Originally Posted by spdirty
If I'm in that theater at that time, I'd much rather be in it with errand, who's packin and has 30 year old training experience. Even if errand is full of **** in regards to his experience, if he is a good guy and he is packin I like my chances relying on him more than running out of the theater unarmed with no way to protect myself and no one there to help me, running out of there hoping Holmes doesn't target me and pull the trigger.
Even if he doesn't stop the guy, the odds are a bit more favorable for the victims and potential victims. It gives them a chance.
Let me ask you this hypothetical. Say you are forced to go into a situation like the theater massacre. You are gonna be there, there's no way of getting out of that situation. Are you going to go into that situation like a sheep being led to slaughter, unarmed, hoping you somehow get out of there alive? Or are you going to arm yourself, giving yourself a chance to get yourself and others out of that situation alive? Even if the odds aren't in your favor, with the teargas and bulletproof vest, and mass confusion going on?
It's an unfair question, because we all know what did happen that night. Nobody, not even you heroic CCL holders, goes into a midnight showing expecting What we don't
know (regardless of how much training you've had, and how recently) is that it definitely would have resulted in fewer deaths. This isn't a zero sum situation like with a jetliner where the pilot has died. If the plane crashes, they all die, but the scrappy Korean War vet lands the plane and saves them all. You could certainly have fewer casualties, given the right conditions, but given conditions are rarely "right" in the real world, you could certainly have more
casualties, as well. Ex-military should know this...it's why we have rules of engagement. Sure, someone could potentially survive the first salvo, return fire and drop the guy, but given the events, we know several things that have been touched on:
- Many people reported thinking it was part of the movie at first
- The shooter used tear gas
- The shooter wore body armor
(IMO right there he's got you, to be honest...anything coming after this is assuming you recognize
the threat before the average person at a midnight Batman showing did)
- The shooter started at the back of the auditorium, then down the aisles, aiming for people running or standing, not cowering
- The shooter has the benefit of a giant flashlight at his back
- The person returning fire has the disadvantage of shooting at a washed out target (in addition to tear gas and/or smoke)
- The shooter's weapons are unholstered and firing, the person returning fire is reclined in his seat with his weapon secure
So to answer your question, no. I would not want errand (or any other person) with a concealed weapon in that theater, not because I don't believe they could hit a target, but because I don't believe they could do so, with the conditions being what they were, and not add to the body count. If the shooter misses, he may accidentally hit a bystander, which adds to the body count. If the person returning fire misses, they are adding to it as well.
And that's the problem with leaning on the 2nd Amendment when it comes to things like CCL laws. Would pro-CCL people be willing to discuss the futility of such laws if the headlines had read "80 Dead or Injured in Aurora Theater Shooting as Gunman and Patron Exchange Fire?" No. Ohhhhhh hell
no. That person obviously
must not have paid attention during training, or they did something wrong to affect the outcome, but regardless, no person who follows
CCL training would allow that to happen. It's the No True Scotsman argument played out in real time. People want to live in a society free to tote a gun like it's no big deal, with the (inflated) opinion that they can take down any perp that gets in their way, but apparently have no concept that there are other people around not named "shooter". Where does my right not to get hit in your crossfire begin and your right to wield a weapon in public end?
More guns does not equal less crime.