So, if about 10 people in that theater had been armed...

[cynatnite]

and they pulled out their guns to kill the shooter what's your guess what would happen?

Tear gas is blinding people's eyes, the audience is panicking and you can hear their screams and cries.

Those who are armed pull out their weapons in good faith hoping to stop the shooter. They aim for where the shots are coming from. How is one to know if that is a single shooter? Would you know? Would you aim your gun at another person holding a weapon? Would you believe them if they swore they weren't the original shooter?

Can you imagine what the body count would be after the pandemonium?

And yet, repukes want more people armed.

[elleng]

1. Chaos.

[Zalatix]

17. Yup. When your heart rate races past 125bpm, all logic goes out the window.

That's when your fight or flight response goes haywire. The odds of blind fire and panicked fire go through the roof.

At that point the shooter can just run off and let them kill each other.

This is why I HATE the NRA.

[elleng]

25. and there's no way one could reasonably focus,

actually locate the shooter, aim and fire successfully. HOPELESS.

[DocMac]

29. How would you know if the gunfire

was not delivered by the approptiate authoities? If you had a CCW, what would you do if you saw a drug bust, but you had no idea? With all the tear gas and gunfire, I don't think a person can make that call.

[Zalatix]

31. You obviously haven't watched enough movies.

Name one movie where things went wrong when a buncha armed people opened fire in that situation?????

[DocMac]

39. I love movies. I can't remember the name,

but that one with Mr white, Mr green, and so forth. Shit went wrong!

BTW, love the...

[Fawke Em]

153. The movie was, "Reservoir Dogs."

Directed by Quentin Tarantino.

[DocMac]

166. That's it. thanks. nt

[elleng]

34. Would have no idea.

And, of course, theaters are usually DARK!

[DocMac]

40. The situation wouldn't be better if it was

high noon, you was sitting on a park bench, and people with guns starting shooting or beating the person sitting next to you. I just don't see what makes anyone capable of making such a life or death decision, in the blink of an eye.

It's difficult, no?

[DocMac]

43. Note to self...possible bumper sticker:

"It's hero or prison, my friend."

[elleng]

55. Yes, difficult under any circumstances.

No 'better.'

[GreenStormCloud]

93. These people didn't freeze up

There are dozens of videos of armed defense on youtube.

[DocMac]

102. I didn't need to watch the videos.

I served in the Marines. I know what it feels like to have carbon fly in my eyes.

I've been the one kicking someones ass who deserves it.

I was the ONE guy who told people to leave that girl alone. I talked down many a situations in my life. I have many broken bones, because that warning didn't work.

Shooting people is EASY!!! Ask me about plan B.

[GreenStormCloud]

119. Yet you said:

I just don't see what makes anyone capable of making such a life or death decision, in the blink of an eye.

It's difficult, no?

I pointed out that people do make that decision, and correctly so. Some people don't freeze up, as you seem to imply that everyone would do.

[Go Vols]

112. +1

[kemah]

136. The shooter was dressed up like a SWAT, so people would be shooting other people with guns.

If he had tactical gear, most people would think he was there to rescue them.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

46. Crossfire in the dark

Yes, chaos.

[GreenPartyVoter]

110. Yep.

[PavePusher]

2. And your hypothetical scenario happens... how often?

Feel free to cite to multiple cases of multiple lawfully armed people creating a hazardous cross-fire.

We'll wait....

[cynatnite]

4. Most lawfully armed people aren't trained for situations like this...

They can point and shoot, but they don't know how to gage a violent situation in an enclosed area packed with people.

Don't think it will end with only the bad guy dead like an action movie.

[PavePusher]

52. I ask again for cites to evidence, please. n/t

[Chorophyll]

64. No one is saying it happens. But in the aftermath of a mass shooting,

we frequently hear the "if only there had been some armed citizens there" argument. It's okay if we talk about it, right?

[4th law of robotics]

83. But there are examples of a private citizen stopping something like this

using a gun they are carrying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Woodham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting

There are no examples of what you describe.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

99. Two of those examples are off-duty cops.

[Confusious]

6. Not multiple, but one

When giffords was shot, a CC nearly shot an innocent man who had wrestled the shooter to the ground.

I live in Tucson, I saw his interview on the news.

[PavePusher]

53. I live in Tucson as well.

He was interviewed immediately after the event, still pumped with adreneline and wasn't given much time to expound.

He did not "nearly shot an innocent man". He did not, in fact, even draw his weapon. He did everything exactly right. Assesed the situation, started to restrain the obviously armed person, listened to on-scene witnesses and changed his target to the correct person. He did have his hand on his firearm, in his pocket, but never drew it.

Well done in every respect.

[yardwork]

65. So his firearm didn't help in any way?

Can you give us any examples of a mass murder like this one in Colorado being stopped or prevented by bystanders using firearms?

[Trunk Monkey]

86. Sure can

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Life_Church_(Colorado_Springs,_Colorado)#Shooting

On December 9, 2007, a gunman opened fire in the New Life Church, striking four people and killing two, sisters Rachel and Stephanie Works. Jeanne Assam, a church security volunteer, shot and wounded the gunman who then killed himself.[10]

Shooter was armed w/ an AR 15 (just like the guy in Denver)

Wearing Body Armor (just like the guy in Denver)

Kevlar helmet (just like the guy in Denver)


Stopped by a private citizen carrying a gun

[AynRandCollectedSS]

92. But...

What does "security volunteer" entail? It sounds like he wasn't just an armed citizen, but possibly someone with more training that your average dellusinal wannabe vigilante.

[Trunk Monkey]

97. Jeanne Assam had some police training

But at the time of the shooting she was working for Compassion International. She wasn't even a licensed security guard she was a church usher with a gun.

FWIW New Life Church is HUGE they run like 10 thousand people a service. The church hires off duty CSPD to do traffic control after service.

The police were on site when the shooting started and weren't notified by 911 until after the shooter was dead

[yardwork]

124. She wasn't an untrained bystander, though. She was a church usher with a gun.

[Trunk Monkey]

129. What constitutes "training" to you?

Jeanne Assam was a cop but she was a lousy cop after the shooting she went to work for the Palmer Lake PD a police department of all of 5 officers. She lasted one year and was terminated for reasons that were not made public. She was fired by the Minneapolis Police Dept. in 1997 over an incident in which she lied to investigators over an incident in which she cursed a bus driver. And she now works as a probation officer in the Denver area

I think the “untrained toter” meme is the result of a gross misconception. I spent most of my adult life in the military and have worked as a licensed armed security guard for the last 4 years.
In the Army I received basic rifle marksmanship training (nothing I hadn’t already learned in the BSA) w/ refresher training every 6 months, CQB training as well as MOUT training. As a security guard I had a course on Colorado law as it relates to use of force, deadly force and force continuum w/ refresher training every year. That’s already more than most cops.

Most of the carriers I know have military experience, hunter’s safety classes, hunting back grounds, they compete in shooting competitions (IDPA) they spend time at the range. There are any number of private schools giving classes on advanced firearms techniques.

I rarely run into a permit holder that has absolutely no other training than the required three hour course and when I do it’s generally the type of person who got a gun and a permit and both sit in the sock drawer for years.

[yardwork]

131. You are certainly an expert with years of training and experience in firearms.

It appears to me that very few mass murders are stopped by "untrained toters." Sounds like you would agree.

[Trunk Monkey]

133. You missed the point

What you heard me say

It appears to me that very few mass murders are stopped by "untrained toters."

What I actually intended to say,

It appears to me that very few pemit holders are untrained toters."

See the difference?

[yardwork]

134. I'd say that we are both right.

[GreenStormCloud]

88. It has happened several times.

Pearl, MS school shooting. Shooter captured by armed citizen.
South Richmond, VA store shooting - Shooter shot by CCWer.
New Life Church shooting - Gunman shot by CCWer. (She was NOT a security guard as is sometimes reported.)

There have been several others, including one school shooting stopped, but I don't have time right now to google them. But they do happen.

[yardwork]

123. That's helpful info. Thank you.

[Atypical Liberal]

94. Nearly all mass shootings are stopped by people with firearms.

In 1966 Civilians assisted police officers in returning fire against Whitman at the University of Texas shooting.

At the Appalachian School of Law shooting, the perpetrator was stopped by two students who fled the scene to their cars and retrieved weapons and body armor. These students were off-duty police officers.

The shooting by Jared Loughner was nearly stopped by a CCW permit holder, but the shooter was stopped by unarmed people when his firearm jammed.

The shootings by Cho, Klebold and Harris, Unruh, Banks, Huberty, McLendon, and Wong, were all stopped by people with firearms.

There is nothing magical about police officers being the ones with the ability to stop mass murderers. Ultimately, it's almost always someone with a gun that stops a lunatic with a gun.

[yardwork]

122. Klebold and Harris at Columbine committed suicide. They weren't stopped by anybody but themselves.

I didn't check the other references you made. Maybe they are all accurate, but the fact that you included Klebold and Harris raises questions in my mind. They were definitely not stopped by a bystander with a firearm.

[Atypical Liberal]

125. Lots of these kinds of people commit suicide - after the police show up with guns.

I didn't check the other references you made. Maybe they are all accurate, but the fact that you included Klebold and Harris raises questions in my mind. They were definitely not stopped by a bystander with a firearm.

But they were stopped by peopled with firearms.

In almost every case, these mass shooters stop their rampage only when confronted by people with guns.

Yes, sometimes they commit suicide - once they realize that their rampage is over and further violence is futile.

[yardwork]

130. That's not what happened at Columbine, though.

The police stayed outside the school building for hours, and by the time they went inside with their firearms, Klebold and Harris had been dead for some time at their own hands.

I'm not seeing evidence that "in almost every case, these mass shooters stop their rampage only when confronted by people with guns," if by "people with guns" you mean civilians, not law enforcement. I understand that sometimes ordinary civilians with guns are able to stop mass murderers, but I don't see evidence that this is true "in almost every case."

In the incident with a mass murderer in my town, the shooter was stopped by a civilian with no gun. He tackled the gunman and knocked him down.

I'm not interested in banning guns. I recognize that this is a lost cause and a losing issue for Democrats. The country is awash in guns and that's the way it's going to stay. I think that our efforts would be better directed at improving mental health access. However, I don't think it's strategic of firearms enthusiasts to make exaggerated claims about the record of civilians armed with guns stopping mass murders. It happens sometimes but not all that often, actually.

[Atypical Liberal]

150. Yes it is - Klebold and Harris killed themselves after they police arrived and they had no escape.

The police stayed outside the school building for hours, and by the time they went inside with their firearms, Klebold and Harris had been dead for some time at their own hands.

Klebold and Harris had made contingency plans for their escape. But they also made a goodbye video before the shooting. So it is possible they intended to commit suicide all along.

Nonetheless, they did not do so until police arrived and made any further killing impossible. It's logical to assume they would have continued their rampage had no one stopped them.

I'm not seeing evidence that "in almost every case, these mass shooters stop their rampage only when confronted by people with guns," if by "people with guns" you mean civilians, not law enforcement. I understand that sometimes ordinary civilians with guns are able to stop mass murderers, but I don't see evidence that this is true "in almost every case."

I didn't say civilians. I said "people". People with guns, usually police, stop the bad guy.

It's not the badge that stopped them, it's the guns that stopped them.

I'm not interested in banning guns. I recognize that this is a lost cause and a losing issue for Democrats. The country is awash in guns and that's the way it's going to stay. I think that our efforts would be better directed at improving mental health access.

I agree 100%

However, I don't think it's strategic of firearms enthusiasts to make exaggerated claims about the record of civilians armed with guns stopping mass murders. It happens sometimes but not all that often, actually.

I didn't make any exaggerated claims. I was very specific in noting that the only instance in which civilians stopped a mass shooting was the sniper in 1966.

[sabrina 1]

141. When you say 'stopped by people with firearms', you are talking about the police right?

I haven't checked all the cases you mentioned, but I don't remember Cho, eg, being stopped by a civilian with a gun either.

Are you saying all those shooters were stopped by police or by civilians who happened to be armed?

I can look them up.

If it was the police, then that is expected, that is why people call the police so has nothing to do with civilians having been there armed.

[GreenStormCloud]

148. VT was a gun-free zone. CCWers were not allowed to have guns there.

You can see how well Cho obeyed that law. The Batman movie was in a "No Guns Allowed" theater.

[sabrina 1]

161. What I see is how easily both of them were able to obtain weapons

which means that the law on preventing weapons in the hands of lunatics need to be reviewed and strengthened.

I am not for preventing law-abiding, sane people from owning guns. What I don't understand is why some people who want to retain that right are not willing to admit that something needs to be done to keep people like Cho and Holmes from ever having access to guns.

And yes, I know it is not just a gun problem. Our Mental HC system is practically non-existent and it contributes by its negligence to these tragedies. I hope that too will be addressed so that this massacre, unlike all the others, will not simply be forgotten without anything being done to prevent the next one.

And that is up to the people.

[GreenStormCloud]

165. Your belief that you can keep dangeous stuff away from people is very naive.

You want a more peaceful world. That is good. You think that by restricting access to things that can be used to hurt others that people like the Batman killer can be stopped. That is naive. He spent months planning the crime. He had a determination to do what he did. He would have found a way around any gun ban, or he would have used other MORE lethal (and cheaper) means for mass murder. Some years ago an arsonist killed 87 people at a night club using gasoline and a match. Do you want to restrict access to gasoline to stop such crimes?

The Batman killer left booby-trapped bombs in his apartment. Be glad he didn't use bombs in the theater.

Determination and ingenuity will find a way around any roadblocks that you may erect. You will only succeed in annoying the law-abiding.

You can buy the ingredients to make explosives in any supermarket.

You can buy the ingredients to make poison gas in any supermarket.

You can buy the tools and materials to make a gun in any hardware store. The WWII Sten gun, (a submachine gun) was designed to be manufactued in bicycle repair shops.

[Atypical Liberal]

149. Police or civilian makes no difference - it's the gun that makes the difference.

As I said, only one mass shooting event had civilians helping the police shoot at the attacker. In another case two off-duty police officers went to their cars and got their weapons.

But police or civilian, it makes no difference. The point is, people with guns showed up to stop the mass murderer. It's not the badge that stopped them, it's the gun.

[sabrina 1]

160. So that list you made showing how 'guns stopped mass killings' was mostly

guns in the hands of the police and we still do not know how many times armed civilians were among the crowd during these tragic events but were unable to do anything to stop them.

[Atypical Liberal]

163. As I said.

I said all this in my original post. I was quite clear about who was involved in each shooting. Yes, most of the time police with guns stop the mass shootings.

It wasn't the badge or uniform that enabled them to stop the shooting. It was their guns.

That is the point - it doesn't matter whether it is a police officer, a civilian, or Mickey Mouse, it's people with guns who stop these kinds of things when they happen.

If a police officer can do it, a civilian can do it.

[JoePhilly]

12. It happens frequently in the fantasies of right wing lunatics.

But in their version, the gunman, who is wearing body armor, is taken down by a single shot. And everyone is saved.

[4th law of robotics]

36. 49 states have some CHL law, millions of permits have been issued

and as we're told, mass shootings like these are a common occurrence in the US now.

So it seems likely if the scenario of a CHL holder wildly shooting around a crowded room in response to some other shooter and killing or wounding dozens more bystanders were a realistic scenario it would have happened by now.

This is more of the "streets will run with blood" nonsense following every rollback of some silly gun control law (that just so happened to coincide with a reduction in violent crime).

[PavePusher]

54. I keep trying to get a presentation of evidence....

but all I receive is hypotheticals and mocking snarkness.

Odd, really. People so desiring to prove their point should have better arguments than that.

[4th law of robotics]

74. Pretty much

I'm starting to suspect that (dun Dun DUN!) they don't have any evidence for their claims.

That it's all "gut feelings".

[pnwmom]

71. We had a case here near us at the state park. It was at a family picnic area

and suddenly there were guns blazing. To outsiders, it was impossible to know who was the original shooter, and who was defending.

The only reason we don't have more situations like that is because most people don't carry guns out in public.

[PavePusher]

142. Citation, please? n/t

[pnwmom]

143. Here's one. This article doesn't mention it, but the guy who fired

the "warning shot" into the air was one of the people who got killed. Big mistake. As far as I know, this case hasn't been prosecuted yet. The police were having trouble determining who the shooters were.

And, by the way, there were children among the picnickers. I don't remember if any of them were caught in the crossfire.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-18/justice/washington.park.shooting_1_park-shootout-deadly-shootout-separate-gatherings?_s=PM:CRIME

One group was picnicking at the park, while another was celebrating a birthday, authorities said. Urquhart said a fight broke out between the two groups and someone fired a gun into the air.

"Then there were lots of guns and lots of gunfire," he said.

Police said several guns were found at the scene. Authorities scouring the area where the shootings occurred recovered at least 20 spent casings Sunday, Urquhart said.

"It's unbelievable. It boggles the mind how dangerous this was," Urquhart said, adding authorities are "amazed that more people weren't hurt."

[PavePusher]

167. Sounds more like gang rivalry to me.

I don't think anyone involved had a lawful reason to fire or even draw a gun.

It would be nice if they'd done a later follow-up with more evidence.

[pnwmom]

168. The adults involved were in their thirties, and they were picnicking with their children.

No one has suggested that the white man who fired the first warning shot (to break up a fist fight) was a gang member. Calling it gang rivalry seems a stretch, although some people are more comfortable thinking that might be the explanation. It's easier to distance ourselves psychologically from perceived gang members.

You are right: no one there had a lawful reason to draw a gun. In fact, in that park it was illegal to do so. But that's the problem with easily available guns. It's hard to keep them out of places where they don't belong, and out of the hands of people who might misuse them.

And the people who thought they'd be safer if they carried guns along to their party were sadly deluded.

[PavePusher]

169. I don't think gang rivalry is much of a stretch at all.

First sentance of the third paragraph of your citation (and thank you for that, by the way).

And it has nothing to do with age. Gang members run the entire spectrum of ages, genders, colors and ethnicities, economics... And you will not keep them from carrying weapons wherever they want to, unless you resort to pretty drastic measures. Note that they obtain weapons even inside maximum security prisons.

Somehow, I don't think that legally disarming the demographic that isn't the problem will have the effect you seem to want.

[GreenStormCloud]

147. It has happened several times.

Pearl, MS school shooting. Shooter captured by armed citizen who retrieved his gun from his car.
South Richmond, VA store shooting - Shooter shot by CCWer.
New Life Church shooting - Gunman shot by CCWer. (She was NOT a security guard as is sometimes reported.)
Appalachian School of Law - Gunman stopped by students who retrieved their guns from their cars.
Bar in Winnemucca NV - Gunman shot by CCWer.

There have been several others, but I don't have time right now to google them. But they do happen.

[coalition_unwilling]

3. Watch the firefight scene in "Platoon" (or the beach landing scene in "Saving

Private Ryan&quot .

Jesus, it staggers the imagination.

[PavePusher]

56. And those are relevent to a crime in progress.... how, exactly? n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

91. I've never been in armed combat and cannot say this from

personal experience. But when a bunch of people are armed and all firing weapons at once, you have a general all-around firefight. My Dad, who fought and was wounded in Korea, says that no one knows exactly what the fuck is going on in a real firefirght where everyone is firing at the same time. He said that the scene in "Platoon" comes the closest to an accurate depiction of a firefight.

I got the distinct impression you were arguing that everyone should carry a firearm, in order to stop people like Holmes.The reality, according to my Dad, is that it never works out nice and neat in practice the way you'd like it to when everyone is shooting their weapons off at the same time in reality.

If I misunderstood your intent upthread, please ignore the forgoing as directed at you personally.

[GreenStormCloud]

152. Self-defense shootings do NOT resemble a combat firefight.

There are dozens of video of self-defense shooting on youtube. In all of them you have exactly ONE defender who shoots the criminal(s). Usually only one criminal but sometimes more. One video has four armed criminals vs the one defender. The videos were taken by surveillance cameras.

Further, they are all very close range, rarely more than ten feet. That is NOT a typical military firefight distance.

Criminals are not enemy combat soldiers. They are predators looking for easy prey. An enemy combat unit will keep coming at you attempting to take your position, (Or if they are defending they will resist retreating.) for as long as they can. Criminals usually run like Hell once the first shots are fired at them.

It is always very clear who one needs to shoot in self-defense. You shoot the person that is attacking you.
These videos are a typical self-defense video:

&feature=related

&feature=related

[coalition_unwilling]

154. So I guess the personal testimony of PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE

and who said they thought Holmes' get-up and initial gunfire were part of an act connected to the movie carry no weight in your lone vigilante fantasies? The fact that tear gas may have been discharged prior to the commencement of shooting means nothing to you? And all the chaos of terrified people rushing for exits would not have played a role either?

Tell you what, I nominate you as DU's Vigilante in Chief. Go get 'em, tiger.

[GreenStormCloud]

156. So you make a personal attack instead of discussing the post?

BTW - I am a Vietnam Veteran.

My statement was that self-defense shootings are greatly different from combat and I stated how they are different, and posted some typical videos.

You could try discussing the differences, or you can make personal attacks.

[coalition_unwilling]

159. No matter how you try to spin it, the situation in Aurora could not

have been, by the testimony of eyewitness survivors, a simple self-defense shooting.

Another Vietnam Vet with whom I am personally acquainted here on DU has made the point that the situation in the theater was too fucking confusing for anyone to know exactly what to do, even if they wanted to somehow 'charge the shooter' or shoot back. Hence my reference to the 'firefight' metaphor and scenes from "Platoon."

So I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree as to the efficacy of self-defense shooting in this context. I'm obviously not going to convince you, nor you me.

[GreenStormCloud]

164. I have already posted, in another thread, that a CCWer at that movie wouldn't have been able to help

You have been trying to claim that all self-defense shooting have such a resemblance to a military firefight that the typical civilian would be helpless. That is what I am disputing. The TYPICAL self-defense shooting is at very close range, involves only small number of people and is over in seconds, usually less than three round used, rarely is a reload needed.

[Iggo]

155. Ew. Death porn. Gross.

[GreenStormCloud]

157. Reality. N/T

[Iggo]

158. Yep.

The fake stuff isn't real death porn.

[Marrah_G]

5. More people would have been dead

The good samaritans would have accidentally shot innocent people in the smoke and chaos.

[DocMac]

90. Can you imagine the chaos in a Roman battle?

I mean, what with swords flying about, and the confusion? Who would stand out and defend against a massacre?

That's what it feels like when you try to defend your ideology against some people who hold weapons above all else.

The middle ground on this matter is so small, no one can stand on it.

[Zax2me]

7. Then fewer would have died and fewer injured.

Anything better than being shot like fish in a barrel.

[JoePhilly]

16. The gunman was wearing body armor ... are the other armed people you imagine also wearing ...

body armor?

[randome]

19. Exactly what I was thinking.

It's never as simple as it seems, is it? Just add more guns to the mix. That would have fixed it!

[JoePhilly]

21. Exactly. The wild wild west folks don't seem to get this.

[PavePusher]

57. Even if a round doen't penetrate the "armor" (and it's really only armor if plates are installed)...

it still feels like being hit with a baseball bat. Only over a smaller area. And the "armor" (plates) cover a very small area, the vest only slightly larger. Lots of unarmored area to hit, even though you'd still aim for center-of-mass.

[bongbong]

111. Really?

You mean like when those two guys with body armor robbed the bank out in California a few years back? They were hit by dozens and dozens of bullets from the cops.

They must be SUPER HUMAN to withstand dozens of "feels like being hit with a baseball bat". I even saw the video, and when they got struck by a bullet they registered either no reaction, or perhaps they were just laughing too hard to care.



Once again, as always, gun-religion doesn't meet the test of reality.

[PavePusher]

115. As I understand the reports, this shooter had only a normal torso vest.

I don't know if it had SAPI plates in it or not.

The Hollywood Bank Shooters were wearing highly modified armor with extra protection added, and home-made armor on legs and arms. They were nearly walking tanks. That's why the police had to borrow rifles from a nearby gun shop.

You really ought to do some research before you spout off, it would reduce your public foolishness... I think...

[bongbong]

135. LOL

> You really ought to do some research before you spout off, it would reduce your public foolishness

This preceded by:

> As I understand the reports, this shooter had only a normal torso vest.
> I don't know if it had SAPI plates in it or not.

So, "as I understand", and "I don't know" means you're an airtight source of info, huh?

[PavePusher]

137. Meaning that information is still being developed and may/will change over time.

Good to know you don't acknowledge the existance of uncertainty or doubt.

[bongbong]

138. What spin!

Spinning is SOP for gun-religionists. You made a claim, I showed that claim was specious, then you backed out of your original claim. Now you're trying to be on the offensive to distract from the fact that you made an unsupported claim.

Classic right-wing and/or gun-religionist tactics. HILARIOUS! Now I see why you guys think you "win" debates.

[Lizzie Poppet]

120. Body armor doesn't do what I suspect you might think it does.

The sort of body armor Holmes was wearing doesn't allow one to shrug off hits to the armor like they didn't happen (unless the hits are from pretty low-powered rounds). The armor allows one to survive hits that would kill or seriously injure an unarmored person. A hit from something like a .40 S&W, for example (popular self-defense handgun round) would still kick like a mule. It's entirely possible someone could have staggered Holmes, allowing him to be tackled, or for a follow up shot to the head.

Is it likely? Not in my opinion. I agree with the many posters that with the chaos, the gas, the dark, etc., it would have been a very difficult situation in which to get shots on target. Additionally, no responsible shooter would have fired at all unless they could be assured no bystanders were in the line of fire, in front of or behind Holmes. There are lots of situations in which firearms aren't going to be able to provide self-defense. I think this was very probably one of them.

[Zoeisright]

105. HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!

Wow, that's quite a fairy tale.

[slampoet]

8. Also add to that Sound FX from the movie in surround sound

yikes.

[ananda]

9. Yeah.

More guns is NOT the answer.

[leveymg]

10. It's called a "Polish Firing Squad" (apologies to Pol. They all make a circle and shoot each other.

[Gold Metal Flake]

33. People call that a "circular firing squad". nt

[PavePusher]

58. Cite to evidence of occurances, please. n/t

[hughee99]

11. Who knows if anyone in the theater was armed

and perhaps thought twice about firing away in a crowded theater when their eyes were filled with tear gas.

[slackmaster]

22. IMO it's very unlikely that nobody in the audience was carrying a weapon, be it an off-duty cop,

...or just some Joe Blow with a CCW permit.

People who have been properly trained in defensive use of firearms know not to risk taking a shot in any situation where a miss, or a round that fully penetrates the intended target, could hit an innocent bystander.

[hughee99]

37. I don't know the demographics of the area, so I'm not sure how likely it is

that someone had a weapon, but I can't imagine this would be the sort of scenario a responsible gun owner would draw and fire in.

[shadowrider]

151. Agreed. First the gun owner would have to sort out the chaos, then fight through teargas

then get close enough to shoot (putting him/her in the line of fire IF the shooter saw them approaching), then they'd have to deliver a head shot (difficult under normal circumstances) all the while fighting increased heartrate, sweating, and blood pressure. A headshot (and that may not have worked since he was wearing a helmet) would have been required because of the tactical gear the shooter was wearing including a throat protector. In other words, I don't think it would have done any good whatsoever and would have resulted in another death.

This guy had this planned, meticulously. My question is, why did he allow himself to be captured and not put up any fight?

[jeff47]

63. Actually, it's extremely likely, since this theater bans firearms (nt)

[apocalypsehow]

13. A lot more people dead, and the gun crowd spinning, spinning, spinning.

Just like they're doing now.

BTW, do you notice how defensive they get when massacres like this occur? Myself, if I had a deadly little hobby I liked to indulge in, but didn't think the results of hundreds of thousands of others indulging in that deadly little hobby was a danger to the public, I wouldn't be up here frantically trying to deflect attention away from the consequences of my deadly little hobby when some deranged person inflicted it on society somewhere, killing people. I'd simply stay in my basement sub-forum, and continue to regale others who shared my passion for my deadly little hobby about what wonderful "enthusiasts" we all were.

It speaks of a collective, widespread guilty conscience that we're seeing so much raw anger being spewed at the vast majority of us who want sensible gun control up here in GD...

[Marinedem]

14. Personally,

Personally, I take my chances any day of the week with 10 other concealed carriers than to be at the mercy of a relentless killer.

Call me crazy.

[JoePhilly]

18. You also wearing body armor like the shooter was wearing?

Or should we also be telling people to carry and also wear such protection?

[lunatica]

23. Your statement doesn't even make sense

How do you know none of the 10 concealed carriers are insane? And why do you even want to take 'your chances' with them?

[Marinedem]

51. Way to miss the point.

What happens in your ridiculous scenario? These Manchurian CCWers stand shoulder to shoulder with the killer? Seriously, what is your point.

Why would I prefer 10 CCWers to none?

If you can't figure out the answer to that, then I'd be wasting my time by explaining it.

[jeff47]

62. No, first CCW'er shoots at the real shooter

2nd CCW'er thinks the first CCW'er is a second shooter and fires at him. Attracting the attention of CCW'er 3 and 4. And so on.

The alternative is the CCW permit holders hold their fire because they can't identify the shooter in the dark and tear gas, in which case carrying is irrelevant.

It takes a lot of training for Soldiers, Marines and Police to be effective in a firefight, and CCW permit holders are not likely to have such training. Or at least to not have such training recently.

[lunatica]

121. OK. I see you never make sense

proceed.

[HooptieWagon]

15. In the confusion,

theres a greater likelyhood of shooting innocent people or each other, or of being shot by responders, than there is of shooting the shooter (who was wearing ballistic gear anyway).

While I do support the 2nd Amendment, IMO the NRA goes way over the limit in promoting their "if everyone was armed, this wouldn't happen" agenda. The vast majority of gun owners simply aren't trained to respond when bullets are flying. Even cops and military get it wrong all too often, and they have extensive training. NRA needs to tone down their rhetoric, and their everybody must be armed at all times political agenda. And the anti-gun crowd needs to drop the "repeal the 2nd " talk. Then we can start having serious discussion about preserving responsible gun-owner's rights, while keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths.

[Daemonaquila]

48. Oh, NRA, NRA...

They make valid points occasionally, but then they go all nut-job with exactly this kind of claim. We have to have a sane discussion about weapons, not just firearms, in this country. Then we may be able to have a partly armed population while keeping guns out of the hands of people who really shouldn't have access, and spend more effort on making sure that those who carry are properly trained.

(True story - I am a disability attorney who regularly goes through armed security at a federal facility. A while back, it was time for the guards there to retest. A couple of them were freaked out about it. One was quite frank that his diabetes was affecting his eyesight, and he hadn't kept up any kind of practice since the last test. While I liked him a lot because he's the kind of guy who can and does deal with most situations without invoking violence, should you REALLY be carrying, especially as an armed guard, if you doubt your competence to pull your weapon?)

[slackmaster]

20. How many people in that theater actually were carrying licensed, concealed weapons?

Probably more than zero.

[edhopper]

24. Even Police miss their target

more often than not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?pagewanted=all

[sarisataka]

26. What we don't know

Odds are there was at least one carrier there, likely more, who did not shoot. Was it too dark, too much risk of hitting an innocents, we will never know.
If there was a carrier in the 2nd row who shot him after his first shot- would that person be the hero of the day?
There wasn't so we won't ever know that either.

I agree the majority of people have no training to help in this situation. One well trained shooter, in the right position might have made a huge difference.

[Tejas]

27. How do you know there weren't?

[slackmaster]

28. Probably a mistaken assumption that anyone who carries a concealed firearm is eager to use it

And will jump on any opportunity to come out blasting.

[Tejas]

30. Correct, the Giffords shooter was subdued without gunplay by the CCW.

Some can't seem to accept the idea of a CCW resolving a situation without gunplay, hence their pathetic bloody fantasies today.

[4th law of robotics]

35. What if, and stay with me here

everyone in the theater had been armed with a machine gun and instead of shooting at the killer they had run out in to the streets firing wildly in all directions (as gun owners are wont to do) killing hundreds or even thousands. What then!?!?

[Tejas]

38. That depends on a few things.

Do they have spare mags? Do they load their mags like the one on the front of the H&K catalog? Earplugs come into play too. Looks great on TV when Bruce Willis empties that 500rd cLiP but in reality a hundred machine guns can present a problem real quick for the little ones when it comes to hearing protection, you know and I know you have to think of the children.

[4th law of robotics]

45. Multiple spare extended mags

all filled with cop killer high velocity armor piercing military grade hollow points with heat seeking tips.

Which would have been totally real and illegal under the Assault weapons ban.

[Tejas]

50. Well THAT presents a problem.

You see, I try and pay attention to the wording and contex of posts by all members, some more than others and needless to say you peeked my interest with the machineguns. The problem arises in that with such an incredible hail of blazing hot death comes the environmental impact.
That's right, there will be tons of empty cases laying in the street...like in the movie Nicholas Cage starred in - Lord of War...and with that visual you have triggered a primal instinct in me and I must now go watch Lord of War for the eleventy billionth time so i will have to get back with you on any accurate/realistic logistics.

[slackmaster]

73. Do shooters accumulate more Life Points based on hits scored?

Do hits against other shooters count, or only hits on the bad guy?

How many Health Points do shooters lose for each bullet hit they take from other shooters?

Do extra ammo magazines appear without warning at random places and stay available for only a few seconds?

Can shooters carry Life Points over from one level to the next?

Can shooters who have accumulated extra Wealth Points buy additional ammunition, or body armor?

[4th law of robotics]

84. Whoa, this isn't some kids game

they only get life points by completing missions.

And there are only a few save points.

/also shooting barrels will either make them explode or reveal more ammo.

[slackmaster]

98. Sorry, I haven't done much gaming since my son played Super Mario Brothers and DOOM in the '90s

I worked for a game company for several years, but our products were educational software cleverly disguised as games.

[jeff47]

66. Because this theater bans firearms. (nt)

[slackmaster]

75. That would not surprise me. Do you have a source to verify that?

[jeff47]

77. The sign on the door count?

I've been to the theater on other occasions. I didn't take a picture of the sign on the door, since I didn't know there would be a shooting 3 years later.

[slackmaster]

81. Is it a No Smoking, No Flash Photos, No Food or Drinks, No Bare Feet, and No Firearms sign

Or just a No Firearms sign?

[jeff47]

82. Gun with a circle and a line through it, plus text. (nt)

[slackmaster]

100. Thanks! Does CO state law require patrons to comply with such a sign, as they do in TX and AZ?

TIA for an authoritative answer.

[jeff47]

140. Hire your own lawyer. (nt)

[Tejas]

104. "3 years later" - you haven't been there in 3 years?

[jeff47]

139. Roughly. I moved. (nt)

[4th law of robotics]

32. It's true, guns are useless in this scenario

that's why you should call the cops so they can show up and disarm the attacker with their ninja skills.

[HiPointDem]

41. how do you know ten people weren't armed? from what i read, most people didn't even get

what was happening and couldn't see well due to smoke.

[DrDan]

42. not just the "repukes" - plenty of support for that scenario right here

[TheCowsCameHome]

72. Gun strokers are usually ready and eager to save the day.

.........in their fantasies

[DrDan]

76. too many John Wayne movies

[TheCowsCameHome]

78. safely seated in old movie theater.

With nothing more dangerous than chewing gum under the seat.

[Daemonaquila]

44. False premise.

This has nothing to do with whether more people should be armed, or not. NO gun owner in his or her right mind would have started shooting back in that theater - it would be sheer insanity. I was 100% with you until the final sentence, which is frankly a non-sequitur. Whether nobody or 100% of the audience was armed, the result should, and likely would, be the same. I have a huge problem with the assumption that if someone in the audience was armed, of course they'd make an idiotic decision and start adding to the body count.

[jeff47]

67. Then having them armed doesn't matter.

So why risk a few of them deciding to play hero?

I'm not into banning gun rights, but if you're gonna say none of them would shoot, then being armed doesn't matter.

[cynatnite]

96. Panic can make people do some stupid things...

But then, sometimes instinct can be the smartest decision. I heard on TV earlier that someone had checked the apartment where the loud music was coming from. They turned the door knob and saw that the door was not completely closed. Her instinct said to leave it alone. Doing so saved her life and countless others.

It's easy for us to look back now and comment on it. We can make a lot of assumptions, but in all honesty who would be in their right mind when bullets are flying and tear gas is blinding your eyes.

I honestly don't know how I would have handled the situation. I hope I never find out.

[unblock]

47. no, no, no! that's not the way the story goes! remember highlander? there can be only one!

you really need to watch more movies.

besides, honest citizens carrying guns are always level-headed and cool and cautious when they are unexpectedly put in a life and death situation for which they usually have zero training.

[PavePusher]

59. Yes, just like what happens in every other defensive shooting.

Why, you could probably swim across that trail of blood in the street..... and all because of the legal carriers....

,so there's no misunderstanding.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

60. This is what a friend of mine just said to me. Even if it is a legal weapon, she said that lives

could've been saved. I'm just disgusted!!

[Chorophyll]

61. Not to mention it's dark and there's a huge screen with a loud movie on it.

The only thing anyone with any presence of mind could do would be to drop to the ground or try to herd people to the exits.

[TheCowsCameHome]

68. You beat me to it!

But that wouldn't stop the armchair wannabe heros from having fantasies.

[Chorophyll]

69. Yup. I'm pretty sure the majority of armed-citizen-heroes

would be crapping themselves, just like everybody else.

[Jolly Jumper]

70. Weird...

For some reason I thought about the Ford Theater. And no I'm not even trying to joke about this,

[valerief]

80. 50 people would be dead now. nt

[Tejas]

106. Then THANK GOODNESS there weren't 10 armed LEO's there.

[valerief]

116. Hell, yes. They would have shot and tased everyone. 100 dead. nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

118. They've been shot dead or wounded, too.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

85. They picture this scene

The idiots remember it like it was real and not fiction.

[maindawg]

87. this went on for 20 minutes

so if there were CC they had time to assess the situation.

[rrneck]

89. How do you know

there weren't ten armed people there?

[slackmaster]

101. See this sub-thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002985577#post66

[rrneck]

103. Ah. Now I'm learning. Thanks. nt

[Tejas]

107. Nobody knows.

There are some here that might think CCW is not allowed because they read some hearsay that CCW is prohibited at that theatre due to some sign with a cartoon on it. The jury is still out on that, so no facts yet.

[rrneck]

108. And there could have been the odd scofflaw I guess. nt

[JI7]

109. you can't always know , even in war with trained military, there is "Friendly Fire"

[Go Vols]

114. +1

[rufus dog]

113. North Hollywood shootout of 1997

A number of cops, close to equal to the number in the theater, take an hour to cut down two guys on a bright and sunny Southern California day!

These are trained resources in a much more controlled environment.

[Honeycombe8]

117. They saw the one guy come in. He stood there for a few secs, surveying the room. nt

[liberal N proud]

126. Here we go with that argument "if everyone had guns we would be safer"

This I said after every shooting incident such as this.

I am bookmarking this to show the next one who denies this statement was ever made.


BTW: we would have more people shot if 10 people would have been packing.

[regnaD kciN]

128. I'm pretty sure...

BTW: we would have more people shot if 10 people would have been packing.

...that was the OP's point.

[4th law of robotics]

162. What about the notion that gun-free zones are inherently safer?

How does that jive with this?

/FYI the theater was a gun-free zone.

[DesMoinesDem]

127. The body count would be far, far less.

Your delusional fantasy of there being more people dead has no basis in reality. If I was in a room with a mass murderer I would much, much, much rather have other people in there with guns trying to fight back than have no one fighting back.

[Carolina]

144. dark theater, loud

soundtrack, shooter's element of surprise, people's screams and attempts to flee alone led to choas and mayhem. Yet you advocate more guns in mix. Brilliant

Many years ago in DC, a criminal got hold of an officer's gun in the Homicide Unit of the DC Police main headquarters on Indiana Ave. A homicide detective and an FBI agent were killed. Why? With all the armed people there, trained and skilled?


Because perps typically have the ELEMENTS of SURPRISE & SHOCK to their advantage!!!!

[DesMoinesDem]

146. You would rather let a mass murderer shoot everyone in a theater

than fight back.

In regards to your story it is not surprising at all that people were shot. If you walk into a room and start shooting you are going to kill people, regardless of whether or not someone else in the room has a gun. No one is suggesting that had people been armed in the theater that no one would be shot. What they are saying is less people would be shot. If 5 or 10 people in the room were armed the gunman would be shot or dead before he was able to shoot 70 people. BTW, I researched the DC shooting and from what I could gather everyone on the floor was unarmed except for one police officer that was killed.

[Horse with no Name]

132. The only one in the theater that was wearing

body armor and a throat protector would have been safe.

[Shankapotomus]

145. Exactly

More shoot outs doesn't equal a better gun policy.