Reply With Quote
Doesn't work at all.
You're statement is simply satisfied with letting Holmes do all the killing unimpeded. And, you should really take the phrase "properly trained" out of your sentence.
People determined to kill large numbers of people are going to succeed if there's no one present with the means to stop them.
Doesn't work at all.
You're statement is simply satisfied with letting Holmes do all the killing unimpeded. And, you should really take the phrase "properly trained" out of your sentence.
Two wholly irrelevant examples prove nothing.
So there's no point in gun control laws?
By impede, I mean distract in terms of the sounds. Didn't he start the shooting during a scene of the movie with lots of fighting occurring? This absolutely would be a distraction, at least, it would for me, combined with everything else.
As for having a better view to a shot ... that is completely subjective. If you are all the way across the room, even with a clear shot you are going to tell me a smoky, loud room with an action movie in one its battle scenes going on isn't going to distract you in the least? Now imagine a bunch of people in between you and the shooter.
I agree it's possible, just very unlikely. I reiterate that only someone close to the action would have had anything resembling a decent chance.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.
This suggests the shooter was among a crowd of people.
From descriptions, I've read, people were either on the floor between rows of seats or clamoring for the exits -- away from the shooter.
I'm pretty certain the shooter was sufficiently isolated to be targeted.
Where's that in the article? Or is that just your gloss?
Wouldn't you be among a crowd of people scrambling around or ducking and bumping past you with reckless abandon?
yoni just makes up so much so he can consider himself a hero.
In this particular case, they're arguably going to succeed regardless, even if there's somebody present with the means to stop him.
He would be looking for the clean shot, while the people next to him patiently wait...
Agreed. But, I'm not suggesting an armed movie-goer would immediate spring into action.
It's going to be equally distracting to the shooter. And, again, according to descriptions, the shooter targeted people trying to escape, as they ran for the exits. Perfect time for someone to shoot him.
The more CHL carriers there are, the more likely there's one not all the way across the theater.
I think it's more likely than you believe. There seems to be this sense the shooter isn't vulnerable to all the same factors you say will hamstring the armed innocents. Sure, he wore a gas mask and sure he had the element of surprise but, as soon as crowded theater goes bat crazy and starts heading for the closest exit, he no longer has control of the situation...he's just picking random targets and isn't in the least bit capable of identifying or eliminating a threat directed at him.
And, it's better than just letting yourself be massacred.
Key word here is "could".
I am not satisfied with letting holmes do any killing. I haven't even come down on a side for this. My first instinct is that there is no reason for assault rifles (there isn't) and they should be banned. It isnt the perfect solution, but it helps. However a friend and I have been discussing this on and off and just trying to sift through empiracle evidence to support one way or another. Both of us are on the fence here.
I am really only addressing you because your arguments are so incredibly bad that it is ridiculous.
They would be calmed by the courage emanating from his convictions.
I have no idea. Are they going to be scrambling around or ducking and bumping past me with reckless abandon forever or are they going to eventually get by me?
In the theaters I've been in lately, there are no more than a dozen seats before an aisle break.
They're probably thinking: "Rambo is a ing pussy, look at this guy!"
yoni, a true american hero
I think, if a skilled CHLer was on the same side of the theater, close to the row's edge, and immediately saw directly in his vision the initial shots, then yes, it would have been a fairly easy and quick shot. Otherwise, I think little would have changed. If, for example, all the above conditions are true but you (like everyone would be) are confused by the initial shots for a few moments, then you probably don't have the time to draw, aim and fire a clear shot like you would if you had seen the initial attack directly.
It's one of those things where it's basically a 1 in a million chance or worse. Not the type of thing you want to base a strategy or argument around. Could your section of the theater have been cleared quick enough for a shot? Probably. Then again, while you're waiting for a shot, you might just get mowed down.
How many people were in the theater?
How many people were shot and incapacitated?
How many did that leave Holmes wasn't able to even draw a muzzle on?
Why are arguments bad?
I think its silly to presume an armed civilian with proper training couldn't have successfully ended Holmes rampage before it involved over 70 killed or injured.
Did you get him with just one shot, yoni?
Or did mingus hit him at the same time?
Not to mention that by the time the theater cleared, the massive damage is already done.
People describe him walking calmly up the aisle shooting those cowering behind the seats.
There was time.
Or not. More people weren't shot than were.
As it turns out (and as really incredibly bad as it is to say this), IF this had to happen, this was probably the best possible outcome.
If Yoni "Regan Wayne Christ" vore had been there and taken this guy out... well his apartment would have had an extremely high probability of blowing up.
I'm not sure the problem is with assault rifles is it? He cold have killed just as many with a couple of high capacity pistols. I've been against any kind of additional gun control period but if something had to be done, I wouldn't be too upset about limiting magazine capacity to 10.
It's just as silly to presume that the situation would've unfolded any different should an armed civilian with proper training attempted to end Holmes rampage.
We're all guessing here, you included.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions