NRA Newtown response [W:818]

Re: NRA Newtown response

Eighty Deuce said:

Good grief. In Colorado Springs, as you note, the shooter was taken down by two shots from a female. He was down. No longer mobile. But you make it sound as though he chose when to stop the killing by taking his own life ! He was down for chrissakes !

You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Holmes could have easily been taken down as well. He had a few hundred targets in front of him, all random. Had one of them been armed, they only had one target. First shot into his "body armor" would have knocked Holmes on his ass. If he gets up, he is likely to run out the door, or get knocked down again, if not blown away. Body armor is limited in what it can do, and you truly haven't a clue yet about anything you are arguing.

Click to expand...

Holmes was on drugs prior to the shooting to avoid pain... and your comment reminds me of the woman you said we should teach our kids to throw themselves at mass shooters like Adam Lanza.

If every adult was armed with a gun, and all just took aim at Holmes... as if they would all stick their neck out regardless of where his armor was or their position to him that would have saved every life. People would still be killed in that situation. There were teenage kids at that movie.

I don't see how more guns is the answer. James Holmes shouldn't have been able to buy everything he did, his therapist should have done more, the products he bought to build bombs with should have set off some red flags somewhere. Adam Lanza should have been treated, and his doomsday prepper mother should not have showed him how to use a gun to begin with.

Re: NRA Newtown response

And in Colorado Springs, that shooter still killed innocent people... again, it wasn't easy for the volunteer guard to get a head shot on him. He was down... IDK. The proof is that his own bullet killed him. Lanza's own bullet killed him, and he killed himself when he heard the first responders coming.

Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:

I mean underestimate, and I explained why in my post. He obviously could have killed a lot more people, with his apartment being rigged. He was also wearing armor from head to toe, so good luck with the close range head shot argument.

Click to expand...

I don't see anyone 'underestimating'. Ultimately he did what he did and was not hindered by outside forces to limit his actions. As to his apartment, was this also due to assault weapons or handguns? As to the 'armor' from head to toe I'm sure you are aware that all these are rated to repell to a certain level. Do you have any source that would reaveal the level of protection this 'armor' would afford as I do not? I HAVE seen some speculation that it was a Blackhawk assault vest he wore (per invoice) which is merely a pocketed ammo vest and affords little bullet protection...

Re: NRA Newtown response

Dickieboy said:

I don't see anyone 'underestimating'. Ultimately he did what he did and was not hindered by outside forces to limit his actions. As to his apartment, was this also due to assault weapons or handguns? As to the 'armor' from head to toe I'm sure you are aware that all these are rated to repell to a certain level. Do you have any source that would reaveal the level of protection this 'armor' would afford as I do not? I HAVE seen some speculation that it was a Blackhawk assault vest he wore (per invoice) which is merely a pocketed ammo vest and affords little bullet protection...

Click to expand...

Experts on TV said he was prepared to get into a showdown with officers, and that he was capable of doing it with the amount of weapons he had. He of course did not do it, and they continued to speculate why... why didn't he kill himself, etc.

Why should I do your research for you? And why should I take your word that somebody could have easily killed him with a body shot?

Re: NRA Newtown response

TaraAnne said:

Niether both will be in a bad spot! Odds are both would be dead! The reason is and I am going by the newton shooting. This case to get a head shot off with one person has a 30 round clip to a ten round that a three to one advantage. Add in the body armor The odds are not in favor of the glock. Honestly, bith would be dead the only differance is one person had a gun and the other didnt. Plus add in confusion from a rapid fire weapon really I do not see a big advantage in having a gun or not. I am sure the keyboard commando's and DP snipers here will disagree but oh well

Click to expand...

yes.. both are in a bad spot.. gunfights are not very nice places to find yourself.

I don't know the odds ... but I think a reasonable person, and professional oddsmakers, would put the odds of facing a rifle with your bare hands and angry words at about.. 100% you will die... much less if you had a gun to defend yourself with.

I was in a handgun Vs battle rifle (real AK's) situation once upon a time....even have a lil citation and a shiny little bauble on my uniform to prove it.
you argue that the odds of me dying were the same no matter if I was armed or unarmed....and I am entertained by such an argument... the guys with AK's, not so much.

listen, I know you think what you say is true... but I would warn against projecting your own deficiencies on to other people.
you don't trust yourself to be able to handle such a situation.. you know you can't personally fight a guy with a rifle... you know you can't score a head shot or stop him in any way.... you know you will be confused and unable to function under fire... you know a firearm would be a useless fixture in your hand.
these are your truths, and that is fine.. .... but don't ever.. ever... believe other people share those deficiencies.

I'm no Navy SEAL, Delta operator, or Recon Marine... i'm just an old retired Jarhead infantry man with good knowledge of firearms... there are, quite literally, millions and millions of folks like me out there... millions and millions who are better.... we have a new generation of combat vets who can handle themselves just fine in any combat scenario ( makes no bones about it, anytime shots are fired in anger, it's combat)
and you know what, there are millions and millions more , who are civilians, who are just as capable of handling their **** as we are.

you keep right on believing that good guys with guns are powerless to stop bad guys with guns.. I won't try change your mind.. if history and reality can't change your mind, I surely don't stand a chance.

Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:

And in Colorado Springs, that shooter still killed innocent people... again, it wasn't easy for the volunteer guard to get a head shot on him. He was down... IDK. The proof is that his own bullet killed him. Lanza's own bullet killed him, and he killed himself when he heard the first responders coming.

Click to expand...

And had he not been plugged a couple times by the armed woman, I suspect he would have killed more. The proof is that it was return fire which rendered him inoperable as a threat. So he then took himself out, as his day was done. Which is the point you continuously ignore in all scenarios.

Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:

Experts on TV said he was prepared to get into a showdown with officers, and that he was capable of doing it with the amount of weapons he had. He of course did not do it, and they continued to speculate why... why didn't he kill himself, etc.

Why should I do your research for you? And why should I take your word that somebody could have easily killed him with a body shot?

Click to expand...

I eternally question these ‘experts on TV’, don’t you?

As to MY research, I provided it. Now if you want to substantiate your position with YOUR research it would help lead credence in your views…but if you don’t I understand. Many are not firm enough in their opinions to support them but resort to ‘no, it’s not’ retorts…and of course the antithesis of your comment is just as poignant; why should I take your word that somebody could NOT have easily killed him with a body shot if they went armed AND the theatre was not a gun free zone?

Re: NRA Newtown response

Eighty Deuce said:

And had he not been plugged a couple times by the armed woman, I suspect he would have killed more. The proof is that it was return fire which rendered him inoperable as a threat. So he then took himself out, as his day was done. Which is the point you continuously ignore in all scenarios.

Click to expand...

And he still killed innocent people, including children... So you're left with the argument that if it weren't for another gun, he could have killed more, therefore, more guns are the solution. We should be doing more to prevent mass shootings in the first place, not simply relying lets all shoot and kill a person for shooting and killing lots of other people. Innocent lives are still lost.

Re: NRA Newtown response

Dickieboy said:

I eternally question these ‘experts on TV’, don’t you?

As to MY research, I provided it. Now if you want to substantiate your position with YOUR research it would help lead credence in your views…but if you don’t I understand. Many are not firm enough in their opinions to support them but resort to ‘no, it’s not’ retorts…and of course the antithesis of your comment is just as poignant; why should I take your word that somebody could NOT have easily killed him with a body shot if they went armed AND the theatre was not a gun free zone?

Click to expand...

You're the one arguing that somebody could be killed with a bullet proof vest, are you not?

I am not doing your research for you. If you want to make the claim, then you should support it.

At least the experts on TV have credentials on the screen that I can see. I can't see your's or determine your level of knowledge.

Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:

As it has been mentioned before, there was shooting at a church. Jeanne Assam or something like like shot the shooter several times. He ended up killing several people before she encountered him, and it ended up his own bullet took his life.

Click to expand...

Consider these ‘non-scientific’ statistics:

With 15 incidents stopped by police with a total of 217 dead that’s an average of about 14.29. With 17 incidents stopped by civilians and 45 dead that’s an average of 2.33… Second, within the civilian category 11 of the 17 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians… If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6 but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.

Click to expand...

Which begs the question ‘wouldn’t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal?’

Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics - Daily Anarchist

Re: NRA Newtown response

Dickieboy said:

Consider these ‘non-scientific’ statistics:



Which begs the question ‘wouldn’t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal?’

Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics - Daily Anarchist

Click to expand...

Again, I am not against guns. I am not against owning guns for self protection, but that isn't the only reason people own them. They own them for sport and hunting as well.

But to think arming more people and standing behind the NRA's response to this issue, is just absurd IMO. If it's ludicrous to blame guns, it is far more ignorant to blame video games and TV for killing people. Guns are not going to stop mass shootings, and again, the NRA is only proposing something to help children stay safe... not society as a whole.

Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:

You're the one arguing that somebody could be killed with a bullet proof vest, are you not?

Click to expand...

Yes I am but moved our discussion specifically to Holmes as I was following your lead and thought you wanted to discuss it. It appears you also agree to their lack of protection:

SheWolf said:

Of course I know bullet proof vests are not that powerful…

Click to expand...

SheWolf said:

I am not doing your research for you. If you want to make the claim, then you should support it.

Click to expand...

But I provided links to support my suspicion that Holmes was NOT wearing a bullet proof vest (as you asserted). Now please provide YOUR research contrary to this…thx

At least the experts on TV have credentials on the screen that I can see. I can't see your's or determine your level of knowledge.

Click to expand...

It appears we have a conundrum as I can’t see yours either…

Re: NRA Newtown response

jakiejakester said:

Thank you for the Civics lesson but your logic confirmed what I wrote. You're saying that your 2nd Amendment rights allow you to own an AR 15, which for now is true. But your also saying that you can also own larger weapons if that's what's needed to defend yourself? What sport is there, exactly, please, in an AR 15 or other guns that are similar? Target shooting with semi automatic? It's like looking at the answers to a crossword puzzle as you're doing it....

Click to expand...

We don't have the Second Amendment isn't so we can shoot at deer or paper. It's so we can shoot at government if it ever becomes necessary to do so. The Revolutionary War got started when the British tried to seize locally owned cannon.

Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:

Again, I am not against guns. I am not against owning guns for self protection, but that isn't the only reason people own them. They own them for sport and hunting as well.

But to think arming more people and standing behind the NRA's response to this issue, is just absurd IMO. If it's ludicrous to blame guns, it is far more ignorant to blame video games and TV for killing people. Guns are not going to stop mass shootings, and again, the NRA is only proposing something to help children stay safe... not society as a whole.

Click to expand...

I'm no fan of the NRA... but in their defense, the "solutions" they provided were in response to a bunch of innocent kids getting gunned down in cold blood... it was a very specific event they were responding to.

Re: NRA Newtown response

Thrilla said:

I'm no fan of the NRA... but in their defense, the "solutions" they provided were in response to a bunch of innocent kids getting gunned down in cold blood... it was a very specific event they were responding to.

Click to expand...

And the NRA should get backlash for only caring about the children in Connecticut, and not the children in Columbine or the in Aurora, CO, etc. The survivors and victims of Holmes and all other mass shooters have every right to be offended by the NRA only stepping up to care for the lives of those certain children.

Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:

Again, I am not against guns. I am not against owning guns for self protection, but that isn't the only reason people own them. They own them for sport and hunting as well.

But to think arming more people and standing behind the NRA's response to this issue, is just absurd IMO. If it's ludicrous to blame guns, it is far more ignorant to blame video games and TV for killing people. Guns are not going to stop mass shootings, and again, the NRA is only proposing something to help children stay safe... not society as a whole.

Click to expand...

You have now moved far away from the original assertions that WE began discussing. These being the effectiveness of Holmes body armor and 'expecting' someone to 'counterattack' an assailant. I have not questioned your support of firearms as you have not taken a position until now.

As to more guns, video games and TV these are valid opinions of YOURS. I have no issue with more guns if those who engage in ‘more’ are willing, capable and responsible. I am certainly against putting a gun in the hand of every teacher. Given the environment and enough time I could reasonably predict one after having a stressful day to go ‘unhinged’ and become an assailant. As to ‘guns are not going to stop mass shootings’, stop…probably not but there is evidence that they can reduce the victim count. In the end no amount of gun control will eliminate the harm that can be inflicted by a hardened heart or creative mind. Consider the fall out if Lanza had entered the school with a 16oz Lipton tea bottle filled with gasoline and a match. Sure fewer kids may have been killed but those who weren’t could have been seriously burned and what would the outrage be then?

Re: NRA Newtown response

Dickieboy said:

You have now moved far away from the original assertions that WE began discussing. These being the effectiveness of Holmes body armor and 'expecting' someone to 'counterattack' an assailant. I have not questioned your support of firearms as you have not taken a position until now.

As to more guns, video games and TV these are valid opinions of YOURS. I have no issue with more guns if those who engage in ‘more’ are willing, capable and responsible. I am certainly against putting a gun in the hand of every teacher. Given the environment and enough time I could reasonably predict one after having a stressful day to go ‘unhinged’ and become an assailant. As to ‘guns are not going to stop mass shootings’, stop…probably not but there is evidence that they can reduce the victim count. In the end no amount of gun control will eliminate the harm that can be inflicted by a hardened heart or creative mind. Consider the fall out if Lanza had entered the school with a 16oz Lipton tea bottle filled with gasoline and a match. Sure fewer kids may have been killed but those who weren’t could have been seriously burned and what would the outrage be then?

Click to expand...

My argument reqarding Holmes or anybody else wearing armor is significant armor creates an obstacle to any security guard. My argument is simple and seems like common sense to me. Example, Jeanne Assam shot somebody, not wearing armor and her bullets didn't kill him. They were both ducking and hiding, and taking careful aim at each other. It's not a quick shot, close range, simple, whatever.... given the any kind of gun somebody can walk in with combined with armor, it seems like a difficult task to get a kill shot before the mass shooter kills a significant amount of people.

Jeanne Assam shoot the assailant more than once, and he killed himself. Armor is going to make getting a lethal shot in even harder.

That is my point.


As far as getting you everything Holmes was wearing, it isn't likely to be corroborated by every single source. To get all the facts, it will probably require the evidence being entered in the public trial.

Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:

...Jeanne Assam shoot the assailant more than once, and he killed himself. Armor is going to make getting a lethal shot in even harder.

That is my point.

Click to expand...

Check that point:

She was deemed a hero when on Dec. 9, 2007, she fired multiple shots and killed spree killer Matthew J. Murray. Murray killed four people and wounded five before Jeanne Assam, a volunteer security guard at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, shot and killed him. While some reports suggest Assam fired a shot that wounded him, prompting Murray to commit suicide, she vehemently contends that she delivered the fatal blow. Regardless, Jeanne Assam is credited with saving hundreds of lives that day

Click to expand...

New Life hero Jeanne Assam talks Connecticut school shooting, gun control - National US Headlines | Examiner.com

Maybe these 'TV experts' disagree with Assam but I think the story of a person ON THE SCENE DOING THE SHOOTING is a bit more compelling...wouldn't you agree?

Re: NRA Newtown response

Dickieboy said:

Check that point:


New Life hero Jeanne Assam talks Connecticut school shooting, gun control - National US Headlines | Examiner.com

Maybe these 'TV experts' disagree with Assam but I think the story of a person ON THE SCENE DOING THE SHOOTING is a bit more compelling...wouldn't you agree?

Click to expand...

The autopsy determined his own bullet took his life. Of course he didn't shoot himself in the head after he was dead, did he?

And now, you're the one picking small things to argue on and moving the goal post. I argued why body armor and vests make a kill shot more difficult in a mass shooting, and that has been my point throughout.

Re: NRA Newtown response

BigRedChief said:

There was armed guards at Combine and at Va. tech. Sounds to me like you are just regurgitating NRA talking points.

Click to expand...

VA tech is huge, it took the response team EIGHT MINUTES to come on scene. EIGHT MINUTES. which is why I favor students of LEGAL age and who have passed training requirements to be able to carry

Re: NRA Newtown response

The man who killed four people at a church and missionary training center died of a self-inflicted shotgun wound, police said Tuesday.


Matthew Murray, 24, was struck multiple times by a security officer at New Life Church Sunday but died after firing a single shot at himself, the El Paso County Coroner's Office concluded after an autopsy.

Police: Colorado church gunman's autopsy shows he died of self-inflicted | abc13.com

Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:

The autopsy determined his own bullet took his life. Of course he didn't shoot himself in the head after he was dead, did he?

And now, you're the one picking small things to argue on and moving the goal post. I argued why body armor and vests make a kill shot more difficult in a mass shooting, and that has been my point throughout.

Click to expand...

true that is why I teach my students to put two in the body, one in the head and if they miss the head shoot for the groin. you hit dead center and the guy goes down even with armor (ever see a baseball catcher get hit by a foul tip in the cup) and if you shoot low you break either leg.

however, I spend 95% of my time practicing shots to the throat and head for the reason you state. another reason to have standard capacity magazines in your gun-15-17 at least.

Re: NRA Newtown response

TurtleDude said:

true that is why I teach my students to put two in the body, one in the head and if they miss the head shoot for the groin. you hit dead center and the guy goes down even with armor (ever see a baseball catcher get hit by a foul tip in the cup) and if you shoot low you break either leg.

however, I spend 95% of my time practicing shots to the throat and head for the reason you state. another reason to have standard capacity magazines in your gun-15-17 at least.

Click to expand...

There is also ballistic armor for the groin, head, and neck to my knowledge...

Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:

There is also ballistic armor for the groin, head, and neck to my knowledge...

Click to expand...

yeah there is but the mobility of someone in all that stuff is pretty limited. and a 45 to the groin and face is going to really hurt-probably enough for me to close with the guy and put the gun in his mouth and blow his brains out or put a bullet in each arm or hand and then do whatever i feel like

Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:

And now, you're the one picking small things to argue on and moving the goal post. I argued why body armor and vests make a kill shot more difficult in a mass shooting, and that has been my point throughout.

Click to expand...

You were the one who inserted Assam into the discussion. I only made a curtsy search as I was unaware of the incident...thank you for providing me the correction... I have argued that based on photos, the Tactical Gear invoice AND the Blackhawk product description Holmes was NOT wearing body armor as you asserted and was reported. One cannot argue that 'body armor and vests make a kill shot more difficult in a mass shooting' when the shooter is NOT WEARING IT!