Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by Unknown, Jul 20, 2012.
Now the anti gunners will use this to pass more useless gun control.
Incomprehensible. Pray for those Killed and injured and their friends and families. So incredibly sad.
It would have been lovely if someone in the audience was totin', drew his gun and nailed the SOB on the spot, saving lives and preventing additional injuries.
There is a better argument for packin'.
^^ Guess you missed the part about the body armor.
One nut firing into a crowd is bad enough. The last thing you want is several people firing in a crowd.
No, you guessed wrong. I didn't miss a damn thing! Body armor does not fully cover the body, but regardless, a couple of 9mm or .38 calibre slugs fired into a vest will stop or disrupt the shooter.
You're wrong, there. The first thing I want is for the shooter to be stopped asap.
Are you inferring that if you were in that theater and you were packing, you would NOT have acted in self-defense, and to protect others and save lives?
a couple of 9mm or .38 calibre slugs fired into a vest will stop or disrupt the shooter.
Didn't do much good in North Hollywood. Even trained snipers are taught to go for body shots. Head shot are more by luck in most cases. The TV/Movie sniper takedowns with headshots are only when the target is stationary and the sniper can take time to set the shot up.
And do you REALLY want a bunch of Joe/Jane Citizens cracking rounds off in several directions while people are scattering? Maybe even some that haven't pulled a trigger since they bought?
You have failed to answer my question and you are attempting to cloud the issue, a tactic typically employed by liberals who support the repeal of the Second Amendment. Further, I am appalled at your implied unwillingness (refusal?) to act to save yourself and very possibly save the lives of others.
Since you refused to respond to the question in my previous post, I will no longer engage with you in this discussion.
You edited your post while I was posting.
Acting in self-defense does not mean putting others at risk by firing into a crowd of scattering people. It would be different if you could get a clear shot at close range with no one else in the field of fire, or if you could simply tackle the guy.
One thing that will be determined is how did this suspect get the gun, and what was his background. I am not sure that one person packing in the crowd would have been able to do much. This type of situation, like in North Hollywood in 1997, really takes a SWAT team to bring down. And another person shooting can pose dangers to other people nearby and another person shooting can confuse law enforcement as to who the true shooter is. Not to say that another armed person couldn't have possibly ended the situation, but it is extremely unlikely.
Apparently his mother isn't surprised:
Also, the helmet lets out the possibility of a casual headshot from any sidearm that any spectator may have had.
They may be more focused on the tactical gear since that is more tightly regulated. Many states prohibit possession of body armor by civilians.
Sad news indeed ...
The sad part is some shady dealers at trade shows sell them "under the table". I am all for the 2nd amendment but I feel that the "gun control" we need is preventing people with violent criminal covictions and certain mental defects from getting the weapons.
Just got this in my mail.
Whatever people say about Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly, they do react quickly.
sad & bizarre... http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...narrowly-missed-toronto-eaton-centre-gunfire/
In an attempt to divert from the terrible event, how bout this:
Very strange use of "in lieu of". "In light of " would be correct.
Yeah, "in lieu of" means "in place of".
Seems like she was destined for it. Odd. And sad.