The crazy concealed weapon scenario: IF someone had a concealed weapon in Aurora theater incident

[skip fox]

that person could have killed Holmes.

BUT the truth is that the person with the concealed weapon, not James Holmes, would be dead now, since Holmes was very well protected (body armor) and someone shooting at him would have announced him- or herself as a ready target.

(By the way, in the Giffords shooting one young man drew a concealed gun and was ready to shoot . . . but he thought one of the men who was disarming the shooter was the culprit. He would have shot not just an innocent person but a heroic one.)

Edited for clarity of argument.

[loli phabay]

1. not sure of this logic, can you definetly say that someone couldnt have pulled a gun and douoble tap

double tapped holmes in the head, im having difficulty at what you are trying to propose. Has no bystander ever pulled a gun and stopped someone on one of these sprees

[skip fox]

3. He was protected head to toe. Could a handgun provide a head shot in all that chaos?

Not in the real world.

It would be like the police trying to drop those two highly protected bank robbers in CA a few years back.

After multiple deaths one policeman managed a head shot. But even with rifles and snipers they could get these guns until after great carnage.

[loli phabay]

7. and once again are you saying that there is no chance of him being stopped, seems you are making

a definitive statement. who knows what might have happened but to state %100 that it coulkdnt have been stopped is like stating %100 that it could.

[DocMac]

27. I'm just sitting here and reading this drivel.

Am I to understand that people who carry weapons are under some code to protect those who do not?

Might I add that i'm drinking. I say that because it appears you are as well. 100% this verses 100% that?

How about you claim, maybe 20% chance that someone will save someone elses ass? Otherwise, link please.

[loli phabay]

31. rofl i think you need to reread what i said, the %100 is in regards to the posters belief that an

armed victim would not have changed the scenario not %1. Not i repeat not an actual statistic. stay thirsty my friend.

[DocMac]

44. Think again.

I'm not here to amuse you. However, I will call you out on your writing skills and your ability to make a cohesive statement.

If you persist in tossing percentages about, be clear.

I'll drink as I am fit. You, Sir/mame, drink until you are satisfied.

[loli phabay]

46. i bow to you and to your grand effort to amuse me, drink on

[DocMac]

51. I wasn't asking permission.

None-the-less, i'll happily accept it. Take care, loli phabay.

[skip fox]

14. none has

[loli phabay]

19. i think they have......

[CreekDog]

53. yes, what movie?

[loli phabay]

63. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_mall_shooting i guess this was a movie

or the church that the spree was stopped, at least be honest and realise that these nutters have been stopped by people being armed and engaging them.

[sharp_stick]

18. I suppose it's possible

but the asshole had released a can of OC into the crowd so your handy dandy little "double tap" would have been through a fog and a face full of tears may well have hit the guy next to you trying to get the fuck out of the way.

[loli phabay]

23. and it could easily have been someone happening to stumble behind him

and then simply taking a contact shot into his skull, the problem here is the hypotyheticals, yes it could have happened this or that way but the point is we can never know whether someone trying to shoot him would have helped or hindered.

[skip fox]

58. Dozens of incidents and it's never happened. I guess the percent of possibility might be 3-5%.

What is the percent for error?

Most police chiefs are against CW laws. I wonder why?

[loli phabay]

61. go google as i said i found instances were people stopped sprees with their own guns

i guess nost police chiefs are against alot of stuff that is your rights but i guess its okay if its your own personal bugbear.

[skip fox]

65. Here's the best I found (Wikipedia):

In Florida, which in 1987 introduced the "shall-issue" concealed carry law used as a model for other states, one study found that crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses.[91] However, another study suggests that in most states with shall-issue laws, there were increases in crime of all types.[92]

In a 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime, economics researcher John Lott's analysis of crime report data claims a statistically significant effect of concealed carry laws on crime, with more permissive concealed carry laws correlated with a decrease in overall crime. Lott studied FBI crime statistics from 1977 to 1993 and found that the passage of concealed carry laws resulted in a murder rate reduction of 8.5%, rape rate reduction of 5%, and aggravated assault reduction of 7%.[93]

In a 2003 article, Yale Law professors John J. Donohue III and Ian Ayres have claimed that Lott's conclusions were largely the result of a limited data set and that re-running Lott's tests with more complete data (and nesting the separate Lott and Mustard level and trend econometric models to create a hybrid model simultaneously calculating level and trend) yielded none of the results Lott claimed.[92] However Lott has recently updated his findings with further evidence. According to the FBI, during the first year of the Obama administration the national murder rate declined by 7.4% along with other categories of crime which fell by significant percentages.[94] During that same time national gun sales increased dramatically. According to Mr. Lott 450,000 more people bought guns in November 2008 than November 2007 which represents a 40% increase in sales, a trend which continued throughout 2009.[93] The drop in the murder rate was the biggest one-year drop since 1999, another year when gun sales soared in the wake of increased calls for gun control as a result of the Columbine shooting.[93]

In reporting on Lott's original analysis The Chronicle of Higher Education has said that although his findings are controversial "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."[95]

The National Research Council, the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences, claims to have found "no credible evidence" either supporting or disproving Lott's thesis.[96] However, James Q. Wilson wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that all of the Committee's own estimates confirmed Lott's finding that right-to-carry laws had decreased the murder rate and most of Lott's statistical analysis was inscrutable and survive virtually every reanalysis done by the committee.[97] On the Ayres and Donohue hybrid model showing more guns-more crime, the NAS panel stated: "The committee takes no position on whether the hybrid model provides a correct description of crime levels or the effects of right-to-carry laws."[98]

A 2008 article by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell uses a more extensive data set and projects effects of the Ayres and Donohue hybrid model beyond a five-year span. Though their data set renders an apparent reduction in the cost of crime, Donohue and Ayres point out that the cost of crime increased in 23 of the 24 jurisdictions under scrutiny. Florida was the only jurisdiction showing positive effects from Shall-Issue Laws. Donohue and Ayres question the special case of Florida as well.[99]

Using publicly available media reports, the Violence Policy Center claims that from May 2007 through the end of 2009, concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. have killed at least 117 individuals, including 9 law enforcement officers (excluding cases where individuals were acquitted, but including pending cases). There were about 25,000 murders by firearm that period,[100][101] meaning that concealed carry permit holders committed less than 1% of the murders by firearm. Furthermore, a large number of the victims were killed in extended suicides, most of which took place in the home of the shooter, where arms can be possessed without special permits. VPC also includes in its numbers several homicides using only long guns and several instances of accidental discharge.[102]

According to FBI police crime reports, in 2008 there were 14,180 murders and 616 justifiable homicides (of which 371 were performed by law enforcement) in the United States.[103] However, the FBI Uniform Crime Report states that the justifiable homicide statistic does not represent eventual adjudication by medical examiner, coroner, district attorney, grand jury, trial jury or appellate court; few US jurisdictions allow a police crime report to adjudicate a homicide as justifiable, resulting in a undercount in the UCR table. The vast majority of defensive gun uses (DGUs) do not involve killing or even wounding an attacker, with government surveys showing 108,000 (NCVS) to 23 million (raw NSPOF) DGUs per year, with ten private national surveys showing 764,000 to 3.6 million DGU per year.[104][105]

In 2009, Public Health Law Research,[106] an independent organization, published an evidence summary concluding there is not enough evidence to establish the effectiveness of "Shall-Issue" laws as a public health intervention to reduce violent crime.[107]

[loli phabay]

66. you know it would have been easier for you to google stopping shooting sprees.

but i figure you still think its never happened. well no point pulling a plank

[skip fox]

69. One guy stoppe a shooting spree who managed to get the robber's gun. This roober, who was on a spree

was not into mass shootings lie Aurora and it wasn't a CW.

Otherwise I come up empty on Google, but then I'm not great on computers.

Maybe you can list some which fit the scenario we've been discussing. I already allowed that a CW might be helpful (even outside the movies).

[loli phabay]

72. the one i linked to was a guy on a spree who was engaged by an off duty cop

i know there was one in a church somewhere and if i remember rightly another at a law school in virginia. they do happen and whos to know how many others were stopped before they escalated. Think about it if theres gonna be guys like this wouldnt you at least like to have a chance against him even a small one rather than hiding behind something praying that he walks by you.

[skip fox]

80. I didn't see and can't find your link.

Besides, we weren't talking talking about off-duty cops but citizens with a CW.

As I wrote elsewhere, filght marshalls, police, FBI, etc. should have weapons since they've been well trained, know the responsibility, and are never actually off-duty.

[loli phabay]

83. dosent matter if its a cop or not its someone engaging an active shooter

and if you dont think that there are people with more training out there than your average cop then you dont go to ranges much.

[HuckleB]

67. While he's spraying automatic weapon fire in your direction?

Through gas, in the dark? Hello? That's not likely, no. Not even close to likely.

[loli phabay]

70. and in this scenario whos to say that you are not standing right next to the guy who walked past you

so its simply a case of a contact shot to the head, forgoodnesssake i would have loved for there to have been someone there who did exactly this as sson as he opened fire. We dont know what would have happened if someone had returned fire though it couldnt have been much worse unless they used a RPG and missed.

[skip fox]

73. More likely that someone could have jumped him (like Fight 93).

After all, he was weighed down with limited vision. This has worked in the past (Flight 93, Giffords), but not as I can tell the CW scenario.

[loli phabay]

75. if i can jump on you then i can place my weapon against you and pull the trigger

i know in a situation like this i would prefer to do a contact shot to his head than try to wrestle him.

[HuckleB]

79. Jumping him can be done on impulse.

Your fantasy option takes much longer, and would likely have put you in the range of his automatic fire.

[loli phabay]

84. how slow do you think drawing a weapon is, if im close enough to jump you then im close enough to

draw my weapon and fire. The impulse to jump on someone is no more an action than me drawing my glock.

[HuckleB]

98. A lot slower than the guy spraying the theatre with automatic gun fire is...

Dude. You are living a fantasy.

[HuckleB]

78. It was a dark theatre, and smoke was blurring vision, and confusing everyone.

This supposition is just pointless and bizarre.

[HuckleB]

76. What?

Fantasy is not reality. Cut the crap.

[loli phabay]

85. no the reality is we dont know what would have happened if someone had engaged him

but as i said with 70 shot it couldnt have been much worse. unless they were using a concealed RPG and missed him.

[HuckleB]

100. Oh, brother.

Actually, we do know what would likely have happened. Unfortunately, you don't want to recognize it.

[RC]

103. And don't forget the body armor.

[HuckleB]

107. Exactly.

I think that had been brought with this poster before, but he/she still thinks he/she would have been a superhero and saved the day.

<facepalm>

[rufus dog]

82. you ever see the video in LA with the bank robbers in Body Armor?

The were walking down the street, on a sunny Souther California day, and dozens of cops didn't get off a shot that took them down. So your argument is someone in a dark theater with less training is going to pull off the shot?

Tell me you have something better.

[loli phabay]

86. you dont know, neither do i, thats the point there are so many variables

people here talk about jumping the guy i simply say that a contact shot is much easier than jumping him especially in the dark.

[rufus dog]

88. I offer you historical evidence regarding how difficult the task was on a bright SoCal day

You offer up a false equivalency and then an arrogant response as to what you think is easier. YOU KNOW JACK FUCKING SHIT!

FAIL!

[loli phabay]

89. sorry obviously you dont see how even in the dark its easier to shoot someone from 1 inch

than to shoot at someone from range. I dont get why you believe the person who would have a weapon would have to be distance from our active shooter, we dont know if the range would be 1 foot or 50 thats the point. And what historical evidence did you show for someone defending themselves in a movie theatre i must have missed that part or do you really believe that all active shooter scenarios are the same.

[rufus dog]

90. asshole - what historical evidence do you provide

JACK FUCKING SHIT! just pure conjecture.

Here is a fact, I can beat the living shit out of fucking assholes who spout bullshit nine out of ten times!

Now in a movie theater some dickhead might get in a sucker punch at close range but that wimp will get a mother fucking ass kicking ten out of ten times.

Wanna go see a show?

[loli phabay]

92. lol internet cardboard gangster.

you know somehow i doubt even half of what your claiming, but i will leave you to your fantasies as you obviously......

[rufus dog]

93. et tu loli

If you are ever in Southern Cal send me a message, we can go see a movie.

[loli phabay]

94. somehow i dont think that will happen.. im an east coast creature :)

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. I'm surprised

someone hasn't suggested a patron could have stopped it.

[skip fox]

4. They have, one Louisiana politician. I'm arguing against them and the argument

that the answer to such gun tragedies is "more guns."

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Someone really thinks Holmes could have been stopped in his tracks?

Crazy.

[skip fox]

6. This comes up every time by the NRA and others

although it is unrealistic (how many trained to keep cool and shoot even if they can accurately identify the shooter) and it has not yet stopped one of these incidents. . . . except, of course, in the movies.

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. True, it does.

I don't see how it possibly could have worked here.

[loli phabay]

22. and in real life, in churches, malls, bars dang dude i just googles shooting spree stopped and got

hits. even if it was just once at least be honest about it.

[skip fox]

30. Hard to read or understand.

[progressivebydesign]

49. Why do they reject the overwhelming statistics from non-gun-saturated countries? It's compelling. nt

[seabeyond]

9. he had body armor. he had a neck armor. the only place, back of neck.

chaos, confusion, bullets flying, dark, tear gas....

get real

[RB TexLa]

11. I wouldn't use my weapon unless it was me they were going to shoot. Want to keep someone from

shooting you, bring your own damn gun. If they are shooting you and not me, my gun is staying put.

[sharp_stick]

20. Such a stand up guy.

Way to be a good citizen there dude. One of the fuck you I'm not helping anyone get out of that burning car this suit is clean crowd.

You can always count on some posters to up the class level of this place.

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. Possibly. You simply can't state with any certainty how something like that would have ended.

I've been thinking about this very thing, in part because I have a CCW permit. Had I been there (and been carrying...which isn't always the case), what would I have done? Well, no one knows, really, until they actually are in such a situation.

However, if I did indeed decide to try an d intervene, it might well have gone down as you say. In the dark of a theater, I doubt I'd have been able to tell he was wearing armor, so I'd have done as I've been trained to do: shot at center-of-mass. The 9mm I'd likely have been carrying wouldn't come close to penetrating most such armor. Mind you, it's not (apparently) at all pleasant to be shot wearing body armor, even if it doesn't penetrate...people don't just shrug it off. Perhaps someone might have taken the opportunity, as Holmes was at least briefly staggered, to tackle him. This is one of the many things you simply can't predict about these kinds of incident.

Perhaps at that point, I'd have been the next target. Perhaps I'd have realized what was happening and risked a head shot in a crowded theater (probably not...but if there was no one behind him, perhaps). Hell, after the initial double-tap failed to take him down, I might have simply frozen..like I said, unless you've been in this sort of situation, you simply can't know how you'll react. I can't say I'd have been happy about dying...but I suppose there are worse ways to go that attempting to stop a monstrous, evil act.

But the point is, like most CCW permit holders, I've given this kind of thing some serious thought. Not for the purpose of self-aggrandizing daydreams or because I even remotely want to shoot anyone, but because dammit, if you're going to choose to carry a deadly weapon in public, you have the responsibility to think these things through. To at least try to prepare yourself mentally for such an eventuality. And to ensure you realize that there could be situations in which you shouldn't try to use the weapon, even if it's legally and morally justifiable.

[skip fox]

13. Dirty Harry could do it. But then Dirty Harry only exists in fiction.

How do you explain that it's never been done? And (with the Giffords case) when it was almost done, the target would have be wrong.

I understand your concern, but I also attend to reality (fully armored, dark theater, chaos, etc.)

The CW person wouold have made himself a prime target.

More guns are not the answer. Less guns are. (I also respect logic.)

[Lizzie Poppet]

59. Kinda the point of my post.

In the real world, there are a zillion variables...no one can say with any real degree of certainty what would have happened of someone had tried to resist Holmes. I tend to agree with you that they might very well have simply been the next victim...but again, it's all just speculation. My gut feeling in this is that it would have been a "no shoot" situation: despite the immediacy of the threat, there would very likely have been no way to responsibly attempt to intervene, at least not in any way that didn't stand a good chance of making things worse.

More guns, less guns...given political and social realities (and the >200 million firearms in private hands in this country), the status quo isn't going to change in the foreseeable future. As for the relationship iof this matter to logic (which I not only respect, I also sometimes teach...), arguments can be made from many, many perspectives on the gun issue, none of which violate the principles of logic, but which are nevertheless in opposition to each other. Funny old world, sometimes...

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. Ban body armor!

[skip fox]

16. That's one step.

But it's a small one.

[cherokeeprogressive]

24. I can make body armor with a sewing machine, cotton, drywall, and some dirt. Are you serious?

Where does it stop?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

101. However...

With regard to professional-grade kevlar body armor, there nobody but the police and the military who should be wearing it.

[krispos42]

17. In this case, yeah

The guy was armored, and I doubt that a CCW permittee would have had the nerves or the sight picture to shoot the guy through the goggles with a handgun. Dim, flickering light, screaming, gunfire, blood, smoke...


Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it just means that it likely wouldn't have happened here.


However, getting shot is suppose to hurt like a son-of-a-bitch, even if the bullet doesn't penetrate the armor. It might be enough to knock the wind out of him with a couple of shots to the chest.




At that point, you might as well shoot him. It certainly couldn't make anything worse.




I'd like to point out, though, that each time a CCW permittee shoots a home intruder or an armed robber, that death might have stopped a mass murder. We don't know, because the criminal was killed before he could finish his spree.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. I caught a knife once

I worked in several kitchens over the course of my life, and again and again it's drilled into us: "Never catch a falling knife." Knifes build momentum like you wouldn't believe and you'll carve up your hand terribly if you do try. Especially in a good kitchen where the knifes are well kept and always properly sharpened.

Well, you're also trained to see any knife you use straight through the washing and putting away. In fact, most kitchens I know make it your resposibility to wash, dry, and put away any knife you use. So I was. I'd used a large kitchen knife, washed it, dried it, and was putting it up in its place on the magnetic holder. And it slipped.

And just as quick, before I could even think, I reached down and grabbed the blade between my thumb and forefinger. Not a scratch, not a drop of blood, nothing. I caught it as neat as you please.

The other person in the kitchen was blown away. Myself, I was furious.

I held it in my hand there for a few seconds. I looked at how close the blade was to the web and muscle between my thumb and forefinger. I memorized the weight of the knife in my hand. I had been so stupid and so lucky. Then I took the handle in my other hand, put the knife away, and vowed never to try and catch a knife again.

One person with a well-placed shot could have taken Holmes out. Yes, it could have happened that way. And this person would have been a hero and everyone would be rejoicing, rightly so. And others would trumpet this event aloud as proof that all people should carry weapons and fire in these situations.

And I would be thinking about how I caught a falling knife once.

[loli phabay]

25. awesome thinking, I kinda wish that someone was there with their gun and took the lucky shot

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Wishful thinking is only ever that. n/t

[skip fox]

28. I'm afraid it's not realistic.

I'm not saying weapons can't help with home invasion, etc., but it seems like moovie logic in a case like this.

Movie and comic-book logic is written by people who have never been confronted by such violence.

Because of the university shootings, in Louisiana it was propose that all faculty members should be packing a weapon. I'm one such faculty member and I have known hundres of others for 31 years. There is only one (an ex-Army captain) who I would trust with such responsibility.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. That is what I am saying.

Having actually caught a knife, I don't advocate people do so and would never try to do so again. So much could have gone wrong there, and the number of variables in a crowded room being attacked by a madman are multiplied compared to that.

[skip fox]

34. I see. Makes sense.

[loli phabay]

54. yup but at the start of the massacre wouldnt you like to at least have the chance to fight back and

maybe get lucky, as my wife puts it when something bad happens she would rather feel her glock in her purse than her cellphone.

[Canuckistanian]

47. I see your point and agree

Real life is not nearly as neat as seen in idealized TV shows. And potential heroes more often end up in the morgue.

[loli phabay]

55. as opposed to what, just being a dead victim. At least i would like to have the chance to fight bac

yes someone shooting at the guy might not have helped but it couldnt have been much worse.

[joshcryer]

60. That is a freaking amazing metaphor. Thank you.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. Clearly you do not understand the physics WRT to body armor

I have not seen the detail of what kind of body armor he was wearing but bullets do not just bounce off of it like a tank. Ballistic armor slows the bullet down, but you end up absorbing the energy and it generally hurts like hell. It will certainly stop you from continuing aimed fire. He was also wearing a gas mask which significantly restricts field of view and field of regard.

Its not possible to tell at this point what would have happened if someone had shot back, even an off duty LEO. However, it was certainly possible for him to have killed/injured/disrupted by gunfire

Law enforcement agencies will recreate the event and analyze it. Unfortunately, that analysis will never be made public.

[skip fox]

33. Possible. Many things are possible.

I'm speaking of probabilities, and history seems to agree with me.

Movies agree with the CW senario. Why has it never happened/ And the one time it almost did (Gifford's as in the OP) it would have backfired.

Just because NRA says so, it doesn't make it wrong, but in the case of mass shootings . . .

(We are so ingrained in the pop culture that says this might work, I can understand even the very thoughtful responses, but when you're in the box, by definition, you don't know you're in the box. Here the box is the poliferation of Dirty Harry type movies. . . . By the way, I like these movies, I just don't harbor such illusions. Maybe because I've been around for a while . . . 65 years.)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. As I posted, the pros will do after action analysis on this

And I would like to see what they come up with.

The key in all of this is keeping your head. If you can, there is a much higher probability of surviving, where or not you return fire. That takes training, and even then it may not be enough.

[skip fox]

37. I, too, am a progressive professor. And agree with you mainly.

But even IF trained, the chances for error are great.

(Like the young man who--and to his credit he honestly topld the media--would have shot the wrong man.)

There might be a % chance of stopping something like this with training, but the percent for error is much greater, even with training. . . . I could be wrong, but that seems rather obvious.)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. Combat/Major incident training is a odd thing

The military trains people to do and suffer alarming things. However, they do not really know if it works until the balloon goes up. Much the same with cops and other first responders. Some fraction of the will freeze up, despite all the training. Then again, you hear stories of a horrific situation where John Q. Public keeps his head, figures it out, and get out alive, sometimes taking out the bad guy along the way. IME you just never know until it happens the first time. Training helps, but it is not always the decider.

I am very interested in see diagram, recreations etc of what happened. Also what gas was used, his weapons usage, etc. Not being ghoulish, but there will be things to be learned there.

[demosincebirth]

35. How about this scenario. If everyone in that theater packed heat...

forgot the sarcasm dingy otherwise someone might take me seriously. Heaven forbid!

[skip fox]

39. I, too, and a progressiv eprofessor, but

But even IF trained, the chances for error are great.

(Like the young man who--and to his credit he honestly topld the media--would have shot the wrong man.)

There might be a % chance of stopping something like this with training, but the percent for error is much greater, even with training. . . . I could be wrong, but that seems rather obvious.)

[skip fox]

40. I agree! Our first line of defense = mass suicide.

Imagine the sarcasm sign which I don't know how to activate.

[demosincebirth]

109. Just use a colon, the word sarcasm, then another colon, and post.

[mwooldri]

38. concealed gun scenario cant work here.

1) Dark movie theatre, movie has a fair amount of gunfire in it.
2) Special premiere, some people dress up for these things.
3) The shooting was timed at the same time as the gunfire in the film.

I will admit that there are some scenarios where a concealed gun carrier *could* turn an ugly scene into a not-so-ugly one. Just definitely not in Aurora this morning. Nor in a lot of previous mass shootings. I'm not into guns, don't own one, never will... but I can't see a scenario where a lone conceal-carry gun-toting good citizen can bring down someone who comes in spraying bullets all over the place. It's just not feasible. Someone is definitely going to get killed... guy wielding semi automatic machine gun vs small pistol. Who is going to win?

In any case I shouldn't be debating this issue just yet. Got to give some peace and respect to those who suffered today. But some things that are going on here like repealing the 2nd amendment, and the concealed carry argument - those are two easily dismissed things in cases like this one.

[treestar]

41. They all live in Colorado and had the same access as Holmes had

It's awfully close to saying it's on them that they didn't protect themselves.

[beevul]

95. Only if they were equally willing to break the the establishments rules...

Only if they were equally willing to break the the establishments rules, as the shooter was.

The Century 16 Movie Theater where Holmes allegedly opened fire does not allow anyone to carry firearms on the premises even if they have a concealed handgun permits, said Dudley Brown, the executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, which lobbies against gun control laws.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/bloomberg-obama-romney-act-prevent-colorado-style-massacres/story?id=16819968&page=2


NOTE: Cinemark also owns Tinseltown, Cinearts, and Century Theatres

[treestar]

105. Without metal detectors, how do they enforce it?

That may be their rule but someone with a CCW goes into the theater with a gun, and who is going to stop them?

Interesting they thought of it so far as to prohibit it on their premises. Maybe they figure they will use that if they ever get sued.

Some victim or victims might even do that.

[beevul]

106. Without metal detectors, they don't.

Without metal detectors, its all style and no substance.

The courts - in the buildings they operate in - seem to have this figured out.

[ballabosh]

43. It might not even be Holmes that killed him.

Add in the fact the darkness, the noise level (we all know how loud movies are, especially action movies), the tear gas and the panic, if a CCW owner took a shot at Holmes and there was another CCW owner in the audience who was slower on the draw, he might reasonably assume the first CCW was the bad guy or associated with the bad guy. If there were more, then it descends into a complete wild west situation.

[CakeGrrl]

45. It REALLY wouldn't have worked here

A (presumably) dark movie theater where people are caught off-guard and tear-gassed to boot?

He did what he needed to create his targets: He surprised them.

That's all you need to do. That's why 4 armed cops were shot up here in the Northwest in a coffee shop.

Why didn't they take out the shooter? He had the element of surprise.

You can be armed to the teeth, but if they see you before you see them, it's over.

[progressivebydesign]

48. The Cafe Racer in Seattle reopened today after their mass shooting. A guy with a STOOL was a hero...

He threw a few bar stools at the shooter, even though he could have been killed, and by doing that it allowed people to escape the carnage.

So I find the self-absorbed gun nuts to be just background noise.

What the fuck is their answer to the police officers shot to death in Lakewood Washington? All four were armed, in broad daylight. Or the armored car guard at Walmart in Tacoma, with an armed partner? He was shot to death in an instant.

This fantasy that the kooks have that they're going to "drop" someone is just that. They'd probably pee their pants and crush people on the way out the door to safety.

So, in a dark theatre, with smoke and tear gas, people running everywhere, and a guy with several weapons and protected head to toe. And the wingnuts still want to claim that they could have taken him out. In a scenario like that, the best thing you can do is have two or three people rush him from behind.. that's about it. The would have been more successful with a baseball bat from behind, or a bar stool.

[skip fox]

52. Yes. As to the bar stools I was thinking of another scenario:

What if someone knocked him over from behind (he's weighed down and his sight is limited by the gas mask).

That seems much more like likely than a shot which would stop the mayhem.

Yes, that's a bit of a movie scenario as well, but it has happened (as with Giffords, as with the bar stools).

But even this is a long shot.

[loli phabay]

74. or even better in the exact same scenario you think off, someone simply does a contact shot in his

head, dropping him to the floor. in this situation i would rather have my .40 than a barstool.

[skip fox]

50. It is possible that a CW does more good than harm in certain situations: car jacking, mugging, etc.

But even in these cases it might cause more harm than good. Police say give over the car of the wallet. (How much money can you lose that you can't recover with a longer life?) I'm not closed minded on guns (and have even had a single shot 22 for the past 40+ years . . . in the country it's a tool: 3/4 dead roadkill, rabid animals--a neighbor just shot one across the road from me last year) but think of the cases where it lead to more problems. (Zimmerman, etc.)

[geckosfeet]

56. Yeah. A handgun round would probably not have done critical damage. To pierce

tactical armor a high velocity rifle would probably be needed. Most people do not concealed carry high velocity rifles.

[loli phabay]

62. no but a chest ful of .40 rounds or .45 even hitting the vest would have interfered with his plans

ie it hurts like hell and can put you down.

[Loudly]

57. Yes, just more NRA nonsense.

The solution to guns is more guns?

That's just crazy talk.

[Politicub]

64. Colorado allows concealed carry

Most people choose not to carry a gun on their person, though.

And handguns can be challenging to aim. No one says you need to be a good shot to carry a weapon.

Your hypothetical is just that... Hypothetical.

What's not hypothetical? The 70 people who were shot by one person.

[moondust]

68. That's probably why he wore the body armor, no?

I wouldn't pretend to know what's in the mind of somebody that deranged, but it seems he'd have to know that stuff wouldn't protect him from police weapons though it might protect him from a few concealed carriers.

[skip fox]

71. Maybe, but I think he had more planned before the police got to him.

He had much more ammo and had cut ties with normal life. He seems to have been set for another string of shooting, maybe a spree, not another mass killing.

[Mimosa]

77. Even I know: shoot from crouch behind seat.

Oh, I forgot. AIM at head.

[RC]

104. There were bullet holes in the seat backs.

Plastic, ya know?

[Warpy]

81. If someone had a CCW in that theater

I applaud his remarkable good judgment to keep it holstered in the gas-filled pandemonium.

Folks, think of the crossfire!

[Zanzoobar]

87. Not me.

I only carry those dreaded cop-killer bullets which would have pierced his armor as if it didn't even exist. However, even if I didn't carry it, I would have made a perfect headshot through his gasmask. I've seen my nephew and stepson play Halo. It's totally possible.

[bakpakr]

91. All this John Wayne Talk

is just that John Wayne talk.

I was and am still highly trained (thanks to Uncle Sam) in small arms and close combat. I have in the past had to put that training to use.

If they would have bee REAL lucky there would have been someone in the audience who was trained and proficient in the use small arms and close combat. But even then taking him out would have been nothing but a miracle. Even if he would have been hit he would only pause most likely for a second or two seeing that he was amped up on adrenalin and of one mind (kill as many as he could). Not sure of the capabilities of the rifle he carried but if it would have been full auto capable he most likely would have gone into spay and pray mode.

I once had the opportunity to participate in a demonstration of a mass shooting event much like this one. One gunman and a CCW carrier. We used paint ball guns. I got to play both the shooter and the CCW carrier. When I played the CCW carrier I found that I developed tunnel vision. All I saw was the shooter and nothing else registered on my radar. As a matter of fact in my attempt to remain concealed enough to avoid getting shot and still return fire I managed to take out 2 non combatants with missed shots. I did not know I shot them until after the event and we did the after action report and was informed as such. Hitting a moving target from concealment is not as easy as it looks on TV or the movies. This from someone who has competed in several pistol competitions and won some.

[skip fox]

111. This post speaks volumes.

It remeind me of the CW citizen who almost dropped a hero in the Giffords situation.

[bklyncowgirl]

96. A person with law enforcement training might have shot him--the average person not likely.

He or she would have had to have a clean shot at his head through the smoke and all the people running aorund in panic. They would also have had to have nerves of steel.

Most likely the gun nut who goes to a theater armed would be hiding under a seat clinging to their guns for protection or spraying bullets randomly and killing innocent people.

[JoeyT]

97. It was dark, tear gas and/or smoke was present.

There were probably people running everywhere. That's not an optimal situation for even choosing the correct target, much less accuracy.

If someone present had had a gun, they might have been able to stop the shooter. But I'd say it's far more likely they'd have increased the death toll.

Edited to add: I shoot on a fairly regular basis, and I'm a damned good shot, and I wouldn't have been confident enough of my ability to hit something in those conditions. I don't ever carry guns around with me when I'm out, but if by some twist of fate I'd had one, I'd have been more comfortable using it as a club. I'd rather run the risk of being shot than putting a bullet in some random kid that happened to be in the way.

[MineralMan]

99. Anything's possible. In fact, there might have been

someone carrying in that theater. We don't know. The reality is that the scene was dark, confusing, and crowded. It wouldn't be a good situation for a handgun carrier to take action. The very best action for an individual in that situation would be to dive to the floor between seats. A smart person would have done that. A stupid person might have tried to fire at the gunman but, giving his protective gear, it might not have worked anyhow.

[ann---]

102. What might have happened if

more than one person pulled their concealed weapons in theater is CHAOS and more deaths. People would be shooting at each other not knowing WHO the real culprits were or WHO was a partner with the "man in black." Guns need to be banned - period.

[Shankapotomus]

108. Here is why I think the concealed weapon argument is lacking

Whenever something like this happens, we always hear the gun rights defenders make the claim that if other people were carrying guns, the killer could have been stopped. Well, let's say everyone in the theater is armed and they shoot and kill the guy much earlier in the scenario so only one innocent victim is killed instead of 12. Suppose every American is armed. That won't change the fact we are shooting each other with guns.

So instead of gunmen shooting at unarmed people all we will get with everyone armed is shooting in both directions. So instead of massacres we'll have shootouts. It doesn't change the fact we are shooting at each other with guns. It doesn't change the fact that there will be gun fire in places where gun fire shouldn't happen. When I go to a movie or school or wherever, I want to engage in the activity I went there to engage in, not possibly engage in a damn gunfight! And the only way to get closer to ensuring that is to ban guns.

[Zax2me]

110. One can never know. But it would have likely lowered death/injured count.

Much tougher to shoot fish in a barrel if someone is trying to shoot you. Armor or not.