sub3over40 wrote:
They are heroes and should be honored. But I would much rather these men have been legally armed themselves and taken this maniac out. They might have survived and the idiot that did this would be dead. Now the victims and families have to go through a trial where this idiot gets more headlines.
Maybe but if armed it's possible a gunfight in theatre 9 might have resulted in more carnage.
Correct, I question the validity of a successful shoot-out in the theater for all the reasons mentioned.With that said, this guy (Holmes) would have done something demented with or without an assault weapon. What if instead of shooting guns, he rigged up the entire place with explosives? Or blew-up a skyscraper? The possibility exists that we're lucky someone with his resources (tangible and mental) took this out on a relatively small scale. Just saying...
buffet rule not wrote:
what weapon? 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.
You cannot hide the muzzle flash from a weapon. Holmes could have been killed with return fire from an AR-15 or other high-powered bolt-action / assault-rifle directed at his muzzle flash. Body armor cannot stop an AR-15 round. Holmes would have been killed.
It's strange to read all the conjecture about heroes. I am writing a book about Nam. Several of the interviewees received bronze and silvers for heroism. One rescued his wounded buddy who was laying out in the open while enemy fire was pretty thick. Without really thinking about, he just acted . He ran out, grabbed the guy and dragged him to relative safety. His squad saw what he was doing and gave him covering fire.
I asked him why he exposed himself to death and he told me he felt it the right thing to do. It was one of his men ( he was a platoon sergeant).The decision was made in a moments time. Almost a reflexive and instinctive action.
All that happened in Aurora, people running, people ducking and people shielding others, was made in a moments time. I guarantee there was no huddle while theater goers strategized about their next move.
Most guns are sold to responsible people but not all. Every now and then we pay a steep price. At times like this elements of our society resemble the same terrorism we deplore in other parts of the world. Only briefly but it is still 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.
What assault weapons. .223 AR-15 is semi auto...looks scary to liberals but got to pull trigger each time. I carry a concealed permit handgun. Glock with 17 rounds. I can fire a tad quicker than AR-15 civilan. Make all the laws you want now. I will carry always. Out of 84 people that work in my bldg...41 carry concealed permit. But then my state is a way conservative state.
Asailtwhat. wrote:
What assault weapons. .223 AR-15 is semi auto...looks scary to liberals but got to pull trigger each time. I carry a concealed permit handgun. Glock with 17 rounds. I can fire a tad quicker than AR-15 civilan. Make all the laws you want now. I will carry always. Out of 84 people that work in my bldg...41 carry concealed permit. But then my state is a way conservative state.
You can always recognize the dumbest person in the conversation because they're the first to start throwing around the terms "liberal" and "conservative." I've said nothing about government control of guns, so the idea that I am Liberal with regard to this or any issue is unfounded.
white people being white people.
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.
Too bad those guys died. They would have had pretty strong PNSO insurance for the future. "You don't want to get freaky tonight? But I took a bullet for you at the movie theatre!"
Clueless nitwit identifier wrote:
sub3over40 wrote:They are heroes and should be honored. But I would much rather these men have been legally armed themselves and taken this maniac out. They might have survived and the idiot that did this would be dead. Now the victims and families have to go through a trial where this idiot gets more headlines.
Maybe but if armed it's possible a gunfight in theatre 9 might have resulted in more carnage.
How could there have been more carnage? 12 Dead 59 Wounded. The shooter picked a location where he knew that no one would have gun to stop him. "Gun Free" zones are the most dangerous places in America because you cannot defend yourself and the psychos know it.
Muzzle Flash wrote:
You cannot hide the muzzle flash from a weapon. Holmes could have been killed with return fire from an AR-15 or other high-powered bolt-action / assault-rifle directed at his muzzle flash. Body armor cannot stop an AR-15 round. Holmes would have been killed.
And this high-powered assault rifle should have been carried by someone going to watch a movie?
.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.
I'm kind of confused by this statement myself, I'm no gun expert, but isn't .223 a rifle round? It seems like even if you had a concealed carry permit, you wouldn't be carrying a rifle.
I'm also not sure we want to live in a country where people carry rifles into movie theaters "just in case".
So, how about handguns that could have penetrated the armor? Are there any, are they generally legal? I imagine a .45 could do it, or am I wrong?
Muzzle Flash wrote:
You cannot hide the muzzle flash from a weapon. Holmes could have been killed with return fire from an AR-15 or other high-powered bolt-action / assault-rifle directed at his muzzle flash. Body armor cannot stop an AR-15 round. Holmes would have been killed.
eventually the rifler toters would have gotten him but they also would have taken out many more innocent people. i really don't think you have any idea what it's like to be in a dark theater, filled with smoke, chaos with people running and jumping all over the place, and a shooter dressed in all black. a trained sniper would have had a hard time taking out the shooter on the first shot without collateral damage. you also omitted how many other innocent people would be killed in other incidents if many people were armed with assault rifles on a daily basis. most people don't know how to drive a car properly so the last thing i would want would be for the same bunch of idiots toting military style guns everywhere.
I doubt all 3 of these guys jumped into a hail of bullets to save their girlfriends,
This is the usual media hype
I bet more mothers died taking bullets for their children than men did for their GFs (or children). Females are more altruistic than men.
buffet rule not wrote:
most people don't know how to drive a car properly so the last thing i would want would be for the same bunch of idiots toting military style guns everywhere.
This^
eojtlc 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.
I'm kind of confused by this statement myself, I'm no gun expert, but isn't .223 a rifle round? It seems like even if you had a concealed carry permit, you wouldn't be carrying a rifle.
I'm also not sure we want to live in a country where people carry rifles into movie theaters "just in case".
So, how about handguns that could have penetrated the armor? Are there any, are they generally legal? I imagine a .45 could do it, or am I wrong?
The Interceptor body armor with ballistic plates which is used by the US military will stop a .45 as well as rifle rounds up to 7.62mm (if the shot is on the plates).
This thread is nothing more than Thailand Tourist advertisement by the OP, for men to have transgender operation, pleaze take it down.
interceptor is useless at close range against a .308 M14 or .223 M16 round. they work at 200 yards on up.
.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.
Give me a break bro. If you don't know anything about ballistics or the abilities of bullet resistant gear please STFU.