Good lesson from Farnam, something we can all learn from. If you carry, like I do, are you READY? It’s always good to check yourself and your attitude. Don’t let pride and ego get in the way of the right answer.
I’ll be going to a Farnam course in a few weeks. And I expect to learn quite a bit.
Only compounded by the fact we only allow Security Forces to openly carry on nearly all bases. Since they can get in trouble for even bringing a weapon on those bases without turning it in to the armory until they are prepared to leave it only makes it worse. After all, why even bring it with you if you have to lock it up for the whole day? And so our troops don't learn TRUE proper firearms control.
Sometimes I wonder if we shouldn't be giving everyone firearms training from cattle ranchers. They at least know the drill.
Had someone been ready in Aurora CO, the tragedy that unfolded would have been greatly abbreviated.
But of course, the problem will be the guns and ammunition. Not that a psychotic had planned to kill large numbers of people for months.
Not necessarily. Target ID would have been very problematic:
- Teargas
- Low lights
- Lots of loud, panicked, moving bodies
- At close quarters, the probability of 'friendly-fire' death(s) would come close to 100%.
My argument is technical – I don't disagree that the POS should've taken the 2d bullet fired.
Perhaps you can make a technical argument. But even the saving of one life….
Without anyone armed and prepared, there was NO chance.
"Gun free zones". Where the perp knows nobody's shooting back.
I beleive a good marksman with resolve and determination could of made a difference in during the tragedy in Aurora. It probably would of required getting as close as possible for target ID and a clear shot. The marksman would need the resolve to keep fighting even wounded. Since the murderer didn't fight it out with the police, it is possible return fire might of caused him to break off the engagement. It would at least have caused him to focus on one target for a time, allowing more people to possibly escape.
Since this type of mass casualty incident in "gun free zones", however unlikely, is not unknown in this country (or others) responsible and sober minded adults have to decide two things. Is it in your best interest to be in "gun free zones," and is it in your best interest to obey laws that would restrict you to being a victim? If you decide to obey restrictive laws, then I would suggest you stay clear of "gun free zones."
Personally I avoid Gun Free Zones like the plague, and I suggest everyone else do the same. It's the only way to get those idiots to change their policies. I guarentee these kinds of places will only be pushing the policy even more because of this tragedy, so we have to hit them in the pocketbook.
Guys, I with you, but right now i'm siding with DaveO's argument. More guns would have more likely resulted in more innocent dead. That, and studies have repeatedly found that even trained soldiers who have never been in combat tend to either spay bullets wildly or just hunker down and wait for the shooting to stop and never fire a shot. It's wishful thinking to say that had someone been armed they would have calmly stood up and taken him out from 50 meters with their M-9, in the dark, in mass confusion, and with tear gas swirling around. I don't have a good answer or an alternative that could have preevented this tragedy. I do have a question, What the fck was he doing with a drum magazine on an M16? What the fck does anyone need with a drum magazine? Kill multiple gophers? Prairie dogs? Rats at the dump? The only good that came from the drum magazine was that it apparently jammed on him early on, and he couldn't figure out how to unjam it.
It's basically a way for untrained individuals to get around the laws that prohibit easily removable magazines. The things never would have been created if the standard ones weren't made illegal is so many places.
Bill Cooper: the short answer is one buys the drum magazine, or manufactures it. The thing is neither good nor evil. The key is the alleged killer's ignorance because a high-capacity magazine is, IMO, crappy for close assault because the residue from the number of rounds passing through the chamber guarantee the gas tube will be fouled leading to misfeed.
I'm going to wait for all those smart investigators to push out some facts. What we have are assumptions and conjectures.
Conjecture: the alleged killer is insane
Conjecture: the alleged killer learned how to plan, resource, and implement for the purpose of _____(?). Source: (assumption) Internet
Conjecture: the alleged killer experimented on himself. He is very well educated in the effects of electricity and chemicals on the brain. But, pictures of him in court show a person in shock, not the usual flat effect or amusement.
Conjecture: the alleged killer had a helper
Conjecture: the alleged killer played 1st-person shooter games
Conjecture: the high-capacity magazine lead to a sense of complacency in the weapon
Mr. Cooper, maybe you should not be allowed to express your opinion…After all, you're not a professional journalist, and all of these different publicly voiced opinions tend to confuse issues and distort the truth…
As ridiculous as that sounds, that's basically the same argument you made aboutthe drum mag…nobody needs one, any more than you need to voice your opinion here…but both are rights enshrined in the Constitution, and no one Natural right is more important than any other. In any case, it turned out well that he had the drum, because it jammed (as they are notorious for doing), causing him to switch weapons. [And he was armed with an AR...M16 implies full auto and gets the uninformed politicians in a tizzy].
Fot those who argue that introducing more guns into the situation would cause more casualties, why would anyone call the police then? Police carry guns. Would you just call the paramedics and wait for the guy to run out of ammo?
The shooting situation would be difficult, especially once the CS started filling the room. But until that cloud had expanded, it probably wouldn't be the worst situation…consider stadium seating (good field of view from above, target at bottom), he's at the bottom of the the theater near the exit (no backstop problem) and everyone is running away from him (the "bubble" around him will continue to expand). And like Matt pointed out, anyone returning fire would have caused him to focus on neutralizing that threat instead of random victims as the appeared.
I would remind people that in Virginia, with a CCW, it is not illegal to carry most places (schools, courthouse, post office being some exceptions). Even with the "No Gun" sign, it is not illegal to carry. If they find you are carrying in a theater, store or other venue with a "No Guns" policy, they can ask you to leave and if you refuse you can be charged with trespassing. But ignoring the sign in and of itself is not illegal.
Yeah, and if you had been there, by gawd, things would have been different. Right.
Well, I never mentioned what I would do in the above post, but in response to yours I would say "Yes, I can only pray that it would have been different." At least I would have had the tools to confront the threat. The other plan of running away, every man, woman and child for themselves just doesn't appeal to me.
While I can't speak for anyone else on this forum, yes, it would have been different if I had been there. There would of been at least one person there willing to fight back. I am not claiming I would have prevailed, but I'd rather die trying than cowering. That is a decision I made for myself years ago, armed or not, I will fight back. I figure the odds of dying cowering or fleeing are about the same as dying on the attack. A firearm does not make a person invincible, especially when that person is standing amongst the inteded victims.