1969912 0 #226 July 21, 2012 AR-15, Remington 870 shotgun, and two Glock .40's is what I'm reading. I really doubt he had 6000 rounds of ammo on him. If it was just AR ammo, it would weigh almost 200 pounds, and if some of it was shotgun ammo, it would weigh a hell of a lot more. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #227 July 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteAfter the recent shooting, and most other mass shootings, the argument most often made by proponents of concealed weapons, is that CCW holders will be a deterrent to mass shootings, and the CCW holder can drop a shooter once the rampage begins. Which, as I think most people here agree, is highly implausible. Oh sure, there are the Walter Mitty hero wanna bees who will say they're as good as SEAL Team Six, but the reality is they're not. I think most here are being honest with how they would react if they were armed in a mass shooting. When idiots like Tea Party Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) make comments that the death toll would be lower if only Colorado had CCW laws (They do) the death toll would be lower. When some of our law makers have such a flawed perception of guns and their limitations, it's a bit scary. He also claimed that's it's some or our faults for rejecting Jesus in public schools. Do you think the NRA or any other tea bagger would ever correct him? Not a chance. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/07/21/560791/mayor-bloomberg-slams-tea-party-congressman-for-gun-comments/?mobile=nc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #228 July 21, 2012 QuoteThis guy was not a trained professional any more than I am. Except you wouldn't have body armor nor the amount of firepower he did. He's acting, you're reacting. You're at a huge disadvantage even if you were similarly armed and armored . . . which you're not. It's a child-like fantasy for a person to think they'd suddenly become the hero who takes down the bad guy in this situation.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #229 July 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteAgain, have you had to perform in tear gas? Yes. QuoteIt's very hard to do a lot of things in this environment. That's an understatement. But not impossible, since we used to do it annually. We used to be allowed to use CS on training exercises and would have to maneuver through it on live fire, with our Pro masks, so is it ideal no, but it is possible. Matt Nope. Sorry. You're not taking into account that moviegoers don't typically have a mask, being taken completely by surprise, the room crowded with panicking innocent bystanders, and (possibly) the low light conditions.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,384 #230 July 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteThis guy was not a trained professional any more than I am. Except you wouldn't have body armor nor the amount of firepower he did. He's acting, you're reacting. You're at a huge disadvantage even if you were similarly armed and armored . . . which you're not. It's a child-like fantasy for a person to think they'd suddenly become the hero who takes down the bad guy in this situation. I don't get it. Many times I have seen discussions of how to handle a malfunction where everything has gone wrong, with everyone giving advice to "keep fighting it all the way in", and "keep pulling handles until the blood fills your goggles". So why is it that in this situation many believe the proper thing to do is to just passively allow a homicidal maniac to control your destiny???"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #231 July 21, 2012 Quote Quote Quote This guy was not a trained professional any more than I am. Except you wouldn't have body armor nor the amount of firepower he did. He's acting, you're reacting. You're at a huge disadvantage even if you were similarly armed and armored . . . which you're not. It's a child-like fantasy for a person to think they'd suddenly become the hero who takes down the bad guy in this situation. I don't get it. Many times I have seen discussions of how to handle a malfunction where everything has gone wrong, with everyone giving advice to "keep fighting it all the way in", and "keep pulling handles until the blood fills your goggles". So why is it that in this situation many believe the proper thing to do is to just passively allow a homicidal maniac to control your destiny??? Good point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #232 July 21, 2012 It's different because pulling handles all the way to the ground is, in fact, the only option besides deciding to die. It's a binary decision. The Batman Theater Scenario is not binary. You could attempt to escape the theater. You could attempt to play dead. You could attempt to shield yourself with others (not noble, but perhaps a viable option) If you had a gun you could still decide to not use it and not risk further bullets in a crowded area. You could decide to attempt to take a shot (hopefully with the knowledge that instantly makes you his next target), so your first shot better be a kill shot. And I suppose somebody might attempt to sneak up behind him, wait for him to reload and then charge him while attempting to get off a kill shot, but that also means waiting for him to reload. Point being...lots of options. Deciding which is most likely to keep you alive is one thing. Chasing your buddy below 1000ft to try to deploy for him is another.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #233 July 21, 2012 QuoteSo why is it that in this situation many believe the proper thing to do is to just passively allow a homicidal maniac to control your destiny??? Reduced aiming ability and innocent bystanders change the equation.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #234 July 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAgain, have you had to perform in tear gas? Yes. QuoteIt's very hard to do a lot of things in this environment. That's an understatement. But not impossible, since we used to do it annually. We used to be allowed to use CS on training exercises and would have to maneuver through it on live fire, with our Pro masks, so is it ideal no, but it is possible. Matt Nope. Sorry. You're not taking into account that moviegoers don't typically have a mask, being taken completely by surprise, the room crowded with panicking innocent bystanders, and (possibly) the low light conditions. I didn't make that narrow of a focus, you're now making that the focus. It is still not impossible, improbable sure. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #235 July 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo why is it that in this situation many believe the proper thing to do is to just passively allow a homicidal maniac to control your destiny??? Reduced aiming ability and innocent bystanders change the equation. A tactical egress, some times is the only option that allows you to control your destiny. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #236 July 21, 2012 QuoteI don't understand the militant anti try stance. I'm not trying to say not to try. No one here is. I'm calling out all this chest beating. Know your tactical limitations. Know why it may not go the way you vision in your imagination. Also, be willing to sacrifice all. That's what makes a hero, not taking out a bad guy. Now, are you willing to risk your life for total strangers? Will you widow you family for them? Remember, you are bringing attention to yourself and others around you. This may halt your "try"._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #237 July 21, 2012 QuoteIf it is not a public building are you saying the owner has no rights of his own? His rights end where the peoples' civil rights begin. For instance he can't bar entry to people who aren't white. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #238 July 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteIf it is not a public building are you saying the owner has no rights of his own? His rights end where the peoples' civil rights begin. For instance he can't bar entry to people who aren't white. We already worked this out. He can refuse to allow weapons in the theater, and they do, in numerous states, even though they are a Texas based Company. Plus, I think we are talking about the Bill of Rights, apparently they are limited. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #239 July 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteI don't understand the militant anti try stance. I'm not trying to say not to try. No one here is. I'm calling out all this chest beating. Know your tactical limitations. Know why it may not go the way you vision in your imagination. Also, be willing to sacrifice all. That's what makes a hero, not taking out a bad guy. Now, are you willing to risk your life for total strangers? Will you widow you family for them? Remember, you are bringing attention to yourself and others around you. This may halt your "try". I don't carry to be a hero. I carry to protect myself and my wife. The masses are on their own. If someone is firing a weapon in a room I'm in, my life is already in danger. I wish you would just come out and make your point. What is it, hide behind a seat,hide behind the curtain? Besides taking no steps to protect yourself or end the event, what is your point? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #240 July 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf it is not a public building are you saying the owner has no rights of his own? His rights end where the peoples' civil rights begin. For instance he can't bar entry to people who aren't white. We already worked this out. He can refuse to allow weapons in the theater, and they do, in numerous states, even though they are a Texas based Company. Plus, I think we are talking about the Bill of Rights, apparently they are limited. Matt I'm looking for the Georgia law. I think in Ga. a property owner can restrict carry on their property but I don't think you are breaking any laws if you carry anyway. All they can do is ask you to leave. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #241 July 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/ C.R.S. 18-12-214 #5 I think applies. Again, I do not agree, but it is their right as property owners. But to some, they seem to have failed their patrons, there is already lawsuit talk on the web, seems every incident the "sue them" chant is a real close second to the actual issue. Matt "(5) Nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity." Thanks. That clears the public/private question. But, I do agree with the right of private property owners to disallow weapons on their property if that is their choice. It just doesn't appear to be against the law to carry on their property in spite of those rules. But, if they ask you to leave and you don't you would then be illegally trespassing. Am I wrong in understanding that #5 is the Statute/Law and if you carried, you would be violating that? I agree with you. I agree they get the choice to make that call, but don't agree with the call. Matt I dunno. I looks to me that #5 restricts the law from violating a property owner's rights (to make rules, etc.) ...not the CC holder. Individual property owners can't write laws, only rules. Maybe a lawyer can weigh in. Not a lawyer nor familiar with Colorado law. BUT... In Minnesota, carrying in a private "Posted Prohibited" place isn't a crime. All the property owner can do is tell you to leave, and call the cops to have you cited for trespass if you don't leave. But if you leave immediately when told to, you aren't in any violation of any law. Wisconsin is different. Carrying in a "Posted Prohibited" area is a misdemeanor."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #242 July 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteAfter the recent shooting, and most other mass shootings, the argument most often made by proponents of concealed weapons, is that CCW holders will be a deterrent to mass shootings, and the CCW holder can drop a shooter once the rampage begins. Which, as I think most people here agree, is highly implausible. Oh sure, there are the Walter Mitty hero wanna bees who will say they're as good as SEAL Team Six, but the reality is they're not. I think very few CCW holders believe they are "as good as Seal Team 6". One thing being ignored here for all that are throwing up the training scenarios is this. Those training schools are run by professionals who plan for you to fail so they can teach you something. If you went through one of those schools and aced everything you did it wouldn't be worth your time. This guy was not a trained professional any more than I am. Other than gathering guns and an outfit you have no idea how or if he trained for this. You have no idea how many rounds were fired, what his kill ratio was, if he fixated on targets or if he randomly fired at movement. To many unknowns for any of you to say nothing would have helped. What IS known: The gunman was armed with an AR-15 assault rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and a Glock .40-caliber handgun, Oates said. Police found an additional Glock .40-caliber handgun in his car, parked just outside the theater's rear emergency exit, he said. Holmes had purchased the weapons legally at three area gun stores in the last 60 days and bought 6,000 rounds of ammunition online, including a 100-round drum magazine for an assault rifle, Oates said. Holmes had on a helmet and a full suit of tactical body armor. The likelihood of ANY amateur "hero" successfully taking him on in the theater is so small as to be essentially zero.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #243 July 22, 2012 QuoteOK, I'm in. We have too many nuts on the planet that snap into a violent outbreak of some sort. Many of those in various countries choose firearms during their snap. How do we identify the loonies and protect ourselves from them? Lock everyone up until we successfully pass a Rorschach test? We had several NUT JOBS in WWII, not to mention other world leaders with access to guns, many of them like the SS had no problem sending millions to mass graves. Those who armed themselves at least had the option to fire back and doing so prevented some of them from being placed in those mass graves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #244 July 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAfter the recent shooting, and most other mass shootings, the argument most often made by proponents of concealed weapons, is that CCW holders will be a deterrent to mass shootings, and the CCW holder can drop a shooter once the rampage begins. Which, as I think most people here agree, is highly implausible. Oh sure, there are the Walter Mitty hero wanna bees who will say they're as good as SEAL Team Six, but the reality is they're not. I think very few CCW holders believe they are "as good as Seal Team 6". One thing being ignored here for all that are throwing up the training scenarios is this. Those training schools are run by professionals who plan for you to fail so they can teach you something. If you went through one of those schools and aced everything you did it wouldn't be worth your time. This guy was not a trained professional any more than I am. Other than gathering guns and an outfit you have no idea how or if he trained for this. You have no idea how many rounds were fired, what his kill ratio was, if he fixated on targets or if he randomly fired at movement. To many unknowns for any of you to say nothing would have helped. What IS known: The gunman was armed with an AR-15 assault rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and a Glock .40-caliber handgun, Oates said. Police found an additional Glock .40-caliber handgun in his car, parked just outside the theater's rear emergency exit, he said. Holmes had purchased the weapons legally at three area gun stores in the last 60 days and bought 6,000 rounds of ammunition online, including a 100-round drum magazine for an assault rifle, Oates said. Holmes had on a helmet and a full suit of tactical body armor. The likelihood of ANY amateur "hero" successfully taking him on in the theater is so small as to be essentially zero. My understanding is this Wack Job had no employment, had very little money or was it no money. How is it possible for him to obtain these weapons and tactical gear with limited resources? Is Eric Holder and ATF involved in some new Fast and Furious program? Something to ponder.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #245 July 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAfter the recent shooting, and most other mass shootings, the argument most often made by proponents of concealed weapons, is that CCW holders will be a deterrent to mass shootings, and the CCW holder can drop a shooter once the rampage begins. Which, as I think most people here agree, is highly implausible. Oh sure, there are the Walter Mitty hero wanna bees who will say they're as good as SEAL Team Six, but the reality is they're not. I think very few CCW holders believe they are "as good as Seal Team 6". One thing being ignored here for all that are throwing up the training scenarios is this. Those training schools are run by professionals who plan for you to fail so they can teach you something. If you went through one of those schools and aced everything you did it wouldn't be worth your time. This guy was not a trained professional any more than I am. Other than gathering guns and an outfit you have no idea how or if he trained for this. You have no idea how many rounds were fired, what his kill ratio was, if he fixated on targets or if he randomly fired at movement. To many unknowns for any of you to say nothing would have helped. What IS known: The gunman was armed with an AR-15 assault rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and a Glock .40-caliber handgun, Oates said. Police found an additional Glock .40-caliber handgun in his car, parked just outside the theater's rear emergency exit, he said. Holmes had purchased the weapons legally at three area gun stores in the last 60 days and bought 6,000 rounds of ammunition online, including a 100-round drum magazine for an assault rifle, Oates said. Holmes had on a helmet and a full suit of tactical body armor. The likelihood of ANY amateur "hero" successfully taking him on in the theater is so small as to be essentially zero. And as has also been pointed out. If you hit someone wearing body armor with a 9mm or a 40 cal. They usually don't just stand there and take it. It's going to knock the shit out of them. And while I've never been shot at in a crowded, dark movie theater, He's probably never been shot back at while he was shooting up a crowded/dark movie theater. Add in that no one would be near this guy after he began firing and there might be a good chance for someone to land a well placed round to the center of his chest. Betting it would get his attention and maybe even buy some time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #246 July 22, 2012 QuoteMy understanding is this Wack Job had no employment, had very little money or was it no money. How is it possible for him to obtain these weapons and tactical gear with limited resources? Is Eric Holder and ATF involved in some new Fast and Furious program? Something to ponder.... It sounds like he was employed. The man accused in a shooting rampage at a Denver-area premiere of the new "Batman" film received a high volume of deliveries at work and home over the past four months, police said, parcels they believe contained ammunition and possibly bomb-making materials.Source Sorry to disappoint you, but it's probably neither Holder's nor Obama's fault.A federal law enforcement officer said Holmes bought one of the four guns — the first of two Glock pistols — on May 22 at Gander Mountain in Aurora, Colo. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the probe into the shootings is ongoing. Larry Whiteley, a Bass Pro Shops spokesman, said records show that its Denver store followed federal rules in selling a shotgun and a Glock pistol to Holmes. “Background checks, as required by federal law, were properly conducted, and (Holmes) was approved,” Whiteley said in a statement. Gander Mountain, which sold an AR-15 assault rifle believed to be used in the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, said the company was in compliance with state and federal laws and that it was “fully cooperating with this ongoing investigation.”SourceMath tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #247 July 22, 2012 Quote Quote My understanding is this Wack Job had no employment, had very little money or was it no money. How is it possible for him to obtain these weapons and tactical gear with limited resources? Is Eric Holder and ATF involved in some new Fast and Furious program? Something to ponder.... It sounds like he was employed. The man accused in a shooting rampage at a Denver-area premiere of the new "Batman" film received a high volume of deliveries at work and home over the past four months, police said, parcels they believe contained ammunition and possibly bomb-making materials.Source Sorry to disappoint you, but it's probably neither Holder's nor Obama's fault.A federal law enforcement officer said Holmes bought one of the four guns — the first of two Glock pistols — on May 22 at Gander Mountain in Aurora, Colo. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the probe into the shootings is ongoing. Larry Whiteley, a Bass Pro Shops spokesman, said records show that its Denver store followed federal rules in selling a shotgun and a Glock pistol to Holmes. “Background checks, as required by federal law, were properly conducted, and (Holmes) was approved,” Whiteley said in a statement. Gander Mountain, which sold an AR-15 assault rifle believed to be used in the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, said the company was in compliance with state and federal laws and that it was “fully cooperating with this ongoing investigation.” Source Thanks for the sources, however they only state he made purchases, it doesn't state he was employed...I'll look into it and get back to you, but I'm getting loaded up to fly to Oshkosh.Sorry was in a hurry to get out of here, so I didn't post the link of the following quote, "A man who lives next door to the family said Holmes seemed to be shy. Tom Mai said the mother told him Holmes couldn’t find a job after earning a master’s degree from a public university in California." Maybe will look into it further during my travels, and then maybe not. Cheers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #248 July 22, 2012 QuoteIf you hit someone wearing body armor with a 9mm or a 40 cal. They usually don't just stand there and take it. It's going to knock the shit out of them. By Newton's third law, the momentum from being hit by the bullet is identical (actually slightly less) to the momentum of the recoil. Does the recoil from a 9 mm or a .40 cal. "knock the shit out of" you? If the shooter is already positioned to handle the recoil of the guns he's shooting, then, if he's wearing body armor, bullets hitting him from the front won't necessarily knock him down.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #249 July 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteIf you hit someone wearing body armor with a 9mm or a 40 cal. They usually don't just stand there and take it. It's going to knock the shit out of them. By Newton's third law, the momentum from being hit by the bullet is identical (actually slightly less) to the momentum of the recoil. Does the recoil from a 9 mm or a .40 cal. "knock the shit out of" you? If the shooter is already positioned to handle the recoil of the guns he's shooting, then, if he's wearing body armor, bullets hitting him from the front won't necessarily knock him down. Kid's been watching too many bad movies where a bullet hits a guy and he goes flying backward out a window.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #250 July 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAfter the recent shooting, and most other mass shootings, the argument most often made by proponents of concealed weapons, is that CCW holders will be a deterrent to mass shootings, and the CCW holder can drop a shooter once the rampage begins. Which, as I think most people here agree, is highly implausible. Oh sure, there are the Walter Mitty hero wanna bees who will say they're as good as SEAL Team Six, but the reality is they're not. I think very few CCW holders believe they are "as good as Seal Team 6". One thing being ignored here for all that are throwing up the training scenarios is this. Those training schools are run by professionals who plan for you to fail so they can teach you something. If you went through one of those schools and aced everything you did it wouldn't be worth your time. This guy was not a trained professional any more than I am. Other than gathering guns and an outfit you have no idea how or if he trained for this. You have no idea how many rounds were fired, what his kill ratio was, if he fixated on targets or if he randomly fired at movement. To many unknowns for any of you to say nothing would have helped. What IS known: The gunman was armed with an AR-15 assault rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and a Glock .40-caliber handgun, Oates said. Police found an additional Glock .40-caliber handgun in his car, parked just outside the theater's rear emergency exit, he said. Holmes had purchased the weapons legally at three area gun stores in the last 60 days and bought 6,000 rounds of ammunition online, including a 100-round drum magazine for an assault rifle, Oates said. Holmes had on a helmet and a full suit of tactical body armor. The likelihood of ANY amateur "hero" successfully taking him on in the theater is so small as to be essentially zero. And as has also been pointed out. If you hit someone wearing body armor with a 9mm or a 40 cal. They usually don't just stand there and take it. It's going to knock the shit out of them. And while I've never been shot at in a crowded, dark movie theater, He's probably never been shot back at while he was shooting up a crowded/dark movie theater. Add in that no one would be near this guy after he began firing and there might be a good chance for someone to land a well placed round to the center of his chest. Betting it would get his attention and maybe even buy some time. How are you and the other amateur SWAT heroes brandishing guns going to identify which guy with a gun is the bad guy. Oh yes, he's the one you can hardly see because he's all in black and your eyes are streaming from the tear gas. Sorry to doubt your prowess, but IMO you would just make a bad scene far worse.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
