• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver [W:120]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wait! Was the theater a gun-free zone??

I think it's also a no smoking zone. So if someone was smoking, that means we should just have it be smoking since that's what happens anyway.
 
A shot to the groin, hip or face or throat would work--I have a vest in my home-and none of those areas are protected by it


you don't know much about this subject do you?

He had on a ballistic helmet, ballistic throat protection, ballistic groin protection. This guy was the $6 million man. Well....then there's inflation.
 
I'm suggesting that firing on a man armed to the hilt with anti-handgun body armor will not stop him, and that firing on him in (1) a darkened theater that (2) has been filled with smoke and (3) tear gas will certainly jeporadize the lives of many more patrons than this man could ever have taken on his own.

There were military men present in the theater. They weren't able to do a thing.

There's no such thing as, "bullet proof", body armor. Body armor is only bullet resistant, meaning that your chances of receiving a life threatening wound are greatly decreased. It still hurts like hell when you get hit. 4, or 5 rounds in the chest, from close range can subdue someone to the point where they can be disarmed.
 
It's a weird place to go on a killing spree... I wonder why he picked a cinema and Batman of all movies

What new release would have had as many people?
 
You're assuming that someone would be carrying a sufficiently powerful gun loaded with armor-piercing ammo capable of breaching this guy's full-body suit? What are the chances of that?

A (or several) .45 or 9mm bullets impacting a person, even in body armor, would have hurt like hell and I guarantee, slowed him down at a minimum.
 
It's a weird place to go on a killing spree... I wonder why he picked a cinema and Batman of all movies
From I understand the shooter was doing a sick reenactment of a scene from the second movie, I've never seen any of the series but part of the news coverage stated that was the motive.
 
A shot to the groin, hip or face or throat would work--I have a vest in my home-and none of those areas are protected by it


you don't know much about this subject do you?

No, I don't know much about it -- hence the question mark. But I do know that he was wearing a helmet and a throat protector.

What would you say the chances are of an above-average marksman using a concealable weapon hitting the guy in the groin or face from significant distance in a dark theater filled with smoke ... or tear gas? ... while everyone around them is scrambling for cover and screaming bloody murder ... while taking fire from an AR-15?
 
Last edited:
It's a weird place to go on a killing spree... I wonder why he picked a cinema and Batman of all movies

He claimed he was the Joker after capture. I think it's the movie's fault.
 
A shot to the groin, hip or face or throat would work--I have a vest in my home-and none of those areas are protected by it


you don't know much about this subject do you?

Tell me turtle. Why do they teach to shoot for center mass?

Adam's comment is an exaggeration of how difficult it'd be. Your implication exaggerates how simple it would be
 
A shot to the groin, hip or face or throat would work--I have a vest in my home-and none of those areas are protected by it


you don't know much about this subject do you?

he did have groin and throat armor also at least.
 
You're assuming that someone would be carrying a sufficiently powerful gun loaded with armor-piercing ammo capable of breaching this guy's full-body suit? What are the chances of that?

You can shoot someone who is wearing body armor with a .22 and it's going to hurt like hell.

My wife carries five shot .41 magnum in her purse. Two, or three hits with that and this clown would have been slobbering on the floor begging someone to arrest him, before he got his stupid ass shot again.
 
A shot to the groin, hip or face or throat would work--I have a vest in my home-and none of those areas are protected by it

you don't know much about this subject do you?

Agreed. I suspect some of our experts here never even fired a gun. Flak-jackets etc are not designed to keep one uninjured in a close-range firefight. Nothing will do that effectively. Shoulders down. Waste down. Face. From less than 10'.

As for those pretending to know, and to claim that the shooter "saw all", he had restricted vision like everyone else. There were plenty of folks in the theater who remained uninjured as the shooter went past. Yet for tehm, who know virtually nothing of close combat, to claim that it would not hve mattered, or would only have created more casualties, is stupid beyond belief.
 
From I understand the shooter was doing a sick reenactment of a scene from the second movie, I've never seen any of the series but part of the news coverage stated that was the motive.

I heard the same thing. Also heard (radio news) that he'd asked everybody to call him The Joker starting a week or so ago. If I understand it correctly, The Joker's "plan" was to get caught. Which is exactly what he let happen to himself. No resistance when the coppers showed up.

He also had an audio system in his apartment set to start playing super loud music and banging noises at about the same time he was shooting up the theater. They postulate that he expected someone in the apartment building to call the police, and that the police would break down the door...setting off his elaborate booby-traps killing them. (Someone did call the cops, btw.)

This guy was sane enough to come up with a very exacting plan...
 
You can shoot someone who is wearing body armor with a .22 and it's going to hurt like hell.

My wife carries five shot .41 magnum in her purse. Two, or three hits with that and this clown would have been slobbering on the floor begging someone to arrest him, before he got his stupid ass shot again.

I suppose it's possible that some serious bruising would have slowed him down. Or made him even crazier.
 
Tell me turtle. Why do they teach to shoot for center mass?

Adam's comment is an exaggeration of how difficult it'd be. Your implication exaggerates how simple it would be

How did I exaggerate?

As I understand it, it's damned hard to hit someone at any distance with a handgun in an actual shoot-out situation, even without all of the craziness going on here. It's not uncommon for guys to empty their guns at each other without hitting a damned thing.
 
Last edited:
He had on a ballistic helmet, ballistic throat protection, ballistic groin protection. This guy was the $6 million man. Well....then there's inflation.
Not all vests are equal, but most torso vests have weak spots around the kidney area, unless this guy was in ballistic class IV or above he wasn't indestructible.
 
Which has nothing to do with what I said.

How do we know they weren't carrying concealed? I haven't seen anything credible where anyone said "Golly, I had a bead on the guy but I just didn't have a weapon." The dude was wearing body armor. That makes making the shot far more difficult.

The idea that concealed carry would have saved lives in this situation is based on wishful thinking rather than evidence. Ft Hood was at place where access to firearms shouldn't be much of a problem, but there were similar numbers of casualties there. Even when shots were exchanged in that situation, by trained military, the problem wasn't solved right away.
 
No, I don't know much about it -- hence the question mark. But I do know that he was wearing a helmet and a throat protector.

What would you say the chances are of an above-average marksman using a concealable weapon hitting the guy in the groin or face from significant distance in a dark theater filled with smoke ... or tear gas? ... while everyone around them is scrambling for cover and screaming bloody murder ... while taking fire from an AR-15?

The bad guy's accuracy will be greatly comprimised once he figures out that he's taking fire.

The objective is to stop him, not neccessarily to kill him. If simply returning fire will cause him to stop firing, then your mission has been accomplished.
 
Tell me turtle. Why do they teach to shoot for center mass?

Adam's comment is an exaggeration of how difficult it'd be. Your implication exaggerates how simple it would be

The movie was running, meaning there was illumination. The shooter did not have night vision. I believe that the flak-jacket would have been quite apparent, along with the helmet. There is still a lot of exposed flesh.

One shot in a leg or arm, and he is slowed down. Cops were outside for crowd control. Might hav cut total casualties by half. The assertion was that someone with a handgun shooting back would have only increased the casualties. That is laughable
 
Tell me turtle. Why do they teach to shoot for center mass?
Largest zone, easiest target, most vital organs. For a leg, arm shot you must rely on either an artery hit or massive damage leading to a bleedout, same with an arm shot(though better chance of rendering the limb useless for further attacks.) Head shots are very difficult for even trained shooters, however a direct center mass double or triple tap ups the odds.
 
Last edited:
ABC is in **** up to their ears as of now, and rightfully so. There's simply no valid reason as to why political leans should even be brought up in a case such as this, especially when details are scarce.
 
How do we know they weren't carrying concealed? I haven't seen anything credible where anyone said "Golly, I had a bead on the guy but I just didn't have a weapon." The dude was wearing body armor. That makes making the shot far more difficult.

The idea that concealed carry would have saved lives in this situation is based on wishful thinking rather than evidence. Ft Hood was at place where access to firearms shouldn't be much of a problem, but there were similar numbers of casualties there. Even when shots were exchanged in that situation, by trained military, the problem wasn't solved right away.

I really do disagree with you here. This guy got off at least 71 deliberate shots. His weapon apparently wasn't firing on automatic. My common sense tells me that people who conceal carry are probably better than average shots and carry a weapon because they subliminally or overtly plan to use it if they have to.

As another poster mentioned, if this guy had quickly found he was taking gun fire, he wouldn't have been casually walking up and down the aisles firing at people. Even with body armor, I "think" a couple rounds to the chest is going to take ya' down. (I don't know that for sure, though.)
 
I heard the same thing. Also heard (radio news) that he'd asked everybody to call him The Joker starting a week or so ago. If I understand it correctly, The Joker's "plan" was to get caught. Which is exactly what he let happen to himself. No resistance when the coppers showed up.

He also had an audio system in his apartment set to start playing super loud music and banging noises at about the same time he was shooting up the theater. They postulate that he expected someone in the apartment building to call the police, and that the police would break down the door...setting off his elaborate booby-traps killing them. (Someone did call the cops, btw.)

This guy was sane enough to come up with a very exacting plan...

I sometimes find the legal definition of insanity frustrating. Anybody who could do this is is obviously bat-guana crazy...but is/was he "insane"?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom