Originally posted by Oliver North
your totally right ddm, the guy in full ballistic armor
He wasn't in "full ballistic armor".
Problem #1.
Originally posted by Oliver North
with an automatic rifle,
He didn't have an automatic rifle.
Problem #2.
Originally posted by Oliver North
100 round clip,
This is accurate.
Originally posted by Oliver North
100shotgun and 40 cal glock
What's a "100shotgun"?
But, yes, he had 2 glocks and a shotgun. Couldn't find anything to back up what caliber it was.
Originally posted by Oliver North
is at a disadvantage against a citizen with a pistol (which the theater banned anyways).
Nice strawman. If you could, please point to where I said "he is at a disadvantage to someone with a handgun".
But, based on your wording, you made two very big mistakes with your recollection.
This is what full-body armor looks like:
That's not what he was wearing.
His rifle was semi-automatic, not automatic. It also jammed so he discarded it.
Originally posted by Oliver North
btw: the sheriff told channel 7 news last night (in a televised cast, so no linkable quote outside wiki) that witnesses reported diminished viability or that the shooter appeared as a silhouette in the smoke.
And some people said that they saw him walk up and down the aisles, unloading on people.
Another man described Holmes' entire getup in vivid detail.
Another described, visually, everything that was going on in the theater (see the ABC interview I posted).
Originally posted by Oliver North
really man, I don't see why someone didn't just sneak up behind the guy and snap his neck,
You can't really do that to a human without considerable strength. But I know you're just mocking me by pretending that every armed citizen in the US is a true "American Ninja." Just don't hope to be taken seriously with comments like that. (And as the rest of your post indicates, you spiral into a very anti-gun tirade that is mostly unscientific or unsupportable).
Originally posted by Oliver North
then hit him with groin shots.
He was wearing armor that covered his groin area. 🙂
Originally posted by Oliver North
He totally would have gone down, I mean, what a pussy, he didn't even fire back at the cops.
Yes, he probably is a coward. He didn't take his life at the end of his rampage and he opened fire on defenseless people: definitely a coward.
Originally posted by Oliver North
EDIT: oh, also, being in front of a bright light in a dark room is a great way to mess with people's perception.
Not really. It's a great way to draw attention to yourself, though by making yourself the only visible figure in a room, for a while.
Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm sure you know a little about the differences between vision in the dark and the light,
Yes, the light from the screen or the emergency exit would have made him much more visible than anything else due to the lights adjusted the irises to close up a bit more. It probably would not be until the people looked down at the ground that their eyes would readjust to the darker ground and aisle areas.
Originally posted by Oliver North
so there is that line of evidence,
Yes, the evidence that he would be much more visible than even people sitting next to each other.
Originally posted by Oliver North
but even more colloquially, there is a reason it is a convention in movies to have someone being interrogated to be in a dark room with a light on them - it messes with their ability to see, or, think of old timey dog-fights, where pilots would try to fly at their opponents in front of the sun.
Yes, seeing a man 40-60 feet away at a brighter area in front of a fire exist would blind someone to the point of debilitating their vision.
And, yes, their vision impairement was so severe that comparing his entrance to the theater at the fire exit is logically and scientifically comparable to pilots firing on opponents flying into the sunlight.
Originally posted by Oliver North
unfortunately, those numbers are almost next to worthless.
Of course those numbers would be worthless to you: you're very anti-gun. Any type of stats used to show why guns are effective, you would automatically reject.
Any types of stats that would show that they are ineffective, you would automatically support. This is called "confirmation bias" in the psychological community.
Originally posted by Oliver North
In some estimates, they use self-reports, which have been found to include instances where a person was merely passed in a dark alley and thought their possession of a gun had prevented them from being a victim.
Yes, all of those reports can be thrown out and none can be trusted because some may have incorrectly reported their defense.
Originally posted by Oliver North
They include scaring away robbers who might have otherwise been scared off without a gun.
Yes, in all instances, the robbers could have been scared away with other means and the guns had nothing to do with it: those portions of the stats should be thrown out, too.
Originally posted by Oliver North
If George Zimmerman is found not-guilty, he will be included in those statistics.
Yes, because 1 person among hundreds of thousands to millions will grossly throw-off the statistics.
Originally posted by Oliver North
In one of the stories I posted in that thread, a man shot a mentally handicapped teen because he had punched his car, that statistic is included in "guns protecting people from crimes".
Yes, because the man was mentally handicapped and going to town on some dude's care, the entirety of the statistics should be thrown out.
Originally posted by Oliver North
I'd love an actual count, but I've never seen one with good methodology, and people have been pointing this out since I was back in high school (I read an article on it in Scientific American back in the day).
Yes, all of those statistics are misreported and none are legitimate.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Certainly, there are some,
Oh yes, some. But most likely just a dozen or so in the US, each year, right? That is grossly outweighed by the accidental shootings and suicides by firearms, right?
Originally posted by Oliver North
but if this type of logic were true, you would expect more gun crime in nations with tougher gun control (people unable to defend themselves have more crime done to them), and in general you see the opposite.
Oh yes, the facts are definitely wrong. Increasing individual gun ownership has never been followed by a decrease in violent crimes, right? In no city, ever, right?
And crime increases the more people can defend themselves, right? The facts back that up, right?
Edit - My post is a mixture of sarcasm and direct meaning. If you are confused at which portions are sarcasm and which are direct, let me know: I'd be happy to clarify (Ushgarak has asked me to be more direct).
This is the kind of thing I've been talking about:
What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes.
More rounds: Yep.
More range: Not in the slightest. Many states require hunting rifles fire full power rounds that have vastly greater range than a 5.56.
More accurate: No, people accurize their hunting rifles. In an enclosed space accuracy is pretty meaningless anyway.
More lethal: I could go into a long discussion of biology and physics and history about trying to measure the "lethality" of a given round. Suffice to say bullets don't become more deadly because they're fired from a scary looking gun.
Because people say and believe things like this the gun community is very happy to dismiss its critics as having no idea what they're talking about, because so often they clearly do not. It gives the impression of hysteria. When someone opens a conversation with "the LHC should never have been made because it will destroy the universe" it doesn't matter what other arguments they bring against it, they just proved they've failed to understand the very thing they're talking about.
Dadude are you really trying to argue that a random person could get a headshot on this guy while in a dark room with teargas in his eyes when highly trained and experienced people miss that shot under ideal circumstances? These Rambo delusions that people have are beyond absurd.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Of course those numbers would be worthless to you: you're very anti-gun. Any type of stats used to show why guns are effective, you would automatically reject.Any types of stats that would show that they are ineffective, you would automatically support. This is called "confirmation bias" in the psychological community.
oh
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Dadude are you really trying to argue that a random person could get a headshot on this guy while in a dark room with teargas in his eyes when highly trained and experienced people miss that shot under ideal circumstances? These Rambo delusions that people have are beyond absurd.
Not really. I am more or less arguing that it may have saved lives or ended the confrontation more quickly.
Worst case scenario, he takes a couple of bullets to his armor, it hurts pretty bad, and he steps out or takes cover. Just a few seconds of him not firing could save lives and that's what matters.
Then there's the chance that someone could get a shot off in his face or any of his appendages. That's definitely an added bonus or possibly confrontation ending.
No Rambo speed or accuracy required. He seemed to give up fairly quickly when the police pointed their guns at him. Maybe that was Holmes' plan? Maybe he truly was a coward? Who knows. But no one can argue that someone firing at him would have done nothing : surely it could have saved a life or two or spared someone injury as more escaped? 🙁
A shot to the face is possible and not even that difficult for even Old Man Jenkins. Keep in mind that he's a slow moving, big, probably hot (he had to have been hot in that outfit since he got dressed outside) target.
Originally posted by Oliver North
oh
lol
Figured you'd get a kick out of that. It's almost always a tough crowd in here.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Classic Plague.
Quiet, you: get back to posting "TL : DR" posts. uhuh
Originally posted by BackFire
"Worst case scenario, he takes a couple of bullets to his armor, it hurts pretty bad, and he steps out or takes cover. Just a few seconds of him not firing could save lives and that's what matters."Pretty sure that's not the worst case scenario.
Worst case scenario for a situation where armed citizens fire back in probable outcomes.
But, if you want an even more worse case scenario when dealing wit this but is much more unlikely:
"The fire at him, all miss, and they all get shot in retaliation by him."
Is that better? 🙁
Originally posted by BackFire
A little better. Still not quite worst case scenario, though.Maybe this - They fire at him, all miss, end up accidentally shooting innocent people, and they all get shot in retaliation by him."
Oh.
Yes, that would be worst.
I can reword it to, "Most probable worst case scenario", then, to sate the critics. uhuh
Originally posted by Impediment
This is the latest meme of Holmes floating around Facebook.Personally, I think it's a crock of shit. What say you blokes?
I agree with that: the image, not your post.
The Trayvon Martin shooting had a lot of anti-latino sentiments.
Terror attacks from Muslims? Had a lot of anti-muslim sentiments.
I think America has a lot of racists. I have not heard one thing about 'stupid white people always doing stupid sh*t" from anyone or any demographic. We seem to gloss over the fact that he was white.
Dadudemon, I really think you didn't even bother to read my post at all, despite the fact that you dissected it into quotable tidbits.
1) I completely support the idea that the average citizen with concealed carry can prevent incidents of crime. I've made that clear several times.
2) What I don't agree with and what all the "cases" you attempt to site about gun defense don't support either is citizen gunmen taking down well-equipped shooters. However you want to spin it there have been no incidences of the mass shootings in recent history being stopped or slowed by anyone other than the police.
The case I pointed out in Texas would have been a perfect chance to be changed, but as it happened the would-be hero ended up dead. He used standard aiming tactics, both hands on the gun, target squared up ON A SUNNY DAY and was not able to take down the attacker with a headshot. For you to claim that had the old man from that robbery in the vid been there in a dark theater, eyes filled with tear gas, people panicking around him because the shooting had already started, it would have made all the difference is ludicrous.
Again, in case you didn't understand I fully support the right to bear arms, but citizens with handguns will never be the dividing line in which way one of these shootings goes and scenes like this should in no way ever be used to lend support to the need for access to assault rifles and tactical gear including body armor.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Dadudemon, I really think you didn't even bother to read my post at all, despite the fact that you dissected it into quotable tidbits.
Well, I did and I addressed things directly, point by point.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
1) I completely support the idea that the average citizen with concealed carry can prevent incidents of crime. I've made that clear several times.
I don't. I do not want the average citizen getting a conceal and carry. I want exceptional citizens to get a conceal and carry.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
2) What I don't agree with and what all the "cases" you attempt to site about gun defense don't support either is citizen gunmen taking down well-equipped shooters. However you want to spin it there have been no incidences of the mass shootings in recent history being stopped or slowed by anyone other than the police.
Those police seemed to take down the shooters in North Hollywood with regular ol' Berretta's. They turned one of the shooter's legs into hamburger meat.
But I'd like to find a single instance where a citizen gunman stopped a mass-shooting in progress. To my recollection, none have occurred because no one had any guns during those shootings other than the police. Why would anyone but the police be able to stop them when no one but the police had the guns? 🙁
Originally posted by Ascendancy
The case I pointed out in Texas would have been a perfect chance to be changed, but as it happened the would-be hero ended up dead. He used standard aiming tactics, both hands on the gun, target squared up ON A SUNNY DAY and was not able to take down the attacker with a headshot.
I believe that most people do not aim for the head. they aim for the body. This could explain why he did not shoot the head. Based on mine and your conversation, don't you think that people like you and I who may (or already do) have a conceal and carry will think that maybe we should aim for vulnerable spots?
I guess most people think they will panic. But in most to all disaster situations I have been in, I think fairly clearly.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
For you to claim that had the old man from that robbery in the vid been there in a dark theater,
It wasn't that dark: vivid visual descriptions were given by some people.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
eyes filled with tear gas,
Some, maybe, but not all.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
people panicking around him because the shooting had already started,
Some panicking. most quickly cleared the area: that would leave a fairly decent line of sight without worrying about hitting innocents, imo.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
it would have made all the difference is ludicrous.
I disagree since I seemed to have taken apart your reasons in this post and others.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Again, in case you didn't understand I fully support the right to bear arms, but citizens with handguns will never be the dividing line in which way one of these shootings goes and scenes like this should in no way ever be used to lend support to the need for access to assault rifles and tactical gear including body armor.
I disagree. Citizens may be the difference between 12 dead with 60 injured and 6 dead with 30 injured in these types of situations.
There were several military personnel there, as well. If they had some guns on their person, I think they could have been effective.
Originally posted by Lek Kuen
You would if you lived in my neighborhood.
1. Sexy avatar.
2. lol! It's about time we got some "crazy-ass crackers" talk going on. As I have pointed out in the past, 20-45, white, males are the most common type of terrorist in America.
I will say that race is certainly mentioned in these cases, but as that meme points out, rarely if ever on the news. I will also say that in instances such as with the D.C. shooters race wasn't mentioned either, but I do seem to recall multiple mentions of the fact that the adult shooter was Muslim.
Clearly there are still issues of race and stereotypes prevalent here as some tried to paint Treyvon Martin as a pot-smoking thug shortly after his murder; ironic in that such assumptions are what got him killed in the first place. The U.S. is a country built on ideas of liberty but also rampant racism and bigotry that it is still trying to climb out from under and that will take time.
Back on-topic: just saw on CBS Evening News that the shooter's gear matched that of the S.W.A.T. team that responded and that had two of them not noticed that his gas mask was non-regulation he likely would have slipped by in the confusion. Guess he watched Leon the Professional one too many times.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Back on-topic: just saw on CBS Evening News that the shooter's gear matched that of the S.W.A.T. team that responded and that had two of them not noticed that his gas mask was non-regulation he likely would have slipped by in the confusion. Guess he watched Leon the Professional one too many times.
Woah.
Now that dude seems much smarter than I was originally giving him credit for.