Don’t hold your breath for new gun laws

posted at 12:31 pm on July 22, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

We’ve already seen the sadly inevitable rush to capitalize on the tragedy in Colorado as an excuse to start passing strict gun laws, ranging from Bloomberg to Rendell and more. But as we sort through the aftermath of the disaster and the victims begin to pick up the pieces, is this opportunism going to result in any new legislation along those lines? One study linked by the AP seems to indicate that the gun grabbing crowd may wind up being disappointed.

Once, every highly publicized outbreak of gun violence produced strong calls from Democrats and a few Republicans for tougher controls on firearms.

Now those pleas are muted, a political paradox that’s grown more pronounced in an era scarred by Columbine, Virginia Tech, the wounding of a congresswoman and now the shooting in a suburban movie theater where carnage is expected on-screen only.

“We don’t want sympathy. We want action,” Dan Gross, president of the Brady campaign said Friday as President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney mourned the dead.

As this look at history lays out, there was a time in the nineties when gun control garnered a lot more public support. A ten year ban was placed on certain types of rifles while Bill Clinton was in office and the Brady Campaign obviously felt like they were winning the day. But then, slowly but surely, the tide began to shift.

By 2004, when the assault weapon ban lapsed, congressional Democrats made no serious attempt to pass an extension. President George W. Bush was content to let it fade into history.

Public sentiment had swung.

According to a Gallup poll in 1990, 78 percent of those surveyed said laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter, while 19 percent said they should remain the same or be loosened.

By the fall of 2004 support for tougher laws had dropped to 54 percent. In last year’s sounding, 43 percent said they should be stricter, and 55 percent said they should stay the same or be made more lenient.

While many of the Democrats in this article bemoan the ascendency of the NRA in the modern era, the fact is that they have deftly handled a campaign of public awareness which has been winning support on both sides of the aisle. There are some cycles where their financial support to campaigns has been almost exclusively to the GOP. This year 12% of their donations went to Democrats. And the far Left side of the Hill hasn’t been able to swing anything close to a majority of their own members to take a big stand on this. Obama himself said we must protect our 2nd amendment rights after the tragedy. The issue is simply too politically toxic.

This isn’t to say that 2nd amendment supporters shouldn’t be vigilant in the weeks and months ahead. But I also don’t think it’s time to panic.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 8

So neither 0bama or Romney would sign into law legislation further restricting our right to bear arms after the election? Dream on!

DannoJyd on July 22, 2012 at 12:35 PM

We need laws repealed, not created.

ProfShadow on July 22, 2012 at 12:36 PM

This isn’t to say that 2nd amendment supporters shouldn’t be vigilant in the weeks and months ahead. But I also don’t think it’s time to panic.

I am curious why you say this.

Since the left wants anyone who may have Mental Impairments (depression, PTSD are also considered in this) to not own a gun, how is this going to stop anything?

Now if those who “grab guns” are going to be under this possibility, how does this not be a time to panic? Anyone who has served is considered to have PTSD per the Physiological BS crowd.

upinak on July 22, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Obama himself said we must protect our 2nd amendment rights after the tragedy.

Oh, well, then everything’s cool, right? Who needs vigilance?

Dante on July 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM

How many liberal politicians, celebrities, etc have armed security. I remember Rosie O’Donell making a big deal out of this issue but having an armed guard for her kids. Hypocrisy at its highest.
I’ve ignored the signs at places for years and nobody need fear a legally carrying armed person. They might be grateful should an ocassion ever arise. Kudos to the 71 year old man in Florida a couple of weeks ago at the internet cafe. We need more of it.

Art on July 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Second. I think it is far more important to address the reason this took place from the point of view of the perp than to seek to limit the tools he used. After all his first assault was not with firearms but with chemical devices. Had he tossed grenades, the death toll would have been greater.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on July 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM

As this look at history lays out, there was a time in the nineties when gun control garnered a lot more public support. A ten year ban was placed on certain types of rifles while Bill Clinton was in office and the Brady Campaign obviously felt like they were winning the day. But then, slowly but surely, the tide began to shift.

More importantly, SCOTUS handed down DC vs Heller. That ruling is what’s really causing the gun-grabbers to go looney tunes.

Stoic Patriot on July 22, 2012 at 12:39 PM

on 14 JUL, a CCW citizen, a 71yr old man, effectively fought off two HOODED PUNKS at an internet cafe in Florida. Erika Johnsen had a post up about it. One HOODED PUNK was armed with what looked like a bat, the other, a pistol. The HOODED PUNK with the pistol was shot 3-4 times and both HOODED PUNKs ran off with ZERO loot and MULTIPLE bullet holes.

/rantoff

ted c on July 22, 2012 at 12:41 PM

By 2004, when the assault weapon ban lapsed, congressional Democrats made no serious attempt to pass an extension.

As I said on the Open Thread, I hope the media chooses this hill to die on.

By standing up against tyranny in any form we Americans are speaking to our own Federal Government that tyranny will not be stood for. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is pure and simple; armed people can secure and maintain their freedom. This is not the only reason why liberals carry guns there are five more reasons that come to mind and without further ado please have a look at them. LIBERALS With Guns

When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check at the door their ability to think rationally. In discussing the importance of any other portion of the Bill of Rights, liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

So why do liberals have such a problem with the Second Amendment? Why do they lump all gun owners in the category of “gun nuts”? Why do they complain about the “radical extremist agenda of the NRA”? Why do they argue for greater restrictions?

Why do they start performing mental gymnastics worthy of a position in Bush’s Department of Justice to rationalize what they consider “reasonable” infringement of one of our most basic, fundamental, and revolutionary — that’s right, revolutionary — civil liberties?

Why do they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote Democrat? Why are they so dismissive of approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns?

And why is their approach to the Second Amendment so different from their approach to all the others?

Well, if conversations on this blog about the issue of guns are in any way indicative of the way other liberals feel, maybe this stems from a basic misunderstanding.

So, allow me to attempt to explain the Second Amendment in a way that liberals should be able to endorse.

Daily Kos: Why LIBERALS Should Love The Second Amendment

In Defense of the 2nd Amendment

The Individual-Rights model, which is based on the facts surrounding the creation of the constitution of the United States as created by the people of the United States (Founding Fathers), who in turn put their trust in the citizens-militia to protect the Republic from not only foreign enemies but from the several states themselves, is the only correct “interpretation.”

The Constitution IS NOT in a foreign language, nor is it in the often times deceptive legalese of modern-law. It was written plainly, so that all citizens would understand its meaning without question or need of a legal interpreter.

The amendment makes clear WHO comprises the militia, and THAT the people have the right to arms for the purpose of maintaining the security of a FREE as opposed to TYRANNICAL state.

Americanist-LIBERAL’S Blog

Flora Duh on July 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM

I just recently bought some pistols, though haven’t gotten a concealed carry permit yet (so they have to stay at home). However, because of this I have become much more aware of the notices some businesses post regarding carrying weapons.

I noticed just last week when I went to see the Spiderman movie that my local theater dis-allowed carrying weapons there. I would imagine that the theater in Colorado was similar. This would have turned out much differently if there had been just a handful of theater goers with their own guns.

Texastoast on July 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Obama’s not going to go after the 2nd Amendment. He’s going to let the U.N. do it for him.

Don’t drop your guard, not even for an instant.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 12:43 PM

upinak on July 22, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Saw a VA doctor two weeks ago and the first question asked was did I suffer from PTSD. I quietly explained that while I served for 10 years in the Air Force none of it was in a war zone so could we get to why I was there which was for a DVT.

chemman on July 22, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Had he tossed grenades, the death toll would have been greater.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on July 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM

And it now appears that he had the knowledge to do just that..
And the willfulness..

Electrongod on July 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM

I support new guns laws:

– Mandatory ownership
– Establishments prohibiting carrying on premises responsible and liable for actions of those who ignore the prohibition.

Dusty on July 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM

My dads home town of Juarez has very strict gun laws but is the most violent city in the world.

newportmike on July 22, 2012 at 12:45 PM

ted c on July 22, 2012 at 12:41 PM YEP. agree completely.

sarc on

Hell, if they really want to protect people they should outlaw internet cafe’s!!!!

sarc off

RealMc on July 22, 2012 at 12:45 PM

I wish that 71 year old Grandpa that shot those two punks last week had been in the theater in Aurora.

Wouldn’t have been burying 12 people……we’d have been celebrating another great video on Youtube.

PappyD61 on July 22, 2012 at 12:45 PM

The issue is really the imbalance of power that is created when one person has a firearm, and others don’t; the armed person holds an unfair advantage. That’s the reason we put armed air marshalls on airplanes.

Rather than exacerbate that advantage by disarming law-abiding citizens, efforts to equalize the firepower — and thus, create a deterrent against those who would do harm to others — have proven to be extremely effective…

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1818862/posts

VastRightWingConspirator on July 22, 2012 at 12:46 PM

I think it is far more important to address the reason this took place from the point of view of the perp than to seek to limit the tools he used. Zelsdorf Ragshaft on July 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM

The far left agenda has odd effects in guilty, paranoid minds.

When this becomes one’s normal, the potential that he’ll act in horrific ways increases.

Akzed on July 22, 2012 at 12:46 PM

The true agenda is the same as always. Additional control over people.

Bmore on July 22, 2012 at 12:47 PM

One obvious inference from the tragedy is that “Gun Free Zones” are in fact “Unarmed Victim Zones” that may attract the bloody-minded who intend to commit slaughter.

Given a choice, I won’t enter an establishment that bans firearms.

Or I just violate their stupid and potentially deadly rule.

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Obama himself said we must protect our 2nd amendment rights after the tragedy.

Yeah, but nobody believes anything he says anymore.

Socratease on July 22, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Saw a VA doctor two weeks ago and the first question asked was did I suffer from PTSD. I quietly explained that while I served for 10 years in the Air Force none of it was in a war zone so could we get to why I was there which was for a DVT.

chemman on July 22, 2012 at 12:43 PM

so he gave you a memo for Disabled Veteran Tags and ignored your Deep Venous Thrombosis??/

ted c on July 22, 2012 at 12:47 PM

….there was a time in the nineties when gun control garnered a lot more public support

Too bad for all of those Democrats that they aborted all of those babies back then and waited so long to have their one “designer” kid, huh?

Meanwhile, all of us Conservatives were busy raising larger families at younger ages, passing along our values, and now our kids are reaching voting age (and starting to have families of their own).

You reap what you sow – and the Democrats didn’t plant a large enough crop….

http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/the-instruments-of-their-own-destruction/

(They’re never going to be able to catch up, either)

TeresainFortWorth on July 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Texastoast on July 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM

It may have allowed a few more to escape but since he was wearing ballistic armor to protect his legs, torso, neck and head plus he had set off a chemical charge similar to tear gas it would have been difficult for even a very good shot to have done much. It would have taken a face shot to stop him. In my state that would have gotten the responding shooter arrested for shooting to kill.

chemman on July 22, 2012 at 12:50 PM

..unfortunately, one of the wingnut state senators is as adamant as ever about concocting a law designed to curtail the ownership of an AR-15 or similar rifle in this state. I would ask those on Hot Air who are gun owners — or just believers in the second amendment — to visit the following link and sign the petition:

https://www.change.org/petitions/stop-sb-249

O.K., so it’s lib infested California. What harm could it do to me in a gun-safe state like ________ (fill in the blanks)? Well, they are at work in your state and any success in other states could be employed to abridge your rights as well.

It’s just a 5-minute visit to the link to add your names.

Thanks.

The War Planner on July 22, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Question for liberals: WHY do these mass shootings always occur in “gun free” zones?

GarandFan on July 22, 2012 at 12:52 PM

A majority of the country understands the following:

- Even if all guns are made illegal people who ignore laws will be able to get guns.

- The police do not protect them from mass murdering nut cases, much less from ordinary murderers.

- There will always be nuts who will murder people for no apparent reason.

- The only way they can hope to protect themselves is by owning a gun.

- The first thing a totalitarian government does, if it hasn’t already been done, is disarms its citizens.

- The Constitution gives them the right to own a gun.

farsighted on July 22, 2012 at 12:52 PM

As this look at history lays out, there was a time in the nineties when gun control garnered a lot more public support. A ten year ban was placed on certain types of rifles while Bill Clinton was in office and the Brady Campaign obviously felt like they were winning the day. But then, slowly but surely, the tide began to shift.

Well, yeah, the LSM and the Left (but I repeat myself) had control of the pubic soapbox. By 2004, that had changed.

Dusty on July 22, 2012 at 12:52 PM

I just recently bought some pistols, though haven’t gotten a concealed carry permit yet (so they have to stay at home). However, because of this I have become much more aware of the notices some businesses post regarding carrying weapons.

I noticed just last week when I went to see the Spiderman movie that my local theater dis-allowed carrying weapons there. I would imagine that the theater in Colorado was similar. This would have turned out much differently if there had been just a handful of theater goers with their own guns.

Texastoast on July 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Actually, since the COWARD had on full body armor from head to toe, there’s a really high likelihood that anyone who tried to protect themselves would have died and been unsuccessful. Which only proves that if someone really wants to committ such a COWARDLY act, there’s little you can do to stop them from doing it, once it’s gotten to that point.
However, this doesn’t take into account the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment, not does it reflect the vast majority of instances when concealed carry is effective.

I feel as though the COWARD was able to committ this COWARDLY act not because there weren’t armed citizens in the theater, but rather, because as our society has become more and more “Progressive”, there is more likelihood that family and friends aren’t aware of something being wrong, or are scared to say something out of fear of being labelled racist or intolerant, or any number of other catchy phrases.

We continue to become more of an Orwellian society, and less of a civil society, as “Liberalism” and “Progressivism” become more mainstream.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Meanwhile, all of us Conservatives were busy raising larger families at younger ages, passing along our values, and now our kids are reaching voting age (and starting to have families of their own).

TeresainFortWorth on July 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM

..at the pistol range yesterday (in California), you could not believe the number of young people — about 25% of the crowd, including a whole raft of young girls — who were participating in classes, a pistol match, and general target practice.

The War Planner on July 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM

well as the article point out gun restrictions have slowly been lifted in nearly every state….with many states adopting castle doctrines and losening concealed carry ….. the FBI has reported a drop in homicide rates every year for the last 5 years …..deep drops …..hmmmmmm…. makes ya wonder …..don’t it

Aggie95 on July 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM

ted c on July 22, 2012 at 12:47 PM

No disabled veterans tags and they are treating it. I probably will need to go to the civilian side to have it roto-rooted if the blood thinners don’t disolve.

chemman on July 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Although I have no desire to own a gun I have no doubt if a bad guy wants one he’ll get one.

gerrym51 on July 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM

The Constitution gives them the right to own a gun recognizes the natural right of the people to own guns.

[farsighted on July 22, 2012 at 12:52 PM]

Clarified it for you.

Dusty on July 22, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Obama’s not going to go after the 2nd Amendment. He’s going to let the U.N. do it for him.

Don’t drop your guard, not even for an instant.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Yup, always watch what his other hand is doing.

petefrt on July 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Even as emerging details indicate the gunman implicated in the tragedy had legally purchased at least six firearms, including a semiautomatic weapon, gun control remains a divisive issue in the U.S. The lawmaker who represents the district in which the massacre took place, Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter, admitted that the conversation about gun control “really isn’t taking place” in Colorado, and said Congress should take up the problem.

“I think this is really a congressional issue that has to be dealt with. Should we reinstate the assault weapons ban? I think we should, and that’s where it starts,” he said on CBS’ Face the Nation, referring to the 10-year assault weapons ban that was passed in 1994 but has since expired with little outcry.

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein agreed on Fox News Sunday, saying that “weapons of war don’t belong on the streets.” But she admitted that now, in the middle of an election year and fights over looming tax increases and budget cuts, might not be the best time for such a debate.

“I think this is a bad time to brace a new subject, but there has been no action. There has been no action because there has been no outrage out there,” she said.

Feinstein added that part of the reason lawmakers were unwilling to take up the issue is because of reelection concerns: “The gun organizations go out to defeat people in states where they can,” she said. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., expressed the same sentiment on NBC’s Meet the Press, saying that while she’s not personally concerned about the National Rifle Association coming after her, other politicians lack “spine.”

“The thing of it is, as a politician, a lot of politicians know it’s the right thing to try to fight for something to save lives. They don’t have the spine anymore. They pander to who’s giving them money,” she said. Source

Flora Duh on July 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM

chemman on July 22, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Anytime a doctor asks if you suffer from PTSD or depression.. say NO!

upinak on July 22, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Could an Armed Person Have Stopped the Aurora Shooting? A Second Opinion.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/07/20/could_an_armed_person_have_stopped_the_aurora_shooting_a_second_opinion_.html

There were members of the military in the theater, and possibly more people with training. There were, however, no guns, even though Colorado is a concealed-carry state because the Century theater where this took place was a “gun-free zone.”

According to police, though, James Holmes had a series of tactical advantages. He was wearing body armor, and depending on what it was made from, it could have stopped most of the bullets fired by handguns. A ceramic plate, said Block, could stop a rifle round. “If he has a vest, you do a head shot. Body shots don’t kill, headshots do.” What could Holmes’s riot gear helmet have stopped? “Not a darn thing. If I make a head shot I’m gonna go for soft tissue.” Failing that, “I’ll go for the pelvic girdle. You put three or four rounds in the pelvic girdle, you have fixed the problem.”

Again, though — the theater was a gun-free zone. “That’s where the chickens go,” said Block. “They go to where people are unarmed.” The shooter made a series of smart tactical decisions that minimized the risk of anyone stopping him.

Galt2009 on July 22, 2012 at 12:58 PM

It may have allowed a few more to escape but since he was wearing ballistic armor to protect his legs, torso, neck and head plus he had set off a chemical charge similar to tear gas it would have been difficult for even a very good shot to have done much. It would have taken a face shot to stop him. In my state that would have gotten the responding shooter arrested for shooting to kill.

chemman on July 22, 2012 at 12:50 PM

I’m surprised that there wasn’t one keyed up dude in that audience that didn’t jump him–alas–an unhelpful observation, but…obviously I wasn’t there.

ted c on July 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Since ID requirements ‘disproportionately affect minorities’, and since gun ownership is a constitutionally-guaranteed right, then clearly any legal requirement that an ID be presented when buying a gun disproportionately denies gun ownership to minorities and is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection clause.

My, wouldn’t it be interesting to see the Holder Justice Department toe-dance around that one!

PersonFromPorlock on July 22, 2012 at 1:00 PM

TWP, just saw your note from last night. Nice of you to put the word out.

—————-
God damn the rest of the wussy world. Go to Hell for always meddling in the still freest land on Earth, you weasels who hide behind the US, while she protects you to spew freely against her.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ – Molon Labe, you imbeciles.

——–

This isn’t to say that 2nd amendment supporters shouldn’t be vigilant in the weeks and months ahead. But I also don’t think it’s time to panic.

I wish and pray that Obama picks this theme up, but don’t count on it. He will say nothing, until after Nov. 6.

For this alone all who still value their freedom should vote him OUT.

Otherwise, he’ll take your guns, with an EO. The leftists can’t wait to make you all modern day slaves.

Also, shoot down an unmanned drone if you see it fly over your land. Be a “hero” as Krauthammer said you would be if you did so.

Schadenfreude on July 22, 2012 at 1:00 PM

More have been slaughtered in gun running to Mexico by our own government. We need serious control on our government, and there is no amendment protecting the rights of these agencies to break laws with impunity.

Don L on July 22, 2012 at 1:00 PM

galt; could an armed person have dropped him with a shot? possibly–but many of us who have previously served knows what it is like to wear a chemical mask, particularly in the dark. A tank could roll up behind you and you wouldn’t know it. The guy was vulnerable from behind, I think he could’ve been jumped, tripped, pushed, someone grab the mask–alas—monday morning quarterbacking.

ted c on July 22, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Electrongod on July 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM

We ended up with the best case scenario during this atrocity. Given his background and access to chemicals at the University it could have been much, much worse.

chemman on July 22, 2012 at 1:02 PM

As I said on the Open Thread, I hope the media chooses this hill to die on.

Flora Duh on July 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Me too. Go for it, you Obama-sh*t consumers, mistaking it for Beluga caviar.

Schadenfreude on July 22, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Even as emerging details indicate the gunman implicated in the tragedy had legally purchased at least six firearms, including a semiautomatic weapon, gun control remains a divisive issue in the U.S. The lawmaker who represents the district in which the massacre took place, Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter, admitted that the conversation about gun control “really isn’t taking place” in Colorado, and said Congress should take up the problem.

[Flora Duh on July 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM]

Amazing. A representative of the sovereign state of Colorado doesn’t like the fact that the citizens of his state aren’t talking about it to his satisfaction, so he wants the Federal Government to do something about that.

Dusty on July 22, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Ban Batman movies….

You ever seen anyone shooting people in a “Winnie the Pooh” or a “Disney Mickey Mouse” movie????

;-)

albill on July 22, 2012 at 1:04 PM

It may have allowed a few more to escape but since he was wearing ballistic armor to protect his legs, torso, neck and head plus he had set off a chemical charge similar to tear gas it would have been difficult for even a very good shot to have done much. It would have taken a face shot to stop him. In my state that would have gotten the responding shooter arrested for shooting to kill.

chemman on July 22, 2012 at 12:50 PM

I guarantee you that a double tap to the center of mass with a .45 ACP or similarly powerful handgun round is going to do some damage, body armor or no. The energy transferred will cause serious injury and is likely to knock the target down.

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Holder does NOT belief the 2nd amendment covers your right to bear arms.

Recall his direct involvement in the Elián González case.

Watch out for the Holder/Obama thuggery team.

Schadenfreude on July 22, 2012 at 1:05 PM

ted c on July 22, 2012 at 1:01 PM

True but I can’t see how anyone could have gotten into a position behind him to do that. If I understand correctly he entered through an emergency exit next to the screen in the front of the theater and then commenced his actions from that point. The only way to get to him would have been through the same door. Given his state of preparation imo that door was closed.

chemman on July 22, 2012 at 1:06 PM

The otherwise sane congressman King from NY has also lost it. Keep an eye on the right too. Out with all of them who even think of it.

Schadenfreude on July 22, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Interesting that liberals fight like mad to insure money is transferred through taxes to create fair and balanced equal outcomes but when it comes to personal defense, innocent people aren’t allowed to have a fair and balanced used of weapons.

Don L on July 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Actually, since the COWARD had on full body armor from head to toe, there’s a really high likelihood that anyone who tried to protect themselves would have died and been unsuccessful.

Nonsense.

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Getting that double tap in the conditions described inside that theater would have been difficult (lights out, chemical smoke and panic. Not to mention that most people do not use a 45 ACP as their carry piece. I happen too since I want the stopping power.

chemman on July 22, 2012 at 1:10 PM

…the gun grabbing crowd may wind up being disappointed.

I guess we dodged that bullet!

…poor word choice?

Mr. Prodigy on July 22, 2012 at 1:10 PM

The otherwise sane congressman King from NY has also lost it. Keep an eye on the right too. Out with all of them who even think of it.

Schadenfreude on July 22, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Relevant!

DannoJyd on July 22, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Honestly, since the guy had body armor on it would have taken a shot to the face or arm to take him out of action. With the .380 I carry most of the time it would be a very tough shot. My .45 or my friend with his 9mm would do much better.

That said there is not telling what an fool like “Joker boy” would do once he started taking hits. Reports are he was on pain killers so his reactions would probably be slow enough that you could get a few well aimed shots in. Sadly no one else in the theater appears to have been armed so we will never know.

THis should be a reminder that if you carry you should visit the range a few times a year at a minimum to maintain your proficiency.

As far as gun free zones. There is a saying that it is beter to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

TheGarbone on July 22, 2012 at 1:12 PM

It appears Holmes was a former Occupy San Diego Black Bloc member. As more evidence comes out it will start to get picked up by more non-traditional news outlets. The alphabets will take a pass of course.

http://www.examiner.com/article/colorado-shooting-suspect-reported-to-be-former-occupy-member

Wigglesworth on July 22, 2012 at 1:15 PM

I bought my first AR on 1/20/09. bushmaster XM15-E2S.

No expost facto laws.

Get’em while you can.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Chicago has has some of the most strict laws about handgun ownership, to the point where now the only people who have guns are the criminals.
We are now Bhagdad on the Lake, 250+ killed so far this year and nearly 3x that number wounded. Cops are giving up trying to keep the peace. We are in the middle of a major gang war.
Nice work there Mayor Daley, and hey there, Rahm, you’re no better.

ChicagoBlues on July 22, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Actually, since the COWARD had on full body armor from head to toe, there’s a really high likelihood that anyone who tried to protect themselves would have died and been unsuccessful.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Unlike the people who had no way to protect themselves, and who could have protect themselves if they tried. They all lived, right? /s

Even full body armor does not protect legs, arms, the neck, and the head. And depending on the angle debilitating or fatal shots can still hit areas that are nominally covered by body armor, through the openings for legs, arms, and the head. Just ask Iraq or Afghan veterans who have been hit in those places while wearing body armor. And ask them about the guys they know who died after getting shot while wearing full body armor.

farsighted on July 22, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Actually, since the COWARD had on full body armor from head to toe, there’s a really high likelihood that anyone who tried to protect themselves would have died and been unsuccessful.

Nonsense.

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Really? I’d love to hear you explain why G.I. Joe.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 1:24 PM

on 14 JUL, a CCW citizen, a 71yr old man, effectively fought off two HOODED PUNKS at an internet cafe in Florida. Erika Johnsen had a post up about it. One HOODED PUNK was armed with what looked like a bat, the other, a pistol. The HOODED PUNK with the pistol was shot 3-4 times and both HOODED PUNKs ran off with ZERO loot and MULTIPLE bullet holes.
/rantoff ted c on July 22, 2012 at 12:41 PM

You left off that the HOODED PUNKs would look just like Barky’s son, if he had a son.

Dingbat63 on July 22, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I will say this has me re-assessing 9mm. I like it because it’s light, and high capacity. But a snub nosed .44mag? Lots of ft/lbs.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 1:25 PM

and who could not have protected themselves…

Fixed.

farsighted on July 22, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Those saying that an armed person or people in the theater could have taken him down and saved lives…that is highly debatable. This was not a scenario like Columbine, Virginia Tech, or the Norway shootings. In those instances there was good potentially good visibility of the shooters, plus points at which the shooters were physically separated from victims.

In this case:
very dark space with flickering movie projector
hundreds of people screaming and running in a small space
tear gas filtering through room
shooter in full body armor head to toe

Is it possible that a armed person could have taken him out faster? Sure, anything is possible.
But it is also possible that an armed person could have shot another person or people by mistake in the chaos (for example, they go to fire and someone runs in their path or knocks their arm)

We will never know, so definitive statements one way or the other are wrong.

AngusMc on July 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

I’m not second guessing, but one guy said he was on the floor and the shooters foot was 2″ from his head.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Actually, since the COWARD had on full body armor from head to toe, there’s a really high likelihood that anyone who tried to protect themselves would have died and been unsuccessful.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Unlike the people who had no way to protect themselves, and who could have protect themselves if they tried. They all lived, right? /s

Even full body armor does not protect legs, arms, the neck, and the head. And depending on the angle debilitating or fatal shots can still hit areas that are nominally covered by body armor, through the openings for legs, arms, and the head. Just ask Iraq or Afghan veterans who have been hit in those places while wearing body armor. And ask them about the guys they know who died after getting shot while wearing full body armor.

farsighted on July 22, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Um, you did read that he had on full armor, right? Leg, groin, neck, vest, helmet……could you have put a round through his left eye at 50 paces in a dark smokey theater while he was shooting the AR or the shotgun at you?? Well good for you then Clint Eastwood, but even for a very well trained shooter, the chances would be pretty slim.

Seriously, there are just some people who refuse to use reason when they’re on the Internet.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 1:29 PM

newportmike on July 22, 2012 at 12:45 PM

My mother was born there as well. It is a shame that my family living in the U.S. can’t go back to visit our family members that unfortunatly have to live in that hell hole.

LatinRed on July 22, 2012 at 1:31 PM

One or more armed people in that theater would have given everyone in the theater a better chance of getting out of the theater uninjured and/or alive.

The notion that is not true is ludicrous.

farsighted on July 22, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Flora Duh on July 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Whenever something like this happens you’re going to see the liberal hollering for gun control. But the 2nd Amendment provides the ultimate backstop against federal tyranny, or other forms of disorder or organized injustice.

Note that Hitler took all guns and other weapons away from the Jews in 1938. There’s no compromise on the 2nd Amendment:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/how-the-holocaust-began/

anotherJoe on July 22, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Um, you did read that he had on full armor, right? Leg, groin, neck, vest, helmet……

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 1:29 PM

It has been reported he had full body armor. I have seen no definitive reporting of exactly what was covered by the “full body” armor.

You do know reporters get a great deal wrong, exaggerate, and tend to sensationalize, right?

farsighted on July 22, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Don’t hold your breath for new gun laws

Which is exactly why this President will strip us of our right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as guaranteed by our second amendment by signing the UN arms treaty.

He’s shown no hesitance whatsoever in his determination to completely obliviate the will of the people, no matter how much they protest.

Speakup on July 22, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Regardless of what the guns laws are, people like the shooter in CO and other criminals will find ways, within or around the laws, to get the guns, ammo, explosives and other materials they require to wreak their havoc and unleash their violence. And as F&F has shown us, even da’ gubmint will go outside the law to run arms.

stukinIL4now on July 22, 2012 at 1:38 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

Trying to stop a fully armored person with your concealed carry weapon would simply not work 99.9% of the time.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Obama himself said we must protect our 2nd amendment rights after the tragedy.

Well hell he’s proven that he can be trusted to keep his promises.

Rio Linda Refugee on July 22, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Um, you did read that he had on full armor, right? Leg, groin, neck, vest, helmet……

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 1:29 PM

It has been reported he had full body armor. I have seen no definitive reporting of exactly what was covered by the “full body” armor.

You do know reporters get a great deal wrong, exaggerate, and tend to sensationalize, right?

farsighted on July 22, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Right, so you’d rather pretend a guy with his 9mm would have Dirty Harry’d the guy instead.

Ok.

I’ll be over here, in reality land.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 1:40 PM

If there had been people shooting back, at the very least he would have had to shift his attention to the shooters. That would have saved lives due to his having to return fire.

woodbutcher on July 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Maybe if the movie theater had properly secured doors with alarms this couldn’t have happened.

We need better DOOR control.

profitsbeard on July 22, 2012 at 1:45 PM

I’ll be over here, in reality land.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 1:40 PM

The one in which you think the guy was as well protected and as skilled in armed conflict as Robocop?

Yeah, right.

farsighted on July 22, 2012 at 1:45 PM

on 14 JUL, a CCW citizen, a 71yr old man, effectively fought off two HOODED PUNKS at an internet cafe in Florida. Erika Johnsen had a post up about it. One HOODED PUNK was armed with what looked like a bat, the other, a pistol. The HOODED PUNK with the pistol was shot 3-4 times and both HOODED PUNKs ran off with ZERO loot and MULTIPLE bullet holes.

/rantoff

ted c on July 22, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Down here in Florida, we call that “free body piercing” . . .

tpitman on July 22, 2012 at 1:50 PM

The folks who are clamoring for new/more gun control laws are either simple minded or simply using this tragedy to push their “anti” agenda.

Remember, shooting up the theater wasn’t truly “WHAT” he did; it was “HOW” he did it.

WHAT he did was kill 12 people and injure 59 more. Obviously, that is ALREADY illegal. Holmes didn’t seem deterred by those laws.

No amount of magical thinking regarding new laws will ever change the fact that evil people will find a way to do evil things.

climbnjump on July 22, 2012 at 1:50 PM

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 1:40 PM

1. The guy was wearing a gas mask..limited visibility and defines a vulnerable target.

2. As mentioned above, a couple of large caliber rounds to the chest would, certainly shift his attention a bit, if not knock him down, allowing the good guy time to attempt a well aimed shot to(through) the gas mask.

3. Heavy caliber rounds to the groin or pelvis would also suspend the perp’s attention, regardless of body armor.

4. The chaos, screaming, tear gas, noise, flashing lights, gunshots etc, would work both ways as distractions. The CCW guy wouldn’t be specifically targeted till he started shooting. Get the first two in the chest, tke advantage of the shock effect, and either rush the stage, or try to place one through the gas mask.

a capella on July 22, 2012 at 1:53 PM

If there had been people shooting back, at the very least he would have had to shift his attention to the shooters. That would have saved lives due to his having to return fire.

woodbutcher on July 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Yep. Agree with that. Wouldn’t have stopped him, but could have bought precious seconds for the liberals in the crowd without firearms to run away and survive,

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 1:56 PM

We need laws repealed, not created.

ProfShadow on July 22, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Exactly, The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution is about as crystal clear as it could possible be, yet somehow we allowed congress and our local and state governments to brutally and abusively trample on the 2nd Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What part of “shall not be infringed” could anyone anywhere possible imagine means OK to regulate?

David E. Young, Constitutional Scholar (That would be a REAL Constitutional Scholar, unlike the Fake Constitutional Scholar currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. ) and recognized authority on Founding Era Second Amendment history, has a wonderful article on exactly what the Founding Fathers intended and meant when they penned the words “Shall not be Infringed”.

The Meaning of ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’

As a result of Second Amendment dispute, it has been suggested that to infringe relative to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms means only to completely destroy the right, and that extensive “reasonable” regulations are legitimate and do not infringe the right. As an example, it has been claimed that a complete ban on certain types of firearms is a “reasonable” regulation and would not violate the “shall not be infringed” restrictive language. A contrary understanding is that infringe means to encroach upon or narrow the right in any way and that the purpose for the “shall not be infringed” language was to prevent regulation of the right.

An excellent method for determining how extensive the Bill of Rights protection based on the verb “infringe” was intended to be in the Founders’ view is to rely on historical examples. What can be gleaned from their own use of this term in relation to other Bill of Rights proposals? Here are some of them.

James Madison’s Usage
The Second Amendment’s “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” language is exactly what was proposed as the first clause of the amendment by James Madison on June 8, 1789. In addition to that “infringe” based language, Madison also included this freedom of religion related protection in his Bill of Rights proposals to Congress: “nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” [The Origin of the Second Amendment p.654] Assuming that Madison’s intention in preventing religious liberty from being “infringed” was to allow for considerable “reasonable” regulation by the federal government is illogical. In fact, it is clear that the intent of such language was to prevent any interference whatsoever by the government in such matters. The later change to “Congress shall make no laws” language buttresses this period understanding of “infringe” based protection.

Samuel Adams’ Usage
Another person who used “infringe” in bill of rights proposals for the Constitution was Samuel Adams in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention. He attempted to protect freedom of the press and religion with this proposal: “that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience”. [OSA p.260] It is unthinkable that such usage by Adams indicated an intention to allow extensive reasonable regulations of freedom of the press and religious beliefs. Instead, such language was certainly intended as the strongest of limits upon government actions, just as in Madison’s case with his infringe based restrictive proposals to Congress regarding freedom of religion and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

This is by no means the entire article and you really owe it to yourself and your posterity to go read the whole thing. David E. Young has written several books on the subject of the Founding Fathers documented feelings on the subject of the 2nd Amendment.

The Founders’ View of the Right to Bear Arms: A Definitive History of the Second Amendment.

You can also watch the 12 part Youtube video, IN SEARCH OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT 1 OF 12:

SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 1:56 PM

We need laws repealed, not created.

ProfShadow on July 22, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Exactly, The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution is about as crystal clear as it could possible be, yet somehow we allowed congress and our local and state governments to brutally and abusively trample on the 2nd Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What part of “shall not be infringed” could anyone anywhere possible imagine means OK to regulate?

David E. Young, Constitutional Scholar (That would be a REAL Constitutional Scholar, unlike the Fake Constitutional Scholar currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. ) and recognized authority on Founding Era Second Amendment history, has a wonderful article on exactly what the Founding Fathers intended and meant when they penned the words “Shall not be Infringed”.

The Meaning of ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’

As a result of Second Amendment dispute, it has been suggested that to infringe relative to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms means only to completely destroy the right, and that extensive “reasonable” regulations are legitimate and do not infringe the right. As an example, it has been claimed that a complete ban on certain types of firearms is a “reasonable” regulation and would not violate the “shall not be infringed” restrictive language. A contrary understanding is that infringe means to encroach upon or narrow the right in any way and that the purpose for the “shall not be infringed” language was to prevent regulation of the right.

An excellent method for determining how extensive the Bill of Rights protection based on the verb “infringe” was intended to be in the Founders’ view is to rely on historical examples. What can be gleaned from their own use of this term in relation to other Bill of Rights proposals? Here are some of them.

James Madison’s Usage
The Second Amendment’s “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” language is exactly what was proposed as the first clause of the amendment by James Madison on June 8, 1789. In addition to that “infringe” based language, Madison also included this freedom of religion related protection in his Bill of Rights proposals to Congress: “nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” [The Origin of the Second Amendment p.654] Assuming that Madison’s intention in preventing religious liberty from being “infringed” was to allow for considerable “reasonable” regulation by the federal government is illogical. In fact, it is clear that the intent of such language was to prevent any interference whatsoever by the government in such matters. The later change to “Congress shall make no laws” language buttresses this period understanding of “infringe” based protection.

Samuel Adams’ Usage
Another person who used “infringe” in bill of rights proposals for the Constitution was Samuel Adams in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention. He attempted to protect freedom of the press and religion with this proposal: “that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience”. [OSA p.260] It is unthinkable that such usage by Adams indicated an intention to allow extensive reasonable regulations of freedom of the press and religious beliefs. Instead, such language was certainly intended as the strongest of limits upon government actions, just as in Madison’s case with his infringe based restrictive proposals to Congress regarding freedom of religion and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 1:57 PM

This is by no means the entire article and you really owe it to yourself and your posterity to go read the whole thing. David E. Young has written several books on the subject of the Founding Fathers documented feelings on the subject of the 2nd Amendment.

The Founders’ View of the Right to Bear Arms: A Definitive History of the Second Amendment.

You can also watch the 12 part Youtube video, IN SEARCH OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT 1 OF 12:

SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Obama himself said we must protect our 2nd amendment rights after the tragedy.

Oh, well, then everything’s cool, right? Who needs vigilance?

Dante on July 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM

And we all know Obama wouldn’t lie. /sarc

clippermiami on July 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM

There were members of the military in that theater. Reports are four were wounded and one killed.

I would like someone to ask them if they think they would have had a better chance if they had been armed.

farsighted on July 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM

4. The chaos, screaming, tear gas, noise, flashing lights, gunshots etc, would work both ways as distractions. The CCW guy wouldn’t be specifically targeted till he started shooting. Get the first two in the chest, tke advantage of the shock effect, and either rush the stage, or try to place one through the gas mask.

It makes me glad I opted for a laser sight on my Ruger LC9, because it would make me a lot more comfortable about trying to take someone like that down in a situation like that if I know for certain that I’ve got a clear shot by means of a pretty red dot at center mass.

tdpwells on July 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM

What additional gun laws in Aurora or in Colorado would have served to prevent this atrocity?

1. “Dangerous weapon” includes firearm

2. Revocation of license for furnishing a firearm to a minor or someone under the influence.

3. Window displays cannot include firearms with barrels less than 12 inches long.

4. Unlawful to carry concealed “dangerous weapon”

5. Unlawful to discharge firearms, unless by law enforcement on duty or on shooting range.

6. Unlawful to possess firearm while under the influence of intoxicant

7. Unlawful to have loaded firearm in motor vehicle.

8. Unlawful for a juvenile to possess a firearm.

Forbidding firearms in the theater, clearly posted at the entrance, accomplished what?

The State of Colorado deciding that the State, not local communities, [see link, above] would determine appropriate gun ordinances and not local communities has accomplished what?

Why have the rates of gun-related murders and crimes in general not decreased in those communities with the most restrictive gun laws?

Looking back to Columbine, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 then-existing firearms laws…and, of course the laws regarding murder.

Why is it that states and communities with well-publicized concealed-carry laws have seen an overall drop in gun-related violence?

coldwarrior on July 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM

KCM1- I remember the hollywood incident. They were walking down the street getting lit up with rounds. No affect.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 2:00 PM

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I have personal and professional experience, including 80 hours of tactical firearms training with the county sheriff, conducted by the SWAT team weapons officer. Qualified Expert with a variety of weapons, and trained with handguns, shotguns, and sub-machine guns. I have fired enough ammunition through my 1911 to justify two rebuilds. I have had an unlimited license to carry for over thirty years. I have reviewed or conducted numerous criminal investigations, including many shootings.

That amount of energy transferred by a large caliber handgun bullet is not diminished by body armor, it is only spread out over a larger area. Armor may prevent penetration, but it does not prevent injury. It does not alter the physics. Two center mass hits from a large caliber handgun are going to disrupt your program, with or without body armor. A head shot is very likely to take you out of the fight, even if you are wearing a Kevlar helmet.

Is he more likely to survive, or get back up, if wearing armor? Sure. But his capacity to cause further harm will be significantly degraded. And if you can hit him twice and knock him down, your chances of emptying the rest of the mag on target are greatly enhanced. No one is going to get up after that.

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 2:00 PM

I disagree with the idea that talking about gun laws in the wake of the shooting is somehow illegitimate. If a plane had flown into the theater, we’d be talking about air safety; if it had burned to the ground, we’d talk about fire safety.

The fact that murderous psychopaths seem to have pretty easy access to guns raises legitimate issues that ought to be discussed when someone uses a gun to commit mass murder.

That being said, I think you guys are pretty safe. Not only does the NRA have most swing-district Democrats terrified, I can assure you that gun control is not an issue on which most of us libs spend a whole lot of time.

urban elitist on July 22, 2012 at 2:07 PM

tdpwells on July 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Laser sights have their limitations and some folks rely on them when they should learn to shoot more accurately, but they do have their uses.

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 2:07 PM

All we have are sensationalistic reports of the ‘body armor’

Do we really know that it was ballistic material, or just the similar looking and much cheaper padding that paintball gamers wear?

Were there ceramic or other hard plates in the vest? Because without them, even a pipsqueak round will hurt like hell and likely incapacitate for moments.

And yes, with a gas mask, and all that other crap on, in a dark theater, he would have been very vulnerable to being tackled if no one could stop /slow him with a shot.

LegendHasIt on July 22, 2012 at 2:08 PM

That amount of energy transferred by a large caliber handgun bullet is not diminished by body armor, it is only spread out over a larger area. Armor may prevent penetration, but it does not prevent injury. It does not alter the physics. Two center mass hits from a large caliber handgun are going to disrupt your program, with or without body armor. A head shot is very likely to take you out of the fight, even if you are wearing a Kevlar helmet.

Is he more likely to survive, or get back up, if wearing armor? Sure. But his capacity to cause further harm will be significantly degraded. And if you can hit him twice and knock him down, your chances of emptying the rest of the mag on target are greatly enhanced. No one is going to get up after that.

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Yup, absolutely. I worked on a DARPA project to specifically address this issue with regard to military body armor. Currently there is no civilian body armor available that deals with that issue. 2 or 3 large caliber center mass shots will drop you long enough for someone to get close enough to you that they can shot you someplace where you have no armor.

SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 2:10 PM

[woodbutcher on July 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM]

I agree that.

People point to his protective gear as though it made him invincible, not to mention the fact that if he started taking hits, he’d react as though nothing had changed with his total command of the situation. I don’t care what he was wearing, he’s not ready mentally for getting return fire, much less taking hits, regardless of his state of mind or drugs he was on.

His whole plan is out the window and he has to improvise. So much for the mind altering drugs he took.

With his field of vision and motion reduced by his gear, his plan a wreck, and now required concentrate on specifics threat to himself, leaves opportunities galore for people, like maybe the guy two feet from him to act. And it’s much more likely someone else closer will act, because the initiative has changed. We see it all the time when where one person takes the initiative, then others who froze, then respond.

This whole situation would have been different and not as bad as it was. And the aftermath would be completely changed by the fact that we wouldn’t be here agonizing about this guys complete freedom to trash a movie theater, kill 12, injure 71(?), then walk out into the parking lot unmolested. The entire tone would change from one we’re in now — total helplessness.

Want an example? Flight 93.

Dusty on July 22, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Ok, let’s run with this.

1. The guy was wearing a gas mask..limited visibility and defines a vulnerable target.
If you could tell it was a gas mask, had the presence of mind to know it is a soft spot AND can hit a moving target the size of a face, WHILE being overwhelmed by fast fired rifle rounds in a 100 round drum, or a shotgun, or both. Yes.

2. As mentioned above, a couple of large caliber rounds to the chest would, certainly shift his attention a bit, if not knock him down, allowing the good guy time to attempt a well aimed shot to(through) the gas mask.
Concealed carry calibers do not possess enough kinetic energy to knock a man wearing body armor down. At best they could have scared him and disoriented him for a few seconds. They would also have given away your position, that you were a threat, and caused you to become the focus of his attention. At that point, you would be dead. Your 2 shots to the chest, would have been your last moments on earth. Grated, you would die a hero and maybe save a few liberal’s lives, but you would be dead, and he would have continued on.

3. Heavy caliber rounds to the groin or pelvis would also suspend the perp’s attention, regardless of body armor.
I can pretty much guarantee it would never have gotten to this point, however for the sake of argument, say it did, and you realized he was armored, and you redirected to soft spots. You would need to hit the pelvic region on the move, in the dark, while being overwhelmed in a hail of 556 or 12 gauge lead. Good luck.

4. The chaos, screaming, tear gas, noise, flashing lights, gunshots etc, would work both ways as distractions. The CCW guy wouldn’t be specifically targeted till he started shooting. Get the first two in the chest, tke advantage of the shock effect, and either rush the stage, or try to place one through the gas mask.
The chaos and screaming is what would prevent you from being able to shoot worth a damn. You’d be so jacked up and frightened, you’d be lucky to hit the screen the movie was playing on, nevermind target his left hip or right eyeball at 50 paces.

a capella on July 22, 2012 at 1:53 PM

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 8