i think this would have been true...

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

customaquatics

New member
???
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 580881_374084252661206_1304198781_n.jpg
    580881_374084252661206_1304198781_n.jpg
    42.7 KB · Views: 273
Last edited:
I think that the two situations are far too different to invite any reasonable comparison. In one, you had a heavily armed and armored shooter engaging in an intentional mass killing. In the other, you had an attempted robbery where at least one of the perpetrators couldn't have shot anyone even if he wanted to, as his gun was both unloaded AND nonfunctional.
 
Last edited:
Yep... Scott's right... That .380 wouldn't have penetrated the Colorado shooter's armor at all. A report I read said his legs were protected too.
Excluding a face shot, it wouldn't have made any difference.

Similar stories? No... VERY different events.
 
While it is certainly feasible that an armed person could have stopped or slowed down the madman in Colorado, the situations were completely different. Holmes appears to have had a break with reality, and in addition was armored. Not 100% armored, but quite a bit. His arms, thighs, and face were available, the rest not so much. Add to that the darkness, tear gas general panic and pandemonium, and you have a situation where a person with a small handgun would have little effect.

The guys the older gentleman shot in the internet cafe were more ordinary thug punks who were completely in touch with reality, but were also stupid and cowardly, so that when the first BANG happened they proceeded to skitter on out of there and floor swim over each other.

The internet cafe idiot punks were there for an easy take, and had no intention whatsoever (apparently) of standing their ground and receiving fire if necessary to accomplish the goal. The Colorado madman had the intention of inflicting mass death and pain, and was suited up to give and receive fire. Once he did what he wanted he went outside and later just gave up. That part was a bit odd.
 
Also, keep in mind the guys in Florida had a totally different goal than the other shooter did. They were there to rob the place and when confronted with resistance they simply ran away.
 
I thought the whole situation over, and you stand pretty much no chance with a pistol vs a fully armed and armored man. He had a kevlar vest, groin and leg inserts, and a kevlar neck protector and helmet. As well as a gas mask to protect from the tear gas going through the theater. Not to mention he had a rifle, shotgun, and two handguns. If you can shoot him in the face, through all the smoke and commotion going on, you might stand a chance. If I was in that theater, and I would have been armed as usual, I am not sure how I would react. Seats would not make good cover, reports say his rifle rounds were penetrating into adjacent theaters and injured at least on person, so a seat would do nothing. The whole thing is just sickening and my heart goes out to all the victims and their families.
 
I have read nothing in this thread that is in bad taste. It appears to be a legitimate discussion regarding ccw effectiveness in two different situations.
 
JHenry, no one has written any thing in poor taste in this thread. I am just wary of the pro gun people trying to use this the same way that the Brady Campaign has, in other words using the event to politicize an agenda.

The Brady Campaign is using this to rally as much support and money as they can. Check out their website. After VT they were asking for donations of $1 for every life lost.

The pictures and attachment, using this situation as an ad for pro guns is what I meant as being in poor taste.
 
Last edited:
I have read nothing in this thread that is in bad taste.
Click to expand...
I agree.

While the two situations are different, I'm gonna continue to think that someone with a CCW and the right training could have made a difference. Yes, he was wearing armor, but I wonder if he has ever encountered incoming gun fire before. Considering everything I've read about him so far in the news, the chances seem slim. Which brings me to my point. Had someone hit him with a few rounds (maybe excluding some smaller calibers), he would have felt it, and I'm sure he would have reacted to it. To someone with some decent training, hitting CoM might have stunned him enough to buy enough time for a better placed shot. However, this is just speculation. We are stuck with the outcome we got. We will never really know if it made a difference. I just like to think it would have.
 
Just to add - we don't know that there *wasn't* one (or more) moviegoers carrying concealed that night. It would have been against theater policy, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
 
I tend to agree with librarian.
While the shooter was armored and ready to inflict death to unarmed children and women, taking fire in return, well while he may or may not have been prepared we will never know.

A prepared, armed citizen certainly could have at least tried to stop this insanity. However, unfortunately this will be used as a tool to argue for stronger gun controls. Despite the fact, this guy was by all intents a normal average citizen, with no police record at all, he probably could buy a gun no matter the requirements. You just can not predict insanity.
 
im not trying to start a arguement. this an other pictures are starting to go around facebook. this one seemed to be the one you guys would prolly wanna discuss over.
 
I agree few choices would have been effective in the way of handguns short of focused fire(very difficult) to the face. Perhaps one of the few instances where the Taurus Judge (and similar Smith Governor) - the .410/.45 Colt combo revolver - with a focus on the .410 part, might have been the best choice. A .410 to the face from 8-10 feet (big assumption you would be alive or capable to perform such) is nothing to trifle with and something a gas mask would have done little to guard against. Then again "you" would have one shot--at best--to make it count. And the Taurus/Smith guns hardly what one would call CCW. At the least might've "temporarily" injured or distracted enough (with gas mask destruction etc) for an instant in order for some other brave soul to tackle the guy. In any case, highly speculative and very difficult situation. Probably would've taken four or five "theater marshals" armed such and placed randomly (and at least with their own bp vests) for one to "get through."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top