Colorado cinema shooting

[monsnoleedra]

.. It sucks that the Republicans are trying to turn it into a "IF COLORADO ALLOWED GUNS, THEN SOMEONE ELSE WOULD HAVE HAD A GUN AND THEY COULD HAVE TAKEN CARE OF HIM" vehicle. ..

Police said he was wearing riot gear, which includes a helmet, vest, leggings, throat protector and groin protector. Some say the body armor posed a major threat to authorities if Holmes had not surrendered.

http://www.khou.com/news/Tactical-ge...163258396.html



Realility wise with all he was wearing it probabily wouldn't have made a difference had anyone had a gun or not. From what i've seen the only kill shot someone could have made would be from the side of the torso, which would be one heck of a small opening. The body armour would stop most hand guns less they had armour piercing rounds. Granted I've seen various reports saying he had kevlar body armour and a couple that claim it was similar but not kevlar.

I suppose the best anyone could suggest would be the potential that had there possibly been someone armed with a gun it might have deterred him.

Just want to add that being in pain and unable to see or clearly see is a position many in the military find themselves in and still have to fight. It's not the most desirable position but one can still effectively fight within it. Same with various grenades being used.

[MadZealot]

Realility wise with all he was wearing it probabily wouldn't have made a difference had anyone had a gun or not. From what i've seen the only kill shot someone could have made would be from the side of the torso, which would be one heck of a small opening. The body armour would stop most hand guns less they had armour piercing rounds. Granted I've seen various reports saying he had kevlar body armour and a couple that claim it was similar but not kevlar.

There's still potential for injury from small arms fire. You might stop the round but it still packs a wallop of kinetic energy.

I suppose the best anyone could suggest would be the potential that had there possibly been someone armed with a gun it might have deterred him.

It'd have to be visible to be a deterrent, and in many cases a visible weapon is probably enough. Would it deter a bad guy who wants to kill a bunch of innocent and vulnerable people? One who apparently spent months planning the act as this shooter allegedly has? Maybe if he had reason to believe he'd be heading into an area where a good portion of his targets were openly armed and competent shooters... then again he might be committed enough to the task that he'd do it anyway.

[monsnoleedra]

There's still potential for injury from small arms fire. You might stop the round but it still packs a wallop of kinetic energy.


It'd have to be visible to be a deterrent, and in many cases a visible weapon is probably enough. Would it deter a bad guy who wants to kill a bunch of innocent and vulnerable people? One who apparently spent months planning the act as this shooter allegedly has? Maybe if he had reason to believe he'd be heading into an area where a good portion of his targets were openly armed and competent shooters... then again he might be committed enough to the task that he'd do it anyway.

Perhaps, perhaps not with regard as to whether it would do anything hitting the body armour. Plenty of people have been hit with body armour on and it doesn't even slow them down. A lot would hinge upon the caliber of the round and the weapon used, a 44 might knock you down, a 38 or 9mm might just bounce off and you keep trucking. Kinetic force has a whole lot to do with the size of the bullet and the gun that shoots it.

I can't say if it would deter him or not but I imagine the odds are probable that he would have picked an easier target had he suspected there might be armed people there. One might speculate that he gave up with such ease to the police knowing they were armed and would shoot back. At this point in time though its all speculation as to what if any impact it might have had upon him.

[MadZealot]

I can't say if it would deter him or not but I imagine the odds are probable that he would have picked an easier target had he suspected there might be armed people there. One might speculate that he gave up with such ease to the police knowing they were armed and would shoot back. At this point in time though its all speculation as to what if any impact it might have had upon him.

Agreed, and those of us who will (hopefully) never wind up in such a situation, it's all armchair-general spitballing.

[monsnoleedra]

Agreed, and those of us who will (hopefully) never wind up in such a situation, it's all armchair-general spitballing.

I agree, especially the part of never winding up in such a situation ourselves. Regardless of who "Ourselves" might be identified as for I'd not wish that upon anyone.

[Sharysa]

Just want to add that being in pain and unable to see or clearly see is a position many in the military find themselves in and still have to fight. It's not the most desirable position but one can still effectively fight within it. Same with various grenades being used.

Still, it's safe to say that most gun carriers are civilians who wouldn't be used to shooting when startled/frightened and in severe pain from tear gas.

Not saying that there aren't a lot of gun-carriers who aren't military, just saying that on a numbers standpoint, the chances are pretty low that an experienced military person would coincidentally take their gun to the Batman premiere, and thus be able to handle the sudden appearance of a psycho with tear gas and several guns.

I heard the guy put booby-trapped explosives in his apartment as well--people on Facebook are wondering how he managed to buy explosives without anyone noticing and mentioning it to the police.

My personal thoughts? He has a PhD and had been planning this for months. He probably bought the ingredients to make explosives.

[monsnoleedra]

Still, it's safe to say that most gun carriers are civilians who wouldn't be used to shooting when startled/frightened and in severe pain from tear gas.

Not saying that there aren't a lot of gun-carriers who aren't military, just saying that on a numbers standpoint, the chances are pretty low that an experienced military person would coincidentally take their gun to the Batman premiere, and thus be able to handle the sudden appearance of a psycho with tear gas and several guns.

I heard the guy put booby-trapped explosives in his apartment as well--people on Facebook are wondering how he managed to buy explosives without anyone noticing and mentioning it to the police.

My personal thoughts? He has a PhD and had been planning this for months. He probably bought the ingredients to make explosives.

Seem's to me there was one active duty person in the theater who was killed and at least two prior military in there as well. Whether they would have been armed had they been allowed to be no one can say, all we can do is speculate. Given the locations proximity to a major base the odds are there were military personal in the theatre due to the film itself.

Though one might also point to the number of situations where prior military personal have been present and armed I'd say its probable.

He created explosive devises but as to what they were made of I have only heard chemical componds. From that description one can purchase a lot of over the counter items and create some serious explosive devices. Then nothing would show up as a flag unless he purchased extreme amounts of certain thigns like fertilizer for instance.

Though I have to agree that he probably both planned it for some time and the explosive devices where probably constructed by him from everyday item he purchased.

[Darkhawk]

It sucks that the Republicans are trying to turn it into a "IF COLORADO ALLOWED GUNS, THEN SOMEONE ELSE WOULD HAVE HAD A GUN AND THEY COULD HAVE TAKEN CARE OF HIM" vehicle.

Speaking as someone who's never shot anything living (or with a gun), I can safely say that most people wouldn't take their guns to the theater because maybe they just wanted to watch a fucking movie.

Also, the guy had tear gas. Sure, you can bring a gun, but who the hell has a gas mask lying around?

You do not want to handle a gun while in horrible pain and unable to see.

A friend who's a Marine basically said that anyone who pulled a gun to return fire in that situation would be seriously negligent and ignoring everything they know about gun safety.

[Sharysa]

A friend who's a Marine basically said that anyone who pulled a gun to return fire in that situation would be seriously negligent and ignoring everything they know about gun safety.

I assume it's the "Don't aim unless you intend to shoot something" rule?

That would have been hard, since people were screaming and running for the doors, it would have been fuck-all dark, and the aforementioned "tear gas messing up visibility and causing physical pain."

[Darkhawk]

I assume it's the "Don't aim unless you intend to shoot something" rule?

"You don't shoot when you don't have a clear field of fire," yes.