Three men die taking bullets for their GFs in Aurora

Iran designed ammunition to penetrate any US body protections. China and Russia manufacture and distribute the Iranian designs in various calibres.

Try google wrote:

I'm also not sure we want to live in a country where people carry rifles into movie theaters "just in case".

And if you're actually worried about saving lives, carrying a gun is pretty low on the list of reasonable precautions. If you carry around an AED and some other emergency first aid equipment, you will likely end up saving a life at some point. Funny how people who are so worried about saving lives with their guns never seem to be quite as serious about keeping an AED handy.

what weapon? wrote:

You clearly are a fucking moron. I will no longer discuss this topic with you.

This would be a better country if we repealed the 2nd amendment. I hate assholes like you, I hope your kids and family die when you are not around with your big guns to protect them, lol.

You sound like a sane, caring individual. You definitely have the moral high ground here.

Nice use of html code to circumvent the filter against curse words btw. It's interesting to know that their use is important enough to your message to merit the use of extra coding to get them in there.

what weapon? wrote:

.223 wrote:

There is no body armor that can stop an AR-15 .223 round or any high power rifle round for that matter. If someone had a .223 in the theatre Holmes could have been killed. Holmes used an AR-15 himself.

So your vision of an ideal world includes all men carrying around assault rifles at all times? Perhaps you'd be happier living in the Middle East.

+1

Mr. B wrote:

I doubt all 3 of these guys jumped into a hail of bullets to save their girlfriends,

This is the usual media hype

Women needed to be protected at all costs, including the cost of the life of a man. All people are equal, but some are more equal than others. Thank God these dudes had the sense to see that their girlfriends' lives were more important than theirs.

Holmes is from Castroville wrote:

James' body armor would have stopped a pistol round but would not have stopped a high powered rifle round whether if it was from a bolt-action .30-06 or a .308 / 7.62mm NATO round.

Has there been any details on the body armor he was wearing? I haven't seen any.

To the posters that keep saying that no body armor can stop an AR15 round:

Not sure if he had something like this or not but ceramic plates can stop a 5.56.

name optional wrote:

I bet more mothers died taking bullets for their children than men did for their GFs (or children). [bFemales are more altruistic than men.

Until the bullets start flying, apparently.

Interesting fact, women tend to vote more in favor of government sponsored healthcare programs and other welfare benefits, but men tend to donate a greater percentage of their income at all socioeconomic levels than women do. Women are altruistic with other peoples' money. Men are altruistic with their own money.

Holmes is from Castroville wrote:

James' body armor would have stopped a pistol round but would not have stopped a high powered rifle round whether if it was from a bolt-action .30-06 or a .308 / 7.62mm NATO round.

Admittedly, I know little about guns and body armor. But even if a pistol couldn't penetrate James' body armor, wouldn't a round knock him down and hurt him, and pretty much stop or slow down his shooting spree? And if you could knock him down with one round, couldn't you shoot him again and pretty much end the shooting spree? Any one know?

The Body Guard wrote:

Similar to those three guys, when Ronald Reagan was shot by John Hinkley, Jr, the Secret Service agents dove onto Reagan trying to avoid being shot (which they were not).

You are either trying to rile up people who know history or you are completely clueless. It is WELL documented that Secret Service Agent Tim McCarthy turned directly into the line of fire and made himself as wide a target as possible to protect the POTUS.

(look at exactly 40 seconds)

ronner wrote:

Admittedly, I know little about guns and body armor. But even if a pistol couldn't penetrate James' body armor, wouldn't a round knock him down and hurt him, and pretty much stop or slow down his shooting spree? And if you could knock him down with one round, couldn't you shoot him again and pretty much end the shooting spree? Any one know?

In the movies, people who are shot wearing body armor usually fall down and look dead for a few minutes, so I'm sure you're correct.

The SS agents aren't trained for that. The video shows the SS agents diving on to Reagan and taking him down to the ground to duck the bullets. But bullets struck Reagan and his aide. The book and movie showed everyone ducking like they were supposed to do.

ronner wrote:

Holmes is from Castroville wrote:

James' body armor would have stopped a pistol round but would not have stopped a high powered rifle round whether if it was from a bolt-action .30-06 or a .308 / 7.62mm NATO round.

Admittedly, I know little about guns and body armor. But even if a pistol couldn't penetrate James' body armor, wouldn't a round knock him down and hurt him, and pretty much stop or slow down his shooting spree? And if you could knock him down with one round, couldn't you shoot him again and pretty much end the shooting spree? Any one know?

Very unlikely to knock him down unless he was already off balance. Simple physics. Momentum is the product of mass x velocity. While a pistol bullet is moving fast it's so small that it won't move a human body very much even if the momentum transfer is 100% perfect.

No that agent didn't block the bullet intentionally. He happened to be standing in the path and crouched down startled and panickly. Brady and Reagan got shot due to the cowardice of the Secret Service. That video is a disgusting Chinese Firedrill. No wonder the Secret Service buys prostitutes. What a terrible disgrace that video shows the Secret Service to have become. The last great soldiers the U.S. had was the Union Army.

Charles Nonhomogenous wrote:

ronner wrote:

Admittedly, I know little about guns and body armor. But even if a pistol couldn't penetrate James' body armor, wouldn't a round knock him down and hurt him, and pretty much stop or slow down his shooting spree? And if you could knock him down with one round, couldn't you shoot him again and pretty much end the shooting spree? Any one know?

In the movies, people who are shot wearing body armor usually fall down and look dead for a few minutes, so I'm sure you're correct.

Most guys will likely do it out of instinct. Most.

Body Armor is only good at long range against assault rifles. At 10 yards or 50 yards the power of a 7.62mm round would have blast Holmes's skull wide open like Kennedy's was.

buffet rule not wrote:

what weapon? wrote:

[quote].223 wrote:

So your vision of an ideal world includes all men carrying around assault rifles at all times? Perhaps you'd be happier living in the Middle East.

you also left out the fact that it was a dark movie theater with some kind of gas clouding the air and the killer was dressed in all black. had multiple guys had assault rifles and tried to shoot the killer, a lot more innocent people would have been killed by all of their stray bullets.

I don't want anyone attending a midnight first release of any movie armed with anything more than a squirt gun.

Idiots believe Hollywood movies are for real, that you can absorbe hundreds of bullets, shoot 1,000 rounds, and throw hundreds of grenades.

Several points: first, for anyone to suggest that in this or other similar horros the loss of life and injury would have been reduced had others in the vicinity been armed, is speculative and absurd. Try to imagine police entering this theater and finding five or six men in various parts of the theater discharging weapons. Second, I don't think any of us who have not been in this situation really knows what courage we would or would not have demonstrated.Third, there is a peripheral aspect to this nightmare that troubles me.I heard one man interviewed who was in the theater with his girlfriend and their four month old child. Yesterday I learned that among the fatalities was a six year old child whose mother is injured. I don't mean to suggest any parent should have expected violence in a suburban movie theater, but what kind of parents are taking their very young children out in the middle of the night to see a PG-13 movie?Might it be better to read a child a story and put him or her to bed at a decent hour.k