...it is worth mentioning that the North Hollywood bank robbers took phenobarbital before the event.
Holmes reportedly took a pain medication before the attack, perhaps for the same reasons. Regardless, padding, pain medication, layered protection, however it's achieved, it's possible to soak up pistol hits when properly armored up without being incapacitated.
With a sufficiently powerful cartridge it is possible, though certainly not guaranteed, that a person not under the influence of drugs or alcohol may be incapacitated by the pain of being shot even if the bullet's penetration is stopped.
It's possible, but not especially likely. The guy who invented the Second Chance vests used to demonstrate his product by shooting himself in the chest with a .44Mag. Admittedly he used some padding under the vest, but there's nothing to keep a criminal from doing something similar.
A guy with a pistol against an armored bad guy with a rifle is going to leave the scene in a body bag the vast majority of the time while the armored guy with the rifle will leave the scene on his feet. The bottom line is that sometimes the odds are stacked against you so badly that a win is almost out of the question.
in a scenario such as this we must throw out the COM concept. Like the N. Hollywood shoot out; if that is what you practice that is what you'll do. We saw how that turned out.
One must consider any and all available holes in the armor system. Arms, more specifically the area in the vest that the arms come out from is one such place. The white triangle is another possibility. Head, knee caps, feet, ankles/ lower legs (a N. Hollywood game changer) are all on the list.
There is no chance to go forward of the line to score your shots and determine what's going on. It's dark, it's smoky, there's an irritant in the air, there are people screaming and running around and the bad guy is dressed in dark clothing and shooting back.
In that environment, a CCW'er is supposed to be able to score his hits well enough to realize that the bad guy is armored before his compact carry gun runs dry? Or visually assess the target with enough accuracy to determine he's armored before opening fire? I don't think so.
Let's assume he's really that good. So now, after only expending a few rounds (or none if he's sharp enough to visually detect body armor), our fearless hero realizes he's got to shoot not for a man-sized target, but for a head-sized or smaller target. Still in the dark, still with a moving target, and with someone shooting back through the smoke and irritants in the air. People are screaming, running, getting shot, getting trampled, but now our defender is somehow able to adjust his aim and, with the few shots in his carry pistol, without being shot himself, he threads the needle to hit the weak points in the armor. That might make a good movie, but it's pure fantasy, in my opinion.
...Deleted...
At least a body'd have 20+ chances to nail him with a Five-seveN before reloading (or getting shot).
Only if they had one on their person at the time. Colorado has had shall issue for about 9 years and yet no one in the theater had a handgun--or at least no one was able to make use of one. Not many people get their permits. Of the people who have permits, not many carry on any kind of a regular basis. Of the people who actually do carry on a regular basis, people who carry 20 shot handguns with the capability to pierce armor make up a vanishingly tiny percentage.
As SHR970 points out:
SHR970 said:
If someone is determined to create mass destruction or mayhem, they can do it.
Truer words... Unfortunately, some scenarios don't have solutions that can be practically planned for.
It is certainly true that there are some things that can be done that might have a positive impact on the outcome, but the idea that a person dressed in street clothes with a handgun permit is going to turn a situation like this around in a few well-placed shots just isn't remotely realistic.
We need to keep this discussion grounded in reality and in accord with the forum purpose of advancing responsible firearms ownership if it's going to continue.
