So You Want To Own a Gun (Part Five)
Part Five of this series was supposed to be about getting the most out of informal target shooting, or “plinking,” as most of us call it, but events in a Colorado theater have forced us to consider a far more sober topic instead.
Thirty-eight minutes after midnight on July 20, James Eagan Holmes walked through a theater emergency exit he’d propped open moments before, tossed in a pair of tear gas grenades, and opened fire on the captive audience of roughly 300 people in the Aurora theater. Just one minute to 90 seconds later, the attack was over and the shooter was in police custody outside of the theater. He had offered no resistance to police. Inside, 70 people were shot. Twelve died. It was the highest number of victims in a mass shooting in U.S. history.
We are a nation still trying to come to grips with the senseless violence of this crime. Many blame Holmes and Holmes alone for the crime, while others have chosen to make him just part of the equation. Some point out his odd behavior after his capture as evidence that our mental health system failed. More conspiratorial souls would have him be a cog in a grand conspiracy. And of course, the fact that he used firearms for the most effective part of his rampage (homemade bombs meant to level his apartment building were disarmed) has triggered a temporary escalation in the ever-present debate of the role of firearms in our society.
The inventory of weapons recovered at the scene of this mass murder is a cross-section of what may be the most popular firearms in their classes sold in the United States. The pump-action Remington 870 that Holmes fired to begin his assault is a variant of the most popular shotgun in America and has been used by sportsmen and lawmen for generations. The semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) Smith & Wesson M&P15 carbine he used is a variant of the ubiquitous AR-15 platform, arguably the most popular and customizable rifle design sold in America. The two Glock pistols Holmes had with him during the assault — at least one of which was fired repeatedly — are among the most popular pistols in the United States, equally popular with law enforcement and civilians. It would be difficult to find a more representative collection of modern firearms.
The unique parts of Holmes’ kit were a 100-round drum magazine for the M&P15, a gas mask, two tear gas canisters, and what the Aurora Police Department initially claimed was head-to-toe “ballistic” armor. The latter is a claim that has not yet been substantiated, due in part to two gag orders issued by the judge presiding over the case.
The 100-round magazine in Holmes’ rifle has been used by gun control activists to call for the outlawing of “high capacity” magazines. These political creatures argue that high capacity magazines enable criminals such as Holmes to fire more bullets and to kill more people in a shorter amount of time. These same anti-gun activists have little to say when it is pointed out that his decision to use unreliable 100-round drum magazines (there is no such thing as a reliable drum magazine due to their mechanical complexity) is thought to be the reason his carbine jammed and become inoperable. He was forced to transition to one of the Glock handguns, which anecdotal evidence suggests may have been the firearm used to fire half or more of the shots fired in the one-minute rampage.
There is very little that could have been done to prevent an attack that appears to have been months in the planning.
Other firearms could have been used. Many of them are far more powerful than what were used.
If firearms didn’t exist, Holmes had the time, resources, and intelligence to plot something even worse. Timothy McVeigh killed hundreds using nothing more complicated than fuel and fertilizer. Julio Gonzalez murdered 87 with a dollar’s worth of gas. Evil is difficult (sometimes impossible) to thwart beforehand.
Often the only indication of such a violent crime is the outbreak of violence itself, and all the authorities can do afterward is try to pick up the physical and psychological pieces. Ultimately, the survival of the individuals in Theater 9 boiled down to a combination of luck and their own split-second decisions. We can’t do much about luck, chance, or “God’s will.”
There has been considerable speculation about whether a theatergoer with a concealed weapon could have made any difference in the minute-long rampage. Glenn Reynolds pointed out after Virgina Tech that concealed carry at least gives a citizen a fighting chance against an assailant. Frank Taylor and others suggest that there wasn’t enough time, or it was too confusing, or that citizens carrying concealed weapons simply aren’t aware enough, or professional enough, to make any difference.
Many people may have frozen in shock or panic. Others may have fired ineffectually (as the police so often do) and hit nothing at all, or may have added to the casualties. The simple fact of the matter is that we don’t know, and can never know, if the presence of an armed citizen might have made a difference that night.
I do know one thing for certain.
If I had been in that theater, and had my concealed weapon (which, absurdly, is illegal here in North Carolina), there is a chance I would have remembered I was armed. There is a chance I would have been able to draw my pistol and activate the laser sight. There is a chance that the thousands of rounds I’ve fired in training — more than many police officers have in their career — would have taken over and I might have had a clear shot where I put the dot between the shooter’s eyes and detached myself from the carnage long enough to remember front sight, press.
There’s a lot of chance and not an inconsiderable amount of skill that would have had to coalesce to end a rampage like this as suddenly as it began. But that is a chance I bet anyone pinned down by a raging gunman would have taken if the situation presented itself.
The first rule of gun-fighting still applies: first, have a gun.
Also read:
As a CCW permit holder myself I rarely carry a weapon, but I always have an LED flashlight on me. A flashlight could have completely immobilized Holmes, but we are such a victim culture, it seems, that everyone’s first thought is trample each other for the door, or like Jamie Rohrs, leave your children and run to your truck while some stranger defends your family with his body.
I watched the condescending media attempt to re-enact Virginia Tech to show why it wouldn’t have mattered if someone had a gun or not. The scenario was completely stacked against the defender. He was made to wear a long shirt, so he would have trouble drawing his weapon. He was sat in the front row, and the intruder, a SWAT member acting as the aggressor, rushed in and went right for him. In reality the Virginia Tech gunman wasn’t an expert, wouldn’t know who was carrying, and couldn’t depend on him being in the front row. Not only that, I screamed at the television, what about the people in the next room, or the next room?
Had you been in the shooters immediate vicinity when he started shooting, then your chances are slimmer of reacting. If however you were much further back, you would have time to upholster your weapon, get down, and use the calamity for cover until you got a clean shot. Defending yourself is not just about carrying a weapon. Situational awareness and preparation are key factors that are so often overlooked.
the tactical flash light you mention is a very effective devise. Small but powerful the one police now carry will blind whomever they shine it in the face of. With millions of concentrated “candle power” many carry a warning not to shine it in anyones eyes. Haveing a ccp only educates the carrier of the emmense responcility of bearing arms. Like you, I seldom carry I do so mostly when traveling by auto. I carry always when wandering the desert looking for stray cattle. Revolver works best cause I can carry a couple of chambers with snake loads, they don’t work very well in semi-auto, the remainder with standard ammunition. The saying here in Arizona is, “there are two types of snakes in the desert, some walk upright!”
Re: The tactical flashlight you mention. Can you recommend a product. I’d like to get one for my wife to carry. Thank you.
Actually, and I am serious, with him wearing body armor, it might have been something with a greater chance of success to have come up behind him, or even from the side with him wearing a peripheral vision impairing gas mask, and hit him over the head with a baseball bat, repeat as necessarily, or sans baseball bat, tackled him. The quarters were close and not well lit and at some point un shot people were off to his side and behind him.
He wasn’t wearing body armor. He was wearing a nylon tactical vest – basically a windbreaker with lots of pockets.
Roger that, Sergeants Major. Watch all the “PX Rangers” pile on with their expertise and what they would’ve done
He had the vest AND something that looked very much like body armor. A british news site had pictures. Someone linked to the photos when commenting on another article here on pjmedia
A couple things that the shooter had that would render any rescue fantasies impractical: the element of surprise/shock and darkness/smoke. I know, every time we have one of these things, the what ifs and the if onlys come out of the woodwork. I think the rescue fantasy is built into the male psyche, remember Marilyn Monroe (I could’ve done better by her). I had a friend who lived by Lake Mendota (Madison, WI) in the 60′s. He KNEW he could’ve gotten to Otis Redding in time that night in 1968 when the small plane he was riding in went down before the concert.
Phil, you are forgetting a couple of things:
First, from all accounts, this moron silhouetted himself against the screen during some of the attack. Draw, aim at the center of mass, fire. That’s an easier target than a patron crouching behind a seat. Even with irritants.
Second, and most important, having to worry about someone else shooting would have kept his attention on the shooter and away from the exits. Multiple people were shot simply because this git didn’t have to duck and could watch the exits and fire on anyone trying to use them.
Would the shooter have gotten shot, and probably killed? Yeah. “Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” Us bitter clingers do cling to both guns and religion, after all. But would the body count have been lower? We can’t be certain, but myriads of defensive gun uses say yes.
According to the actual police report (before the gag order) what he was wearing was not a “bulletproof vest” as the news media called it, but a hunter-type load-bearing vest, with pockets for various items. This seems to be another case of reporters betraying their astounding ignorance of anything outside of their cozy newsroom.
As for dealing with him if he had, in fact, been wearing a ballistic vest, we were trained in what Col. Jeff Cooper referred to as the “Mozambique Drill” (so named due to use of ballistic vests by FRELIMO Communist terrorists in southeastern Africa in the 1970s). Fire a two-shot “hammer” into the center of mass, and if the target continues activity, elevate front sight and fire two more into the head. Specifically, the philtrum, the small “space” between the upper lip and the nose.
The reason you shoot for this rather than the eye (the so-called “cranio-ocular” shot) is threefold;
1. The brain is protected by the skull. While a shot into the ocular orbit (the “eye socket”) may penetrate bone and enter the cranium, then again it may not, especially with low-powered or small-caliber weapons. (.22, .25, etc., which BTW is why my lightest “backup” was a .32 ACP, and my usual was a .38 Special loaded with 158-grain lead +P hollowpoint “FBI” rounds.)
2. While a penetrating hit to the brain will certainly kill, it may not do so fast enough to keep the target from killing you. Contrary to movies, a “head shot” does not instantly eliminate an adversary. He can have anything up to 30 to 40 seconds of consciousness and motor control with even a fatal brain injury. A determined opponent can do a lot of damage in that amount of time.
3. The shot into the philtrum solves both problems. It penetrates the thinner bones of the facial structure, misses the heavier bones of the cranial vault, and goes directly into the brain stem. This cuts the “control lines” between the brain and the spine, and thus the rest of the body. It may or may not kill (people with brain stem injuries have survived, believe it or not), but it virtually guarantees an instant cessation of hostile action.
clear ether
eon
That is why I carry a Glock 30 that shoots a .45 rd. Even if I were to hit him in the chest and he was wearing body armor, it certainly would have knocked him off his game. As to a headshot, it would need to go through an eye socket, it would have created its own. I carry a .45 because shooting twice is silly.
If you think shooting twice is silly, you don’t know much about shooting.
You missed the point Mark v …. he was commenting on its power. If target hit from a 45, no need to fire a 2nd to keep the guy down, because he isn’t getting up from the first.
I didn’t miss the point. You both are missing the basic knowledge of handguns.
There is no handgun in the world that is a guaranteed one-shot stop. That’s why ALL knowledgeable combat handgun instructors teach multiple shots – until the threat is neutralized.
If you are thinking that one shot is enough, you are ignorant.
A head shot with a 45 ACP , if it did not kill him it would still incapasitate him and he would have one hell of a headache when he woke up.
A 45 impacting on his body armor should put him off balance, allowing for a second or third shot to put him down.
There are solidly documented cases of people being hit in the head with a .45 and continuing to fight.
And knock him off balance?
Dream on.
Better yet, get a real education (like maybe, high school level science?) and stop getting your information from Hollywood.
Just as a matter of physics, the momentum carried by a bullet is slightly less than the momentum transferred to the shooter’s hand as recoil (less because a very small part of the recoil is from muzzle blast). So, if it didn’t knock down the person who fired it, it won’t knock down the person it hits.
I think the reality is that the shooter was a jackass acting on masturbatory fantasies. The primary weapon choice was unwise if your goal was to kill a bunch of people; the whole premise of the 5.56/.223 was to disable. He had a good killing weapon in the 870; I know my Mossy or my Saiga would be what I reached for if there were a crowd of zombies coming down the street, though I might use the Mini while they were still at a distance.
He dressed himself up like a Mall Ninja and shot at girls and little kids. He didn’t know how to use the .223 and managed to jam it. I don’t think it is any different from my Mini in looking like a flamethrower when fired in the dark, so he was firing blindly. I think anybody who was anything like a decent shot firing back at him would have caused him to pee his pants and run. If he had any preparation at all for being shot at, it was from video games, and it ain’t the same. Everything about the guy says coward so it is too bad there wasn’t anyone there to oppose him.
That’s urban legend, Art. The original specs called for it to be able to completely penetrate a standard issue GI helmet at 500 yards.
It was NEVER designed to disable, and until the gun-store commando types at the Pentagon started messing with it (trying to make a sub-gun out of it, going to 62 grains instead of 55, etc.) it was quite a lethal battle gun.
Still is, in its intended role.
Penetrate a helmet at 500 yards, yeah, probably; it is a damned nasty round leaving the barrel at over 3000 fps with most rounds. Hit that helmet at 500 yards with an AR platform weapon, another matter altogether. A skilled sniper could do it in good conditions, but I’ll guarantee you that a 5.56/.223 weapon wouldn’t be that skilled sniper’s first choice of weapons for the task.
I’m nothing like a sniper quality shooter, but I shoot pretty well. If I were looking to do serious damage to the broad side of a barn my Mini-14 wouldn’t be my first choice unless I was pretty close, certainly under a hundred yards, and was just banging at it. Don’t get me wrong, I like the .223 but it isn’t my knock-down weapon and I sure don’t carry it in the woods for bear insurance. I don’t even carry my AK platform Saiga 12 ga. for bear insurance; not enough faith in a semi-automatic. Just like with cars there’s no substitute for horsepower and I like simple, reliable weapons with a Helluva lot of horsepower.
You realy think the theater is going to permit you to carry in a loaded baseball bat. That’s like taking a knife to a gun fight.
One thing is certain: The theater’s policy of No Guns Permitted did not save any lives.
Patrick of Atlantis – Spot-on. BTW I think the theater should be liable for what happened. If the place was a gun-free zone, the theater should have armed guards spread throughout the various theaters to prevent the carnage that occurred.
The only thing a sign banning concealed carry does is garentee a target rich envirorment.
Perhaps the shooter got his inspiration from watching ” Zombie flicks ” and I agree if someone retruned fire he would have been running back to his Mommy at Mach.
What if…what if…yada yada yada
Just clear military hardware off the suburban supermarket shelves.
aussiegirl: They’re not on suburban supermarket shelves. But if you’re going to trash the Second Amendment, how about trashing the 1st as well: Censor all movies so there is no violence, no sex and no drugs. Also, make gunfree zone illegal.
Well Jack, since you equate restricting military-style weaponry with “trashing the second amendment” why not go the whole hog and buy a couple of rocket launchers.
aussiegirl, your reading comprehension is poor, and you know nothing about what weapons are commonly available for sale.
The duel here is one of intelligence, and you have already lost. Own it.
Since the Second Amendment is about militia weapons, the military patterned semi automatics, are precisely the weapons protected for ownersip by we the people. We ARE the militia referred too in our Constitution.
aussiegirl – All firearms are ‘military’ weapons because they can be used to kill living things. I don’t know how one can distinguish between military and non-military firearms. Furthermore, I don’t have a problem with rocket launchers in the hands of law-abiding people. The real problem is with the non-law-abiding and no law that you would like to see pass will do anything to keep the non-law-abiding from acquiring weapons that will allow them to commit murder and mayhem. Look at Wash. DC – some of the strictest gun laws on the books and guns are used almost daily by bad-guys to kill people. Meanwhile, the law-abiding are at risk because they cannot easily acquire guns, let alone carry permits. Your point of view does nothing to protect the law-abiding and everything to aid and abet the non-law-abiding.
BTW The Miller case held that it was precisely non-military firearms the government could regulate (i.e., sawed-off shotguns). By implication, millitary-type firearms cannot be regulated (and I guess that would include rocket launchers).
Jack and KJATexas,
You may recall that the second amendment talks about a “well regulated” militia. Presumably that encompasses the use and access to firearms by said militia in conformance with military discipline and in relation to preserving the safety of civilians.
As to your insistaece that rocket launchers should also be all the go – have you stopped for moment to consider the danger that open slather access to stingers would present to aviation? You guys should listen to yourselves. You would fit in really well with Afghan warlords who also give short shrift to any pesky regulations coming out of Kabul interfering with their free range activities as private armies free to roam at will over the countryside.
Aussiegirl obviously has no familiarity with guns, the US Constitution, or English.
1. The militia to this day is defined in the US code as every adult male between 18 and 45.
2. The Founders intended the citizenry in arms aka the militia as a check on government power, and therefore to be able to use any weapon that an infantryman could carry. They state this many times in their writings.
3. The militia clause is what’s called a subordinate clause. It’s an example of why the citizens should have arms, not the sole reason.
Please don’t come to America; we like potential citizens, not more slaves on the government plantation.
Okay, if you’re going to refer to the 2nd Amendment’s “well-regulated militia” clause as referring to the military, at least think through this line of argument. Why would we need, as part of our Constitution, language directed at protecting the standing army’s right to have weapons?
Point is, the 1st Amendment addresses the inherent rights of individual citizens. So too the 2nd Amendment. Hence the deliberate wording that this God-given right “shall not be infringed.”
Apologies.
Above post meant as a reply to Aussiegurl.
I should be over it by now, but I’m continually amazed at how ready people are to form strong opinions on subjects about which they know next to nothing.
Military weapons are exactly what the Second Amendment was intended to protect.
Minor note here: “Arms” (as in “right to bear”) are those weapons commonly carried by infantry, specifically (now and at the time of the writing of the Constitution): knives, swords, spears (pikes, halbards, etc), pistols, and long-guns (shotgun, rifle). Grenades, heavy machine guns, artillery, etc are “ordnance.”
There are three reasons specified by the Founding Fathers for the 2nd amendment:
1) So that the army (the militia) had a source of soldiers who were familiar with arms and how to use them. Then as now, training people in the basic care and use of arms was a problem. An interesting history note: a deciding factor in the Revolution were the Kentucky long-rifle snipers used by Washington. The English had snipers too: Hessian (German) gamekeepers; ours were better because they had to shoot every day to support themselves, not just occasionally .
2) So that citizens could protect themselves and hunt to support their families.
3) As an ultimate deterrent against tyranny. There’s a reason that the first thing than any would-be dictator does is round up all of the private weapons.
The truth is, this coward could have killed and injured more people in the close and confused confinement of a darkened movie theater had he used a sword.
There is video available of an assassination taking place somewhere in south Asia a few decades ago where the assassin jumped up on a stage armed with a machete and killed 9 people and seriously injured several more BEFORE being taken out by security armed with submachine guns and pistols. These security were immediatly present and presumably watching for just such an attack and yet it could be said they failed. The principle and a host of others lost thier lives.
Being shot, even with a ballistic vest on is like being hit with a sledgehammer. Anyone returning fire on this coward would have gotten his attention if for no other reason than surprise. If the coward was hit, that would have been much better.
A disarmed public is prey for the armed criminal. Criminals by their very nature do not follow the law. Therefore, law abiding people who are armed tend to enhance public security.
In any event, the 2nd Amendment to the U. S. Constitution exists to prevent government tyranny to the citizenry, to give you a chance to resist the taking of your inalienable rights if necessary. Without it and the real threat it imposes, all of your other rights and privileges are just so much empty words.
Your #3 reason therefore justifies the bearing of any weapon the government might have with which to suppress its citizens. Otherwise how could citizens hope to protect themselves from a repressive, evil, but heavily armed government force?
As well as bleach, ammonia, knives, supplies for growing rhubarb or castor beans, hammers, picks, axes…
Typical snipe from Down Under where life is good and everyone lives safe and secure without all those evil guns. Of course that neglects a few minor details.
Australia’s assault rate is twice that of the US. Per capita chance of rape is two and a half times ours. Their suicide rate is considerably higher. Gun violence is admittedly lower since they’ve taken most of the guns away from their subjects, but the chance of being a crime victim is still 43% greater in Australia than in the United States. The differences in total numbers are impressive until you consider that Australia has one fifteenth the population of the U.S. and being an island nation has an easier handle on the immigration issue.
Yeah, that’s the solution chosen by the governments of Germany, USSR, China, Cambodia, Iraq, etc. etc. at various times in recent history
It sure made it easier for those governments to kill millions of their own people.
Of course, you may believe that the politicians in the US are some superior sort of being. That their arrogance and efforts at control will be confined to what we eat and drink, or just eliminating mother’s being able to choose formula feed their babies. Or what religious values we each should hold with respect to their causes. I’m a bit more skeptical.
aussiegirl:
Despite what you read/hear about in your local news sources weapons are not available on suburban supermarket shelves. You get them at a highly regulated retail establishments. The only way you can buy a firearm on the internet is by having it first transfered to a Federal Firearms licensee for transfer to you.
Spree shootings in the United States are rare events. They have taken the lives of only 117 people since 2010. Over half the murders in the US occur as result of gang on gang violence in the inner cities. The murder rate for Whites and Asians is about the same as the UK.
Anti-self defense proponents like to hang their hat on the murder rate but even in the inner cities murder is a small proportion of violent crime. Far more rapes, assaults and violent home invasion happen. Do you know that Australia has the most violent crime with the UK a close second. The US isn’t even in the top 10 for total violent crime. The proportion of home invasions/hot burgluries in the US is 10%. It is 50% in the UK, Australia and Canada. In the US these events are either criminal on criminal or the bad guy made a mistake. In reality, you are safer on the streets of high crime Chicago or DC than you are in Sydney or London.
You might want to read this earlier PJMedia article:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/ezra-kleins-facts-about-guns-tell-slanted-story/
aussiegirl: he could have killed a lot more by visiting a local gas station 9pertrol by you, right) and buying a gallon of gasoline and a book of matches. He would have gotten a lot more that way. [And no, I am not advocating this. But it is so obvious that this discussion about gun abolishment as a solution is absurd at even such a base level.]
In the United States we have freedom. Is that your point? If so, your comment is not worth making, simply because me and my fellow Americans, fail to relate. You see, we have not yet attained that level of serfdom, that you have so graciously extended to your political masters.
What military hardware, or are you intentionally being retarded? Where do you see military hardware other than the usual tents and fatigues at the surplus store?
Excuse me aussiegirl, But Mexico has gun laws that make Americas what they are the most liberal in the World, But guess what, The Cartels have machine guns, RPG rocket launchers, grenade launchers, grenades, and heavy machine guns, So again tell me how clearing the supermarket shelves of military weapons like Mexico did stops the criminals from getting weapons to use in their crimes?
Aussiegirl, you’re an idiot repeating the lefty talking points. Any resemblance between what the CO shooter had and “military hardware” exists only in the minds of Comrade Obama and idiots like you.
The AR platform semi-automatic rifle doesn’t fire any faster than any other magazine or tube fed rifle; one pull of the trigger produces one shot. Only an idiot or a Mall Ninja would have the notoriously unreliable drum magazine, so let’s outlaw idiots. Actually, the 5.56/.223 platform is notoriously unreliable unless in the hands of well-trained and disciplined soldiers or very serious civilian gun owners. The guy was a jackass who bought “popular” weapons that he never even learned to use effectively. If I were going to arm idiots, I’d give them AKs; designed to be made by drunks and used by idiots – or aussie girls.
“The guy was a jackass who bought “popular” weapons that he never even learned to use effectively.”
Art, much as I would like to enter into an arcane discussion with you about the relative merits, deficiencies, capacities and options of a variety of gun types what would be the point? From your tone you seem more disgusted at the jackass’s inability to properly deploy his weapon than anything else.
It’s easy to dismiss me as an idiot, but from where I stand it seems you are living a glass house there sunshine.
“Art, much as I would like to enter into an arcane discussion with you about the relative merits, deficiencies, capacities and options of a variety of gun types what would be the point?”
But you couldn’t enter into such a discussion because you’re a lefty idiot who wouldn’t be able to keep up.
Sorry chum. You got that wrong. I am pretty right wing on most issues so I hate to think where that puts you on the political spectrum. As I mentioned above, I think you would find yourself most at home with Afghan warlords who have similar opinions about their freedom to go around armed to the teeth in private armies. You are living in a time warp just like them!
Sorry; you’re wrong on this issue and wrong about the comparison you make. Weapons ownership in a culture of law is different than one in which the guns ARE the law.
Of course, Obama doesn’t believe in the rule of law, so…
“Art, much as I would like to enter into an arcane discussion with you… ”
(snicker)
As much as you’d like to show off your ignorance, you mean.
The impression you and friends here give is one of supreme arrogance. You are gun aficianados. Guns are your thing and only those in the know in the brotherhood have a right to an opinion about their use and the law governing (or not governing them). You all seem to live in a romantic bubble in which the brotherhood will ride to the rescue guns blazing to defend the republic or hapless unarmed citizens in distress. Bloody well grow up and join the 21st century.
You are just rough on those strawmen, aren’t you? Care to come up with a rational argument?
We are arrogant; we’re Americans and we have good reason to be arrogant, we’ve handed enough pissant countries back to people who didn’t have the balls to hold on to them.
Nothing like doubling down on stupid. It’s easy to dismiss you as an idiot when you make idiotic comments sunshine.
To further substantiate your assertion that guns don’t neccessarily make the best weapons in this sort of incident (in terms of killing the most people) you might ask everyone if they know of the mass killing at a school that had the highest body count. Google Bath School bombing, and you’ll find out. The guy killed a bunch of kids, back almost before modern firearms. He used bombs he’d planted in advance, though he did have a rifle (single-shot, I think) which he used to either kill one person or set off some of the explosives, depending on which account you read.
Then, of course, there was this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire
87 people murdered with a gallon of gasoline and two matches. And it was in 1990, so nobody can argue that the perp “couldn’t get an assault weapon” if he’d wanted one. He didn’t even buy the gasoline container; he apparently found it in a dumpster.
Killers kill. The method is largely just a detail.
BTW, the perp was sentenced to “life”, is still around… and will be eligible for parole’ in three years. (Thank you, New York- for nothing.)
clear ether
eon
One: Why was the theater not monitoring the exits for anyone sneaking in to see the movie in the first place?
Two: Why did no one attempt to jump the shooter and subdue him rather than scurry around like roaches?
Three: Why hasn’t the attack dog media created a buzz word that they all use to sum up this carnage and blame George Bush completely? Is it because they can’t concentrate on Romney and Bush at the same time?
Are all aussiegirls as dumb as wombats? Y’all should be comforted in knowing the perp is being treated in the most politically correct, current, chic, criminal justice fashion. He hasn’t been forced to wear anything that would clash with his artistic coiffure.
One. I can only guess that it wasn’t cost effective to pay somebody to watch doors.
Two. First human reaction in any emergency like this is disbelief. This can’t be happening to me. Than, without any training, pre-planning or discipline fight or flight kicks in, the survival instinct pretty much runs counter to charging into someone better armed than yourself. Hence why criminals always stack the deck in their favor with numbers or weapons, intimidate their victim into inaction.
Three. They are working on it.
nah, some aussie girs are pretty bright and a lot of fun. They’re as disgusted with the 42 per cent increase in violent crime and the doubling of rapes since the gun bans went into effect as any other intelligent person would be. As one I met in Darwin said, yeah disarm the victims and you get more victims.
styrgwillidar;
My garage door is more secure than a movie theater exit? That’s unconscionable.
More strict “legislation” of exits, hand carried items, and costumes, shall be forthcoming to PROVE our “legislators” are on the job. i.e. Disney security check point.
I can understand your defense of aussiegirls; I met some with equal intelligence in Okinawa.
I worked security for another large theater chain. Even we, as licensed security officers, were not allowed to carry guns. It was necessary to constantly check exit doors, as the younger patrons were always leaving them ajar, to allow their friends access without having to pay.
@kjatexas — I pray that you as a “licensed” unarmed “security guard” weren’t also required to wear a uniform and badge. If so, you were a walking target and your employer was an uncaring, money grubbing, idiot.
[W3]
When they initially hired us, they told us we would be armed. When we actually went on duty, they reneged on the armed part. I didn’t stay for precisely the reasons you mention. And, I refuse to work ANY security contract unarmed.
I recommend reading Oleg Volk’s “Theater seating and self defense” post, http://olegvolk(dot)net/blog/2012/07/21/theater-seating-and-self-defense/ Look at the theater seat picture. After seeing it, did anyone else say, “That’s right. We’re not all at the same level”?
Another thing to keep in mind. What would have happened to Holmes if he begun taking return fire? Not so much fun anymore.
Unless, and until the exact location of Holmes and any or everyone else there is fully known, speculation will be just that. But I’d rather be able to do more than just hide in the dark.
Well, I was trying to not post a hyper link. WTH. Corrected: http://olegvolk.net/blog/2012/07/21/theater-seating-and-self-defense/
It would appear that, had anyone in the theater been carrying, it would have been a massive 4th rule problem. On the other hand, I was not there and will not rely on second-hand reports. It’s unknowable.
However, having said that, it’s annoying to hear the anti-gun idiots pontificating that an armed person would not have been able to do anything.
I will grant that it was likely very chaotic, but a lot depends on the degree, and the preparation of the theoretical CCW holder. I have taken one pistol class, an intensive 3-day class, and the segment of time spent shooting was fairly minimal, which seems to be the rule. A much larger segment was devoted to the legal, moral and practical aspects of where one may, should or must shoot, as well as the mental preparation required.
That is the second part of the assertions that bother me. As I’ve said, I have only one class under my belt. Everyone else in the class had many already. Keep in mind that this was oriented primarily towards first-time shooters, which means that the experienced folk were spending a good amount of time and 3 full days in the hot sun for a REFRESHER course. Most of the gun owners I know are like that – they work on basics, including the mental issues already described. It is galling to hear them dismissed in the media as “untrained” when anyone who knows even a little about weapons and gun owners knows better. Admittedly, not every gun owner is trained well, but not every cop is either. Most of them spend less time at the range than the civilians.
I could extrapolate for days, but I do have this “job” thingie to deal with. Talk amongst yourselves.
alanstorm – Edify us on what a 4th rule problem is?
Here’s the whole set – I believe these are the ones formulated by Jeff Cooper: (some paraphrasing)
1. Guns are always loaded. In case of doubt, see rule #1.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. IOW, keep control of where you’re pointing. Why? See rule #1.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until the sights are on the target.
4. Know what is around, behind and beyond your target. Don’t take the shot if you don’t have a clear view.
Ah – Those rules. I am quite familiar with them. I’m a member of USCCA, and a while back the magazine carried a series of articles on just those points. They actually added a couple of more rules as well. Anyway. Thanks for the reponse.
My instructor added a 5th for the range – “No cell phones!”
He got no argument.
Alan, cell phones and boom boxes make great targets.
The 4th Rule isn’t an issue in a case like this. It’s a matter of triage:
Do you let the killer continue to kill (possibly killing you, too), or do you kill him and accept the possibility that you’ll kill an innocent in the process?
That’s not complicated.
Your comment assumes that only two choices are available, when evasion and escape is an option, and might be your best one.
I’m not all all sure that I would want to fire at someone in this case, given the chaos. As has been stated by others, every bullet you fire comes with a little lawyer attached. I have no doubt at all that in this situation, a CCW carrier took down the shooter but managed to kill or injure an innocent in the process, he would be vilified in the press and sued to within an inch of his life.
alanstorm – No doubt you’re right. Just look at George Zimmerman.
Oh, you mean the obvious example that I didn’t think of ’til you mentioned it?
(slams head on desk)
Must be a Monday or something. More coffee.
I hope I never see the day when I’d choose to cut and run to save my skin or my pocketbook, when I could stay and save lives.
We have a word for those kind of people. It starts with a “C”.
Mr. Owen, m offer an editorial suggestions: when you are writing of gasoline as a weapon, don’t call it “gas” on the first usage. Someone might read it as “poison in the gaseous phase of matter.”
A gun is a mechanism designed for the efficient transfer of kinetic energy over a reasonable distance, in short a power tool. It is also what is known as a force multiplier in that it can make a small weak woman the equal of a large strong man. Those who commit such heinous crimes as Aurora typically plan for weeks and months before carrying out their deeds. The sad fallacy promoted by the left is that if we just made it a bit harder to get firearms the perpetrators would give up and stop their actions when the truth is they’d just take a different tack if their first attempt to obtain arms failed.
As for body armor, what it does is turn a sword thrust into a sledge hammer blow. If the criminal had been wearing full body armor a couple shots to the torso would have stunned him, perhaps broken ribs, and certainly given people a few moments respite from the shower of bullets he was putting out.
What’s your point? Are you trying to disrupt the emotional narrative with FACTS? You must be one of those evil conservatives or something…
Interestingly, it has been “quietly” reported that this asshole was under psychiatric care. So, how’d that work out?
Its psychiatrist needs to be investigated regarding her procedures, care and followup as to what she learned from her patient.
She apparently had her license revoked in two instances for issuing drugs illegally. Then again, the coverage of her has been so inadequate that it is difficult to say what role she played.
Never mind, it’s all about gun control, don’t you know?
I thought the same thing. It’s the same yahoos that want to be force priests into revealing confessional testimonies that circle the wagons on doctor patient confidentiality when it’s some lib psychiatrist. I think both priests and psychiatrists have a duty to report potential or confessed murderers, rapists, and/or child molesters.
Naaa.
The fact is that nobody in the theater was able to initiate a serious dialogue with the shooter, pressing sanctions against him (by the whole community of the victims), and nobody tried to apologize to the shooter for the mistakes of the society against him.
PS
Thank you for the column and thank you for some interesting comments.
I think success would have depended on the shooter, as others have said. But the perp having to deal with incoming fire, as another also pointed out, certainly would have complicated the situation for him.
A lot would depend on how quickly the CCW holder could overcome his disbelief. I.E. in the Orient portion of the OODA loop decide that the person really was a threat and not a publicity stunt to make the Decision to draw and engage them and then take that action. That would depend on a combination of mental preparation and attitude. Most trainging in high-risk activities centers on making emergencies and the pre-planned responses to them ‘normal’. For example, in 3,000 hours of military flight training a pilot probably won’t experience an engine failure. But they will have done thousands of simulated failures in the aircraft and simulator. When it happens for real it will be, oh SE failure, do the procedures. They’ve been trained to believe it can happen to them, and here’s what they’ll do.
Haven’t heard much discussion of the blinding effect of the muzzle flashes in the dimly lit theater. As well as the imact of the sound of the gun in the enclosed space. Those also would have had a confusing effect. (although folks due experience auditory exclusion in those situations, basically ignoring even the loud sounds they’re expecting to hear.)
And that could have worked to a CCW holders advantage returning fire as his muzzle flashes would confuse the perp. Particularly if he was able to fire and move. This would tend to have the perp firing behind the CCW holder, i.e. towards the last flash.
All we do know is that city and theater chain policies to preclude CCW holders being there virtually guaranteed an attacker had a defenseless crowd to mow down at his leisure.
I have a Ruger Mini-14 in .223. Even with a muzzle brake (flash suppressors are illegal in many places) the thing is like a flame thrower when fired in the dark. Unless there is something very different about the S&W .223 he was using the guy had to be firing blindly after the first shot. The Mini is also the only weapon I have that I can’t fire reasonably accurately unless I’m wearing serious ear protection. It has a sharp, nasty crack as the supersonic bullet leaves the barrel and nothing I’ve ever tried has helped me avoid flinching when I fire it unless I have noise cancelling ear protection. Unfortunately, adding the muzzle brake only made that worse since the brake directs some of the sound back towards the shooter.
“The Mini is also the only weapon I have that I can’t fire reasonably accurately unless I’m wearing serious ear protection.”
Art, may I humbly suggest that you avoid a .300 Win Mag or M-1 or M-1A? They will be utterly traumatic for you.
Fired an M-1 and a .300 mag; didn’t bother me. Just something about the sound of the .223. Don’t like the sound of it and don’t really know why. There are lots of louder weapons; it is just the sharp crack of the .223 Mini that hurts my ears. Hell, even a .458 Weatherby with the elephant on the box doesn’t really bother me, well, it bothers my shoulder but not my ears. Just don’t like the sound of a .223. Don’t think there’s much that might traumatize me though.
It’s the higher frequency, Art. Sound isn’t just about volume. How it affects us isn’t just about loudness.
Case in point: Which is more damaging? A Bach cantata at 92 dBa, or rap at 85 dBa?
I rest my case.
Try a .300 Weatherby Mag on for size. I also have a 7mm Rem Mag that will get your attention.
Art: The amount of muzzle flash is directly related to the type of powder loaded in the ammunition. I witnessed a night demonstration of such during rifle training. Two rifles, one with a flash suppressor, and the other without, were fired. The non flash suppressor rifle only had a few sparks come out of the barrel because it was fired with ammunition loaded with a powder that had a flash suppressant. The other rifle, with flash suppressor on the barrel, displayed a large muzzle flash, because of non flash suppressant powder ammunition.
I appreciate Bob Owens commentary and honesty. He doesn’t brag, just the plain facts. I’ve done little shooting the last 30 years, but grew up in western NC with shotguns, .22 rifles, and small bore pistols practically attached to my body. Like Mr. Owens, I don’t know if had I been armed and in the theater if I would have had the presence of mind and skill to do anything constructive, but the reality is the presence of a skilled and armed gun owner in the theater would have increased the odds in favor of the victims.
What percentage of those in the theater had digital cameras with a flash? Loads? How well would the shooter have been able to see if everyone with a camera started taking pictures as fast as they could get the flash to recharge?
Are you serious? Really? Is that what you do in World of Warcraft?
I quit playing computer games before that game ever came out. Got tired of vaporware, and just got away from playing.
Flash cameras and muzzle flashes from defenders would put spots in front of his eyes, which would interfere with his aim. Well enough? I don’t know.
I advise caution in arriving at any conclusion. This is a rerun of the Florida shooting by Mr. Zimmerman, the media has substituted ignorance, bias, and possibly crimes in their reporting. (The information about his psychosis is claimed to be privileged information by his attorney. People who profited from its release may go to jail.) Much of what we “know” may be proven wrong; it is common in violent brief events. What do we know? Was the shooter acting alone? He had some of the most lethal weapons made, was he proficient in using them? What was his mental state?
I read an article today, by a priest, who conjectured that he may be demonically possessed. Certainly what he did was great evil. What forces drove him to commit mass murder, or the other mass murderers? I am a close friend to a mental health counselor who works in a hospital for the criminally insane. Religiously, she is a nothing. I asked her if she could distinguish between psychosis and simply put, an evil force? She was clear. No. Evil exists.
Rather than fruitlessly debate the 2nd Amendment, I offer that we consider how to withhold small arms from people who are insane, or possessed, while protecting their rights. My interest will be in what the doctor, and police knew, and did. In the Virginia Tech disaster, they abjectly failed their duty. And, when we reach the edge of understanding of psychosis, we should ponder at what point should a just society impose capital punishment commiserate with the crime? And if so, how long should that take, in time and treasure?
Who gets to choose who is insane or a possible killer?
Who gets to choose who is sane and of no threat?
You? The government? A doctor? Some employee of the DMV type who may hold back certain races or genders or people by what ever personal, religious or political reason from owning and possessing firearms?
Who gets to choose who is armed?
Kinda like the Egyptian Muslims would refuse to allow Coptic Christians or a Jew from owning a weapon to defend against Muslim aggression and crimes.
I bet the Democrats would love to disarm the Republican’s while allowing only Democrat’s to own and possess firearms, then take away everyone but a Democrats speech, votes, welfare etc it’s a slippery slope to tyranny and segregation by force.
These are the questions. And they exhibit a healthy skepticism about corrupt authority.
We have some parallels to guide us, on safety issues. The DVM clerk can test you, and deny the privilege to drive due to bad eye sight. An eye exam, by a licensed doctor can over ride the prohibition, allowing the right to drive a two ton vehicle at 70 MPH. And you are free to seek other professional opinions. The essence of all professions is sustaining public health and safety.
Most professions have procedures to weed out their frauds, and cheats. Most permit judicial review of contested cases.
We can start the dialog by stating that sane Americans have a constitutional right to possess functional small arms, while criminally insane Americans do not. How do we manage this? Can the slaughter of Congresswomen, and students, be limited in a free society? It would not offend me, if Mr. Holmes had been unable to purchase weapons, with no strings, last May, due to doctor – police – gun dealer interaction.
Look, I admit I don’t know what the solution is, but I don’t want to take my kid or even go myself to any public place where you’re walking around with your loaded gun on your hip.
But you have no problem with unlicensed, untrained, illegal criminals walking around you every day with loaded guns hidden in their Hoodies.
Nor do you mind LEO walking around with their loaded firearms to protect themselves “only” from you and the crooks.
It doesn’t bother you when the military walk, drive or fly around you with loaded weapons to protect you from attack by enemies.
You are only bothered by just honest, law abiding citizens who are obeying the law with permits and training who desire only the basic right to defend themselves and others from killers, and worse.
Mighty selective in who you fear and who you trust.
Hep: I think you make too many assumptions about permit holders and whatever training they may or may not have. Every state has different laws.
Arhooley said nothing about “unlicensed, untrained, illegal criminals.” You’re putting words in his mouth.
I make no assumptions.
I didn’t put anything in anyone’s mouth.
Against an armed assailant with criminal intent, an unarmed man with firearms training has no defense BUT even an untrained citizen with a firearm has the ability and tools to defend himself and his family.
I would trust a law abiding citizen with a loaded gun on his hip with or without a permit.
The key word here is Law Abiding.
Steve B, the “untrained” is implied in arhooley’s comment, along with “inept” and “incompetent”, unless you are trying to argue that arhooley is afraid of trained, skilled weapon owners. AFAIK, only a criminal would have that opinion.
Are you calling arhooley a criminal, or can you simply not read between the lines?
I don’t think so. He seems to be terrified of armed civilians. I see nothing of note about training, present OR absent.
And frankly, it annoys me. Armed civvies have a better record of stopping assailants with less ammunition and carnage than do police.
Why not? A crowd of armed, concealed-carry licensees is one of the safest places on earth. If the theater had really cared about its patrons’ safety, it would have offered discount tickets to concealed-carry holders.
Why?
For the same reason my colleague is SURE that if he had had a gun the other morning, he’d have shot someone in traffic? And he is SURE that ANYBODY would do the same? THEREFORE, he concludes, nobody should have a gun!
It’s called, “projection”, dude.
It’s not indicative of maturity.
#16 “a skilled and armed gun owner….” Exactly what is that? I’ll buy into a retired Green Beret or Navy Seal; or an off-duty SWAT team member. Your average concealed carrier; exercising his 2nd Amendment rights; is more likely, in my opinion, to be so confused, nervous, scared that he’s just as likely to gun down other patrons as he would be to nail the shooter.
SteveB/Colorado – I’m not sure that a CCW wouldn’t had the presence of mind to shoot back. I know that in the Tuscon shooting it was people with concealed carry permits that subdued the shooter, and did so without collateral damage. Of course, that happend during the day and it was easier to see things, but, I wouldn’t make any assumptions about a CCW in a dark theater. The real kicker is that the theater was purportedly a gun-free zone, and contra arthooley @19, that is definitely where I would not go. I do not fear a law-abiding citizen with a loaded gun on his/her hip; indeed, I would feel quite comfortable in his/her presence.
The theater patrons were already being “gunned down” by one man intent on killing as many as possible. How could one more firearm trying to stop that be worse?
“If your already wet it doesn’t matter if it’s raining.”
“Your average concealed carrier; exercising his 2nd Amendment rights; is more likely, in my opinion, to be so confused, nervous, scared that he’s just as likely to gun down other patrons as he would be to nail the shooter.”
What is your opinion worth? How many average concealed carriers do you know? A good class will emphasize just the very things you refer to, and make a point of telling students that shooting is something to be done as a last resort.
Escape and evasion may be the best course, but it may not. According to you, if you can’t escape your only options are death or injury, or trusting to luck. You must be one of those “compassionate” liberals we hear so much about.
Liberal? Not likely; but more projection going on in this thread than usual. Too much speculation and “Monday morning quarterbacking.” How many of you actually live around here and have direct, not filtered by national media syndicates, access to the local media reports?
Read comments #24, 25, 26. Also baroque diche reply to #23.
SteveB, Can you clarify your point, then? It is not at all clear; you seem to be talking at cross-purposes with yourself. Please expalin what you mean.
Monday-morning quarterbacking? I don’t see myself (at least) as doing that; I don’t necessarily believe that having an armed person there would have made any difference. However, it is undeniable that in a situation such as that, there is a chance that someone with enough training and mental preparation – plus a weapon! – could have made a difference. We know how this episode in a “gun-free” environment turned out.
Given a slim chance and no chance, I’ll take the former.
Alan: it was dark in the theater; the terrorist (yes, I’ll call him that whether mentally ill or not) threw tear gas bombs and then opened fire. Re “monday morning quarterbacking,” there is just way too much speculation and “what if” coming from persons posting on this thread who likely would not have the vaguest notion what they would do in a similar situation. Even if they were packing concealed heat. Shoot at what? Weapon flashes? The guy was moving around; people were up and running every which way.
I think it’s way too much of a stretch to think that someone carrying a legal concealed weapon would have made a difference in this one situation.
And yes, I do know several persons with CCW permits. At least one does practice occasionally. One other just does it to “exercise his rights” and hasn’t fired a gun in years. The rest; I don’t know; they don’t say and I don’t ask.
SteveB/Colorado – We can’t run the tape over again to see what happens if we place one or more individuals with concealed carry in the theater. So in that regard you’re right. But it is interesting that the shooter chose a theater that is a gun-free zone. I would posit that the shooter figured no one would shoot back, and so he could go on a turkey-shoot.
I continue to have three quick recommendations on gun-free zones: Don’t go there; if you must, figure the worst; alternatively if you must go, and you want to give yourself a better than zero chance of survival, practice civil disobedience and carry concealed to protect yourself.
In your opinion?
Based on what?
I am a former US Navy veteran from the Vietnam Era who has been carrying since 1974 and that is 38 years and still carry to this day everyday, so far I have not had to use my weapon(s) against anyone but that is because I live in a good area and if things look iffy or drug infested I MOVE ELSEWHERE.
I shoot nearly expert with several handguns as well as rifles and as an intended murder victim when I was only 18 years old it will never happen again, so I avoid bad places and if I must I have a weapon to help me.
I know what can be done with a small firearm and treat the responsibility with the utmost respect. I would not have been in that theater in the first place especially since GUNS WERE NOT ALLOWED (even to permit holders) it just made it all that easier for a criminal (even a criminally insane one, which will probably be the defense) to do what he did while those on the receiving end of his projectiles could only flee or try to cover for their loved ones!
GUN FREE ZONES should be VICTIMS COME HERE zones!
As a former military guy I also qualify as “expert” with pistols. I CCW as needed when I travel. I like my 1911-A1 .45 ACP, but often carry a little 9mm as it is more comfortable and less bulky. I think the gun fearing public would be surprised at the number of men and women walking the streets who are ex-military and are fairly well trained in the use of firearms.
Recently while driving thru AZ I was visited by a LEO because the wife and I were stopped off road photographing some rather spectacular Saguaro cactus in the desert. The second thing he asked me was, “do you have a gun?”
He made the point that AZ is not that safe for the general public. It is better to be prepared than to be defenseless.
In other words you know nothing other than what Hollywood has shown you in the movies. Only Seals and Green Berets could have gotten the job done. You know less about the military than you do about firearms. Stick to Boulder.
I know many, many, many instances that prove just the opposite of what you say. One very recently in my home state of Florida. You obviously know nothing about firearms, shooting, CCW, or the military. I suggest you never carry a weapon and rely on the police!!
It’s impossible to say if the Aurora massacre could have been ended sooner if someone in the audience had been carrying a weapon. In a minute and a half, in a darkened theater full of movie noise, tear gas, and screaming, panicked patrons, it’s not likely. But, in my opinion, it’s better to have a slim chance than no chance at all.
Bingo.
The only thing we can guarantee is that disarming the innocent won’t reduce the number of massacres.
That does it instead of carrying my 40 at all times it will be the 45, at least a center mass shot will knock the bastard down and give more time for others to gather their wits and overcome this idiot, even and more so with body armor (which he didn’t really have as reported) it would knock the idiot on his ass, plus he was pretty much standing still or lit up with the picture behind him and a gun toting patron could move about with proper training (like war zones) and put him down and the fatalities would have been lees than they were, but we can not answer that question with certainty now can we.
The man was shooting fish in a barrel with wild abandon what made him stop we will never really know now will we? We do know one thing that there was no one armed to stop the carnage and if there were they are not going to be arrested for saying so because it was a GUN FREE ZONE…what bullshit, stick that in your pot pipe and smoke it LIBERALS!
If the gun does no knock the shooter on his butt, the bullet is unlikely to knock the target on his.
Just a quibble.
Generic shooter (not necessarily this one), being shot at and being hit, even with a bullet resistant vest, is likely to distract him. Worth doing, even by bad shots.
Worth “shooting” him with flash cameras, too, IMO.
No, it won’t.
Please get some REAL training before you continue to carry.
Democrat anti-gunners could force a “Magazine Ban” vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate as early as today. They’re attempting to ban magazines used commonly for self-defense and sport shooting by burying an amendment deep inside the “Cybersecurity Act” (S. 3414). The amendment (S.A. 2575) allows for serial number tracking and the potential for additional gun control regulations by Attorney General Eric Holder — without Congressional approval. And to makes matters worse for gun owners, if you get caught carrying one of these “high capacity magazines” you could be looking at the inside of a prison cell for the next ten years.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm/
The number of Veterans of all the recent wars is 22,712,424 that makes a lot of skilled at arms people who could be gun owners and permit holders.
The odds are many of the CCW holders are skilled and trained gun owners.
Especially after our country having been at war for the last 10 1/2 years, we have more experienced and highly-trained warfighters than you would imagine; they prefer quiet anonymity and most of the time you will not know who they are. Also, as OLD SOLDIER said above, the jackass was NOT wearing body armor, just a wannabe commando nylon ‘tactical’ vest which ‘is like a windbreaker with pockets’. More details will come out as the investigation progresses. Then a more accurate claim can be realistically made as to whether or not a CCW could have had an honest chance of putting him down. Until then we are mainly speculating.
Special operations and SWAT are a young man’s game. Just because a man may be 40ish-50ish does not mean he does not possess the skill set to wreck your well-laid plans to perform mayhem.
I’ve been debating this with the authors of the blog Penigma, who claim to have combat tactics pistol coursework and military experience. They say dark, noise, tear gas and lack of practice make it more likely I’d shoot another innocent patron than disable the shooter; it’s just too risky to shoot at him.
In their considered opinion, the only legal and moral act for the typical middle-aged flabby CCW holder in that Aurora theatre facing the armor-clad shooter armed with an assault rifle would have been . . . to leave the sidearm holstered and attack the shooter bare-handed.
I guess Sam Colt was a howling idiot; it’s Kwai Chang Caine we should look to when our loved ones are in danger. Good to know.
.
Body armor merely makes it more likely to take the man down if a carry holder had a 45 or even a 40 or even a 9 millimeter handgun and was proficient enough to hit center mass it would have driven such a blow to his system to incapacitate for enough time for most of the patrons who were already fleeing for their lives.
A 45 without body armor will know a big man down with one shot as will a 40 and with body armor the projectile will not go into his body but will be more like getting hit with a concrete block going about 75 miles per hour, could you stand that?
OK so if a permit holder did stand up and fight and did in fact hit an innocent in the process possibly causing, would they be any less dead if it were the shooter or the defender and how many would be SAVED? Neutralize the situation and take the consequences that is what courts are for, the fatalities could have been far less IMO.
You of course are entitled to your own but I believe at some point mine shall prevail!
“They say dark, noise, tear gas and lack of practice make it more likely I’d shoot another innocent patron than disable the shooter; it’s just too risky to shoot at him.”
I humbly suggest you find different combat tactics trainers!! Too risky? When people all around you are being gunned down and they say it’s too risky to fire back??? I question their combat experience and/or training ability.
I don’t question it, Tim.
I know they are phonies.
“Their considered opinion” is worthless, if you conveyed it accurately (any of us can sometimes read into things more that what is actually written or said).
There is a huge difference between saying “Given the teargas, gunfire, darkness, and confusion, placing an accurate shot on the perp would be a BEAR” (which I do agree with), and saying “You wouldn’t have a chance at hitting him, you should run or close with him and use your fists.”
Suppose the CCW holder is one row away ? The odds change then, don’t they. In fact, at close range, with some familiarity, “point-shooting” is far easier with a pistol than with a rifle.
In any event, if they really claimed one COULDN’T make the shot, they’re phonies.
Mr. Owens,
It appears to me that you are unaware that cops are not only TRAINED in the use of their duty firearms, but are also required to PRACTICE with said weapon on a regular basis. Not only that, but they also train on any other weapons they might have to use in the course of their duties.
Just because you have taken a firearms training course or go to the firing range on a regular basis, does not make you equivalent to law enforcement in the training/firing/accuracy of your chosen weaponry.
And, as a CIVILIAN, you are not ‘in the trenches’ on a daily basis, as law enforcement officers are, to deal with high-stress situations like what the theater-goers in Aurora experienced. I would bet that you would likely freeze up, even if you were armed and “trained.”
Let’s not forget, as a former cop myself, I know that law enforcement officers are TRAINED to be calm during high-stress situations, simply because that’s exactly what they deal with on the job. If they fail, they DIE. They know this, so they train regularly.
Making ‘concealed carry’ legal would not be any better for us than legalizing marijuana. It would just guarantee more guns would be carried in public by more citizens–some of whom should not have weapons!–just as legal marijuana would guarantee even more intoxicated drivers on our roads that would kill even more innocent people who happen to be on the same roads.
Here’s the problem: We live in a free country. As such, our court systems view adults as ‘inherently responsible’ for their own behavior–and ultimately considered capable of making responsible choices for themselves. That would be all ‘fine and dandy’ if there were no mental illnesses, or accidents, that render some adults incapable of making responsible decisions–not to mention those adults who are addicted to intoxicants that render them ‘irresponsible.’
And, we have a reactionary law enforcement system, not a pro-active one like shown in the film, “Minority Report.” And, that film showed that, no matter what system we develope, there will always be unforseen flaws; because we are HUMAN BEINGS. We are all flawed in some way, and everything we create is flawed–yes, even computers like H.A.L. of “Space Odessy.”
Unfortunately, our laws have not yet caught up with ‘real world’ scenarios. There are far too many factors that effect an individual’s ability to logically reason, and choose NOT to harm others, or themselves–regardless of any available weaponry with which to do such things.
Let’s not forget, even though there are laws on the books in some states that require mental health professionals to notify authorities if they have a patient that demonstrates a public safety threat; many of these professionals are loathe to subject their patients to mandatory–albeit temporary–institutionalization to protect the public. This may have been the case with Mr. Holmes.
So, while I do not believe banning firearms for law-abiding citizens is the answer to our problems with gun-violence; I don’t think making them legal to carry is the answer, either.
Catherine B: I take it you are against concealed carry. That’s what I infer from your following statement: “Making ‘concealed carry’ legal would not be any better for us than legalizing marijuana. It would just guarantee more guns would be carried in public by more citizens–some of whom should not have weapons!–just as legal marijuana would guarantee even more intoxicated drivers on our roads that would kill even more innocent people who happen to be on the same roads.”
Before you jump to the conclusion I think you are implying, you should read many of the books authored by John Lott, Jr. on guns and the effects of concealed carry. (Google his name, and peruse the books; they are probably all available on Amazon.com.) The take-away from the Lott books is that where concealed carry is instituted crimes against persons (particularly homicides) generally go down. (The statistics to get there are a little daunting, but just read the conclusions.) The other bit of information you should know is that of every 25 times a gun is used, 24 of those is by a law-abiding citizen to prevent a crime. 1/25 times a gun is used for a crime. Do not for a moment think that preventing law-abiding citizens from owning guns will prevent murder and mayhem. The non-law-abiding will get the guns, and no law you would like to have passed to restrict the private ownership of guns will get you the result you would like to get to.
I am glad you are a “former cop”, if you ever were. Washed out as a rookie? Actually, you “sound” like a fangirl.
Don’t think all forces are the same. “Practice regularly”? The only “practice” some get are the annual qualifications shoots.
“Trained to stay calm”? Nope. Told to stay calm. Die if they don’t? Bull. How many cops have never even had their pistols out of the holster on duty? Most never get into a tense situation where they could get killed, Miss Drama Queen.
Don’t go thinking that only the people in the magical, blue suits stay calm when it hits the fan, there’s plenty of ex military out there who actually did have to stay calm when the smelly stuff hit the fan. And there are plenty who never wore a uniform (truckers, loggers, private pilots, boaters, mothers, etc) who have had to stay calm when things get nasty.
That’s the common misconception.
Here are the facts:
Most cops are poorly trained. They get just enough practice shooting at stationary targets under good conditions to pass a minimal “qualification” test, which for most departments is every 6 or 12 months. Most get little or no training at all on different weapons. MAYBE they get a once a year shotgun course. ((SWAT teams are obviously the exception to this.)
Knowledgeable firearms instructors, the ones who train the trainers of law enforcement, estimate the maybe 10% of cops even care about shooting well. The rest just do enough to pass the qualification test.
A dedicated citizen who enjoys guns and spends his own money on training will have BETTER training and get MORE practice than most cops.
I was a cop for 12 years and the ‘formal’ training we received was the once a year standing and shooting at paper targets. The other folks are right, you have to be serious about your shooting skills and you need to practice. The shift I worked on fortunately was serious and we would go out monthly, on our own time, and on our own money to go shoot at the range. Not just target shooting but Hogan’s Alley type stuff. We would practice clearing jams, alternating between pistols and long guns within a single engagement, weak hand shooting, and even injured shooter drills – having to draw, shoot, load/reload with a simulated out of commission limb. I can tell you, these were drills that I don’t ever recall any other agency in our area practicing. In those 12 years, I was in 3 shootings and I can say that the additional training I participated in is what saved my life, not what the department taught me.
I’ve been in the private sector for 11 years now, carry concealed, and still hit the range once a month. People still get mad at me when I shoot better weak hand than they do strong hand.
Here’s another news flash for you, Miss Badly Miseducated:
Cops are civilians. They are not military personnel. They are part of the civil authority.
They are civilians.
I know that hurts the ego of a lot of them, but oh well.
Ha! My wife is a former cop, I would shoot rings around her, but usually my rounds are in the center of the paper, and hers are not. You make me laugh. As has already been mentioned, the phrase “regularly practice” is a gross exaggeration. I also drive a lot better than she does and she had “police training”. Ok, it’s not fair that I used to do autocross and attended the Skip Barber driving school.
Cops are not there to protect you, they are there to clean up messes and assist investigators. They carry their weapons to protect themselves, not you. You think a cop has never shot an innocent while attempting to shoot someone else?
If you are afraid of civilians having guns then maybe you should advocate for more training instead of advocating taking away their guns, because while I respect cops, they are more than likely not going to save my life in any kind of crisis.
Catherine, from one former cop to another, I have a question for you regarding the business of “being trained” in high stress situations. Were you asleep during all the videos you had to have been shown in the academy when officers were killed making all sorts of mistakes under high stress? Training helps but your badge and gun didn’t make you any more immune from the flaws of humanity than it did me. You should learn a little more about Mr. Owens before you make yourself look stupid by throwing unnecessary spears.
Catherine B, maybe you should apply you training as a former LEO and investigate this here article:
http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml
Pay particular note to the paragraph titled: Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes than Police
Catherine B;
So; You went to all that trouble to illustrate your qualifications to comment on this issue, only to disqualify yourself completely with the last sentence?
You better sleep in a well lit area.
Certain law-abiding individuals may be unworthy to own firearms based upon the fact that they will find trouble . . . or trouble will find them. . . . . which makes the whole gun debate gut wrenching given the Second Amendment as well as it will always be the criminals who will have access to firearms.
Unfortunately all the gun control legislation on the planet cannot stop the sort of violence that Mr. Holmes wrought in his brief attack on unsuspecting movie-goers, in the dark and unarmed themselves. Altough his “mental state” is unclear, as it seems so that he was under treatment for some mental disorder, and that at least, such treatment included, or was composed primarily, of psychoactive medications. The treating physician appears to be at significant moral and professional liability, given that Mr. Holmes did indeed mail her his journal detailing his plans.The fact that it lay in the mailroom undelivered complicates the matter (legally, I suppose), but I wager that there were some signs that went either ignored or discounted of which the treating physician should have been aware. I am not so sure that having a theatre armed with concealed carry patrons is the answer to this sort of thing, either.
When Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people at Virginia Tech, there were over a thousand young men (the Corps of Cadets) only a few hundred feet from where the majority of shootings took place – each with a rifle. And not one firing pin in any of them. Wonder what would have happened if the Corps had been trained and furnished with fireable weapons? At the very least, the University could have been prepared to post an armed guard (or two) at every building entrance on campus within fifteen minutes of the first two shootings and over two hours elapsed before the second set.
Joe Doakes
“the authors of the blog Penigma, who claim to have combat tactics pistol coursework and military experience They say dark, noise, tear gas and lack of practice make it more likely I’d shoot another innocent patron than disable the shooter; it’s just too risky to shoot at him.”
Yeah…..Did they also claim to be conservative/repubican? I call BS.
The perp would be easy to locate, identify and neutralize…..he would have been standing apart, silueted against the screen….not involved in the press of fleeing patrons….really!
Sounds suspicious, all right.
“Military background”? I qual’d on the M-1 Garand, M-16, and the .45, and those were the only times I fired any of them. Made me a real expert on the lot, you betcha.
(Had my own firearms, though.)
Its a curious fact that the Perp’s gun rampage probably saved lives. Yes 12 people were killed, but suppose the events in the theater did not happen. Then sooner or later someone would have entered his apartment and quite probably the ensuing explosions would have destroyed the whole building, along with probably more victims, none of them killed by guns.
A liberal friend said to me: ‘Imagine if people in there had guns! It would have been a bloodbath!’ You mean, more than it already was? We’re such sheep! Relying only on calls to the police to stop violence makes as much sense as relying only on the paramedics in cardiac arrest. Why learn CPR when you can call 911? Why have defibrillators in public? The ambulance has one! Of course, the issue is time. And time, it seems, means lives saved or lives lost.
How do we know nobody else in the theatre had a gun? It could be that one or more did, but were unable for one of many possible reasons to get a shot off.
I wonder if the mere fact that people were firing back at him would have caused him to run. When you look at videos of store clerks or patrons who fire back, the perps are so shocked at becoming the target that they panic and run. So whether or not anyone in the theater hit him with a disabling shot, just getting hit might have been enough to disorient him.
Just getting shot at, without being hit, would have at least distracted him, allowing more people to escape.
He might have run (second best result after being taken down), but if he’d stayed, I expect he would have focused on the part of the theatre where he thought the gun fire was coming from, allowing people not in that area to get clear. His own muzzle flash would have dazzled his eyes (so long as the lights did not come up, and I’ve not heard when they were brought up).
All those seat backs look the same, so he could easily lose track of where someone was shooting back from, if the defending shooter ducked. All the better if he has spots in front of his eyes.
Worst case from the defender’s POV? He ignores the incoming fire and continues to shoot at the helpless. Some could do that, don’t know if this one could.
We let people with far less training and responsibility drive cars, and a two ton projectile moving at 30 mph into a crowded bus shelter could do far more damage than a deranged shooter in the theater. Worse yet, a person using a vehicle as a weapon can potentially move away and do it again, multiple times before the police catch up, or another driver crashes into the perps vehicle and disables it.
The greater issue in this argument is if you are content to accept what your Progressive “betters” are willing to offer in the way of personal security (just the minimum so you will have a place to project your gratitude for the relief from fear) or if you will have the will and ability to take effective action on your own. Progressives do not want you to have self will or the tools to take effective action in any field; they hamper the ability of small business people to get access to capital, property and equipment with a plethora of rules and regulations, they harrass property owners with regulatory schemes and inject themselves into every area of life to prevent you from taking action, unless they approve of it.
Banning guns limits your ability to take action to protect yourselves and others (even in the chaos of the theater there would be a small chance rather than no chance at all), but it is only one of many efforts to constrain you.
“Here’s the problem: We live in a free country.”
That phrase told me pretty much everything I needed to know about “Catherine B”.
All this Monday Morning quarterbacking illustrates a commendable concern but it’s too easy. I always carry, but in a darkened theater, with a moving target, some distance, innocent people milling around, the element of surprise to the shooter, I don’t know how much I could do. The best defense might be the old-fashioned way: go after him physically. Or the powerful flashlights to confuse him. What would an armed off-duty police officer have done? If this guy hadn’t been so obsessed with dramatizing himself, he could have done even more damage with a powerful bomb. He had the materials and the know-how to make one. There is no easy answer, although we have to seek one. Maybe there is no clever answer. Maybe we just go for the SOB the old-fashioned way and bring him down whatever the cost and let the analysts figure it out afterward.
An excellent point. Assume the real situation: a quiet crowded audience watching a movie, in dim light, when an assailant opens up suddenly. Add a new condition, five disbursed individuals, all carrying, but none know of each other, or the shooter. In the seconds, as each assesses, pulls, and aims, the place descends into chaos. Nearby muscular men, with vulnerable dependents, seeing a gun, would attack, fight over possession. Knives are out. If the weapon discharges, they can expect return fire from other armed, enraged and terrified people. Bullets pass through several bodies; ricochets hit untargeted people.
This is the fog of war. Life is messy. As in any lethal conflict, we must strive to disarm the aggressor prior to the sneak attack, then minimize, and accept, the slaughter of innocents.
In Aurora, Colorado, we have had a terrible incident of violence upon innocents, involving guns. How long until Senator Feinstein appears on a Sunday talk show to promote gun control? Answer, two days.
The political Left is too polite to classify people as stupid, crazy, evil or politically unscrupulous. They prefer secondary, non-judgmental terms, to which they can apply tax dollars and bureaucracy. No one is stupid, merely uneducated; therefore, spend more on education and support teacher’s unions. No one is crazy, merely lacking self-esteem; so encourage homelessness and dependency. No one is evil, simply misguided; thus grant them generous probation, amnesty, and anger-management classes, and they’ll come around. And no one expects to find scruples in politics.
In Aurora, the Left, and the mainstream media, are busy searching for a diagnosis that corresponds to their politically acceptable causation and treatment, and to identify those directly or indirectly to blame. Conveniently, the usual suspects are found among the non-Left. Tea Party? Gun owners? Or, employing the Left’s preference for indirectness, “gun ownership.”
Painfully and sometimes horribly, these things do exist in the world: low intelligence, mental illness, diabolical wickedness, and barbarous domination. Sometimes in twisted combination. They appear within all human endeavors, from nations to neighborhoods. The right to bear arms is simply the individual’s right to self-defense. We expand it to become law enforcement in our community, and we expand it again as our military, to protect the peaceful from the hostile.
Violent individuals will always be a menace to innocents. Criminal gangs are a threat to the community. Aggressive forces remain a danger to world peace. Denying the right to self-defense does nothing to reduce these dangers, and would actually encourage further victimization. Legally armed, free citizens should redouble their resolve, and resist emotional calls for further restrictions on our Creator-given and constitutionally guaranteed rights.