How do you know you would not have had a shot? If you were seated in the front right area 1st three or four rows Holmes would would have been about 10-15 feet away from you after he came through the door, with his back towards you as he proceeded up the far right aisle.
Tritium sights make target acquisition at night a bit easier than the fanatical anti-gun mind can comprehend.
Nah, it was asinine then, too. But it was a unique kind of asinine with one of the last of the Jul 2012 dregs to grace us with his idiotic ravings.
Re: Texas. Yup. Lots of Texas posters here, several with handguns and a few with CHLs, and we’re mostly not of the “shoot first, let God sort out the innocent bystanders” type. Unfortunately, as in most controversial topics, it’s usually the batshit insane fringe who are the most vocal about things.
Now here’s an interesting twist.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/katienotopoulos/dave-mustaine-thinks-obama-staged-colorado-shootin
As the FARK headline said on that one: Megaderp.
First non-ironic use of that word I’ve read in ten years, probably. Jesus Monster Trucking Christ.
I can never hear or see that word without immediately thinking of the XKCD strip.
It also tells that the user is a moron.
So to summarize in a slightly different vein: A trained well armed theater goer sitting in a favorable location had a good chance of terminating the attack right after it began.
No, as far as we can tell, nobody except maybe a superpowered comic book hero would have had anything like what a reasonable person would consider a GOOD chance of “terminating the attack right after it began”.
And almost all the gun owners and CCW supporters in this thread, including ones who have served in military forces, are in complete agreement about that. Their arguments seem a lot more convincing than yours.
You seem to be almost the only one clinging to the fantasy that prompt action on the part of armed vigilantes would have been realistically likely to make any difference for the better in this tragic situation.
(For the record, I’m not at all opposed to gun ownership by competent and law-abiding people, nor do I have a problem with reasonably regulated CCW. But I don’t believe that simply having or using a gun when confronted with a spree killer automatically makes you a hero or saves you from being a victim. Nor do I think it’s acceptable to risk killing or injuring innocent bystanders just to try to validate your self-image as a non-victim.)
What I don’t like about this discussion is that people are using the shooter’s planning and precautions to highlight the ineffectiveness of armed intervention. That’s like saying “Stop weapons production. We’re hopelessly outnumbered by the Chinese and Soviets.”
Actually, it’s more like saying “Don’t drop artillery on the Chinese and Soviets goddammit, they’re right on top of our positions !”. It’s not so much that the shooter was prepared and had planned things, and more that he engineered a tactical situation that was hopelessly in his favour. Well, to keep the military simile going, when the enemy does that, you don’t just stand there and shoot it out - you run away, regroup, respond. Not all scenarios are winnable.
Sometimes, the prevention and the disease have more or less the same effect. Sometimes, the prevention even does more damage than the disease (see: the war on drugs). In these cases, isn’t it smarter to take a step back and re-think it through ? I’m sure there are situations in which an immediate armed response is, if not the wise solution, at least the expedient one.
But this wasn’t one of those.
No one is saying “We might as well just give up”, despite TrollBoy up there reading every post as if it did. The point of this thread, set out very clearly in the OP, is that all those folk saying “If I were there with my gun I would have taken the shooter down” are engaging in masturbatory fantasies that fail to recognise the very real chaos of the situation and the potential to make things much worse.
Sure, there is a very slim chance that an armed, trained, calm and extremely lucky audience member could have shot the shooter. The problem is that there is a much larger probability that an armed audience member would have panicked and wounded or killed a bystander or two by accident, and that until you’re in that situation you have no idea how you’ll react.
Which is pretty much what Kimstu said.
Sometimes people argue unsupportable positions with overused cliches and comparisons holding no basis in fact, reality or relevance.
They also travel in packs, because strength in numbers is the only thing supporting their argument.
Because you know, if you say it often enough it must be true!
pat, pat
Can’t we get a better quality of troll around here? This one is just so dull.
Let’s get one of the racist idiots back to argue that the shooter should have targetted [insert ethnic group here] people only in order to improve the gene pool - at least that would be more original. Or get Dave Mustain an account. Now *that’s *proper trolling.
kwimby, I thought You were 12 years old, sorry.
http://http://news.yahoo.com/man-accidentally-shoots-self-buttocks-gun-falls-pocket-082826134.html
But next time when You go to looking for a chance to be a hero be more careful.
So you agree that “taking your chances with the psychopath” is a defeatist, cowardly attitude holding the best probability for maximum carnage?
kwimby, poor kwimby, I have no idea to whom You are commenting, everybody here agrees just that You’re an idiot.
Maximum carnage! I get extra points if the gunman hits people close to me, but doesn’t hit me! I jump up and down and shout at him, and then hide behind some fat guy, and, wow, the points just roll up! If it comes down to nobody alive but him and me, and then the cops get him, bonus round! And if two or more cops accidentally shoot each other, total mega major bonus score and extra lives!
Also, kwimby is an idiot.
No the point of thread was that Black Rabbit lost the argument with his bud in the bar, so he had to come online and post it up here. Same reason you idiots cannot win it here either: Because you are wrong. Same reason most of you sad sobs post here in this or any other thread…
It’s not my fault the emptiness of your shallow lives makes you want to attempt to vicariously hurt me with your petty insults in order to validate your pathetic existence. Enjoy. It is after all what you do best. Gawd forbid you had any actual facts, information or debatable points to offer to the discussion.
Just to emphasize: The premise of this OP is based on assumptions presented by a barfly who probably lost the argument along with his old girlfriend to his bud’s ersatz penis. It is based on assumptions that cannot be technically verified or contradicted by ANYONE. It simply an anti-gun rant using a tragedy as a launching platform.
Disgusting.