CO: Shooting at Movie Theater in Aurora

SKS Brad said:
I am now self banning all viewing of the news outlets, both online and on TV, OMFG. This is ridiculous. If I hear the deadly "Glock", "Assault Weapon", "100 rounds", blah blah blah anymore from the media, I may implode. The conspiracy theorists are coming out of the walls as well, "U.N. Small Arms Treaty plot", "POTUS martial law trigger", "FBI planted the shooter", etc.. WTF, are the sheople insane? [rhetorical]

If only the anti's, the pros and the media morons would put this level of commitment and fervor towards our country getting its' financial shit in order, it would happen with some level of expediency. It amazes me that this type of tragedy drives this level of idiocy, doesn't surprise me.

In 2 weeks, it will settle down, the battle lines will be redrawn, and the levels of control will be proposed. Nothing can pass our House & Senate anyway, so what is the freakin' point? Unfortunately, our liberal arse state .gov's may very well take action on their own, which will SUCK. Everyone knows the passing of more laws will stop the criminal activity [sarcasm].
Click to expand...

They would have preferred carnage by way of explosive devices I suppose
 
radioman said:
How come a madman can pull something like this off with out ever firing a shot but in order to retaliate against a guy like this you need years of training?
Click to expand...

Because a madman is just that: a madman. I'm not saying the average person couldn't have stopped this. I'm saying you don't KNOW if you could have. Have you ever been shot at in a movie theater? Have you ever been walking down the street when the person next to you takes a round to the chest? If so, what was your reaction? May people who have trained for firearm engagements react poorly when they occur. Others with no training react very well.

Incidentally, the same thing applies to madmen. Many of them plan on committing suicide or going down in a hail of gunfire. Once they see what it looks like to get shot down, they chicken out.

That's it, in a nutshell. I'm not saying you couldn't be the hero. I'm saying you don't know if you could be the hero until you find yourself in that situation. You could be the person leaving his baby in the aisle as you run to the door and not even realize you're doing it. That's why many of us stress training. Muscle memory and automatic reactions can often trump instinct.
 
Last edited:
Ballistic protection is only good if you hit it, if it even is true protection. Reports are now emerging that it was just black mall ninja tactical crap. Maybe this is why he gave up so easily, he knew it would not stop a round or 10.
 
bullseye said:
Ballistic protection is only good if you hit it, if it even is true protection. Reports are now emerging that it was just black mall ninja tactical crap. Maybe this is why he gave up so easily, he knew it would not stop a round or 10.
Click to expand...

I saw those reports too, it also seems likely that he was using smoke not "tear gas."

It seems his outfit was more for looks than function. I think the picture that will e emerge is that he has little or no formal training. This is not a case of SEAL team 6 invading your movie theater. He had plenty of ammo left, but as soon as people showed up with guns, he quickly surrendered without a fight.
 
Mass-diver said:
I think the wild card is whether it was just smoke or if it was OC.

Obviously, this is pretty much a worse case senerio, but I agree with some luck, it's not ridiculous to think a single civilian with a pistol could have stopped this... Let's remember that while well armed, there is no indication that the shooter had any military or law enforment training.

I think it's very likely he would fled had someone started shooting at him.
Click to expand...

You guys are debating back and forth whether "one civilian" could have stopped this. Maybe I missed the comments somewhere along the line - but you all seem to be missing one major thing: Gun control affects ALL "civilians" - and that includes an awful lot of people who are fully trained and able to handle a situation like this.

After 10 years of war - this country is full of combat trained and combat experienced "civilians" - many of whom can't get a firearm because that very same govt. that sent them over to combat now tries to ban them from getting firearms here at home.

I've also read an awful lot of studies that show that "civilians" ( who carry) often do pretty well when bad $h!t goes down - because they've trained for it and can often hit what they're shooting at (in contrast to cops who - when $h!t goes down - often let hundreds of rounds fly).

It's just a matter of time and chance whether an armed "civilian" will be present at one of these shootings or not. The old guy a week or so - was present. The guy at that shooting of the congresswoman a few years ago - was present. Unfortunately nobody was present at this, or - nobody who felt that they could affect the situation was present.

It's entirely possible that there was other armed civilan in that theatre - who - knowing they had a policy against firearms - decided "eff this - I'm out of here".

It's not like he's going to start giving interviews to the news media and tell people he was armed but he decided to leave. He'd just keep his mouth shut.
 
Martlet said:
. . . I'm not saying you couldn't be the hero. I'm saying you don't know if you could be the hero until you find yourself in that situation. You could be the person leaving his baby in the aisle as you run to the door and not even realize you're doing it. That's why many of us stress training. Muscle memory and automatic reactions can often trump instinct.
Click to expand...

Whether I'm at the Rambo extreme or the Homer Simpson extreme, I have just one duty, to try to protect my kids and my family.

The incident is kind of an extreme situation. As someone pointed out, any of us are more likely to be struck by lightning than be in a movie theater watching a show when a madman come in spraying his Glock AK-15 with hollow point armor piercing bullets.

Would I try to take out the bad guy or try to move my kids to the exit? I'm not sure, but whatever I did do, it would be to try and protect them. That's all anyone can do.

The deck was stacked against the good guys that night.
 
In God We Trust said:
I am on vacation now with the wife and inlaws and the old man is kind of an anti. He brought up the same point and my only counter is to ask how NOT having a gun would have made me safer in that situation.

Realistically I would probably have dumped my magazine of. 380 center mass and then been mowed down by a hail of 7.62 in return. Maybe I would have presence of mind to go for a headshot maybe any return fire would make him panic and run away. Who knows. No matter how bad the situation I would prefer to have a gun and a chance instead of cowering on the floor waiting to be executed.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

There's an awful lot of firearms instructors - AND even military trainers who well tell you: once bullets start flying towards you: YOU DUCK. It's an innate response - that MOST people have.


That means if bullets start flying towards the shooter - and especially if you actually HIT the guy - body armor or not - it's entirely likely that he's going to - at the very least : DUCK (and stop shooting for some period of time).

Those two shooters in LA a number of years ago who were all body armored up - were hard core. There's usually a distinct difference between guys like that - and a guy like the in the theatre in CO - the LA guys likely didn't care one way or another whether they lived or died. The theatre guy - apparently wasn't hard core enough to go out in a hail of bullets.

Therefore it's entirely likely that if somebody had shot back at him - he would have (at the least) stopped shooting for some period of time.

Then the deciding factor becomes: HOW HARD CORE ARE YOU.? Do you turn around and run when he stops shooting - or do you take advantage of the situation and take the guy out or immobilize him?

The answer you gave to the old man was a good one. He saying guns should be banned - I bet he never thought of how NOT having a gun in a situation like that - would make YOU safer (or maybe the better question to ask is: how would having YOU unarmed - make his daughter safer)?
 
FreeWillie said:
Seems the "stink" factor keeps going up, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

This whole thing is very "conveniently timed" if you ask me.

As far as all the people crying "TINFOIL!" - I suggest you actually go spend some time reading up on the kind of crap that government has pulled before - before you start spouting off with crap like " it's impossible that this guy was some sort of controlled agent" or whatever.

There's a lot of pieces of this that just stink. The possibility there was a second person, all the gear this guy had, the booby traps, the way the media is jumping all over this in a millisecond, the threats against cops (what better to get them onboard?), the timing , etc.

What better way to counter the old guy in the internet cafe - than with a crazed gunman who shoots up a theatre full of people.

Point........... Counterpoint.

Treaty.

- - - Updated - - -

kiver said:
I miss semiauto Sam
Click to expand...

He's probably sitting around laughing out loud: " I told you so!".

Either that or he's in a hole at Gitmo by now.
 
The issue is that bad guys have already decided at that moment to do bad things. You are in a hole trying to do something there. It is dark. There are friendlies around that you don't want to hurt. You don't even know how many of there are, etc...

It is not that you can't come out on top, it just isn't as easy as putting on your CCW sash and puffing your chest out heroically. That is why it takes more to be a good guy than a bad guy.

There are no "just", "if only", "all you would need", and so on... It complicated. None of that changes the need for and right to carry, just trying to counter the unrealistic comments here and elsewhere.

Many average Joes/Janes come out just fine without year's of high speed low drag training when put in a corner, but not because it is easy.
 
Last edited:
calsdad said:
This whole thing is very "conveniently timed" if you ask me. . . . . There's a lot of pieces of this that just stink. The possibility there was a second person, all the gear this guy had, the booby traps, the way the media is jumping all over this in a millisecond, the threats against cops (what better to get them onboard?), the timing , etc.

What better way to counter the old guy in the internet cafe - than with a crazed gunman who shoots up a theatre full of people.

Point........... Counterpoint.

Treaty.
Click to expand...

The gear was evidently junk or easily obtained stuff with credit cards, and as for the media, this is the information age. Bad stuff makes the news sometimes before it happens. Notwithstanding that, you make some good points.
 
Martlet said:
Because a madman is just that: a madman. I'm not saying the average person couldn't have stopped this. I'm saying you don't KNOW if you could have. Have you ever been shot at in a movie theater? Have you ever been walking down the street when the person next to you takes a round to the chest? If so, what was your reaction? May people who have trained for firearm engagements react poorly when they occur. Others with no training react very well.

Incidentally, the same thing applies to madmen. Many of them plan on committing suicide or going down in a hail of gunfire. Once they see what it looks like to get shot down, they chicken out.

That's it, in a nutshell. I'm not saying you couldn't be the hero. I'm saying you don't know if you could be the hero until you find yourself in that situation. You could be the person leaving his baby in the aisle as you run to the door and not even realize you're doing it. That's why many of us stress training. Muscle memory and automatic reactions can often trump instinct.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

I still don't think it's a reason that should be used for gun control though. When gun control happens - you are taking something is a high likelihood (that a CCW carrier might not stop the shooter) - and making it into an absolute certainty.

Plenty of people go thru their lives getting into situations where if just small thing were different - they'd be dead or seriously injured. That's just fate and happenstance.
 
namedpipes said:
The gear was evidently junk or easily obtained stuff with credit cards, and as for the media, this is the information age. Bad stuff makes the news sometimes before it happens. Notwithstanding that, you make some good points.
Click to expand...

That makes it easier to understand. If the guy was truly ignorant he might not have known what real body armor looks like. And anybody with a high credit limit - can go a lot of crap on the internet that they have no intention of actually paying for.
 
AP Source: Assault rifle jammed in Colo. attack

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...ice_colo_suspect_planned_massacre_for_months/

AURORA, Colo.—The semiautomatic assault rifle used by the gunman in a mass shooting at a midnight showing of the latest Batman movie jammed during the attack, a federal law enforcement official told The Associated Press, which forced the shooter to switch to another gun with less fire power.
 
so a magazine allows the gun to fire at a different fire rate imagine that......... "Police have said that a 100-round drum magazine was recovered at the scene and that such a device would be able to fire 50 to 60 rounds a minute."

I cant stand people bashing my 2A rights but it drives me even crazier when they do it, spouting horse ****, if your gonna bash my rights atleast know what the hell your talking about
 
rep308 said:
AP Source: Assault rifle jammed in Colo. attack

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...ice_colo_suspect_planned_massacre_for_months/

AURORA, Colo.—The semiautomatic assault rifle used by the gunman in a mass shooting at a midnight showing of the latest Batman movie jammed during the attack, a federal law enforcement official told The Associated Press, which forced the shooter to switch to another gun with less fire power.
Click to expand...

And some of the comments will make you [crying] then [puke2]
 
In God We Trust said:
I am on vacation now with the wife and inlaws and the old man is kind of an anti. He brought up the same point and my only counter is to ask how NOT having a gun would have made me safer in that situation.

Realistically I would probably have dumped my magazine of. 380 center mass and then been mowed down by a hail of 7.62 in return. Maybe I would have presence of mind to go for a headshot maybe any return fire would make him panic and run away. Who knows. No matter how bad the situation I would prefer to have a gun and a chance instead of cowering on the floor waiting to be executed.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

You have a lot of good ideas and bring a lot to this forum, however I don't think there is anyone here with maybe a few exceptions who knows exactly what they would do. Distance between yourself and the shooter, lighting conditions and the added dynamic of some kind of chemical agent, it's just hard to say. To me it illustrates what Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch says: "Never bring a handgun to a gunfight."
 
Last edited:
mark056 said:
You have a lot of good ideas and bring a lot to this forum, however I don't think there is anyone here with maybe a few exceptions who knows exactly what they would do. Distance between yourself and the shooter, lighting conditions and the added dynamic of some kind of chemical agent, it's just hard to say.
Click to expand...

They were smoke grenades, no chemicals.
 
Jsfitzgerald85 said:
your not kidding........"what does the average citizen need an assault rifle for".............ITS NOT A ****** ASSAULT RIFLE........ why is it so hard for the anti's to get that
Click to expand...

I already heard one media talking head call the ballistic armor "assault armor". I'm seriously not kidding either.

Assault hammers, assault knives, assault pencils, assault hands, assault, assault, assault, assault, assault.

It's no accident that they prefix any inanimate object they find reprehensible with the word "assault".

Seriously, what sounds more likely to get sign-off on a state-wide or nation-wide ban? "Assault weapon" or "modern sporting rifle"? Same exact machine, different name.
 
Jsfitzgerald85 said:
your not kidding........"what does the average citizen need an assault rifle for".............ITS NOT A ****** ASSAULT RIFLE........ why is it so hard for the anti's to get that
Click to expand...
Not to mention that 5000+ years of recorded human history should explain why the "average citizen" needs an "assault rifle." Here's a hint: It starts with a "G" and ends in mass murder and oppression 11 times out of 10.[laugh][thinking][sad2] (funnier if not so true)
 
cekim said:
Not to mention that 5000+ years of recorded human history should explain why the "average citizen" needs an "assault rifle." Here's a hint: It starts with a "G" and ends in mass murder and oppression 11 times out of 10.[laugh][thinking][sad2] (funnier if not so true)
Click to expand...

What's the figure for the 20th century? Something like 100,000,000 killed by their "beloved" governments? And that's just from 1901 to 2000. Doesn't take into consideration all the atrocities that transpired before this.
 
I am sure this has been mentioned before but I am slow to getting to this subject. I also can not imagine that I would just sit there or do nothing to try and stop this lunatic. I have thought since this terrible incident happened that if I was in that theater that I would have drawn my Glock 19 and hammered rounds at this guy but then comes a second thought as well and one that gives me pause.

If I was for argument sake 100 feet away which is 33 yds away. If I draw my weapon and begin to engage this mad man what happens when I miss with a few rounds and hit other innocent people possibly killing them. 33yds is a fairly good amount of distance and while I do practice at 25 yds quite often (2-3 times a week) I do miss from that range. To me it is a very difficult encounter. The other factor is I would be there with family and while I engage this guy he is certainly going to re-focus his attention directly at me which would put them in the direct line of fire. Of course the best case scenario is a drop him with a single shot headshot but as I have seen others say why would I be going for a direct headshot and not trying for center mass which is a easier shot. He has armor on which most likely would have protected him even with hollow points to some extent.

Selfishly what happens to me if I return fire and kill a 14 yr old trying to escape this mayhem? Do I go to jail for murder?

Very puzzling to me what to do. Hindsight is always 20-20.
 
mikem317 said:
What's the figure for the 20th century? Something like 100,000,000 killed by their "beloved" governments? And that's just from 1901 to 2000. Doesn't take into consideration all the atrocities that transpired before this.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if you exclude the continents of Asia, Africa and South America, THEN what's the count?
 

Similar threads

Hanover Theater
Replies
10
Views
398
Broc
Broc
SWAT Under Siege movie
Replies
21
Views
505
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Shooting sitting with shooting sticks
Replies
14
Views
279
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva
Shooting At Northborough House Party Leaves One 16 Y/O Dead
2 3
Replies
73
Views
2K
puška m70
P
SD shooting in Chicopee, MA
Replies
1
Views
237
VTski4x4
VTski4x4
Back
Top Bottom