Gun Control-Here we go again.

[Hoovie]

As usual the one with evil intent is not effected by the laws forbidding him from carrying and killing. Why would there be a law forbidding trained law-abiding persons from carrying a gun in a theater? I disagree that more would have died. The second or third shot would have went to the head.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

As usual the one with evil intent is not effected by the laws forbidding him from cerring and killing. Why would there be a law forbidding trained law-abiding persons from carrying a gun in a theater? I disagree that more would have died. The second or third shot would have went to the head.

Or it could have become an even bloodier scene with the chaos of rounds flying in all directions.

If more people were armed and decided in this situation to fire back, there would have been more death.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by scotty

Then 2 or 3 more people would have died.

Lets not forget the body armour he had on. If someone had returned fire it would have been useless, plus they would have been singled out by him and unless body armour was the dress code for the day, they would have died.

I see the point your making and I agree with the premise, but in this case returning fire would have done nothing more than made you a prime target.

Very likely 2 or 3 firing (and hitting him) WOULD have ended the rampage quickly. Body armor isn't a magical substance which bullets bounce off of leaving the wearer unharmed. While BA does save lives by keeping nearly all rounds from penetrating it still feels like your being punched when hit with a round. The bullet can even break bones through it! Yes, 2 or 3 firing at him would have ended it after getting disoriented but from the body blows and finally getting shot in the head/arms/legs.

[BroJoe]

Hoovie:

I have not heard how he got in there with the mask and guns.

He came in plainly dressed, sat in the front row until the previews started. At which point, he got up and walked out of the emergency exit door in the theater and held it open with something while he went and dressed up at his car. Then he came back in and blasted

Scotty:

Then 2 or 3 more people would have died.

Lets not forget the body armour he had on. If someone had returned fire it would have been useless, plus they would have been singled out by him and unless body armour was the dress code for the day, they would have died.

I see the point your making and I agree with the premise, but in this case returning fire would have done nothing more than made you a prime target.

It was bullet resistant, not bulletproof. My point is that we, as a society, have been toothless kittens, unable to fight back when something is threatening us.

[BroJoe]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Very likely 2 or 3 firing (and hitting him) WOULD have ended the rampage quickly. Body armor isn't a magical substance which bullets bounce off of leaving the wearer unharmed. While BA does save lives by keeping nearly all rounds from penetrating it still feels like your being punched when hit with a round. The bullet can even break bones through it! Yes, 2 or 3 firing at him would have ended it after getting disoriented but from the body blows and finally getting shot in the head/arms/legs.

This too. The guy would have been shaken up. He obviously expected some type of engagement with law enforcement, otherwise he wouldn't have protected his body as such. But I wonder if he would have expected two or three people to be armed inside the actual theater.

I'm betting it would have tossed him off balance a bit.

[Jermyn Davidson]

More bullets flying in a crowded and panicked theater would have resulted in more casualties.

[BroJoe]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

More bullets flying in a crowded and panicked theater would have resulted in more casualties.

It's our mindset, bro.

If that stuff happened 100 years ago in that same area, I guarantee you almost every person in that theater would have been armed and every person would have taken that dude out.

The only reason people prey on people, is because they can.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Or it could have become an even bloodier scene with the chaos of rounds flying in all directions.

If more people were armed and decided in this situation to fire back, there would have been more death.

Very, very rare that this happens. But very, very common that the perp is stopped.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by BroJoe

It's our mindset, bro.

If that stuff happened 100 years ago in that same area, I guarantee you almost every person in that theater would have been armed and every person would have taken that dude out.

The only reason people prey on people, is because they can.

Agreed.

Still, in those cramped condidtions with widespread panic, more bullets would have equaled more death.

Remember, there was smoke cannisters. I thought I read tear gas too, but I know there were smoke cannisters deployed.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Very, very rare that this happens. But very, very common that the perp is stopped.

Stopped maybe. All I'm saying is that there would have been more death in THIS situation had there been more bullets flying through the crowded, smoky, panicked, movie theater.