Two Aurora Shootings, One Ignored [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Two Aurora Shootings, One Ignored


wrangler_dave9
07-23-2012, 16:21
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/12175-two-aurora-shootings-one-widely-known-the-other-ignored

Very interesting article. Also quotes of few of the anti-gun Nutjobs that hold political offices or other places of power & authority.

Patchman
07-23-2012, 16:28
Oh yeah, the church drive-by shooting. Another thread covered it.

jph02
07-23-2012, 17:46
Great article. Thanks for sharing.

Caver 60
07-23-2012, 22:08
Guess I missed the first thread. Thanks for posting this one.

Gunnut 45/454
07-23-2012, 22:23
Well atleast that shooter got the instant justice he deserved! To bad Holmes didn't get the same justice.:steamed:

Misty02
07-24-2012, 05:36
Thank you for sharing this. I have shared it as well, the church shooting should not go unknown by others!

.

deputy1199
07-24-2012, 10:08
I'm surprised that no off duty LEOs or armed patrons were present in the Aurora theater when this went down. Any LEO would have taken action and I'm sure that any military vet who was armed would also have responded if able to do so without endangering him/herself or others. The shooter was a coward, as demonstrated by the effort he took to "armor" himself against retaliation. But a gas mask is not bullet resistant. Accurate return fire to center body mass may not have penetrated his vest, but it could have made him reconsider his options. And a 9mm +p or .40 JHP round to the face or head probably would have wounded if not killed him. In this day and age it never ceases to amaze me that few places of public assembly have any armed security.Thatís why I provide my own armed security.

JW1178
07-24-2012, 12:45
Of course... it doesn't meet the left wing protocal for worthy to be reported.

AKRover
07-24-2012, 13:04
I'm surprised that no off duty LEOs or armed patrons were present in the Aurora theater when this went down. Any LEO would have taken action and I'm sure that any military vet who was armed would also have responded if able to do so without endangering him/herself or others. The shooter was a coward, as demonstrated by the effort he took to "armor" himself against retaliation. But a gas mask is not bullet resistant. Accurate return fire to center body mass may not have penetrated his vest, but it could have made him reconsider his options. And a 9mm +p or .40 JHP round to the face or head probably would have wounded if not killed him. In this day and age it never ceases to amaze me that few places of public assembly have any armed security.That’s why I provide my own armed security.

The theater where the shooting took place had posted signs prohibiting guns inside the theater. I'm sure there were CCW holders in the crowd but being law abiding citizens they were not armed. As for off duty LEO I always thought they could carry even where CCW holders aren't allowed to.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

chaplain 31
07-24-2012, 13:22
Well atleast that shooter got the instant justice he deserved! To bad Holmes didn't get the same justice.:steamed:


One reason he did not get instant justice is because the theater owners chose to not allow legally armed people to enter thier theater. And even though they did not shoot anyone or probably even think something like this would happen, they bear some responsibility here. They made it impossible for people legally approved by the state of Colorado to defend themselves, to do so in that situation. Unlike at the church where an armed citizen on site quickly ended the threat, no one at the mall had that opportunity or at least they didn't have it legally due to decisions made by the owners. How much more obvious can it get?

racer88
07-24-2012, 19:55
The theater where the shooting took place had posted signs prohibiting guns inside the theater. I'm sure there were CCW holders in the crowd but being law abiding citizens they were not armed. As for off duty LEO I always thought they could carry even where CCW holders aren't allowed to.

According to the info at www.handgunlaw.us, such "no guns" signs do not carry the weight of law.

Lior
07-24-2012, 21:14
Two things that need to change:
1. Fewer gun free zones.
2. The State of Colorado needs to get itself an e-chair.

Misty02
07-25-2012, 03:59
According to the info at www.handgunlaw.us (http://www.handgunlaw.us), such "no guns" signs do not carry the weight of law.

But there are many that would respect the wishes of the property owner and would either obey the sign or just go elsewhere.

Most of the time (for me) the sign means I would select one of their competitors that doesnít have such sign, although Iíve ignored a couple of them since I started carrying. If at all possible I prefer not to do so; there is a feeling of guilt that comes with it that I prefer to avoid. I donít really enjoy doing things that are wrong, even if they are legal.

.

racer88
07-25-2012, 05:05
But there are many that would respect the wishes of the property owner and would either obey the sign or just go elsewhere.

Most of the time (for me) the sign means I would select one of their competitors that doesnít have such sign, although Iíve ignored a couple of them since I started carrying. If at all possible I prefer not to do so; there is a feeling of guilt that comes with it that I prefer to avoid. I donít really enjoy doing things that are wrong, even if they are legal.
.


Hmmm... we live in the same part of the country / state. I just don't see those signs around here much. But, when I do, I have absolutely no problem ignoring them. Certainly, I don't feel any guilt, because it ISN'T "wrong." :cool: I place my rights and safety FAR above any of those "concerns."

What would you do if a property had a sign up that said, "no free speech?" I understand the property owner can ask you to leave for any reason. No problem. But, I'm ignoring the signs.

Misty02
07-25-2012, 05:25
Hmmm... we live in the same part of the country / state. I just don't see those signs around here much. But, when I do, I have absolutely no problem ignoring them. Certainly, I don't feel any guilt, because it ISN'T "wrong." :cool: I place my rights and safety FAR above any of those "concerns."

What would you do if a property had a sign up that said, "no free speech?" I understand the property owner can ask you to leave for any reason. No problem. But, I'm ignoring the signs.

I understand what youíre saying and donít disagree, in theory. There is still this little voice inside my head that tells me I would like others to respect my wishes in my house so I should respect their wishes in theirs. Iím speaking of businesses here; I would not enter armed in the home/residence of someone I know is against it. There is just one person in my life that meets that criteria; she is a close relative that doesnít know I carry, one we donít visit often either. The handful of times we have I lock my G19 in the car safe.

Have I gone against that little voice in my head while patronizing some businesses? Yes, I have. I have also had a rather uncomfortable feeling for the duration of my stay; that tells me Iím aware Iím doing something I shouldnít. I check websites of places I have not visited before to see if they have any rules against firearms. If they do and there is another similar place we can go, Iíll select that second choice.

At the very beginning I had no issues with it; that was a short-lived condition. I would gladly get rid of this silly and extremely annoying voice in my head if I could. :crying:

.

racer88
07-25-2012, 07:04
Yes, I have. I have also had a rather uncomfortable feeling for the duration of my stay; that tells me Iím aware Iím doing something I shouldnít.

At the very beginning I had no issues with it; that was a short-lived condition. I would gladly get rid of this silly and extremely annoying voice in my head if I could. :crying:

.

Are you Jewish or Catholic (guilt)? haha! ;)

Misty02
07-25-2012, 09:07
Are you Jewish or Catholic (guilt)? haha! ;)

:rofl:How did you ever guess?

.

amazon
07-25-2012, 09:24
I personally ignore such signs. In MA they are not legally binding (not counting Fed buildings and the such). However, if asked to leave I have to - otherwise it becomes trespassing. Concealed is concealed.

OTOH, when I do see such signs there are times I choose to take my business elsewhere.

Donn57
07-25-2012, 13:11
Hmmm... we live in the same part of the country / state. I just don't see those signs around here much. But, when I do, I have absolutely no problem ignoring them. Certainly, I don't feel any guilt, because it ISN'T "wrong." :cool: I place my rights and safety FAR above any of those "concerns."

What would you do if a property had a sign up that said, "no free speech?" I understand the property owner can ask you to leave for any reason. No problem. But, I'm ignoring the signs.

What you're really saying is that you place your rights above the rights of the property owner. That's fine, but don't dance around it.

And a property owner certainly can legally ban any type of speech they'd like. Only the government is Constitutionally prevented from banning free speech. Glock Talk, a private business, bans free speech and yet here we all are.

greentriple
07-25-2012, 13:18
If what's been posted here is true than its probably safe to bet some patrons of the theatre ignore the signs or gun free zone request. If so than where there armed citizens at the movie and if so, why did they not act?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

racer88
07-25-2012, 16:26
What you're really saying is that you place your rights above the rights of the property owner. That's fine, but don't dance around it.

Who's dancing? I don't think I was obtuse. Yes... I place my SAFETY and well-being above the property owner's rights to disallow guns. AND, I completely accept it if the property owner asks me to leave in the VERY unlikely circumstance that he or she discovers me to be armed (and objects). If it ever happens, I will immediately beat feet without any hint of protest and a smile on my face.

And a property owner certainly can legally ban any type of speech they'd like. Only the government is Constitutionally prevented from banning free speech. Glock Talk, a private business, bans free speech and yet here we all are.As an enthusiastic student of the Constitution, I completely understand the distinction(s). I accept that GT (for example) has a right to exercise its right to censor and otherwise control the dialogue. But, I disagree that they categorically "BAN" free speech as you have asserted. Rather they exercise the moderation of the discussion and edit / delete as they see fit... as they are entitled to do. Oddly enough, I've been here for many years and have not had occasion to be on the receiving end of such moderation, as I'm a fairly reasonable and diplomatic guy. :)

That all said, in my state, where "no guns" signs do not carry the weight of law, I shall ignore them. I've had my CCW for about 20 years, and I've never been "made." Concealed is concealed. Of course, if I feel compelled to boycott any particular business on principle, I can always do that.

Going by memory, I cannot recall seeing ANY "no guns" signs in my daily routine or wanderings in my state. Of course, I don't go looking for them, either (since I don't have to). But, I can't recall coming across any.

racer88
07-25-2012, 16:34
If what's been posted here is true than its probably safe to bet some patrons of the theatre ignore the signs or gun free zone request. If so than where there armed citizens at the movie and if so, why did they not act?

I submit that just because you are armed, it does not mean you MUST or SHOULD act (to neutralize the threat). Imagining my self in the same situation, I believe my first priority would be to seek cover and then escape. I also imagine that a chaotic scene with hundreds of people running in various directions, a clear shot with a handgun at what would likely be a considerable distance (not typical self-defense distance) would preclude taking action.

I'm not a superhero. In that scenario, my #1 priority is to get my loved ones (if they're with me) and my butt out of there.

IF I happened to be serendipitously positioned and no innocents between me and the BG, NOR any innocents BEHIND the BG... and I had a shot... I'd take it.

But, I doubt very much that combination of factors would come into play.

Misty02
07-25-2012, 21:09
If what's been posted here is true than its probably safe to bet some patrons of the theatre ignore the signs or gun free zone request. If so than where there armed citizens at the movie and if so, why did they not act?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

How do we know there wasnít someone legally carrying there that took the shot but didnít succeed in stopping the threat? This is one huge crime scene and it is going to take months to go through everything there and account for every shell and/or bullet they find.

.

Gallium
07-26-2012, 07:17
The theater where the shooting took place had posted signs prohibiting guns inside the theater. I'm sure there were CCW holders in the crowd but being law abiding citizens they were not armed. As for off duty LEO I always thought they could carry even where CCW holders aren't allowed to.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Fortunately in my state those signs don't mean anything, so I can still be a "law abiding" citizen if I chose to see a flick.

Maybe it now occurs to the theater(s) that folks who leave home with the intent to kill/maim as many as possible don't pay any attention to stupid signs.