« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Gun control is not the answer. In fact it could have made the Aurora massacre much worse.

By: Vegas_Rick (Diary)  |  July 21st, 2012 at 05:52 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Much has been made about the fact that James Holmes, the alleged
shooter Friday morning in Aurora Colorado, was armed with two Glock pistols, an
AR-15, a shotgun and thousands of rounds of ammunition. The gun control
nutcases are out in force saying that this tragedy could have been prevented if
only Holmes had not been able to acquire the guns. Balderdash!

 

The booby-trapped bombs in Holmes apartment, themselves,
prove this assertion false. They boy knows how to make bombs. Imagine this:

 

Because the left, at some point succeeded in outlawing
private possession of firearms, Holmes had no access to guns. Yet he is hell
bent on killing. Instead of leaving the theater and returning with guns, he
leaves and returns with one of his bombs. The bomb is in a backpack and
surrounded by roofing nails to create deadly shrapnel. He sits in the middle
of the theater and detonates the device in suicide bomber fashion. Or, because
most of these idiots are cowards at heart, leaves the backpack and detonates
the device remotely. I submit that the casualty figures would have been MUCH
higher. No warning and no chance to escape.

 

I spent 20 years as an Army Combat Engineer. A significant
part of my training and experience revolved around the manufacture of “field
expedient explosives.” The more current term is Improvised Explosive Device or
IED. All sorts of deadly devices, both explosive and otherwise, can be created
using common household chemicals and materials. Detonators and igniters can similarly
be created with common tools and materials. And, yes, cell phones can easily be
used as remote detonators.

 

Information on how to construct these deadly devices is
readily available on the Internet for anyone who is interested. Some of the
Army manuals I used during my training are available for purchase on the web
and in book stores. Holmes apartment is evidence that he was able to acquire
both the expertise and materials to create bombs and booby traps.

 

I don’t know what the answer is, but I know it’s not banning
guns. If there had been one or more CCW possessing, gun carrying patriots in
that theater, many lives may have been saved. The following link is a perfect example
of this theory in action:

 

 

The government cannot ban or control all chemicals and
materials which can be used or combined to create deadly bombs and other
devices. It can’t block access to all of the information available on the web and elsewhere.
Therefore, no man made law can prevent an evil or deranged person from killing.
We should quit pretending they can.

 

It’s not guns, but rather something morally deficient in our
society that creates and enables people such as James Holmes. That’s where we
need to focus our efforts.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY

  • Pingback: hier

  • ww2nd95

    .. and agree to a point, but even if there were two or more people in there, with guns, with all the chaos, who’s to say more people wouldn’t have been injured or killed? I think when it comes to purely chaotic situations like that, more guns isn’t the answer. Even experienced people can miss or make a mistake.

    This was tragic, but situations like that doesn’t call for gun advocacy or gun regulation, as neither one is going to help there.

  • gekster

    If he knew out of 100 people 20 or so would have self defense.

  • aesthete

    Jared Loughner did it in my home state and city of AZ in public, and in a public place. AZ has probably the best gun laws in the country, but that won’t stop a guy who thinks that he’s preventing “language control” from happening if he assassinates Gabrielle Giffords.

    The deterrent factor only applies if we’re assuming that criminals are acting rationally — an assumption which hold true for most crimes, but which does not necessarily hold for many prominent and senseless mass murders like this one.

  • JSobieski

    The element of surprise and the darkness in the theater…. how much of an impact would armed resistance have made. The guy was intending to get in a shoot out with the police until his rifle jammed. This guy was not going to be deterred by the possibility of a few armed civilians

  • gekster

    The sophisticated booby traps in his house has shown he has some intlligence.
    If he knew aforhand when he wnt to the theater, there would be at least 20 pluss guns against him, would he still try.

  • JSobieski

    Do you think jihadists can be deterred?

  • aesthete

    when it comes to IQ test scores and mental disorder. Before there were IQ scores, there were several rather popular post-Enlightenment popular theories about Renaissance-style genius and madness being intertwined (the “tortured genius” and “mad scientist” as cultural motifs emerged in plays and literature of that time).

    In short, just because he’s got the brainpower doesn’t mean he has the same software installed as the rest of us.

  • Dave_A

    Rather than give up, he wore some very heavy, very bulky body armor, used CS gas, and wore a gas mask to allow him to operate in that environment.

    Accountability controls on NVGs and frag-grenades (that do not exist for smoke, CS, and body armor) combined with cost, are likely the only reason he didn’t go *further* in preparing to face armed resistance…..

  • gekster

    If you can’t see that, there is no help for you.

  • kipling

    The presence of a few armed civilians would have made a difference.

    Most likely their presence would not have stopped the beginning of the shooting rampage but they would have impacted its course. The shooter was a butcher and not a professional. His success depended on a “shooting fish in a barrel” type scenario. He picked a gun free zone and his plan of attack depended on terror and mass panic. The presence of armed citizens and an armed resistance would have altered his original plans.

    The armed citizens would not even have to score a direct hit on the butcher to have an impact. Defensive shooting is not always about drilling an assailant dead center. The goal is often to deter the assailant from continuing the attack and force him to alter his plans. My guess is that this guy had never been in a combat situation. He succeeded because he had no opposition. Return fire tends to discourage butchers.

    The presence of body armor is not always a safe bet. It is one thing to have body armor. It is another to trust it enough to see if it will take the hit. Even then, body armor often fails and not all areas of the body are covered.

  • gekster

    and you know that.
    Quit being stupid.

  • Vegas_Rick

    Unless I have missed a report, this is purely speculation. Many of the points made here are valid. There is no guarantee a trained and licensed carrier would have made a difference.

    However, this amateur was operating under the assumption that he would be unopposed in the theater and have several minutes before the police arrived on scene. Hearing another weapon fire, even into the ceiling, would have distracted him from his mission. I think fire and maneuver could have brought him down.

  • JSobieski

    Someone could have stopped him by spilling skittles on the floor and having him trip…but both scenarios were unlikely.

    If you can’t see that you don’t have a realistic force accessment

  • Dave_A

    (Assuming the armor was real – and thus stolen from the Army. The possibility that it was not remains.)

    Making a face-shot on a hostile target, who has the element of suprise, in the dark, while under the influence of CS gas and under rifle fire, without hitting an innocent bystander, before the hostile kills you…

    Is a feat of marksmanship only seen in bad cop movies…

    The description of this guy’s armor matches current Army-issue body armor to a T. Fully assembled (and the news accounts seem to indicate it was), such a vest can withstand 30-06 armor-piercing ammunition, and is capable of retaining effectiveness across multiple hits. This is done by the use of 3/4″ ceramic plates that cover the chest, back, and sides.

    This means that even a .44 Mag or .50AE isn’t going to get through…

    Common CCW calibers (.45ACP, 40 S&W, .38SPC, .357 Mag, .380, 9×19, .357 Sig)? Ineffective with no physical effects on the shooter – although certain 9×19 loads, and the 2 .357 rounds are the closest to ‘effective’ in that group, and .the ACP cartridges (.380 and .45) being essentially useless)…

    It’s important not to overplay the situation & act like your average citizen could have STOPPED this…

    If this dude was so inclined, he could have made this into ”Hollywood Bank Robbery Redux’ – although since many police officers now carry a rifle in their cars (not just a pistol and a shotgun), it would have been over faster…

    That said, having to fight one or more armed individuals, might have reduced the death toll & allowed others to escape, or (if the shooter did not know the full capabilities of his gear – one possible explanation for why he surrendered so easily, the other being the gear was fake) forced him to retreat….

  • gekster

    You don’t know, and your speculations are infounded.

  • aesthete

    Speculating that armed citizens could have stopped him is just that — speculation.

    Recall that there were two armed citizens at the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, none of which shot Loughner in time because they couldn’t line up a shot without imperilling anyone else. This was in a public, open-air event — I can’t imagine that the conditions would have been any better in a darkened, smoky theatre after tear gas had been dispersed in the theatre.

    I do agree that the presence of armed citizens would likely not have made the situation worse than it already was, and that there was an outside chance of them improving it, based on my experience as and around armed citizens. That doesn’t justify leaping to the conclusion that this was a tragedy that was preventable by armed citizenry. Senseless violence happens, and unfortunately some of it is not preventable.

  • JSobieski

    Gas making it hard to breathe much less see, dark theater and who brings night vision goggles to a movie, body armor, surprise, and weaponry that is superior to mere handguns.

    If we had special forces people with hand guns it would have made a difference, but you can’t presume that level of skill and preparedness. Batman was on the screen, but he wasn’t in the audience.

  • gekster

    And the Giffords shooting has nothing to do with this one.
    Try again.

  • gekster

    The majority of people who have a CCW know how to use it and have to prove as such.
    I would take five CCW weapons holders as opposed to five RA soldiers.
    Get educated before you post.

  • JSobieski

    Put another way, your assumptions are based on nothing, while contrary assessments are based on some facts.

    How good are most citizens at shooting in the dark? In a gas filled theater?

    The shooter was the one person in the room who didn’t have to aim.

  • JSobieski

    Laughable.

    Even highly trained personnel can’t shoot in the dark particularly well.

  • gekster

    saying the an armed CCW person couldn’t have taken him out, although ‘all’ CCW cariours have to prove an effectiveness with a gun.
    Ignore it all you want, it won’t change that fact..

  • JSobieski

    Civilians actually practice shooting targets in the dark in gas field rooms when the targets are wearing body armor.

    My bad.

  • satchman3

    CCW licenses do not require you to prove effectiveness with a gun. In my state, Oklahoma, you have to successfully fire 50 rounds in the general direction of a target. You get some safety training and a bunch of warnings that even if you’re involved in a legitimate shooting you may well end up in jail.

    I do occasionally carry and have thought some about how I would respond in various situations. In a dark theater it is very unlikely that I could see the sights on my little 380. Firing in a crowd of people would be extremely dangerous although if a safe shooting lane opened up with little chance for ricochet I would have taken a shot.

    Even with body armour on if this guy took a couple rounds center of mass he might have retreated and taken cover. I am definitely against businesses that disarm their patrons. If they disarm me they better protect me and clearly they can’t/won’t.

  • aesthete

    with smoke and panic all around, most CCWers would probably not trust themselves to hit the target and only the target, as opposed to the mass of innocents — you don’t point a loaded weapon at something you’re not willing to destroy, and other maxims of gun safety, are drilled into gun owners’ heads (for good reason).

    You might be right, but I suspect that anyone packing heat would still have been at a disadvantage even barring momentary surprise, since the only person in the room who didn’t have to aim and didn’t care about casualties was also the target and the instigator.

    If we were talking about the Virginia Tech shooting, I would be more inclined to agree with you and others about the utility and ability to use a gun in the moment without harming others.

  • kipling

    The environment and chaos the butcher created was challenging and designed to foster panic. A couple of those interviewed said they could see the butcher through the darkened theater and often silhouetted by his own muzzle blast. Returned fire, even if over his head, could have an impact. From what I heard, he also left the building in an attempt to get at those fleeing from the front of the building. If so, there would have been a better opportunity.

    The fog of war works both ways. The gear he wore and the gas mask would have hampered his mobility and vision. In an environment suddenly turned hostile toward him, he may have abandoned the offensive.

    The VT shooting is a more clear-cut case.

  • Dave_A

    But the scenario INSIDE the theater leans more towards don’t shoot than shoot…

    At best, you have a weapon signature for your target. This means your fire will naturally gravitate towards ‘weapon level’ & if you hit, you’ll likely hit his vest.

    You have all manner of innocents running around panicked, trying to get away. While he doesn’t care if he misses you & hits someone else… You do have to care about missing him & hitting some poor soul who’s trying to escape….

    Yes, his gas-mask degrades his accuracy severely (can say this first hand, having shot NBC tables in the Army (eg, shoot 25m targets with a M4 while wearing a gas mask))… However the GAS he threw, that is the reason he’s wearing the mask, will degrade yours WORSE (again, can vouch for this based on being exposed to CS gas several times in training)…

    Low-light conditions make it very hard to aim accurately, especially under stress. We use NVGs and IR aiming lasers for a reason.

    Finally, that vest will absorb anything your carry pistol will dish out, and then some… Ballistic-plate armor will do so to the point where there’s no physical effect on the shooter (not even blunt-force), unless you use rifle rounds at or near the rated-limit of the armor.

    As I’ve said in other posts, the best you could hope for if you engage this guy, is to temporarily distract him until he kills or incapacitates you, or (if he doesn’t know how good his gear is & is playing by ‘video game rules’) force him to retreat, hopefully directly into the cops line of fire (and hopefully they brought rifles)….

  • kipling

    You make two assumptions with which I would disagree.

    1. The butcher would continue his assault in the face of armed resistance.

    2. He trusts his body armor enough to take a hit. Body armor is one thing. Standing up to return fire is another. Mentally I know the protection provided by the armor. That does not mean I want to test out that academic knowledge.

    Holmes was not a trained professional. He had no combat experience. He created chaos and directed it at his victims so he could butcher them in their terror. A few armed citizens returning fire upsets his plan of attack. It turns the chaos back on him and brings into play the limits of his equipment and tactics.

    Let us be careful not to give the vermin more credit than he deserves.

  • Dave_A

    Which is that the guy bothered to learn what the vest he had could do & trusts it as well as I did when I wore one… And that he’s at least some-part suicidal….

    I’m making the assumption, based on news accounts of the gear he had… There’s only one way to get all that stuff without breaking the bank, and that’s to buy it from someone who stole it from the Army… M40 gas mask, IOTV (level IV-equivalent vest), ACH (helmet), CS grenades…

    Combine ‘suicidal’ with watching/reading material on the effectiveness of the gear (Youtube videos of SAPI plates being shot with various weapons, box-o-truth.com, etc), and an interest in planning this well enough to obtain and use all that equipment….

    I think it’s reasonable to expect that he’ll trust the gear enough to stand his ground, and the whole ‘being nuts’ would take care of the rest…

    OTOH, his behavior towards the police indicates you might be right too, which is why I allow for the possibility that return fire might force a retreat…

    And I am a bit biased WRT the gear – you’re right, this guy wasn’t a combat veteran & probably didn’t know anyone who’d ‘inadvertently field-tested’ level IV body armor…

  • kipling

    You may very well be right on that one.

    I am basing my assumption on how he handled himself with the police. When someone arrived on scene who could offer resistance, he quickly backed down and surrendered. That seems to rule out suicidal. With that being said, it is an assumption and may well prove to be wrong.

    The gear raises a lot of questions. It will be interesting to see where those questions lead.

  • gekster

    where out of 100 movie goers, 20+ HAV CCW’s..

    I admire your phsycic powers.

  • Vegas_Rick

    Anyone who has ever had their body armor stop a bullet will tell you that, while you may not die, you are severely incapacitated for quite a while.

  • Dave_A

    ntxt…

  • Vegas_Rick

    n/t

  • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

    Heavy and bulky doesn’t necessarily mean it will deter a high velocity handgun round like a 357 Mag (not necessarily a 357 SIG) or a 10mm. Certainly class 3/4 will.

    If it was Kevlar, typically at close range either of those two rounds will just slow down, but they’ll kill you.

  • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

    Glock 29 with tritium sights.

    And with regard to the above discussion, nobody knows what would have happened had there been people carrying in the theater.

    There is one indisputable fact however, I’d prefer a Glock 29 in close quarters combat with anybody carrying anything to a seven dollar tub of popcorn and a four dollar drink. No idea if I’d have taken him out, but I’m sure he’d have been distracted as hell.

  • Vegas_Rick

    and kill you, they’ll put you on your back for a good while.

  • Dave_A

    1) Stolen IOTV/IBA/MTV and ACH/MICH helmet.

    2) Airsoft clone (fake, look-cool gear with no ballistic protection) of the IOTV/IBA/MTV, etc

    The reasoning for this, is media reports describing the vest as featuring ‘neck and groin protection flaps’ – something that is ONLY found on the above military vests, because no one not ordered to wear it would even consider the idea (as the flaps don’t actually protect the neck or groin from anything – not even blunt impact)…

    Said vest is very effective at stopping small-arms, but also very heavy, bulky & not in any way concealable. They’re so excessively restrictive, that most of my platoon bought our own plate-carriers (a vest that only serves to hold hard-plates, and does not provide any kevlar-style soft armor for coverage of non-vital areas) to use instead (until ordered to put the issue stuff back on, about halfway through).

    The logical way to get a gas mask, gas grenades, and a military body-armor vest, would be to buy stolen government property.

    Hence my conclusion as to what type of gear he had.

    http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/GEAR_IOTV_Key_Features_lg.jpg

  • Dave_A

    This is the equipment I’m talking about…
    Vest

    Note the various items mentioned in media descriptions of the equipment, seen here – the various ‘flap type’ protectors (DAPS, groin flap, neck flap)…

    These are NOT seen on civilian or police type vests, mainly because only the military’s purchasing folks seem to find any value in them…

  • Dave_A

    Not even close…