You libs just don't get it.

where you did with that comment, but I'm glad you said it.

some people are idiots - liberal, conservative, male, female, rich, poor. No group is short of fucking idiots.

What does that make you?

The most imbedded troll ever.







Or maybe I was joking?

Too many people watch way too much of the TV machine.

when those guys shot up downtown LA. Saw exactly how effective pistols are against armor and high-powered rifles.

So.

Due to Chief Oates saying it, a few times.

On this one, it is willful ignorance of facts.

Gets worst, the Aurora Police has not deviated from that part of the story...but we have people, even posters here, tell us...but it was just a flack jacket. Should qualify, a flack jacket could potentially be penetrated with a high powered side arm...a cute .22, or even a .38, not really.

The cops never said what level of Kevlar was involved, but given it was tactical gear, my guess would be, and it is just a guess, level III-B... William is right, they needed a riffle. Chief Oates even said such. The reason the officers detained him so easily though...is the down side to the 100 round magazine, it jammed.

In a presser. You are telling me he lied to the press? That's a damn serious charge.

He said it not once, a few times.

Just a jacket? At very least he HAD to have been wearing a gas mask, duh?

Maybe he had that on his head.

The ballistic helmet, the leggings, the throat armor, the gas mask and other items listed by the police chief as confiscated are not in that pile. So what? he certainly had them.

and rush him to take him down. Besides, in was dark, smoky, and there were lots of women, teens and kids in there--where are the other three big guys you need to take him down? maybe on the other side of him?

It is just more unfair attacks to imagine that there should have been efforts by the audience to take James down. They want to portray others as cowards and themselves as big tough military types. IOW, Republicans vs Dems (girls, children and cowards) They have fallen into RW memeworld. Insulting.

One unfortunately lost his life.

how can we expect untrained people to do better?

...would have enabled them to handle the situation if they choose top do so...

So you think chief oates lied to the media? And that photo is all you can see, not necessarily all that there was.

So tell me, why would the Chief tell the media he was wearing all that crap if he wasn't? Please, I want motives for the chief to LIE to Tje national media.

You think they would have left that on the ground? He was TAKEN to jail still wearing the crap, in cuffs, where it was inventoried...

So once again, why would the chief lie?

i've heard the body armor all over the news. how come these self described well informed gun supporters haven't hear it.

It does not fit the fantasy.

I can guess at the NIJ level, just because I wore body armor for eight years, hot, sweaty, heavy, miserable...so I know what those numbers mean, when the chief even mentioned a riffle round was needed it even confirmed, to those who know the numbers, the likely level of Kevlar worn.

they could have stopped him. If you take away the arugment that he could have been stopped, is there any reason for them to carry guns in the theatre?

that given what Holmes wore, you would have tickled him... but more likely, due to follow through and lack of a clear shot, you would be facing charges for actually hitting somebody else, perhaps killing them. This is in-spite of all the good intentions. TRAINED shooters have a pretty low hit ratio, per NATIONAL FBI statistics, by that I mean COPS, in the FIELD, during shoot outs. You expect civilians who are NOT trained in a tactical range to do better in this situation?

I know the NRA and Gomert think so, but it is sheer hollywood driven fantasy.

I know that the only way this fantasy will end is when (statistically it will happen) during one of these mass shootings we have somebody actually try to play dirty harry, and MORE people get themselves killed, due to the cross fire.

I guess you know I often don't agree with you but this you got right on the mark. Thanks.

needed saying.

For me the argument fails on the assumption that everyone who carries a gun does well when they go target shooting. I have not heard of any where that threshold of accuracy required to acquire a gun license. I do know that the requirements in MO are minimal.

Harder? Absolutely. Impossible? Not at all.

But, we'll never know since the theater was a 'gun free zone' - which means only the bad guys have them.

Per the Chief, you should infer the NIJ number, they would have needed a riffle round.

How many rounds would hit OTHERS assuming you got your "skilled" shot.

As a gun bunny I am shocked you are even saying lucky shot. There is no such thing.

So, follow through, and given national stats, nothing personal, don't think you are that good.

Go visit the FBI and look at national stats fr police shootouts and hit ratios. We both can agree they're better drilled and trained than Joe Citizen.

What you think about my skill level means nothing.
His arms and legs are also exposed.
A face shot, even with a mask, will do damage. Most of all it alter his mindset.
Lastly - I'd rather take my chances shooting at him over laying and hoping for a quick, cowardly, death.
But all of that is moot since this was a 'gun free zone'. Hooray! He was able to shoot without having to worry about anyone returning fire.

And as to skill...I have my doubts, nothing personal, that you go through a tactical range as often as cops do, and they're not that skilled, I know that. FBI stats are clear on that. But you attend a shooting house fairly regularly?

GUN GRABBER MIS INFORMATION FAIL

Of the primary response and responsibility agency...of...lying? And you know MORE than the Chief of police?

Ok dokie.

In a press conference, live with it, gun bunny.

But then again the Hollywood shoot out did not go according to the way it did per officers on the scene either.

to lie with impunity? No - you made the claim. Here. You posted it. YOU need to suck it up and own it - but you can't. And THAT is your downfall.

When the Chief of police, said in a NATIONALLY BROADCASTED PRESSER, on all channels, that he was wearing armor, why would the chief lie? Obvious you got better info than the cops.

The company's owners have been criticized for selling Holmes a "Blackhawk urban assault vest," two magazine pouches, and a "Be-Wharned" silver tactical knife for $306.79, and shipping it 2nd Day Air to him early this month.



http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2012/07/james_holes_tactical_gear_assault_vest_threats.php

You lied.

James Eagan Holmes, 24, legally bought the four weapons he allegedly used. Police said he opened fire in the suburban Denver theater with four sold-out showings of the premiere of the Batman movie Dark Knight Rises. He was dressed head-to-toe in black bullet-proof gear, including helmet, vest, leggings and a groin and throat protector. He wore a gas mask, goggles and black gloves.

Link in a sec, not that it matters in your case

Here, link

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-20/colorado-shooting-holmes/56373668/1

Nooz writer took that info from the actual news conference with the actual chief.

So you know more than the chief?

So, show me what brand and model vest he was wearing

Genious, you do realize that a load bearing vest can, and is regularly worn, by police and military forces? Or are you actually as ignorant, and tough attitude hombre, as I am concluding you are.

Poor me, I wore load bearing vests on top of my body armor...I know, unfricking unbelievable, since in your world, one is impossible to wear over the other.

Prove it. I substantiated my side.

But here is another mention, now on wired, story is 22 hours old.

Is American your first language?

Look for what they claim is his 'bullet proof vest purchase'. It's not. It's the tactical vest I showed you. From TacticalGear.com

Here is a link to the receipt:
http://www.stltoday.com/tacticalgear-sales-receipt-for-james-holmes/pdf_d886da6e-d2dd-11e1-a574-0019bb30f31a.html

Thought you should know.

And again, when and where were these shootouts you were involved in?

He could have bought another vest and been wearing it instead and the police chief could also be honestly mistaken. Until the name/model of the vest is released, its hard to say at this point.

At this point, sorry if I take his words at face value.

And it really does not change anything. No one there attempted to return fire, so the issue of if it was really Kevlar or not is effectively academic.

Were there 12 cowards in the movie house? Or where there 71? Or was the entire audience save one, the shooter, a bunch of cowards? Because the father of one victim, I mean coward, called the shooter a coward. See my confusion?

If *I* had the opportunity and let it pass *I* would feel like a coward. I am not passing judgment on anyone else.

who know everything they need to know about weapons, firefights, and police and military procedures from the movies or hanging out with their buddies at the bar. And there's a lot of 'em here who will tell you just what Dirty Harry or Batman would do.

There are people who shoot for fun and haven't been through the training, but most of them know better than to pontificate here.

you know what is amazing? We were talking with a friend who happens to be very liberal, thank you very much, yesterday. He was talking of the arguments his RW, and I MEAN RW clients, were telling him about the shooting, and how they would take this guy down.

Well, you'd think he'd been reading DU GD or 'thing, same exact irrational arguments, and yes, they are irrational. No, my iggy list has grown by leaps and bounds at this point. I have told a few, but not others.

And what is amazing is when one starts arguing with a combat vet from Iraq, and telling the vet that obviously he has no clue. Now that one WAS priceless.

It is a religion. And when Corbet gives strokes to "sweet Dreams" his gun on stage, he is making fun of precisely our "commandos"

OTOH when talking with people who actually have a clue... I came to realize that in spite of the carnage, we were actually lucky, and it had nothing to do with the AR either... so that is a small consolation, and no, will not repeat what actual vets said, in the off chance somebody might get the wrong ideas.

...and if you don't get lucky, who else gets shot by your miss?

Fail.

P.S. I'm still waiting for a reply to post #99.

Right by the screen. There's no one behind him.

Your guns wouldn't have helped here. Give it up.

It would be damn near impossible for anyone to sort out who was with him and who was against him, especially in the heat of battle.
There is a reason Armies wear uniforms. It's to distinguish the combatants from the "collateral damage".

Perhaps the solution is to have anyone with benign intent wearing a uniform, and have the sale and possession of those uniforms HEAVILY regulated since we can't (apparently) do anything about the guns themselves.

There may have been other purchases, but the one being cited is not Kevlar nor ceramic plate

You mean having a gun strapped on doesn't turn you into Duke Nukem?

Surely you jest!

There was tear gas in the air....when my eyes are burning and tearing I can't see very well.

And surprisingly, I'm pretty talented, rather than well trained. I get the zombies in the face and neck more ofter than any other part. No body armor there. This is a pointless post, though because I don't pack heat and in the crazy darkness, I would likely have failed. After all, our fucked up sociopath isn't a zombie and I've only practiced with two dimensional zombies.

Not when we have us congressmen, louis Gomert comes to mind, making the argument that if somebody was in there..well you know it.

That could throw your aim off

would have been pretty useless.

I try never to do anything with teargas in my eyes. Or pepper spray.

I was never in a firefight during my time in the Viet Nam years, but I went through basic crawling under machine gun fire and the infantry guys had another two months of RVN training in the Louisiana swamps. From the stories I got from guys cycling out no amount of training prepares you for your first firefight. Or your first kill.

Smoke, noise, no clear targets, bullets and rockets whizzing past you, seeing your best bud on the ground with his guts hanging out while shitting in your pants is the way it goes and it takes a bit for the training to kick in and you get on with it. Sometimes, you don't get on with it.

A dark, smoky theater with bullets flying? No way a Range Rambo is gonna take care of business. No one even knows how a hardened combat vet would react. I remember sitting in a class when a car backfired outside and two Vet Nam vets yelled "incoming" and hit the floor. It wasn't funny. Not funny at all.

The only thing I imagine if people were packing in there would be be more carnage if anyone tried to take him down.

I would have charged down the aisle at the shooter, did a triple somersault, jumped over the gunman, then give him a roundhouse kick. As he was laying on the ground I would then have pulled my side arm, pointed it at him and said something like (In a Dirty Harry kind of voice) "The joke's on you....punk" And then I would have got him one right between the eyes.

You too?

Not if I had beat you to it.

With my smoke proof IR goggles I would have been able to see perfectly and beat you to the punch.

lol--thanks for the image, johnnie

Not just of this thread, either. You win this whole insane week's worth of gun threads!

Reactivate gungeon to standard mode, Skinner. It's over!

especially with tear gas it would have been very difficult. If someone had seen him step through the door first with a rifle in his hands they might have had a better chance. We can't say with absolute certainty.

The shooter could be almost certain he wouldn't face return fire. I don't care how big a gun you have, if you have two or three people shooting at you from unknown locations, you'll lose.

If you look at it from the shooters perspective, he saw a target rich environment with little or no chance of resistance. If he thought someone or someones in that crowd of hundreds of people would shoot back from cover, he would probably have selected a different way to kill a bunch of people.

There is a reason why police procedures emphasize clear shot and follow through...yes, I know this for a fact.

If you had a LEO in that mess..chances are they would have become good witnesses...and only opened fire if they had a clear shot.

Now tough one, you know how fast this was? No, this is not Hollywood...tell you the seconds, 90.

If the shooter had thought there would be somebody willing to shoot back, that thought would probably prompt him to find another way to kill people.

He wanted to set up an ambush, not walk into one himself. Otherwise he would have tried to shoot up a police station.

But go on, live that fantasy.

enjoyed the luxury of the avoidance and hasty retreat you just employed.

I presented an idea. Likely something that hadn't occurred to you. Deal with it.

Drawn from way too many hollywood flicks.

I will draw from personal experience. I have actually been involved in a few shootouts. A couple even involved one of the weapons in question. The people shooting back had fire discipline and were professionals.

How many fire fights have you been at?

I also paraphrsed actual police procedure.

Deal with it.

Why did he select that target?

You'd know the answer, nothing to do with being a soft target by the way.

But if you prefer to live in fantasy land, there is a Hollywood script in there, and it includes dirty Harry like character taking Holmes down before he pulled the trigger once...and dialogue like "punk."

If you know so much about it, why did he select that target?

And since you're such an authority, how might we dissuade lunatics from killing people?

But damn, play acting the Jocker should be the dead give away.

And I am talking from quite a bit of personal experience regarding guns.

One way to reduce the death toll...destigmitize mental health, make it easy to access, 100 round magazines do not belong in hands of civilians. I could go on. But go speak sweet words to your gun.

Sorta.

You could post a link in the interest of common courtesy, but you'd rather insult me.

I can see you've had a lot of combat experience. Especially when it comes to tactical withdrawal.

The point that you have studiously tried to avoid is not the feasibility if engaging the lunatic, (I already said it would be extremely diffecult) but how we might keep him from making the attempt. One poster has already commented on his use of body armor to me. And that is a very good point. But you prefer your soap box and canned responses. Pity.

Not tactical withdrawal, reality...and common courtesy...it's damn obvious you have not followed the reality.

And I am serious, there is a Hollywood script in there, where things will go as you believe things should be, and don't need to worry about facts.