And most everyone else seems to agree that being able to identify the target and get a clear line of sight in this incidence would have been damn near impossible (tear gas, unreliable light, mass confusion and jostling, moving target).
And you honestly think in a crowded, dark, smoky movie theater IDing the shooter and having an uninterrupted line of sight will be possible?
Certainly it’s a bad idea. However, given the choice between being a victim or surviving, I’m firing back. My family also has LEOs in it. And their opinion is that they would have taken the shot if the opportunity presented itself.
Clearly, it’s not beyond possibility.
It was aimed at the original poster. I hadn’t seen your joke.
Surviving=not getting killed, which people managed without guns.
About the only way that opportunity was gonna present itself was if you were standing right next to the guy, which would also mean he’d have a really great opportunity to plug you at point-blank range if you’re in front of him. YOu’d be better off indulging your hero complex by trying to tackle him or wrestling a long gun off him, because even if you were behind him or quicker on the draw you’d have to hope your gun had enough grunt to get through his armor.
If Jason Statham can do it, so can I.
A lot of things are not beyond possibility. You do not inspire much confidence.
No, the stars could align, and an angel could part the crowd and the angel’s halo could brighten the dark just enough to see…
Unfortunately, at the time of this tragedy, most likely no one in the theater realized the shooter had ballistic armor on. Any return fire would undoubtedly be from concealed locations aimed at the center mass of the shooter. I seriously doubt anyone would stand up and return fire.
What confidence. If the guy is shooting at you, you’re probably going to die. If he’s not shooting at you, crawl like hell away from the gunfire. But if you’re being shot at, and you have a weapon, you have two choices. Die or try.
You keep ignoring the fact that there are more choices, and these choices do not go away just because you have a gun in your possession.
That’s one of the dumbest lines I’ve ever heard. And you still haven’t explained why you think visibility will be high enough that an armed patron will be able to quickly and accurately ID the attacker and be able to disable him without harming anyone else or becoming the target of any other heroic armed patrons or a police force.
I concur. But in the interest of pedantry, it should be quantum physics books (or rather, one quantum physics book and one relativity book).
And what other reasonable choices do you if the guy is shooting at you?
This thread lists a few other reasonable choices that apply to this situation.
As I said - rush him. When in doubt, charge. You don’t even need a gun.
[del]Lucifer[/del] Morgenstern, I sympathize with your position, at least once you’ve qualified it back down to wanting to have a weapon for that one unlikely opportunity to get off a shot. But really, do you actually expect cinema houses to start allowing guns indoors, instead of just beefing up their security practices to intercept loonies coming in?
Edit to add, absent the tear gas, I would look at rushing him. Even if I get gutshot, I might draw fire long enough to let someone else tackle him. With the tear gas, I’d be less likely to get very far with that, but also in lousy shape to shoot a hypothetical gun anyway.
Okay, you’re being shot at. You see the bullets striking inches from your head. What would you do Czarcasm? What about your family right there beside you? You’ve got a gun, a bat and a bible. Your move.
I got mine in Texas and nobody mentioned anything about the NRA. It was pretty much a joke though. We just went over the relevant laws and even a blind person could pass the shooting test.
Assuming I still had my CHL and I was in the theater at the time, no, I probably wouldn’t try returning fire because the chance of missing and hitting an innocent bystander would be too great.