Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
contraildash

Mass Shooting in Aurora Colorado

Recommended Posts

Guest
The issue in the crowd isn't about CCW, it's about someone deciding that the best chance for survival is forward, not towards the exits.

I agree in principle, but you have to admit that for your average non-Chuck Norris person, an AR-15 >= Bare Hands in most cases, especially against a prepared opponent.

Everyone's a hero until the bullets start flying.
The guy had on Kevlar and had an AR-15. I realize Kevlar doesn't make you invincible but I'm not sure how much someone CC a 9 mil could have actually helped

Beaver is correct.

He had equipment. That did not mean he was prepared to be physically attacked and disarmed. He was a pencil necked coward who was vulnerable to attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beaver is correct.

He had equipment. That did not mean he was prepared to be physically attacked and disarmed. He was a pencil necked coward who was vulnerable to attack.

That is all well and good sitting at your computer. But even if you had a pistol strapped to your waist while awaiting the movie...that's a lot to ask. This dude had God knows how long to prepare for the event. You? Zero.

This douche was NOT vulnerable to attack. He went out of his way more so than any other criminal save the North Hollywood shootout in 1997. Not only did this guy throw gas into the theater and have a gas mask, but he had body armor, 2 rifles, and a pistol (not counting the pistol in his car). His AR-15 has a 100 round mag...100 rounds!!!

If I had my MP9 on me would I have taken a shot? I fucking hope so. But seeing all the facts infront of me am I optomistic it would have saved the day? No. I would hope that MAYBE it would be enough to distract the fucker for a couple of seconds...but a head shot in a crowded theater while choking on CS gas or whatever he used? Yea not taking that bet at all.

In sum: Would a CCW in the theater helped? I'd say yes, anything would have helped. Would a CCW in the theater saved the day? I say no, baring amazing luck and shot placement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

That is all well and good sitting at your computer. But even if you had a pistol strapped to your waist while awaiting the movie...that's a lot to ask. This dude had God knows how long to prepare for the event. You? Zero.

Just saying, speak for yourself. Beaver is correct.

This douche was NOT vulnerable to attack. He went out of his way more so than any other criminal save the North Hollywood shootout in 1997. Not only did this guy throw gas into the theater and have a gas mask, but he had body armor, 2 rifles, and a pistol (not counting the pistol in his car). His AR-15 has a 100 round mag...100 rounds!!!

He had equipment. That doesn't mean he wasn't vulnerable. You are using the same logic intel uses when they draw a threat ring on a map around a piece of equipment on the ground.

He was a coward, a nut job and a bully. That means he is vulnerable in the presence of someone who is not.

...but a head shot in a crowded theater while choking on CS gas or whatever he used? Yea not taking that bet at all.

Hard to miss when the end of the barrel is shoved in his ear hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This dude had God knows how long to prepare for the event. You? Zero.

You've got your whole life to prepare. The people on Flight 93 were the first to realize that if a plane is high-jacked you have to fight. Now any potential high-jacker knows they will be opposed by the passengers. But in mass shooting scenarios like Virginia Tech, Norway, and this latest guy the shooter goes unopposed for as long as they have ammo. People would rather get shot in the back than try to stop the guy.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly if one were to empty a double stack clip into him, things would have changed a lot. The kevlar still leaves a lot of flesh open, and if he were to fall over from the impact into the chest, there's a lot of soft spots that are bound to be hit with 15 or so rounds. Might not have killed him, but you get the idea.

Regardless, he would at least had been distracted and focused on the CCW shooter and would have given people more time to get out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a firm believer (sts) that someone carrying a concealed weapon in Aurora could have saved a life or two. I'm sure you've seen the video of the 70 year old that turned and fired on two armed robbers in Ocala, FL. If you haven't, you should google it. Those two dudes turned from badasses to scaredy-cats in a matter of seconds. Having the ability to shoot back is a game changer and a deterrent for future nut jobs. There is no other answer in my opinion to save lives in these situations. The roving police patrols cannot be everywhere at once. The cops responded in a matter of minutes, but it still wasn't fast enough to save those killed or injured.

Edited by f16wolfpack
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One major piece missing from this argument is that Cinemark theaters is the only theater chain that maintains a "no gun" policy. Although there are no statutory requirements, other that public buildings (a stretch), Cinemark started that policy years ago and posted signs throughout their buildings to that effect. Any responsible CCW is going to see those signs when purchasing the ticket or going in and drop it back into the car. Since you don't know you're going into a combat zone, the greater risk is carrying into a NO zone. I wonder if the shooter specifically chose Cinemark to increase the likelihood of being able to engage unopposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One major piece missing from this argument is that Cinemark theaters is the only theater chain that maintains a "no gun" policy. Although there are no statutory requirements, other that public buildings (a stretch), Cinemark started that policy years ago and posted signs throughout their buildings to that effect. Any responsible CCW is going to see those signs when purchasing the ticket or going in and drop it back into the car. Since you don't know you're going into a combat zone, the greater risk is carrying into a NO zone. I wonder if the shooter specifically chose Cinemark to increase the likelihood of being able to engage unopposed.

Based on the described complexity of his wired apartment and the level of education he was pursuing I would not be surprised if he had the forethought to choose Cinemark for that very reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saying, speak for yourself. Beaver is correct.

He had equipment. That doesn't mean he wasn't vulnerable. You are using the same logic intel uses when they draw a threat ring on a map around a piece of equipment on the ground.

He was a coward, a nut job and a bully. That means he is vulnerable in the presence of someone who is not.

Hard to miss when the end of the barrel is shoved in his ear hole.

Someone's been reading too many Vince Flynn novels. You're not Mitch Rapp, old man.

You're in a crowded theater with tear gas, people panicking, and a heavily armed assailant with body armor and a rifle.

If you start shooting from concealment, odds are you're going to hit or clip one of the people running for their lives. I seriously doubt there was a clear shot, especially not in a dark theater with the guy wearing all black and throwing tear gas into the room.

If you try to approach, you're going to get mowed down. He has the advantage of line of sight. Everything is in front of him, and you have to descend (more than likely, unless you sit all the way in the front of the theater). He was picking people off going for the exit.

Everyone's a keyboard cowboy, but odds are you would have been just as ineffective in this situation as everyone else. But please, tell us more how you would have single handedly disarmed and stood down the threat in the midst of chaos.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The media's ability to actively exploit a tragedy never ceases to surprise me. Foxnews followed the shooter's dad through the airport yesterday, grilling him incessantly, until he got through security; by virtue of the fact that he wasn't responding to any of their questions and had a glazed look on his face, it was obvious he was a wreck.

Thoughts and prayers for all the families directly and indirectly involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone's been reading too many Vince Flynn novels. You're not Mitch Rapp, old man.

You're in a crowded theater with tear gas, people panicking, and a heavily armed assailant with body armor and a rifle.

If you start shooting from concealment, odds are you're going to hit or clip one of the people running for their lives. I seriously doubt there was a clear shot, especially not in a dark theater with the guy wearing all black and throwing tear gas into the room.

If you try to approach, you're going to get mowed down. He has the advantage of line of sight. Everything is in front of him, and you have to descend (more than likely, unless you sit all the way in the front of the theater). He was picking people off going for the exit.

Everyone's a keyboard cowboy, but odds are you would have been just as ineffective in this situation as everyone else. But please, tell us more how you would have single handedly disarmed and stood down the threat in the midst of chaos.

Look obviously none of us were there and it's easy to armchair QB the situation after the fact but come on man, you have to agree that a lot of these outcomes could be drastically different with just a handful of people willing to put themselves in harms way and take the shooter down. Forget concealed carry for a moment, just tackle the guy. Reference the Gabby Giffords shooting. According to reports this guy was walking down the aisles and stopped to reload multiple times...and they found him in the parking lot by his car! Nobody did anything. Disgusting.

Again, I and I think everyone on here feels terrible about this tradgedy but it's my humble opinion that people are all too willing to be slaughtered in mass rather than stand up and defend themselves. Point is you don't even have to have a gun to make a difference. If you can run for the exit, stepping on injured people as you go, you can just as easily run for the shooter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like to imagine a theater with half the audience carrying concealed and being well-trained with their weapons of choice. It would have been a completely different ending. That dude would not have survived.

On another note Buddy Spike, you chastising guys for speculating on their reaction is no better than their speculation. No one knows what they would do in that situation until they are in it. The fact is the guy was vulnerable. Multiple witnesses said he had time to reload. I am also not aware of any bullet proof gas masks, although I have considered testing one after breathing through it bored to tears under a desk. My guess is that anyone fighting back would have had a slightly better chance than running for the exits.

I think it was in the mid-1990s when a similar idiot walk down Franklin Street in Chapel Hill, NC wielding a rifle. The guy picked off two students and a cop. In a nearby restaurant was a separated Marine bartender about to start his shift. He ran towards the shooter, hid where he could still see him, and waited for him to reload. Once he started to reload, the Marine pounced on his opportunity, tackled him, and saved countless lives.

I have already determined that if I'm in this situation, I'm charging forward smartly. I think my chances are better than running in the opposite direction. What will I do for real, who the hell knows?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any event, should something like this ever occur, I want the option.

Good possibility that I will shat myself; good possibility that the scene is too chaotic to do anything offensive; good possibility of my 1-2 rounds fired don't do much.

But a Pk of .0 if I am not armed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We just needed a few people there who max'ed out their AF PT test (you know....fast mile and a half with a 32" waist). They'd of taken care of him, what with them being bonafide FTF and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone's been reading too many Vince Flynn novels. You're not Mitch Rapp, old man.

You're in a crowded theater with tear gas, people panicking, and a heavily armed assailant with body armor and a rifle.

If you start shooting from concealment, odds are you're going to hit or clip one of the people running for their lives. I seriously doubt there was a clear shot, especially not in a dark theater with the guy wearing all black and throwing tear gas into the room.

If you try to approach, you're going to get mowed down. He has the advantage of line of sight. Everything is in front of him, and you have to descend (more than likely, unless you sit all the way in the front of the theater). He was picking people off going for the exit.

Everyone's a keyboard cowboy, but odds are you would have been just as ineffective in this situation as everyone else. But please, tell us more how you would have single handedly disarmed and stood down the threat in the midst of chaos.

There is no guarantee of success, but in the very least you provide a temporary distraction and draw his fire from the people trying to exit. That might also give other people a chance to follow your attempt in subduing him. I would be very disappointed in myself if I made it out safely while people's husbands, wives, and children were gunned down. I would rather die trying to do something versus living with the conscience of a coward or being shot running away.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone's been reading too many Vince Flynn novels. You're not Mitch Rapp, old man.

You're in a crowded theater with tear gas, people panicking, and a heavily armed assailant with body armor and a rifle.

If you start shooting from concealment, odds are you're going to hit or clip one of the people running for their lives. I seriously doubt there was a clear shot, especially not in a dark theater with the guy wearing all black and throwing tear gas into the room.

If you try to approach, you're going to get mowed down. He has the advantage of line of sight. Everything is in front of him, and you have to descend (more than likely, unless you sit all the way in the front of the theater). He was picking people off going for the exit.

Everyone's a keyboard cowboy, but odds are you would have been just as ineffective in this situation as everyone else. But please, tell us more how you would have single handedly disarmed and stood down the threat in the midst of chaos.

So in this situation would you recommend pushing people out of the way so you can get out the door or would you roll into the fetal position and wait for someone with some courage to save you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in this situation would you recommend pushing people out of the way so you can get out the door or would you roll into the fetal position and wait for someone with some courage to save you?

No, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I am a CCW holder and I carry a Glock 36 everywhere I go.

The problem is that it's not about courage, it's about being realistic. It cracks me up when the bravado ramps up and everyone starts the chest thumping that they would have single handedly saved the day, or "put a gun to the side of his head."

As I mentioned, a crowded, dark theater with people panicking and stampeding is a clear avenue of fire nightmare. You're very likely to not have a shot at all, and if you do, you may just be creating a crossfire.

I am not advocating a course of action that involves running away or hiding, but the monday morning quarterbacking is bullshit. Even with a weapon, this situation would be very tough to prevail. He has body armor - you don't. Headshots are pretty unrealistic in a tear gas/dark environment with people running in front of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, not only does he demonstrate 4 heinous acs of cowardice (drops crying infant to avoid being highlighted, leaves 3 family members in theater, decides not to go back in, then drives away), he tells the media all about it the next day.

There is a crisis of masculinity in this country. It's bad enough that he does this, but then the reporter doesn't call him on it? His wife didn't even appear to be angry when I saw the interview. Guess she knew she married a coward.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a crisis of masculinity in this country. It's bad enough that he does this, but then the reporter doesn't call him on it? His wife didn't even appear to be angry when I saw the interview. Guess she knew she married a coward.

It is not about masculinity, nor is this a problem intrinsic to the United States. It is people and how they respond under the fight-or-flight mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a crisis of masculinity in this country. It's bad enough that he does this, but then the reporter doesn't call him on it? His wife didn't even appear to be angry when I saw the interview. Guess she knew she married a coward.

They weren't married. He proposed to her AFTER the fact, and she said yes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not about masculinity, nor is this a problem intrinsic to the United States. It is people and how they respond under the fight-or-flight mechanism.

The fight or flight reponse was definitely in full effect. Everyone chose flight. Ref guineapigfury's comment again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They weren't married. He proposed to her AFTER the fact, and she said yes...

Preview of the vows:

... for better or for worse, to love and to cherish, unless someone starts shooting then you and the children are on your own.

He could at least have the decency to be ashamed afterward.

Edited by guineapigfury
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fight or flight reponse was definitely in full effect. Everyone chose flight. Ref guineapigfury's comment again.

My comment is about how it is not an issue of masculinity. Anyone can have the capacity for courage, or aggression in the case of "fight." It also depends on the situation and people's values. I would not deride someone's reaction to flee because they may have a lot to lose. They may be protecting someone or have dependents that need them. My position comes from having less to lose and has very little to do with masculinity.

Preview of the vows:

... for better or for worse, to love and to cherish, unless someone starts shooting then you and the children are on your own.

He could at least have the decency to be ashamed afterward.

I think he does:

"It just felt like the worst thing ever because my son's still in there," he told ABC News. "My girlfriend is still in there. I'm out here. Who leaves their child there?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone ever seen a shooting simulator scenario that involved a BG with body armor? I have, and amazingly even seasoned law enforcement officers hesitate a moment to comprehend why their multiple center-of-mass shots are being ineffective in stopping the threat. It's unnatural, good hits on the target but not the desired effect.

And "head shots" are nice in concept but extremely difficult under such conditions. I am far from an expert shooter, heck I consider myself to be just a little better than average in some regard; but I can tell you that it is a completely different situation from standing at a shooting range and taking well prepared shots at a piece of paper.

Would have some lethal response slowed the shooter down? Most likely, but again it's a matter of weighing the risks involved. A dark and smoky movie theater crowded with hysterical people once they realized what was happening, it's a tough call. Sure most of us would like to believe we'd aggressively counterattack, but considering the circumstances I can completely understand why someone would chose not to. Remember the Gifford shooting in Arizona, there's a good chance that at least a few individuals were carrying there but no one engaged the shooter.

All in all, it's a very horrific act by a real piece of shit, I agree with Rainman in that he appears to be enough of a coward that even just a few rounds fired in his direction most likely would have caused him to break off his attack and flee. It's just a matter of how much of an opportunity there was to do that with relative assuredly that you don't just simply add to the casualty list.

In the end, the old police training adage that "action beats reaction" applies. Given the circumstances, I think some response would have been warranted no matter what the risk or probability of success...

Cheers! M2

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×