Massive shooting in Colorado during The Dark Knight, 14 dead

[trickykid]

We can play the what-if game all day long.

The truth is, people died and no one could stop it because they weren't sufficiently equipped to resist.

So the next massacre, the same thing will happen, because again, people will not be equipped to defend themselves.

Each time, some mook will call for tighter gun controls, when it seems to me, the gun controls are working perfectly because each time the victims are disarmed.

And that is what you wish to believe. I believe that an armed public would have raised the bodycount. We each are entitled to believe what we want. I'm not calling for tighter gun controls. Like I said in a previous post, I don't live in the USA so your laws are your laws.

 

[guerilla]

And that is what you wish to believe.

It's not what I believe. The victims were disarmed by law, right?

I believe that an armed public would have raised the bodycount.

And in no circumstance lower it?

We each are entitled to believe what we want.

We're entitled to our beliefs, not our own facts.

Like I said in a previous post, I don't live in the USA so your laws are your laws.

I am a Canadian.

 

[WhatupG]

We can play the what-if game all day long.

The truth is, people died and no one could stop it because they weren't sufficiently equipped to resist.

So the next massacre, the same thing will happen, because again, people will not be equipped to defend themselves.

Each time, some mook will call for tighter gun controls, when it seems to me, the gun controls are working perfectly because each time the victims are disarmed.

Equipped to defend themselves? So people should put on full swat team riot gear with gas masks and assault rifles when they go to see a movie?


This punk was decked out. It would have taken some real firepower and skill to take him out. Meanwhile the gas and flurry of fire was surely overwhelming. Having movie goers properly equipped to defend themselves against this is a little extreme in my opinion.

If I had to have all that gear and combat skill just to go see a movie, I surely wouldn't bother.

 

[guerilla]

Equipped to defend themselves? So people should put on full swat team riot gear with gas masks and assault rifles when they go to see a movie?

Why would they need to dress like their assailant?

All you need to do is shoot him in the leg.

 

[JakeStratham]

In states like New York where there are strict gun controls, gun crime is up, while in states with liberal carry and conceal laws, gun crime is down.

It'd be a shame not to mention Chicago here. The headline of this article says a mouthful...

"Chicago Gun Ban Axed After Violent Weekend: At Least 29 Shot, 3 Dead In Weekend Shootings"

Gun bans strip firearms from law-abiding people, not the thugs.

 

[WhatupG]

Why would they need to dress like their assailant?

All you need to do is shoot him in the leg.

How else are they going to avoid the gas, and not get killed from the rapid fire?

My understanding is that his body was covered head to toe with protection. He had a gas mask, the others didn't and were surely struggling just to deal with the gas.

Do you seriously think that if you were there with just your gun that your going to win in a battle with this guy?

 

[guerilla]

Do you seriously think that if you were there with just your gun that your going to win in a battle with this guy?

If I shoot him in the leg or foot, he is going down.

 

[WhatupG]

If I shoot him in the leg or foot, he is going down.

If your gun will pierce the leg/foot protection why wouldn't you just shoot him in the chest?


Pretty impressive if you can actually avoid the firepower coming from the assault rifle, be immune to the gas, and somehow shoot through body armor with your gun.

 

[Fatbat]

The arm chair quarterbacking and trolling in this thread just needs to stop. If you weren't there, then there's no point in debating about whether or not armed audience members could have stopped the situation. You'll never know either way so it's a waste of time and energy.

 

[guerilla]

If your gun will pierce the leg/foot protection why wouldn't you just shoot him in the chest?

He was wearing protection on his chest. He wasn't wearing a medieval suit of armor.

Pretty impressive if you can actually avoid the firepower coming from the assault rifle, be immune to the gas, and somehow shoot through body armor with your gun.

A gun can only point in one direction at a time.

 

[WhatupG]

He was wearing protection on his whole body including his legs.

Like I say:
It's damm impressive if you can avoid the firepower coming from the assault rifle (with no protection), be immune to the gas ( with no gas mask), and somehow shoot through body armor with your gun. You're clearly much more skilled and have much heavier firepower than your average theater goer.

 

[trickykid]

If your gun will pierce the leg/foot protection why wouldn't you just shoot him in the chest?


Pretty impressive if you can actually avoid the firepower coming from the assault rifle, be immune to the gas, and somehow shoot through body armor with your gun.

He's got Godmode on.

 

[trickykid]

It's not what I believe. The victims were disarmed by law, right?


And in no circumstance lower it?


We're entitled to our beliefs, not our own facts.


I am a Canadian.

*yawn* enlighten me with some facts.

 

[trickykid]

Why would they need to dress like their assailant?

All you need to do is shoot him in the leg.

WTF? Is this skyrim? You gonna put an arrow in his leg?

 

[guerilla]

He was wearing protection on his whole body including his legs.

Have you seen what he was wearing? Can you tell me what shoes he was wearing? Can you tell me if he wore full leg armor, or whether he had front facing padding?

 

[guerilla]

*yawn* enlighten me with some facts.

The victims were disarmed. That is a fact.

If we take your rationale to it's conclusion, then the cops shouldn't have intervened with weapons either, because they would have been up against the same challenges a civilian would have faced.

WTF? Is this skyrim? You gonna put an arrow in his leg?

Have you ever shot a gun?

 

[trickykid]

The victims were disarmed. That is a fact.

If we take your rationale to it's conclusion, then the cops shouldn't have intervened with weapons either, because they would have been up against the same challenges a civilian would have faced.


Have you ever shot a gun?

Fact: The USA gun violence record is the worst in the world.

Your turn.

Oh, and no, I have never fired a gun.

 

[tygoldberg]

fuckin merikans and their john wayne posters..i swear.


ahah

an merikan that grew up with a white picket fence, two labs and a salt water fish tank kills armed assailant in a crowded, dark, tear gassed theater hitting him center mass with his concealed .357.


got dammit. merikan is bad ass.

dem colors don't run.

 

[Dresden14]

For one, because this is neither a military operation in which combatants might be identified by Uniforms, weapons, etc.. Nor is it a FPS, where the GUI does the identification for you.

In a dark theater, smoke grenades going up, people screaming and running every which way, militant gunmen wearing civilian clothes drawing pistols would just add to the death toll.

when the forces the militia or armed civilians are defending against are easily identifiable, a gun in trained hands MIGHT better the situation. when this is not the case, such as in a terrorist attack or a rampage with an unidentified number of killers, guns will just make things worse.

::emp::

Sounds like liberal gun control talk... The fact of the matter is CCW's should be allowed or that "ccw" thing should be nonexistant like in Arizona. People should have the right to protect themselves and carry, period. Remember, gun control will only stop innocent people - but the bad guys will always be able to obtain guns unless they somehow stop the manufacturing process.

 

[SirFappy]

We're just going around in circles here. If we should be debating the situation, we should be looking at survival chances, not whether a person would or wouldn't, with certainty, have been able to stop him. In my eyes the question is: would the audience carrying side arms lower the chances of the extent of the body count.

I'd take a 1% increase in probability his goal being affected than 0%. It makes me laugh when proponents of gun-bans say "there's no point in carrying guns to defend yourself because most of the time you wouldn't have a chance to use it". Like I said, it's better that people have a slighlty better chance at being able to do something rather than an absolute zero chance.

I agree with the guy who said we should stop playing the "what if game". None of us were there so constructing strawmen aint helping one bit.