Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Jamie B on July 20, 2012, 05:48:10 AM
-
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/20/12850048-14-dead-after-shooting-during-dark-knight-screening-in-aurora-colorado?lite
Aurora, CO. midnight screening of the new Batman film.
I just caught this on the early morning news.
There are at least 10 dead, and 50 wounded.
Looks like a lone gunman, who was captured.
This is ridiculous. What is wrong with people these days?
-
Local radio keeps reminding us the Aurora is only 30 miles or so from Columbine.
-
any chance the guy went to colombine high? maybe there's something in the water?
-
Local radio said that the suspect is a 24 year old white male and is in custody.
-
An FBI official told NBC News that the agency was working with local authorities on the investigation, but that there was no early indication of a link to terrorism.
Hmmmm.
-
So is Aurora the new Gotham?
-
Gas, dark theatre, overwhelming firepower. How are we supposed to protect against that?
-
Gas, dark theatre, overwhelming firepower. How are we supposed to protect against that?
Short of wearing a bullet-proof vest everywhere you go, I don't believe you can. Of course, you also can't really protect yourself from some maniac deciding to mow a bunch of people down with his car, either.
-
In a statement, Obama said: "We are committed to bringing whoever was responsible to justice, ensuring the safety of our people, and caring for those who have been wounded. As we do when confronted by moments of darkness and challenge, we must now come together as one American family."
If there is no link to terrorisim, then how is it the Federal Government's responsiblity to investigate or prosocute this crime? Who is this "we" he is talking about? What a stain.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/aurora-dark-knight-shooting-suspect-identified-james-holmes-115717096--abc-news-topstories.html
"The young man who is in custody after allegedly gunning down 12 people in a mass shooting spree overnight in Aurora, Colorado has been identified as local resident James Holmes, according to federal authorities."
"Law enforcement officials and witnesses told ABC News Holmes, 24, wore what appeared to be a bullet-proof vest and riot-type mask as he opened fire"
It sounds like the man's mther is not at all surprised.
Gas, gas mask, body armor, riot helmet...
I wonder if the shooter wasn't some sort of cop wannabe, someone who washed out of police training, or even a cop who went off the deep end.
-
Get ready for the AWB push.
-
Get ready for the AWB push.
Clearly, we need a tear gas ban, and a gas mask ban.
What leaps off the page (screen) about this is the hypocrisy of our government in general. Here we have a dozen prople dead and scores injured, but it ISN'T "terrorism." But one guy overreacts to a shrewish wife with harsh words during a contentious divorce proceeding, and he gets charged with "Terroristic" threatening. We need one definition of what "terrorism" is, and we need everybody to stick to it.
-
It was obvious to me that the original "terrorist" statements were with respect to international-type terrorist activity. But, by definition, this guy did engage in terrorist activity. And don't get me started about the crap "terrorst threats" laws. Another bit of "feel good" legislation in response to a tragedy passed by legislators looking only to have something to advertise when they run for re-election.
The really important thing for all of us to do is put this scenario in mind and think now about what you would want to do if you were in a packed theater and something like this happened. be as mentally prepared as possible. When the first shot pops is not a good time to start thinking about what to do...
-
Gas, dark theatre, overwhelming firepower. How are we supposed to protect against that?
Don't be there. As in, don't be in large public gatherings.
-
Going to see the film tonight with some friends. Lovely! =|
-
Don't be there. As in, don't be in large public gatherings.
I refuse to be so scared of the exceedingly small chance of something like this happening that I turn into a hermit, cowering in terror at the thought of being surrounded by other people. Life has risks, and everyone dies eventually. Refusing to live to delay the inevitable as long as possible is foolish.
-
I have a request to make.
Can we not play into the gun-control folks hands by continuing to refer to this as a shooting? Yes, it was a shooting. But referring to it as such, over and over again, sets up a psychological association between this shooting being bad and guns being bad that we don't need to proliferate.
In addition to being a shooting, it was also a tragedy, an attack, a massacre, a crime, an act of violence, murder and assault, the list goes on. It's just a matter of time before Obama and the rest of the anti's spin this into an example and justification. We don't need to help them any more than we have to.
CO Movie House Attack would be a much better thread title.
Just saying.
-
I'm sure we'd all like to think we could be in a situation like this and save the day with our CCW, but a crowded theater?
If I was there, I would likely be looking for cover versus trying to save the day. I might have my hand on or near my pistol in case the nut job gets close to where I was, but taking a shot at him form wherever? If it was as crowded as the stories indicate, you'd have just as good a chance of hitting a panicking movie-goer that ran into your line of fire just as you pulled the trigger as you would hitting the nut job. Even if you drew when he approached close to you, with panicking people surrounding you within touching distance, again, it would be hard to get a shot off, and there's the chance someone mistakes you for another bad guy and you get piled on by other people trying to save the day, or piled on by a mob running for the exit.
If I were in a secure shooting position with a clean shot, maybe I'd try to save the day. Otherwise, duck and cover, and if it looks like you or your loved ones are next in line, do what you need to do and take your chances I guess. From the description of the shooting scene so far, it's hard for me to come up with some kind of action hero, save the day response.
This is probably why I like to avoid crowded places.
-
I have a request to make.
Can we not play into the gun-control folks hands by continuing to refer to this as a shooting? Yes, it was a shooting. But referring to it as such, over and over again, sets up a psychological association between this shooting being bad and guns being bad that we don't need to proliferate.
In addition to being a shooting, it was also a tragedy, an attack, a massacre, a crime, an act of violence, murder and assault, the list goes on. It's just a matter of time before Obama and the rest of the anti's spin this into an example and justification. We don't need to help them any more than we have to.
CO Movie House Attack would be a much better thread title.
Just saying.
I agree. Thread title changed on the main forum listing.
-
I have a request to make.
Can we not play into the gun-control folks hands by continuing to refer to this as a shooting? Yes, it was a shooting. But referring to it as such, over and over again, sets up a psychological association between this shooting being bad and guns being bad that we don't need to proliferate.
In addition to being a shooting, it was also a tragedy, an attack, a massacre, a crime, an act of violence, murder and assault, the list goes on. It's just a matter of time before Obama and the rest of the anti's spin this into an example and justification. We don't need to help them any more than we have to.
CO Movie House Attack would be a much better thread title.
Just saying.
Concur, especially the bolded portion.
-
Reports are coming out that his apartment is booby-trapped, per the FBI. They have evacuated several (i believe the number was 5) buildings in the complex and are trying to figure out how to disable the bomb(s).
I think "terrorist" now applies, but his motivations (if any) are currently unknown, and any guesses (other then nutjob) are pure speculation at this point.
-
Shooter is 24-year-old medical student from San Diego who just dropped out of a PhD program in neuroscience at Colorado University.
Neuroscience.
So, now what, he was sampling the chemistry of his department's specialty?
He dropped out because he wasn't crazy enough to continue with the program?
Should PhD programs come with warning labels?
-
I'm
shocked, no I'm not, I'm actually simply incredulous at the blindness of the lefties:
First, the leftist journalist tweets:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.pjmedia.com%2Flifestyle%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F07%2Fmikeelk1.jpg&hash=a743e8835ea73299bcbb3f7add1d79c1055255fc)
Shortly thereafter, he retweeted these:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.pjmedia.com%2Flifestyle%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F07%2Felks2.jpg&hash=9aadc117db681d636158e38c1947b1fb64bdd9b8)
THEN he says:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.pjmedia.com%2Flifestyle%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F07%2Felk4guns.jpg&hash=f1ab7fd5b2eedc1269930b55049d403cbd7b4a55)
(From: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/07/20/it-begins-good-morning-america-blames-tea-party-for-dark-knight-massacre/)
Hey, buddy? If your knee-jerk reaction hadn't been to think about how this proves we need more gun control, maybe you wouldn't see the right reacting to YOUR PUSH FOR MORE GUN CONTROL. :facepalm:
Honestly, this is a terrible attack. I wish we could simply grieve and allow victims to grieve and heal, but the gun wasn't even cold before leftists were trying to politicize this attack. Sick.
-
*Bad taste alert.*
Well, we now have new meme for munging gun control with First Amendment restrictions: "hey, you can't just yell open fire in a crowded theater."
-
I'm shocked, no I'm not, I'm actually simply incredulous at the blindness of the lefties:
.....................................................
Hey, buddy? If your knee-jerk reaction hadn't been to think about how this proves we need more gun control, maybe you wouldn't see the right reacting to YOUR PUSH FOR MORE GUN CONTROL. :facepalm:
Honestly, this is a terrible attack. I wish we could simply grieve and allow victims to grieve and heal, but the gun wasn't even cold before leftists were trying to politicize this attack. Sick.
+100000
The people trying to blame political pundits for ..."inspiring" people like Holmes also disturb me deeply.
-
+100000
The people trying to blame political pundits for ..."inspiring" people like Holmes also disturb me deeply.
Further bad taste cynicism warning...
Am I the only one that's somewhat glad that partisan bickering over "who's talk or ideology might have inspired the guy" fills up the media-space so badly? At least it's crowding out the gun-control mantra to a degree.
As to the more chilling aspects about the First Amendment, I think it was a lot worse when Clinton tried pinning OKC on Limbaugh, and since then, the Giffords shooting... it's never actually gained any traction in terms of actionable results.
-
Further bad taste cynicism warning...
Am I the only one that's somewhat glad that partisan bickering over "who's talk or ideology might have inspired the guy" fills up the media-space so badly? At least it's crowding out the gun-control mantra to a degree.
As to the more chilling aspects about the First Amendment, I think it was a lot worse when Clinton tried pinning OKC on Limbaugh, and since then, the Giffords shooting... it's never actually gained any traction in terms of actionable results.
Having to depend upon critics pondering "who's talk or ideology might have inspired the guy" crowding out talk of more gun control only makes me more cynical than I was when I posted my first post in this thread.... :'(
-
I've been too busy to read about this today.
Do we know what kind of gas, and did he use an "assault rifle"?
-
It sickens me.
I know the cause of the attack. The guy is a nutjob. Any sufficiently large population of people will have nutjobs who want to kill lots of people. Most will fail/be caught. Eventually one of them will succeed. The "reasons" for the attack are pointless as they all come back to "he's a nutjob". I don't care if he thought that Obama's "You didn't build that" meant that he could do whatever he wanted and someone else was responsible for it. He's a nutjob.
Furthermore, even if the left succeeded in not only banning guns but actually ridding the country of all guns, mass attacks like this would still happen. There are explosives, deadly gases, and large machinery that are more readily available than firearms now. The deadliest attack (excepting 9/11) in the United States was done with explosives. Cars can EASILY kill 10s if not 100s of people grouped together. Chlorine gas is easy to produce and killed hundreds (if not thousands) of men during WWI.
An intelligent nutjob with determination and a plan (as this nutjob appears to have been) would simply plan using another means.
So, I'd hope this would mean we can stop trying to score political points from these attacks. Given the reprehensible actions of Brian Ross and ABC, it's pretty clear that will not happen any time soon.
-
I've been too busy to read about this today.
Do we know what kind of gas, and did he use an "assault rifle"?
I've heard nothing about the gas (that one worried me, but if he wanted to kill/infect people with gas, this was a not the most efficient way to go about it.) According to reports I've read, he used an 870, a S&W AR-15, and two Glocks.
-
I've heard nothing about the gas (that one worried me, but if he wanted to kill/infect people with gas, this was a not the most efficient way to go about it.) According to reports I've read, he used an 870, a S&W AR-15, and two Glocks.
From what I've been reading, no one is focusing on the shotgun either. So far stories have said that it was his primary weapon and he then dropped it when it was empty and went for the rifle. But "AR-15" and "handguns" are so far being prominently displayed in news stories.
-
Where does a graduate or medical student come up with $3000+ for weapons, magazines, ammo plus body armor?
???
-
Where does a graduate or medical student come up with $3000+ for weapons, magazines, ammo plus body armor?
???
Family? Student loans? I don't find this part all that unbelievable. Not every grad student is as poor as I was while in grad school.
-
Where does a graduate or medical student come up with $3000+ for weapons, magazines, ammo plus body armor?
???
Credit cards are a great option, when you plan on having other things to worry about for the rest of your (hopefully very short) life.
-
Credit cards are a great option, when you plan on having other things to worry about for the rest of your (hopefully very short) life.
Another good point. You can buy a lot of stuff on credit, especially when you don't need a plan for paying any of it back.
-
Man, I just bought a S&W AR15.
I had plenty of guns in college and gradschool, despite being relatively poor. Guns aren't all that expensive, and they can be sold easily, so it's not as bad as buying stereo equipment or something. Of all the money that I spent on hobbies pre-marriage, only the gun hobby is still actually worth anything; the rest is just down the drain.
-
NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly told reporters during a news conference that Holmes had painted his hair red and said he was "The Joker," Batman's nemesis who does not appear in the latest film. Kelly said the NYPD is increasing security at movie theaters citywide as a precaution.
Who gives a *expletive deleted*ck what this dick thinks!!!!!
The guns used in the attack were purchased at two separate Gander Mountain Guns shops, one in Thornton, Colo., and another in Aurora. The remaining guns were purchased at two Bass Pro Shops in Denver, law enforcement sources told Fox News
.
Defacto registration of firearms works.
http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=22995&content=76692127&pageNum=-1
-
I'm sure we'd all like to think we could be in a situation like this and save the day with our CCW, but a crowded theater?
Just a day or two ago we had exactly this: the old guy with the pocket .380, driving off two armed attackers (1 pistol, 1 bat) into a panicked flight, in the crowded internet cafe, to the delight of a broad internet viewing audience.
If I were in a secure shooting position with a clean shot, maybe I'd try to save the day. Otherwise, duck and cover, and if it looks like you or your loved ones are next in line, do what you need to do and take your chances I guess. From the description of the shooting scene so far, it's hard for me to come up with some kind of action hero, save the day response.
Head down, unless he's coming for me or mine.
This is probably why I like to avoid crowded places.
-
From what I've been reading, no one is focusing on the shotgun either. So far stories have said that it was his primary weapon and he then dropped it when it was empty and went for the rifle. But "AR-15" and "handguns" are so far being prominently displayed in news stories.
Because to average libral joe "shotgun" inspires the image of an old double barrel and people wearing tweed.
I don't thing the general public has much concept of combat shotguns, unless it has a pistol grip, and even then, they think of a Cruiser. So, if it has a stock and no pistol grip, it's going to get ignored or mislabled.
Media spin and ignorance at work, my friend.
-
Just a day or two ago we had exactly this: the old guy with the pocket .380, driving off two armed attackers (1 pistol, 1 bat) into a panicked flight, in the crowded internet cafe, to the delight of a broad internet viewing audience.
To me, the cafe didn't look that crowded and the CCW guy definitely had clear shots and a clear path. I imagine it was no different than say, a restaurant. I would likely think about pulling my pistol if this attack happened in even a crowded restaurant.
Maybe I'm imagining it wrong, but when I think "packed movie theater" I'm thinking a mass panic and jumble of at least a couple hundred people in very constricted surroundings with limited movement and exit paths.
-
I seriously wonder if all the victims were shot, or how many were injured in the ensuing panic....
-
Wow. I'm going to give up on speculating on this for at least a couple of days. Depending on what news sources you go to:
He had two pistols on him
He had a pistol on him and one in the car
He had both pistols hidden in the theater
He fired from the theater where the movie was playing
He fired in the lobby
He had a 100 round drum magazine on the AR-15
He reloaded multiple times
He fired the shotgun in the air, then fired the rifle
He fired the shotgun into the crowd, then when it was empty, fired the rifle
His rampage had nothing to do with the Batman movie
He told police he was The Joker
-
News for profit...gotta get the story out even if it's not true.
Have police bothered saying how many people were actually shot, or is it still just a killed and injured list?
-
Wow. I'm going to give up on speculating on this for at least a couple of days. Depending on what news sources you go to:
He had two pistols on him
He had a pistol on him and one in the car
He had both pistols hidden in the theater
He fired from the theater where the movie was playing
He fired in the lobby
He had a 100 round drum magazine on the AR-15
He reloaded multiple times
He fired the shotgun in the air, then fired the rifle
He fired the shotgun into the crowd, then when it was empty, fired the rifle
His rampage had nothing to do with the Batman movie
He told police he was The Joker
Busy boy. Reminds me somewhat of the NIU shooter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Illinois_University_shooting#Shooting).
-
I seriously wonder if all the victims were shot, or how many were injured in the ensuing panic....
I've also heard a story that said the police were shooting. Were any of the victims due to "friendly fire"?
-
I watched the press conference held this morning with the CO Governor, Aurora Mayor, and Aurora Chief of Police.
According to the Chief of Police (who gave out far more info in a nationally broadcast press conference than I would have), at the time they took Holmes into custody, he had the AR15 "Assault Rifle", a Remington 870 12 gauge, and 2 Glock .40 cal pistols. One of the pistols was found in his car and they didn't know (four hours ago) if he'd used it in the theater or not. I don't think it really matters at this point.
He was also unwilling to speculate on the guy's motives. He said that the first officers arrived on the scene a minute and change after the first 911 call was received and the suspect was subdued without further incident. From how he described the victims, it didn't sound like any were a result of friendly fire.
Listening to the media speculate about this all morning was a treat. "Some people were confused because they thought he was in costume. Do you think we should forbid costumes in theaters?" (He wasn't in a batman costume.)
"Do you think we should have metal detectors at the entrances?" (He didn't go through the front door.)
"Were these weapons purchased legally? Did he have a right to have these guns?" (Yes, he did, with no criminal record. But if he hadn't had guns, he'd have used all his fancy explosives and chemicals instead and how well do ya' think that would have turned out?)
On a higher note, everyone interviewed, from some chief of police in SoCal to a business owner in Denver, when asked these questions, all stated that this was a random crime and in no way should it be cause to restrict our liberty. The Governor of CO (a democrat even), stated, "We can't allow people who are aberrations of nature to take away the freedoms we enjoy."
I can't see how the anti's can use this as an example of anything other than a good reason to be more diligent in carrying a weapon to protect yourself and your family.
As to not drawing on this idiot in a crowded theater:
- Theaters have a fairly steep slope down from back to front to allow for a clear view from every seat in the house.
- The emergency exit doors (what he kicked in to get into the room) are typically down in front near the screen, in other words, in full clear view, unless people are standing in chairs and such, which I highly doubt if there are bullets flying.
- This is the perfect example of why training is critical.
No, I wouldn't have risked drawing if I were in the middle of the row and midway up the room. But someone with decent training, and with solid situational awareness enough to sit in the end seat with a clear view of exits and entrances (which we all should be doing anyway) could have taken the shot and prevented some of the tragedy.
And if carrying a weapon were the norm instead of the exception these days, most idiots would think twice about doing what he did.
-
Why oh why couldn't his Glock have kaboomed? :facepalm:
Another good point. You can buy a lot of stuff on credit, especially when you don't need a plan for paying any of it back.
I have to stop thinking within the paradigm of being fiscally responsible...
-
I have to stop thinking within the paradigm of being fiscally responsible...
Yeah, when planning to go on a shooting spree there's no real motivation to be all fiscal about it
-
Tasteless irony corrected on self-reflection-SADShooter
I wish I had something pertinent or meaningful to write, but I'm avoiding the news because the frenzied lemming-drive to burn oxygen filling airtime disgusts me. A little somber silence to mourn the dead and comfort the grieving.would be appropriate.
-
Wow. I'm going to give up on speculating on this for at least a couple of days. Depending on what news sources you go to:
He had two pistols on him
He had a pistol on him and one in the car
He had both pistols hidden in the theater
He fired from the theater where the movie was playing
He fired in the lobby
He had a 100 round drum magazine on the AR-15
He reloaded multiple times
He fired the shotgun in the air, then fired the rifle
He fired the shotgun into the crowd, then when it was empty, fired the rifle
His rampage had nothing to do with the Batman movie
He told police he was The Joker
Also:
He propped the door open
He entered through an emergency exit door
A theater-goer tried to block the door and the shooter pounded on it
He wore a gas mask
He wore a combat helmet
He threw a tear gas canister
He threw a smoke bomb
...
-
I've also heard a story that said the police were shooting. Were any of the victims due to "friendly fire"?
And I saw a report that some of the patrons were met at the exits by "armed guards" (note: Not "police"), who checked them for weapons before they were allowed to leave.
???
-
If I was there, I would likely be looking for cover versus trying to save the day. I might have my hand on or near my pistol in case the nut job gets close to where I was, but taking a shot at him form wherever? If it was as crowded as the stories indicate, you'd have just as good a chance of hitting a panicking movie-goer that ran into your line of fire just as you pulled the trigger as you would hitting the nut job. Even if you drew when he approached close to you, with panicking people surrounding you within touching distance, again, it would be hard to get a shot off, and there's the chance someone mistakes you for another bad guy and you get piled on by other people trying to save the day, or piled on by a mob running for the exit.
If I were in a secure shooting position with a clean shot, maybe I'd try to save the day. Otherwise, duck and cover, and if it looks like you or your loved ones are next in line, do what you need to do and take your chances I guess. From the description of the shooting scene so far, it's hard for me to come up with some kind of action hero, save the day response.
This is probably why I like to avoid crowded places.
If this guy is cranking off rounds and you had a shot, either great or not so great it would be worth taking.
I would not feel bad about winging someone else if I thought I could stop him and save my arz.
-
Darkened theater, full of panicking innocents, and filling with a choking smoke. Probably real hard, if not impossible, to find the Badguy in that situation. Meanwhile, he can just crank off rounds in some general direction and be pretty sure of hitting someone.
I don't care how much training you have, that's a sucky tactical situation.
-
Well, latest on Fox News is the police stating he had, "6000 rounds with the ability to shoot 50 rounds a minute."
And they're saying all 6K rounds were bought on the Internet. That won't be good. Either a potential ban, or panic ammo buying because of fear of a potential ban.
-
I'm in the get down, stay down and only shoot back if he's coming straight at you.
A movie theater is probably the worst location to set up a person with a CCW to play hero.
Too many people, too much panick, little visibility (made worse in this case by smoke) even your hearing is going to be off.
Have you ever noticed being slightly disoriented when you get up after a long movie? I hate walking up the aisle, I get a little dizzy on the slope. I imagine that isn't improved by a madman shooting up the joint and throwing a smoke bomb.
Unless you got lucky and the guy was standing right in front of you, you would be unlikely to stop this.
-
Well, latest on Fox News is the police stating he had, "6000 rounds with the ability to shoot 50 rounds a minute."
And they're saying all 6K rounds were bought on the Internet. That won't be good. Either a potential ban, or panic ammo buying because of fear of a potential ban.
And I guess he was carrying all 6000 rounds in some super duper load bearing ammo vest. =D
-
Darkened theater, full of panicking innocents, and filling with a choking smoke. Probably real hard, if not impossible, to find the Badguy in that situation. Meanwhile, he can just crank off rounds in some general direction and be pretty sure of hitting someone.
I don't care how much training you have, that's a sucky tactical situation.
Plus, you are likely carrying a smaller pistol that you may or may not be a great shot with past 15 or 20 yards and being a movie premier, this is not likely a small theater. Unless you happen to be close, it is NOT the best place to start trying to pick off the guy. Plus, my luck he would see me and (if he knew anything at all about the AR) he could pick me off across the theater with the rifle much easier than I could with a carry pistol.
-
When I google James Rhodes, this is the result that shows up most often.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Machine
Sorry, had the wrong name.
-
When I google James Rhodes, this is the result that shows up most often.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Machine
Maybe you should Google John Holmes instead.... ;/
Plus, you are likely carrying a smaller pistol that you may or may not be a great shot with past 15 or 20 yards and being a movie premier, this is not likely a small theater. Unless you happen to be close, it is NOT the best place to start trying to pick off the guy. Plus, my luck he would see me and (if he knew anything at all about the AR) he could pick me off across the theater with the rifle much easier than I could with a carry pistol.
That will be on my next practice cycle.
-
That will be on my next practice cycle.
Which one? Picking off a riflemen across a crowded theater with a pistol, or picking off a concealed carry holder with a rifle across a crowded theater?
:laugh:
-
If this guy is cranking off rounds and you had a shot, either great or not so great it would be worth taking.
I would not feel bad about winging someone else if I thought I could stop him and save my arz.
So basically, you risk becoming a murderer just like the psycho - that's what it would amount to under the circumstances.
-
Yeah, De Selby. Avoid the risk of possibly hitting someone, anyone. Let the guy murder 200 people. Just don't take the chance that you might miss. ;/
-
Yeah, De Selby. Avoid the risk of possibly hitting someone, anyone. Let the guy murder 200 people. Just don't take the chance that you might miss. ;/
Yeah, I think it's fair to observe the difference between shooting into a crowded dark theater where hitting an innocent person is an incredibly likely outcome and other possible scenarios - you are responsible for your own bullets, even when someone else is shooting.
-
I'm only now reading up on what happened and getting news, I always try to figure out what I would do in case of an emergency when in crowded areas. Something I learned in the BSA as a kid / always know where the emergency exits are in case of fire or other emergency/be prepared.
In this case I would be sitting near the middle of the seats at least ten rows up, I probably would have hit the floor and waited for a clear shot.
-
De Selby, you neglected to include this part of never_retreat's statement.
If this guy is cranking off rounds and you had a shot, either great or not so great it would be worth taking.
If you have a great shot or a not-so-great shot, with a good probability of hitting the suspect and low probability of hitting an innocent, why not take it? IIRC, most state laws provide some leeway regarding innocents being hit in a defensive shooting.
I'm not suggesting shooting into the crowd.
-
Which one? Picking off a riflemen across a crowded theater with a pistol, or picking off a concealed carry holder with a rifle across a crowded theater?
:laugh:
Don't make me tell BSL that it was your idea....
Actually, practicing shots at 25+yds. under stress & cover with a CCW-sized pistol. I may not be precise, but I'm sure I can make him duck.
-
So basically, you risk becoming a murderer just like the psycho - that's what it would amount to under the circumstances.
Thanks for posting a comment dumber than mine. Takes the heat off.
-
Was watching TV last night, and one of the talking heads on the news mentioned that "they" thought the perp had taken some prescription meds a few hours before the shooting.
We'll have to keep an eye on this to see if it's in fact true, but considering how many of the previous mass shootings involved a perp who was on prescription meds, I can't help but wonder if this is another triumph of the pill-pushing quacks of modern psychiatry.
-
So basically, you risk becoming a murderer just like the psycho - that's what it would amount to under the circumstances.
Do you understand what 'murder' actually is?
-
So basically, you risk becoming a murderer just like the psycho - that's what it would amount to under the circumstances.
A murderer?
Seriously, this is over the top even for you. Accidently hitting or even killing a third party bystander in the act of shooting at an assailant in self defense is certainly unfortunate and regrettable, and (depending on circumstances) may even be deemed negligent homicide, but under no circumstances could it be construed as "murder."
-
Responding with gun fire is not always (or is even rarely) the best option. As someone with a CCP, I've always worried that I would not make the smartest choice in a given situation, because I would be to focused on using my pistol, rather than doing the smartest thing. I'm not going to pass judgement on anyone in this terrible situation, but...if several people had gone straight for this guy and knocked him off his feet, or wrapped him up, it probably would have been over at that point.
-
We can debate this from here until Sunday, but what it ultimately comes down to is that it's impossible to predict how a scenario might play out in ANY situation. All you CAN control is how YOU react. Which is why training for sudden/surprise situations is more valuable than standing 30 feet from a target stand and hitting center shots all day. And why it's important to continually run through scenarios in your head over the course of your day. What would I do if?
None of us knows the exact layout of the theater, where we might have had to sit if we'd been there, the reaction of the other folks in the theater, or for many of us, what it feels like to have bullets flying past you. Arguing about it without that information is pointless.
What isn't pointless is to train. And if you have any doubt about how you might react with your weapon in high stress situations, then you need to leave it at home until you've trained sufficiently that you feel comfortable with your skill and reactions.
-
Responding with gun fire is not always (or is even rarely) the best option. As someone with a CCP, I've always worried that I would not make the smartest choice in a given situation, because I would be to focused on using my pistol, rather than doing the smartest thing. I'm not going to pass judgement on anyone in this terrible situation, but...if several people had gone straight for this guy and knocked him off his feet, or wrapped him up, it probably would have been over at that point.
quoted for truth.
I dislike the idea that even those who are unarmed are helpless. They may have less of a chance, but they are not defensless unless they let themselves be so.
Someone close enough could have used the smoke to his/her advantage, as it would limit his visability as well, and made a low tackle as he walked by.
But you HAVE got to keep a mindset of "fight to the death" for your life no matter what, or you end up either as a deer in headlights or cower and hide and hope you get passed by.
-
Best defense is aggresive offense
-
Whoa, looks like Brian Ross and Snuffleupagus were a little off about the *deleted*bag.
http://www.examiner.com/article/colorado-shooting-suspect-reported-to-be-former-occupy-member
-
Whoa, looks like Brian Ross and Snuffleupagus were a little off about the *deleted*bag.
http://www.examiner.com/article/colorado-shooting-suspect-reported-to-be-former-occupy-member
Is it wrong that this information makes me feel a bit gleeful?
-
So basically, you risk becoming a murderer just like the psycho - that's what it would amount to under the circumstances.
Uh huh. Negligence = murder now?
Risk and reward. The risk of hitting an innocent might be higher, but the reward of stopping the shooting spree might outweigh that.
Not saying I could, or would take that shot.
-
And I guess he was carrying all 6000 rounds in some super duper load bearing ammo vest. =D
Any work if he had a tactical wheel barrow? ;/
-
De Selby, you neglected to include this part of never_retreat's statement.
If you have a great shot or a not-so-great shot, with a good probability of hitting the suspect and low probability of hitting an innocent, why not take it? IIRC, most state laws provide some leeway regarding innocents being hit in a defensive shooting.
I'm not suggesting shooting into the crowd.
Just remember if the cops had shown up while he was still shooting they probable would have sprayed the place and hit everyone but the perp.
-
Usually when I'm in a theater I try to get a seat someplace high and in the middle, maybe I should rethink that.
Most people are probably trying to duck, meaning even if you are high and in the middle you more than likely have a clear shot. I doubt anyone is up and running. Where are they going to go? Stairs only take you one way and you are really exposed if you try to go down them.
Any word on how many rounds fired compared to people hit/killed?
-
Any word on the gas used?
There's a lot of nasty compounds out there - I can't even imagine the suffering that someone dosing a theater with (for example) MPTP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPTP) would have. =( Probably worse then death.
-
The Chief of Police said in the press conference yesterday that it was a smoke grenade. Was that not the case?
-
I'm going to be curious to see the list of chemicals found at the house. I'm fearful black powder will show up. So far the things that scare me regarding politicization of the event and agendas include:
- Magazine restrictions based on the 100 round drum, which, did he only load it part way if he reloaded the rifle, or what?
- Internet ammo restrictions, either outright or based on quantity due to the ammo he purchased via the web.
- If black powder is found in the apartment, no more BP for muzzle loading, at least via mail order and without ID.
-
I'm going to throw the old felony murder rule out to see what the splatter sticks to. If a shot at the nutjob misses him and hits someone else there is a good chance the prosecutor will try very hard to make the nutjob legally responsible for any injury caused. That does not resolve the moral or ethical issues, but sure does do a lot to lessen the chances of winding up sharing a cell with the nutjob.
Do y'all remember the stunt one of the TV networks pulled a little while ago, giving a gun (OK, so it was an airsoft fer crying out loud) to someone who had little idea of which end the bullets came out of, dressed them up in a baggy sweatshirt at least 7 sizes too big, and stuffed the airsoft into their pants with some cheap, floppy nylon IWB holster, and then had them try to take out an active shooter in a small classroom setting? Even then the folks who were not playing active shooter or "Our Hero" tended to drop to the floor as opposed to standing tall and sprinting for the exits. From what I have read and heard, that's what most of the folks in the theater did until the shots stopped. Part of it may be (my reading between the lines) because the aisles were jammed even though there were not a great number of folks trying to use them, and folks were getting hit there moreso than were those hiding behind the seats.
Moving on - the situation raises a large moral dilema for me. Why should I be responsible for saving the backside of anyone who is not willing to assume any responsibility on their own for trying to protect themself? Add to that the usual list of attendees at any given movie theater, and a midnight screening especially, and I become hard pressed to see why I should want to save their backsides at the risk of my own.
Someone riddle me that, please.
stay safe.
-
Moving on - the situation raises a large moral dilema for me. Why should I be responsible for saving the backside of anyone who is not willing to assume any responsibility on their own for trying to protect themself? Add to that the usual list of attendees at any given movie theater, and a midnight screening especially, and I become hard pressed to see why I should want to save their backsides at the risk of my own.
Someone riddle me that, please.
Good question, and one that I always answer (to myself) that I wouldn't do it. That said, I might try, if for no other reason than not feeling horrible for not trying to save lives.
-
Do y'all remember the stunt one of the TV networks pulled a little while ago, giving a gun (OK, so it was an airsoft fer crying out loud) to someone who had little idea of which end the bullets came out of, dressed them up in a baggy sweatshirt at least 7 sizes too big, and stuffed the airsoft into their pants with some cheap, floppy nylon IWB holster, and then had them try to take out an active shooter in a small classroom setting? Even then the folks who were not playing active shooter or "Our Hero" tended to drop to the floor as opposed to standing tall and sprinting for the exits. From what I have read and heard, that's what most of the folks in the theater did until the shots stopped. Part of it may be (my reading between the lines) because the aisles were jammed even though there were not a great number of folks trying to use them, and folks were getting hit there moreso than were those hiding behind the seats.
If I'm thinking of the same one I saw I believe it was a simunition pistol. The biggest thing that REALLY pissed me off was they were like, "Aha! We had a second shooter hiding as one of the students meaning you are going to get shot. Proof that even if you actually took out the shooter you would still of got shot showing that concealed carry is bad." [barf]
-
Any word on the gas used?
There's a lot of nasty compounds out there - I can't even imagine the suffering that someone dosing a theater with (for example) MPTP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPTP) would have. =( Probably worse then death.
From all reports that I've seen and heard. It was simply a "regular" smoke grenade. Whether commercial or military, I don't know. If military then it's potassium chlorate. Not toxic or poisonous, but in a confined space enough to make you start hacking pretty good.
Three other points.
1) He was wearing a Pro-mask. Ever try shooting (especially a rifle) with a Pro-mask on? Aiming is a bitch, however, spray and pray in a crowded theater would produce a bunch of causalities.
2) Other reports stated that he opened fire first with the shotgun. Figure 5-9 rounds of buck shot and you got a lot of hurt people really fast.
3) RE: 100 round drum. Another report I heard stated that it was only ~half empty when they recovered the AR because it had jammed. Not sure if they meant the drum mag or the gun.
-
Good question, and one that I always answer (to myself) that I wouldn't do it. That said, I might try, if for no other reason than not feeling horrible for not trying to save lives.
I don't see it so much as "saving their lives" as saving my life.
In these things, EVERYONE in the theater is a victim, including me (if I were there) which means every second I let him keep shooting, there is a larger chance me or mine is going to be hit. I'd probably wait and see if he's targeting specific people or not, but if he's going at random, then the attack is (and should be) considered a personal attack on everyone present.
I'm not saying be a hero, I'm saying save your ass, which, conicidently may save others, but that's not the point.
If your in a spot where you can't be hit, and are safe, then, yes, you have a personal delima about saving other people, but without that, whatever tatics you go with under those circumstances, are not nessasarly about being a hero.
-
3) RE: 100 round drum. Another report I heard stated that it was only ~half empty when they recovered the AR because it had jammed. Not sure if they meant the drum mag or the gun.
Well there you go, he should have used an AK we all know how unreliable those ar-15's are.
Actually I'm surprised they did not call it an AK, that seems to be the common response from the media when they don't even know what was used.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.firearmstalk.com%2Fforums%2Fattachments%2Ff12%2F27313d1302610300-firearm-id-chart-humor_funny_journalists_guide_to_firearms_ak47_glock.jpg&hash=4c56c7204a89fee04e23cc41de10a7f4aa746b12)
-
3) RE: 100 round drum. Another report I heard stated that it was only ~half empty when they recovered the AR because it had jammed. Not sure if they meant the drum mag or the gun.
Allow me to clear up your confusion. Here's a snippet from the AP story about the shooting that was in today's paper:
Gates said the gunman wore a gas mask and a ballistic helmet and vest, as well as leg, groin and throat protectors. He said he bought four guns from local gun shops in the last 60 days and 6,000 rounds of ammunition, including a drum magazine that could fire 50 to 60 rounds a minute.
It wasn't the AR that jammed. He was shooting the magazine itself which, by the way, has a really slow rate of fire.
-
Just remember if the cops had shown up while he was still shooting they probable would have sprayed the place and hit everyone but the perp.
any real life examples? Columbine is out. That russian theatre is too
-
Oh I heard it called an AK on FNC this morning in the truck.
-
A Fed was quoted as saying one of the booby traps was a hypergolic mixture. The main definition I find tends toward rocket fuel and chemicals that wacko probably couldn't get. I'm wondering if because it relates to oxidizers, the Fed meant Thermite?
-
.....It wasn't the AR that jammed. He was shooting the magazine itself which, by the way, has a really slow rate of fire.
Color me confused. ??? I do own an AR but I have no 100 round mags, just 30s & 20s. Why would a 100 round magazine have a "slow rate of fire?" I mean, slower than a 30? If it fired at the same rate which IMO would be governed by the cyclic rate of the BCG and how fast the trigger was being pulled it would be the same rate of fire.
I have a WASR-10 and one 75 rnd drum mag which winds up....it offers no difference at all in rate of fire, just capacity.
Is there something about the 100 rnd. AR magazine of which I am ignorant?
No fear, guys, ignorance I can handle -- I don't pretend to know everything about guns. Just asking for a clarification, that's all. :angel:
-
Color me confused. ??? I do own an AR but I have no 100 round mags, just 30s & 20s. Why would a 100 round magazine have a "slow rate of fire?" I mean, slower than a 30? If it fired at the same rate which IMO would be governed by the cyclic rate of the BCG and how fast the trigger was being pulled it would be the same rate of fire.
I have a WASR-10 and one 75 rnd drum mag which winds up....it offers no difference at all in rate of fire, just capacity.
Is there something about the 100 rnd. AR magazine of which I am ignorant?
No fear, guys, ignorance I can handle -- I don't pretend to know everything about guns. Just asking for a clarification, that's all. :angel:
Read the news quote to which he refers.
"Shooting the magazine itself" = irony.
"Slow rate of fire" = irony.
Irony can be tough when the subject matter is deadly serious.
-
Oh I heard it called an AK on FNC this morning in the truck.
And everyone else is calling it an assault rifle.
-
And everyone else is calling it an assault rifle.
In defense of the reporters, they are likely quoting the police chief who made that erroneous statement in a press conference.
(For those unaware, an assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle. It is HIGHLY unlikely the killer had a fully automatic rifle given how much regulations are involved in owning one. Also, given that the police have referred to it as an AR-15, that is specifically a semi-automatic rifle, not a fully automatic one, and therefore not an assault rifle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle )
-
Oh I heard it called an AK on FNC this morning in the truck.
Last night, FNC said it was a Smith & Wesson AR that he bought from a Gander Mountain.
-
In defense of the reporters, they are likely quoting the police chief who made that erroneous statement in a press conference.
(For those unaware, an assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle. It is HIGHLY unlikely the killer had a fully automatic rifle given how much regulations are involved in owning one. Also, given that the police have referred to it as an AR-15, that is specifically a semi-automatic rifle, not a fully automatic one, and therefore not an assault rifle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle )
I heard that too and almost choked on my Dr. Pepper. A police chief calling an AR an assault rifle? Really?
I suppose it could have been full auto, which would, in all likelihood, mean it was an illegally purchased weapon. Which would also show that gun bans don't mean a damn thing to criminals. I hate turning this into a political thing, but it's also hard to just let the anti's walk all over rational thought.
-
Last night, FNC said it was a Smith & Wesson AR that he bought from a Gander Mountain.
Yeah, that's being reported in a number of places.
https://www.google.com/search?q=james+holmes+smith+and+wesson&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
-
Obama will be addressing the nation on the shootings tonight at 7:30pm Eastern.
-
Can't wait. ;/
-
Can't wait. ;/
I'm going to wager it's gonna be...interesting.
-
From mizz Smif
hard to just let the anti's walk all over rational thought
It's what they do, it's who they are. Take that from them, and what do they have left? Don't be so cruel...
-
I'm going to wager it's gonna be...interesting.
Agreed....in a "I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman" kind of way....
....hope Mitt's campaign people are taking notes....
-
Uh huh. Negligence = murder now?
Risk and reward. The risk of hitting an innocent might be higher, but the reward of stopping the shooting spree might outweigh that.
Not saying I could, or would take that shot.
Yeah, I was responding specifically to the "eh, if I wing someone to save my rear it'll be worth it".
It's not negligence when you know and accept that you'll hit someone, particularly when your stated goal is to save yourself.
-
Yeah, I was responding specifically to the "eh, if I wing someone to save my rear it'll be worth it".
It's not negligence when you know and accept that you'll hit someone, particularly when your stated goal is to save yourself.
Which is why you say, "I was in fear for my life, and that of my family/friends. I was trying to hit the perpetrator to stop the attack, and never intended, or imagined I would hit anyone else."
And never, ever diverge from that statement.
I also have the card of the criminal law attorney who was also the guy who wrote up my NFA trust in my wallet. =) Since he wrote the trust for me, I'm already a client.
-
Anybody watch the speech or got a link to a transcript?
-
Anybody watch the speech or got a link to a transcript?
No. But, someone at Illinoiscarry did, and asked "Did anyone think the speech was weird? He looked like he was out of it or something. " Which means it might be interesting, in a tinfoilhat-ish way, to review it.
-
Anybody watch the speech or got a link to a transcript?
Not in his speech, but All I wanted to hear was:
Press secretary Jay Carney told reporters on Air Force One during the flight to Colorado, “The president’s view is that we can take steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them under existing law.”
Does he mean it? Of course not, but to be hyper-cynical, a spree killing has to happen at just the right point in the legislative calendar. When they engage in buying time in an election year, until Obama can make the "tough calls" to call for, or support bills, or restrict RKBA as much as he can through EO's in his second lame duck term works to our advantage. It allows things to cool off until it just falls by the wayside like all the other shootings have.
Only liberal Representatives have really led the charge calling for more gun control. Where they're insulated by gerrymandred liberal urban districts.
The Senate, where whole states are represented, much less the POTUS who has to do electoral math for the whole U.S. Gun Control is still political plutonium apparently.
-
Yeah, I was responding specifically to the "eh, if I wing someone to save my rear it'll be worth it".
It's not negligence when you know and accept that you'll hit someone, particularly when your stated goal is to save yourself.
Yes, it is still negligence. It's only murder if you set out with the express intention of killing someone. If your only intention is to save your own self, it can't possibly meet any definition of murder.
If not negligence, than perhaps reckless endangerment. Definitely not murder. Not even second degree murder (if the jurisdiction recognizes such).
-
Obama will be addressing the nation on the shootings tonight at 7:30pm Eastern.
Oh darn! I had no idea and missed it, Falling Skies episode was on though the title was "Molon Labe" >:D [ar15]
-
Oh darn! I had no idea and missed it, Falling Skies episode was on though the title was "Molon Labe" >:D [ar15]
It was worth watching, at that.
-
....hope Mitt's campaign people are taking notes....
It would not surprise me if Mitt went full RINO on this, given his history.
-
Yeah, I was responding specifically to the "eh, if I wing someone to save my rear it'll be worth it".
It's not negligence when you know and accept that you'll hit someone, particularly when your stated goal is to save yourself.
The problem is that if you don't take that shot, more innocents will certainly die.
-
The problem is that if you don't take that shot, more innocents will certainly die.
This, and possibly you. You don't wait for the perfect shot, you get in there and kill the mofo. You strive for no collateral damage, but the overriding goal is to stop the threat (and a threat like an active shooter, you shoot until he's down, then finish him so he doesn't have a chance to recover)
-
So the media is making all this *expletive deleted*ing racket about his having 6,000 rounds.
This needs to get spread far and wide. Please check my math.
For arguments sake, lets say he only had that ammo in 5.56 for the AR15. We know shotgun ammo weighs and costs more. .40cal probably weighs a little less, but also costs more.
6,000 rounds of NATO 5.56 weighs about 180 pounds.
Low internet pricing before shipping and of course TAXES is about $2,000.
So now you've got 6,000 rounds of ammo to tote to the site of your killing spree.
It would take 60 of those 100 round drum magazines, each weighing 2.2 pounds empty and costing about $130....before shipping and TAXES of course.
So now you've got 312 pounds of ammo and magazines.
Initial killing spree investment of $9800.
So besides the impossibility of carrying around 312 pounds of ammo and magazines, and the amount of space 60 beta mags would carry, it would also cost almost $10,000 just to equip that much ammo to your guns.
*expletive deleted*ing IMPOSSIBLE.
We may never have a total round count from the shooting, but I'd be shocked if it was over 200.
Yeah, I was responding specifically to the "eh, if I wing someone to save my rear it'll be worth it".
It's not negligence when you know and accept that you'll hit someone, particularly when your stated goal is to save yourself.
Semantics. Knowing you'll hit someone means you actually have your sights lined up and an innocent is in them and you pull the trigger anyway. I think most are referring to the risk being much higher of an innocent being hit.
This isn't someone waving a pistol inside a bank demanding money. This isn't even someone actively shooting one or two people (like say a convience store robbery).
You can pretty much gaurantee that by failing to act he WILL kill more and more people right there, on the spot. Including yourself.
Risk vs. reward.
I've already stated the improbability of being able to make any kind of return shot in this situation. However, I think any human being with a spine and a gun can recognize that the risk of taking a shot when presented with it is far outweighed by the reward of stopping him from continuing to kill.
And what is it if you have the means and opportunity to act, and fail to?
I'm sure cowardice isn't prosecutable by law, though, right?
:-*
-
I'm getting tired of seeing that bastard's smiling face all over the news.
Q: Why do the news orgs plaster the Internet with photos of the maniac whenever there's a mass murder?
A: Because it's good for business. :mad: (they want to inspire copycats)
-
So besides the impossibility of carrying around 312 pounds of ammo and magazines, and the amount of space 60 beta mags would carry, it would also cost almost $10,000 just to equip that much ammo to your guns.
*expletive deleted* IMPOSSIBLE.
On the weight side I agree with you, but not the expense. I've seen several people claiming that he had over $20,000 worth of gear (which I think is WILDLY exaggerated) and that is proof he was set up to do this by someone else. Heck, he could have bought all that and more on credit if he knew he had no plans to pay it back. Walk in to Gander Mountain with a shiny new Visa, walk out with a bunch of gear.
-
I'm getting tired of seeing that bastard's smiling face all over the news.
Q: Why do the news orgs plaster the Internet with photos of the maniac whenever there's a mass murder?
A: Because it's good for business. :mad: (they want to inspire copycats)
Sorry, but I have to post the picture from the arraignment. He's go some crazy eyes going on.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa57.foxnews.com%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fimages%2Froot_images%2F0%2F0%2F072312_holmescourtroom_20120723_130239.jpg&hash=0ba3c45ea7262bb1cfcd8399e6d48bf3bf42a16f)
-
On the "no CCW holder could reasonably hope to stop the shooter" thing, it really depends on dozens of variables we can't know, so speculation seems pointless.
On the "It wasn't a real assault rifle" bit, I think that's a bit silly. Technically in the original usage a bullet is the projectile not the entire cartridge, and technically a gun is only smoothbores. But they've passed into common usage and it's highly pedantic to quibble over the semantics of it. I feel the same could be same of assault rifles. The usage has changed, get over it. Unless you still get angry when "gay" is used to mean "homosexual" etc.
-
I'm shocked - a reasonable statement from Hollywood:
As a nation we must be careful before being too reactionary and implementing measures that do more to impinge our personal freedoms than they do to ensure public safety,” he added. “Some things as fast and simple as a bag and coat check might be an acceptable price that patrons are willing to pay to feel more secure, but ultimately moviegoers may be more likely to accept that sometimes the bad things that occur are beyond reason and control, and attempts to guard against them aren’t worth the cost of every day liberties.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/07/23/dark-knight-massacre-could-prompt-massive-expensive-security-changes-at-movie/?intcmp=features#ixzz21T8KCqmb
Which was a response to this coming out of Hollywood:
Meanwhile, Thelma Adams, Yahoo! Movies contributing editor questioned why all cinema guests can’t be “bag-checked and wanded” the same way critics and the press are prior to advanced screenings.
I generally don't like going to the theater as it is, with what I consider much better options for home viewing as long as you can live without seeing the premier of something. I certainly wouldn't enter any theater where they search and screen me.
-
A) Funding: it appears he recently received a grant awarded to "only the most brilliant" scientists.
B) "Assault" Rifle: I could have done as much damage with an M1 Carbine and a half dozen 30-round magazines. To the best of my knowledge, the M1 Carbine has never been referred to as an "assault" rifle. The M2 variant, however, qualifies for that appellation. Any lightweight, mag fed, self loading rifle of sufficient caliber could have been used to wreak the same amount of mayhem -- probably more, given some practice and a reasonably maintained weapon.
In the world of small arms, "assault rifle" is a technical designation, and I'm really not ready to simply roll over on that because of some widespread laziness and disinformation.
This isn't some trivial matter. The disarmament and gun control freaks depend on such definitional fuzziness (it is whatever I say it is), and it is very much worth denying them that.
C) Crazy: I still want to know "brilliant scientist" with scholarships & grants and "violent crazy person" -- especially in a field like neuroscience, which is supposed to have a superior understanding of things like "crazy" -- manages to slip through the cracks with all the "expertise" that's supposed to be housed there.
I find such dismissals as "well, you can't predict crazy" to be technical fail.
Especially in light of his mother's observation that "they have the right person."
D) Bag Check: Completely wrong vector. A bag check would have done absolutely nothing to prevent this, and would have disarmed anyone who might have been able to respond.
WTF is wrong with people? Guy comes in shooting through a door that's supposed to be locked to ingress, and you want to scrutinize all the movie attendees? Do you kick the dog after a hard day at the office?
-
Which is why they won't do that. Hollywood is all about infringing liberty unless it might hurt their bottom line.
Arfin: the legislature decided what an assault rifle is, whether we like it or not. Observing that this conflicts with the original definition is all well and good, but it looks like (and is) pedantry on par with insisting that bullet and cartridge are not interchangeable terms.
-
Which is why they won't do that. Hollywood is all about infringing liberty unless it might hurt their bottom line.
Arfin: the legislature decided what an assault rifle is, whether we like it or not. Observing that this conflicts with the original definition is all well and good, but it looks like (and is) pedantry on par with insisting that bullet and cartridge are not interchangeable terms.
So educate the legislators, and make it painful for them not to learn.
-
So educate the legislators, and make it painful for them not to learn.
[sarcasm]I wish there was a good way just to make it painful for legislators in general. >:D >:D [/sarcasm]
-
So Hollywood is completely against the TSA at movie theaters but completely fine with the TSA at Airports/
-
So Hollywood is completely against the TSA at movie theaters but completely fine with the TSA at Airports/
Pretty much, but I'm still glad they said it. Documentation to be used when they take the opposite stance with something that doesn't have a fiscal impact on them or otherwise affect their lives.
-
On the weight side I agree with you, but not the expense. I've seen several people claiming that he had over $20,000 worth of gear (which I think is WILDLY exaggerated) and that is proof he was set up to do this by someone else. Heck, he could have bought all that and more on credit if he knew he had no plans to pay it back. Walk in to Gander Mountain with a shiny new Visa, walk out with a bunch of gear.
Oh for sure. Actually between ammo guns and other gear he's certainly over the 10k mark. Highly doubt he had magazines for all those rounds though. And even if he did, and had an emplaced position with them all ready to shoot, I have no idea how he'd be able to light off all that ammo without getting popped by police, or armed citizens.
-
As to the term "assualt rifle".
I read that it was never a technical term, but a made up term by polititions, and then used in the AWB. I would guess that the only weapons that are truely considered "assult weapons" are those that qualified as such under the ban?
My dad and I just bypass it and refer to our rifles (the ones that qualify) as "modern combat rifles", based on the design, not fireing options (as we have no select fire weapons)
-
With his background in neuroscience... I'm sure I can't be alone in wondering if he, you know, ever experimented on himself somehow.
Thinking he'd become an evil super-genius or whatnot.
Or a simple "trip" to see just how far down the rabbit hole goes.
-
So educate the legislators, and make it painful for them not to learn.
:facepalm:
You're attempting to win an argument you've already lost by being pedantic. Give it up.
-
Where has 'the legislature' decided what an assault rifle is?
The term 'assault weapon' had appeared in AWB, not 'assault rifle'... and that is no longer law.
-
Thank you, MicroBalrog. The term "assault rifle" has a very specific meaning, and has been so defined by the military for decades. The term "assault weapon" was invented by Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center in the late 1980's.
-
Gay had a very specific meaning that was defined for years. The meaning changed. Deal with it instead of whining about semantics.
-
Thank you, MicroBalrog. The term "assault rifle" has a very specific meaning, and has been so defined by the military for decades. The term "assault weapon" was invented by Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center in the late 1980's.
I think "assault rifle" came from the German STG-44 "sturmgewehr," or storm/assault rifle prototyped during WWII and the direct predecessor of the AK-47.
-
I think "assault rifle" came from the German STG-44 "sturmgewehr," or storm/assault rifle prototyped during WWII and the direct predecessor of the AK-47 AR-15.
While the concept of the AK-47 was the same and they look very similar, The STG-44 is very similar to the AR-15 in operation and design.
-
Deal with it instead of whining about semantics.
Why? When you cede the language to the enemy, you're letting them win. If someone uses the term "assault weapon", I'll correct them if possible by giving them a short history on the origin of the phrase. Sometimes it changes someone's mind on the issue if they realize they've been duped.
-
Oh ffs... Really? You think that's a substantiative difference that someone open to the idea of gun control would care about? Why not just point out that "gun" technically refers to smoothbores, but the shooting actually used a rifled weapon! They'll totally switch opinions then! "OMG, the media slighly misused a term, I love and care about the 2nd Amendment now! And they called them clips but the proper term is magazine?!?! I'm only getting my gun news from the NRA now!"
-
I think "assault rifle" came from the German STG-44 "sturmgewehr," or storm/assault rifle prototyped during WWII and the direct predecessor of the AK-47.
WELCOME BACK! AZR! how ya been? I was askin about you awhile ago.
-
Being correct =/= being pedantic. Correcting the ignorant =/= whining.
Now quit whining about others' preference for correct nomenclature.
-
If there's no difference between an assault rifle and your AR15, do I take it you think you're not placed at a disadvantage by not being able to own the former?
-
Everyone lay off the semantics debate, or start (yet) another thread. Please. We're all on the same side here, and people are getting worked up over (at least in this topic) a non-issue. We've had numerous debates about it all over the internet, and it very rarely does anyone any good.
I come here for intelligent discussion, not bickering. I have other fora for that. =|
Not owning a TV myself, what was discussed/revealed at the arraignment?
-
Being correct =/= being pedantic. Correcting the ignorant =/= whining.
Now quit whining about others' preference for correct nomenclature.
2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms
If there's no difference between an assault rifle and your AR15, do I take it you think you're not placed at a disadvantage by not being able to own the former?
You're deliberately misunderstanding me. Although for the record I do in fact prefer semi-auto AR-15's to my issued M16-A4, should I have the choice of either.
Calling it an assault rifle or whatever your preferred term is (copy of an assault rifle? assault style rifle? What do you want the press to call them?) functionally the same. It's no different than calling a rifle a gun; technically incorrect but it makes no difference to the question at hand.
Picture this conversation to see why this is such a silly and fruitless argument.
Anti-Gunner: "OMG that crazy guy killed a bunch of people with an assault rifle! Let's ban them!!!!"
APS Pedant: "Actually, that was just a semi-automatic copy of an assault rifle, which by definition is fully automatic."
A-G: "Then let's ban those too!"
A-P: ...
-
D) Bag Check: Completely wrong vector. A bag check would have done absolutely nothing to prevent this, and would have disarmed anyone who might have been able to respond.
WTF is wrong with people? Guy comes in shooting through a door that's supposed to be locked to ingress, and you want to scrutinize all the movie attendees? Do you kick the dog after a hard day at the office?
DING, DING, DING!
Give that man two gold stars
-
Arfin: the legislature decided what an assault rifle is, whether we like it or not.
No, they didn't.
The decided what they thought an assault rifle was, and now that the law has expired even those who were in favor of it at the time realize (unfortunately) that their definition was all about appearance rather than function. Which is why today, when they talk about enacting a new AWB, they talk about "fixing" the weaknesses in the old one. If the definition can change each time they dream up a new version of the law, then it really isn't a definition ... is it?
-
WTF is wrong with people? Guy comes in shooting through a door that's supposed to be locked to ingress, and you want to scrutinize all the movie attendees? Do you kick the dog after a hard day at the office?
Peeples is dumb and very close minded as well. I hate that.
-
Picture this conversation to see why this is such a silly and fruitless argument.
Anti-Gunner: "OMG that crazy guy killed a bunch of people with an assault rifle! Let's ban them!!!!"
APS Pedant: "Actually, that was just a semi-automatic copy of an assault rifle, which by definition is fully automatic."
A-G: "Then let's ban those too!"
A-P: ...
No, how it's going down is like this:
Anti-Gunner: "OMG that crazy guy killed a bunch of people with an assault rifle! Let's ban them!!!!"
[Anti-Gunner is never going to be convinced. It's as likely as trying to persuade a practicing Christian to become a Satanist.]
APS Pedant: "Anti-Gunner is being manipulative on purpose. He's using the term "assault rifle" to conflate the civilian rifles used by regular people to defend their homes and families. there is no definable difference between an AR15 and any other semi-automatic rifle. What they want to do is to deliberately make this issue sound scary so they can create a set of catch-all restrictions banning the guns they disapprove of.... and everything that looks vaguely like them."
Bystander: "Is this true, Anti-Gunner? Have you lied to me?"
Anti-Gunner: "NO WE HAVE JUST ALTERED A FEW DETAILS STOP BEING SUCH A PEDANT. WAAH WAAH."
-
This is why the tide of gun grabbing will go unabated. Because the gunnies can't stop bickering amongst themselves
-
This is why the tide of gun grabbing will go unabated. Because the gunnies can't stop bickering amongst themselves
Actually, we're doing pretty well lately. I think we can grouse about these little things without upsetting the whole movement. Just relax.
-
Actually, we're doing pretty well lately. I think we can grouse about these little things without upsetting the whole movement. Just relax.
I guess I should have put a winkey smiley in my post :facepalm:
-
I guess I should have put a winkey smiley in my post :facepalm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMTbkfgT_jc#t=0m9s
-
Everyone lay off the semantics debate, or start (yet) another thread. Please. We're all on the same side here, and people are getting worked up over (at least in this topic) a non-issue. We've had numerous debates about it all over the internet, and it very rarely does anyone any good.
I come here for intelligent discussion, not bickering. I have other fora for that. =|
Not owning a TV myself, what was discussed/revealed at the arraignment?
Agreed.
I didn't see the arraignment or the Obama address. Anybody feel like recapping them for us?
-
It's now being reported by Fox that the 223 ammo he had was armor piercing. Any other reports on this?
-
It's now being reported by Fox that the 223 ammo he had was armor piercing. Any other reports on this?
*snort* If that's true I'd like to know his source for M995. I have never seen a single round of black-tip 5.56mm, even when I was in Afghanistan, let alone here in Aurora. Most likely the standard M855 green tip heavy ball you can get most anywhere as cheap(ish) plinking ammo.
-
It's now being reported by Fox that the 223 ammo he had was armor piercing. Any other reports on this?
Probably plain vanilla 5.56 NATO M855 ammo (62 grain FMJ's with steel penetrator) Officially it's not AP, but I wouldn't even blame MSNBC or ABC for getting that wrong: http://wideners.com/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=100000476 (http://wideners.com/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=100000476)
-
Gun sales have jumped 40% in Colorado. From the way the article reads, it's not people buying EBRs or any "it might get banned" stuff. Looks like most if it is CCW related. As would be expected, the comments are interesting. I like seeing that more and more people are using the "fire extinguisher" analogy for having a personal protection weapon.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21142159/gun-sales-up-since-tragedy#ixzz21XE0BBJE
-
*snort* If that's true I'd like to know his source for M995. I have never seen a single round of black-tip 5.56mm, even when I was in Afghanistan, let alone here in Aurora. Most likely the standard M855 green tip heavy ball you can get most anywhere as cheap(ish) plinking ammo.
I have 8 rounds of it, I bought two bags of 8 for 15 dollars or so around 2000 (before I had an AR) at a gun show in Reno, gave half to a friend when he bought his first AR. I sold my AR but kept the 8 rounds.
-
You know, Obama the other day said, "Yeah, my daughters, they go to movies. What if they'd been in that theater?" Well, let me answer that. If Obama's daughters had been in the theater, there would have been Secret Service agents in there. At the first sign this guy pulled a weapon he'd-a been dropped by the Secret Service. The results would have been quite different.
Name of radio personality withheld, to avoid ad hominem controversies.
-
Did the authorities get a "heads up"?
Interesting story on AP. The letter/package he sent was turned over to police before the shooting.
The judge has placed a gag order on the case.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_COLORADO_SHOOTING_SUSPECT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-07-25-22-25-35 (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_COLORADO_SHOOTING_SUSPECT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-07-25-22-25-35)
-
I too missed the Obama arraignment.
It is important to not allow the antis to go unchallenged when they make up definitions of words, especially when they clearly do not know what it actually means and are only saying things because it sounds scary. Shoulder thing that goes up anyone?
Did you all know we have been at half-staff for this?
-
Yes I did and I questioned it myself.
-
Makes you wonder why the nation isn't mourning the 14 deaths in Texas. More people died, why isn't it a subject of national discussion?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/pickup-truck-crash-texas-photo-144056003.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/pickup-truck-crash-texas-photo-144056003.html)
-
Because trucks don't kill people, people kill people. Come on RKL, get with the left's program.
-
Because trucks don't kill people, people kill people. Come on RKL, get with the left's program.
SUVs kill people. And more importantly, polar bears.
-
SUVs kill polar bears? Or people kill polar bears?
I'm so confused.
-
I have 8 rounds of it, I bought two bags of 8 for 15 dollars or so around 2000 (before I had an AR) at a gun show in Reno, gave half to a friend when he bought his first AR. I sold my AR but kept the 8 rounds.
So how well does it penetrate and what?
I still have a few rounds of the black tip 3006, but I rarely shoot it. Too few rounds to play with.
-
SUVs kill polar bears? Or people kill polar bears?
I'm so confused.
MrsSmith the answer is C - Both...get with the program. ;)
-
SUVs kill polar bears? Or people kill polar bears?
I'm so confused.
Polar bears kill people ;)
-
SUVs kill polar bears? Or people kill polar bears?
I'm so confused.
SUV's kill polar bears by clubbing them with baby seals.....then they post spider pics on the Internet.....
-
So how well does it penetrate and what?
I still have a few rounds of the black tip 3006, but I rarely shoot it. Too few rounds to play with.
Might want to save it for a rainy day. I haven't seen M2 AP readily available for going on a few years now.