It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
It doesn't really matter, it just proves that the more guns and more bullets flying is not better for innocent bystanders.
For the people who say that an event like Aurora would have been prevented if there were more armed people in that theater, this just proves that they are wrong.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
But, I thought having more guns at a scene of a shooting would keep people safe???
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
These are trained police officers...and even they can't control their gunfire in broad daylight.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Can you imagine if 5-10 people were armed in Aurora inside a smokey dark movie theater???
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Some people want you to believe that if other people were armed, they would have taken down the shooter with one clean shot and been the hero...I think this pretty much proves them wrong.
Originally posted by Nite_wing
If one has never been in a street gunfight, they have absolutely no right to criticize the police who are standing in the line of fire returning fire. Yes, police are trained. No one is trained to stand and receive fire and fire back. I have been there.
Originally posted by Nite_wing
If there were armed citizens there, they may have been able to shoot the criminal from a different direction or angle. It happens more than you read about in the anti-gun press. NY has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. No wonder there weren't any armed CCW civilians
Originally posted by Elton
Originally posted by Nite_wing
If one has never been in a street gunfight, they have absolutely no right to criticize the police who are standing in the line of fire returning fire. Yes, police are trained. No one is trained to stand and receive fire and fire back. I have been there.
By that logic, unless you have been POTUS you cannot criticize the POTUS. Unless you direct action films you cannot criticize a bad action movie, etc... Your logic seems flawed.
Originally posted by Nite_wing
If there were armed citizens there, they may have been able to shoot the criminal from a different direction or angle. It happens more than you read about in the anti-gun press. NY has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. No wonder there weren't any armed CCW civilians
Maybe, equally likely is that the cops would shoot at any civilian who draws a weapon in that situation (I mean they shot that guy for having a gun in his hand, why would they stop and wait to see if it was a law abiding CCW or the shooters accomplice).
Agreed,
Originally posted by FlyersFan
I'd say that means the NYPD needs more time on the shooting range.
They are out of practice or something. That's some pretty lousy shooting ...
Originally posted by Nite_wing
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
I have worn the badge. I have carried a gun. I have been in gunfights.
I presume you have not. It's easy to sit back and be an armchair quarterback when you have never been in the game.
Do you think they should have gone and had a donut and let him shoot the civilians in the area? He had already killed one. Go out to the range if you are not afraid to put a gun in your hand. See how difficult it is to hit a target. Then imagine doing it under stress. No, I don't think you have the courage to even hold a gun. It is a tool. You think you could do better? Try it. What is your solution? More training? Yeah, cops under fire at the range.
Originally posted by aaaiii
reply to post by Golf66
Don't presume to know what was going on in the heads of those officers. You weren't there.
Originally posted by SM2
i watched the video, there are a couple of things not being adressed.
1. In the video it appears as if though the incident happened at a range of about 10 feet. If you can not hit with near 100% accuracy at 10 feet, then you should be a desk jocope. key, plain and simple. Do not give me the stress crap, they are trained specifically for that scenario. Their marksmanship is just plain horrible.
2. it has been reported one cop fired 9, the other fired 7 shots, 3 hit the suspect. that leaves 13 other shots fired. Now, looking at the video, only ONE officer had line of sight on the suspect, the other was facing 90 degrees away from the suspect.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Nite_wing
...so why does anyone think an average joe carrying a gun would do any better???
Originally posted by jefwane
One of the first things anyone should learn about firearms is that the person pulling the trigger is responsible for where that round ends up. Also ricochets and fragmentation after hitting hard objects aren't uncommon and can end up in unexpected places. There may be times when you could legally fire a weapon due to a threat but shouldn't due to the possibility of injuring others. It is possible for a bullet to pass through it's intended target and cause harm to others as well.
Originally posted by intrepid
Cops can't win here. If the gunman kills 7 the police were lame. If the police hit bystanders they are lame. What was the intent of the police? To bring down a shooter before he does more damage. What was the intent of the gunman? Hmm, let me guess.