| Author |
 Topic  |
|
UT_VOLS13
Senior Member
2067 Posts |
 Posted - 07/20/2012 : 09:58:28 AM
|
Dark Knight Shooting To Be Exploited For Political Grist
Second amendment, conspiracy theorists to be blamed for incident
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, July 20, 2012
Within hours of the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado at a screening of the new Batman movie, the political machine is already gearing up to exploit the incident as a tool to demonize the second amendment and characterize Americans who are against big government as extremists.
A 6ft tall man dressed in black body armor and wearing a gas mask burst through an emergency exit door at the theater during a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises Batman movie, before making his way up the stairs and shooting people at random, according to reports.
The man also apparently set off a smoke or tear gas bomb, killing at least 14 people and injuring dozens more.
The gunman was arrested and early reports suggested an accomplice was still on the run, but police now say there was only one shooter.
A 24-year-old suspect in is custody and an apartment building in north Aurora connected to the suspect was being evacuated and searched for possible explosives, reports the Denver Post.
A possible motive for the shooting bizarre as it sounds is that, the gunman carried out the shooting because the new Batman movie was sold out, according to local reports.
Observers following news reports about the incident have already noticed that the tragedy is being exploited to demonize Americans suspicious of federal authority noting that the villain in The Dark Knight Rises is an anti-establishment character.
Theyre claiming that since the villain in the movie was rising up against authorities thats what this guy may have been doing, writes Brandon Nolley.
Others fear that the shooter will be labeled a conspiracy theorist and used to portray so-called truthers as violent extremists.
I have a feeling hes going to be a extremist with Conspiracy theorist views, may be he even saw Alexs review of the movie, writes Evan Munn. They are going to parade out the childrens bodies like OKC.
Others note that the mass shooting coincides with a UN arms treaty that threatens to grease the skids for a total gun ban in the United States. Its inevitable that the event will be used to demonize the second amendment.
The UN treaty will save us, comments Michael Rozycki.
Every time there is a mass shooting in the United States, the establishment uses it to demonize its political adversaries.
The most recent example was the Jared Lee Loughner case. After Loughner shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the media instantly launched a smear campaign insinuating that Loughners political beliefs were shared by conservatives and libertarians. In reality, Loughner turned out to be a pot smoking left-winger who had dabbled in the occult.
|
|
|
hhi angler
Senior Member
2159 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2012 : 10:01:58 AM
|
| Wow what a surprise,just wondering when Bush will be blamed for it. |
 |
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18377 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2012 : 2:36:48 PM
|
If there had been a CWP holder in the movie theater and a stand-your-ground law in place, less of those innocent people would have been killed--quite possible NONE of them--and there would be a dead attempted murderer in the ground instead of a successful murderer living on the taxpayers' dime.
More than likely, I'd guess that the shooter was a Liberal (again).
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
Edited by - gotchacovered on 07/20/2012 2:38:11 PM |
|
|
|
skinneej
Prolific Poster
12112 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2012 : 4:18:44 PM
|
| There is almost always a pre-cursor warning to these sort of things. Someone this screwed up has almost always "cried for help" before, yet nobody takes them serious. We will find out what he said to his girlfriend, guidance counselor, physcologist, and threatening emails, etc all over the next few weeks... Yet, the problem is always the gun right??? And the only way to prevent these tragedies is to ban guns, right??? It's not like those who heard him threaten to kill people could have flagged the police earlier, right??? |
Edited by - skinneej on 07/20/2012 4:22:28 PM |
|
|
|
Fred67
Senior Member
3591 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2012 : 5:50:49 PM
|
what is really a tragedy will be the amount of our tax money spent on studying and defending this piece of garbage. Take the Chinese approach and have a trial before dawn. One .45 slug to the back of his head and let the victims have their mourning and the buzzards a feast. I'd gladly pull the trigger and know my master would understand we can't judge his kind here. |
|
|
|
jstrange
Senior Member
3167 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2012 : 12:31:11 PM
|
Umm, you gonna eat that?
Thousands have died to save my freedom. Only one has died to save my soul! |
Edited by - jstrange on 07/22/2012 12:31:58 PM |
|
|
|
7cs
Senior Member
1456 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2012 : 7:42:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
If there had been a CWP holder in the movie theater and a stand-your-ground law in place, less of those innocent people would have been killed--quite possible NONE of them--and there would be a dead attempted murderer in the ground instead of a successful murderer living on the taxpayers' dime.
More than likely, I'd guess that the shooter was a Liberal (again).
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
So a legal cwp holder, who more than likely has never fired a defensive shot, probably would have taken down a guy with multiple weapons, bullet proof vest, and headgear? Is that what you are saying? |
|
|
|
skinneej
Prolific Poster
12112 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 02:03:22 AM
|
Last I heard it was a tactical vest, not a bulletproof vest. Even if it were, it would be like getting kicked in the chest by a mule to take a bullet head on...
Granted, he who has the most firepower usually wins, but it's not impossible to conceive that someone with a CW could have taken the attacker by suprise as he was focused on another victim. |
|
|
|
joeboo
Senior Member
321 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 07:33:19 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by 7cs
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
If there had been a CWP holder in the movie theater and a stand-your-ground law in place, less of those innocent people would have been killed--quite possible NONE of them--and there would be a dead attempted murderer in the ground instead of a successful murderer living on the taxpayers' dime.
More than likely, I'd guess that the shooter was a Liberal (again).
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
So a legal cwp holder, who more than likely has never fired a defensive shot, probably would have taken down a guy with multiple weapons, bullet proof vest, and headgear? Is that what you are saying?
Ever seen anyone's chest after being hit using a vest? the movies aren't a good portrail. I had a friend that was on the force die from two .357 slugs to the chest using a vest and chest protector. The trama can be deadly.
Oh and on a side note, I think it's on like 99% of all trained law enforcement that have never fired in defence or offence. Add our military and during war time it may be only 10% of all military trained personel that actually fire a weapon at a live target. probably less.
working hard and playing harder |
|
|
|
SeaLevelPete
Senior Member
376 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 09:03:21 AM
|
The movie chain that owns the theater, Cinemark, has a "gun free zone" party. And Colorado is an open carry state with an accessible concealed weapons permitting system. The city of Aurora has some goofy laws that it would have been illegal for anyone but a law enforcement official to discharge a gun (http://cnsnews.com/blog/ron-meyer/auroras-strict-gun-laws-didnt-prevent-shooting-if-one-law-abiding-person-theater-had), I can't see that being enforced.
I heard an early report that someone did have a concealed weapon, but with all the chaos and smoke, did not have a safe shot. I cannot find that report online.
sealevelPete
|
|
|
|
Somethin-Fishey
Senior Member
817 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 09:15:22 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
If there had been a CWP holder in the movie theater and a stand-your-ground law in place, less of those innocent people would have been killed--quite possible NONE of them--and there would be a dead attempted murderer in the ground instead of a successful murderer living on the taxpayers' dime.
More than likely, I'd guess that the shooter was a Liberal (again).
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
Except for the fact that the theatre was a posted no gun zone.
I guess Holmes didn't go to school on reading day
All the law abiding citizens left their guns in their cars, thereby trusting the theatre to protect them.
I hope every single person sues the theatre for not protecting them while they were required to leave their guns in their cars and not able to protect themselves.
Edgewater 245CC/F150's |
|
|
|
Somethin-Fishey
Senior Member
817 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 09:22:04 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by 7cs
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
If there had been a CWP holder in the movie theater and a stand-your-ground law in place, less of those innocent people would have been killed--quite possible NONE of them--and there would be a dead attempted murderer in the ground instead of a successful murderer living on the taxpayers' dime.
More than likely, I'd guess that the shooter was a Liberal (again).
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
So a legal cwp holder, who more than likely has never fired a defensive shot, probably would have taken down a guy with multiple weapons, bullet proof vest, and headgear? Is that what you are saying?
What difference does that make. You either fire or you don't. If you don't fire, you don't unholster your weapon, plain and simple. There are no waving of guns to scare people, there are no warning shots. 3 in the chest, (Even with a bullet proof vest, getting shot friggin HURTS and will put you down, the only difference is wether or not you die) if he is still upright, 2 in the head and you still have 10 more in case you missed.
I shot guns for almost my entire 24 year military career, never at a live target. I shoot several hundred rounds a month at a range to be sure I can still hit a fleas ass at 25 yards.
I can't say what I would have done in any situation unless I was there, but if I unholster, something is getting shot, that I can promise. If not, it stays concealed.
Edgewater 245CC/F150's |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18377 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 10:36:51 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by 7cs
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
If there had been a CWP holder in the movie theater and a stand-your-ground law in place, less of those innocent people would have been killed--quite possible NONE of them--and there would be a dead attempted murderer in the ground instead of a successful murderer living on the taxpayers' dime.
More than likely, I'd guess that the shooter was a Liberal (again).
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
So a legal cwp holder, who more than likely has never fired a defensive shot, probably would have taken down a guy with multiple weapons, bullet proof vest, and headgear? Is that what you are saying?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. A lot of CWP holders are the kind of guys who spend a lot of time practicing their shooting. I can put several rounds in a 50-cent piece from 30 feet free hand, and I don't even practice as much as many do. Some of our very own CF.commers actually spend a bit of time practicing on the tactical courses that mimic the law enforcement courses. Ask around. You might be surprised. Or, you could just check the news, where you'll find that untrained CWP holders have stopped many crimes over the last several years. Even gangstas who hold their guns sideways manage to hit their targets, so a serious CWP holder would stand a fair chance.
Also, I'm not sure the vest was "bullet proof". Even if it was body armor, though, if you're shot at close range, the muzzle energy will knock the pee pee out of you. Just because the bullet doesn't penetrate, it doesn't mean it won't know the whiz out of you. It will.
So, if one, two, or three guys had been in the theater and dumped a magazne into the perpetrator, I'm guessing they would have either placed a round or two in the right place or at least knocked the wind out of him. It stands to reason that a gunman who is resisted by counter-gunmen is going to be less successful in taking out his targets than a gunman with no opposition. You could think in extremes if you want, though, and pretend that he was the real Joker and invinvible to bullets, but reality suggests that a defensive shooter would have made a difference. It happens all the time.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
|
|
|
hhi angler
Senior Member
2159 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 10:47:50 AM
|
| I seriously doubt anyone with a weapon could have gotten off a clear shot in a darken theater with chaos evolving. |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18377 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 11:16:51 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Somethin-Fishey
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
If there had been a CWP holder in the movie theater and a stand-your-ground law in place, less of those innocent people would have been killed--quite possible NONE of them--and there would be a dead attempted murderer in the ground instead of a successful murderer living on the taxpayers' dime.
More than likely, I'd guess that the shooter was a Liberal (again).
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
Except for the fact that the theatre was a posted no gun zone.
I guess Holmes didn't go to school on reading day
All the law abiding citizens left their guns in their cars, thereby trusting the theatre to protect them.
I hope every single person sues the theatre for not protecting them while they were required to leave their guns in their cars and not able to protect themselves.
Edgewater 245CC/F150's
That's the present point: "If there had been a CWP holder in the movie theater..." The signs serve to prevent that self-protection, among other things. In other words, if we do what we need to do to allow CWP holders to more freely carry legal weapons with less restrictions, less people will be gunned down by maniacs. We need less of those signs, less restrictive laws, and more gun freedom in general. Those signs neuter the law, nullifying the intended protections that CWP and stand-your-ground laws provide Reponder my statement: "If there had been a CWP holder in the movie theater"
With that being said, not every CWP holder obeys those signs, and many have stopped criminals in places where those signs were likely posted. However, I still think we need to eithe do away with those signs, or pass laws that require any business that hosts large groups of people--such as stadiums or theaters--to either take the signs down or provide armed protection. They would likely choose the cheaper option.
Check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwrgvqlc8DA&feature=player_embedded
A couple of days ago, there was actually talk in the news about charging that old man (hero) with a crime. I was guessing that it had something to do with a sign on the door that read, "no concealed weapons". Apparently, no charges are being filed against him, though, and that's a good thing. I just LOVE seeing thugs trip over themselves while fleeing in terror from a righteous man.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
Edited by - gotchacovered on 07/23/2012 11:37:27 AM |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18377 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 11:21:44 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by hhi angler
I seriously doubt anyone with a weapon could have gotten off a clear shot in a darken theater with chaos evolving.
You could be right. We weren't there, so it's hard to say. Add the smoke bombs, and your assumption is strengthened. It would depend on how close the CWP holder was to the gunman and how quickly he caught on to the situation.
However, some eye-witness testimony suggests that a CWP holder might have made a difference (probably would have, in my opinion). One witness lived to tell about how she saw the gunman come in, got a good look at him, saw him point his gun at her, and then target on others and fire on them. Others told about how he slowly, walked the aisles picking people off. Some describe how the shots seemed to go on and on for a long time. If they could witness all that, they could have likely pulled off some shots before the guy shot 70 people. That's a lot of people for one gunman.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
Edited by - gotchacovered on 07/23/2012 11:30:05 AM |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18377 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 11:27:19 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Somethin-Fishey
quote:
Originally posted by 7cs
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
If there had been a CWP holder in the movie theater and a stand-your-ground law in place, less of those innocent people would have been killed--quite possible NONE of them--and there would be a dead attempted murderer in the ground instead of a successful murderer living on the taxpayers' dime.
More than likely, I'd guess that the shooter was a Liberal (again).
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
So a legal cwp holder, who more than likely has never fired a defensive shot, probably would have taken down a guy with multiple weapons, bullet proof vest, and headgear? Is that what you are saying?
What difference does that make. You either fire or you don't. If you don't fire, you don't unholster your weapon, plain and simple. There are no waving of guns to scare people, there are no warning shots. 3 in the chest, (Even with a bullet proof vest, getting shot friggin HURTS and will put you down, the only difference is wether or not you die) if he is still upright, 2 in the head and you still have 10 more in case you missed.
I shot guns for almost my entire 24 year military career, never at a live target. I shoot several hundred rounds a month at a range to be sure I can still hit a fleas ass at 25 yards.
I can't say what I would have done in any situation unless I was there, but if I unholster, something is getting shot, that I can promise. If not, it stays concealed.
Edgewater 245CC/F150's
Good points. I agree. I don't know why 7cs is making so many weak assumptions. HHI has the stronger criticism--the chaos, the smoke, the dark, but I think some of the CWP holders I know would have popped the guy with a couple of rounds before he shot 70 people. The witnesses say that the gunfire went on and on for a long time. Even if a counter-gunman had only saveda single life, it would have been a world of difference.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
|
|
|
joeboo
Senior Member
321 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 11:34:11 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Somethin-Fishey
[quote][iMore than likely, I'd guess that the shooter was a Liberal (again).
I hope every single person sues the theatre for not protecting them while they were required to leave their guns in their cars and not able to protect themselves.
Edgewater 245CC/F150's
Why you gotta be sue happy? Do you excpect all theaters to have armed security guards? What good would everyone sueing do? Ruin the theater? I'm sure the owners feel bad enough with out being sued. Let's look at justice being served against the criminal that did the shooting. Or take your lead and sue the car manufacture of what ever he was driving that brought him to the theater and then the gun manufacures that made him pull the trigger, then the shoe company that was covering his tracks, then we could go after his mother for giving birth to him, and if his grandmother is still alive let's take a chunck from her.... Oh yea and lets sue McD's for not serving coffee hot enough to burn him and stop his actions. sue sue sue
working hard and playing harder |
|
|
|
7cs
Senior Member
1456 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 11:37:30 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
quote:
Originally posted by Somethin-Fishey
quote:
Originally posted by 7cs
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
If there had been a CWP holder in the movie theater and a stand-your-ground law in place, less of those innocent people would have been killed--quite possible NONE of them--and there would be a dead attempted murderer in the ground instead of a successful murderer living on the taxpayers' dime.
More than likely, I'd guess that the shooter was a Liberal (again).
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
So a legal cwp holder, who more than likely has never fired a defensive shot, probably would have taken down a guy with multiple weapons, bullet proof vest, and headgear? Is that what you are saying?
What difference does that make. You either fire or you don't. If you don't fire, you don't unholster your weapon, plain and simple. There are no waving of guns to scare people, there are no warning shots. 3 in the chest, (Even with a bullet proof vest, getting shot friggin HURTS and will put you down, the only difference is wether or not you die) if he is still upright, 2 in the head and you still have 10 more in case you missed.
I shot guns for almost my entire 24 year military career, never at a live target. I shoot several hundred rounds a month at a range to be sure I can still hit a fleas ass at 25 yards.
I can't say what I would have done in any situation unless I was there, but if I unholster, something is getting shot, that I can promise. If not, it stays concealed.
Edgewater 245CC/F150's
Good points. I agree. I don't know why 7cs is making so many weak assumptions. HHI has the stronger criticism--the chaos, the smoke, the dark, but I think some of the CWP holders I know would have popped the guy with a couple of rounds before he shot 70 people. The witnesses say that the gunfire went on and on for a long time. Even if a counter-gunman had only saveda single life, it would have been a world of difference.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
I would argue the assumptions were made by you. You're arguement is still hypothetical and best case scenario, but hey, you can hit a fifty cent piece on a sunny day at the range so surly you could have taken this guy down in such a conrolled environment.
By the way, I'm a firm believer in CWP's. I'm also a realist |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18377 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 12:04:50 PM
|
I don't think he' being "sue happy", Joeboo. I think he's just saying two things. First, the "No Concealed Weapons" signs defeat their own purpose by actually creating danger instead of reducing it, because no violent criminal is going to read the sign and say, "Oh, fiddlesticks. I can't go shoot all those people in there now because the sign says I can't carry my guns in there. I guess I'll just put the guns in the car and go watch Batman instead." Nay, the only people who will obey those signs are the law-abiding CWP holders who would otherwise have taken the mad gunman out and saved a dozen lives. Second, I think he's also saying that if places that serve as obvious targets for madmen want to prevent people from carrying LEGAL guns onto the grounds for self-protection, they should provide alternate protection. They don't. All they do is disarm the defenders of our society so mad gunmen can have an unfettered shooting gallery. That's conceivably like tax cab telling its riders that they can't wear seatbelts. If we aren't allowed to protect ourselves, who's going to do it?
For that matter, a place that touts such a sign may even make itself more of a target because the criminal might see the signs and say, "Well, there won't be any CWP holders in there to stop me."
It's about the signs. I can easily entreat the sentiment that society should either post a guard, take the signs down, or change the law so that the signs are not enforcable.
The flip side of this argument, however, is that we don't have to go to the movies.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
|
|
|
skinneej
Prolific Poster
12112 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 12:15:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by hhi angler
I seriously doubt anyone with a weapon could have gotten off a clear shot in a darken theater with chaos evolving.
Who needs a clear shot? As far as it being "dark", you probably have more light in a theater than with a perpetrator sneaking into your house at night. I have the tritium night sights on my pistol and they work well in low light conditions. Also, I would imagine that after a few seconds, most people would have scattered leaving him out in the open. The guy was shooting at people fleeing for the exit, so I would assume that if you knew that the exit was a death trap, his attention was focused somewhere else, and it's only a matter of time before you get a bullet, that you might be inclined to take a risk... |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18377 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 12:18:02 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by 7cs
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
quote:
Originally posted by Somethin-Fishey
quote:
Originally posted by 7cs
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
If there had been a CWP holder in the movie theater and a stand-your-ground law in place, less of those innocent people would have been killed--quite possible NONE of them--and there would be a dead attempted murderer in the ground instead of a successful murderer living on the taxpayers' dime.
More than likely, I'd guess that the shooter was a Liberal (again).
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
So a legal cwp holder, who more than likely has never fired a defensive shot, probably would have taken down a guy with multiple weapons, bullet proof vest, and headgear? Is that what you are saying?
What difference does that make. You either fire or you don't. If you don't fire, you don't unholster your weapon, plain and simple. There are no waving of guns to scare people, there are no warning shots. 3 in the chest, (Even with a bullet proof vest, getting shot friggin HURTS and will put you down, the only difference is wether or not you die) if he is still upright, 2 in the head and you still have 10 more in case you missed.
I shot guns for almost my entire 24 year military career, never at a live target. I shoot several hundred rounds a month at a range to be sure I can still hit a fleas ass at 25 yards.
I can't say what I would have done in any situation unless I was there, but if I unholster, something is getting shot, that I can promise. If not, it stays concealed.
Edgewater 245CC/F150's
Good points. I agree. I don't know why 7cs is making so many weak assumptions. HHI has the stronger criticism--the chaos, the smoke, the dark, but I think some of the CWP holders I know would have popped the guy with a couple of rounds before he shot 70 people. The witnesses say that the gunfire went on and on for a long time. Even if a counter-gunman had only saveda single life, it would have been a world of difference.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
I would argue the assumptions were made by you. You're arguement is still hypothetical and best case scenario, but hey, you can hit a fifty cent piece on a sunny day at the range so surly you could have taken this guy down in such a conrolled environment.
By the way, I'm a firm believer in CWP's. I'm also a realist
I'm not assuming any best-case scenario, 7cs. Read my post to HHI (and to you) above. I don't think I'd be able to poke the guy's eye out in those conditions, but I think that a reasonably proficient pistol shooter could have placed some rounds that would have taken the guy down or hurt him enough to save some lives. Read the eye-witness testimony
Meanwhile, you assume things NOT established and the worst-case scenario. You're assuming that he had "bullet proof" body armor and head gear. I'm just saying that I don't know that he did. What if he didn't? Also, you're weakly assuming that "bullet proof" means that a shot to the chest won't knock the wind out of someone or hurt so badly that it might put him on his butt. Do you know how many ft lbs of enegy is released by a .45 cal? You're assuming that CWP holders are inexperienced with firearms enough that they wouldn't have been able to place the shots with the chaos. Many of them train for such, and many are former police and military.
Finally, you assume that the chaos was too much for a CWP holder to have made a difference, but we have eye-witnesses who report seeing the gunman clearly, watching him aim his weapon, watching him slowly walk the aisles targeting people, and hearing the shots go on and on while he shot SEVENTY PEOPLE. It sounds like a lot of time passed, and if one man can shoot 70 people, you don't think he could have been taken down before, oh, say, number 68 or 69?
I don't find that too realistic. Sure, it wouldn't have been a cake walk, but all I am saying is that a CWP holder who grew up shooting like so many Charlestonians have could likely have taken the man down before he picked off 70 people.
I'm not saying that you're definitel wrong. I'm just just disagreeing with you because you imply that no difference could have been made. One life is a big difference in my book.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
Edited by - gotchacovered on 07/23/2012 12:21:28 PM |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18377 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 12:19:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej
quote:
Originally posted by hhi angler
I seriously doubt anyone with a weapon could have gotten off a clear shot in a darken theater with chaos evolving.
Who needs a clear shot? As far as it being "dark", you probably have more light in a theater than with a perpetrator sneaking into your house at night. I have the tritium night sights on my pistol and they work well in low light conditions. Also, I would imagine that after a few seconds, most people would have scattered leaving him out in the open. The guy was shooting at people fleeing for the exit, so I would assume that if you knew that the exit was a death trap, his attention was focused somewhere else, and it's only a matter of time before you get a bullet, that you might be inclined to take a risk...
Good point about the light. The perpetrator was actually backlit for part of the shooting. How much easier could that get. If, say, three people were in the theater with .45's, and each pulled of 5 rounds, well, let's just say I don't think the Joker's plan would have gone down the way he had expected.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
|
|
|
skinneej
Prolific Poster
12112 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 12:32:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej
quote:
Originally posted by hhi angler
I seriously doubt anyone with a weapon could have gotten off a clear shot in a darken theater with chaos evolving.
Who needs a clear shot? As far as it being "dark", you probably have more light in a theater than with a perpetrator sneaking into your house at night. I have the tritium night sights on my pistol and they work well in low light conditions. Also, I would imagine that after a few seconds, most people would have scattered leaving him out in the open. The guy was shooting at people fleeing for the exit, so I would assume that if you knew that the exit was a death trap, his attention was focused somewhere else, and it's only a matter of time before you get a bullet, that you might be inclined to take a risk...
Good point about the light. The perpetrator was actually backlit for part of the shooting. How much easier could that get. If, say, three people were in the theater with .45's, and each pulled of 5 rounds, well, let's just say I don't think the Joker's plan would have gone down the way he had expected.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
Right on. Inside of a movie theater is perfect range for a pistol defense. If he had multiple shooters drawn on him, I don't think he would have stood a chance. Not only that, but I would imagine that a CW holder would have had the element of suprise since the Joker had his eyes on multiple moving targets. About the only risk is hitting another person, but I can't imagine that people were crowding the guy shooting at them. If he came in from an Emergency exit, I would think that all that was there was him and the wall... |
Edited by - skinneej on 07/23/2012 12:34:38 PM |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18377 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 12:34:30 PM
|
7cs, here's what I'm saying in a nutshell. Sure, it wouldn't have been a cake walk, but all I am saying is that a CWP holder or two, who grew up shooting like so many Charlestonians and other CWP holder have, could likely have taken the man down before he picked off 70 people. The guy slowley walked the aisles and had a shooting gallery, and there was no one at all to stop him while he picked off 70 people. A gun pointed back at him would likely have reduced that number. Also, keep in mind that the chaos didn't start until after he started shooting. There was a brief period of time where he was a sitting duck for a fast thinker with a gun.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
|
|
|
skinneej
Prolific Poster
12112 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 12:36:18 PM
|
| Let's look at it this way... If someone was shooting back, then the Joker's attention would have been re-assigned to the counter attack. That means that a lot more people might have been able to slip out even if the defender was killed. Either way, a CWP holder could have saved lives, even if he gave his own... |
Edited by - skinneej on 07/23/2012 12:36:48 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Dark Knight Shooting To Be Exploited For Politic
