The fallacy that people in Aurora counldn't fight/shoot back.

[GEM]

Anybody ever do a simulation of crossing an open space from theatre seats to get to a BG with a large capacity firearm?

I tried one, with folks who knew they had to charge the bad guy. If you are a competent shooter, the first wave of folks will be shot. You have to step over the bodies. Getting over the seats is hard. You are still being shot at.

Yes, you can wave your pen or keys at him. I am annoyed at those who blame the people, in the dark, in confusion for not forming the 300 Spartans and taking him out. It's blaming the victims.

Not to be a downer but you need some realism here.

Also, shooting the guy is the best bet (unless you can haul your butt out of there). Now how many CCW types in general (or here) practice distance shots under significant stress?

 

[EvilGenius]

Yes, you can wave your pen or keys at him. I am annoyed at those who blame the people, in the dark, in confusion for not forming the 300 Spartans and taking him out. It's blaming the victims.

I agree that this is an important distinction to make.

I don't blame those who ran or who decide that in such a situation that their strategy is to do the same.

But I certainly think it's just as much a falacy that it would've been impossible or that all the potential issues with trying to fight back are guaranteed or even accurate. Nothing is guaranteed.

Yes, it would've been extremely difficult to get to/at him, but I think most people in relation to doing anything (not just self defense) would be surprised what they can pull of if they try.

 

[GEM]

In extremis, one can try. I just object to a lack of realism or as I said blaming folks for not doing what someone on the Internet claims would be easy.

Realizing it would be hard is realistic.

 

[leadcounsel]

Nobody is saying it would be easy.

Good thing our forefathers, some colonists with muskets, were willing to stand up to IMPOSSIBLE odds to the most powerful miltiary and navy of the era, staring certain death or imprissonment in the face.

I guess you can either die with a bullet in your back, or the chance of saving lives and a bullet in your front...

 

[The Man With No Name]

I am also not big on the "what ifs" but I don't think even ONE person here will deny the fact that if even 10% of 200 were armed that night, and then half of those armed had a decent angle on him for a shot, and then even half of the those remaining had the will to shoot back at him that those 5 shooters would have saved countless lives. I'm saying just 5 shooters returning fire on that drugged up coward would have reduced the final body count. Does even ONE person here doubt that?

In the end I am saying that I believe that (and have seen with my own eyes as an leo) that armed responsible gun owners can and often do make a difference.

 

[David E]

I'm saying just ONE shooter returning fire on that drugged up coward would have reduced the final body count.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Good thing our forefathers, some colonists with muskets, were willing to stand up to IMPOSSIBLE odds to the most powerful miltiary and navy of the era, staring certain death or imprissonment in the face.

I guess you can either die with a bullet in your back, or the chance of saving lives and a bullet in your front...

What does any of that have to do with dealing with a particular, and extremely difficult, tactical problem?

...I'm saying just 5 shooters returning fire on that drugged up coward would have reduced the final body count. Does even ONE person here doubt that?...

Yes, I doubt that. First, the gunman clearly had mental problems, but it's not clear that "drugged up coward", while a value judgment, is an accurate assessment of his abilities or mind set.

Second, whether or not one or more shooters returning fire could have had a positive result would depend on their skills and abilities. Any of the ten or so "average shooters" I saw at the range the other day who couldn't get two successive shots within a a foot of each other, slow fire at 7 yards in a calm environment, probably would have made a complete hash of things and increased the body count from "friendly fire."

I'm saying just ONE shooter returning fire on that drugged up coward would have reduced the final body count.

Fixed it for you.

Again, only if he is up to the task. And most of the shooters I see at the range would be hopeless just as a matter of marksmanship, let alone competence under stress.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Nobody is saying it would be easy.

Not in this thread, but in another one here on the forum,

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=669731

I'm 15. No expert, but I can shoot efficiently and control recoil on "my" Glock 22 very well..

I think it would have been potentially pretty easy to stop this event from going pretty further.. All it takes is a few well placed shots and he's stopped.

It is a sentiment I have seen echoed several other places. There are apparently a limited number of people who do think stopping a guy dressed for battle would be easy to stop. After all, how hard can it be to casually place a single shot or two and stop him. Or, how hard can it be to walk up and jab him in the neck with your keys. After all, he won't shoot you while you are walking toward him.

It could be realistically possible and somewhat easy to influence the shooter with projectiles, but it comes with risk. People at the movies are loaded down with projectiles that are viable. The more stuff impacting the shooter or around the shooter and in the air occluding his view will lower his capabilities, at least temporarily temporarily. The less effective the shooter, the greater the potential survivorship of the event.

Of course, the people with the easiest positions to pelt the shooter with foods and such are the people in the easiest zones to be shot, those closest to the shooter.

If you do nothing to impede the shooter's progress, then the only things that will impede his progress are his own shortcomings and limitations of weaponry, capabilities, time, and number of victims.

 

[EvilGenius]

In extremis, one can try. I just object to a lack of realism or as I said blaming folks for not doing what someone on the Internet claims would be easy.

Realizing it would be hard is realistic.

I agree.

 

[weeniewawa]

the media talks like he was wearing bullet proof body armor and was totally unstoppable

and they keep saying if someone else was armed there would have no way to keep from shooting other innocents.

If he was hit with any round he would have felt the pain, he was no expert in receiving shots and the crowd could have piled on him.

if the entire theater was armed, the terrorist would have never had the guts to enter the theater in the first place

 

[The Man With No Name]

Yes, I doubt that. First, the gunman clearly had mental problems, but it's not clear that "drugged up coward", while a value judgment, is an accurate assessment of his abilities or mind set.

Second, whether or not one or more shooters returning fire could have had a positive result would depend on their skills and abilities. Any of the ten or so "average shooters" I saw at the range the other day who couldn't get two successive shots within a a foot of each other, slow fire at 7 yards in a calm environment, probably would have made a complete hash of things and increased the body count from "friendly fire."

1. I thought that he already admitted to taking drugs to numb himself to pain before the encounter? That would be "drugged up" imo.
2. A heavily armed man shoots into a crowd of what he expects to be unarmed civilians. The same man surrenders when the well armed police that can and will shoot back arrive. That is a coward.
3. I've seen both extremes at the public ranges I frequent. Stress is also another factor. Personally I think it might be the luck of the draw at times. I live near a military town and often the other shooters beside me are emptying their high cap mags at 7 yards plus as fast as they can for fun and making well under 1 foot groups. Well under 6 inch groups actually. I have seen others that couldn't slow fire at 7 within a foot but they really are the exception where I live. If I were you I'd try a different range. People shooting that badly near me would concern me.

I still say that 5 armed citizens would have saved lives. If for no other reason than the fact they would have distracted the drugged up coward even if only for a short time allowing others to escape. I also feel the drugged up coward would have fled if even struck once.

 

[Loic]

Nobody is blaming the victims for anything. At the same time if somebody is shooting at people and while he is reloading and or his gun is jamming and I am next to him, I will jump him and if i have my knife or my pen or my car key, it is going thru his neck.
If you are that close while he is busy reloading, by the time he is done you will turning your back at him and you will be an easy target and most likely dead. If you have an oportunity you have to take it.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[jon_in_wv]

I find it interesting people think armed citizens would have created a deadly crossfire and only made the situation worse but they are perfectly OK with armed police responding to the incident. Would the same people argue that the police should wait outside until the man is done shooting and comes out? Or that they should not attempt to stop him because they will only make the situation worse? Or is it because CCW holders are all bloodthirsty inbred idiots who can't wait to shoot up the place and would probably just shoot wildly because they finally had an excuse to blast someone?

The fact is the anti-gun folks don't care one whit about saving lives. Their decisions are based only on their own immature and irrational fear of all guns. The fact is history has shown us these types of events can and have been stopped by legal gun holders. The fact is we carry guns BECAUSE we value human life. We want to protect ourselves and those we love from those who would harm us. I feel MUCH safer knowing folks like you guys own and carry guns. I believe in my heart if you guys had been there you wouldn't fire wildly but you would act if you had a clear shot and an opportunity to stop madness like this. History and the facts show this to be true. The antis, whoever don't rely on facts. They said if we were allowed to carry guns the US would turn into the wild west and we would all shoot each other over parking spots and petty arguments. They said police would get shot over speeding tickets and crime would skyrocket. NONE of these things have played out as fact. I've even heard friends of mine saying no one should be allowed to have as much ammo as he had, even though the amount of ammo he bought had no bearing on the outcome. They have said we need to ban AR15s even though it jammed and he may have killed more people with his shotgun and pistol than his AR. (Actually they said we need to ban M16s since they knew for a fact that is what he had) None of them will even address the GLARING failure yet another GUN FREE ZONE which acted as a lightening rod for some piece of human garbage to make helpless victims of another group of people. The real question to me is that if there was CCW allowed, or armed security present, would he have still chosen that place as the target. Chances are, if people were armed, they would have never even needed to respond to his attack at all. We need to stop playing into the childish arguments for gun control and shift the discussion where it belongs. If a private business is going to open its doors to the public and allow groups of people to congregate then they MUST provide armed security if they aren't going to allow concealed carry. Why do they bear no culpability for making people disarm and NOT ensuring their safety? If this prick chose that theater BECAUSE of the "No CCW" or "No weapons" signs the owner posted on the door then he should be held to account for that decision. I'm sure he wouldn't be held negligent or charged with anything but we the public should hold them accountable. We should approach the owner of any business with those signs and demand they put armed security it place if they want patrons disarmed. If they won't hire them or take the signs down DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH THEM. Personally, I think the families of the victims should sue for the lack of security at that theater and I pray they do.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

2. A heavily armed man shoots into a crowd of what he expects to be unarmed civilians. The same man surrenders when the well armed police that can and will shoot back arrive. That is a coward.

Funny, when we use what are considered to be cowardly acts for good instead of evil, they are considered smart, tactical, safe, and a way to keep more of the right people alive. Classic examples are the use of snipers, stealth bombers/fighters, very high altitude bombing, cruise missiles, etc.

SWAT uses surprise, speed, and violence of action to reduce their chances of getting hurt. They wear lots of armor, use superior numbers, come in the middle of the night or otherwise when not expected.

If it makes you feel good to call the guy a coward for being prepared and playing the system, good for you, but he was prepared and he played the system. He is the only one prepared and he knew what to do when things were no longer in his favor. It sucks, but aside from what he did being absolutely wrong and horrendous, he carried it off very well, apparently all by himself. He worked the weaknesses of our society in his favor to acheive a goal and we don't like it, and no wonder. Our society got played in a lethal manner. Our military does not attack defenseless targets, but we will do our best to render a target defenseless before attacking it. Gulf War I was all about doing exactly that at the start. The whole goal was to have opposition that would not or could not fight back.

What did most of out jet jockies do when shot down and contronted by overwhelming odds? They surrendered. It was the most prudent thing to do. They no longer had a huge advantage of speed, altitude, and power and the chances of being harmed were quite real. Surrender was the obvious choice. They did not fight to the death when faced with overwhelming odds, most didn't. Some did, but most did not.

When you take away the motivation and whether or not you think what was done was right or wrong and just look at how the plans were implemented, there are a lot of parallels. When the parallels are for goals we consider to be important, they are considered to be smart...

What is the mantra I have heard here...the only fair fight is the one we win?

Holmes wasn't there for a fair fight. We weren't in the Gulf for a fair fight. SWAT doesn't want a fair fight. CHL holders don't want a fair fight. We all intend to win. Fighting unfairly isn't considered cowardly at all.
http://www.examiner.com/article/who-says-it-has-to-be-a-fair-fight

Attributed to the likes of Clint Smith and Col. Cooper (Smith here)....

"If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck."--Clint Smith

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=299596&page=4&highlight=fair+fight+tactics+suck+cooper

This actually seems to go back to Steinbeck. We like the quote because it is about us being victorious except when our tactics suck.

For the situation, Holmes had good tactics, had a goal he wanted to accomplish alive (apparently) and managed to do so.

 

[JohnKSa]

Initial reports or Internet rumors presented images of armor covering over his legs, groin, chest, throat and head. That turned out not to be true.

Who says that it's not true?

It is NOT an "internet rumor" nor was it an "initial report", it was a direct quote from the Chief of Police of Aurora CO 19 hours after the shooting. I watched the news conference and heard him say it with my own ears. I have subsequently read news articles that quoted the CoP of Aurora from that conference stating that the subject was wearing body armor including leggings, groin protection, torso protection, neck protection and a ballistic helmet. If the CoP of Aurora, 19 hours after the shooting was not in a position to know the truth about what the shooter was wearing, I want to know who is.

 

[sniperlongshot]

you know i wasn't there, i know what i've done in the past, i know what i'm willing and able to do to protect myself and my family......if someone else doesn't have the sence to arm and defend themselves, well some say they deserve to get shot...........all i know is that it's better to die like a wolf fighting a lion, than to be slaughter like a sheep being killed by a dog....if that offends anyone, send me a private pm and i'll hash it out with you.

 

[coloradokevin]

I strongly agree with one of the points the OP made:

If this suspect had received return fire, I bet this shooting would have ended, whether or not a vital hit was scored on the suspect. This guy wanted a massacre, he wasn't there for a gun fight. He was a coward, not a warrior.

Had gunfire gone in his direction, he probably would have done what almost every other active shooter does: 1) Give up 2) Swallow his own bullet

One good man/woman with a gun in that theater could have made a difference. We'll never know how much of a difference, but I think there's a strong possibility that they could have made ALL the difference.

 

[sidheshooter]

I find much to agree with in Jon_in_wv's post. No way a CCWer could have made that theater scene any worse.

 

[EvilGenius]

Funny, when we use what are considered to be cowardly acts for good instead of evil, they are considered smart, tactical, safe, and a way to keep more of the right people alive. Classic examples are the use of snipers, stealth bombers/fighters, very high altitude bombing, cruise missiles, etc.

SWAT uses surprise, speed, and violence of action to reduce their chances of getting hurt. They wear lots of armor, use superior numbers, come in the middle of the night or otherwise when not expected.

If it makes you feel good to call the guy a coward for being prepared and playing the system, good for you, but he was prepared and he played the system. He is the only one prepared and he knew what to do when things were no longer in his favor. It sucks, but aside from what he did being absolutely wrong and horrendous, he carried it off very well, apparently all by himself. He worked the weaknesses of our society in his favor to acheive a goal and we don't like it, and no wonder. Our society got played in a lethal manner. Our military does not attack defenseless targets, but we will do our best to render a target defenseless before attacking it. Gulf War I was all about doing exactly that at the start. The whole goal was to have opposition that would not or could not fight back.

What did most of out jet jockies do when shot down and contronted by overwhelming odds? They surrendered. It was the most prudent thing to do. They no longer had a huge advantage of speed, altitude, and power and the chances of being harmed were quite real. Surrender was the obvious choice. They did not fight to the death when faced with overwhelming odds, most didn't. Some did, but most did not.

When you take away the motivation and whether or not you think what was done was right or wrong and just look at how the plans were implemented, there are a lot of parallels. When the parallels are for goals we consider to be important, they are considered to be smart...

What is the mantra I have heard here...the only fair fight is the one we win?

Holmes wasn't there for a fair fight. We weren't in the Gulf for a fair fight. SWAT doesn't want a fair fight. CHL holders don't want a fair fight. We all intend to win. Fighting unfairly isn't considered cowardly at all.
http://www.examiner.com/article/who-says-it-has-to-be-a-fair-fight

Attributed to the likes of Clint Smith and Col. Cooper (Smith here)....

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=299596&page=4&highlight=fair+fight+tactics+suck+cooper

This actually seems to go back to Steinbeck. We like the quote because it is about us being victorious except when our tactics suck.

For the situation, Holmes had good tactics, had a goal he wanted to accomplish alive (apparently) and managed to do so.

Very true and also a good observation about criminals in general.

They really know how to play the system through and through.

I think if he were really a coward (not saying he's a hero either) he would've shot himself.

 

[JohnKSa]

One good man/woman with a gun in that theater could have made a difference.

Maybe, maybe not. The North Hollywood shooters didn't give up even after being hit numerous times by pistol and shotgun rounds and it took a LOT of good men and women, to finish them.

The Tyler Courthouse shooter didn't just give up when Mark Wilson engaged him. He did take the time to kill Wilson which may given others time to engage him more constructively. Ultimately he was dispatched at a different location by a police officer with a rifle.

It's impossible to know how it would have played out. I think it would have been worth trying something. I also agree that it probably wouldn't have hurt too much to try--except that it would likely get the person trying special attention from the shooter which, judging from what happened to Mark Wilson, might be particularly unpleasant.

I do, however, disagree strongly with the people who seem think it would have been a slam dunk if someone had pulled out a pistol and blazed away.

 

[basicblur]

I have subsequently read news articles that quoted the CoP of Aurora from that conference stating that the subject was wearing body armor including leggings, groin protection, torso protection, neck protection and a ballistic helmet.

I just saw the CNN special on this (Saturday), and noticed in the CoP statement the word ARMORED was noticebly absent to describe ANY of the equipment.
I don't know when the CoP's address to reporters was given, but I assume it was a later conference?

Anywho...knowing the news media, I called highly likely Bravo Sierra when I first heard the story. Now, they've dug up records / invoices and know what he bought and from whom (it was a TACTICAL vest - i.e. NYLON). He may have had armor somewhere, but at this point I've seen nothing concrete to prove it.
If he truly had armored protection, don't you think they would also be plastering the order / receipts as they are for the tactical vest?

I also don't know what he tossed in the crowd - I initially heard tear gas, but I'm also calling possible Bravo Sierra on this one. One report says smoke, one says tear gas - I'm willing to bet anything that puts out smoke the media labels tear gas - just like any black gun is an assault weapon.

I've also heard armor piercing rounds, etc.

I put 'bout as much faith in the Auroroa CoP as I do the media - he seems to be a bit of a grandstander.
In one of the initial press conferences, he made the statement that the explosives were designed to kill cops, and you're darn right we're mad about it!
OK - if his plan was to kill cops, why did he tell them about the explosives in his apartment?

 

[leadcounsel]

The North Hollywood shooters didn't give up even after being hit numerous times by pistol and shotgun rounds and it took a LOT of good men and women, to finish them.

The Tyler Courthouse shooter didn't just give up when Mark Wilson engaged him. He did take the time to kill Wilson which may given others time to engage him more constructively. Ultimately he was dispatched at a different location by a police officer with a rifle.

Poor examples. The Hollywood bank robbers were body builders/weight lifters, prior murderers, and experienced bank robbers and wearing heavy body armor and motivated by bags of money. They were also on muscle relaxing drugs.

The Courthouse murderer was an estranged husband with a personal motive to kill.

Contrast that with the Aurora shooter, who appears to have no financial, personal or other 'sane' motive that would keep him in the fight...

 

[David E]

Again, only if he is up to the task. And most of the shooters I see at the range would be hopeless just as a matter of marksmanship, let alone competence under stress.

Sounds like another value judgement......

Ok, Frank, YOU'RE the good guy with a gun and clear shot.

What would YOU do? Leave, or stay and try and make the shot? Would you be able to keep your head and keep your shots within a foot of each other?

 

[David E]

I do, however, disagree strongly with the people who seem think it would have been a slam dunk if someone had pulled out a pistol and blazed away.

It's never a slam dunk. But I, for one, would rather go down attempting to save/protect my family than watching them get shot while I did nothing, even tho _I_ may live as a result.

 

[jon_in_wv]

I strongly disagree with the notion an armed person would "pulled a pistol and blazed away." nor do I think anyone is suggesting that other than the media or people that don't know better. That is gun grabber nonsense and feeds the garbage they spew about the OK Corral.