Shooting - Page 3 - Jets Insider.com Forums

Warfish · 07-24-2012, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeanPatsFan

No one knows exactly what the circumstances were in the theater, unless they were there themselves. All I'm saying is, if someone well trained in firearms was in the theater carrying a high caliber handgun, the death toll may have been less...

So despite the fact that you feel "no one knows exactly what the circumstances were", you're still confident in projecting that one or multiple non-LEO armed theatre-goers with high-caliber weapons taking personal action to disacharge those weapons most likely would have been a net positive, and (for the reasons cited) not a potential net negative.

Agree to disagree Dean. I think your argument does the Gun Rights side more harm than good tbqh.

doggin94it · 07-24-2012, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeanPatsFan

No one knows exactly what the circumstances were in the theater, unless they were there themselves. All I'm saying is, if someone well trained in firearms was in the theater carrying a high caliber handgun, the death toll may have been less...

And if the actual Batman had been watching his own movie, he would have used batarangs to take down the attacker.

But yes, I'll grant you this much - if a highly trained and heavily armed marksman with combat experience had been there, the outcome might have been different

parafly · 07-24-2012, 12:03 PM

Although Dean is being far too idealistic in his assessment, I have to shockingly agree with him to a certain extent.

The police responded to this event in 90 seconds. Maybe a gun carrying citizen doesn't stop everything with a head shot, but he/she certainly could have engaged the shooter for long enough to make a significant impact on the number of people ultimately dead and injured. With police responding so quickly, all it takes is a distraction which lasts seconds, not minutes.

palmetto defender · 07-24-2012, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeanPatsFan

I've shot guns since I was 10 years old and can pick the hair off a fly's ass @ 50 yards so lol all you want... Doesn't affect my abilities what so ever....

In fairness, I don't think you mean what you said. I had an expert rating in the Army with a rifle and pistol and couldn't do that. I had a sniper assigned to me. He was good, but he couldn't do that. And under pressure, taking fire, the best aren't as good.

DeanPatsFan · 07-24-2012, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

In fairness, I don't think you mean what you said.

Of course not. Pick a hair off a fly's ass @ 50 yards? Impossible with a rifle and scope. Just making a point...

Jungle Shift Jet · 07-24-2012, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetworks

LOL, beat me to my own edit. All is lost. My argument is invalid

Only invalid if you assume that being LEO and/or ex-military makes you the ultimate expert on guns. DPF knows guns and there are certainly many hunters around these parts who'd prove you wrong. One of my BILs is an avid experienced hunter shooting anything from pheasant to bear and I am 100% certain he would have picked this nut off, despite the best efforts of crypto-liberals here to naysay it.

DeanPatsFan · 07-24-2012, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doggin94it

And if the actual Batman had been watching his own movie, he would have used batarangs to take down the attacker.

But yes, I'll grant you this much - if a highly trained and heavily armed marksman with combat experience had been there, the outcome might have been different

And if guns were banned, there is no way the attacker could have gotten his hands on one to kill all of these people..

Unless Oblunder and Holder handed him one.....

PlumberKhan · 07-24-2012, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

In fairness, I don't think you mean what you said. I had an expert rating in the Army with a rifle and pistol and couldn't do that. I had a sniper assigned to me. He was good, but he couldn't do that. And under pressure, taking fire, the best aren't as good.

In fairness, I don't think you know what Dean is actually capable of:

pew.

pew pew pew pew.

pew pew.

Big gun man. Big gun man.

DeanPatsFan · 07-24-2012, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

In fairness, I don't think you know what Dean is actually capable of:

pew.

pew pew pew pew.

pew pew.

Big gun man. Big gun man.

You got it PlumBob....

Warfish · 07-24-2012, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

In fairness, I don't think you know what Dean is actually capable of

Sure we know.

Just like Markey Mark, who could have stopped 9/11, if Dean had been in the Theatre, armed, this tragedy maybe would never have happened.

They're both simply that good at what they do.

DeanPatsFan · 07-24-2012, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

Only invalid if you assume that being LEO and/or ex-military makes you the ultimate expert on guns. DPF knows guns and there are certainly many hunters around these parts who'd prove you wrong. One of my BILs is an avid experienced hunter shooting anything from pheasant to bear and I am 100% certain he would have picked this nut off, despite the best efforts of crypto-liberals here to naysay it.

Most of these "experts" wouldn't know a 22 from a 12 gauge and would pee themselves at the thought of handling a gun, yet they know for sure that a person fully trained and and an expert shot could in no way take this mad man out with a high powered semi automatic pistol holding a 15 round clip...

DeanPatsFan · 07-24-2012, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warfish

Sure we know.

Just like Markey Mark, who could have stopped 9/11, if Dean had been in the Theatre, armed, this tragedy maybe would never have happened.

They're both simply that good at what they do.

Given the opportunity, I could have taken him out while you ran away screaming with the rest of the women....

Warfish · 07-24-2012, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeanPatsFan

Given the opportunity, I could have taken him out while you ran away screaming with the rest of the women....

doggin94it · 07-24-2012, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeanPatsFan

Given the opportunity, I could have taken him out while you ran away screaming with the rest of the women....

Nope, no bravado or braggadocio there, not at all

OK, Superman. Please don't strain yourself patting yourself on the back - after all, I'd hate to see your critical shooting arm out of action in case you find yourself in the middle of a situation.

"Help us, Dean Pats Fan. You are our only hope" . . .

DeanPatsFan · 07-24-2012, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warfish

More like

But you keep posting self pics....

DeanPatsFan · 07-24-2012, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doggin94it

OK, Superman. Please don't strain yourself patting yourself on the back - after all, I'd hate to see your critical shooting arm out of action in case you find yourself in the middle of a situation.

"Help us, Dean Pats Fan. You are our only hope" . . .

Don't worry Doggin, you stay behind the ladies skirts..

Real men will handle the situation....

PlumberKhan · 07-24-2012, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warfish

Sure we know.

Just like Markey Mark, who could have stopped 9/11, if Dean had been in the Theatre, armed, this tragedy maybe would never have happened.

They're both simply that good at what they do.

Is Dean powershot guy?

Sent from my Double-Wide using Semaphore...

Warfish · 07-24-2012, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeanPatsFan

More like

But you keep posting self pics....

You're a real American Hero Dean. Truly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

Is Dean powershot guy?

Sent from my Double-Wide using Semaphore...

Isn't it obvious?

gunnails · 07-24-2012, 01:40 PM

FWIW
Earlier I was questioning whether the Shooter indeed had body armor. And I came across this article, and this picture.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...shooter-2012-7

I can't tell what all the items are, but the article lists them as ballistic helmet, goggles, a gas mask, a ballistic vest, ballistic leggings, along with throat and groin protectors and black tactical gloves, and in the top left I can see the Blackhawk fishing vest. Another photo in the article shows a police shield.

So our shooter was well protected as far as body armor goes.

The only question now is the quality and effectiveness of the armor he chose, just looking at the photos it looks rather bulky and it certainly likely that the armor could have been reinforced with ballistic metal plates.
These metal plates not only help to keep bullets from penetrating the armor, but also to spread out the impact force of the bullet over the entire width of the plate.
Without the plates which never cover the armor completely, handgun rounds can still be effective in stopping a person wearing body armor.

This link is to a web site that is always testing bullet ballistics and such, in this link they are testing "shootpacks" (18"x18"), this is the material used for bullet proof vest. The informal results show that although the "shootpacks" will not allow a bullet to penetrate, that significant damage can still be achieved.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot16.htm

DeanPatsFan · 07-24-2012, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warfish

You're a real American Hero Dean. Truly.

Thanks, but don't worship me until I've earned it...

07-24-2012, 01:40 PM	#59
gunnails All League Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland Oregon Posts: 4,516	FWIW Earlier I was questioning whether the Shooter indeed had body armor. And I came across this article, and this picture. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...shooter-2012-7 I can't tell what all the items are, but the article lists them as ballistic helmet, goggles, a gas mask, a ballistic vest, ballistic leggings, along with throat and groin protectors and black tactical gloves, and in the top left I can see the Blackhawk fishing vest. Another photo in the article shows a police shield. So our shooter was well protected as far as body armor goes. The only question now is the quality and effectiveness of the armor he chose, just looking at the photos it looks rather bulky and it certainly likely that the armor could have been reinforced with ballistic metal plates. These metal plates not only help to keep bullets from penetrating the armor, but also to spread out the impact force of the bullet over the entire width of the plate. Without the plates which never cover the armor completely, handgun rounds can still be effective in stopping a person wearing body armor. This link is to a web site that is always testing bullet ballistics and such, in this link they are testing "shootpacks" (18"x18"), this is the material used for bullet proof vest. The informal results show that although the "shootpacks" will not allow a bullet to penetrate, that significant damage can still be achieved. http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot16.htm Last edited by gunnails; 07-24-2012 at 01:45 PM.

07-24-2012, 12:03 PM	#43
parafly so why side with anything? All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 6,280	Although Dean is being far too idealistic in his assessment, I have to shockingly agree with him to a certain extent. The police responded to this event in 90 seconds. Maybe a gun carrying citizen doesn't stop everything with a head shot, but he/she certainly could have engaged the shooter for long enough to make a significant impact on the number of people ultimately dead and injured. With police responding so quickly, all it takes is a distraction which lasts seconds, not minutes.