• 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.
I suppose it's possible that some serious bruising would have slowed him down. Or made him even crazier.

It's a hell of a lot more than, "serious brusing". It hurts like a mo-fo. After a few hits, it may slow him down enough for him to be subdued, or he may retreat, or surrender.
 
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.

That is terrible logic. I suggest that had the return fire at Ft Hood taken another 3 minutes, there are twice as many casualties. No one has claimed that the Batman shooter would have not caused damage. Just not as much.
 
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.
The thing is Tuck, and what is more concerning than anything is that the criminal had the advantage, the innocents had the intention of watching the movie and he had the intention of harming the innocents but only the killer knew what he was going to do. While it is certainly true that he had the tactical advantage he could have been slowed or stopped by armed civilian, no guarantees on that of course.
 
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.)

Check out image "C" on this site.



The Scope of Wounds Encountered in Casualties From the Global War on Terrorism: From the Battlefield to the Tertiary Treatment Facility
 
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.

Not from 10-15 feet. Not to slow him down. Maybe put him on the floor. His vision and awareness are compromised by the smoke and the mask. You could pop 4-5 rounds close range before he even knew where they came from.
 
It's a hell of a lot more than, "serious brusing". It hurts like a mo-fo. After a few hits, it may slow him down enough for him to be subdued, or he may retreat, or surrender.

Serious bruising hurts. Of course how serious would depend on the type of armor, caliber of the weapon, and the type of load.

Honestly, though, I think that most of the cowboys suggesting this resistance would think twice about taking potshots at a guy in head-to-toe body armor popping off rounds with an AR-15.
 
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 have a feeling he will go for the insanity defense, and based on his actions might get it, I hope it's not accepted as I am frankly sickened by this indiscriminate disregard for human life.
 
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.

It wouldn't make the shot more difficult. It would mean that you probably wouldn't kill him, however you could still make him stop shooting.

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.

Except for MP's and a few other exceptions, it's against regulations for a soldier to carry a loaded weapon, on post. The scenario at Fort Hood purdy much guaranteed that everyone was unarmed.
 
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.

My common sense tells me that most people with CC permits have never really been under fire before.

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.)

With these types of killers, they don't really care. Again, I'll cite Ft Hood. He was able to take out one of the people firing back at him.
 
Serious bruising hurts. Of course how serious would depend on the type of armor, caliber of the weapon, and the type of load.

Honestly, though, I think that most of the cowboys suggesting this resistance would think twice about taking potshots at a guy in head-to-toe body armor popping off rounds with an AR-15.

The other side of that coin is, the bad guy might rethink his intentions when he's taking pot shots from a .45. That door swings both ways. Shot to the rib cage, even while wearing body armor can break ribs. Two, or three shattered ribs will put the toughest sum-bitch on his knees.
 
It wouldn't make the shot more difficult. It would mean that you probably wouldn't kill him, however you could still make him stop shooting.

that's not guaranteed.



Except for MP's and a few other exceptions, it's against regulations for a soldier to carry a loaded weapon, on post. The scenario at Fort Hood purdy much guaranteed that everyone was unarmed.

Yet there was gunfire exchanged. And he hit the first person who returned fire. Twice. They didn't hit him.
 
Not from 10-15 feet. Not to slow him down. Maybe put him on the floor. His vision and awareness are compromised by the smoke and the mask. You could pop 4-5 rounds close range before he even knew where they came from.
I agree. A lot of people think the hollywood version of getting hit, issuing a curse word, and continuing on is the norm with those vests, not true. At over 20 yards sure it hurts like hell but at close quarters even a small handgun is hundreds of pounds of force transferred through the body, it's hard to stay on one's feet.
 
My common sense tells me that most people with CC permits have never really been under fire before.



With these types of killers, they don't really care. Again, I'll cite Ft Hood. He was able to take out one of the people firing back at him.

One of the other people firing at him stopped him, too.
 
The other side of that coin is, the bad guy might rethink his intentions when he's taking pot shots from a .45. That door swings both ways. Shot to the rib cage, even while wearing body armor can break ribs. Two, or three shattered ribs will put the toughest sum-bitch on his knees.

Doesn't hurt as much as an AR-15 round to the forehead.
 
My common sense tells me that most people with CC permits have never really been under fire before.

I guess we could argue till Bossy comes home. ;) But given a choice? Good Guys with guns against a nutcase like this versus Good Guys with popcorn -- I'll take the ones with guns.
 
Just a thought here, guys, while we're debating what kind of physical force the audience could have used to defend themselves: Wasn't the real problem with the shooter between his ears? What kind of a sick mofo DOES stuff like this anyway?
 
My common sense tells me that most people with CC permits have never really been under fire before.



With these types of killers, they don't really care. Again, I'll cite Ft Hood. He was able to take out one of the people firing back at him.
Point 1: I've never been under fire before, but if god forbid that should ever happen there are two options, panic and get shot or find sufficient cover, fire back, and try to improve my odds.
Point two: Most people looking to do harm don't declare their intentions, there is no way to stop them ahead of time. All you can do is give your best effort to stop them when they attack.
 
One patron said, he had his cellphone in hand as he went out the door... and he thought it odd because people tend to go out to the lobby to take calls.

The cell phone may have been a dodge.
 
that's not guaranteed.

Never said it was. However, doing nothing guarantees that his aim and his intention won't be comprimised. I'll choose returning fire over cowering on the floor waiting for my turn to die. That's just me.





Yet there was gunfire exchanged. And he hit the first person who returned fire. Twice. They didn't hit him.

Hasan was hit...five times.

Sergeant Mark Todd arrived and shouted commands at Hasan to surrender.[24] Todd said: "Then he turned and fired a couple of rounds at me. I didn't hear him say a word, he just turned and fired."[30] The two exchanged shots, and Hasan was felled by five shots from Todd,[3][31] who then kicked his pistol out of his hand and placed him in handcuffs as he fell unconscious.[32]



Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Just a thought here, guys, while we're debating what kind of physical force the audience could have used to defend themselves: Wasn't the real problem with the shooter between his ears? What kind of a sick mofo DOES stuff like this anyway?
Yep. That really is the most important question which will not have a quick answer.
 
Doesn't hurt as much as an AR-15 round to the forehead.

If the bad guy gets hit a few times, he might not get that shot off.

You can argue against action all you want, but history has proven that doing something beats the hell out of doing nothing.
 
Reading stories like this makes me questioin humanity sometimes.

Stories like this tell a great truth about all of the stress we're under these days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom