Another case of Gun Control -Backfiring.

[kytwell 179]

he was dressed in black, outfitted in a gas mask, ballistic helmet, vest and leggings, black tactical gloves and protectors on his throat and groin

That's what gets me. I am all for concealed carry, the right to have a bazooka, AR-15, AK-47, glocks whatever etc, etc. I can't think of any reasons to have full body armor.

[rocks 494]

That's what gets me. I am all for concealed carry, the right to have a bazooka, AR-15, AK-47, glocks whatever etc, etc. I can't think of any reasons to have full body armor.

It is just as bizzare to me that he was able to obtain that and the gas mask as it is for an assault rifle. You bring up a good point though, why would anyone need that?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Are gas mask bullet proof these days?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Gotta love all these people saying how someone having a concealed weapon wouldn't have helped...like they know this for sure. I know I would much rather have the option to find out if a concealed gun would help than not to have that option. I mean lets get real here for a moment. Would you want that option or not? How many here would like the option to live over the option of catching a bullet upside the head?

I'm saying nobody knows if it would have helped or not. Like I said, either the shooter gets shot or more innocent victims get shot. Some survivors stated they couldn't even see the shooter. That's a pretty scary situation for the carrier of the concealed weapon, no?

It may have helped. It may not have. Nobody knows for sure, yet the pro-concealed carry people seem to think it's a fact that lives would have been saved.

It's all speculation.

[rocks 494]

Are gas mask bullet proof these days?

Let me get this straight. While having your vision distorted by some unknown gas, it being dark, and a man wearing black who is also in body armor, wearing a ballistic helmet and a gas mask, you think you would be in the right location to shoot him and disable/kill him, missing everyone else in the theater, and also be unharmed?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Let me get this straight. While having your vision distorted by some unknown gas, it being dark, and a man wearing black who is also in body armor, wearing a ballistic helmet and a gas mask, you think you would be in the right location to shoot him and disable/kill him, missing everyone else in the theater, and also be unharmed?

[rocks 494]

I admire the confidence he has in himself but this doesn't sound very feasible.

[Danno 1,228]

I hav't read any reports where the smoke bomb was all that effective, and in a movie theater one person standing while the movie is running is exactly the type of target you want.

We do know he was in a gun-free town.

We do know he was in a gun-free theater.

We do know his one concern was someone shooting back from the protection he took.

We do know freely walking around shooting people will yield a much higher body count than a person who is actually taking fire back and then taking cover himself.

We do know GUN-FREE Zones have now become the preferred place to carry out such madness.

To say one or three or five people shooting back would not have saved a tremendous amount of lives is silly.

As for innocent people getting shot, imagine the trajectory of a person crouched behind seats shooting slightly up at a standing target while everyone else is crawling on the floor.

We have become a nation with too many cowards, not only are they willing to "not resist".... they insist no one else be able to as well.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I hav't read any reports where the smoke bomb was all that effective, and in a movie theater one person standing while the movie is running is exactly the type of target you want.

We do know he was in a gun-free town.

We do know he was in a gun-free theater.

We do know his one concern was someone shooting back from the protection he took.

We do know freely walking around shooting people will yield a much higher body count than a person who is actually taking fire back and then taking cover himself.

We do know GUN-FREE Zones have now become the preferred place to carry out such madness.

To say one or three or five people shooting back would not have saved a tremendous amount of lives is silly.

As for innocent people getting shot, imagine the trajectory of a person crouched behind seats shooting slightly up at a standing target while everyone else is crawling on the floor.

We have become a nation with too many cowards, not only are they willing to "not resist".... they insist no one else be able to as well.

Some people who were ACTUALLY THERE said they could not see the shooter himself. The police needed masks to get into the theater. I'd say that's pretty effective.

You weren't there. Nobody here was. To say without a doubt that it would go down in the exact perfect way you have described isn't factual. Sure, one would hope that someone carrying a gun could get a clean shot and lives could be saved. But none of us were in the environment and opinion is not fact.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Evylin

[Ban Hammer 13,555]

Are gas mask bullet proof these days?

[Danno 1,228]

Some people who were ACTUALLY THERE said they could not see the shooter himself. The police needed masks to get into the theater. I'd say that's pretty effective.

You weren't there. Nobody here was. To say without a doubt that it would go down in the exact perfect way you have described isn't factual. Sure, one would hope that someone carrying a gun could get a clean shot and lives could be saved. But none of us were in the environment and opinion is not fact.

You are right I wasn't there but people couldn't see because they were taking cover, if the smoke was that heavy how did he see to hit so many targets?

secondly the whole thing unfolded in a matter a a minute or three, smoke does not disperse that quickly anyway so I would imagine much of the theater was clear enough for a clear shot.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

You are right I wasn't there but people couldn't see because they were taking cover, if the smoke was that heavy how did he see to hit so many targets?

secondly the whole thing unfolded in a matter a a minute or three, smoke does not disperse that quickly anyway so I would imagine much of the theater was clear enough for a clear shot.

Seriously? In a crowded room, you could barely aim at all, and still hit targets if you shoot enough.

When the shots first went off, the audience did not know what was happening. They thought maybe they were fireworks or special effects for the premiere. If that's the case, and they could barely see the shooter even when he began shooting, I find it hard to believe that the visibility in that room was all that great.

It's easy for us to speculate on what we would or wouldn't have done, but without being there, there's no way for any of us to say what would have helped the situation or not, basically.

[rocks 494]

You are right I wasn't there but people couldn't see because they were taking cover, if the smoke was that heavy how did he see to hit so many targets?

secondly the whole thing unfolded in a matter a a minute or three, smoke does not disperse that quickly anyway so I would imagine much of the theater was clear enough for a clear shot.

opinion is not fact.

Mr Holmes is accused of throwing two canisters of gas into a busy midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises before firing at random at the crowd. Witnesses say he was wearing full body armour during the attack.

See how this covers his eyes?

Edited July 23, 2012 by rocks

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I hav't read any reports where the smoke bomb was all that effective, and in a movie theater one person standing while the movie is running is exactly the type of target you want.

We do know he was in a gun-free town.

We do know he was in a gun-free theater.

We do know his one concern was someone shooting back from the protection he took.

We do know freely walking around shooting people will yield a much higher body count than a person who is actually taking fire back and then taking cover himself.

We do know GUN-FREE Zones have now become the preferred place to carry out such madness.

To say one or three or five people shooting back would not have saved a tremendous amount of lives is silly.

As for innocent people getting shot, imagine the trajectory of a person crouched behind seats shooting slightly up at a standing target while everyone else is crawling on the floor.

We have become a nation with too many cowards, not only are they willing to "not resist".... they insist no one else be able to as well.

The best way to describe that situation would have been suicide IMO.

[justashooter 430]

you will all note that this event did not occur in rural pennsylvania.