Armed Civilian COULD Have Stopped James Holmes

 

OK, that’s it. I’m officially fed up. I have no idea whether an armed civilian could have stopped spree killer James Holmes from taking thirteen lives in Aurora Colorado, or at least lessened the carnage. But the operative word is “could.” While I and other legal gun owners freely admit that an armed civilian may have made no difference whatsoever, he or she certainly COULD have. And that’s good enough for me. Because the only alternative response to murderous mayhem (short of locking down America) is, was and will be . . .

dying in a hail of gunfire. Or watching your loved one die in a hail of gunfire. Or being wounded. Or watching someone you love being wounded. Or watching people you don’t even know dying or being wounded and having to live with that gruesome reality for the rest of your life.

That’s the alternative.

Tom Gabor’s commentary in the left-leaning palmbeachpost.com, Guns in theater wouldn’t have stopped Aurora massacre, argues for nothing short of surrender to the forces of evil (as represented by Mr. Holmes and, lest we forget, others).

Yeah, well fuck that. I made the decision NOT to be defenseless by, gasp, carrying a gun. An excellent tool that helps make it possible for me, or others so equipped, to stop an imminent lethal threat. Probable? Who knows. Possible? Ab-so-damn-utely.

Not to put too fine a point on it, what the hell does Tom Gabor or his gun-grabbing ilk know about armed self-defense? To wit:

Many present believed that the shooter was part of the performance. An armed patron would have had to: recognize that the threat was real; make the decision to intervene, not flee; move to a protected position within range of the assailant; draw a weapon; and wait until an opportunity to shoot was present and no one else was in the line of fire.

Wrong. An armed civilian would not have had to move to a protected position. Our own Joe Grine, a man not unfamiliar with the business of shooting people, tells it like it is. “Given the number of people in a crowded space, I would have been tempted to run up to Holmes and shoot him.”

Question: what kind of man (or woman) has the balls to do that? What kind of person would have moved away from cover or concealment towards the spree killer to end the carnage? Me? You? Someone? Anyone?

Again who knows? Maybe an armed civilian could have taken the shot from where they were sitting/standing/hiding. Gabor has no idea what an “ordinary” armed man in an extraordinary situation could have done to save lives.

But one thing is for certain: someone who didn’t have a gun in that hell hole couldn’t have taken that action.

In other words, a cinema full of disarmed people was a cinema full of people where Holmes was free to enact his sick, perverted slaughter without even the prospect of armed (i.e effective) resistance.

No. Call it what it could have been: a counter-attack. Or, if you think about it, a potential mercy killing.

Does anyone think that Holmes didn’t take his targets’ state of readiness into account when choosing his killing field?

TTAG’s Tim Tritt has made this point and it’s worth repeating. As crazy as he was, Holmes was playing the percentages. If he’d believed, make that known, that members of that audience were armed odds are he would have chosen another target.

Is any of that good enough for the gun control apologists? Of course not.

Studies show that the average police officer hits the mark with one out of every six shots during combat situations. Civilians likely would do worse. Given the armor worn by the shooter, greater precision would have been required to hit exposed parts of his body.

While many variables are involved, the odds are quite low that a concealed weapons permit holder could have intervened successfully before many of the casualties were inflicted and before police arrived, about two minutes after the shooting started. In addition, a shootout presents obvious dangers for bystanders, and may produce catastrophic errors by responding officers.

Hey Tom. Facts. Holmes wasn’t wearing armor. And even if he had, a couple of shots to his chest would have hurt like a son of a bitch. Show me someone who can take bullets to a ballistic vest and keep killing without pause and I’ll show you a comic book villain.

The odds were low that an armed civilian could have “intervened” successfully in Aurora? Well Jeez Tom, at the risk of repeating myself, what’s lower than low? ZERO. Which are, as far as we know, the odds of an armed response in the theater on that horrific night.

Catastrophic errors by the police? Like what? Killing thirteen more people? Wounding several dozen more? Can Gabor point to ONE incident where this occurred? And even if it had, who gives a shit? Limiting killing by letting a killer kill unopposed? What the hell kind of world view is that?

Given the long odds of success, encouraging more civilians to arm themselves is questionable public policy. Arming more civilians may result in the escalation of more disputes, enable more suicides, lead to more gun accidents and increase the cases of vigilante violence. Adding more arms to a society already awash in guns and beset by gun violence promises only to perpetuate the violence.

Again, FU. Armed civilians are not criminals. They are law-abiding Americans who are exercising their God-given constitutionally protected right to armed self-defense. The only people perpetuating violence are deeply misguided idiots like you who would see us killed rather than allow us the tools to defend ourselves.

If Gabor really cared about human life he would encourage every man and woman in the United States to own and carry a firearm. Deterrence? Yeah, that too. But here’s the key point: the more you surrender to evil the stronger it grows. Period.

comments

  1. avatar jwm says:

    as i have stated more than once about this incident. i don’t know if my being armed would make a difference, but i’d like to have the right to at least try.

      1. avatar Paul says:

        How many of you screaming about this have actually been shot at? How many of you have trained for this type of scenario, where you have screaming people running around, trying to get away, with live rounds flying through the air, and smoke filling the area? Well how many of you have done so?

        I for one have been in gun fights, and I know what it is like to have to face an adversary trying their best to kill to you. All of you that believe your going to be the hero that saves the day are fooling yourselves! I will tell you exactly what you are going to do, the first thing is you are going to wet yourselves. After that if you are smart, you are going to find cover. You are going to pray that you don’t become a victim, and you are going to sweat, ALOT!

        After that your mouth will become dry from fear, and you can’t control your breathing, because you have become so fear laden, that the odor you smell, is from your pants.
        You would be hero’s are just that, would be hero’s in your own mind. All of that screaming you hear is coming from you.

        You morons talk a good a fight. But thats all it is, talk. It takes more than a few hours a year on the range to actually know what to do, when to do it, and then be able to hit your target with pandimonium reigning supreme. How many combat hours do you spend training for this? Better yet how many beers does it take for you wannabe’s to brag about how “If I had been there, I would have stopped that guy!”

        Bullsh-t is cheap. It comes from morons that have never done anything more than talk. “If I had been there, or I could have made that shot, or better yet, I could have taken him real easy!” BULL SH-T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You arm chair warriors don’t know crap! But you sure talk like you do.
        Just so you know, I did two, count them two tours in Nam. I have been a cop, and I have had more hours in training than most of you have in watching John Wayne movies. But for all of that, at least I’m honest enough to know my limitations. Particularly now that I am disabled.

        There is no way in hell, I am taking on some jerk with a rifle, when all I have is my .38 special. There is no way in hell you or I will be able to control what is going on around you, due to the fact that no one, let me say this again, NO ONE is going to listen. They have gone into panic mode. Fear has taken over, and they won’t hear you! Unfortunately, this will fall on deaf ears. Those that brag the loudest, are the ones most likely to end up dead, or making the situation worse.

        I for one pray I am never placed in this situation. If I am, my first reaction is to take cover, and to protect my wife if she is with me. I would hope that my expierence and training are still with me, and I allow that portion to take over. I would be praying ALOT. I would be on the floor, making myself as small as possible, in order to not be seen. I readily admit I do not want to be a dead hero, as so many of you do.

        Stupidity on your part, does not mean that I must risk my life to try and save you. I do not save people from themselves. I do not risk my life to become a target, in order that those that run and scream may live another 30 seconds.
        There would have been far fewer deaths if they had been trained in what to do when and if this occured. But we live in a blind society, that doesn’t believe it can happen to them.

        1. avatar MotoJB says:

          Paul, with all due respect…YOUR limitations and YOUR experience are not necessarily someone elses. You can’t ever take YOUR experience and know exactly what someone else can or will do in a situation. Take the old man in FL that took on 3 armed perps with a .380 just a few weeks back. He didn’t cower in fear or piss his pants. He jumped right into action. Yeah, I wouldn’t necessarily want to jump into action against that Aurora shooter with .38, but I’d be shooting whatever I had instead of laying there, praying that I don’t become another victim. I’d take cover and when the right condition presented itself, i would have returned fire. Different people have different mentalities and react differently in situations. Wait, but with your two “tours in nam” and cop experience, you know exactly what everyone else in the world would do…right? I’ve never had someone shooting at me, but I’ve had a guy come at me with a knife, intending to kill me. I got cut pretty good but eventually took him down, disarmed him and broke his face badly with my elbows. He went to prison. I only was able to do that because I have some training, and I didn’t cower in fear – I got in the zone to protect myself and my life and I prevailed. I didn’t piss my pants.

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          Only our idol Superpaul has the ability to defend himself. The rest of us just soil our undies. All hail Superpaul.

          We’re not worthy.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          paul, i have been shot at and i’ve shot back. if you’ve read any of my posts concerning the joker you’ll see that i’ve never made any hero claims. i more time for the slow learners amongst us, i just want the right to try and defend myself. whether i can succeed or not isn’t really the point.

        4. avatar Jericho941 says:

          Paul, America didn’t stop fighting wars when we withdrew from Vietnam. You might have heard about some recent ones that have resulted in a fairly large number of relatively young, multi-tour veterans with combat experience.

          Some of them might disagree with you. Just sayin’.

          As for myself (not one of those), I won’t disagree that the gun community has a lot of people with a macho attitude that’d vanish in a heartbeat if the shit really hit the fan. But there are also plenty who mean what they say, and they’ve also Been There, Done That. Many times over.

        5. avatar InBox485 says:

          “I’m the only one professional enough…”

        6. avatar Joe says:

          Paul as others have said , if you limit yourself because with all your training you continue wetting yourself dont try to put it on eveybody. I train at least 100 rounds a week and can put 2 inches groups at 25 yards with both my 40 and 45 . I been in shooting situations and my father past his 50s shoot 2 guys who came to his bussiness to assault him and killed them both with a revolver. I wouldnt wish to use a 38 special for this as you say but will use whatever I have available and I wont be waiting on the floor to be the next shot one. Everyone behaves differently under pressure and I been tested to handle this very well and most my hobbies include precisely to keep calm under pressure or lost dearly. Your nonsense comments is what fuels people from the liberal left to want to take all our guns. In the future hold yourself from transmiting your ill fear to a new generation of shooters. There are a lot of bullshitters democrats commenting here as if they had guns and they have nothing but BS on their brains.

        7. avatar siltpuppy says:

          Gee Paul, all these years I thought I had been in Vietnam but apparently you were the only guy there and remain the only guy able to save the world. Do you have a clue how many WWII, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan combat tested veterans live in this country? Obamy may think we are inept terrorists but I am surprised you do, IF you really are a veteran. Your comment about all that smoke alone causes me doubt. John Wayne movies are the only ones where extra smoking powder is used.

  2. avatar EdC says:

    Yeah, fuck that shit! Can’t say it any better than that.

    1. avatar Not Too Eloquent says:

      Very well presented RF. Seriously.

      1. avatar Jay W. says:

        Ditto

  3. avatar YEPPERS says:

    Absolutely…COULD is better than anything else the anti-gun side can come up with. Their whole point about “collateral damage” is IMO BS, as the shooter WOULD have been fixated on the CCW’s firing back and the 1 or 2 or 3 that PERHAPS ended up taking a collateral damage bullet still would have been a hell of a lot less/better than the 12 killed and 59 wounded. (Then again, the debate now would be negatively focused on the CCW’s that hit innocents). I can tell you this, if I were there and armed when that perp started shooting, I firmly believe I COULD have at returned fire with my 1911 and done some serious damage to him. Could have been the difference between 12 dead and maybe only a few dead. The difference between 70 shot and perhaps 2o shot. COULD have been a much better outcome if some CCW’s were there. If I were there and unarmed, I would have preferred the chances with CCW’s returning fire, vs being at the mercy of that scumbag (being the only one armed and shooting).

  4. avatar Loyd says:

    Having analyzed the scenario a bajillion times since then, I’ve come to three conclusions.
    1) It’s a nightmare scenario to go from Condition White to laying rounds on target through smoke in the dark with dozens of panicking people about.
    2) Between the facts that Holmes picked a gun free zone, then went quietly instead of North Hollywood style, tell me that he had no interest in a fight of any kind. The slightest amount of resistance would have caused him to flee.
    3) If I were in that theater, and they had close my eyes, there would be two empty mags at my feet and a slide locked pistol in my hand.

    1. avatar TWL says:

      Good on you for point # 3!

  5. avatar Jeff Stevens says:

    You left out some alternatives. You could pull your gun and shoot an innocent person. That innocent person could be your loved one. You could have your weapon taken from you and used against you or a person you love.

    Then you can live with that. Of course you come to the conclusion you do;you’ve framed reality right out of the question.

    (I own eight guns an a CHP. And a brain.)

    1. avatar ST says:

      Your post is dead wrong.

      *****You left out some alternatives. You could pull your gun and shoot an innocent person.*****

      I cannot speak to anyone else’s marksmanship here, but rapid fire I can perform a 16 shot mag dump inside of an 8″ circle at 21 feet. If im around,the only person being shot is the asshole who started the gunfight.

      ****That innocent person could be your loved one. You could have your weapon taken from you and used against you or a person you love.******

      For an attacker to take my gun, he must first survive being shot by it. Note that every minute the bad guy spends bleeding out, taking cover, or walking through 16 rounds of JHP ammo my “loved ones” and other bystanders would be making an unmolested exit.

      Im glad to know you have a brain. Please use it sometime.

    2. avatar ConradW says:

      If you stood up to shoot, there would be no innocent bystander in front of you to get hit. The guy would be 20 feet away and would need to crawl over seats to get to me to take my gun away, after a fight with.

      I’ll take that chance.

    3. avatar Eric says:

      With all due respect– your eight guns are nothing more than inert metal sitting miles from you as 70 people are shot. How stupid do you have to be to not realize that taking the chance of stopping the killer after only a few shots is better than allowing the killer free reign to shoot at will.

      What is it with those who think that we must all just be willing to die without fighting back?

    4. avatar Bill F says:

      “(I own eight guns an a CHP. And a brain.)”

      But you’d rather die passively than use any of those things? Just sayin’.

    5. avatar Darth Mikey says:

      Hmmm… Hopefully anyone competent with a gun is ingrained to clear their field of fire, especially of loved ones (probably first instinct: shove them out of the way or move ahead of them), enough to do it under lethal stress. Anyone between you and the active shooter is probably already going to get shot by them (more likely so if nobody neutralizes the shooter–odds do appear to be better for them if there’s defensive fire). But yes: fog-of-war friendly fire does happen alot (should we disarm the cops and soldiers since it happens to them so much?). You prioritize in the moment, react, do your best, and indeed live with it (unless you don’t). Problem being: we can’t honestly review two (or more) versions of history (one where Holmes kills freely, and another where we get mad at somebody for gunning Holmes down before he kills 13 people and accidentally shooting someone themselves in the process) except as fiction. Fiction is easy.

      As for someone taking my weapon and using it on me: A) He already has three guns in this scenario. B) I don’t by any means limit my defensive (offensive) toolbox to just firearms–it’s just good practice (I strongly encourage anyone who carries to learn some kind of CQD). I really need the gun when you’re a lethal threat that’s out of my reach. If you’re in my reach (and the temptation of grabbing my weapon is tasty bait) I’m loads more fun. The unexpected grab attempts are hopefully deterred by smart, safe carry, situational awareness and good concealment (or if they do grab it, your own disarming skills). (You want some nice fiction? Someone like me getting within 3 feet of Holmes without getting a muzzle right on them in the process. Class IV body armor wouldn’t have helped him. But I would have had some ‘splainin’ to do.)

      Oh: And even cops miss 5 out of 6 times in gunfights? Seen it. Seen worse. Training issue. Anybody who wields lethal force has a responsibility to refine their skills, period. And that’s who I’d have wanted to have in that theater (not just someone else with a gun, but I’d absolutely take what I could get).

    6. avatar Brian says:

      I’m as pro-gun as anyone, own quite a few and have my CCW permit. This event in Colorado has given me pause as to what would have happened to someone like me, though. This is basically my nightmare scenario. Let’s change the facts a bit, and say that the theater had allowed CCWs, and that Holmes had nevertheless chosen the theater as a target (this may be a stretch, we don’t know, let’s just assume it for the sake of argument). Suppose he enters and opens fire behind you. By the time you turn around, another CCW holder and Holmes are shooting at each other. How do you know which one is which? That is, who do you aim at, how do you distinguish one guy with a gun from another? Do you just wait until one of them kills the other and see whether he continues firing?

      I’m not trying to say that this is a reason to ban CCW; on the contrary, I remain a staunch advocate of this right. As I said, though, the situation does give me pause to wonder what had happened if any number of people in the theater had been armed. We could speculate that, perhaps, Holmes would not have chosen the theater had he known that people there may be armed, but that remains only speculation. Again, it’s a nightmare situation.

      I guess I could turn to LEOs here: if there are multiple people shooting at each other when you arrive on scene, is there some technique you can use to distinguish the “bad guys” from the “self defenders and defenders of third persons”?

      1. avatar MotoJB says:

        LOL, are you for real? Did you read anything about the incident? Um, the guy in full on tactical gear and a gas mask, tactical helmet, shooting the shotgun with the the AR15 slung over his shoulder would be the bad guy, Einstein. The guy in the Adidas jersey, trying to cover his wife and kids while shooting back with a pistol is the good guy. Face-palm…

  6. avatar APBTFan says:

    The armor may of prevented a penetrating shot but it does little to mitigate the sheer fpe of a round hitting him. Those rounds may not go through but they can break ribs, shock internal organs, pummel muscles and generally cause a person to shift attention from killing to looking for WTF just hit me. Every second a shooter is distracted from killing is more chance for folks to escape. The fact the dipshit set off smoke grenades was a double-edge sword for him. His constant firing makes his location easy to pin and the smoke might well make it easier for an armed citizen to maneuver for the best shot to stop it.

    1. avatar Fyrewerx says:

      “Shift attention” is a key phrase here. Even more likely than addressing hits to his body, the BG will undoubtedly attempt to neutralize the threat shooting back at him, thus diverting the shooting at the sheeples. This gives them more opportunity to exit. Hopeful thinking on my part, but as stated — “could” happen.

  7. avatar BierceAmbrose says:

    I think the ongoing epidemic of mass shootings at gun ranges has conclusively debunked the idea that armed civilians are either a deterrent or effective response to violence, guns or otherwise.

    Oh, wait …

    1. avatar APBTFan says:

      Don’t forget all the mass shootings at gun shows. Terrible thing they are. If they happened.

      1. avatar Jim says:

        Actually we are not allowed to carry at gun shows so they are technically “gun free” by definition. I do realize, however that vendors could likely load a gun quickly if needed. The problem is that we are forced to relinquish our ability to defend ourselves at gun shows.

  8. avatar ST says:

    HEAR HEAR!

    Here’s a useful exercise next time you guys go to a theater-count off how far away your seat is from the emergency exits. Ill bet its not as far as you thought. Until I paid attention I believed the emergency exit at my nearest theater was 100 yards away. In literal fact I discovered its closer to 25 yards, if that. Far, but not impossible for accurate shooting. I also discovered that a movie theater isn’t totally dark;shadowy is more of an accurate term.

    Obviously theaters aren’t all the same in layout and size,but at my cineplex the tactical situation is hardly as impossible as the omnipotent geniuses in the media would have you believe.

  9. avatar RKBA says:

    Amen to that!

    BTW, WTF Jeff Stevens?

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      I’d want a TTAG poster or Navy Seal next to me if this went down in a theatre. Jeff Stevens? Not so much.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        I’d want Mike Bloomberg in front of me.

  10. avatar ConradW says:

    Just to correct one fact I see repeated incorrectly a lot is that the cops were all over TV saying they arrived within 90 seconds…

    …after they received the first 911 call.

    It was about 10 minutes after the shooting started before they showed up. The shooter walked around and had time. Someone could have gotten off a ton of shots at him in that time.

  11. avatar Too close to Chicago says:

    Right on, well said.

  12. avatar Greg Camp says:

    Jeff Stevens, if you don’t believe that it’s possible to use a handgun in self-defense, why do you have a carry license? If you believe the things that you wrote, you likely see a handgun as more of a risk than a benefit. Why carry?

    But regarding the chances of someone with a carry gun having stopped the attack, while I don’t know the specific layout of the Aurora theater, theaters with stadium seating have the audience on terraces. The killer would be walking up the incline. The good citizen could get low and aim for the killer’s chest or head, and the rounds would go upward, away from others in the room. They wouldn’t knock the killer over–that only works on the screen, not even just in the theater–but the shots could have disturbed his balance. There are many good things that could have been done by a person with a carry license and a handgun.

  13. avatar Evan says:

    If fighting back could have saved even one person from getting hurt, it would have been worth it.

  14. avatar Texas Deputy says:

    You said, “Holmes wasn’t wearing armor.”

    According to an earlier post here on TTAG:

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/07/foghorn/overview-of-the-guns-used-in-the-colorado-batman-shooting/aurora-shooters-gear-courtesy-denverpost-com/

    … he was wearing extensive body armor.

    We have been trained to shoot at the pelvic girdle if we believe that someone has standard chest/back body armor, as any major caliber would shatter the pelvis and put the POS down. According to the Denver Post (if they are credible) he was head to toe in armor, from his Kevlar helmet to his Kevlar armored boots.

    Even though he was armored, a heavy pistol bullet would have impacted him, possibly causing blunt trauma injury, and significant pain. Pelvic, leg, and foot shots would have possibly broken bones from the impact, bringing him down increasing his vulnerability, and reducing his opportunity to continue his mayhem. Very few people actually carry an FN 5.7 or one of the new Russian 9mm AP rounds which could have likely penetrated his armor, but even my IWB concealed 9mm 124 JHP from my LC9, or a .40 165gr JHP from my Shield would have likely caused him some extreme discomfort and distraction, even if it did not penetrate his body armor, allowing for some additional offensive action against Holmes.

    God forbid that I am ever faced with such as situation as the Cinemark slaughter (and I do carry in the movies!), but I will flatly refuse to go down without a substantial fight, taking the fight to the perp if possible.

    The gun free zones should be renamed victim rich zones. Those idiotic gun free signs (including the ubiquitous 30.06 “no gun” signs here in Texas) only apply to the law abiding citizens, not to anyone intent on doing bodily harm. We have seen this over and over, repeated too many times to count, that the good guys will likely comply with the signs, and the bad guys ignore them.

    To me, the oft used expression “Never Again !” has multiple meanings, including “Don’t leave home without it”.

    1. avatar GaryinVT says:

      He was NOT wearing a protective vest. His receipt was posted online by Tacticalgear.com, the company that sold it to him. It was a Blackhawk brand “Urban Assault Vest” purchased for $106. It is just a nylon vest for carrying magazines and such. And even if a magazine could have stopped a bullet the vest still leaves the entire center of his chest and abdomen exposed. The lamestream media got it wrong. Again.

  15. avatar racer88 says:

    Gabor and his ilk are simply demonstrating psychological projection bias when they pontificate that “you” (we gun owners) would not have been able or capable of defending ourselves or taking out an armed bad guy.

    Gabor simply refuses to take responsibility for HIMSELF and his OWN safety / survival. Therefore he can assuage his own (unrecognized) guilt by denying you / us the opportunity to be accountable for our own safety.

  16. avatar irock350 says:

    “Gabor has no idea what a real man—and armed man—could have done in that situation.”

    Is this kind of bravado and chest thumping really necessary? RF you have stated many times that you were a late convert to firearms and armed self defense. So were you a “real man” before you converted would you have considered yourself a real man?

    My point is that this kind of chest thumping, testicle grabbing talk doesn’t enhance the conversation. Calling the unarmed sheeple, or implying that people with CHL’s are somehow more manly than those without is idiotic and contributes to a caricature of American gun owners that would depicts us as hotheaded, rednecks who cling to their firearms like a safety blanket that prevents them harm.

    1. avatar Fyrewerx says:

      While I agree that “real man” is not the ideal choice of words, and too much an expression of bravado, it must also be considered that ordinary people (both men and women) often do some extraordinary things when faced with extreme danger. Examples in this very instance, of people shielding loved ones, even fatally, come to mind.

      1. avatar Robert Farago says:

        Agreed. Got a little carried away. Text amended.

        1. avatar psmcd says:

          Counting on a cop to protect you is magical thinking. Who’s to say there wasn’t a cop present in that theater? Who’s to say the cop wasn’t the first one out the door. I don’t mean to malign good cops. Just sayin there are some you can’t count on and others you’d prefer to never encounter.

          Commenter “hmmmmm” strikes me as the sort of person that would never step up. He/she probably specializes in criticism of everything hypothetical while doing very little in reality.

        2. avatar Jim says:

          You should not amend your text. The fact of the matter is that lately “manliness” has become taboo. Yes, it takes a real man to fight back against someone doing what Holmes did. Why is that a bad word? Is meekly giving up the ability and right to defend yourself and assuming that others will do it for you what a “real man” does? It is certainly NOT what I teach my son. Theres nothing wrong with the concept of “real men”, cause frankly we need more of them. Was the guy that left his girlfriend (who ended up shot in the leg) and daughter in the theater and went so far as to even drive away a real man?

  17. avatar hmmmmm says:

    “God given right”

    Really Robert? You have truly lost the argument if you have to enlist the magic sky fairy onto your side.

    Maybe a CC’er would have helped at the cinema, but maybe he would have taken out a few innocents himself. That’s the point, are we really better off with Cletus and Billy Bob unloading at every shadow because “god” gave them the right to carry?

    If somebody said to me would you rather Farago was there with his piece, or nobody I’d say sure, Farago might have made a difference. Hell, even Ralph Mouth would be preferable to nobody. But if that choice was roll the dice on any gun owner being there randomly, or nobody, honestly, I’d take my chances with Holmes. Ten or twenty mall ninjas all opening up at whatever their “special forces equivalent” brains tell them are valid targets is not an environment I want to be a part of.

    1. avatar racer88 says:

      If I may be so bold to speak up for what Robert said about “God-given” rights. He wasn’t referring to the specific right of carrying a gun. Rather, the right to self-defense… self-preservation… at the hands of an evil-doer that would see fit to KILL you… is God-given… or some prefer “Natural right.”

      To be sure, self-defense is certainly NATURAL, as it is INSTINCTIVE in all creatures on Earth.

      “But if that choice was roll the dice on any gun owner being there randomly, or nobody, honestly, I’d take my chances with Holmes.”

      This is a most telling comment. I find it ASTOUNDING that some have had their INSTINCTS (to defend and survive) dulled to the point of being vestigial by popular culture and political correctness. It is truly stunning. You’d rather “take your chances” with the likes of HOLMES?? Well, there ya go. And, best of luck.

      There is a silver lining of good news for you, though. Most of us who carry have no interest in saving you from the likes of Holmes. We carry because we are interested in saving ourselves. So, you’ll remain free to “take your chances” with sociopathic miscreants with whom you may be so unfortunate to cross paths.

      1. avatar hmmmmm says:

        “To be sure, self-defense is certainly NATURAL, as it is INSTINCTIVE in all creatures on Earth”

        Indeed, and that is why I don’t trust a mall ninja retard in a situation like that – because he is more likely to indiscriminately spray bullets around to protect his own ass than he is to actually have the intelligence and discipline to do the job professionally.

        There are many people here who believe that despite being fat, late middle age men on the verge of being legally blind they are actually the equivalent of Delta Force – and that just isn’t so.

        “Most of us who carry have no interest in saving you from the likes of Holmes”

        And there you make my point for me – am I really better off with a selfish POS who only cares about getting out himself regardless of how many other innocent people they shoot along the way?

        1. avatar racer88 says:

          Mall ninjas? Delta Force? Spraying bullets?

          Quite the imagination you have. Sorry to disappoint you, but real-world gun owners and carriers do not reflect your Hollywood-inspired fantasies.

          There are many, many cases of citizen successfully using guns in self-defense… every day. Please cite one where the citizen (aka “delta force mall ninja”) has “sprayed bullets” and injured innocent bystanders.

          After you fail to substantiate your delusional accusations, feel free to revel in your self-righteousness in spite of it. 🙂

          “am I really better off with a selfish POS who only cares about getting out himself regardless of how many other innocent people they shoot along the way?”

          It’s interesting that you contradict yourself, though. On the one hand, you decry gun owners for being “ninjas” and “delta force” fantasizing about saving the world. On the other, you call gun owners (and taking a shot at me) a “POS” for caring only about themselves.

          Which is it? You don’t want to be saved? You do want to be saved? Or perhaps you’d rather die and claim the moral high ground after being put six feet under ground?

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          I see you are collecting more money from Arianna or David to push their talking points. I wouldn’t mind their trolls if they allowed us to post on their blogs but given the lack of reciprocity on the part of the “progressive”, i.e, Fascist left, blogosphere I don’t see why Robert even lets you post your talking points.

          Here are the statistics. Private citizens shoot the wrong guy about 2% of the time. On the otherhand, “professionals’ shoot the wrong guy about 10% of the time. You are in fact safer when a private citizen uses a gun than you are when LEO cuts loose. The Giffords shooting proves that. There were at least two armed citizens and neither pulled the trigger because they either didn’t have a clear field of fire or couldn’t ID the bad guy.

          Go back to your occupy encampment.

        3. avatar Floyd D. Barber says:

          I see Little Bo Peep hasn’t found you yet.

    2. avatar Greg Camp says:

      For purposes of this discussion, I don’t care whether my rights are given to me by God, the gods, the tooth fairy, the Devil, or my simian ancestors. My rights exist. So do yours. Good enough?

      Regarding the Aurora incident, though, we have positive knowledge about how much good was done having no one armed but the wacko. The way things actually did go down, it may have been the killer’s own gun that saved some lives by jamming. No one returned fire, and we see how much good that did.

      But please do feel free to worry yourself into a froth over mall ninjas.

    3. avatar Jose says:

      “hmmmmm says:
      August 4, 2012 at 23:27

      “God given right”

      Really Robert? You have truly lost the argument if you have to enlist the magic sky fairy onto your side.”

      “Magic sky fairy…” That says it all about your mind set.

      Back in college I had the privilege of being taught history by a Phd who was a tank commander in WWII. He was there at the beaches. I will never forget what he said to us one time: “There are no atheists in combat. The first time a bullet whizzes by your head you are an instant convert. The first thing that comes to your mind is GOD HELP ME!”

      The next thing you do is DUCK! Trust me, real life is not the movies. If bullets had started flying by Holmes head let alone hit him, he would have at the very least looked for cover, just like any one else, thus saving precious time for everyone involved.

      J.

      1. avatar racer88 says:

        I heard a nice allegory recently:

        You have a right to be anti-gun and not believe in God. But, when someone is breaking through your front door (or shooting at you in a movie theater), the FIRST thing you’re going to do is CALL SOMEONE WITH A GUN and then PRAY he gets there soon!

        1. avatar hmmmmm says:

          You see this is what I’m talking – about as soon as somebody says they don’t believe in every moron walking around with assault rifles because it’s “their right” you assume that they are a “grabber”.

          I have a gun, and anybody who comes through my door at night will get a tube of buckshot in their face. I won’t need to to pray to the sky fairy, his zombie son, Allah, or anybody else – I will take care of business myself.

          It shows the immaturity of many people here that they are so incapable of actual debate, even with somebody who SUPPORTS gun ownership. I just think that carrying a deadly weapon around in public should require that you prove yourself worthy of it through stringent regulation. Cops have to prove their shooting competency every year, but the scum of society don’t – how does that make any sense?

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          Like a typical talking poiints zombie you never respond to posts that present evidence that contradicts your preprogrammed responses. What evidence can you show that legally armed citzens cause mayham in the streets? Why do states with high firearms ownership like Virginia have lower crime rates than low gun ownership states like Illinois? Why does the predicted blood bath never occur when states liberalize gun laws? Why is gun free Chicago more dangerous than Mogidishu?

          Prediction: the Hufpo troll while ignore or ridicule instead of answering the questions.

        3. avatar racer88 says:

          Hmmmm…..

          I dare suggest that most of us here practice (“qualify”) with more rounds in just two weekends than an LEO does in his entire career. Cops “qualify” as “proficient” with a couple of 50 round boxes PER year… maybe. I go through 3 – 4 times that in an hour of range practice… many, many times per year.

          But, yeah… WE are the “scum of society?” REALLY? Lawful citizens who practice their 2A right are the “scum of society?” THAT’S your story? LOL!

          Silly me…. I should know better than to have a battle of wits against an unarmed man. See ya.

        4. avatar hmmmmm says:

          Firearm murders per 100,000 population:
          Illinois – 2.81
          Virgina – 3.14

          Firearm robberies per 100,000 population:
          Illinois – 1.85
          Virgina – 37.16 (LOL, so close, only a 20x difference!)

          Firearm assaults per 100,000 population:
          Illinois – 6.22
          Virginia – 23.54

          So thanks for playing tdiinva, but you aren’t even in the same LEAGUE. Care to tell us all again how much safer Deliverance country is compared to the communist hell hole of Illinois?

        5. avatar tdiinva says:

          Hmmmmmm:

          In the Internet age it is not smart to make stuff up. Some people might actually go and check the FBI stats.

          http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_05.html

          Your numbers bare no ressemblance ot the actual numbers in the 2009 FBI data. That is the latest and greatest. Go back to your occupy camp and try again.

        6. avatar Jose says:

          Hmmmm,

          First, “Deliverance Country” is Northern Georgia and not Virginia, at least in the fictional movie (as in movie and fiction) that bears the name. Do your homework.

          Second, your statistics are flawed. I looked at the FBI stats for 2010 and they don’t match up to yours. Also, whereas 100% of the areas reported their crimes to the FBI in Virginia, up to 37% of non-metropolitan cities in Illinois did not report theirs, to name just one of the areas. Illinois figures had to be estimated.

          Lastly, the FBI warns about comparisons such as yours and considers them invalid because of the many factor involved, including demographics and densities that are not taken into account.

          Again, do your homework…..

          J.

        7. avatar hmmmmm says:

          I typed in “Gun crime statistics” into Google and used the very first link that came up, which is that of a respectable newspaper using the FBI 2010 statistics.

          Here is the link.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

          Do you have something to say about their methodology? Feel free to let us know where you got your phd in statistics from too.

        8. avatar hmmmmm says:

          Oh the table has a nice feature where you can sort each column into order too, so when we sort by number of firearms murders per 100,000 pop. per state we have:

          DC
          Louisiana
          Missouri
          Maryland
          South Carolina
          Delaware
          Michigan
          Mississippi
          Georgia
          Pennsylvania
          Arizona
          Tennessee
          California
          New Mexico
          Arkansas
          Texas
          Nevada
          Virgina
          North Carolina
          Oklahoma
          Alabama

          This is the list down to the US average rate.

          Do you want to play the game where we say which of those are big on gun rights, and which are grabber states?

          Yeah – I didn’t think so.

          Sorry to blow away your BS with cold, hard facts.

        9. avatar tdiinva says:

          As a matter of fact I do have an issue with the a left wing UK newspaper would manipulate numbers. The FBI numbers speak for themselves. Violent crime is lower in states where there is a high rate legal gun ownership. The.exceptions are dominated by criime ridden cities like New Orleans.

        10. avatar hmmmmm says:

          That’s some pretty big talk without any evidence to back it up tdiinva. How about you show us the manipulation in the data or STFU?

        11. avatar tdiinva says:

          So you think the Guardian’s methodolgy is better than the actual FBI statistics? I note that your sort does not have Illinois on the list but according to the FBI it has a higher murder rate than Virginia. Your statistics are garbage. You are bluffing in an expert environment which makes you a fool.

        12. avatar hmmmmm says:

          Expert environment? LOL! Are you f’ing kidding me? You are too ignorant to even see that their chart is made from the FBI’s own data! THEY LINK TO THE RAW 2010 DATA ON THE FBI’s VERY OWN WEBSITE IN THE ARTICLE. Does that sound like something an evil liberal gun grabbing newspaper would do? You are just embarrassing yourself now tdiinva, it’s pathetic to watch. So I’ll ask you one more time – sac up and show us where they manipulated the data or STFU.

          You just got spanked – salvage some shred of dignity and admit it and move on.

        13. avatar tdiinva says:

          Then please explain why the numbers that you claim to have extracted from the Guardian data don’t match the FBI numbers?

          Show me that Vriginia is less safe than Illinois. I am waiting.

        14. avatar tdiinva says:

          Here are the numbers from 2009. 2010 is about the same:

          total violent crime:
          Illinois: 497.2
          Virginia: 226.8

          Murder:
          Illinois: 6.0
          Virginia: 4.4

          Forcible Rape:
          Illinois: 30.2
          Virginia: 19.2

          Armed Robbery:
          Illinois: 177.6
          Virginia: 79.4

          Aggravated Assault:
          Illinois: 283.4
          Virginia: 123.9

          (rates per 100k)

          Please reconcile the Guardian’s date with those FBI crime stats.

        15. avatar hmmmmm says:

          http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

          There you go, the link to the raw data on the FBI’s site. All the Guardian did was normalize that table, and others, to have a per 100,000 population value. The numbers all match up just fine – as you would expect from a respected national newspaper, who even published the link to the FBI source data because they have nothing to hide.

          I know you probably skipped out statistics at school because “book lernin” is an evil liberal conspiracy, but trust me – this is REALLY simple stuff. The numbers are all there, so feel free to check some of them before making an even bigger fool of yourself.

        16. avatar tdiinva says:

          The Guardian’s numbers say that Illinois is safer but the FBI numbers say Virginia is safer. I go with the FBI.

          By the way only the radical lefy calls the Guardian well respected. Everybody else thinks it’s a POS and a propaganda rag.

    4. avatar Smaj says:

      Please do not feed the trolls (hmmmmm). Thank you.

      1. avatar Jose says:

        Good Point! Hmmmm really showed his/her hand in the last three posts..

        J.

        1. avatar Floyd D. Barber says:

          FLAME DELETED

  18. avatar Charles says:

    “Tom Gabor’s commentary…argues for nothing short of surrender to the forces of evil….

    Yeah, well fuck that.”

    Exactly. I someone wants to give themselves (and their family) over to the mercies of brutal thugs they are free to do so. Lots of luck with that strategy, just don’t ask me to do the same.

  19. avatar Tim McNabb says:

    I’ve been thinking about this a great deal. Hell yes I could have made a difference. I shoot IDPA precisely so I can shoot and scoot – God forbid I ever have to – accurately and under odd circumstance.

    My wife could have made a difference. She can hit five rounds center of mass with her Crimson Trace equipped .38 at roughly 30 feet.

    Either of us, behind partial cover maybe even steadied by a seatback and mindful of our target could have potentially made successful shots in self-defense.

    Tear gas and chaos change the equation, but good guys stop bad guys with guns all the time. As the author notes – any chance is greater than zero.

  20. avatar shawmutt says:

    I think the thing to remember is that it wouldn’t make a difference to the anti. Someone could have been carrying in spite of the signs and stopped the situation, but the antis would still trot out all the same arguments. The Media would have “Shootout” on every headline. Case in point: I’ve been showing that great internet cafe video, and all the antis can say is “but he’s shooting in a crowd”, “oh he could have hit someone,” and similar assorted drivel.

    They want guns only in the hands of the military and police, and can’t see past their biases. The outcome of specific incidents doesn’t matter to them.

    1. avatar racer88 says:

      Yeah, I had the same conversations with antis…. “He could have shot someone else.” BUT, HE DIDN’T! What ifs and could’ves matter NOT AT ALL if they didn’t happen. Here’s something else that didn’t happen, though… those bad guys didn’t injure or kill anyone BECAUSE the good guy was there with a gun. So, if we’re going to talk about “could’ves,” then we must say the BGs could’ve killed someone. But, they DIDN’T… because the good guy was there with a gun and shot the bad guys.

      1. avatar shawmutt says:

        More infuriating, but a bit off-topic, is the “poor criminal” responses I’ve read about the incident. “Aww it was their first robbery”, “aww the gun was rusty/unloaded/useless”, “aww they are just teenagers”. To the antis the real victims are the criminals.

        1. avatar racer88 says:

          Yes… love it when the newspaper or local TV station calls the criminal a gunshot “victim” and then publishes the actual victim’s home address.

  21. avatar Aharon says:

    If I keep seeing pictures of Glocks used ad nauseum I’m gonna start throwing up a little. How about instead pictures of a nice DA or SA revolver, a CZ semi, a registered taxes-payed sawed off shotgun, an old black powder pre-civil war pistol, or a bowie knife.

  22. avatar Ralph says:

    Gabor’s thesis is that we pissants have no chance, so we should give up our means of self defense, lay down and die.

    To which I respond — with due respect — “hey, Gabor, kcuf ouy, backwards.

  23. avatar Mr. Lion says:

    The operating thesis of these people is that nobody is selfless enough to stand up in such a situation and risk their lives to protect the innocent, except occasionally police officers, because they’re special. This mentality is often a view as to what they themselves would do, or more to the point wouldn’t do, and because they’re smarter/better/etc than everyone else, their reaction must be the best and most rational.

    Of course, this is at odds with reality, as has been demonstrated everywhere from the Appalachian School shooting to the dozen and five examples of business owners and law abiding people minding their own business who stand up, draw their firearm, and fight back every other week.

    Crime happens every day. So does heroism.

  24. avatar B says:

    You’re absolutely correct.

  25. avatar Wellington says:

    I presume the 3 men who died protecting their girlfriends would have preferred taking a shot at Holmes to throwing themselves down and taking a bullet from him.

    Tom Gabor presumes they would not and could not.

    He judges those 3 men by what he would and could do. I assume the little prick knows himself best.

  26. avatar James says:

    Lie down sheep and take what’s coming to you. F U. I have a HUGE middle finger for anyone who wants to keep me from protecting myself and loved ones.

    Some of my family once chose the path of not properly recognizing potential hazards. This worked out poorly. All of my remaining family now chooses to be prepared.

  27. avatar Silver says:

    At the very least, Gabor revitalizes one dilemma I’ve wrestled with for some time. Every gun owner who carries I’m sure has wondered about the ramifications of coming to someone else’s aid, both in terms of one’s own safety and how legal it is. Taking care of “me and mine” is a given, but with the laws how they are, the fickle nature of interpersonal disputes, and the mass media chomping at the bit to destroy all that’s good and decent, many of us who consider it natural to help others are forced to rethink how and when we should lend armed aid.

    Gabor presents another facet. If you you do ever find yourself in a situation where an unarmed individual is under deadly threat, just remember…the person you’re saving might be like this jackass. That alone should make you think twice.

  28. avatar Darth Mikey says:

    Sadly it really isn’t the human instinct anymore to defend oneself. Most people freeze, run, cower, beg, bargain, deny. There seems to be just a percentage of us that aren’t wired that way (the nuts that instinctively move toward danger–and you don’t know for sure until it happens to you). And the other folks don’t seem to like us much–I guess we’re scary–at least until they need us (and only for as long as they do).

    Well said, Robert. Well said.

  29. avatar christian says:

    My ex girlfriend (who is/was rabbidly anti-gun) liked to watch the show 6 Feet Under. I typically occupied myself with something more interesting. There was one show opener I caught where a couple was bound and gagged on their knees and executed in their bedroom by home invader/robbers. That scene really bugged me. It bothered me to the point I had to talk about it with her.

    I made sure she understood that under no circumstances would I go out like that. I will fight. Certainly in my own home, I’m wearing a gun already, but good God, I wouldn’t allow myself to be bound, or taken in to the back room, or whatever. I will fight, even if that means headbutting whomever because they somehow bound and gagged me and have me on my knees.

    I will not bow down to violence. I will fight back. No matter what.

    As to the tragedy in Colorado, hindsight may be 20/20, but I would have been in condition red had somebody been popping smoke/CS gas grenades into the crowd. What would I do as an armed citizen in such a setting? At the top of my lungs “STOP! GET ON THE GROUND NOW!” While my gun and flashlight came up.

    And if it came down to it, I would have opened fire. Because I’m not going out like that.

    PS: I live in the great state of Maryland, so I can’t get a concealed carry permit. So replace the part where I said I’d draw my gun to read as follows: “I’d draw my pocketknife and bum rush the whacko, because I’m not going out like that.”

    1. avatar Dracon1201 says:

      Agreed, if I don’t have a gun on me, I have a tac knife, and I would have either bum rushed him, or run to one of the end aisles and flanked him in the confusion and smoke.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      christian, in a mass event like that shouting commands at the perp is like firing a warning shot. you may have used your only oppurtunity to draw effective fire onto yourself. in this type of scenario bringing fire down on the perp is the only response. lock on the target and keep firing until he’s neutralised or you are. you may or may not win this encounter. what you;re really doing is buying time for others to escape.

  30. avatar the last Marine out says:

    This is a true story that one man at church service had a five shot 38 special pistol , when to men came in the front door with full auto AK47’s and started shooting , he (the hero)fired 2 shots at the shooters, missed both times but that stopped the attack, he than goes out side door of church and takes 1 more shot at the attackers as they drive away , anyhow police later catch one of the attackers because he was wounded , the police took him in(the hero shooter) but had to let him go was a big uproar over that , that this HERO , who put his life on the line , that all charges were dropped …. Americans need to support one another and that would stop most these shootings… IF a million Americans would have come out to support George Zimmerman , we would have a major drop in crime and a major drop in gun control…

  31. avatar the last Marine out says:

    FREEDOM IS NOT FREE,,,, We all need to join some 2 to 3 different gun rights groups, write letters, make phone calls,send fax,,, it is a know fact that the bad guys FEAR a ARMED public , 10,000 times more that the police, and any bad guys always looks for the easy target , that is why woman and the old get attacked more, get a good self-defense book/manual and learn what to do/not do and why..and learn from the PRO’s…..

  32. avatar Eric says:

    Great post Robert.

  33. avatar Dracon1201 says:

    That CCW in the theater wouldn’t have to even hit James Holmes to save lives, firing that gun in his general direction would have caused him to duck, flinch or otherwise. For example, I go paintballing, and I have not seen one instance where someone has not ducked, finched, or fallen on their butt, or scrambled for cover and ceasing thair fire, at the surprise of being shot at (even after the 30th time) when not actually being hit. I and my compadres tend to do that less, but then we have been hit so many times it doesn’t hurt. Sub in bullets, noise, the fear of actually getting hit, the surprise of returned fire, the jammed mag, lack of cover at the front, the lack of training, and to top it off, it was James’s first time at the rodeo (including using those firearms), and he would have probably been falling all over himself.

    If someone fired back, wouldn’t Holmes have become focused on who was firing back? By drawing the attention of Holmes, the CCWer would have taken the heat off of the other civies that were being lit up, allowing more to escape.

    I just can’t believe that not having anyone (or 2) who had a CCW wouldn’t have made a difference, and it sickens me that some believe that. Even if they hadn’t gotten Holmes, and only one more person got out because of that CCWer, it would have made a HUGE difference.

  34. avatar BuddhaKat says:

    I do question one thing about the instinct for self defense. I think that with the exception of protecting a child, family member, or a loved one, which can include friends, is to run if possible, or if not, duck. If you’re looking a shooter in the eye, I think most people would instinctively freeze.

    I have a bit of luck in that I’m not prone to panic when the SHTF. I’d probably do the involuntary quick duck and then instantly start building sit rep. In the theater situation, if I could have got a clean shot, I’d probably take the shot. Same goes if I was sitting in a restaurant.

  35. avatar LeftShooter says:

    Here’s my thought process on a situation like Aurora and whether a concealed carry licensee could have made a difference. What if an armed, plain-clothes police detective had been in the crowd? Given the opportunity, that officer would likely have drawn a gun to engage the shooter; I think all of those who disapprove of armed civilians would be happy if the officer had neutralized the threat and prevented further loss of life. So far so good.

    Let’s assume the detective fires 50 rounds twice a year to maintain his/her department’s proficiency requirements.  Now, take away the badge. Assume an armed civilian is an enthusiast who fires 50 rounds a week. What’s the difference? Does the badge alone make the engagement scenario acceptable? It’s very hard to see how it does.

    1. avatar racer88 says:

      Well put, leftshoooter.

    2. avatar LongPurple says:

      +1 Off-duty cops are an asset in public safety. Add to that the CCW population, and we get some real ability to respond and powerful deterrence.

  36. avatar Greygrandpa says:

    It was reported on one of the web sites that one of the victims, a young man in the military, did rush him and was able to get a hand on him before being shot. With more and more carry weapons being equipped with lazer sights, the odds of an armed citizen “connecting” with the perpetrator would be quite high, and they would not be “spraying” around the room.

  37. avatar Mikeinidaho says:

    So at least one unarmed person tried to fight back. If several people in that theatre had been armed, the likely outcome would be different.

    This man wanted a soft target and the notoriety of the aftermath on television.

    If he had the reasonable fear that an armed citizen would fight back successfully, his actions would remain a fantasy, because at heart, this clown is an evil coward.

    If instead of years of TV coverage in a courtroom, he had been tried and publicly hung in the street of Aurora by now, he could have provided a negative example for the next evil bastard.

  38. avatar freeport56 says:

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

    I look to a favorite website for real world ballistic information. The link above is ‘old Painless’ testing Level IIIA Body Armor with different pistol, revolver, and rifle rounds. While the penetration level of each round is tested, the backing used for the Kevlar material is model clay. Much denser that human flesh, it gives you perspective on the trauma that can be caused to the human body while wearing this type of armor.

    I even have a couple of Police Officer(current) that have been shot while wear Level IIIA armor. They were knocked back and unconscious at impact.

    I will always believe that an armed citizen stepping up could have stopped the carnage in Aurora, Virginia Tech, Columbine, and Arizona!

  39. avatar the last Marine out says:

    Why do you think the military keeps training you over and over, with firearms etc. because when the bullets come at you then you react to your training , you return fire not run away, all the military in the world train with that in mind, you react to your training, you learn to follow orders, you know you are in danger ,, fears hits you after the fact…we as the public should train too. your training and firearms skills will kick in …. been their and done that……. have been in real combat , so i know first hand that’s how i works .

  40. avatar Walter says:

    While I whole heartedly agree with your sentiment and position on the issue, I must say that any augment who’s major rejoiner is FU is not really a very quality argument. Still, I agree with the sentiment that even one person with a gun besides the antagonist would have made a difference.

    One point I would think about is the ‘hero effect’: where upon seeing one man of courage acting selflessly to help others, the people around him are more likely to act courageously and selflessly. I may be possible that the defensive shooter would have served as a distraction while others would have gotten up the courage to take the killer down bodily.

    Also first rule of a gun fight: bring a gun. Need I say more?

  41. avatar Floyd D. Barber says:

    ” Guns in theater wouldn’t have stopped Aurora massacre”
    So is Gabor saying that it wasn’t guns that Holmes used to kill and harm. If guns can’t protect/prevent, then his logic would have to say they can’t harm.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Floyd, what Gabor is stating is that guns can’t stop a massacre, they can only start it. See?

      And in answer to your next question, yes, Gabor is an a$$hole.

      1. avatar Floyd D. Barber says:

        Hey, I’m an a$$hole. I’m insulted that you would group0 me in with him.

  42. avatar NR says:

    Ya know, Gabor is at least partly right. If a cc’er had been in that theater, there’s a very good chance it wouldn’t have made much difference.

    But if *every* adult in that theater had been packing –or even just half of them– then Holmes wouldn’t have had a chance.

    1. avatar Floyd D. Barber says:

      Why would have not made much of a difference?

  43. Stella International Holdings Chairman Chiang Jeh-Chung,

  44. avatar Shawn says:

    I really hate when others tell me how I will react to a certain situation because nobody knows what lies within until you are pressed into action.
    But it’s all moot anyway. This incident will never occur in Indiana because of the large number of concealed weapons permits issued here. It really doesn’t matter if I have the guts to fire back, or he’s wearing body armor, or I will miss the target because I’m too scared to fire straight. None of that matters because no one is stupid enough to try it here knowing that 10% of the audience is packing.
    But for those who question if the victim would be able to fight back, we just had a nutball rent a guy at Pop’s guns in Indy and shoot the clerk, but since the clerk was carrying he shot back and killed the guy. So the clerk not only shot back, but he hit the target after being shot. I think I’ll take my chances with my gun rather than be left praying for the cops to get there in time.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email