Airline Pilot Forums

Came across this story while perusing the news.
Shooting survivor: Boyfriend 'took a bullet for me' - U.S. News (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/21/12875584-shooting-survivor-boyfriend-took-a-bullet-for-me?lite)

These hallowed words come to mind .
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends".



I find it sad that the previous thread on this story was locked and as we do have visitors on this site some degree of decorum might be in order.

I find it sad that the previous thread on this story was locked and as we do have visitors on this site some degree of decorum might be in order.

These tragedies will continue because after all the tears, assault weapons will still be sold to the crazy and insane just as easily as they are to the frightened little boys
who dream of saving the day with their 9mm manhood - like George Zimmerman did.

If this incident occurred in a movie theater in Texas, the gunman would be subdued or dead before he had gotten a second or third shot off, and it certainly would not have lasted 20 minutes.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/forms/chl-16.pdf

Restrictions to concealed handguns in certain premises are on page 38, and movie theaters are not among them.

Texas passed this law in response to a similar massacre at a Luby's restaurant in 1991, where 23 people were shot to death and another 20 injured before the gunman shot himself.

Luby's massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/colorado-gun-laws-remain-lax-despite-changes-after-columbine.html

In the never-ending argument, tragedy can become a talking point. Luke O’Dell, a spokesman for the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a Colorado-based group that fights gun control measures, said private gun restrictions may well have had “tragic consequences” in the shootings.

He noted that the theater chain that owns the Aurora movie house bans firearms on the premises, and said that if other patrons had been legally able to carry weapons, the death toll might have been less. Mr. O’Dell also said that Mayor Bloomberg’s call for a discussion of gun issues was “exploiting the blood of these innocent victims to advance his political agenda.”

And Dynasty, you're right, that young man is a hero.

These tragedies will continue because after all the tears, assault weapons will still be sold to the crazy and insane just as easily as they are to the frightened little boys
who dream of saving the day with their 9mm manhood - like George Zimmerman did.

Have you ever shot a weapon in your life? Have you done any military service?

I personally don't own a weapon, but after 24 years in the military I have shot thousands of rounds of ammo and am an expert marksman on the 9 mm and M16. I live in a great neighborhood in the country that's very safe; however, if I felt the need to own a weapon to protect my family, I wouldn't hesitate to get one, with the proper safety measures at home.

Maybe a better question is, would you be willing to take a bullet for your loved one like this brave guy did?

If this incident occurred in a movie theater in Texas, the gunman would be subdued or dead before he had gotten a second or third shot off, and it certainly would not have lasted 20 minutes.

How so? Do the folks in Texas attend Batman movies with weapons that carry armor piercing bullets? Or are they braver than Coloradans and would have charged through a hail of bullets to somehow subdue the gunman before his AR jammed? And you say they would have done this before the second or third shot got off. Do you know how many rounds an AR can discharge per second?

These tragedies will continue because after all the tears, assault weapons will still be sold to the crazy and insane just as easily as they are to the frightened little boys
who dream of saving the day with their 9mm manhood - like George Zimmerman did.

Apparently you are allowed to insult any one who carries while you are protected by the moderators. Turns out I was right the nice young progressive was the recipient of a federal grant. So we all did by his Ammo.

Shooting suspect had federal grant, university says | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/21/shooting-suspect-had-federal-grant-university-says/)

If this incident occurred in a movie theater in Texas, the gunman would be subdued or dead before he had gotten a second or third shot off, and it certainly would not have lasted 20 minutes.

How so? Do the folks in Texas attend Batman movies with weapons that carry armor piercing bullets? Or are they braver than Coloradans and would have charged through a hail of bullets to somehow subdue the gunman before his AR jammed? And you say they would have done this before the second or third shot got off. Do you know how many rounds an AR can discharge per second?

Here are the statistics. It's not a matter of bravery at all, it's a matter of policy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1552567/posts

Here are the statistics. It's not a matter of bravery at all, it's a matter of policy.

Texas Concealed Handgun Law: Ten Years Later (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1552567/posts)

That link doesn't explain to me how Texans would have killed or subdued the guy with three guns in a dark, smoke filled theater, dressed from head to toe in armor. I'll gladly re-read it if you tell me exactly where to look.

A ballistic helmet will not protect an individual from a shot to the face from the front. Nor is body armor foolproof.

Guns don't kill people... people kill people. I've said it before and I'll say it again. People like this will find access to the tools to commit heinous crimes regardless of the laws. Aurora, CO is one of the more strict areas of the country regarding gun-ownership laws and this happened there.

It would be foolish to think that a person/persons with concealed carry would have made much a difference. The guy was wearing body armor and was well armed. But to think that tougher gun laws and outright banning of firearms is the solution to this kind of thing is plain ignorance.

Here are the statistics. It's not a matter of bravery at all, it's a matter of policy.

Texas Concealed Handgun Law: Ten Years Later (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1552567/posts)

That link doesn't explain to me how Texans would have killed or subdued the guy with three guns in a dark, smoke filled theater, dressed from head to toe in armor. I'll gladly re-read it if you tell me exactly where to look.

Here are the statistics I was referring to:

Since the passage of the Concealed Handgun Law, the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows an 18% drop in handgun murders, down from 838 in 1995 to 688 in 2004. And a 13% drop in handgun murders per 100,000 population, down from 4.5 murders per 100,000 Texans in 1995 to 3.95 per 100,000 in 2004.

A ballistic helmet will not protect an individual from a shot to the face from the front. Nor is body armor full proof.

So someone (a Texan) would have shot him in the face, through his armor that isn't fool proof, from a distance, in the smoke, and in the dark, while patrons were scrambling in every direction?

Here are the statistics I was referring to:

Since the passage of the Concealed Handgun Law, the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows an 18% drop in handgun murders, down from 838 in 1995 to 688 in 2004. And a 13% drop in handgun murders per 100,000 population, down from 4.5 murders per 100,000 Texans in 1995 to 3.95 per 100,000 in 2004.

But you said that if it happened in Texas that he would have been subdued or killed before the second or third shot. Those stats don't tell me how.

So someone (a Texan) would have shot him in the face, through his armor that isn't fool proof, from a distance, in the smoke, and in the dark, while patrons were scrambling in every direction?

Do you fly for United in Denver? Are you taking this personally? It's not intended as an affront to Coloradoans. If there were Colorado residents with concealed handguns in the theater I have no doubt that they would do whatever it took with their weapon to take the murderer down.

But you said that if it happened in Texas that he would have been subdued or killed before the second or third shot. Those stats don't tell me how.

The statistics show the difference concealed handgun laws make over a 10-year period. That implies that we would likely have a different outcome in Colorado if concealed carriers were available there. This is my last post regarding this issue.

Do you fly for United in Denver? Are you taking this personally? It's not intended as an affront to Coloradoans. If there were Colorado residents with concealed handguns in the theater I have no doubt that they would do whatever it took with their weapon to take the murderer down.

I don't take it personally. I appreciate your responses but I haven't found an answer to my question. We know that guns weren't allowed in the theater. No one on this board knows for sure that there weren't other patrons in the theater with a gun.
I'm just trying to get an answer to why, and how, this would have turned out different in Texas.

So someone (a Texan) would have shot him in the face, through his armor that isn't fool proof, from a distance, in the smoke, and in the dark, while patrons were scrambling in every direction?

Much better to sit in your seat and take it like a real progressive man would. Perhaps explaining to your loved how the young man is a victim of the pressures of western civilization before they take one themselves.

Much better to sit in your seat and take it like a real progressive man would. Perhaps explaining to your loved how the young man is a victim of the pressures of western civilization before they take one themselves.

Where did I say I would sit in my seat? What are you talking about? Do you have an answer to my previous question about how this would have been stopped had people been allowed to take guns into the theater? I'm a gun owner(had my first one when 12), trained, practiced, and have been in real life situations where people got shot and I have been shot at. I still fail to see how this situation would have been different in Texas.

I see your points are weak. That's why you throw out words like "progressive" and infer that I said somewhere that the gunman, or someone else, is a victim of western pressures. Nowhere did I say that. No one said that. You made it up in an attempt to change the question at hand. But if you do have an answer to the question in my previous post I'd like to see it. Otherwise you should stop making inferences about me especially when I didn't make any about you.

Where did I say I would sit in my seat? What are you talking about? Do you have an answer to my previous question about how this would have been stopped had people been allowed to take guns into the theater? I'm a gun owner(had my first one when 12), trained, practiced, and have been in real life situations where people got shot and I have been shot at. I still fail to see how this situation would have been different in Texas.

I see your points are weak. That's why you throw out words like "progressive" and infer that I said somewhere that the gunman, or someone else, is a victim of western pressures. Nowhere did I say that. No one said that. You made it up in an attempt to change the question at hand. But if you do have an answer to the question in my previous post I'd like to see it. Otherwise you should stop making inferences about me especially when I didn't make any about you.

When you ask an idiotic hypothetical question you wont get an answer you like. How many people are carrying, where are they sitting, who is sitting next to them? How is their weapon holstered? Have they ever been gassed before? You ask what would have happened if someone else had been armed I answer we know what happened when someone else wasnt.

In this specific set of circumstances maybe someone else with a weapon would not have mattered. Should I give you hypothetical situations where it would make a difference? If caught in a situation like this your choices are run, hide or attack. If I choose to attack I would prefer to have something in my hand besides skittles.

The situation would have been different in Texas in that there would at least be some resistance and bullets traveling towards the crazy guy. Armor or not you are going feel something and if enough people were shooting back at this guy it might have at least slowed him down or stopped him. Instead this guy had free reign to make this movie theater into his own shooting gallery. Back to topic Blunk is a hero no doubt.

Guns don't kill people... people kill people.

But isn't the Fast and Furious scandal about a specific gun that killed an agent?

Guns don't kill people... people kill people.

But isn't the Fast and Furious scandal about a specific gun that killed an agent?

The angst over that is that the Department of Justice illegally sold assault weapons to drug cartels In Mexico that were used to kill hundreds of Mexicans and up to two of our own Border Patrol agents. It's a different issue than 2nd Amendment rights.

But isn't the Fast and Furious scandal about a specific gun that killed an agent?

If only your side had some desire to keep the person who used that gun out of the country that agent would still be alive.

When you ask an idiotic hypothetical question you wont get an answer you like. How many people are carrying, where are they sitting, who is sitting next to them? How is their weapon holstered? Have they ever been gassed before? You ask what would have happened if someone else had been armed I answer we know what happened when someone else wasnt.

In this specific set of circumstances maybe someone else with a weapon would not have mattered. Should I give you hypothetical situations where it would make a difference? If caught in a situation like this your choices are run, hide or attack. If I choose to attack I would prefer to have something in my hand besides skittles.

Idiotic? Someone says that the guy would have killed or subdued before the third shot was fired? I asked how? That's idiotic? Was the statement that sparked my question idiotic?

I'll ask my second question again. How do you know that no one else in the theater was armed?

Much better to sit in your seat and take it like a real progressive man would. Perhaps explaining to your loved how the young man is a victim of the pressures of western civilization before they take one themselves.

I enjoyed that.

89, in the last thread you asked what would i do in the situation, I cant say because i was not there. But if i was armed at least i would have a chance. Or maybe should I call 911 and the police would come help me?

Idiotic? Someone says that the guy would have killed or subdued before the third shot was fired? I asked how? That's idiotic? Was the statement that sparked my question idiotic?

I'll ask my second question again. How do you know that no one else in the theater was armed?

I can certainly think of situations where he is taken out before the 3rd shot is fired. I can think of situations where it wouldnt make any difference how many people were armed. In situations like this your choices are run, hide or attack. Even if I choose to run and or hide I think I would still prefer to have a weapon with me. How about you? And yes you asked an idiotic hypothetical question. It makes no difference what you were responding to.

Or maybe should I call 911 and the police would come help me?

I wouldn't consider that a weak or dumb thing to do.

I can certainly think of situations where he is taken out before the 3rd shot is fired. I can think of situations where it wouldnt make any difference how many people were armed. In situations like this your choices are run, hide or attack. Even if I choose to run and or hide I think I would still prefer to have a weapon with me. How about you? And yes you asked an idiotic hypothetical question. It makes no difference what you were responding to.

Maybe 70 people don't get shot if this guy couldn't buy an AR easily. Maybe this guy makes the decision to not shoot up a theater if he weren't able to buy head to toe armor. Maybe more than 70 people are shot if there were more armed folks in the theater.
There are a lot of possibilities to different outcomes out there. Are more guns in movie theaters, the only thing you can come up with?

http://i642.photobucket.com/albums/uu144/drpete_album/BloomCountyLiberalHunt.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_kyfd7clLJb1qb98glo1_1280.gif?AWSAccessKeyId =AKIAI6WLSGT7Y3ET7ADQ&Expires=1343069990&Signature=cXzIWVa25LtVsWaaKxW2WDaiWcQ%3D

Just a little humor from the Bloom County comic strip from the mid-80's, articulating both sides. Credit to Berke Breathed, the cartoonist.

This issue won't be solved by any of us here.

These tragedies will continue because after all the tears, assault weapons will still be sold to the crazy and insane just as easily as they are to the frightened little boys
who dream of saving the day with their 9mm manhood - like George Zimmerman did.

If someone had a gun pointed at you and was about to fire would you want me to sit back and watch you get killed, or take out my weapon, shoot the guy, and save your life?

Maybe 70 people don't get shot if this guy couldn't buy an AR easily. Maybe this guy makes the decision to not shoot up a theater if he weren't able to buy head to toe armor. Maybe more than 70 people are shot if there were more armed folks in the theater.
There are a lot of possibilities to different outcomes out there. Are more guns in movie theaters, the only thing you can come up with?

Or maybe he would have taken his pickup truck filled the back with gasoline and driven through the nearest elementary school. We do like hypotheticals dont we.

89Pistons, I will acknowledge that you have a point about what constitutes "qualified" to carry a gun.

This is a well known example being familiar to many Cop Shoots himself in the leg - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0)

I would argue that this officer never should have been given a badge and was the result of a leftist quota system.

I have been involved in direct combat and have received a higher level of weapons training than most. You can never know exactly how a gunfight is going to turn out, but the odds go to the well trained.

I don't think that guns in everyone's hands is the answer. But I do think that guns in highly trained, proficient, vetted, mature, free citizen's hands would help turn the tide towards freedom and justice. I know, good luck with that....

And no, Zimmerman should not have had a gun on him in that situation either...

And Martin shouldnt have been on top of him pounding his head either. And if they would have stopped Hitler in Munich...

Or maybe he would have taken his pickup truck filled the back with gasoline and driven through the nearest elementary school. We do like hypotheticals dont we.

I asked a question. A quite simple one. It didn't have anything to do with gasoline or a school so I'm not sure what your point is.

I asked a question. A quite simple one. It didn't have anything to do with gasoline or a school so I'm not sure what your point is.

Uhm guns dont commit mass murder, lunatics do. And sometimes when confronted with a lunatic your options are to run, hide, or attack. In either case I would prefer to be armed.

And Martin shouldnt have been on top of him pounding his head either. And if they would have stopped Hitler in Munich...

He took on a lethal load of responsibility that night. I bet he would have done it differently in hindsight.

I see that reminders, warnings, delete posts, and the always present TOS which many of you seem to disregard at the first drop of a hat isn't going to make this thread any more less political and essentially about gun control than the last thread. Vacations next time for all continued offenders should someone get the idea to try this one yet again.

USMCFLYR