Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 100

Thread: Shooting

  1. #21
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg View Post
    No way to stop a random nut job.....Him knowing that no one else has a gun makes a major difference. He is not concerned with being fired upon by the patrons
    He knew! HE KNEW!!! Kid that smart, I'm sure HE KNEW there was no chance, NO CHANCE that there was the possibility of someone in that audience who was, I don't know, maybe, an off-duty LEO. Amirite?

    If he's a nutjob he isn't concerned about being fired on, armed patrons or otherwise. Period. The kid is a nihilist and/or narcissist.

  2. #22
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    oh ohs....
    LOL, beat me to my own edit. All is lost. My argument is invalid

  3. #23
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    5,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetworks View Post
    He knew! HE KNEW!!! Kid that smart, I'm sure HE KNEW there was no chance, NO CHANCE that there was the possibility of someone in that audience who was, I don't know, maybe, an off-duty LEO. Amirite?

    If he's a nutjob he isn't concerned about being fired on, armed patrons or otherwise. Period. The kid is a nihilist and/or narcissist.
    ================================================== ====

    I am in the camp of those who believe that if there were some armed individuals in the audience, and if one or more would of chose to return fire, that the death and wounded toll would as likely as not been less.


    That's my opinion and I have no way of knowing if it is correct or not.
    So I am not trying to argue here.

    The killer allegedly wore body armor (I question if this is true or not) but assuming he was wearing body armor, wouldn't that prove that he was in fear/concerned about being fired on?

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetworks View Post
    I'll give this one more try and then gracefully bow out.
    I'll give this one more try too. I'd rather be armed with a semi automatic pistol holding 16 rounds, than be completely helpless and at the mercy of a fully armed mad man.

    At least I'd have a chance vs the unarmed who had NO chance...

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg View Post
    No way to stop a random nut job.....Him knowing that no one else has a gun makes a major difference. He is not concerned with being fired upon by the patrons

    Exactly.

    The man with a gun rules the scene.... Until another gun arrives on the scene..

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetworks View Post
    He knew! HE KNEW!!! Kid that smart, I'm sure HE KNEW there was no chance, NO CHANCE that there was the possibility of someone in that audience who was, I don't know, maybe, an off-duty LEO. Amirite?

    If he's a nutjob he isn't concerned about being fired on, armed patrons or otherwise. Period. The kid is a nihilist and/or narcissist.
    Not only that, but he was so sure that nobody would shoot back that he wore body armor. You know, to protect himself from the thrown popcorn he assumed would be the chief retaliation against him.

  7. #27
    BTW, he wasn't just wearing body armor, apparently he had head protection as well:

    James Holmes, the alleged perpetrator of Friday’s movie-theater massacre in Aurora, Col., was well-armed. He had an assault rifle with a 100-round magazine. He had a 12-gauge shotgun and two semiautomatic pistols. He had gas canisters to confuse the moviegoers, and an apartment full of explosives to kill police.




    But that wasn’t the scariest thing about him. Mass murderers are generally well-armed. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the kids who gunned down 12 high-school students and a teacher in Columbine, Col., in 1999, had two shotguns, a semiautomatic pistol, a carbine rifle, and a bag full of bombs. Seung-Hui Cho, the guy who murdered 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007, had two semiautomatic handguns, 19 magazines, and nearly 400 rounds. Nidal Hasan, the 2009 Fort Hood shooter, used a semiautomatic pistol with a high-capacity magazine to kill 13 victims and wound 43 more. Jared Loughner, the loser who snuffed six people and shot 19 others last year in Tucson, Ariz., didn’t stop firing till the 33-round clip in his Glock ran out.




    What distinguished Holmes wasn’t his offense. It was his defense. At Columbine, Harris and Klebold did their damage in T-shirts and cargo pants. Cho and Loughner wore sweatshirts. Hasan was gunned down in his Army uniform.


    Holmes’ outfit blew these jokers away. He wore a ballistic helmet, a ballistic vest, ballistic leggings, a throat protector, a groin protector, and tactical gloves. He was so well equipped that if anyone in that theater had tried what the National Rifle Association recommends—drawing a firearm to stop the carnage—that person would have been dead meat. Holmes didn’t just kill a dozen people. He killed the NRA’s answer to gun violence.


    Last year, after the tragedy in Tucson, the NRA’s CEO, Wayne LaPierre, accused gun-control advocates of hyping

    sensational events that capture national attention and drive their agenda, like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, and Tucson. … What the media won’t admit is that in each of those tragedies, the mass killers all had the same decisive advantage: Government Gun Free Zones and anti-self-defense laws that protected the safety of no one except the killers and condemned the victims to death without so much as a prayer. That’s right: Our own policies gave more protection to the killers than to the innocent. Government Gun Free Zones have become the hunting ground of evil, deranged monsters.
    Instead of gun control, LaPierre proposed the opposite:
    The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. And just knowing there’s a good guy with a gun around—a cop, a guard, a soldier, and yes, a law abiding citizen with a gun—makes us feel safer because we are safer. That’s why we need more freedom and a lot less government. That’s why our Second Amendment rights should be expanded, not diminished. And that’s why, right here in this hall today, I call on Congress and every state legislature to empower the American people to ensure their own security by enacting legislation to grant all law-abiding Americans the right to carry a firearm for personal protection.
    Some 40 states, including Colorado, have taken that advice. They authorize the issuance of concealed-weapons permits to anyone unencumbered by a felony conviction, a protective court order, or a disqualifying mental illness. They think arming good guys will deter or defeat bad guys.


    But really bad guys—guys capable of planning a serious rampage—aren’t stupid. If you want to take your time murdering a theater full of people, the prospect of some would-be hero drawing a weapon is no problem. Just go to the U.S. Justice Department’s body armor standards page, where you’ll find a list of 69 companies that sell government-certified bullet-stopping gear. The list includes phone numbers, addresses, and URLs.


    If those places won’t sell you what you need, try eBay. A search for “bulletproof vest” turns up more than 1,500 items. The high-end vests cost $800, but you can find cheaper government-certified versions—some of them recycled from police use—for less than $100. A search for “ballistic helmet” identifies 140 options, ranging from $1,800 to $50. Holmes chose TacticalGear.com, where you can get armored plates for $220, armor- and plate-carrying vests for $200 to $300, and a ballistic helmet for $435. That’s where he bought an assault vest three weeks ago.




    Essentially, Holmes has called the NRA’s bluff. It may be true that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But the best way to stop a good guy with a gun is a bad guy with body armor. And judging from Holmes' vest receipt, he wasn't even buying the serious stuff.




    The NRA bases its good-guy approach on a well-substantiated military doctrine: deterrence. By arming myself with a weapon that can hurt you, I discourage you from attacking me. For many years, this doctrine averted war between the United States and the Soviet Union. Each side feared mutually assured destruction. What broke the deadlock wasn’t a weapon. It was a shield: strategic missile defense. The Soviets understood that a system capable of shooting down their nuclear missiles would, by removing their power to deter us, free us to attack. The best offense, it turns out, is a good defense.


    That’s what Holmes figured out. Defense, not offense, is the next stage of the gun-violence arms race. Equipping citizens with concealed weapons doesn’t stop bad guys. It just pushes them to the next level. The next level is body armor. And unlike missile defense, which has proved to be complicated and disappointing, body armor is relatively simple.


    What’s your answer to this technology? Armor-piercing bullets? Sorry. The NRA, in defense of these bullets, noted 12 years ago that “no law enforcement officer has ever been killed or even injured because an armor piercing bullet penetrated a bullet-resistant vest.” A well-prepared killer just needs the right vest. The key, according to the Justice Department’s site, is to buy “Type IV flexible armor,” which is certified to stop .30-caliber armor-piercing bullets fired at a velocity of 878 meters per second. The site offers contact information for 24 suppliers of Type IV armor and includes URLs for nine of them. I found the options somewhat overwhelming, so I went to Amazon.com, where it took me less than two minutes to find a Type IV plate for $200 and add it to my cart.


    Do you want to restrict the sale of body armor? Good luck. In a country that won’t even maintain a ban on assault weapons, what are your chances of blocking access to products that save lives? With guns, as with nukes, it’s a lot harder to make a case against defensive technology than against offensive technology. That’s why not a single state prohibits the purchase of body armor, unless you’re a convicted felon. The toughest law I could find is in Connecticut, where you have to show up in person to complete the sale.




    Like the NRA, I’m skeptical that gun laws will stop people like Holmes. The bombs he rigged up in his apartment are pretty good evidence that if he hadn’t gotten his hands on rifles and pistols, he’d have found another way to turn his victims into hamburger. But what if arming the good guys doesn’t work either? What if an Internet full of gas masks and bulletproof vests has plunged us over our heads in an arms race with psychopaths? I wish I could tell you there’s a way out. But like all those poor souls who perished in Aurora, I don’t know how this movie ends.













    http://www.slate.com/articles/health...he_nra_.2.html

    Main point was responding to the person who asked for a link to the fact that Holmes was armored, and the new info that his head was protected as well. But the guy makes some good points.

  8. #28
    The Desert Eagle .50 will penetrate body armor, of course depending on the distance. At the very least it would knock him flat on his ass while breaking multiple ribs....

  9. #29
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    5,066
    This a link to a receipt for a purchase that Holmes made for a tactical vest.
    http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townn...7ec2b1.pdf.pdf

    The vest is called a Blackhawk urban assault vest. It's similar to a fishing vest.

    I post this just because I wonder if this was mistaken for body armor. Of course this vest would be suitable for wearing over body armor.

  10. #30
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,051
    Kinda ironic that the majority of these mass killings occur in states with lax gun laws.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetworks View Post
    I'll give this one more try and then gracefully bow out. I do know the conditions; they were more or less exactly as I described them. The perp waited until the first high action shooting sequence to launch his attack, which means there was a lot going on, visually and audibly. Last time I checked, movie theaters are pretty loud, pretty dark and the screens put off flickering light. Add in the screaming people (presumed, granted, but c'mon) and you have what I laid out. There have already been reports of the police requesting that the movie be turned off (which means it was still going when they arrived). Oh! And the smoke!!! How'd I forget that?!?! But, I wasn't there. Still, that doesn't stop you from stating that you'd drop the guy with a shot to the ol' noggin.

    You are talking about target shooting in controlled circumstances. I am talking about shooting a living, moving target that is shooting back, in the conditions I described, with your adrenaline ramping up big time. There's no comparison between the two. And hitting a melon at that distance isn't an automatic even on the tactical range, let alone IRL.

    I'm an old-school LEO, I still have a .38, but I got the 9 anyway. Joke was, what's the point of 16 if you can't hit it with 6? You are talking with bravado and little in the way of experience. Stop while you're ahead. Or don't, I couldn't care less.
    .


    You are dead on. This situation had a classic element - surprise. It's not like you're out on patrol and something happens. You are not ready. Your weapon is NOT at the ready. There is confusion as well.
    I was pretty good with a variety of weapons on the range. But guess what, you're not as accurate firing a weapon when someone is firing AT YOU.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    .


    But guess what, you're not as accurate firing a weapon when someone is firing AT YOU.
    Of course you're going to duck for cover if someone is firing AT you. But if you are armed and he isn't pointing the gun in your direction, you could empty the clip into him....

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Kinda ironic that the majority of these mass killings occur in states with lax gun laws.
    Right... Strict gun laws work.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/violenc...all-crime.html

    Memorial Day weekend in Chicago: Over a span of 72 hours, gunfire claims the lives of a dozen people.

    Another 45 are shot and wounded.

    During a single 90-minute stretch, 13 people are shot.

    It is another in what’s become a steady stream of violent weekends in Chicago, casting the city into an unwanted national spotlight.

    The figures are startling. Through the end of June, the number of murders in Chicago was up 37 percent over the same period last year, even as crime overall declined.
    You're doing a heck of a job Rahm.....

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by DeanPatsFan View Post
    I'll give this one more try too. I'd rather be armed with a semi automatic pistol holding 16 rounds, than be completely helpless and at the mercy of a fully armed mad man.

    At least I'd have a chance vs the unarmed who had NO chance...
    The odds say you'd be more likely to hit an innocent bystander in that packed and crowded and dark and confused theatre, and/or be confused as a perpetrator yourself by victims or law enfofrcement (and perhaps even shot dead yourself if you reacted slowly to them when confronted), or otherwise confuse and/or complicate the situation, rather the ride to the rescue like a shining Knight in Chrome Plated 9mm Armor.

    And I have to lol a little, you're line "I target practice a lot." as the entire basis of your argument that you'd be able, ready and willing to pop some unexpected assailant in Body Armor in the small portion of his head that was unprotected at 100 yards in the dark in a mass-confusion theatre on a moments notice...... Sounds like unsupported bravado to me, I'll take the LEO opinion of Jetworks over such boasting personally.

    But I don't think you're open minded on the drawbacks of your position tbqh. You've taken the 100% one-way ideal, same as many on the left have taken the reverse 100% the-other-way ideal, and I don't see either side of loyalists being particularly open to anythign less than 100% their way.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post

    And I have to lol a little, you're line "I target practice a lot." as the entire basis of your argument that you'd be able, ready and willing to pop some unexpected assailant in Body Armor in the small portion of his head that was unprotected at 100 yards in the dark in a mass-confusion theatre on a moments notice...... Sounds like unsupported bravado to me, I'll take the LEO opinion of Jetworks over such boasting personally.

    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....

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by DeanPatsFan View Post
    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....
    I absolutely and unquestionably doubt, completely, your abillity to shoot this perpatrator, in this situation, with your limited power 9mm an armed and armored assailant in a dark, loud, flashing, confused, mass panic'ed theatre, and also not cause any additional problems from start to finish such as hit bystanders or misidentification as a second assailant or even your own death.

    I know plenty of folks down here who "shot since they were 10". I myself first started shooting around 15. Means jack and **** frankly in a situation such as this, where even a seasoned LEO may have had serious trouble making the shot in that situation.

    Boasting and braggadocio does not support the validity of your argument Dean.

  17. #37
    On a far more interesting ote, the radio this morning was reporting that the Perpetrator MAY have purchased his guns with Federal Grant Money he recieved as part of his studies/education.

    Be interesting to see if thats the case, and if any discussion occurs over the very limited oversignt on how educational grant/loan money is spent once it's issued. I knew many a student who spent some portion of his school loans/grants on anythign from drugs to alcohol to porn.

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I absolutely and unquestionably doubt, completely, your abillity to shoot this perpatrator, in this situation, with your limited power 9mm
    When have I ever mentioned carrying a 9mm? I've stated on here numerous times that I wouldn't carry a 9mm because of a lack of knockdown power...



    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Boasting and braggadocio does not support the validity of your argument Dean.
    Not boasting Warfish... Just saying I like my chances while carrying, a hell of a lot better than the chances of someone completely unarmed with no way to defend themselves against a madman..

    As I mentioned, I'm a great shot and would put my ability to hit a target up against any LEO any day of the week... If you consider that boasting and braggadocio so be it....

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by DeanPatsFan View Post
    Not boasting Warfish...
    With respect, yes, you were.

    Just saying I like my chances while carrying, a hell of a lot better than the chances of someone completely unarmed with no way to defend themselves against a madman..
    And I disagree with you completely in this specific circumstance.

    As I mentioned, I'm a great shot and would put my ability to hit a target up against any LEO any day of the week....If you consider that boasting and braggadocio so be it....
    I do.

    And even if it were true that you were a superior shot to an LEO, YOU were not in the theatre. Thee is no evidence that any similarly trained shooter as yourself was, but was not carrying for legal reasons. As such, it's a baseless and pointless argument at this point. You may have been able to shoot the assailant, but they (the theatre victims) most likely could not have, even if armed.

    I am very much for the 2nd amendment and gun rights, but I reject totally the "everyone should be armed" solution/ideal as the unwarranted extremism it is. No different from the "all guns must be outlawed" extremism of the left.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    With respect, yes, you were.



    And I disagree with you completely in this specific circumstance.



    I do.

    And even if it were true that you were a superior shot to an LEO, YOU were not in the theatre. Thee is no evidence that any similarly trained shooter as yourself was, but was not carrying for legal reasons. As such, it's a baseless and pointless argument at this point. You may have been able to shoot the assailant, but they (the theatre victims) most likely could not have, even if armed.

    I am very much for the 2nd amendment and gun rights, but I reject totally the "everyone should be armed" solution/ideal as the unwarranted extremism it is. No different from the "all guns must be outlawed" extremism of the left.
    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...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us