Mass shooting in Aurora, CO (At Batman Film Premiere)

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by lacrimaererum

 

What makes you so sure? There are plenty of murders committed without guns. Plus, the rules of the theatre said no guns allowed. He obviously ignored those rules, so how would banning guns have been any different?

He also apparently had access to C4, Teargas, and unknown other explosives and chemicals. Those things are already illegal, but he has them.

Your presumption is ridiculous.

people defending gun ownership in light of this is ridiculous.

he shot dozens. if he didn't have a gun he could not have shot dozens. its too easy for americans.

americans need to be disarmed,

reply to post by miniatus


Well a couple pop shots if someone is drunnk or on drugs. A full blown massicar if they need to horrify the public to get the concerned about both gun ownership and also allowing tsa at public venues like the theaters.

Originally posted by lacrimaererum

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

This guy was a med student, and had only 1 traffic stop on his record. What would have stopped him from killing these people today?

not owning a gun would have stopped him killing these people.

##SNIPPED##

guns need to be taken off american civilians now! how many americans are on medication for gods sake.

a nation of meicated gun owners. what the hell do people expect

disarm the public NOW!

Dissolve the United States, and reform a nation using a different constitution. You cannot remove the 2nd Amendment without massive constitutional over haul. And those of us with guns would march on those of you without guns to stop you from doing that.

If you don't like poeple who are medicated, then address that issue separately. But don't pass your cowardice off on me, blaming me for being "crazy". I think the weakness you are showing is crazy, myself. I don't want anyone protecting me but myself. And, had I been in that theater, would have shot him before he got very far.

And THAT is the problem. I can make a gun if they are illegal. Im not a phd, either. But it isn't rocket science. I can make a gun using materials you wouldn't think to use. It is very easy. Your only defense is to arm yourself. You have absolutely no hope of disarming everyone else. Might as well try to wrap the Earth in Nerf.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Really youre prepared to make the statement that NO ONE could have taken this guy out?

It was close quarters, YES there was tear gas........but the guy could have been shot in the face, a round will easily go through a gas mask......

Again, not saying it would be easy.............but saying that no one with a CC could have stopped this guy is just as stupid, as the people you claim to be dirty harrys.......

I'm pretty confident nobody would have taken him out .. if he was armored from head to toe including the neck and groin, your only shot to stop him would have to be in the face.. getting that shot in those circumstances in a room filled with tear gas ( an eye irritant mind you ) would be nearly impossible.. not impossible, but nearly .. you'd have to be a marksman or damn lucky .. and even if you're a marksman.. your eyes are watering, people are running around, it's dark and smokey and he's a moving target.. I seriously seriously don't think he could have been stopped unless that person with the concealed weapon was dumb enough to try to run up on him and get close enough to be sure of their target.. and they'd probably take a shot to the chest in the process.

reply to post by miniatus


I don't support more Gun control but I do agree with your post. In bootcamp they give us a sample of tear gas. It's a part of basic training. You enter a room with gas masks on, then they fill the room with tear gas. They make everyone take off their mask, inhale for about 3 minutes - then you have to state your rank, name, SSN, and your company number (for Navy bootcamp). So it would be like - Seaman John Doe, 123-45-6780, Company 456.
Each person in the row (about 5 to 10 I believe) have to do it completely before you are allowed to leave.

It's extremely difficult. Alot of guys were puking their guts out. You can't see anything - your eyes literally fill up and you can't and/or don't want to open them. You literally have to just blurt out your info and hope the next guy can do it as well.

So in essence I believe you are correct in that it would be highly unlikely for someone without a gas mask in an enclosed environment subject to tear gas to clearly, fatally shoot an assailant in body armor. Just don't see that happening.

Originally posted by SUICIDEHK45
I think it will be interesting to know how many rounds were fired. That will at least give us some insight into his accuracy and training with these firearms. If he fired off 300 rounds and only managed to hit 70ish targets would make me think he was just a nutcase, but if he fired off 100 rounds and hit 70ish targets it makes me think there is more expierience/training involved. just a thought

It was a shotgun with buck shot. Lots of bb's

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Or just dogpiled him.

If he was that geared up, then he was highly immobile and unaware of his surroundings. Even without guns, 4 or 5 grown men could have jumped him from behind and taken all his toys.

I wouldnt recommend that, thats akin to saying that trying to dogpile a soldier in full battle rattle , firing is a good idea.......

youre still mobile, however........i guess at that point when someone iskilling people, any action is worth trying to stop the threat.........

However , I doubt many people would think of trying to tackle someone firing rounds at them

What did I miss...

The news has said all morning he had an AK-47.The chief just stated had had an AR-15.

Was that an additional weapon or has the news been wrong.

reply to post by lacrimaererum

people defending gun ownership in light of this is ridiculous.

he shot dozens. if he didn't have a gun he could not have shot dozens. its too easy for americans.

americans need to be disarmed,

These Americans WERE disarmed. THAT is why he shot dozens!

Apparently he was the only guy with a gun, partly because of the social stigma these days, partly because of the inconvenience of carrying one, and partly because of the rule the theatre had.

Only 1 guy out of 100 or more had a gun. Less than 1% were armed. THAT is the problem here, not the other way around.

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by jerico65
Just another reminder to carry your weapons, boys and girls.

Actually, I'm going to take a surprising turn from my normal position and say Concealed Weapons would have been a BAD idea here. Bad Bad Bad. The world was ending and everything going crazy.....to the perspectives of those in that theater. Some of the eyewitness reports are kinda crazy as you'd expect,

Into that, relatively untrained people with guns, in the dark, with people in all directions? (slaps forehead) If I, God Forbid, were caught in something like this and I am armed, the exit is my goal and my gun isn't coming out unless an armed person is between me and that door. Anything else is FAR more likely to shoot other people, just like ME...than to score the magic shot to the bad guy.

edit on 20-7-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

And I keep beating this point into the ground .. but the room wasn't exactly clear either, he just set off two canisters of tear gas .. so dark, smokey room amid panic and chaos .. concealed carry wouldn't have benefited anyone.. you're absolutely right, it could have just made things far worse.

ALl ture, OTOH, just to put another angle to it, the shooter was visually hampered by his gas mask as well and that deficit could (could being emphasized) could have made him more vulnerable if someone had the means to resist.

reply to post by miniatus


I'm thinking the "tear gas grenades" were more of an IED made with black powder and pepper spray. They might not have been as effective as an actual tear gas cannister.

Originally posted by r2d246

Originally posted by SUICIDEHK45
I think it will be interesting to know how many rounds were fired. That will at least give us some insight into his accuracy and training with these firearms. If he fired off 300 rounds and only managed to hit 70ish targets would make me think he was just a nutcase, but if he fired off 100 rounds and hit 70ish targets it makes me think there is more expierience/training involved. just a thought

It was a shotgun with buck shot. Lots of bb's

again youre not reading or listening to the facts.........he was also firing with an assault rifle and a pistol or two.......not just a shotgun

Originally posted by DangerDeath
This goes too fast for me to read every post.

So....

He was dressed as Joker and yet he was wearing a flak jacket and gas-mask.

This doesn't make sense at all.

The Joker was left outside while the killer escaped safely.

A theory?

Wikipedia is already reporting that the shooter was dressed as Bane. Lots of info and disinfo out there right now.

Originally posted by senselessness

Originally posted by paratus
71 total people being shot

I think that is wrong. 71 people were not shot.

News update added it was 71 shot, 12 killed 59 injured.

reply to post by lacrimaererum


It is obvious from his apartment he would have blown them them up, he seems to be well versed in explosives....ever heard of suicide bombings or just plain old bombings?

There are plenty of ways to kill alot of people besides guns...just shows others naivety to think taking guns away will stop murders...the only way to stop murders is to do away with humans all together.

If he took a bomb in there instead of a gun all or most of the people in the theater would be dead right now, instead of 12.

they need to trace those weapons and find out where he got them cause ithink this is to freaking fishy right now like how can a guy with so much jsut go out and kill so much people at a movie?

im watching the live broadcast right now with the cop and he is just declining all the questions...

he said "its not our intention to figure out why he did this" why the heck would he not wanna know why ? we all deff wanna know WHY

also he said "i cant answer that right now (about 5 times in a row)"

Originally posted by lacrimaererum
people defending gun ownership in light of this is ridiculous.

he shot dozens. if he didn't have a gun he could not have shot dozens. its too easy for americans.

americans need to be disarmed,

edit on Fri Jul 20 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: trimmed quote

I can't say I agree with you.. the only people who would be disarmed by gun laws are those who are law abiding in the first place.. criminals will always be able to get their hands on weapons.. it's the black market.. all you do with gun control is make it difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves against those who don't care about the law in the first place..

I think it should be more difficult to get guns.. surely.. but I don't think access to them should be removed.. I also don't think you should be able to go down to your local walmart and buy hunting rifles or shotguns .. kind of absurd ..

violent video games, violent music, violent tv shows, declining standards of education, irresponsible parenting, mass unemployment, the disappearance of wholesome family values, a lack of respect, the disappearance of basic good morality... could go on and on....

this is just another inevitable effect of our SICK SOCIETY

keep your guns. they won't protect you from random madness. you're not even looking at the true cause.

Originally posted by ElohimJD
Sure, I understand.

I just know from the mouth of the officer pulling the bodies out of the theater shortly after arriving (anyone saying otherwise is given a false account of events) that she pulled 12 bodies that were pronouced DOA by the EMTs at the scene.

3 others are in critical condition and may die today.

In this case, my own mother in law was one of the first responders Officer Annette Brook of the APD, she told her story to me and my wife (her daughter) and the bodies were removed early after arriving to calm the scene down.

I do however see a conection between the movie, and a possible false flag in London (exactly 1 week after this event took place, during a movie in which Bane destroys a stadium from underneath using explosives).

I just don't want many different versions going around when I am the son of one of the Officers whose actions are being misconstrude.

Thanks,

God Bless,

Bolded parts above, that is *NOT* standard operating procedure.... by removing the bodies, they potentially destroyed evidence... that isn't the correct procedure to just "calm the scene down".

Not blaming your mom, by why wasn't SOP followed?

Now there will be metal detectors at movie theaters and homeland security check points. It's the government that kills innocent people to enable more security measures, this guy is doing the government's job for it.