Not that I don’t support this view but from all accounts that I’ve heard, someone else having another gun wouldn’t have done much good. I believe the guy had on a lot of protective gear, tear gas and automatic weapons.
What needs to be done is make gun ownership a requirement or pay a tax.
Colorado Movie Theater Shooting: 71 Victims The Largest Mass Shooting
By CLAYTON SANDELL, KEVIN DOLAK, and COLLEEN CURRY | Good Morning America
http://gma.yahoo.com/colorado-batman-movie-shooting-suspect-phd-student-085940589--abc-news-topstories.html
Holmes was apprehended within minutes of the 12:39 a.m. shooting at his car behind the theater, where police found him in full riot gear and carrying three weapons, including a AR-15 ASSAULT RIFLE, which can hold UPWARDS OF 100 ROUNDS, a Remington 12 gauge shot gun, and a .40 Glock handgun
Gee, where can I git' me one of them "100 round mags?"
Theater policy:
NO GUNS IN THE THEATER !
Also, RIP Mark Alan Wilson, who knowingly went up against a man with an automatic rifle in the town square of Tyler, Texas, armed with only a .45 caliber 1911. Mister Wilson opened fire on the body-armor clad shooter unsuccessfully and paid with his life, but his actions resulted in the shooter leaving the scene and shooting no more innocent people. His actions also allowed the pinned down police to deploy and eventually catch and kill the shooter some minutes later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Alan_Wilson
none, absolutely NONE of that was by chance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3q6d9J9H3Y&feature=share
There were reports that the theater had signs posted that disallowed guns inside, regardless of their legality outside (I don’t know the law there).
“Fish in a barrel” comes to mind.
The theater has a strict no firearms allowed policy.
I’d be surprised if the theater was not designated by the owners as a “no gun” zone.
If you were there with a gun, was it your duty to shoot the man?
OK, so I guy walks into the theater carrying a gas mask, a Remington 870, an AR-15 and a sidearm and wearing protective gear.
How is it possible that nobody noticed this?
If he was carrying the stuff in a bag, it had to be a BIG bag.
So why didn’t anybody ask, “Hey, pal, what’s in the bag?”
I can speculate that if even one person had a simple green laser pointer the shooter would have thought it was a gun with a laser.
Then again mine does have one.
I have refrained from posting any “what ifs” until now, but I felt it was worth it.
Conceal carry? Think about the latest LED/green laser lights.
It wouldn’t have taken a gun to stop him. Did nobody else in the theater have a backbone?
Ok so if an establishment has a “no firearms inside” policy and patrons are wounded or killed, can they be held liable by preventing concealed carry people from defending themselves and others?
It could easily have made the situation worse what with clouds of smoke and scrambling people in a dark theatre. There are a lot of ham’n’eggers with c&c who couldn’t hit the side of a barn with a grapefruit.
I love my Congressional Rep...
That reminds me, I need to donate to Louie’s champaign fund.
At the risk of diverting this thread and getting everyone mad at me, why oh why isn’t anyone going after the absent parents? Yeah, the dude was 24 but according to Obummer, he might have still been on his old man’s health insurance plan. The mom was even quoted as saying she knew he might have done it.
Where is her and the father’s responsibility to society to keep their known nut case of a kid from harming people???
~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
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 ...