And of course the NRA will reply that this wouldn't have happened if people were allowed to bring guns into movie theaters.
Though it would be very, very difficult if not impossible for the ordinary upstanding citizen with a handgun to take down someone as well equipped as the shooter.
But hey, the NRA isn't big on practical matters.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
And of course the NRA will reply that this wouldn't have happened if people were allowed to bring guns into movie theaters.Though it would be very, very difficult if not impossible for the ordinary upstanding citizen with a handgun to take down someone as well equipped as the shooter.
But hey, the NRA isn't big on practical matters.
I have no problem with people owning firearms to protect themselves, but to try and pretend like situations like this would end differently if someone were carrying is a ridiculous ploy by the NRA as you noted.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
And of course the NRA will reply that this wouldn't have happened if people were allowed to bring guns into movie theaters.Though it would be very, very difficult if not impossible for the ordinary upstanding citizen with a handgun to take down someone as well equipped as the shooter.
But hey, the NRA isn't big on practical matters.
I'd argue that a member of the NRA is not your normal gun owner. That person should have plenty of practice to shoot the dude in the head: enough to disable or kill the the guy. He only had a gas-mask on.
But here's another problem: police would have a difficult time taking him out, as well.
Also note that he surrendered without a fight to the police. Maybe he would have surrendered to 4-10 armed citizens firing at him?
Originally posted by Ascendancy
There was a case in Texas where a guy went on a rampage at a courthouse and an armed citizen tried to stop him. He shot the man several times but he was wearing a vest and apparently had enough adrenaline going not to feel the impacts. He returned fire and killed the guy trying to take him down, illustrating your point. For all the talk about the need for concealed carry it is a rare thing that joe schmoe takes out a crazed gunman.
That's an anecdote that is easily countered by other anecdotes.
Here's another anecdote showing an old man with a conceal and carry permit, Samuel Williams, going to town on some armed robbers:
Originally posted by Ascendancy
I have no problem with people owning firearms to protect themselves, but to try and pretend like situations like this would end differently if someone were carrying is a ridiculous ploy by the NRA as you noted.
I would state the opposite:
"I have no problem with people owning firearms to protect themselves, but to try and pretend like situations like this would not end differently if someone were carrying is a ridiculous ploy by the anti-gun movement in America and other nations."
Don't you think it is a bit ridiculous to assume even a single gun owner in the theater would not have saved lives?
Originally posted by silver_tears
Or killed even more through the smoke.
From the descriptions of the people that were in the theater when the shooting happened, I did not read or hear one person say visibility was diminished due to the smoke.
How the gent describes, visually, of what happened, it does not appear there was any loss in visibility. He had quite a bit to convey about what he saw.
Anyone who thinks armed civic-minded movies goers would have been a good thing in this scenario is a ****ing loon. Imagine 1-10+ armed men and women firing at an armed and armoured lunatic in a dark and noisy theater that's filling with tear-gas.
I don't think it's crazy to think the death-count would have been higher by panicking and fleeing people getting shot by accident. I know people love to imagine themselves as heroes, but be realistic.
Originally posted by Oliver North
ddm: the guy was in full ballistic armor, including helmet, neck guard and leggings. any "normal" gun owner better be packing a D.Eagle or something similar if they were going to take him down.
I think I understand what you're trying to get at, here: you think with my words "He only had a gas-mask on" was referring to his entire person. It wasn't. I was referring to just his head. I was commenting directly at a post you had made about his "full armor" or something: he did not have on full armor as his head was wide-open. Maybe I am wrong. Do you have a source that says he had on a helmet for blocking bullets? ABC says gas-mask. Even if he did have on a helmet.......there's still his face because, remember, he only has a gas-mask.
And a Desert Eagle isn't going to punch through most body armor. The bullets used are generally what constitutes armor piercing or not. Looks like Level IIA softarmor (the lightest the have) is the lowest armor that you can wear that will stop the AE .50.
http://www.safeguardclothing.com/nij-levels/
If the armor is as badass as you make sound, it was probably not the equivalent of II or even III...sounds like higher grade body armor than they are selling, there.
Originally posted by Robtard
Anyone who thinks armed civic-minded movies goers would have been a good thing in this scenario is a ****ing loon. Imagine 1-10+ armed men and women firing at an armed and armoured lunatic in a dark and noisy theater that's filling with tear-gas.I don't think it's crazy to think the death-count would have been higher by panicking and fleeing people getting shot by accident. I know people love to imagine themselves as heroes, but be realistic.
More indirect troll-posting, eh? Your post was directed specifically at me because I was the only one that made that statement. Have enough balls to actually quote me instead of making passive-aggressive troll posts like this one. 😬
INB4 "rage posting!"
INB4 "U mad!"
I assure you, I am perfectly calm. 😐 Deal with me calling you out instead of dodging with "he's just rage posting".
And, no, it would appear you are incorrect. Did you see the video I posted of the old man taking out the two robbers? He seemed to do just fine as he waddled after them. "BUT IT WAS LIT, MAN!" Sure, ignore that he was shooting from the exit and seemed to be able to see well enough to aim the gun right in someone's face (read some of the information in the links I posted). People were able to see just fine. That might be because he opened up the exit to get his stuff. But, the visual details the victims talk about are too high to be this dark, smoke filled theater, that two of you now (you and Silver Tears) seem to think they experienced.
Let's pretend there is another scenario where the shooter is shooting in a pitch-black theater. So why can't those armed citizens sneak up on him and then open fire instead of this wild-flailing and spraying that you think all people would do?
Depending on the state, the conceal and carry is just not handed out like candy.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Don;t make troll accusations like that, dadude. Robtard's point was very clear and he was under no obligation to direct it specifically at you just because you raised the issue in the first place.
I have made other posts in this thread, as well. Let me know if those are over-the-line, too. I'm not too sure if I should have made them. PM me, if necessary because I do not want to derail the threads with my curiosity.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think I understand what you're trying to get at, here: you think with my words "He only had a gas-mask on" was referring to his entire person. It wasn't. I was referring to just his head. I was commenting directly at a post you had made about his "full armor" or something: he did not have on full armor as his head was wide-open. Maybe I am wrong. Do you have a source that says he had on a helmet for blocking bullets? ABC says gas-mask. Even if he did have on a helmet.......there's still his face because, remember, he only has a gas-mask.And a Desert Eagle isn't going to punch through most body armor. The bullets used are generally what constitutes armor piercing or not. Looks like Level IIA softarmor (the lightest the have) is the lowest armor that you can wear that will stop the AE .50.
http://www.safeguardclothing.com/nij-levels/
If the armor is as badass as you make sound, it was probably not the equivalent of II or even III...sounds like higher grade body armor than they are selling, there.
so your argument is that, during a confusing scenario where most witnesses have claimed they had no idea what was happening and were taken totally by surprise, in the presence of smoke/teargas, some dead-eye in the theater is going to pull his weapon and bang out a couple of shots to the face?
it sounds like you live in a movie version of reality.
additionally, the two men being taken out by the old man is a terrible comparison. If those two individuals had come in shooting, as the individual did here, that old man would have been dead in his seat, as the video clearly shows (they also had a pistol and a baseball bat). Whats funny is I heard people on Laura Ingram making that same nonsense argument when I was in North Dakota last week, are you a listener?
Originally posted by Oliver North
so your argument is that, during a confusing scenario where most witnesses have claimed they had no idea what was happening and were taken totally by surprise, in the presence of smoke/teargas, some dead-eye in the theater is going to pull his weapon and bang out a couple of shots to the face?
First, let me rephrase what you stated so it accurately represent what you want to say while representing what I want to say:
"so your argument is that, during a massacre; where most witnesses have claimed they had no idea why this was happening and were taken totally by surprise because no one expects someone to walk into a theater and start unloading bullets, where some people experienced the effects of teargas; you think half a dozen armed citizens will be able to shoot a guy in the face wearing very large, heavy, cumbersome armor with low visibility due to wearing a bulky gasmask, most likely sweating his ass off because he started this by getting dressed outside (where it was over 85 degrees at the time), is probably already tired from carrying all of those stuff inside, is a thin man adding to his weight burden, is not going to run anywhere fast, anytime soon, and is standing by the exit where the light from outside is lighting him up like a Christmas tree, and you think that one of those half a dozen people whose conceal and carry permits require that the know how to use a gun (check the Colorado state laws that allow conceal and carry) before they can get the license?
Why, yes, I think that in that scenario, it's possible that this event may have been stopped 30-40 seconds in (instead of the 2 to 3 minutes it occurred). Heck, it's possible that it will take less than 20 seconds to see a response (see the video with the old man going to town).
Crap, what a long winded way to put things. Let us both just agree to use a list, next time.
Originally posted by Oliver North
it sounds like you live in a movie version of reality.
For me, it sounds like you have a warped sense of not only the event but of how "bad" guns are. But it's funnier if you think I think I am John McClane trying to take back the Nakatomi Building from a highly sophisticated criminal organization: it makes for a more dramatic "look how stupid this guy is" argument, right? 😄
Originally posted by Oliver North
additionally, the two men being taken out by the old man is a terrible comparison.
lol
Originally posted by Oliver North
If those two individuals had come in shooting, as the individual did here, that old man would have been dead in his seat, as the video clearly shows (they also had a pistol and a baseball bat). Whats funny is I heard people on Laura Ingram making that same nonsense argument when I was in North Dakota last week, are you a listener?
Yes, because an old man that got up and started unloading round after round into their asses (as one eyewitness put it, to paraphrase) would definitely be afraid to shoot them because they weren't already threatening enough?
Makes perfect sense.
And, no, I haven't listened to the radio in over a year.
Let's put it another way: a fat, out of shape, old man, unloaded with no apparent problems. As soon as the first guy got shot, they got scared and ran.
Now let's compare to the scenario at the theater: as soon as the cops showed up, pointed their guns at him, he surrendered immediately.
That video is not supposed to be an exact replica of the scenario: it is to show you that armed citizens can and do fight back quite well. If a fat, out of shape, old man can do quite well with a conceal and carry permit, I think you can do well, too (I do not know about your shooting experience but I assume you have been to a few ranges or have been hunting once or twice...just roll with my example 🙁 ).
James Holmes' Match.com profile:
http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0721_james_holmes_classic_jim_tmz.pdf
Originally posted by Oliver North
James Holmes' Match.com profile:http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0721_james_holmes_classic_jim_tmz.pdf
I felt nervous clicking that.
But he seems very.......normal. In fact, he seems "like a chill dude."
Why do you think he went off the deep-end all of a sudden (it seems like it was all of a sudden).
Originally posted by dadudemon
I felt nervous clicking that.But he seems very.......normal. In fact, he seems "like a chill dude."
the tag-line is "will you visit me in prison", the exact same as his Adultfriendfinder account
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/life_of_depraved_sex_VX83ThuIVAk8Fl62xYJyMI
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why do you think he went off the deep-end all of a sudden (it seems like it was all of a sudden).
mental health issues tend to show up around mid 20s in men, especially those of the "schizophrenia" type. Additionally, he had been spiraling downward in school, and people who knew him said he had taken a major downward turn (friends, family, acquaintances).
there probably isn't a cause in the sense of "here is a clear and understandable motivation for why he did it". It is the product of a sick mind and some bad context, imho. We'll have to see as more comes out, apparently he goes to court on Monday.
omfg:
Kaitlyn Fonzi, 20, a graduate student at University Hospital, said she lives in the apartment below that of the suspect.About midnight, Fonzi said she heard techno-like, deep-based reverberating music coming from that unit apartment. She went upstairs to the suspect's place and put her hand on the door handle. She felt it was unlocked, but she didn't know if he was there and decided not to confront him.
"I yelled out and told him I was going to call the cops and went back to my apartment," she said.
Fonzi called police, who told her they were busy with a shooting and did not have time to respond to a noise disturbance. She said she was surprised to learn later that the apartment was booby trapped and was shaken by the news.
"I'm concerned if I had opened the door, I would have set it off," she said.
Fonzi said she had seen the man one or two times before but never talked with him.
She said she believes the music was on a timer because it started about the time of the shootings.