14 dead, 50 wounded at Colorado Theater during Dark Knight

[supply4demand]

He tried to stop himself 9 days prior to the attack. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb ... ir=College

[TTS]

So it
s a uneneforceable code when it comes to self-defense (State law trumping city code)?

That is my understanding. Colorado is a very pro 2A state, you can own all NFA weapons, PTC's are easy to obtain and open carry is common in many places outside of Denver/Aurora.

[xd ED]

So it
s a uneneforceable code when it comes to self-defense (State law trumping city code)?

That is my understanding. Colorado is a very pro 2A state, you can own all NFA weapons, PTC's are easy to obtain and open carry is common in many places outside of Denver/Aurora.

Not too easy for a non-resident to aquire a Colorado PTC. Appears to be 'may[and probably won't] issue' if I read things correctly.

[TTS]

Ed,

You are correct. They are far from perfect, but better than most. I think AZ has the best pro-2A laws in the country, too bad it is soo hot!

[Pinnacle]

He tried to stop himself 9 days prior to the attack. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb ... ir=College

If he was sane enough to send that - he was sane enough to not perform that act of violence.

[tman]

He tried to stop himself 9 days prior to the attack. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb ... ir=College

If he was sane enough to send that - he was sane enough to not perform that act of violence.

The updated version of this story contains a statement that it is believed he mailed the package on Friday, and it arrived Monday.

[dcam]

Website with PD and EMS radio traffic
If it's unedited, and the timeline is correct, the first police unit arrives about a minute after the call is dispatched, suspect id'd about 6:22, and in custody about 7 mins.

http://alertpage1.posterous.com/auroracolorado-mass-casualty-shooting-inciden

.

[XDM45]

Even if you were there with your pea shooter, it would be a stretch to even try to say there would have been a lot that could have "prevented" this...

Pinnacle, Agreed 100%.

I will spare the entire email thread and discourse I had with a friend of mine who lives in VA, but here is part of what I wrote to him regarding if a PTC/CCW holder would have been in the theater and attempted to defend themselves.... here are some parts of it which I think warrant posting on the subject....

----

Believe me, I'm all for guns, but hear me out on this one......

If a bunch of CCW permit holders went off to defend themselves it would have been an even bloodier mess for several reasons......

1) You are ALWAYS at risk of being shot by another CCW holder because they may think you're a 2nd shooter/combatant. Ten-fold that in this situation.

2) People were gassed with tear gas. Mucus membranes in the eyes, nose and throat are affected by this gas.

3) Due to the gas, no one could really see anything or anyone.

4) The gunman was wearing bullet-proof armor that unless the CCW holders had illegal "cop killer" armor piecing ammo, it wouldn't have worked against him.

5) He clearly had this planned out based on his apartment rigging.

6) Most CCW permit holders are unprepared for several reasons:

a) They qualify for their permit with a .22LR pistol and NOT their actual carry weapon.

b) They don't take extensive training in physical, mental, emotional areas, including tactical training.

c) No one can be prepared enough and perfectly handle every situation, but some think they can and this is a mistake.

----

In this next section, his words are in bold and mine follow it.

-----

In what ways is this not a lifeboat scenario where there is only room for 10 but 25 want on board which would drown everyone? This horrible event may not have a solution but to just lay down & die & not try to protect myself & others because I might make the situation worse just seems unthinkable?

So others should be put at extended risk so others may defend themselves? Clearly, in my opinion, that isn't a smart move. Again, you are ignoring the points that he had a plan and was well-repared while wearing full body armor and chemical weapons were used. You seem to be ignoring those very important factors. I thought I clarified that in my last email. Please re-read that email again with understanding of what I wrote and not what you wanted to read into my words. I am quite clear in my writing I believe, am I not?

Optimistically, a single armed citizen may have saved 100s but to do so would have been illegal as firearms were not allowed on the property. By your reasoning, even a single well trained military or police person should not have tried to defend everyone else as this person may have injured or killed others in the process?

The police were unprepared for such an event. They didn't go to the site in biochemical suits or have gas masks easily on-hand during the first-response. I guess if you were there, you would have been able to take him out? Do you carry illegal armor piecing bullets in your weapon? If not, then how do you expect to penetrate his body armor? Even IF you are a good enough shot to hit him directly in the face between the eyes, could you do so under extreme pressure in a live fire situation where someone isn't sitting on a paper target and is shooting back at you?

I agree with most everything else you state below. This crazy scenario is one reason I generally avoid crowds. When I rarely do carry, I open carry as no special permission from the government is required in Virginia. We are relatively free citizens here in the Commonwealth. And yes, I do have some military training & once worked at a Master at Arms position.

Military training is great, but it does not prepare you for every situation. Neither does piolice training prepare you to go to war. Two entirely different things. Also, I have to ask, do you have a fire extingusher in your house only "sometimes" or "all of the time"? I would hope ALL of the time. Carrying part of the time is dangerous because if you develop memory muscle and the worst happens and you aren't armed, you won't be prepared and your muscle memory may kick in and you'll go for a weapon you don't have....and then get shot because you moved.

If you are going to carry, then carry. If you aren't going to carry, don't carry. Go all one way or the other. Anything else and you'll only get hurt or hurt others.

I realize you cannot carry EVERYWHERE like a courthouse, work, and some other places, but most places you can. I'm not sure how it is in VA, but in MN, most of those "XYZ bans guns on these premises" are not legal and can be avoided sans certain places like the courthouse and other places which are prohibiited.

Had I been there I may have frozen from the shock of the carnage. In many ways it's just unbelievable. As far as helping the gun rights cause, if someone had stopped him shortly after he began, this story would have received scant attention & been buried soon thereafter as was the near church massacre in Colorado just a few years ago.
100% agree.

A CCW women saved the day but what is her name? The name of the crazed gun killer is always repeated but the gun toting hero not so much.
100% agree again.
Too many people want to be heros or think a gun makes them powerful instead of more responsible. The first resort is to exact and the absolutly last restore is to use the gun to defend yourself.

As for gun control working, it doesn't. It never has and it never will. Look at Australia.

[xd ED]

Aurora heroes: Three who gave their lives:

Twenty-five-year-old Jon Blunk was sitting next to his girlfriend, Jansen Young, at the midnight premiere of "The Dark Knight Rises" when the gunman (who shall remain nameless) opened fire in the dark theater. Blunk instinctively pushed his girlfriend to the ground and threw his body on top of hers. Blunk, a security guard, served eight years in the Navy and was in the process of re-enlisting in hopes of becoming a Navy SEAL, family and friends said. He was killed in the gunfire; his girlfriend survived.

Twenty-four-year-old Alex Teves dived on top of his girlfriend, Amanda Lindgren, when the gunfire erupted. Covering her body, he took the bullets so they did not harm her. She survived the massacre; he did not.

Matt McQuinn, 27 years old, threw his body in front of his girlfriend, Samantha Yowler, as the shooting continued. Yowler survived with a gunshot wound to the knee; McQuinn's body absorbed the fatal shots.

LINK

[jgalt]

This horrible event may not have a solution but to just lay down & die & not try to protect myself & others because I might make the situation worse just seems unthinkable?

So others should be put at extended risk so others may defend themselves?

As with everything, choosing whether or not to use a firearm to defend oneself is situation dependent. A theater that seats ~300 (like the one in this case) would not fill with smoke either immediately or at a constant rate. Those closest to the smoke will of course be least likely to effectively react, while those furthest away would have the best chance to do so. (Note - I'm not saying "best chance" = "good chance"...)

If someone there had a firearm, the presence of mind to remain (relatively) calm, and was far enough away from the smoke, it is entirely possible that trying to fire back would have been the best bet. If that person felt he could make the shot (whether or not he is right is irrelevant to the decision making process at that moment...), then absolutely s/he should try to do so - even if others would be "put at extended risk" in the process.

If you are being attacked, your life does not become worth less than anyone else's as a result. If an innocent were injured or killed as a result of (what you believed at the time to be) well aimed shots taken in an attempt to stop the immediate threat of great bodily harm or death to yourself, as well as others, that would of course be a tragedy - but no more so than if you refuse to make the attempt for fear you might hurt an innocent, leaving the psycho free to do as he pleases for as long has he'd like...

(A second note - firing wildly behind you as you try to "cover" your own retreat is very different from what I described above, and is not what I'm arguing...)

So in answer to your question - yes, depending on the situation, it is OK to put others at risk when defending yourself, especially when those others are already at risk...

Clearly, in my opinion, that isn't a smart move.

If "in my opinion" means exactly and only that, then we can agree to disagree on the topic. If it means you would support making that action a punishable offense, that's an entirely different story...

Again, you are ignoring the points that he had a plan and was well-prepared while wearing full body armor and chemical weapons were used.

I obviously don't know if your friend was ignoring the point about "full body armor", but I will. Since the people in the theater at that time had no way of knowing this fact, you cannot expect it to have been a part of the decision making process of whether or not to attempt to return fire (had anyone been able to do so).

Also, while I don't have the sources easily at hand, I believe I remember having read accounts where a number of "active shooters" either fled, or turned their guns on themselves upon receiving resistance they hadn't expected. As with everything in this story, there is no way to know how Holmes would have reacted had someone shot back, especially if he'd gotten hit a few times. (Body armor or not, that's gonna hurt...) But "no way to know" does not equal "shouldn't try". Breaking the shooter's concentration may have caused him to flee or kill himself as others have done, or maybe not - but we'll never know, since no one tried...

I hope it is clear that I'm not arguing that there were any good options here. All I'm saying is that what you wrote above is stated in a rather "absolute" way, that isn't justified in this case.

[JoeH]

I'm not saying that I could have pulled off anything heroic. But if I were there in that theater, I would have wanted my gun and wanted the option of using it.

As for making the situation worse, I can imagine the scene and I can't imagine it any worse.

[plblark]

I've seen Joe shoot, I haven't often seen him miss. Granted, no one was firing back but the same damn thing can be said of that damn psychopath.

I went to see Dark Knight Tuesday evening late. It was eerie thinking about where to sit and looking at other people in the theater. the "enforcement" guard out front didn't comfort me at all.

[Pinnacle]

In a case like this one, I think that it is important to note that in my opinion, if I were in that theatre and was caught int he middle of that situation, I would consider myself to be dead anyhow.

Would I have shot at the BG, if the opportunity presented itself - Yes absolutely

Would I have counted on walking out of there alive - Nope.

[tman]

Also, while I don't have the sources easily at hand, I believe I remember having read accounts where a number of "active shooters" either fled, or turned their guns on themselves upon receiving resistance they hadn't expected. As with everything in this story, there is no way to know how Holmes would have reacted had someone shot back, especially if he'd gotten hit a few times. (Body armor or not, that's gonna hurt...) But "no way to know" does not equal "shouldn't try". Breaking the shooter's concentration may have caused him to flee or kill himself as others have done, or maybe not - but we'll never know, since no one tried...

He surrendered to the police IMMEDIATELY when confronted, it seems. It's a good bet that an armed response in the theater would've interrupted his spree. That's not saying there was a good chance for an armed response, mind you.

As with every event of this nature, I will adjust my own tactics and strategies to fit possible scenarios of this type.

[Snakeman721]

Body armor or not, wouldn't a hit from a .45 ACP at least knock the shooter down?