Fox: No Body Armor for Aurora Theater Shooter
Fox News’ Jana Winter did a great piece on the Aurora shooting suspect.
Much of dino-media has been reciting the “body armor” meme, probably out of the same ignorance that makes them call semi-automatic handgun magazines “clips.”
- New York Daily News: “…was also wearing red clothing beneath the black body armor that terrified moviegoers saw when he opened fire…”
- New York Times: “…nearly head-to-toe ‘ballistic gear,’ including a throat protector and leggings…” (Using the term “ballistic” implies resistant material.)
- Contra Costa Times (California): “…wearing a gas mask and what looked like body armor…”
According to Bullet Proof Me in Austin, Texas, it is legal for law-abiding citizens to buy true body armor. But this is about reporting a story, not about pushing a political agenda to justify more restrictions on law-abiding citizens.
Even Criminologist James Allen Fox, who I often disagree with, has stated that more gun control won’t stop mass murderers.
In this case, Winter interviewed Chad Weinman, CEO of TacticalGear.com, who admitted the shooter’s vest came from their mail order company.
Winter used the term “urban assault vest.” Looking that up at TacticalGear.com displays this result. It’s made of “heavy-duty nylon” and has no Kevlar or other bullet-resistant materials. Granted, if you load it up with magazines you may derive some protection at the expense of your ammunition, but it’s not “body armor.”
You’re welcome to browse other offerings, like this Blackhawk vest made of “heavy-duty nylon mesh for maximum breathability.” Looks like body armor and could fool people into thinking it is, especially under low light conditions.
Let’s hope the truth continues coming out on this story.
Howard – According to Warner Todd Huston over at Breitbart, the theater chain showing the Batman movie is a “Gun-Free Zone.” Who needs body armor when the good guys have been disarmed? Seems to me that law-abiding citizens have three choices when it comes to gun-free zones: 1) Stay-away; 2) Go in and take your chances; 3) Disregard the sign and go in with a concealed weapon.
Meant to include the link to Huston’s column: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/07/20/Ebert-Gun-Free-Theater-Proves-Concealed-Carry-Doesnt-Work
I saw his column. His cited information is somewhat less than completely credible, though likely true. Haven’t called the theater yet myself.
As for the rest: No gun, no patronage. We had a local restaurant that banned carry. They now took that sign down. Contact the business, explain the situation, and show them it’s costing them. See what happens.
For me, I quit going to movie theaters years ago. I don’t spend $20 to listen to a wannabe talk on his cell phone to impress his girlfriend he’s the man. I could see the trouble coming and now it’s here. Wait for the DVD.
“As for the rest: No gun, no patronage. We had a local restaurant that banned carry. They now took that sign down. Contact the business, explain the situation, and show them it’s costing them. See what happens.”
Isn’t that the truth.
Explain to them that your no-carry policy is an announcement to criminals, lunatics, and terrorists that you are putting your customers at risk to be the next mass murder.
The fact that the theater was a “gun-free zone” was absolutely a factor in being selected as a soft target, given the amount of preparation and pre-meditation involved in this tragedy.
I’m curious what the specifics are for CHL holders in Colorado. I know that here in Texas there are very specific requirements for the signage that private businesses have to post in order to legally prevent CHL holders from carrying on their premise. Otherwise, even if the business holder posts something along the lines of “No Guns Permitted”, it doesn’t legally apply to someone that holds a CHL.
Thanks for clearing that up. I was pretty sure he wasn’t wearing body armor. I thought he just meant to echo the Batman appearance, which is wonderfully menacing.
when it comes right down to it, why did he even use a gun(s)?
Why not? On the other hand, you may be right. The worst mass murder in U.S. history didn’t use a gun, but bombs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_school_massacre
Then there’s the Oklahoma City bombing. And let’s not forget 9/11. All no guns needed. Bombs are certainly more efficient, if you consider that about 5 dozen people shot in Aurora survived. But we have to wait and see what he does when he has the microphone in court to see what his true motive was, crazy as it may be.
In any case, this incident made me ill and was a terrible tragedy.
Although the arsonist may not have intended to kill so many, Julio Gonzalez killed 87 people with a few gallons of gasoline and the unintended cooperation of the club management: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire