This episode is a black eye for the legitimate people who own and use guns for atarget, amusement, etc. BUT, imagine this: if people had an easier way to obtain carry permits, maybe, just maybe, someone could have put a bullet between this bastard's eyes before he could do damage!!

Colorado has a "must issue" policy for CCW.

You have take a 3 hour class and demonstrate you can use the weapon by placing a group in pie plate size target.

Then you go to the sheriff's office fill out an application, take a quz, get finger printed,mug shot and that is all their is to it.

If you have a criminal history or are a walking idiot, you won't get it, otherwise you will.

Problem in this episode is you still cannot take a firearm onto private property if that is the policy of the owner as was the case of the movie theater chain. This policy also includes football, baseball, hockey, basketball stadiums and other places like these for obivious reasons.

If you go into a "gun free" zone and it is posted as such, You, Enter at your own risk!!

Shootings like this, if the shooter doesn't shoot themselves, GET 3 squares a cot and free health care for the rest of their lives! No sweat off their backs!!

I have been carrying for way longer than it has been legal here in Missouri. My wife used to think it was a bit silly to carry in a restraunt and such. She always used to say, do you really think it is necessary to carry in Mexican Villa? My reply has always been the same, the first time one goes somewhere without is the first time you will need it. As all of you know, a firearm is useless if it is in the car or at home and you are not. In Missouri, the ccw rule is that the business can ask you to leave. Of course that would mean that you have not learned what the first c stands for in ccw. With the exception of a court house and a police department, I have and will be armed. She don't say much about it anymore because she watches the news. I live in a pretty nice area right in the middle of town and about two weeks ago there were human remains found right at the end of our street, less than two blocks from my house. Now she understands. I look at myself as a sheepdog and not a sheep. Be careful, the beast is out and he is hungry. John

Rick: If you were right that the problem in "this episode" is that you can't take a weapon onto private property if the owner doesn't want you too, then the nut who shot Gabrielle Giffords would be dead because there was no reason some CCW holder in the audience wouldn't have shot him. He got off plenty of rounds, hitting 18 other people, before he was stopped. You can be sure that many people in the crowd were carrying. "Someone could have put a bullet between this bastard's eyes before he could do damage!!"

Also, what is the "obvious reason" you can't take firearms into various sports arenas?

I think you are undervaluing the training that LEO's and other security people get to respond to shootings and the desire for most individuals to first protect themselves and others close to them.

Timberfeller: Seems to me that you are suggesting that if somebody goes into a "gun free zone"", that this person bears some responsibility if they get shot.

Traders, being a former LEO myself, even I doubt I would have taken a shot in a smoke filled, dark, noisy theater, filled with a lot of kids and a full panic situation.

I was not there, just as you and many others were not

I was responding to another post on this thread and others where people think if a CCW person was in this theater could have stopped this. Well maybe, maybe not. What I was pointing out was CCW people for the most part obey the law there fore they don't carry where it is posted, no firearms allowed on the premises.

Also being a State of Colorado Police Firearms instructor, you can imagine what I THINK of your stupid ramblings.

Rick,

What, specifically, is it that I said that you disagree with. Which particular:" stupid ramblings". And, what is the "obvious reason", other than the requirements of the venue owners, that people can't bring guns into sports arenas. My guess is that many people reading this post would also like to know.

If you choose to reply, please use my statements in quotes so that I, and others, can be sure to clearly understand what you object too.

Please try to be civil. "Stupid ramblings" is really on the edge.

It would be a very tough target at best. Hundreds of people running every which way, the back ground. I would think it would be extremely difficult to get off a shot safely. Actually, more like impossible. Still though, it would be better to have that option. If he were to be standing right next to you, then maybe. No more training than most have, I would say it would be a very tough and personal call.

And the whole notion os enstalling metad detectors is beyond rideculious. Even this shooter went out the BACK door to retreive his guns before the rampage started. All that a metal detector would do is to make sure that all the law abiding citizens were unarmed. John

When you said I undervalue LEO training.........idiot!

I still think it better to carry than not to carry. Yes, it would have been hard to hit the guy in the crowd with the tear gas smoke but a try would have been better than not.

It is also understandable that you take your life into your own hands when you enter a gun free zone as a law abiding citizen without a gun. A gun free zone is the perfect place for a nut to let loose. Then again, you take your life into your own hands every time you leave the house or open the door to the house.

Any business that declares his business gun free should be required to provide around the clock police protection on site because it is a gun free zone.

I am not in favor of disarming the US but we may be out numbered and suffer for it. Do what you can to keep the right of free people to own and carry arms.

Rick: I understand that it must be very hard for you to keep this exchange on a civil level, but in my experience calling people "stupid" and "idiot" is rarely a successful way to win a debate or even bring someone to an understanding of your point of view. It generally indicates a lack of knowledge on the part of the speaker or that the speaker knows he has made a mistake or is wrong.

As an aside, I value professional security training very highly and certainly understand that CCW or not, trained security people or not, etc. there may have been nothing that could be done under current laws to prevent this "episode" from occurring. My guess is that on this issue, we are both on the same page.

I think traders posts were reasonable and, although one might not agree with them, it doesn't follow that the gentleman is "stupid" or an "idiot". Only liberals deserve such labels IMO.

I avoid businesses that ban concealed carry.

They may think this protects their customers, but in reality it tells the criminals that there are unarmed or disarmed citizens that they can prey on without much risk.

It also suggests that the business might be frequented by people who are prone to violent activity, like gang bangers.

As for "police training", the fact is that in actual shootings private citizens hit their targets using on average with far fewer rounds fired than the police. The police did a far better job with accuracy back in the days when they were commonly issued revolvers.

I am not trying to win any debate.

I was trying to explain something and you question my valuation of police and security training.

You don't know me, so don't be stupid and try to speak for me.

This guy was dressed in full SWAT gear including bullet proof garments. You think that some CCW carrier could kill this guy without killing others around him in this environment. That is wishful thinking. In this case, if you want to be a hero, you are better off running up behind this quack, tackling him to the ground, and beating him to death! After the initial knockdown, I am sure there would be others close behind to assist in the beating. At minimum if a CCW carrier was legally allowed in the crowd, he should have knocked him down, then put a bullet in his head, or neck, knowing that the shot would be going down into the concrete.

While I agree with Stl Flyn, I think people in the audience were trying to get a read of what was going on. Was it part of the show? Is this real? Then what to do fight or flee or take cover...Could be the killer was spinning like a top and not giving any opportunties for knock down.

Another shooting in a gun free zone, the news reports will never say that. Gun laws are stupid, they promote this kind of thing ,we'd be safer if there weren't any laws on carry . The theater should be sued for having a gun free zone and not providing security. I heard the Police say they were there in under 2 minutes, about a minute too late. When seconds count there only minutes away. I agree that would have likely been very difficult to stop this even if someone was carrying concealed vs what the shooter had and how he was equipped. I don't believe the average ccw holder could have done much but will never know as ccw holders generally follow the Law,unlike the criminals in our society. A person would have to be pretty highly skilled in a situation like this,unfortunately most are not. Again, only speculating.

No question, Brian....I can outshoot all the troopers I hang around with....and all the active military too!.....

Sir, your humility is inspiring.

Johnnie.....as Ali said: "If you can do it, it ain't bragging".....

Seriously, most law enforcement and active military folks I know have not had the opportunity to hone superior skills....I am sure they could develop the skills if given the opportunity.......

How is the Australian trap team doing?

Seems like everyone is pitting ONE CHL holder against the shooter. Assuming there are 200 ticket holders in the theater,,,,,Now take out those that are under 21, and you may have 150 left that are able to carry,,,,,put a gun in the hand of 1/3 of them and SOMEBODY is close to the perp and has some open targets,,,,,whether the legs, face or back of neck,,,,,If you only had 4-5 firing on him at once,,,,,he will probably not be continuing his firing,,,,,,just takes mindset, training, and the ability to not be a sheep.....

The problem is people don't take advantage of their right to carry.I live in the communist state formerly known as California and it is not possible to get a permit where I live.They haven't issued permits to average citizens in 30 years.The current sheriff came to our club telling us how he was going to issue premits,but as soon as he was elected that song changed.The fact is is people are raising their kids,especially their sons,to be passive and weak.Let somebody else insure your safety.America has in large part been wussified.I am not saying anybody in that theater had a chance to stop that nut but I bet 50 years ago somebody would have been packing and stopped him.

Darr

I can't say that I put a whole lot of value on LEO training when it comes to driving or shooting. Of course its not that it isn't good training, its just wasted on a lot of young cops who don't have any common sense.

Case in point, the Kehoe brothers shootout several years ago in Ohio.

As for driving, the County Sheriff's Department where I live. There have been 3 or 4 totaled cars from high speed chases. Most recently, a Sheriff's deputy did a u turn to go after an on coming speeder and hit his lights in the process of making a turn. However, the deputy forgot or didn't realize flashing red and blues cannot stop a semi when you don't allow him enough distance, before you do a u-turn in front of him. Deputy bruised but okay, car totaled, semi tractor damaged, taxpayer out the cost of the deductible and higher premiums.

IMO, too many young and dumb gung ho cops out there. The best cops I know are in their 40's or older.

The one question I have not seen with respect to Aurora is simply this: If the shooter had believed there was a 50/50 chance that one or more carriers in the audience would open up on him after he got his first few shots off, would he have continued to carry out his plan or would he have nixed the entire idea? Gerald Loughner in the Arizona shooting must have known there was some chance he would be shot down. It sure didn't stop him.

Wireguy, that is because he is crazy. You can't guess how they think because they don't think like normal folks. There are more crazy folks out running around loose nowadays than ever before and it is only going to get worse.

You just can't apply normal thought process to crazy people. Have you ever wondered why there are not tons of aslyums all over the country anymore? It is because there are way too many and all the wonder drugs that have come out in the last 30 years or so. Now if only all the crazies were just taking the pills, or could afford them to begin with.

Just like in the old John Wayne movie McClintock, the govenor of the territory was Cutberth Humphrey I think, he said he was a cull, a natural born cull and if he looked at everyone as being in a herd, he would throw his rope at him. Think about that the next time you are out driving around. Look at all the folks wandering aimlessly about and ask yourself if you would throw your rope at that one lol. Cheap entertainment. John

There's a reason why these cowards always attack in gun free zones. Notice that they never attack a police station, gun club, gun range, etc. They may be crazy but generally don't have a death wish for themselves, only for their victims.

Maybe this guy went in with intentions of being shot at. After all he was in full SWAT gear, including full body armor, and helmet. He even had a throat protector. Allowing CCW carriers into this theater would not have made a bit of difference, IMO. More than likely would have made it worse.

If there is an audience full off CCW carriers shooting in a circle format at this quack, don't you think there would have been more innocent people shot along with the others shooting from the opposite direction? I understand that if one of the carriers happened to get lucky and hit him in an open area, very early in the shootout, maybe might have slowed him down. If not, I would not want to be involved in the shooting aspect of this incident. After it was all done and investigated, I would not want to find out that I shot and killed, or wounded, more innocent people than the perpetrator. And no, I would not feel better if I killed one, to save any others. The only way to stop this individual responsibly, would be as below, IMO. Just because you are carrying, does not mean that should be your first response, or reaction to every situation. I think that we have to lock that into our minds before the situation ever does occur.

Again, none of you know how you would react to this scenario, until you have been through it. Best thing that a CCW carrier could do was to knock him down, and shoot downward into him. At the least you could pin him down, and stop the shooting, in this case of him wearing armor. Trying to shoot him while he is walking through the crowd, would break one of the major rules of shooting, and the CCW permit, no matter the scenario, and more likely would have drawn him to fire at you, and the people around you. Even if you are wearing body armor like he was, it still would not be a good idea.

yawn

He could have done more damage with two five gallon pails of gas and a road flare.

Sad for all the people and families involved.

Latest news is his body armor was "TACTICAL" crap that would not stop a bullet.

PJmedia.com:

"In this case, Winter interviewed Chad Weinman, CEO of TacticalGear.com, who admitted the shooter’s vest came from their mail order company.

Winter used the term “urban assault vest.” Looking that up at TacticalGear.com displays this result. It’s made of “heavy-duty nylon” and has no Kevlar or other bullet-resistant materials. Granted, if you load it up with magazines you may derive some protection at the expense of your ammunition, but it’s not “body armor.”

It never ceases to amaze, the way people fall back on hype to support a point.

HM

Any chance you have the full interview? He probably said "Peaches and Ice Cream" too! NOW YOU BELIEVE THE MEDIA?

Ok, even if he was naked, do you think you would have been able to hit him with all of your shots, and whom would you be hitting on the possible exit? Would you have to come back, after thinking about what is going on to shoot him? How many people do you think where critically shot, before they even knew what the hell was going on? Would you have been fast enough to dodge the bullets flying at you, from the other hero's shooting at this quack toward you? Would you have just automatically pulled your weapon, and started firing hoping you where hitting him in the fog, and turmoil?

Why is it you are afraid of this skinny little twit. Because he has guns? Interesting? You could have broke his neck if you hit him hard enough. If you are close enough to shoot ONLY him, why not just hit him, or tackle him. Why take the chance of someone being shot by you. Probably have a hard time convincing that person your a hero.

My point has no hype. It does not matter what he was wearing. It does not matter that guns where not allowed in this establishment. You all think that CCW carriers would have made a difference. They may have, but I think it would have been worse, even if just one innocent person was killed, or hit by the CCW holder. CCW is not a cure-all. That is hype.

It really is to bad that all of you heroes where not there, instead of talking hard-a@$ on this site. I would have liked to see the outcome. Would have liked to hear the reality of the scene coming from your mouths. Because, even your wildest imagination would not even come close to reality. To bad everyone in the theater didn't have a gun. OK, not the six year old. That would have been very interesting as well. It sure as hell was not going to detour this guy. This guy probably did not have the balls to kill himself, so he just gave up.

How would you feel if you decided to pull your weapon, and fire at this guy, only to find out later, that your bullet killed the six year old girl? I would have a hard time convincing myself that it is just consequential, and really is this quacks fault. Just saying.

Remember the famous quote before you pull out your gun, "Guns don't kill people, people do." You are responsible for that bullet once it leaves your gun.

Stl Flyn,

Some hero could have charged him when his gun jammed, then screwed his ccw in his ear and pulled the trigger.

Just because you would not have the balls don't mean others would not.

Remember the Gifford shooting? Some in the crowd charged during a reload, a women got a grip on his high cap mag as he was reloading.

(our history is full of heroes that have risked or gave their lives for others. Not everyone runs from the fire or gunshots.}

Read my post again. Is that not what I suggested I would have done? Why wait for the gun to jamb? You do not need a gun to do that. I am not against CCW. All I am saying is, it is not a solution to all circumstances, and could lead to serious consequences.

"Why is it you are afraid of this skinny little twit. Because he has guns? Interesting? You could have broke his neck if you hit him hard enough. If you are close enough to shoot ONLY him, why not just hit him, or tackle him. Why take the chance of someone being shot by you. Probably have a hard time convincing that person your a hero."

The problem with screwing your weapon in his ear and pulling the trigger is, you may already have him under control, when you kill him. That could lead to some serious explaining in a court room.