Originally Posted by houghtam
- Many people reported thinking it was part of the movie at first
I've seen hundreds of movies....I almost always sit at the top in the very last row and other than the Rocky Horror Picture Show I've yet to see any staged event by the theater or production company that accompanied the movie EVER!......so I would have known that it was not a part of the movie
- The shooter used tear gas
He tossed the tear gas grenade, however there are several seconds before the auditorium would have been filled with the gas as there's a small "pop" which happens when you pull pin and toss......again I would have known it was a smoke or tear gas grenade which means a threat.....after 9/11 Anthrax scare why would anyone think otherwise is my question
- The shooter wore body armor
this would have been his saving grace from a well aimed shot to his torso. But not his arms, legs, groin or head....not to mention if your claim that I'd be cowering in fear if someone opened fire on me...what makes you think he wouldn't have beat feet when someone else opened fire on him?
(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)
YOU assume that nobody would've been able to recognize the threat because nobody there in attendance did.....I don't live in Aurora....I would have noticed him exiting and then re-entering dressed differently, carrying weapons.....I would have had my gun in my hand the second I noticed him holding a weapon, ready to respond.
again, the first clue was him coming back in from the exit dressed differently (he had exited theater and left door ajar to access his way back in after he gathered up his guns etc)......that alone would have drawn my attention to him ....you also left out that he also fired a shot into the ceiling (after throwing the grenade) before he started the massacre.....that's several seconds of time...and all the time a well trained, armed law abiding citizen needs to make a difference.
I can say with all honestly he would have been shot by me as soon as he threw the gas grenade.....and even if that did take me by surprise, he would have been fired upon by me after he fired his "warning" shot into the ceiling.
- The shooter started at the back of the auditorium, then down the aisles, aiming for people running or standing, not cowering
Gunman started at the front of the theater, with the screen to his back, and was wearing a gas mask.....to protect himself from the tear gas he had. You ever tried to shoot accurately with a gas mask on? I have.....again, my former USMC training and I'll tell you his sight is hindered just as much
It's not an easy task as condensation can build up on the eye lens. . In fact his death toll was actually pretty low considering he was shooting fish in a barrel which explains why he wounded more than he killed despite all those advantages you claim he had.
Bottom line is the only true advantage he had was that he was the only one that was armed in that theater. Which also brings to question why he chose that theater instead of others showing the same movie closer to his home....perhaps the fact it is the only one that didn't allow CCL?
- The shooter has the benefit of a giant flashlight at his back
And I would have had the benefit of his silhouette against the big screen.....making it look just like those targets you think are a waste of time as he would have shot those directly in front of him
- The person returning fire has the disadvantage of shooting at a washed out target (in addition to tear gas and/or smoke)
He would have been easy to spot prior to the tear gas getting to where I usually sit in a theater...because like I've said, coming in through the exit is the first clue that something is up....as nobody would have been running towards him....they would have been running away from him and probably ducking as they did. And at the typical distance of say 100 ft from a vantage point above him.....well let's just say I've hit smaller targets at greater distances with my .380
- The shooter's weapons are unholstered and firing, the person returning fire is reclined in his seat with his weapon secure
It doesn't take but a millisecond to unholster my gun, and start shooting.
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.
Again, those of us who train and go to the range all the time to hone our skills of shooting our guns are a different breed from those who just buy a gun and never fire it until they get attacked...but feel free to think otherwise. You underestimate people like myself who refuse to become someone's notch on their gun barrel
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.
So pray tell when has the death toll or injuries piled up when shootings are stopped by law abiding citizens? Again, the average number of deaths is 2.7 when law abiding citizen stops killing spree.....when police arrive to stop the carnage, it's 14.3
How about you liberals wouldn't want to discuss the headlines saying "Gunman shot before he could kill movie patrons" ?
Care to discuss that?