While surfing the comments on Rick Moran’s excellent reflection on the Colorado massacre, I came across this sagacious comment from “Bugs”:
Why do the media and the politicians ALWAYS follow the same script every single time something like this happens? Sometimes they start within minutes of the news breaking. Same questions, same opinions, same “solutions.” You’d think they’d have learned by now: We’re not in charge. Chaos is real. Shit happens. You can’t predict everything, you can’t prevent everything, you can’t control everything, especially things in which human beings are involved.
In a couple of weeks, after the cops have analyzed this guy, we’ll hear the talking heads reading their other script: “The man was obviously troubled, obviously a risk, why didn’t somebody catch the warning signs and DO SOMETHING?” We are not Skinnerian robots. We can and do make random decisions – or at least decisions based on factors so complex and so cryptic that we ourselves aren’t conscious of them. We wake up one morning and decide to go fishing. Or we wake up one morning and decide that today’s the day for that massacre we’ve been dreaming of for so long.
The trouble with people is, maybe they will and maybe they won’t. The guy’s mom supposedly recognized him as soon as she heard what happened. So why hadn’t she called the police before he acted? Because maybe he would and maybe he wouldn’t. In our society, people generally get the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think we should trade that principle for the illusion that we are safe from chaos. Unfortunately, that is exactly what some versions of the script say we should do.
This is eminently well stated. One of the problems with politics and ideology is the tendency to form narratives that are resistant to the random chaos inherent in everyday life. When something like this happens, people resort to their memorized scripts. The left thinks all we have to do is implement “gun control,” even though Norway, the social-democratic anti-gun utopia, experienced its own frightening massacre last year. Some, but not all, on the right bluster about how if only others in the theater had had their own weapons, this could have been stopped. This wannabe commando tough-talk ignores the fact that it was a dark, crowded theater filled with panicking men, women, children, tear gas and a body-armored psychopath. You think some average, terrified guy is gonna pull a Steve McQueen in conditions like that and take the guy out with a double-tap center-mass without also killing the kid clutching his popcorn? Everyone needs to stop lying to themselves and realize that there comes a point at which political theory ceases to give us answers and the chaos of the real world sets in.
Why is everybody giving themselves a wedgie over the lame stream media reporting and opinion on this crime in Colorado? Stop complaining. The dinosaur media will foul their own nest on this story, too.
No, Mr. Wargas, it is highly unlikely that a “Steve mcQueen” would have “double-tapped” the offender without also killing the kid clutching his popcorn, but the odds are better than even that a combat veteran from Iraq or Afghanistan or maybe an off-duty law enforcement officer legally carrying his or her .40 semiautomatic could have stopped the rampage long before the body count got into the 70′s….but, I suppose that is just “wannabe commando tough talk” to you. To the millions of trained, experienced and veteran concealed carry permit holders in America today, it probably sounds like a common sensical response to the sad, sick, mentally ill and/or just plain evil predators that would prey on the innocent and defenseless.
There is no easy solution to the problem of preventing violence in our society today. There is a balance between freedom and order that has been argued on both sides since the days of Jefferson’s Constitutionalists and Hamilton’s Federalists.
Hundreds of citizens (and non-citizens) are killed every day in automobile accidents. Should we have stricter car control laws? This man is facing at least 14 MURDER CHARGES and at least 71 FELONY ASSAULT CHARGES…..does anyone really think he gives a progressive crap if he was charged with illegally possessing a firearm?
Many years ago, as a young paratrooper sitting in the unbearably sweltering jungle of Panama, I receive some timeless words of wisdom from my immortal company 1st Sergeant – “It is always better to judged by 12, than carried by 6.” I will never place myself in a position where I would be at the mercy of a violent stranger.
Playing the veteran card doesn’t work on me, but since you did it, I’ll quote some other veterans and experienced folks from another post on PJ: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/07/21/the-predictable-banality-of-the-after-massacre-media/
From one commenter:
“Let me add to the banality. I have spend 30+ years in the defense and intelligence communities. I have a Virginia CHL and I carry both at home and out of the house. Let me explain something to you range cowboys out there.
There are many scenarios where an armed citizen can do good, i.e., Mr. Williams in Ocala Florida last week. However, this shooting isn’t one of them. The shooting took place in a dark theater with an obscurant in a chaotic situation. Unless you are right on top of the bad guy and haven’t been shot in the first round you will not have unobstructed shot to the shooter. His Rules of Engagement are shoot as many people as possible. You are only allowed to shoot him. There were several armed citizens at the Giffords shooting and none of them took the shot because they did not have an unobstructed line of sight or couldn’t ID the shooter. This situation was even more demanding. Only a trained SWAT or SOF guy with the skills of the fictional Leroy Jethro Gibbs could have carried it off.
This event was the equivalent of Star Trek;s famous Kobyashi Maru scenario. It is a no win situation. I was put through a no win scenario in 1991 by the game controllers at the Naval War College. It is very instructive. The only thing you can do is hope you get out alive but be prepared to die like a man.
So all you Walter Mittys out there should chill out.”
Another:
“I agree. I am a combat vet with a CCW permit who frequently carries a .357-Magnum and wouldn’t have taken the shot. Since I have a rural property I have set up a “backyard” range out to 65 feet where I shoot 500 to 1,000 rounds a month to assure I can hit what I aim at.
I know from my year in Vietnam that shooting paper “bad-guys” behind the barn is a far different thing that shooting a determined gunman shooting back at you. What with that never-to-be forgotten hiss of incoming rounds flying inches from your head, your adrenalin flooding every cell in your body and your heart pumping a mile a minute, the accuracy of your aim is going to be problematic at best. Add to that the cloud of tear gas blinding your eyes and pouring snot from your nose, and just hitting the guy, much less his neck or groin is probably not going to happen.
This guy may have been a nut-case, but he was a well-prepared nut-case.”
Your original post and your comments to BD contain their own fallacies.
1. Although a trained professional would find the situation challenging, my quess is that all of those professionals would still want to be carrying during such an attack.
2. The situation itself was not pure chaos. It was planned chaos directed and utilized by the shooter. It was not chaotic to him as long as his plan proceeded accordingly. An armed response was not part of his plan. It would have forced the chaos upon him by altering his plan of attack and introducing variables to which he would have to respond.
3. You treat the murderer as if he was a trained professional. He was not. He was simply a butcher slaughtering helpless and hapless people corraled in a theater. You do not know how he would respond to someone returning fire, even if he was not “double-tapped” from the get go. Often the goal of defensive shooting is not to “double-tap” someone but to discourage their continued threat. Someone returning fire would have stopped the offensive rampaged and forced the butcher to alter his plan and go on the defensive.
4. The fog of war works both ways. The planned assault by the butcher had its own weaknesses. He had gas and weapons. He also faced victims intentionally unarmed by the theater company. However, he wore a gas mask so his own vision and mobility was limited. The plan could only succeed as long as the intended victims fled from him in terror. Return fire – even if not “double-tapping” would have altered his attack plan. It could have altered many things. I seriously doubt it could have worsened the body-count.
The butcher intended to kill others and would do so no matter what. The question is not whether a citizen could have “double-tapped” him and ended the threat before the first death like Steve McQueen. (By the way, the reference to Steve McQueen dates us both.) The question is whether an armed citizen would have forced the intended rampage to alter course and possible save lives. I think it would.
Your analysis is rational, and that’s the problem. In a situation like that, under those conditions, there’s no strategizing, there’s no thinking, there’s no “well, all I have to do is alter the chaos and I can turn the tables.” You say he controlled the chaos, and that’s exactly why it works. Reversing it is much harder than firing a shot. Only the most skilled professional had a chance of doing anything in that scenario. What are the chances that a SEAL is in the audience? I read there were some military people in the audience, but that doesn’t mean they had the skill to do anything, since not all military personnel are experienced combat experts. Most of the experienced people I’ve heard on this subject (friends and commenters) have said they wouldn’t have been able to do anything.
Element of surprise + darkness + tear gas + body armor + panicked civilians = no chance for 99.999& of the population. This does not justify “gun control,” as others have stupidly inferred, but it does add some horrific realism to the analysis.
I appreciate your comments, but I disagree. Also, Steve McQueen died before I was born, so it dates my sensibilities but not my age!
I respect your analysis and the statement of the difficulties involved. However, I must disagree. The butcher most likely banked on their being no resistance. The unexpected would have been to meet some resistance. Something that would have forced him to respond rather than simply go on the offensive. Strategy would have been difficult but resistance does not have to rise to the level of strategy or even tactics. Yet, as you say, it is a lot to asked in the midst of such a situation.
Part of the problem is that as a society we are far removed from these situations and have been taught to trust in the government for our protection. However, as 911, Colombine, and now Colorado has taught us, the government is often not there to protect us. Even first responders are still responders who get their after the initial evil. As citizens we must once again become active and informed. A course in “situational awareness” would do wonders for a lot of us. It is a sad day when the anti-terrorism training I once participated in can now be applied within the United States.
Perhaps the Steve McQueen reference just shows an appreciate of good movies. Godspeed.
Trained professionals were not needed to stop this, nor guns, though they might have been helpful.
there was a single gunman. Even in the dark, and with the movie on, it wasn’t completely dark, the people closest saw this, and all fled, running away. If even just a few had rushed the perp, they would have taken him down. He would have hit a few rushing at him, but the end body count would be a lot lower.
In a crowd situation like that, survival lays in running towards the shooter if you’re close. Else, you’re nothing more then a target. And when the crowd is all bunched up at the exits, and you are in it, a shot in your general direction will get you; it won’t even be personal.
The guy was armed to the teeth, he was wearing full body armour, and he started his attack by releasing teargas. That he was “not expecting resistance” seems like a HUGE assumption based on nothing. I’m actually surprised he didn’t shoot it out with the police – though on the other hand he may have thought he was replaying the Joker-in-jail scene from the last Batman movie.
@Piyamaradu
It is an assumption. We do not have all the details as of yet so much of what we hear is based on assumption. However, the assumption is based upon two observations.
1. The attacker was not a professional. He was an academic researcher. He was also imitating a movie – if that part of the story remains true. He might respond very differently once the bullits start flying his direction. I wonder if the body armour was because he expected return fire or because it went with the costume.
2. He did not shoot it out with police. Nor did he offer any resistance at all. When confronted with someone armed and prepared, he meekly surrendered. At that point he was still armed to the teeth and covered in body armour, if so well prepared to sell his life dearly, then why not?
The butcher liked to butcher. My guess is there is little to no fight in him when danger to himself becomes an option.
Not bad, but you cannot know. You cannot know. You’re just spouting off.
Try, or shit your pants? That is the question.
Try, or just die a victim?
Your choice, and we see what you have chosen. Stop shittin on those who chose otherwise.
Oh, here we go. Perhaps we need to admit that this entire incident makes us ill? I didn’t want to write about it yesterday because it made me sick to my stomach, being in the trenches and knowing all the armchair quarterbacking to come: Concealed carry would have stopped the shooter, gun control would have saved lives, the guy’s crazy, he’s evil, he’s temporarily insane, he needed to be institutionalized, America is evil because of our guns, ad infinitum. Everybody with a book to sell and power to grab jumps up and says “here’s my chance for money, power, fame, and babe-alicious sex!” “Here’s my chance to smite mine enemies!”
This shooting was sickening. Perhaps we need to take a deep breath and get with that for a bit? It might not bring answers, but maybe there aren’t any. As Robert said, there’s this randomness about being human. There will likely be mass murders again. There will likely be hindsight thinking we could have done something to stop it. There will be imperfection. There will be triumphs, too. There will be evil people. There will be heroes, too. It’s life on the Physical Plane.
Of course there’s no guarantee that a ccw holder could have done any good. But I think most of us would prefer the option to at least try. Also had the killer thought his victims might return fire he may have not acted in the first place.
You obviuosly disagree. Fine.
What I want to know is this: was there no way you could write this post without insulting gun owners? Why do you feel the need to disparage us as wannabe “Steve McQueens” and “Walter Mittys”? I also keep a first aid kit in my car, so I suppose according to you I’m also a wannabe Dr. House just waiting for someone to get hurt so I can save the day with an inflatable splint.
When you can find a way to make your point without resorting to insults and strawmen I’ll consider trying to engage you in a constructive argument. Until then I’d say you’re the one that’s just spouting off.
Criminology professor James Allen Fox and I are usually at odds, but this time he admits that gun control does not stop mass murder.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/20/opinion/fox-mass-murder/
I would certainly have been happier for a combat infantry vet fresh home from Afghanistan to engage this schmuck, even with his bare hands, than some fat old middle-aged cop, who probably would have just added his chubby, balding butt to the body count.
What in hell makes you think the police are any good at situations like this?
Besides, the point is not to only shoot when there is absolutely no danger of hitting anyone else. That’s a police department’s nightmare and lawyer’s dream, and it’s why most cops run from gunfire today. Accidentally shooting 3 or even 4 of the bystanders, but stopping the death toll at 5 instead of 12 is always a good thing. Flight or fight. See where that flight usually gets you? Just ask a Thompson’s Gazelle. Then ask the Lion.
The point about breaking his concentration and making him problem solve on the fly is a good one. If you are unlucky enough to have that same young paratrooper flip out in your face and start firing, you’re probably screwed, but luckily, Breivik and Holmes and all these other little video game wannabees would react by panicking. Shooting at targets is one thing, shooting at targets while serving as someone else’s target greatly complicates matters. At that point animal instincts take over. It’s why we spend so much money training elite soldiers: if you have to think, you’re already dead.
As to your Vietnam Vet commenter, is he seriously comparing his old butt, no matter how fine a shape he feels it is still in, with a young, current Marine or paratrooper? If he is, he is also a slightly off-kilter, delusional Vietnam Vet. Even he, though, if he could turn the tables by even firing a few rounds over the scumbag’s head, or,indeed, even by turning on the lights for a few seconds, to blind him.
Hmm. Why didn’t the lights go on immediately? It’s the first thing they teach you in the movies. In an emergency, turn on the lights. Although it might not really be the best tactic in this situation, the kids who run these places aren’t really decision makers. They simply follow the protocol. If they had flicked them on and off every few seconds, he’d have been blind.
I guess it is really easy for us all, in the quiet and safety of our living rooms, to examine closely a surprise split second decision of life and death. I hate when government scum do it after some incident, like they would have done any better. I suppose I should hate it when I do it.
Still, better to be thinking on it, now, than to be all at sea if the time ever comes.
Considering the actual, documented facts about gun ownership and use, and the horrible ongoing massacres in areas with heavy gun-control, perhaps we should emulate the Israelis and the Swiss and make gun training mandatory. Is it so unreasonable that a student should to be able to properly use handguns and rifles before receiving a high-school diploma? If open-carry were the rule instead of the exception, there might not be a decrease in the total number of such incidents — there would still be armed nutcases — but their duration would be much shorter.
As Chief Betrayer Chief Justice John Roberts has lit the path forward, I hereby suggest all citizens be ‘encouraged’ to go through the training for concealed carry, be required to purchase a handgun of appropriate caliber, be required to display a minimum level of competency once per year, and be required to prove they are carrying when required to show ID to police for any reason – or face a very healthy taxation penalty.
After all, if they can’t take on the responsibility of seeing to their own safety, then society should have the right to compensation in extending protection to those who wish to remain sheeple.
We HAVE gun control in Israel. You need a permit from the Ministry of the Interior. However, we also have a lot of kids who are in the army, and walk the streets carrying their weapons – not as anything macho, but simply because they are responsible for them and not everyone stays on the base, especially on week-ends. This is perhaps less common than it was, and I don’t think they are allowed to go after criminals, but I think it certainly acts as a deterrent. We do have a pretty low crime rate, and I suspect this is one of the causes.
We have also had some pretty bad ROE issues here, BTW (thank you, lefties!). But if a terrorists starts shooting, I think we learned that you shoot back, and keep on shooting back until he is dead, lest he get off that last shot.
On the other hand, I think the gunman knew this, which is why he had tear gas and body armor.
“Some, but not all, on the right bluster about how if only others in the theater had had their own weapons, this could have been stopped. This wannabe commando tough-talk ignores the fact that it was a dark, crowded theater filled with panicking men, women, children, tear gas and a body-armored psychopath. You think some average, terrified guy is gonna pull a Steve McQueen in conditions like that and take the guy out with a double-tap center-mass without also killing the kid clutching his popcorn? Everyone needs to stop lying to themselves and realize that there comes a point at which political theory ceases to give us answers and the chaos of the real world sets in.”
For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of PJ Media. What makes you think YOU, Mr. Wargas,can dictate either the outcome or the argument regarding MY self-defense? You’re saying with the above commentary that there’s essentially nothing we can or should do, that such talk of arming ourselves is nothing but Rambo talk and that it’s futile to think we can have a better outcome than the one which transpired? I am a law enforcement officer and I have to live with the possibility of a bad shoot EVERY day, but I’d rather take that risk and stop the threat of some killer out there continuing to kill, than have to ask myself why I didn’t do something more to stop an active killer who went on to kill even more.
The tragedy here is not just that people died the other night. The real tragedy is that we’re arguing over basic human responsibilities of self-defense and the rights to effectuate it. It shouldn’t even be a question or an argument. Every last damned one of us out here should be trained and prepared to do so, and it should be as obvious as drinking water to rehydrate. The question should not be whether others should be armed in a crowded theater, but why there was only 25 people armed as opposed to 50.
Mr. Wargas, you can stuff it where the sun doesn’t shine, because you are a continuing part of the problem why there is any fear about seeing a movie in any theater at any time of day and in any location. You will NOT dictate MY level of protection. The sooner we dispatch with politicians, idiotarians on the air and in other media such as here, and laws which endanger me and my family’s right to self-protection, the better off YOU will be as well.
You have every right to carry a concealed weapon and use it to defend yourself. But what makes you think it would have worked in that scenario? Above, in another comment reply, I quoted experienced veterans and weapons instructors who say they WOULDN’T have taken the shot and would not have been able to. Who’s “dictating”? I am a gun owner myself and don’t support “gun control.” But arguing, as some have done, that “if only they had been armed it could have been averted” is nonsense and, yes, pseudo-tough talk. This was a situation so rigged in the attacker’s favor it was ridiculous, so there are no solutions.
Actually, RW, I think it’s nonsense for you to assume you know exactly what would have happened in that theater had there been well trained, armed citizens present. You are being just as much of an armchair quarterback as the other guy(s).
Barbara, it’s not nonsense to assume that people in a dark crowded theater who have been teargassed by someone wearing body armor and spraying bullets everywhere don’t have much of a chance to stop the attack. (This is separate from saying they didn’t have a right to try to stop the attack if they had been armed. They retain that right.)
I’m sorry, RW, but it most certainly is (nonsense). You have no idea what is possible in any given situation given different variables. Our cultural history is replete with stories of amazing and unbelievable outcomes against all odds and I encourage you to explore them so as to expand your horizons. No, I’m not being facetious. I truly believe you would benefit from exposure to stories where our fellow human beings triumphed against all odds.
Well, obviously not offering an armed response didn’t work very well, did it?
I don’t hear anyone saying a citizen or two shooting back would have averted this horror, only that it might have saved a few lives.
But what about the guns being a deterence to this happening in the first place? Sure, this may be a case where the guns may not have made a significant difference in the outcome, but the basic knowledge that there will be people trained and willing to defend the crowd would certainly be another deterant to crazy people doing stuff like this. Part of the reason why people do this is because they know they will have a couple minutes before the cops arrive, so they know they’ll have some time before they will face any resistence. We need the culture of self-defense back again, and that would be the real value of trained, armed people in the audience.
Very true, which is why “gun control” is utopian mythology. “Deterrence,” however, is different from “solution.” It may have deterred him, but what if it didn’t? What if he HAD decided to attack the armed room anyway? What if someone IS crazy enough to do that? What if, say, half the room had been armed? How much panic fire and crossfire would there have been? In a well lit McDonald’s the chances are great for success. In a dark theater with tear gas, even then still iffy.
Again you push the meme that it was a “dark” theater. That is blatantly wrong. Every theater has aisle lighting at the floor lever to allow for movement without falling over other movie goers. The film itself also provides for a certain amount of illumination.
And all the “what if” senarios don’t work, either. When you have to resort to “what ifs” you are losing the debate.
yeah, those slim LED aisle lights really do wonders for your aim. get lost.
Well, I assume that part of the CCW training includes how to recognize when to take the shot and when to hold back. We’re not talking about an uncontrolled mob; we’re talking about a handful of people with the training to assess a situation like this and the ability to take steps to stop it.
Mr. Vargus, I read that this was a completely dark theater. That is incorrect. No theather is completely dark as the film itself provides a certain amount of lighting. Otherwise, a person would not be able to blindly leave to go to the concession stand or take care of bodily requirements. A more accurate description would be a “darkened” theater.
It has also been reported that there were a number of service members at the viewing. Did your “veterans and weapons instructors” also tell you that your pupils dialate in order to allow more light into your eyes during the dark, or that every soldier is trained on “night” combat? With a war on two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan, the probability of those service members having served in a combat theater is greater than ever before.
It has also been reported that the Aurora shooter (I won’t please him by typing his name) walked UP the aisle as he was shooting. Once he started shooting, walking UP the aisle toward the back of the theater, most movie goers had already tried to hit the ground in an attempt to hide. Anyone who he had already passed would have had a clear shot to a vulnerable spot (back of the head, back of the neck, lower leg). The Aurora shooter had worked the entire senario out in his head long before he started shooting. He knew that there would be no opposition. But one person with a legal revolver would have interrupted his plans of no opposition.
Those of us who carry are NOT wannabe commandos but people who understand that there is a reason police officers are called “first responders.” They respond to a crime already committed. We understand that in a nation of over 300 million there are no guarantees and we alone are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.
Would the Aurora shooting have still killed people had there been someone with a concealed weapon? Yes, but you cannot say with any certainty that the body count would have been as great. And no amount of body armour or a gas mask eliminates vulnerable areas totally. Just ask some of our soldiers at the military hospitals. There is ALWAYS a shot. Maybe not an ideal shot, but always a shot.
“No theather is completely dark as the film itself provides a certain amount of lighting. Otherwise, a person would not be able to blindly leave to go to the concession stand or take care of bodily requirements. A more accurate description would be a “darkened” theater.
It has also been reported that there were a number of service members at the viewing. Did your “veterans and weapons instructors” also tell you that your pupils dialate in order to allow more light into your eyes during the dark, or that every soldier is trained on “night” combat?”
See, this is EXACTLY what i think mr. wargus is talking about. People getting on here and trying to show off their knowledge by mentioning dilated pupils and how the theater was just “darkened” but not “dark” and how people at fort bragg do this and that so blah blah blah
who but the slimmest percent of the population is trained in “night combat”? certainly not the vast majority of civilians who carry concealed weapons. this was a death trap, pure and simple. yeah, i fyou have a weapon, you try to stop the attack but dont have illusions about night combat and dilated pupils poeple are panicking no matter what you idiot, even in broad daylight.
during an adrenaline dump you get blurry tunnel vision, loss of fine motor control, and uncontrollable shaking. i’ve been attacked several times in my life (once with weapons) and can attest to this. people have a right to shoot back, but chances are they’re not trained in night combat, sir.
Got it in one.
I did not intend for this to become a competition….but, for resume purposes, Mr. Vargas, I am a 45-years-old retired infantry paratrooper and ranger from the 82nd Airborne Division with five combat deployments (Panama 1989-Afganistan 2005), numerous combat actions, 6 years on the street now as a police officer with two shooting incidents and an FBI certified firearms instructor legally liscensed to teach other law enforcement officers how to safely and lawfully employ pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns and sub-guns. This training is not only the physical operation of the weapons, but also the legal parameters of “shoot-don’t shoot”.
At no time in my response did I say that either myself or anyone else could have entirely stopped this tragic event. It is you, Mr. Vargas that is intent on insisting that it could NOT have been done and calling detractors of your opinion “commando wannabes”. To my knowledge, somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but not one source has disseminated an after action review detailing exactly what happened. Oh the smoke, the confusion, the people yelling in terror….really? How dare a group of unarmed citizens behave in such a way….
NOBODY knows what if any opportunity existed to stop this maniac, nobody. My point of argument was to your assertion that there was none and anyone who thought there was must be a “wannabe commando”. Mr. Vargas, I am only alive because of the grace of God. I still grieve for wonderful, courageous Americans who were better men than me who are not alive today. Any true veteran of extreme violent actions will tell you that the ONLY variables you CAN depend on are confusion and fear. Every time.
There will be very detailed accounts of his actions after thousands of hours of interviews, security film if available, and the professional reconstruction of the crime scene. Many months in the future we will then be ACCURATELY able to determine what, if any, actions could have possibly stopped this maniac and saved lives. I remain confident that such a review will clearly show numerous opportunities where an armed citizen could have made a difference. It is obvious from his well planned and coordinated ambush that nobody was going to completely stop him.
“My point of argument was to your assertion that there was none and anyone who thought there was must be a ‘wannabe commando’.”
Read this interview Dave Wiegel conducted with an FBI-certified firearms instructor after the shooting: http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/07/20/could_an_armed_person_have_stopped_the_aurora_shooting_a_second_opinion_.html
You will get a taste of what I mean by wannabe commandos. I have also seen military types (on other posts) argue that, hey, tear gas isn’t so bad and an “experienced” person would be able to handle that no problem. I’m glad you’re not a part of this sub-literate group.
As part of my own civilian weapons training, I was once given a toy gun, told to stand 20 feet across the room from an attacker, and instructed to draw and shoot from my belt as he charged at me. I could not even get the weapon out before I was tackled, much less point and shoot. This was in a totally controlled environment–bright room, no obstacles, no life or death, no tear gas. The “attacker” was a classmate friend. The adrenaline still pumped. I still failed. So did other guys in the room who were ex-cops more experienced with handguns and participated in the demo. The average guy has less skill than they. This made me realize how low chances can be.
Thanks for your comments nevertheless.
I participated in a similar drill. It was a very eye opening experience.
In another drill, we were given a toy gun and told to shoot the attacker when we felt threatened. The attacker always won that one as well. The response will almost always be slower than the intial reaction.
The key, I believe, is to take the initiative away from the attacker and force him to respond to you. A very difficult task especially give our current flight/depend on government mindset.
The worst one for me was giving the “attacker” a magic marker and having him pretending it was a knife, and you had to “disarm” him or “fight” him using those fantasy “martial arts” moves that the phonies teach. at the end of a 5-second tussle i had marks ALL OVER my body, as did everyone else in the class, including the instructor, who wanted to show that even he would be carved up against a determined knife wielder.
And yet, I’m pretty sure your instructor did not advise you go about unarmed in spite of the demonstration.
Yes, but that’s not what this situation was. In the theatre, the attcker would be going after someone else. You may not be able to save that one, but you’ll probably have enough time to grab your weapon and aim before the attacker gets to the next person.
I recall a story (old NY Daily News magazine, 1970′s) of a “kidnap negotiation”, told by a NYC cop with a shooting-range badge. He sat across the table from the kidnapper, and twice asked to scratch his foot. The second time (the first time it caught in his sock) he got his standard concealed weapon out and emptied five shots, point-blank, into the “suspect”.
He hit once.
It is important to emphasize, though, that this was an unusual circumstance; in most shooting rampages the “gun-free” zone helps the shooter, and the lack of one would probably have lessened the casualties. We do know of at least one case where such an incident was prevented, without a shot on either side, by a armed student; of course, almost the entire media wrote it up as if he’d stopped him with his bare hands.
I don’t know if any lesson can be drawn from here in Israel; in many recent cases, the terrorist was eventually stopped by armed bystanders. On the other hand, we have had some serious massacres. Of course, we do have gun control; it’s just that there are a lot of soldiers around, not all of them in uniform.
“Get lost.”
Is that the best you can do, Wargus, as you exhibit your superior intellect?
What an absolute joke you are. If you are an example of the type of thin-skinned people that PJ considers to have a valuable opinion, the entire website becomes a waste of valuable time.
“Is that the best you can do…?”
No, but it’s the best you deserve.
Thanks for exposing your inner God complex thinking you have the authority to determine what I do, or do not, deserve.
You’re welcome.
Thanks for quoting my previous comment. I’m sorry this discussion has deteriorated into a pissing contest about the general public’s CQB skillz. My point was simply that nobody can predict when, where, or by whom a mass murder will be committed. In Batman terms, each of us has an inner Harvey Dent – a Two-Face capable of acting or not acting, depending on the flip some mental coin that we might not even be aware of, never mind it being apparent to the people around us. The best we can do is be prepared. That might mean more CCW, it might not – I have no idea.
The fact that it deteriorated proves your original point. Entropy and chaos are present in all social situations.
Could I have hit my target under the circumstances as described in that theater that night?
Probably not.
Please note the word “probably”…..not definitive by any means.
Setting aside the odds of successfully engaging this murderer under those circumstances, having a gun in my hand would have definitely upped my chances of getting out alive, protecting my family, and even saving the lives of innocent people.
One survivor described seeing the gunman in silhouette, muzzle flashing every time he pulled the trigger, just standing there shooting methodically.
This survivor KNEW at the time what was going on, who was shooting, and could clearly see and identify the murderer even under the conditions described.
I feel confident a citizen with a concealed carry permit and in that survivors identical position could have started returning fire at that point with a reasonably good chance of hitting his target.
Would he have killed him?
Who knows?
He WAS wearing body armor – but our soldiers in the Middle East were killed and wounded on a regular basis while likewise wearing body armor.
He was wearing protection over his groin, throat, and legs – was it ballistic material or just paintball level protection? His face was covered with a gas mask- but it would absolutely NOT be bullet proof!
Even if his protective measures kept him from being mortally wounded, rounds at reasonably close range from any handgun of decent caliber is going to feel like multiple blows from a sledge hammer.
In the chaos the shooter had created, clouds of tear gas obscuring the view, having to look through a gas mask himself, he could have found himself on the receiving end of return fire with no idea where the defending concealed carry shooter was firing from.
Those hammer like blows could have been enough to dissuade him from further action that resulted in a retreat (he probably is something of a coward), or given other movie goers that night an opportunity to subdue him before more harm was done.
Then there is the fact the murderer relocated from the theater to the outside parking lot in order to shoot people as they exited the front of the building.
Please note that there COULD have been opportunity for a concealed carry person to engage the murderer at any point between exiting the specific theater he started shooting in, and the parking lot where he was discovered.
Lots of places with NO teargas in the air.
These are not Walter Mittyisque suppositions – these are hypotheticals based upon circumstances that at least one eyewitness described as well as what the news reports have generally agreed occurred. One would not have to be a trained SOF ninja to pull it off either.
One would probably have to also be lucky – but there are a lot of lucky people who came out of that carnage alive that night.
All things being equal, I’d still rather have the option of carrying and attempting to defend myself under those circumstances – and those arrogantly dismissing any opinions to the contrary as to how effective or ineffective a person with a concealed carry would have been under those circumstances only lends a certain legitimacy to gun control advocates who similarly argue as strenuously as possible that carrying a concealed weapon is generally a useless idea.
I agree that, given the right circumstances, an armed opponent might have had an excellent chance to inactivate this attacker. Obviously, if he were at the back of the theater, the likelihood of sighting and hitting would be small, but if he were sitting in the 5th row, and could fire from concealment, even firing at the muzzle flashes would have been disruptive to the attack.
I’ve read that Holmes had “body-armor”, but that is relatively inaccessible to civilians, while black BDUs are commonplace. As you observed he wore a gas-mask that would have seriously hampered his vision, just as the tear gas would hamper that of an opponent.
This guy had to reload, switch magazines and swap weapons. These were times when he was vulnerable to attack by determined Flight 93-type opponents. I agree that we should have the means and option to attack, and personally, if I am ever shot in such an incident, the entry wound will be in the front, not my back, and my gun or knife will be in my hand.
I have to ask – and thge probablitiy you woyuld have missed and just killed someone else?
During reloading, though – yes.
There’s no question that the degree of difficulty involved in counterattacking this shooter by handgun would be high. First, one would have to interpret the rapidly developing events correctly (many are said to have believed it was a part of the show). Second, one would need to achieve some concealment, and draw his weapon. Identifying and sighting on the target would likely be impaired by bystanders crossing the line of fire. Random factors would be proximity to the shooter, absence of bystanders from the background.
The more competent CCW holders in the theater, the greater the chance that one might have had an early opportunity to act. This shooting went on for several minutes, given the number of those killed and injured, and the number of rounds estimated to have been fired. A counterattack would at minimum have spoiled his methodical tactics.
Also, the perpetrator’s belief that he might be opposed would affect his behavior. John Lott’s studies have shown that mass public shootings are dramatically reduced in association with shall-issue CCW laws.
I have to ask – and the probablitiy you would have missed and just killed someone else?
During reloading, though – yes.
Given the statistics of civilian vs law enforcement shootings, I’d suggest the odds are I’d do at least as well – if not better – than a police officer.
Then there is the whole cost / benefit analysis to consider. Would injuring or killing an innocent bystander be worth the risk if it saves many times as many others by virtue of ending the assault earlier?
And now we have further information – the shooter was NOT in fact wearing body armor, only a tactical vest.
That would have provided him about as much protection against counter-fire from concealed carry holders as a screen door.
The odds a private citizen could have stopped this murderous rampage just went up drastically.
The same “Darwinian” process that is selecting the frequent flyers of the future will soon become the main behavioral feature of innocent crowds under attack by a lone gunman. Passengers who used to compete for the “Miss or Mr. Cooperative” sobriquet now realize that the award will most likely be awarded posthumously and allow their fear to propel them to eliminate the threat without waiting for the flight attendants. With experience, and prayer, a bullet in the front is as painful as a bullet in the back.
Do not confuse an assessmnt that an armed citizen (Please Note my use of the phrase Armed Citizen and not ‘specially trained war vetran armed citizen’) would have had a very low probability of killing this particular killer, and my have drawn the focused ire of said killer had he returned fire; thus creating a situation where he was specifically singled out as opposed to being one of the random mob being shot at: with a beleif that people should not be allowed to have their legally carried weapons in the theater and they should not have tried to return fire.
My coments have been regarding outcome not situation.
This has been my point all along, and thank you for restating it. People have an absolute right to be armed and to use those arms in self defense. But the chances in this situation were much much much lower than those in other cases where a nut opened fire on a crowd. When people hear this, they confuse it with the idea that people should not carry guns. Then they start talking about special forces tactics, as if the shooter attacked a military base and not a small-town movie theater.
You support the concept of randomness, yet derogate the idea that an armed defender might have made a difference. Sounds just as random to me. You need to get with Ron Borsch of SEALE Academy and Bedford Ohio PD, and read John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime”. Concealed carry provides a general level of deterrence that reduces the frequency and severity of mass murders. Note it does not stop them, merely reduces the lethality. So a defender has to know if he engages, he may die when he becomes a target. But sitting and waiting to see if he’s spared, he may still ldie. Many of us are firearms instructors and have tactical training, and yes we don’t know what would happen. But better to try and fail, than to let the shooter continue controlling his scenario and die anyway.
I’ve read Lott and have weapons training.
I don NOT denograte the idea that an armed citizen might have made a difference.
I genuinely beleive many more people may have gotten out of the theater when said Shooter was focusing directly upon the ‘threat’ of an armed person shooting back.
That said, I utterly dismiss the notion that an armed citizen would have killed the lunatic and ended the whole thing before it ever really got started and all would be well with the world.
My response was to Robert. However, since you mention it, I discussed statistical reductions and stressed this doesn’t translate to a clean defense and no fatilities. There are no such guarantees. However, the data clearly indicates that it’s better to try. But this is all conjecture, though such conjecture goes both ways. We don’t know that an armed defender may have helped reduce the mortality level. But we don’t know if one wouldn’t help, either. Certainly, there are many stories of successful armed defense. But we don’t know, for example if Samuel Williams saved any lives or not. That would require running parallel universes, one where Williams shot and one where he didn’t. But such a discussion strains credibility. So do the knee-jerk responses that more gun control would benefit society, like I used to believe. But many years of research later, I couldn’t find one dataset provided by any government or United Nations that supported their premise that gun control made us safer, and they’re the ones promoting that concept.
I’m going to have to Frame your response to me Howard.
All my friends are going to have to see that someone suspected I may not be a Genuine Gun Nut!
Sorry to disappoint, I suspected nothing about you being a gun nut or not. Wasn’t even in my consideration. Actually, reviewing statistics I would have to say you’re right. Chances are that armed citizens wouldn’t have created a pretty, clean kill and no harm done. That is as much conjecture as saying an armed citizen would have saved nobody. The latter assumption ignores years’ of research into mass murders and self-defense. Personally, I’m a Liberty nut. Decent folks should carry because the nasty ones will, and laws be damned. People need to rub bureaucrat’s faces in Supreme Court decisions like Deshaney v Winnebago and Castle Rock v Gonzales, until said bureaucrats understand the game is up and we all know they have no obligation to stop criminals and make us all safe. There’s another fantasy that flies in the face of reality.
Yes, life has randomness. We cannot prevent all murders but we can create conditions that keep it more or less in check. Disarming people only makes it easier for the criminally insane to kill. I read the theatre was a gun free zone. Remember the jihadi attack at fort hood? The soldiers had no guns because they were not permitted to carry them on base. Would the fort hood massacre have been prevented if the soldiers had been allowed to carry guns? You bet. Would someone have been able to do the same in the theatre? Maybe, but the theatre owner preempted that possibility. The theatre owner disarms his patrons then the company assumes responsibility for their safety (i.e., provides security). The company should be sued and put out of business. Remember Jeanne Assam who prevented a similar massacre in a church in Colorado in 2007? Thank God she was armed and killed the would-be attacker. Thank God the church allowed her to carry a gun on their property.
Steve – It was a gun-free zone. See Warner Todd Huston’s column in Breitbart:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/07/20/Ebert-Gun-Free-Theater-Proves-Concealed-Carry-Doesnt-Work
I have a CCW but don’t carry all the time and have none of the training some of the previous commenters have. But what seems clear to me (from what we know at this point) is that absolutely no one in that theater considered going on the offensive against this fellow; he was left unmolested long enough to shoot between 70 and 80 people. The same can be said about the scout island in Norway, Virginia Tech, and the Columbine shootings. Flight 93 is the shining exception. Another would be Jeanne Assam in Colorado (I realize it was daytime in Colorado, no gas devices, etc. etc. but it seems to me that what Jeanne Assam did in that church blows your whole supposition out the window – one person with a gun can change the course of an attack). But the point I want to make is this; panicking and running away plays into the gunman’s hands, attacking him forces him off whatever plan he is operating from. In all cases the gunman is at an overwhelming numerical disadvantage. Your own description of being unable to draw a bead on a determined attacker supports the idea of going on offense in situations such at this. But being on offense is a mindset, probably easier to acquire with training and certainly easier to envision if you have a gun in your belt. That is part of what getting a CCW does for you; situational awareness, what ifs, confidence. We don’t know who the “organizer” was on Flight 93, maybe it was several people, but they point the way to “going on offense” and saving lives.
I think your comment contains a very important concept: the mindset to attack, rather than to run. Time and again, we read accounts of this type of shooting (Fort Hood, Columbine, VA Tech, the LI train shooting, etc.) in which the hapless victims ran, cowered under desks, and pleaded for their lives.
In nearly all those cases, their lives would more likely have been saved by an aggressive attack. Contrary to the movies, most gunshot wounds are not instantly fatal (unless accurately delivered to the central nervous system). Many accounts exist of warriors receiving multiple wounds in combat, yet fighting on with lethal effects to their assailants. Even a bullet wound to the heart provides one with 10 – 15 seconds of consciousness in which action may be possible.
This attacker was armed with 2 long guns (a shotgun and an AR-15) and 2 handguns. It’s not clear with which weapon he initiated his attack, but I read that some victims sustained buckshot wounds, suggesting that he initiated his attack with the shotgun, then switched to the AR when the former was empty (5-9 shots). If he initiated the attack with the AR, there would have been little reason to shift to the shotgun, instead of simply reloading the AR. There was a vulnerable point at least when he shifted weapons, if not before. An armed opponent at fairly close range, or one willing to attack rather than cower under a seat, might have taken him down at that time.
I’ve tried over the years to prepare my personal mindset, that if I ever am involved in such an attack, I will run — TOWARD my attacker, with absolute rage and killing intent. I don’t always carry concealed, but I seldom fail to have a good sharp knife clipped to my pocket, and I have promised myself that if anyone tries to harm me, I intend to die with his heart held dripping in my hands (and I have the surgical skills to do that operation in the 15 seconds I hope to have available).
‘You think some average, terrified guy is gonna pull a Steve McQueen in conditions like that and take the guy out with a double-tap center-mass without also killing the kid clutching his popcorn? ‘
Such a piece of crap. You gonna try to protect yourself, or just shit your pants while dying? I’m in the ‘protect myself or die trying camp’.
The kid with the popcorn? Your attempt at a distraction.
Now – your life is on the line. Try, or shit your pants?
Well, it all comes across as an argument for *knifing* the bastard–or unarmed action: fine, since I don’t pack heat.
Would uh, could uh, should uh, maybe if the theatre had had alarms on their exit doors when he opened that door and gone out to change the alarm would have gone off and that would maybe have stopped it right there. I have never been in a theatre where people can exit out the doors with the exit signs are posted after a movie. Those are suppose to be for emergency exiting only. You put an alarm on the door, and when it is opened and then you have a situation that warrants an investigation. This guy buys a ticket, goes in and then exits through one of those emergency exits where he has his car parked, and changes his clothes and puts on armour and weapons and comes back in. It took him time to put that stuff on, all that they mentioned to cover himself and protect himself, that took time.
By him going out that door and an alarm going off that would have brought attention to that area and perhaps that would have stopped this in it’s tracks, or atleast in time for law enforcement to get there……marys
Ya’ think maybe he’s a lib suicide attacker running interference for a flailing Obama Campaign, so the news and comment boards will talk about nothing else for at least the next two weeks? The libs do love them Palestinians, after all, and their penchant for outrageous violence is very well documented. Let’s add Fast ‘n’ Furious to the stew, and I’m seeing Commies under the bed, not just in the White House.
Just askin’.
Don’ mean nuthin’ by it.
I doubt the murderer was a suicide type, after all, as someone else has already pointed out he gave up without a fight when confronted by armed law enforcement. In that community this morning, if he were NOT in police custody I suspect his life expectancy could be calculated in minutes.
My suspicion is this murderer is a leftwinger who thoroughly soaked himself in leftist ideology for several years, and over time his views – both political as well as social – drifted ever farther to leftist fringe mindset until it finally resulted in action on his part. This drift may have occurred within an echo chamber of his own creation as he ceased to communicate with anyone who was not of similar views – namely by communicating more and more on the internet and less and less with the people living around him. This could explain why he has been described as “quiet”.
I think he struck out at those he saw as his enemy, or perhaps wanted to punish somehow those he saw as representative of the traits and lifestyles he deplored, and chose to do so while simultaneously reducing as close to zero as he could any chance for those victims to fight back against him.
Quite the coward, he is.
If this IS the case, I fully expect the mainstream media to bury any references to his political leanings in the very near future, and he will just be portrayed as a ‘gun nut’ of indeterminate political views.
I would humbly suggest a solution which has largely been ignoresd in the dialogue. That is to say, modify the involentary commitment laws so that it is merely difficult rather than practicaly impossible to commit an adult against his or her will. I am very well aware of the potential dangers and abuses but why should the peaceful majority constantly be constrained to protect the comfort level of an increasingly violent minority?
More and more it seems that we are losing our practical freedom to protect our hypothetical freedom.
Mr. Wargas – just interested to see if you have modified your position regarding the possibility of an armed citizen potentially stopping the shooter due to the revelation that he was in fact NOT wearing body armor as had been previously reported. Changes the dynamics just a little bit, doesn’t it? Imagine what we will be revealed through the course of the investigation….
I’m tired, it has been a long day….please take the “we” out of my last sentence.
Yes, I think the chances go up without a doubt. The tear gas remains the biggest problem.