since many of the witnesses were able to describe his shirt as being visible in the middle. It's starting to look like he may have been wearing a non-ballistic ammunition vest, instead.
I don't know if that's been fully determined or not. But, you're right, the other aspects make it more difficult but, doing nothing (or being unable to do anything) made it impossible.
And the lesbians need muzzle flash training and night vision goggles.
Forgot that.
Actually, in a large, tiered and staired room full of people, it's very possible both bodies and structures as well as the various effects/sounds of the movie itself would have impeded a view of the shooter -- unless you were quite close or saw him from a good angle just by chance.
TACTICALGEAR SALES RECEIPT FOR JAMES HOLMES
Item #1? A Blackhawk Urban Assault Vest.
That ain't bullet-proof.
Full tactical gear is extremely difficult to purchase as a private citizen. Maybe he was just in a costume that appeared to make him look like he was in full tactical gear.
But you're saving lives! You might kill a couple of "collateral" but how many lives you saved?!?!?!?! Well, nobody knows, but it sounds important!
Well, sounds wouldn't have impeded a view and being as it was theater seating, everyone in the audience had a better view of the shooter than he had of them.
Look, we can what if all day long. The fact remains, an armed movie-goer or two, carrying concealed weapons, and properly trained, with the courage and frame of mind to act -- could have successfully stopped Holmes' assault.
Two examples of CHL carriers that managed to terminate an active shooter without shooting each other or an innocent person.
Let's watch how easy this is
The fact remains, an armed movie-goer or two, carrying concealed weapons, and properly trained, with the courage and frame of mind to act -- could have successfully aided Holmes' assault by killing others.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
