Names of victims emerge in Colo. theater rampage

@WWRJD You are right in a way - a person can't know until they are actually IN combat how they will react. I've read enough military history, and known enough guys in uniform, to know that. BUT - you react how you train and think -if you are trained "do what they say, wait for the prefessional," which IS what is taught in most schools, and is the limit of self-defense training many people get, and that is how most people rspond. I DON'T train that way, and there are others like me who ALSO don't train that way. If you carry a gun for self defense, I hope you ALSO don't train for being passive once a line is crossed.

 

if I were in the middle of a theater when that went down, and I was suddenly surrounded by a fearful mob, I might well have no change to do anything other than try not to get crushed, or I might have been one of the first shot; I recognize that. Even someone far better repared than I, if they were in the wrong part of the theater, might not be able to do anything because of the smoke, press of the crowd, darkness, etc. That is why training virtually EVERYONE to CHARGE THE AMBUSH is the best way to make places safer. THAT is my main point - essentially everyone ran, making the gunmans job easier.

 

Do you know why the British "Redcoats" wore red? It was so that deserters could been easily seen (and shot on the spot). The *safest* place at that time was to be was in formation, doing  what you were told, which was shooting the enemy. while running away (if you could do it) may be short term safer for you personally at that moment, it increased the chances that more of your fellow soldiers would die, and your side would lose teh battle, and be more likely to lose the war. It is NOT intuitive or obvious that standing and fighting is safer than running away in fear, but in every recent large mass shooting (Aurora, VA Tech, Columbine, Toronto, etc) A pretty good case can be made that the body count would have been much lower if everyone had just charged the gunman, tackled him, and had giant pile-on to disarm and disable him.

 

Or are you saying that having 70 people shot was a best possible outcome for such a theater shooting scenario? Are YOU going to refuse to learn from such an event, too?

@WWRJD it's only indefensible if you do not understand what I'm saying (more broadly outlined below). Self defense isn't a tool - it's a mindset, which tools such as guns help enable. He was in a relativly small room full of people, yet had time to reload a couple of times; he had that time ONLY because no-one was trying to fight back, with anything. The government keeps telling citizens "let a professional do it," and when an emergency comes up where there are no professionals to help and every second counts, they have been trained to still refuse to help themselves. If everyone rushed him, it would be over in seconds - ugly, but over. Certainly no worse than 71 people shot.

 

Of course, if he was a little more skilled with gasoline bombs, and tried to re-create the Happy Lands Nightclub fire, there might easily have been hundreds dead, so it's likey a good thing he decided he wanted to use guns more than he wanted a high body count.

@Cherise Moore For some reason my first reply went below, as a reply to my own post.

 

"how could SHE have Prevented it?" Likley not, but that's an extreamly narrow view of the problem, as explained below.

“Let’s roll!” What do Todd Beamer’s words mean today, post 9-11? To me, they mean that when evil people have demonstrated they are PLANNING on killing people, then the ONLY option is for EVERYONE ELSE to go after them in an immediate all-out no-holds-barred assault. It means that to run, hide, or wait for a rescuer IS TO DIE. There decision had been made – the second he’s an active shooter, ATTACK is the ONLY option for everyone physically capable of moving themselves.  

 

I would agree that this particular event is sort of a textbook “worst-case scenario” for a concealed carry person, sort of a “Kobayashi Maru” – dark theater, crowds, loud action on the screen, smoke / gas, armored assailant with multiple guns. But it is a room full of people, many of which are young men. If he’s pointing his gun at me, then HE’S NOT POINTING AT YOU! And, just as importantly, vice-versa. You are NOT ALONE. If the people closest to him had ALL charged him (or even several of them), with the intent to grab the rifle, grab his arm, use his helmet as a screw-top lid that they really HAVE to open, then he would have gone down fast. Once he was on the ground, then the body armor, helmet, extra three guns, and ammo strapped on his body are all working against him – gravity is NOT his friend at that point.

 

You are right that if it’s just me all alone with a concealed gun in its holster against him 5 yards away already pointing a rifle at me, yup – I’m pretty much screwed. But that is thinking about the whole world as if you are the only one in it. You are NOT. That scenario is not THIS scenario. It’s the herd mentality of “wait for the professionals” that got 71 people shot. I see almost no way that *attempting* to do something would have made it significantly worse, and a lot of ways that if several people had channeled their inner action hero / marine / Todd Beamer / mama bear, it would have been over fairly quickly, once people realized it wasn’t a movie stunt.

 

Instead of training people to NOT be victims and how to recognize evil (it’s the guy shooting at you), we’ll be bombarded by people with proposals that will be very cost-ineffective, cost of freedom, and, ultimately, make us less human, and less American.

 

There is an old Norse saying – “a knifeless man is a lifeless man.” But a knife (or gun) is only of use if you are willing to defend yourself with it, meaning you have to have the *attitude* of “never surrender! I may die, but I'll sell my life dearly!” And that is what we, as free people, as Americans, need to reclaim.

 

As I said – I’m sorry she died. I just don’t understand her attitude that lead her there.

 @Cherise Moore Thank you, Cherise.  I like that this comment comes from someone who carries, as well, so people on both sides of the issue might actually hear what you're saying.  What RN1 said is indefensible. 

 @RN1 I'm sorry but how do you defend yourself against a gun aimed at your head? Are you joking me?! I carry a .38 everywhere I go and i know self defense but there is NOTHING you can do in the situation except try not to be seen. This is so insensitive, I'm literally at a loss for words.. you have obviously never been in a life threatening situation. HOW COULD SHE HAVE PREVENTED THIS?!

@FremontTroll @merline And here I thought what they had in common were nut-jobs. What do the murder of roughly 150,000,000 citizens by their own communist governments in the 20th C have in common? Gun control. Hmmm...

 

As for what type of weapon is used, AR15s ARE used in some hunting, AND in several shooting sports. But that is irrelevant - what part of a right "shall not be infringed" isn't clear? Or are you also of the opinion that publications and churches should be approved by the government?

 @FremontTroll Crazy people don't become less crazy just because they can't legally buy guns. I agree with you completely that nobody outside of law enforcement should have access to this type of weapon, but making them illegal is not going to make it impossible for crazy people to get them. Even if they were impossible to obtain, that crazy person is still gonna be crazy and can find another way to kill people. I'm not saying that we shouldn't bother to ban these weapons, but that is not the solution to this problem. I mean, do you really think that it would be more effective to make it illegal for a mentally ill/homicidal person to buy a semi-automatic weapon than it would be to mandate treatment/hospitalization for that person? Drugs are also illegal, yet we still have plenty of drug addicts.