Hey, I’m totally for both parts of your proposal…but I can also recall the terms “slippery slope” and “anti-gun fanatic” being used(not by you) when the topic has come up elsewhere.
Of course this idiot isn’t typical, if he was typical then there would be thousands of such shootings every day.
But can we agree that for every CCW holder who shoots a spree-killer at a Batman premiere, there are [some number] of fuckheads who shoot toddlers at a Walmart?
I’m not scared of guns, I grew up in Alaska were everyone has guns, and people hunt and shoot as a way of life. The only problem is, there are lots of idiots, so there were also the people who ended up shooting themselves or their little brother in the face. Invariably, alcohol was a factor.
Was that not the intent of the original thread posting? To incite the anti-gun crowd into a back-slapping orgy of self-righteous affirmation?
Sorry if I got that wrong.
These would be the same people who said an AK-47 was used and later referred to one of the weapons as a “machine gun?” Riiiiight.
The knowledge level of the subject matter alone is enough to make a reasonably intelligent person shrug their shoulders. Get back to me after you become qualified to discuss it.
No, it didn’t have a fucking thing to do with the anti-gun crowd. It was about sensible people- gun owners and gun haters alike- who find “experts” like yourself irritating. Put another way, I’ll see your AK-47 and raise you a headshot from the fifth row.
No, pedantically, because AFAIK no CCW holder has ever done such. If your real meaning is “the cost of having firearms in amongst society is in part occasional accidents and incidents where innocents may be injured or killed,” then the answer is yes.
I’ve seen this question asked oh…100 times since the shooting spree? And I honestly don’t understand why so many people have such a hard time with it. I mean you can go into just about any public/commercial facility and simply go to the emergency exit and jam it in order to come back in. Hardly a master move. I mean, jeez, way back in time (talking 70’s here) I did it a time or two with my friends just for the thrill of it (catching a second movie for “free”). So, again, don’t really understand why so many people find that part of the plan so difficult to accomplish when it’s likely the easiest.
Regards,
Dirty Harry
People enjoy feeling smug with the benefit of hindsight bias and underestimate just how chaotic that scene was.
When you’re in a dark place with bullets flying everywhere, people are going to be scrambling around in a fucking panic. That is not the place to whip out your pistol and try to be a hero, especially against a guy who’s decked out in armor and carrying automatic weapons and gas. You’re probably going to screw up and get someone hurt, let alone get yourself killed.
This isn’t the fucking Wild Wild West or something where everyone’s a vigilante.
You know, this may come as a surprise- even a shock- to you; but the majority of people who own and carry guns are not goddamn retards.
Shouldn’t that set off an alarm? Weren’t there surveillance cameras?
Just the ones posting here then?
Great, you’ll have people shooting at the grassy knoll.
I’m in the security biz, There may or may not be alarms, and most security cameras in situations like that go to recording for reviewing later-there usually isn’t somebody in a booth watching the cameras live.
Thanks for re-emphasizing my comments, which constitute the closest things to actual facts we have in this thread thus far. The whimsical speculation of you cowardly peacniks far outweighs that by volume and mass alone, so the victims scrambling for their life or covering their loved ones while they take the bullet win.
Ya think?
Fact is (now that more of them are actually available for our perusal) the perp was wearing at most Type IIa body armor (a Tacticool vest). The authorities have not yet confirmed whether or not it actually even contained the armor plate inserts which are sold separately. If not, a small caliber weapon would have taken him down, with good shot placement.
In any case, .45acp is more than enough to penetrate the gear he was wearing. Even a non-penetrating hit has the kinetic energy to break ribs and knock him flat on his ass. That means time for people to escape and close the deal. With the mask he wore he’d have trouble finding his opponent even after a few misses. So yeah, fighting back was certainly the best option and offered the best possible potential outcome. Too bad.
Like I said before: Get back to me after you become qualified to have the discussion.
First, let’s see some evidence you’re qualified to have this discussion.
So, the goalposts shift. We go from a generic concealed handgun to .45ACP. Nice.
For the record, I typically carry 9 mm, and it’s a more popular concealed carry caliber than .45. It’s non-trivial, unless you’re a larger person or using a durable and large purse, to conceal such a large caliber gun in the first place.
And there’s still the “good shot placement”. That may be possible under ideal conditions. But in a dark theater with smoke and confusion about? You’re lucky to be hitting center mass.
In other words, our idiot friend kwimby is resorting to using the most favorable situation possible for our would-be Dirty Harry and still failing miserably at making his point.
That’s not the point of his posts. The point is to troll the fuck out of you guys, in which case he’s a spectacular success.
It’s possible kwimby is a troll. It’s also possible he’s an idiot. Given the established posters who have advocated similar positions, I don’t think it’s out of the realm of the possible that he’s actually that stupid.
Actually, he sounds like he’s addicted to Mack Bolin/Executioner/Stony Man weapons-porno paperbacks.