Rep. Gohmert: Did No One Else in Aurora Theater Have a Gun?

ABC/Yahoo ^ | 7/20/2012 | Chris Good

[markomalley]

The shooting could have been limited if someone else in the Aurora, Colo., movie theater had been carrying a gun, Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert said today.

Gohmert reacted to the shooting, which left 12 dead, during an interview this morning on the radio program Ernest Istook Live! From The Heritage Foundation.

"Well it does make me wonder, you know with all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying that could've stopped this guy more quickly?" Gohmert said. "I mean in Tyler, Texas, we had-my hometown-we had a shooter come in over a domestic matter, and just start shooting people. And it was a guy with a concealed carry-he got killed, but his shooting at this guy caused him to run and no doubt saved a lot of lives. He was a real hero."

Colorado allows residents to obtain concealed carry permits, according to the Colorado State Patrol website.

"I know that before we ever had concealed carry in Texas, there was a, just a senseless shooting years ago in Killeen, Texas, in a restaurant, and, you know, if we had had concealed carry permits at the time, there was a woman who had to leave her gun in her car, and if we'd had concealed carry the guy would've been stopped before he could've killed so many people," Gohmert said.

[Spktyr]

Those doors use a self-contained “crash bar” unit that is like the ones on auxiliary doors at Walmart. It is often battery operated, and the battery runs down, gets disconnected, etc., etc. Even in new theaters - kids are clever, instructions on disabling them are on the Internet and they want to let their friends in for free. It is not uncommon for those doors to be inoperative just a couple of hours after an inspection.

[Spktyr]

Yeah, I’ll wait for an independent review of that one. In the meantime, there is the Saiga-12 and the MKA 1919, among others.

[Spktyr]

I wouldn’t have charged him. I would have fired from what cover or concealment was available - darkened theaters provide plenty of both, though more of the latter than the former.

[2CAVTrooper]

“The fire department doesn’t inspect those doors to make sure they work for the safety of those inside in case of a fire?”

It depends on the city.

Some cities are anal about stuff like that, while others don’t care so much as long as they get their kickback in terms of tax $$.

Last time I went to the movies, the city had a fire marshal there to enforce the occupancy restrictions, and check the exit doors. That is on top of police/ sheriff department presence at the theater.

[2CAVTrooper]

“He is even worse off in some regards. His gas mask will kill his peripheral vision. He won’t see anything besides what is right in front of his eyes. It’s like looking through cardboard tubes. When he is looking the other way, you can do anything you want, and he won’t see a dang thing.”

You're right. Firing a weapon with a gas mask on is hard enough in daylight, never mind in a dark theater. I hated the old M-17 mask, the newer M-40 was still a PITA to shoot with, but was vastly better than the 17.

From what I remember, firing with the mask is for familiarization purposes and doesn’t count towards qualification, and is from 25 meters where as the closest target is 50 meters during rifle quals.

[3D-JOY]

Yes, we checked before allowing Grandson to go today...No guns inside the theater. Several Dads will be packing in the lobby and Moms in cars outside.

Crazy world...please no copy-cats!

[TXnMA]

Louie Gohmert is my congressman, and I couldn't be more pleased with him and his Tyler staff!

~~~~~~~~~~~

Separate subject: Civilian grade body armor does not protect the wearer from "backface trauma" when a round impacts it. A couple of rounds to his torso or a couple of "whacks" from rounds to his helmet/face shield would certainly have pained and distracted the shooter and degraded the rate and accuracy of his assault.

[William Tell]

Erik Latranyi said: "It would have been VERY unlikely that a concealed carry firearm would have stopped this guy, given the circumstances."

A relevant quote from Winston Churchill:

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Guns are not magic wands. I don't know how many people were in the theater, but not everybody was wounded. Not all of those who were wounded, died.

The man who used his concealed weapon against the robbers at the internet cafe in Florida had no way of knowing whether his gun might jam without getting off a shot. He had no way of knowing whether the criminals would see him before he could fire and shoot him dead. The man had to make a judgement that life would be better if he took action rather than not take action.

Without even asking, I would guess that you don't carry concealed. I can't imagine any scenario while carrying concealed where there wouldn't be a sizeable risk that one might be killed while attempting to use the concealed firearm. It is the legal nature of the burden to draw only when in fear of death or great bodily harm that dictates that no use of a concealed firearm can be without the real possibility of being killed.

There was a recent case of a man who jumped onto some subway tracks to save a person who had fallen from the platform. His instinct was take a risk rather than see another innocent person killed. His sense of self-worth dictated that he could not fail to act without viewing himself as unworthy.

[Labyrinthos]

automatic weapons.

He did not have an "automatic" weapon.

[Labyrinthos]

automatic weapons.

He did not have an "automatic" weapon.

[Daffynition]

Elsewhere

For all of you out there who may be thinking, like Congressman Gohmert, that had one or more of the members of the audience for The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado been armed that he would have been able to successfully neutralize the attack, I would like to remind you of this:

On March 21, 1981, Ronald Reagan, The President of the United States, was shot while surrounded by the best trained bodyguards on planet Earth, all of whom were armed with the very best weaponry and other equipment available. The shooter, John Hinckley, Jr., was not fired at. In fact, he got punched in the head and pulled to the ground by Alfred Antenucci, a Cleveland, Ohio, labor official, who happened to be standing near to Hinckley when he opened fire.

My point, and I say this as a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, is that other people with guns don't necessarily equal stopping the bad guy or preventing loss of like, The Secret Service didn't open fire on Hinckley because they were in a crowd and they considered the risk of hitting innocent civilians to be too great. Again, these are some of the best trained marksmen on the planet and they think taking shots in that situation is too big of a risk. Why then do these people assume that Joe Citizen should take risks that vastly more qualified individuals would refuse to take and that said risk would pay off?

The sad truth we must all realize is that there is no way to prevent this from happening. No one could have predicted that a madman would shoot up a movie premiere. Or that a kid would shoot up his university, or a high school. There are the acts of madmen. Banning guns wouldn't have stopped it, and armed citizens in the theatre weren't likely to have stopped it either. We don't want to admit this because it's a scary truth. But remember that even though the news coverage will be constant and playing up the fear, the statistical likelihood of being caught in a shooting ...

A good read.

[William Tell]

Spktyr said: "I wouldn’t have charged him."

When the People's Republik of Kalifornia is finally forced to issue me a permit to carry, I will choose something a little more capable than the .380 I carry when out-of-state.

Given that the shooter might be wearing body armor, charging him might be necessary. When somebody is shooting people in a crowded theater, it is probable that they are moving around. One might be able to take advantage of a pattern in their movements to close on them and make a more effective head shot.

It is taught that a person with a knife can close about twenty feet before a person with a concealed carry gun can draw and fire.

A similar principle would apply to a person attacking a crowd with a rifle. The person can't be looking in all directions at once. A few seconds of lack of attention to my direction could well permit closing to put one in the attacker's ear. He is impaired by the gas-mask, somewhat blinded by smoke and muzzle flash, and deafened by the noise. He just can't pay sufficient attention in every direction.

Assuming that a chance to close on the shooter presents itself, I couldn't help but be thinking, "Boy, I sure wish I had my Model 66 .357 revolver with me!", knowing that I could hit a head size target at twenty-five feet pretty easily.

[William Tell]

Daffynition said: "The sad truth we must all realize is that there is no way to prevent this from happening."

While that is true, it doesn't change the fact that the President routinely travels with a group of well-armed bodyguards. They may choose to tackle an attacker and shield the President with their own bodies, but they are armed because there will still be a high likelihood of having to return fire.

One of the most convincing training episodes I have ever participated in was a mock ambush. It only took about ten seconds for the ambushers to empty their weapons into a target and leave the area. The soldiers under attack were sitting in a truck and never got off a shot.

The Hinckley attack on Reagan and the attack in Aurora share those same aspects of ambush. The attacked don't know when or where the attack will take place or who the attacker will be. The best that any of them can do is be prepared as possible to respond to the attack. The theater audience in Aurora should have been no less armed that Reagan's Secret Service detail.

[Daffynition]

>>The theater audience in Aurora should have been no less armed that Reagan's Secret Service detail. <<

And with *their* training? ...I dunno...I've had some defense training...none of it military...at the *moment* that you need to defend yourself....can you do it? Having heard about the processes of one's mind at the point of attack, their is always doubt...if you can pull the trigger. I carry to defend me and mine...not a theater full of people I don't know. In my state...I wouldn't be a branded a *hero*.

I honestly hope no one here has to be in the moment of attack. My personal experience was that I was able to *do* it. It turns your world upside down. Believe me. I agree with you that the audience *should* have been armed ...how many would have engaged, is another matter.

[William Tell]

Daffynition said: "I carry to defend me and mine...not a theater full of people I don't know."

I don't disagree with that.

The Churchill quote above points out that sometimes failing to act early, perhaps while the attacker's attention is on others, could have the consequence of eventually finding yourself the object of attack.

I am a believer in "The Golden Rule". The benefit that I might get from another theater patron firing at the attacker is a benefit I can only reasonably expect if I am willing to do the same.

[presently no screen name]

I believe the insurance co wants a certificate of inspection. The town has their own codes, the fire department has their own for obvious reasons. State to state, county to county I’m sure they differ.

Wonder why the sprinkler system didn’t go on with the blinding smoke they spoke of. Aren’t ss mandatory in CO, do you know? I thought it was for the nation, I could be wrong about that. Didn’t hear anything about smoke detectors going off which is the very least.

I betcha there won’t be a lazy attitude about it anymore if any of the victims and families go after this theater in any way. So many lives changed forever. From that guy celebrating his 27th b’day who was killed - his parents will never be the same to the parents of the killer and everyone in between including the owner of the movie theater.

Wonder if he will shut it down, people being killed in there is not conducive to a night out to relax and be entertained.

And all this right after those fires in CO w/those who lost homes/everything they had.

[Erik Latranyi]

Guns are not magic wands.

I think you missed my point.

I was addressing those who were speculating that one person with a concealed pistol could have stopped this with a well-placed shot in the goggles or other exposed area.

It is those people who have never been in a real shooting incident and think they can shoot the rifle out from the perp's hands that I was addressing.

Unlike most shootings, this one posed several challenges you are not likely to see unless you are facing military or police professionals.

If we are to take our 2nd Amendment rights seriously, we need to think about such scenarios and how we would respond.

As I have posted, the overwhelming advantage of the perpetrator in this case would not stop me from trying, or at least diverting attention so others could get away.

But for serious people who carry, this case needs to be examined thoroughly followed by a critical discussion of best courses of action, if any.

[William Tell]

Erik Latranyi said: "I think you missed my point."

I don't think I missed your point, so much as I disagree with your point.

If I was armed with my Model 66 .357 revolver and firing at the perpetrator from 25 feet, I could put rounds into the guy's head consistently as long as I had ammo, he hadn't killed me or disabled me, I could see his head, and my nerve didn't fail.

Under the circumstances I describe, I would consider the situation for myself MUCH BETTER than having an armed robber push a gun into my ribs as I am passing an alley.

I just don't agree with you that the situation is as hopeless as you are stating. Part of the reason is that the outcome of ANY gun fight is uncertain. Even with the greatest advantages, it's possible for an attacker to get off a lucky shot and take you out despite any number of disadvantages for him. The element of luck is just too great to write off any situation.

The "ambush" aspect of the gunman's attack gives him a tremendous advantage. That advantage dissipates in the time it would take me to draw and take aim. The gunman's advantage in firepower is greatly reduced by the fact that he isn't targetting me specifically; he is busy murdering other people.

The gunman's advantage of having body armor is reduced by my recognizing that he is wearing body armor. This advantage is practically eliminated if I can accurately target his head.

The gunman's advantage of having a gas mask is balanced somewhat by his greatly reduced peripheral vision. In the first minute of the attack, the tear gas is not going to be uniformly distributed within the area of the attack. There's a question as to how much I am going to be affected by the gas.

A big obstacle to my success will be the darkness in the theater. I will need enough light to target the gunman's head. If it's so dark that all I can see are flashes of light and can't make out the attacker, then that is a problem.

I wonder how many, if any, of the patrons in that theater were armed. Colorado is a "shall issue" state. If I lived there, I would have been armed, despite the risk of being thrown out of the theater as a trespasser if my gun were spotted. Here in the People's Republik of Kalifornia, I risk time in jail if I carry.

[wardaddy]

Gee, where can I git' me one of them "100 round mags?"

Right here...Beta Mag...we have one...

they are heavy when loaded but work better than most cheap banana clips really...take forever to load and better use proper gloves unless you like bloody fingertips

[wardaddy]

lol...sorry..had no idea you had been replied to so much already

actually...my brother is the black gun lover in my family

i am like you...hunting rifles and wheelguns

but i try to keep up

when i was a lad aside from some early Bushmasters, M-14s modified and HK products there were no tactical weapons much

60s-70s