31 votes

One Movie Goer With A Gun Could Have Prevented 70 Innocent People From Being Shot

One Movie Goer With A Gun Could Have Prevented 70 Innocent People From Being Shot

Mac Slavo
July 20th, 2012
SHTFplan.com
Comments (327)
Read by 7,391 people

In light of the incident at the Dark Knight premier early this morning, it’s worth noting that we as a law abiding society could have prevented the deaths of, at last count, 13 people and the injuries sustained by scores of others.

Anti-gun fanatics will tell us that outlawing guns is the solution. In fact, before the smoke from the gunfire dissipated this morning special interests and politicians were already calling for more gun control. Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg has asked our Presidential candidates to directly address the issue:

No matter where you stand on the Second Amendment, no matter where you stand on guns, we have a right to hear from both of them, concretely, not just in generalities, specifically, what are they going to do about guns?

No doubt Mr. Bloomberg (and his merry band of government nitwits) would be ecstatic if both candidates supported a Constitutional Convention to eliminate the second amendment.

Lern more:
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/one-moviegoer-with-a-g...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not sure if it's been

Not sure if it's been mentioned previously- there are lots of comments and in a quick skimming I didn't notice it- but as it pertains to guns, ideally this would be a property rights issue, not a 2nd amendment issue.

In other words, if the theater owner allowed it, then yes, private gun-owners would have been permitted to carry their weapons into his/her property, and potentially there could have been some defense against this kind of attack.

However, alternatively, the policy of the private owner could also have been- by equal right- to prohibit arms on the premises, in which case the argument ends then and there.

Either way, it's speculation.

What we can argue, though, is that as private property owners we should be open to allowing gun owners to bring their guns onto our premises if we so choose; and this may allow at least the possibility that our patrons have the opportunity to defend themselves in an unfortunate situation such as this.

Theater had a no legal firearms allowed policy

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/07/robert-farago/cinem...

Private property owners have the right to prohibit firearms. This instance is one of the consequences of doing so.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Thanks for the confirmation. Exactly what I was talking about...

Perpetrator had element of surprise, tactical advantage

and overwehlming firepower. He was likely very familiar with the venue and mentally prepared to kill (since he had reportedly been planning it for months).

I would give long odds to someone who was violating the law and carrying concealed in the theater. Those are still way better odds than waiting for the police to arrive.

It must have been a horrible feeling: being out on a date, realizing you are under attack for no apparent reason and armed only with popcorn.

Probably how that reporter felt in Iraq when being engaged by an Apache helicopter from a mile and a half away. Both equally tragic.

I can see it now

Monsanto will soon develop GMO cinema popcorn which can stop bullets.

Its not the posession of a

Its not the posession of a gun.

It is the guts to use a gun. How many gun owners either use it irresponsibly, or have one to "look cool" but when called upon to use it cannot utilize it.

The point was made that when the shooter starting shooting, there were people behind him who could have immobilized him. Why didn't they?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Yes, a firearm is not useful

Yes, a firearm is not useful in such situation if one is not willing and able to use it. You should train yourself mentally as well as practice, and know your weapon.

As to the claim there were people standing behind the shooter the reports indicate otherwise - That he left through the exit door and came back in with his gear and no one was behind him. (http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/world_news&id...) Nevertheless, if there were anyone standing behind him you can speculate 1000 different reasons for why such person (if there was one) did not attack the attacker (for instance they were not armed), but such speculation establishes nothing.

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

Exactly

So many action film wannabees here.

You can almost hear them with "Yippee kiy aye aye mother f***er."

Or "I know what you are thinking.......... So the question you have to ask yourself is 'Do I feel lucky?'. Well do you punk?" Dirty Harry style.

I am sure that each one has his favorite action movie line to fantasize about.

.

.

Lets not forget that this nut job

was in full police riot gear. There is just nothing anyone can do to stop someone like this. Not gun laws, not armed citizens. We can try and try and try to wrap our heads around it, to think of solutions, to come up with the best response, but in reality, how are you going to stop someone from flying off the handle. They will always find a way to cause destruction and wreak havoc. It is just really, really sad that people resort to this kind of behavior. They just lose it, and losing it seems to be becoming more frequent in our society.

A stolen dumptruck

going 60 mph through the theater would have had a similar result.

And probably, a similar cause.

Prescription meds.

No. One movie goer with a gun AND the courage, shooting

ability and luck of a fantasy character from a BATMAN MOVIE could have prevented 70 people from being shot. (Why not suggest that Superman could have done the same, and without even having a gun?).

Squeezing off the perfect shot to kill the shooter, in a dark theater, in shock and confusion, without hitting another patron, is surely the stuff of movie fantasties.

Like the economists who call for more debt, to get us out of debt - the writer of this post is calling for more fantasy to save us from fantasy gone wrong.

Lets see you put on body armor and come busting into my theatre

we'll see what happens when a 45 slug hits you..are you kidding me?

Oh Gawd. Are you getting hard as you fantasize?

Did I ever say I was going to do something like that?

The point you seem to miss is that nobody DID fire back. Nobody stepped up. Why not dream about becoming Superman or Spiderman if you ever faced a similar situation, if it gets you hard? It didn't happen.

This thread postulates that if somebody had had a gun the shooting wouldn't have happened. What I am saying is that likely someone DID have a gun and the shooting still happened, because of practical reasons.

There has been no evidence

There has been no evidence presented that any of the victims or people in the theater were armed. Jetguy himself admits in a comment below that he is basing his entire premise upon mere speculation. So contrary to jetguy's resorting to immature childish taunts such as "Are you getting hard as you fantasize?", it is jetguy basing his argument against the defensive use of firearms upon mere fantasy.

And even beyond the fantasy premise, jetguy's argument seem to be that it is futile to resist a criminal with a firearm - making the criminal into some sort of superhuman.

However reality establishes that when potential victims are armed, they regularly thwart crimes and save lives. Often the mere brandishing of a weapon is enough to end a potential violent encounter. Many defensive uses are never reported out of fear of civil or criminal repercussions, and some law enforcement and political entities are more concerned with going after victims defending themselves with firearms then the criminal assailants themselves.

Studies place the number of defensive uses at 2.1 to 2.5 million per years. And those calculations are low. http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6111
It has been estimated that defensive gun use saves over $1 trillion per year of potential losses. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/04/bruce-w-krafft/defe...

While national media seems to make a concerted effort to blackout any defensive use of firearms. Anecdotal defensive uses of firearms are reported in local media across the nation every day. They are easy to find for anyone who even brothers to look:
http://nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx
http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/13422/armed-citizen...
http://www.americanrifleman.org/BlogList.aspx?cid=25&id=21
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheArmedCitizen

With a bit of effort you, can easily find scores of such stories from local media everyday if you. And keep in mind, most defensive uses are never even reported out of caution from retaliatory blowback by antigun police departments or political locales.

Even criminals themselves readily admit that their biggest fear is not the police, or gettign caught, but rather an armed victim.
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/02/04/what-criminals-real...
http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/criminals-fear-the-arm...

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

You really should read the comment being responded to before you

dismiss the retort as a "immature childish taunt".

I was invited to enter the gentlemen's movie theater with body armor whereupon I would be summarily blown away by a 45 caliber bullet.

Nowhere did I suggest that body armour was impervious to a 45 caliber slug, nor did I suggest that I was willing to commit such an act myself.

The poster I was commenting on was attempting to use an "immature childish" inflamatory comment - so I used an "immature childish" retort.

But apparently that went way over your head.

And are you really so foolish as to think that having people with concealed weapons firing on the supposed assailant in a dark and crowded movie theater would save lives?

One writer has suggested that the assailant would be easy to identify and hit as he would be the one firing, but suppose there are multiple carriers of concealed weapons, and in the confusion they identify each other as the assailant. Do you really think that a free for all firefight among multiple shooters in a crowded theater would SAVE lives or cost them?

Get a GRIP man.

Yes, I agree - please read

Yes, I agree - please read the comment more carefully. Nowhere did my comment discuss anything about the use of body armor, or effectiveness of .45 cal bullets, etc.

The reference to jetguy's immature childish taunts, was not to any of those issues, but rather precisely to jetguy's immature childish taunts, such as what was speficially quoted to,

Are you getting hard as you fantasize?

That is not an argument. That is not logic. That is an immature childish taunt. It is the indication of a weak argument - a place that emotional immature minds run to when they cannot converse rationally and maturely.

jeyguy provides plenty more such examples of immaturity:

"Please Mr. Fantasy hero ..."

"Tell me - in your Fantasies can you fly?

And are all the women begging to sleep with you?

Do you fantasize that all the women want you and all the men want to BE you? Surely you must have a mirror."

"But you certainly seem to be fantasizing about it"

"Another movie hero wannabe"

"You can almost hear them with "Yippee kiy aye aye mother f***er.""

"Get GRIP man."

Also Notably missing from jetguy's response was anything addressing what was actually said in my comment, or any of the the evidence provided.

His fallacy tactic is to ignore the evidenc provided and divert attention to to his appeal to his unsuported fantasy sterotyping (i.e. "hero wannabe").

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

I thought you were short sighted and illiterate. Now I realize

you are simply very thin skinned and petty.

"Get a grip man" is an example of an immature remark?

"But you certainly seem to be fantasizing about it" is another example of an immature remark?

Using well known quotes for popular action movies "Yippee kiy aye aye...." (I am telling you because I think your frame of reference might be small.) is also an immature remark?

"Nowhere did my comment discuss anything about the use of body armor, or effectiveness of .45 cal bullets, etc."

Noooo. I said that that was why "I" responded to the comment before mine in such a way. Not that YOU had responded to those comments. Is that difficult to understand?

Do people often tell you that you are petty?

And whats up with writing in sort of a third person. addressing me (jetguy) as if "jetguy" is someone else?

You need to grow some thicker skin.

.

.

You must have very little shooting

experence because even in full body armor my 45 puts you on the ground and if you have never been hit like that you will not get up very quickly.Because he can practice shooting all he wants but it is less likely that he took any type of contact pratice, this is like boxing the first time you get knocked down you don`t react very well then multiply that impact times 4 and that is what a 45 hitting you with a vest on feels like! And yes I do practice 2-3 times a week and yes we do pratice in low light enviroments and so should everyone who carrys. And in that situation I think most people were ducking down so he would more then likely be the only one standing which would make the task less difficult.

In Liberty Dan
Only Ron Paul 2012

Another movie hero wannabe.

And people wonder why this guy thought he was The Joker.

As said in other places, Colorado has plenty of people with permits to carry concealed, so conjecture suggests that there were at least some in the theater. Yet nobody shot back. But everybody says that THEY would have been the hero.

Fantasy, meet reality.

How's this for fantasy?

Just a few days ago...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XSJv8nwVBk

Notice any bystanders getting shot?

Idiot slave.

Interesting video.

Think about this though - if thieves show up with a gun and a baseball bat - how likely is it that the gun isn't real or loaded?

I mean - why would you need a baseball bat if you have a loaded gun?

And if the gun was real and loaded - do you suppose they would have returned fire and Killed the old man?

I've heard of thieves pulling off robberies with fake guns (hand in jacket pocket) or toy guns - but if people are going to be shooting at them, like this 70 year old man did, don't you think they will make sure they are better armed - to shoot back the next time?

Perhaps,

If they don't die from their wounds. LOL

Actually, I think the old man will probably be better armed next time (he had a .380) so that he drops 'em in place. Dead.

Let this be a lesson to everyone. They now make modern, large-caliber guns which are just as small and lightweight as the old undercover Walther PPK peashooters.

What a load of

What a load of bs.

libertydanr is right, even a 40 cal round to your body armor will put you on your ass, let alone one to your helmet... try 5 or 6 of them. It's like getting hit by a well-built potato cannon in the chest up close with just a tee shirt on.

the whole "fantasy" statement you made insinuates that citizens have never used their weapons to stop a crime, that its a complete "fantasy" that nobody has ever lived. yet there's dozens of cases of armed citizens stepping up and using their side arm to "he the hero" as you put it and save lives or stop crimes.

quite buying into the propaganda

You watch to much TV dude

The force of a bullet does not knock you back like it does in the movies. When a bullet hits you then your reflexes may cause you to jump but the bullet impact does not throw you back. If you don't believe me then watch this demonstration with a .40 cal as you have suggested. I have also seen this demonstration using a 44 magnum revolver.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDRRJZ6rJBY&feature=related

As far as citizens being able to stop crime if they are armed I do agree with that. And I do believe that someone who was experienced and armed could have stopped this guy even with the body armor. Especially since the guy was obviously a coward and would have probably turned tail if he were shot at.

Excellent info

Aim for the eyes.

Nobody is arguing about the relative effectiveness of any

particular slug.

But you certainly seem to be fantasizing about it.

not to mention that dudes

not to mention that dudes face was also unprotected, face shot equals death. also if someone had a .44, which is a popular gun mind you, that can shoot through any type of body armor.

You guys sound like Monday morning quarterbacks.

70 year old men who say things like "If I was just twenty years younger (try 50 years younger and even then not) I could have made that pass and we would have won the game!"

Fantasy doesn't cost anything so dream on.