Could an LTCH holder have done anything to lessen the damage caused in Colorado?

[Blackhawk2001]

It's still IIIA Kevlar. Won't stop a rifle, but it'll stop a handgun.

A bullet to the headgear would have rung his gong like a cymbal, though. Might have knocked him down, or even knocked him out. A bullet through his throat sideways would have ruined his day, as well; or one through his ear. A bullet in his groin or upper thighs would have crippled him, if not stopped him completely.

But nobody had a pistol to try any of that, and apparently, nobody had a knife or the will and skills to use one, either.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I checked the Colorado code regarding places off limits for carrying. It doesn't list movie theaters, and also mentions that no-gun signs do not have force of law. I am no expert, but it doesn't appear, at least from the source posted below, that legal permit holders could not have carried at the theater.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/colorado.pdf

As has been pointed out in other threads, Colorado law allows some municipalities to declare that "firearms free" zones DO have the force of law.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Was it possible that an armed sheepdog could have been sitting front row next to the exit that Holmes used? Of course. Based on the fan-base of the movie, the time of the showing, the politico-legal environment of the theatre, was it probable that an armed sheepdog would have sat there? No.

Assuming that the above happened, is it possible that that sheepdog could have identified the threat Holmes posed before being targetted and engaged himself, whether by the fortunes of war, or by giving away his armed status to a preemptive attacker? Of course. Given the nature of the event, the lion's share of the audience's attention on the screen, is it probable that that sheepdog would have recognized Holmes for the threat that he turned out to be? No.

Assuming that, once the smoke grenades went off and Holmes began shooting, our notional sheepdog was able to draw and ready his weapon, is it possible that he could have engaged Holmes, with as minimal added danger as possible to those around him, so as to retard Holmes's slaughter? Of course. Given the lighting, sound, human, smoke, and chemical dimensions of the environment, not to mention the armoured nature of the target, is it probable that such a sheepdog would have been able to bring force to bear with intensity and precision sufficient to bring Holmes to bay? No.

Could vs. would. Possible vs. probable.

The devil's in the details.

 

[Hookeye]

But even if the sheepdog was the least of his litter, one shot from him could have been enough.

 

[SSGSAD]

NOT to threadjack, but when I turned on my computer this evening, one of the headlines I saw, was 3 men took a bullet for their wifes / girlfriends..... Would YOU sacrifice YOURSELF, to save your wife, gf ????

 

[Hookeye]

Trying to be a "safety blanket", while maybe better than nothing, against somebody determined, or with plenty of ammo and FMJ rifle type............might only mean you get shot before your wife or GF.

IMHO more loving to try to stop the attack.

 

[TTravis]

I can only imagine what I might have done, at least hopefully. As a former soldier, I would have hit the ground as soon as I figured out it was gun fire. I would have recognised the effects of the CS right away. I've been through the gas chamber and open field when CS is popped a few times in the army and each time I seemed to handle it better so the CS would not incapacitate me. Being mad seems to delay the effects of CS. After making sure anyone I was with was down, I would have gone on the offensive trying and get some situational awareness. My .38 would be out, but I would know I was out gunned. My strategy would wait for a good shot opportunity. Most likely, I would wait till he needs to switch magazines, or his AR jammed as it did and then tackle that scrawny bastard as hard as I can with my 300 pound fat ass. Only then would I find a place to put the barrel of that 38 in some unprotected place like under his chin and pull the trigger. If we wound up wrestling on the ground, I would try to jerk that gas mask off. I would not know in advance but from the pictures, I am a lot bigger and stronger than he is. Hopefully after I had him down, a couple other guys would jump in. At least that is what I hope this old man is capable of doing rather than crapping my pants.

 

[netsecurity]

I think anyone shooting back would have had little effect and would probalby be dead now.

I can't disagree with you more. It is true that pulling a pistol on a guy with a rifle is not a fair fight, but we're talking about 100 or so people, and the gunman doesn't know who the LTCH is, or whether they are taking steady aim at his head while he fires from the hip into the crowd.

If you know anything at all about armed conflicts you should know what suppressive fire is. Suppressive fire is used to pin down the enemy so that they can't shoot back at you. It doesn't have to even be that accurate or make any direct hits, but it still has the effect of keeping the enemy's head down. When your troops are maneuvering, you lay down suppressive fire so they are not shot in the process. In this case, the movie goers were the "troops", and someone with a gun could've very easily sent this coward running out the back door, or at the least caused him to stall while innocents made their escape.

YES, the LTCH holder may become a target of the attacker, but how many other lives might he/she have saved? And how do you know he wouldn't be in a position (i.e. front row) for an easy lethal shot? I can see zero negative consequences of an armed citizen, and in fact I think having more armed citizens is the ONLY solution to minimize violent crime ANYWHERE.

 

[Fixer]

I think it is interesting that everyone who thinks an armed person in the theater would have no effect, is essentially saying that he would be unaffected at bullets coming back at him. He might have fled the moment that bullets hit his vest. He obviously was not on a suicide mission he was wearing armor. If you are going to speculate then you have to cover all the variables. Everyone seems to miss, what the shooter would do if fired upon. I think I would have a great possibility of hitting him with a few rounds of 45acp. Maybe he panics and runs back out of the movie. Could save a lot of people in that senario.

 

[rugerfan12]

Ok well weather people say yes no whatever, im gonna say i would have still stood up and tryed to take aim and hopfully while i try to take him down i hope people will leave. I would have to say i wouldnt have cared if i got shot or died i kno i was trying to save people.....

 

[JodyR]

Until posed with the situation..I dont think anyone REALLY knows what they would do. We know what we hope we would do though...

 

[amallen1]

I'd rather take the chance of "might" rather than "none"

 

[esrice]

Until posed with the situation..I dont think anyone REALLY knows what they would do. We know what we hope we would do though...

Not to pick on your particular post JudyR, but I see this sentiment quite a bit in the Carry Issues forum and I don't quite understand the mindset.

If people are carrying guns then they had better KNOW what they would do in such a situation, in advance.

If its still a question in their mind, then they need to train until it no longer is. Scenario-based force-on-force is great for this kind of decision making.

 

[wagyu52]

For those who think an armed citizen would have had no effect in the theater shooting, I ask why even carry a weapon? Sereously gun, knife... Why even bother, you will always face the posablity of being out guned, outnumbered. But you underestimate the one true advantage of CCW, Suprise.

 

[indytechnerd]

I carry a weapon for the defense of myself and my loved ones, unless I'll get in trouble legally for doing so.
I carry a weapon for the defense of myself and my loved ones, unless it would be difficult due to environment or circumstances.
I carry a weapon for the defense of myself and my loved ones, unless I'm faced with superior firepower.
I carry a weapon for the defense of myself and my loved ones, unless I might get killed in the process.....
I carry a weapon for the defense of myself and my loved ones, unless what?....

That red text is kinda hard to swallow, but those questions need to be answered internally long before you strap on that sidearm and extra magazine. If we're being honest here, not knowing the totality of the situation in that theater...I have no idea how I'd react.

I'm reminded, however, of that lame ABC piece about the school shootings where they had 30 folks in baggy white shirts and helmets and the 'shooter' runs in the front door and pops the professor. Imagine that chaos, now darken the place, triple the people, add a loud movie, and start the madness with a flashbang. Scary, scary stuff.

 

[Valvestate]

I carry a weapon for the defense of myself and my loved ones, at all costs

FTFY

 

[Fixer]

Not to pick on your particular post JudyR, but I see this sentiment quite a bit in the Carry Issues forum and I don't quite understand the mindset.

If people are carrying guns then they had better KNOW what they would do in such a situation, in advance.

If its still a question in their mind, then they need to train until it no longer is. Scenario-based force-on-force is great for this kind of decision making.

I think the statement was more of, I know what I plan on doing in that situation, but would that actually be what I would do when faced with a life and death situation. Even police don't always react the way they are trained at times.

 

[wagyu52]

I CCW for the defense of my loved ones and myself. In that order. It is my God given duty to protect my family first above myself.

 

[edporch]

There's a GREATER chance Holmes could've been stopped with an armed audience than a disarmed audience.

 

[esrice]

Even police don't always react the way they are trained at times.

Then I would offer that they aren't training effectively.