nanook 1 #251 July 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteI 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? I was being direct with you from the beginning which started from the video you posted. This scenario does not work with what was in the video. Circumstances are too different. Also, I am not trying to trick you, back you into a corner, win points or make you feel foolish. If you did not get my point, then I blame myself for not posting as direct than I though. My bad. I just wanted to put out what I know._____________________________ "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
matthewcline 0 #252 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. Interesting, but it seems not to line up with reality, but we have seen a small caliber rifle round "knock 'em on their ass" as well as larger pistols (.40+). Chris is trying to say that being hit, ineffective as it may be in regards to lethality, will distract the shooter, just like we get distracted when rounds zip by. In this scenario would it have worked? dunno, I wasn't here. But the shooter seems to have no return fire experience, so it may have been some thing. Of course having a Pro-mask would have even things up a bit better. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #253 July 22, 2012 Quotebullets hitting him from the front won't necessarily knock him down. That's not what he said... I do wonder however how many lives could've been spared if the shooter was distracted for even just a second...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #254 July 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf 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. Well, they probably also watch myth busters too... ...I'm sure many people also watch movies where guys in bullet proof running about unscathed.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #255 July 22, 2012 Quote...I'm sure many people also watch movies where guys in bullet proof running about unscathed. So then we agree, people should probably understand there is a huge difference between what they see in a movie and what reality is. On a certain level, I can't fault people who only have that as a frame of reference; it's all they know. Movies are things that implant beliefs into people's brains so powerfully, sometimes people lose track of what they think is real versus what is actually possible in physical reality. "Suspension of disbelief." Unfortunately, sometimes it gets in there so strongly, they believe that's the way reality works. Truth is stranger than fiction, 'cause fiction has to make sense. Reality is messy, chaotic and unpredictable. Police officers in full body armor and hit by bullets have reported everything from it feeling like taking a baseball bat swing to not even noticing. I don't know the type of body armor this guy had, but it's entirely possible a bullet hit would momentarily distract him, but it's also possible he could be hit with several rounds square in the chest and not even think twice about it. http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=1571&issue_id=82008quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #256 July 22, 2012 QuoteIn this scenario would it have worked? dunno, I wasn't here. But the shooter seems to have no return fire experience, so it may have been some thing. Of course having a Pro-mask would have even things up a bit better. By most accounts, the shooter is very intelligent. His attack appears to have been well thought out and implemented. It seems that he gave consideration to return fire, and probably many other contingencies. I just can't see an armchair hero with a handgun changing the outcome any, except perhaps more innocent lives lost. And yes, having the only pro-mask in a room of tear gas was a significant advantage.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #257 July 22, 2012 QuoteBy most accounts, the shooter is very intelligent. His attack appears to have been well thought out and implemented. There you go again giving these douche bags more credit than they deserve... Guns...check tear gas...check Body armor...check Desire to pull a trigger and kill...check "Brilliant!"Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #258 July 22, 2012 So far no evidence to his being able to react to return fire with out distraction. Even those of us with multiple combat tours still react to return fire. I agree, an arm chair commando is not going to be able to do much. And in this case maybe they add to the mess. But o would not discount the argument that one, trained, armed legal carry citizen might have made a positive impact. Today, ABC, with its roundtable, called for the banning of all "assault" weapons, all "Clips" (the Governor doesn't know it is a Magazine) holding more than 10 "bullets", and for all "Automatic" guns. The media and politicians (both sides) have jumped on this and are now rolling along at full tilt to advance their agenda, what ever it may be. The two major Presidential Candidates, are doing it by proxy. Personally, this guy was going to commit murder, no matter what, and it appears he wanted a higher count but miss timed and misunderstood his neighbors reactions. It is going to be a bumpy ride if your for Gun Control you just got a few new backers, if you exercise your 2nd Amendment Rights, you're a militant domestic terrorist in waiting. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #259 July 22, 2012 QuoteSo far no evidence to his being able to react to return fire with out distraction. Even those of us with multiple combat tours still react to return fire. I agree, an arm chair commando is not going to be able to do much. And in this case maybe they add to the mess. But o would not discount the argument that one, trained, armed legal carry citizen might have made a positive impact. Today, ABC, with its roundtable, called for the banning of all "assault" weapons, all "Clips" (the Governor doesn't know it is a Magazine) holding more than 10 "bullets", and for all "Automatic" guns. "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”; Governor Mitt Romney, 2004 Time for another shake of the Etch-a Sketch?... 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
ryoder 1,384 #260 July 22, 2012 It seems the other inmates at the jail are convinced he is nuts: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/aurora-shooting-suspect-james-holmes-jailed-solitary-inmates-talking-killing-article-1.1119173 Bonus: Includes red hair pics."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
matthewcline 0 #261 July 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo far no evidence to his being able to react to return fire with out distraction. Even those of us with multiple combat tours still react to return fire. I agree, an arm chair commando is not going to be able to do much. And in this case maybe they add to the mess. But o would not discount the argument that one, trained, armed legal carry citizen might have made a positive impact. Today, ABC, with its roundtable, called for the banning of all "assault" weapons, all "Clips" (the Governor doesn't know it is a Magazine) holding more than 10 "bullets", and for all "Automatic" guns. "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”; Governor Mitt Romney, 2004 Time for another shake of the Etch-a Sketch? A 2004 quote, not in context with what I wrote, about how they are acting, today. The POTUS has said words to the same effect himself, but again it is not what I was writing about and to quote it would be out of context. What was the point of your post, please? MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #262 July 22, 2012 QuoteBut o would not discount the argument that one, trained, armed legal carry citizen might have made a positive impact. And you can't discount the argument that had there been several trained, armed, legal carry citizens, present in the theater they might have started shooting and made the situation ten times worse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #263 July 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteBut o would not discount the argument that one, trained, armed legal carry citizen might have made a positive impact. And you can't discount the argument that had there been several trained, armed, legal carry citizens, present in the theater they might have started shooting and made the situation ten times worse. I do not believe I have stated any thing against that. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #264 July 22, 2012 QuoteTo many unknowns for any of you to say nothing would have helped. Here's what we DO know: 1. Holmes purchased all of the guns, ammo, and equipment he needed legally. 2. There's no government database that would have alerted law enforcement about what he might have been up to. 3. Nobody in law enforcement ever questioned him about why he needed to purchase 100 round magazines. 4. Holmes had no problem transporting his arsenal without government interference. You can thank the NRA for this situation. They so are feared by every politician in the U.S. that none of them will even think about proposing legislation that would at least help law enforcement to detect such purchases in the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #265 July 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo far no evidence to his being able to react to return fire with out distraction. Even those of us with multiple combat tours still react to return fire. I agree, an arm chair commando is not going to be able to do much. And in this case maybe they add to the mess. But o would not discount the argument that one, trained, armed legal carry citizen might have made a positive impact. Today, ABC, with its roundtable, called for the banning of all "assault" weapons, all "Clips" (the Governor doesn't know it is a Magazine) holding more than 10 "bullets", and for all "Automatic" guns. "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”; Governor Mitt Romney, 2004 Time for another shake of the Etch-a Sketch? A 2004 quote, not in context with what I wrote, about how they are acting, today. The POTUS has said words to the same effect himself, but again it is not what I was writing about and to quote it would be out of context. What was the point of your post, please? Matt How is it not in context? You wrote about calls for banning assault weapons. Romney's quote was about banning assault weapons. Just another example of how Romney will speak out of either side of his mouth in order to get votes.... 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
CSpenceFLY 1 #266 July 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteTo many unknowns for any of you to say nothing would have helped. Here's what we DO know: 1. Holmes purchased all of the guns, ammo, and equipment he needed legally. 2. There's no government database that would have alerted law enforcement about what he might have been up to. 3. Nobody in law enforcement ever questioned him about why he needed to purchase 100 round magazines. 4. Holmes had no problem transporting his arsenal without government interference. You can thank the NRA for this situation. They so are feared by every politician in the U.S. that none of them will even think about proposing legislation that would at least help law enforcement to detect such purchases in the future. No, you can blame one crazy person. You can not legislate us into the world you want to live in. It will never happen. If it were possible to legislate something to the point that you couldn't put your hands on it there would be no drugs available in this country right now. I'm not a drug user but I could bet you $100 I could leave the house now and be back in an hour with at least 3 different types of illegal drugs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #267 July 22, 2012 Quote Quote Quote To many unknowns for any of you to say nothing would have helped. Here's what we DO know: 1. Holmes purchased all of the guns, ammo, and equipment he needed legally. 2. There's no government database that would have alerted law enforcement about what he might have been up to. 3. Nobody in law enforcement ever questioned him about why he needed to purchase 100 round magazines. 4. Holmes had no problem transporting his arsenal without government interference. You can thank the NRA for this situation. They so are feared by every politician in the U.S. that none of them will even think about proposing legislation that would at least help law enforcement to detect such purchases in the future. No, you can blame one crazy person. You can not legislate us into the world you want to live in. It will never happen. If it were possible to legislate something to the point that you couldn't put your hands on it there would be no drugs available in this country right now. I'm not a drug user but I could bet you $100 I could leave the house now and be back in an hour with at least 3 different types of illegal drugs. This has absolutely nothing to do with the drug war. I think it's a matter of time before the tide turns and assault weapons will be banned. We're not going to give up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #268 July 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo far no evidence to his being able to react to return fire with out distraction. Even those of us with multiple combat tours still react to return fire. I agree, an arm chair commando is not going to be able to do much. And in this case maybe they add to the mess. But o would not discount the argument that one, trained, armed legal carry citizen might have made a positive impact. Today, ABC, with its roundtable, called for the banning of all "assault" weapons, all "Clips" (the Governor doesn't know it is a Magazine) holding more than 10 "bullets", and for all "Automatic" guns. "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”; Governor Mitt Romney, 2004 Time for another shake of the Etch-a Sketch? A 2004 quote, not in context with what I wrote, about how they are acting, today. The POTUS has said words to the same effect himself, but again it is not what I was writing about and to quote it would be out of context. What was the point of your post, please? Matt How is it not in context? You wrote about calls for banning assault weapons. Romney's quote was about banning assault weapons. Just another example of how Romney will speak out of either side of his mouth in order to get votes. Just like the POTUS. You left out the part where the two of them are not directly talking about banning any thing, but grieving. It is out of context with my post, but in context with your view, so I guess I understand why you went right to Romney, but he is not the Governor who misspoke today. 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 #269 July 22, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote To many unknowns for any of you to say nothing would have helped. Here's what we DO know: 1. Holmes purchased all of the guns, ammo, and equipment he needed legally. 2. There's no government database that would have alerted law enforcement about what he might have been up to. 3. Nobody in law enforcement ever questioned him about why he needed to purchase 100 round magazines. 4. Holmes had no problem transporting his arsenal without government interference. You can thank the NRA for this situation. They so are feared by every politician in the U.S. that none of them will even think about proposing legislation that would at least help law enforcement to detect such purchases in the future. No, you can blame one crazy person. You can not legislate us into the world you want to live in. It will never happen. If it were possible to legislate something to the point that you couldn't put your hands on it there would be no drugs available in this country right now. I'm not a drug user but I could bet you $100 I could leave the house now and be back in an hour with at least 3 different types of illegal drugs. This has absolutely nothing to do with the drug war. I think it's a matter of time before the tide turns and assault weapons will be banned. We're not going to give up. The drug war is an utter waste of LEO and Funds, just like an all out ban would be, in the end those with no regard for law will still find the way to break it. The NRA did not create the Aurora Incident, but they do make a good scape goat, since addressing the individual, and his mental state and criminal motivation, would be anti PC. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #270 July 22, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote To many unknowns for any of you to say nothing would have helped. Here's what we DO know: 1. Holmes purchased all of the guns, ammo, and equipment he needed legally. 2. There's no government database that would have alerted law enforcement about what he might have been up to. 3. Nobody in law enforcement ever questioned him about why he needed to purchase 100 round magazines. 4. Holmes had no problem transporting his arsenal without government interference. You can thank the NRA for this situation. They so are feared by every politician in the U.S. that none of them will even think about proposing legislation that would at least help law enforcement to detect such purchases in the future. No, you can blame one crazy person. You can not legislate us into the world you want to live in. It will never happen. If it were possible to legislate something to the point that you couldn't put your hands on it there would be no drugs available in this country right now. I'm not a drug user but I could bet you $100 I could leave the house now and be back in an hour with at least 3 different types of illegal drugs. This has absolutely nothing to do with the drug war. I think it's a matter of time before the tide turns and assault weapons will be banned. We're not going to give up. The drug war is an utter waste of LEO and Funds, just like an all out ban would be, in the end those with no regard for law will still find the way to break it. The NRA did not create the Aurora Incident, but they do make a good scape goat, since addressing the individual, and his mental state and criminal motivation, would be anti PC. Matt This issue has nothing to do with the War On Drugs. The NRA is an accomplice to this crime, and must be held to account. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #271 July 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo far no evidence to his being able to react to return fire with out distraction. Even those of us with multiple combat tours still react to return fire. I agree, an arm chair commando is not going to be able to do much. And in this case maybe they add to the mess. But o would not discount the argument that one, trained, armed legal carry citizen might have made a positive impact. Today, ABC, with its roundtable, called for the banning of all "assault" weapons, all "Clips" (the Governor doesn't know it is a Magazine) holding more than 10 "bullets", and for all "Automatic" guns. "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”; Governor Mitt Romney, 2004 Time for another shake of the Etch-a Sketch? A 2004 quote, not in context with what I wrote, about how they are acting, today. The POTUS has said words to the same effect himself, but again it is not what I was writing about and to quote it would be out of context. What was the point of your post, please? Matt How is it not in context? You wrote about calls for banning assault weapons. Romney's quote was about banning assault weapons. Just another example of how Romney will speak out of either side of his mouth in order to get votes. Just like the POTUS. You left out the part where the two of them are not directly talking about banning any thing, but grieving. It is out of context with my post, but in context with your view, so I guess I understand why you went right to Romney, but he is not the Governor who misspoke today. Matt In 2004 Romney signed a bill into law banning assault weapons in Mass. Now he is against a ban. He truly is Governor Etch-a-Sketch. How can anyone possibly believe any position he has taken on anything is other than grubbing for votes from his current audience?... 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
matthewcline 0 #272 July 22, 2012 It was not the Context of the post, but we can't build on that can we? 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 #273 July 22, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote To many unknowns for any of you to say nothing would have helped. Here's what we DO know: 1. Holmes purchased all of the guns, ammo, and equipment he needed legally. 2. There's no government database that would have alerted law enforcement about what he might have been up to. 3. Nobody in law enforcement ever questioned him about why he needed to purchase 100 round magazines. 4. Holmes had no problem transporting his arsenal without government interference. You can thank the NRA for this situation. They so are feared by every politician in the U.S. that none of them will even think about proposing legislation that would at least help law enforcement to detect such purchases in the future. No, you can blame one crazy person. You can not legislate us into the world you want to live in. It will never happen. If it were possible to legislate something to the point that you couldn't put your hands on it there would be no drugs available in this country right now. I'm not a drug user but I could bet you $100 I could leave the house now and be back in an hour with at least 3 different types of illegal drugs. This has absolutely nothing to do with the drug war. I think it's a matter of time before the tide turns and assault weapons will be banned. We're not going to give up. The drug war is an utter waste of LEO and Funds, just like an all out ban would be, in the end those with no regard for law will still find the way to break it. The NRA did not create the Aurora Incident, but they do make a good scape goat, since addressing the individual, and his mental state and criminal motivation, would be anti PC. Matt This issue has nothing to do with the War On Drugs. The NRA is an accomplice to this crime, and must be held to account. I disagree, he should be held accountable as the Individual who committed the crime. But for giggles lets use your logic. The NRA passed no laws and enable no one, now the Politicians did, lets line them up. His Mom is quoted as knowing in her gut the PD arrested the right guy, add her. A school mate was quoted today of having seen a change in him, add him as well. See how silly all that sounds? 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 #274 July 22, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote To many unknowns for any of you to say nothing would have helped. Here's what we DO know: 1. Holmes purchased all of the guns, ammo, and equipment he needed legally. 2. There's no government database that would have alerted law enforcement about what he might have been up to. 3. Nobody in law enforcement ever questioned him about why he needed to purchase 100 round magazines. 4. Holmes had no problem transporting his arsenal without government interference. You can thank the NRA for this situation. They so are feared by every politician in the U.S. that none of them will even think about proposing legislation that would at least help law enforcement to detect such purchases in the future. No, you can blame one crazy person. You can not legislate us into the world you want to live in. It will never happen. If it were possible to legislate something to the point that you couldn't put your hands on it there would be no drugs available in this country right now. I'm not a drug user but I could bet you $100 I could leave the house now and be back in an hour with at least 3 different types of illegal drugs. This has absolutely nothing to do with the drug war. I think it's a matter of time before the tide turns and assault weapons will be banned. We're not going to give up. Learn to read,I didn't say this had anything to do with the war on drugs. Go back and read what I said. If banning things worked you would not be able to get illegal drugs in the US. Name one thing that is illegal to own that you can't put your hands on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #275 July 22, 2012 >The NRA is an accomplice to this crime, and must be held to account. Nonsense, no more so than the movie industry is an accomplice. Both are PART of what happened but neither helped him do this, and both would have stopped him had the opportunity arisen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
