The fallacy that people in Aurora counldn't fight/shoot back.

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

leadcounsel

member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
5,365
Location
Tacoma, WA
This IS NOT a blame the victim thread. This is dialogue as to what could have been done, and how guns COULD have saved lives in that theater.

Many online debates about whether people could have reasonably/realistically and effectively fought back against a gunman armed with longguns in a dark, chaotic, smokey theater.

My answer is YES, and not fighting back guaranteed the 12 dead and 60 or so wounded.

We've all been to the theater. Yes it's dark. That's the point. But after about 5 minutes your eyes are adjusted. You can see your popcorn. You can see the people in the other side of the theater stand up, go to the exit, etc. By many accounts, this shooter was silouetted in front of the screen for a period of time.

By many accounts, it was one or two cans of gas and it took awhile to take effect. I've been tear gased and been in a Army gas chamber. One or two cans in a huge movie theater is not an instant ray of doom. It would be bad, but people can still function well enough to run away, hide, and most importantly give awefully detailed description of him and his actions.

Body armor. Did he have it, didn't he have it. I'd say it's irrelevant. It's highly probable that if someone had shot back, he would have stopped shooting and fled. He's a video gamer, according to the news. He's not a hardened combat vet. When bullets were returned, there is a good chance that he would have got scared and ran. It takes a brave man to stand there and take shots coming at you. His taking cover would have provided life-saving time for the others. And with a lucky face/arm/leg shot, a vest would have been irrelevant.

Some say that a pistol v. a rifle is no match. Well, it's better than nothing. And let's not forget that the masses had the benefit of darkness and smoke and chaos too. This guy was just firing into a sea of people. A defensive shooter can see his repeated muzzle flash and make him out. Put a few people shooting at him from a few angles, and that's a short gun battle. Consider your common handgun, holding 10-15 rounds. If a few people from a few angles returned fire, they are statistically putting a few rounds on him in a few seconds. Could some of their rounds hit innocents. Of course, but now you're talking about unintended pistol rounds vs. his intended rifle rounds. While not ideal, certainly "better." The gunfight really COULD have ended between his transition from his shotgun to his AR15 and literally saved lives.

Further, many witnesses say they were within mere FEET of this guy. Did we learn NOTHING from 9/11. Tackle him. If someone had a knife, stab him. Grab his rifle from him.
 
It isn't a question of courage IMHO. There were several men in that theater who interposed themselves between the shooter and others, and were shot for doing it.

Given the courage to do that, why did they not physically attack the shooter?

My own opinion is that it's essentially 'learned helplessness' at work. For a couple of generations now schoolboys have been forbidden to defend themselves or others against schoolyard bullies. Draw a picture of a gun in class, get expelled. You all know the drill.

I can't help but believe that most of us - especially the younger generations - have become the passive victims such a training regime is intended to produce.
 
Essentially this was an ambush on the people in the theatre. The prevailing logic (at least that the Marine Corps taught me) is that you assault an ambush head on with “swift violence of action.” The ambusher is almost always outnumbered by the ambushed, and has to rely on the element of surprise. A swift, violent direct assault, even with just fists and bodies, would have overwhelmed the attacker. Would some people have been hurt doing so...probably, but we know 12 DID die and dozens more WERE hurt. I begrudge no one their choices in extraordinary circumstances, but I agree with the OP, let’s not sit here and think that they were all helpless. Victims...yes, helpless...no.
 
The antis (and dissapointingly, some folks in here that should know better) have quickly jumped on how useless a CCer would probably have been in this situation, but they usually present a perfect bad scenario.

Would I have taken a shot across a darkened, smoke filled room full of panicked patrons running around? Maybe, maybe not, but suppose I was the first, second, third person he targeted and he was close to me?

Despite the perfect bad scenario we're being presented, without video we don't know exactly how chaotic is was and if / when the chaos started.
1. The panicked patrons "running all over the place" may not have been - a lot of folks that panicked, were probably doing so 'in place', as folks in the center seats would probably have a difficult time / limited mobility.
2. Do we yet know if it was tear gas or just smoke cannisters? I've heard both batted around - no confirmation that I've seen.
3. Just like point #2, do we know he had body armor? They've already dug up records that indicate he ordered a ballistic vest, NOT body armor. Some say he had body armor under the vest, but I've seen no confirmation - if they quickly dug up records on the ballistic vest order, you'd think they could have also done so if he'd ordered body armor. At this point, I'm assuming NO body armor.

Some folks seem to not have already thought 'bout how they would shoot to stop an assailant - if the goal is to shoot to stop, if a couple of COM rounds don't stop him, what's your second target? What's your third? As some suggest / teach, shooting an assailant to the ground might be something you want to consider?
Also note that once a person is on the ground, now that their circulatory system is not fighting gravity, you probably want to make sure they don't 'revive' now that they're horizontal (and no, I don't mean shoot 'em again). Once they're down, don't automatically assume they're out!
 
I agree totally with OP. but I am not so sure having more than one ccw would not have made things worse.

Here is something I posted on another board. Like I said, I can't really say what I would have done nor fault the people for the judgement calls (except the guy that left his wife and kid and drove off...)

My first thought, like many of you, was too bad he didn't try that **** in Texas. Then I hear Colorado has similar laws.

Next I felt that I would have to have tried to stop the shooter....whether I could have or not who knows, but would have to try.

As I continued playing it out on the sand table in my mind, it occurs to me what if there had been more than one chl feeling the same as me? We train to shoot till the threat is no more (goes down or leaves the area). I am now dealing with multiple shooters and no way of knowing if it is two bad guys or a bad guy and another good guy helping me. I think i would probably try to return fire to both sources. I expect the other chl to do the same.

Add some more chls to the mix and very soon you are going to have "shootout at the OK corral" with lots of innocents in the crossfire.

What if it is a chick flick and I am asleep for the first shots and only see the good guy firing back? Chances are I start engaging the good guy first.

No good answers, just more food for thought....I stil think I would try to engage what I percieve to be the bad guy and hope the situation clarifies enough to not spiral out of control.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk when i should have been doing something useful
 
For a couple of generations now schoolboys have been forbidden to defend themselves or others against schoolyard bullies.
Click to expand...

My parents told a story to one of their friends a few months back, about me, that I didn't remember. Apparently, I had gotten in a fight at school, so they had to talk with the principle. According to him, the circumstances were that someone else was being bullied, and I stood up for them. So my parents said "suspend him if you have to, we're taking him out to dinner." You are right, though, Fred. I'm 24, so I haven't seen much of the previous generations, but nowadays turning the other cheek is considered politically correct.

Basicblur,
1. I read people were lined up at the exits, creating a line for him to shoot through. I think it would have been hard to fight back if you were near the exit - people would be in your way. If you were in the middle, you would have a less obstructed view to return fire, and more reason to - you can't escape with 50 people blocking the exit.
2. No word on that. He was a smart man, so he could have made something funny, but I think from what others reported it was just smoke.
3. Confirmed what tac vest he was wearing, so far I haven't seen it confirmed whether or not he had body armor, but I think its safe to ASSUME that he didn't.

Some say that a pistol v. a rifle is no match. Well, it's better than nothing. And let's not forget that the masses had the benefit of darkness and smoke and chaos too. This guy was just firing into a sea of people. A defensive shooter can see his repeated muzzle flash and make him out. Put a few people shooting at him from a few angles, and that's a short gun battle. Consider your common handgun, holding 10-15 rounds. If a few people from a few angles returned fire, they are statistically putting a few rounds on him in a few seconds. Could some of their rounds hit innocents. Of course, but now you're talking about unintended pistol rounds vs. his intended rifle rounds. While not ideal, certainly "better." The gunfight really COULD have ended between his transition from his shotgun to his AR15 and literally saved lives.
Click to expand...

That really depends on a lot of factors whether the pistol or rifle will win. The rifle offers a lot of advantages - namely power, control, and capacity. However, the shooter is in a target rich environment and you only have one target. Until you open fire, you have an easy time spotting your target, and he is just spraying wildly. He has to react to the specific threat of (a/many) CCW holder shooting at him, and probably won't notice your gun until you've fired at least one round. This gives you a significant advantage. Almost like the sleeper in a spy movie (thinking specifically of Executive Decision here). You have the element of surprise, and in this case it doesn't matter if you were OC or CC - he wouldn't know until he saw the muzzle flash.

---

The one issue I'd like to bring up in this thread is the issue of mistaken blame from LEO or other CCW. If you draw and fire, someone else who has a weapon might not realize right away that you're shooting the BG.

Of course, if you are in a position to draw and fire, you probably aren't going to be facing the mass, and rather facing the BG. So while it is a possibility someone can mistake you for the crook, I think it is very unlikely.
 
I don't know about unarmed bum rushing, but I can safely say that I'd rather be armed in that situation than unarmed.

There's always a chance another armed citizen or a cop will mistake you for the shooter and shoot you. But there's a much greater chance that the ACTUAL SHOOTER will shoot you first. A small handgun is thin odds against a carbine, but it's better than nothing.

I actually had one anti-gun fellow tell me he wouldn't want to be armed because he'd be scared if he had a gun. As opposed to just being shot while unarmed and defenseless, which isn't scary.
 
Skribs said:
Of course, if you are in a position to draw and fire, you probably aren't going to be facing the mass, and rather facing the BG. So while it is a possibility someone can mistake you for the crook, I think it is very unlikely.
Click to expand...

I bet our posts crossed in the mail......

Darkness, panic, stampeding people, confusion, smoke, muzzle flashes, noise, movie still playing with the attendant light level changes.......i don't know if I could tell who was who and all muzzle flashes are going to be assumed a threat till I am the winner or can't play amymore....






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk when i should have been doing something useful
 
Proof in the pudding,so to speak

The proof as to IF a handgun would have made a difference has been already decided by the people.

The sale of HANDGUNS in Colo has gone through the roof.

That is my answer to the nay sayers as to having ANY gun v/s having nothing but hands on techniques to stop that pos.

I shoot often and I truly believe that my incoming fire would have made a difference.

Thats my story and I'm sticking to it.

btw,he gave up without a shot fired when the LEO's showed up,leading me to believe that ANY incoming fire would have made him flee.

He believed he had a "gun free zone".
 
i don't know if I could tell who was who and all muzzle flashes are going to be assumed a threat till I am the winner or can't play amymore....
Click to expand...
Maybe it's time for some folks to (re?) think this thing a wee bit.
1. I'm not going to automatically assume a muzzle flash is a target (unless I can tell it's directed at me).
2. I like how many have gone from one extreme to the other - from a room full of helpless folks straight to a shootout at the OK Corral - is there not a possible middle ground? (I realize the antis don't want you to consider such a possiblity, but some in here should know better).
3. The there's the old Dirty Harry quote - when asked how he knew the guy he was chasing was the criminal? I think the answer was something along the lines of when I see a naked man with a butcher knife chasing a woman through the street... :scrutiny:

The proof as to IF a handgun would have made a difference has been already decided by the people.
Click to expand...
I'm also reminded of the VT massacre, and when antis are on a roll, some have asked them one simple question - if you could ask all those killed if they had it to do over again, would you have liked to have had a gun with which to give yourself a fighting chance?

It sounds like some folks are finally starting to answer that question before the fact!?
 
I've thought about this a lot, with the general advantage of off-and-on re-thinking over quite a few decades. I've played the "What if...?" game since Charles Whitman did his thing. And since reading about other mass-murderings in crowded venues.

Okay. When in a theater, I generally sit toward the back. Preferably near the aisle.

In this event, that means that I have people trying to run over me from the side, exiting the row. It means that there is a mob running up the aisle, and people in rows in front of me trying to get to the aisle.

So while I doubt that the shooter could pick me out of the crowd, my "clear, safe shot" abilities would be limited--regardless of what I'd want to do. I surely don't want my precious body used as flooring. Ever try standing still in front of a panicked mob?

And if I'm down front, the odds are least fair that at best I'd be on the floor, wearing a couple of fat and maybe dead people on top of me.

I'll give this one a great big "I don't know."
 
Doc is right...speed surprise and violence of action assault through the kill zone etc...and the body armor thing is a bit of a stretch I know on my point blank Kevlar it says rated up to 9mm. Plates are up to 7.62. However every time I have bought plates I had to either show credentials or my mil. ID.
 
Having a gun isn't a magic talisman that can save everyone from all evil, but when you carry one you're more likely to already be psychologically prepared to resist.
The people who died in that theater could have overpowered the shooter - they were dying anyhow - but they didn't. They died instead of resisting.

Armed or not, people need to learn to resist.
 
Last edited:
I'm also in the "maybe" column about the effectiveness of a run of the mill CCP citizen, charged with adrenaline and in a chaotic environment.

But...after the last few days of national dialog, I'm also wondering if this kind of attack might go the way of Flight 93 on 9/11. That is, because of the information and discussion that this event is creating, I wonder if future potential victims in similar situations will remember Aurora and decide to fight back.

I know that when I'm on a flight now, taking the attack to a hijacker is almost a given in my mind, even if I'm only armed with a laptop.
 
Fred Fuller wrote: My own opinion is that it's essentially 'learned helplessness' at work. For a couple of generations now schoolboys have been forbidden to defend themselves or others against schoolyard bullies. Draw a picture of a gun in class, get expelled. You all know the drill.

I can't help but believe that most of us - especially the younger generations - have become the passive victims such a training regime is intended to produce.
Click to expand...

I am also inclined to agree and this stuck me as a very important point that should be examined further.

I know it is against forum decorum ...hey, a rhyme!... to use colorful language but my grandfather was a very colorful man who always grumbled about the "_ _ _ _ ification of America". And now as an adult and a father myself, I see it happening more now to my child and her peers than I recall experiencing as a youngster.

I also know that Monday morning quarterbacking is always fraught with pitfalls and assumptions. But I cant help but think about being in a similar situation myself like what happened in that movie theater and wondering how I would REALLY react, not how I would LIKE to react. However, I believe that playing the what if game is a valid and extremely useful learning tool in terms of self defense.

And in this case, I keep thinking to myself that a swift and ultra violent counter-attack against an armed assailant who, by the way, turned out to look like a not very physically tough individual... who happened to also be wearing a helmet and a (peripheral vision impairing) gas mask. Perhaps a violent counter attack, be it tackling or some other debilitating strike would have not been out of the realm of possibility and actually a viable option.
 
The antis (and dissapointingly, some folks in here that should know better) have quickly jumped on how useless a CCer would probably have been in this situation, but they usually present a perfect bad scenario.
Click to expand...
Would the anti's argument be any different if the hypothetical CCW'r was an armed off-duty police officer as opposed to a Regular Joe private citizen?
 
Would the anti's argument be any different if the hypothetical CCW'r was an armed off-duty police officer as opposed to a Regular Joe private citizen?
Click to expand...

Of course, because to an anti, police are skilled super-hero protectors and are all expert marksmen, and a regular citizen who owns a gun is probably just some redneck with an inferiority complex.

Antis. :banghead:
 
+1 OP. We had this discussion around the family dinner table too. It's a shame no one fought back. My heart goes out to the victims and families; but like VA Tech a few years back - no one resisted. We need to change the culture if we are to have citizens fighting back against terrorists, that's all that will help I think.
 
It's been a while since I checked Rory's blog. The attached was there today. I never cease to be impressed by what I find when I drop by.
======================================

http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2012/07/identity.html
MONDAY, JULY 23, 2012

Identity

"I can't do that."

Most of the time, people are thinking cause and not effect, or motion rather than results. "I can't do that (hit hard, or knock someone down or pull a trigger) because I'm (too weak, too small, too...)" It's mostly horse****. You can do it (get the effect) but you probably can't do it in that way.

Can't do some kind of force block against a stronger man's kick? Congratulations, you're normal. But doing that particular defense against that particular attack isn't the point. The point is to not get hit. Not getting hit is much easier. And much more personal. Small people and large people do it differently, as do timid and aggressive people. It's not a one-size fits all.

Anyone, barring vegetative states or nearly complete paralysis, can take out anybody else. They just can't all do it the same way. You can't score on your sifu? He can't block a bullet. Competitor so tough he can take anything you dish out? Quit using your fists and use a car. This mindset ties back to cheating and a number of other things. The big idea to take away, though, is to understand when you are limiting your own options because you have either chosen or been brainwashed to look at a situation from only one point of view.

But that's not the point of this post.

"I can't do that," she said. It was a basic self-defense problem, a question that has been asked and answered a hundred times. And that's what I do professionally, so three different proven, workable options off the top of my head in ten seconds.

"Those don't work."
"You've tried them?"
"No, but you don't understand. I can't do that."
Oh. This was never about trying to find an answer. This was about preserving identity. Nick asked me once about students who just don't get it. There aren't a lot of people who can't get it. There are a fair number who refuse to get it. I walk away from those.

You can teach people who want to learn. Despite almost any psychological trauma or physical or mental disability, it is a matter of finding the words and the modality, a way to communicate and a way to practice. It's not that hard.

But you cannot teach people who refuse to learn. No matter how enthusiastic they seem or the certificates they have collected, if they are coming to you to get their world view confirmed instead of refined (or, preferably, rocked), you are wasting your time.

Understand this-- they are not wasting their own time. They carefully sift what you say, latch on to anything they like, completely forget anything they don't and walk away more ignorant and more confident than when they arrived. It is good value for them. That is what they want.

And when an inability "I can't" has become part of their identity, they will fight the truth with everything they have.
 
I too commented on this same topic last fri. I also saw a moderator call such thoughts "pure Fantasy" as well as many stating the impossibility of a single gun owner making a difference.
I don't disagree with what Fred said about how we have raised our young men to be more passive and docile now days but there were at least 4 men there that intentionally did what they could to save their loved ones and if they were alive today I believe they would wish for a gun at the moment they had to decide on what to do.
I have two boys who were raised to stand up for themselves and others and make themselves as dangerous to an opponent as possible, one is a State Champ and 3 time placer in wrestling that now goes to a Service Academy and wants to fly combat aircraft, the other served as a Cav Scout in a LI Div but after 6 yrs his knees and back won't allow him to make it his career. I don't doubt for a moment what they would have done had they been there and having talked to them on the matter they had no doubts about me either. I don't view these sentiments as chest pounding or fantastic thoughts if one is prepared to back them up.
My youngest gave me a poem by Chief Tecumseh with the opening line being:
So live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart
and ends with:
Sing your death song and die like a hero going home
A man has to have faith in both his maker and his abilities to believe these words.
I believe the poem is popular in warrior circles but should be taught to middle schoolers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

X-Rap
  • Locked
Re thinking a laser for EDC
2
Replies
37
Views
878
Kleanbore
K
ACP
  • Locked
Aurora shooting
Replies
6
Views
364
Kleanbore
K
T
  • Locked
Shooting an armed home invader in the back?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
ComputerFlake
C
W
  • Locked
Situational Awareness
Replies
9
Views
754
Karla (Threadbndr)
K
K
An Actual Use of Force incident for Discussion
Replies
13
Views
888
Kleanbore
K
Back
Top