GLOCK GEN 4 HANDGUN SALE $498.75 Models 17,19,22 + MORE!

Quote from 1stbuy : Thats Power Ranger talk bro. Everyone thinks they're going to be some hero. When SHTF not one person fought back and neither would you. There were members of the armed forces in the audience. Who you kidding?

No doubt the scene would have been complete chaos and confusion, but we'll never know since the theater was a no gun zone, so no one had a gun to fire back.. the only people who had a chance to really stop him umarmed would have been the ones in the very first row and only before he started shooting. unless they all rushed him together (can't get'em all) but since not many people are psychic no one wants to rush a gunman by them selves.

Quote from kalel33 : You stated that a CCW could have stopped him and in THAT circumstance you are overestimating many people's ability. It would have been a better chance of the shooter being rushed while reloading and tackled by one or more individuals than a shooter from 15 rows up.

speculation is great but we will never know, maybe the CC'er could have stopped him, maybe he couldn't, maybe he would have hit other people on accident.. all 3 are plausible scenarios however none more provable then the last..

Affter much deliberation I've concluded I (personally) do not buy the CC'er woudl have only made it worse argument, it's mostly based on the theory that they will not be able to stop the gunman and instead increase the body count.. while possible we've never had a situation where we've been able to test it because almost all these shootings happen in gun-free zones, this one was no different.

But even if the CC'er did shoot a few innocent people but was able to stop the gunman as bad as that would be would it not be better if someone took the risk and even if they hit a few people stopped the gunman from shooting another dozen? I mean simple math says that's a better outcome?; I didn't say good these situations are never god, just better.

How many people was in the theater? 200? 300? 71 was shot that's almost a 3rd of everyone in there, could a CC'er really have made things worse? I doubt it.
But again speculation as are all opinions on what happen "if only" we'll never know.

Certainly the seating location is critical here, someone in the back of the theater in the middle of the row would have had the longest shot and the least maneuverability.

Put someone near the aisle and suddenly many more options open up.. put them near the front on a aisle seats and finally you have a very real fighting chance of doing something.

If you're 15 rows back (dont know how large the theater is) you're probably near the entrance and can escape.

Quote from AGpennypacker : i love this! i have no doubt that you would have tried to save the day but for all your monday morning quarterbacking and fantasizing about getting a headshot on a moving/shooting target across a movie theater with your laser sight and ccw, or hitting him in the legs, or knocking him to the ground with hit's to his armor ( and yes, it was armor the police chief confirmed "heavy body armor") you have better odds of winning multiple lotteries than being in a similar situation. however, when you continue to spout off die hard like fantasies of saving the day as reality you give the rest of the thoughtful and safe ccw'ers a bad name. so please stop...just please...stop.

The news reports he was walking up and down the isle but many witnesses say he was more or less stationary near the exit, some report it was not body armor but a tactical vest. other have said it was type IIA armor, which is not even remotely "heavy armor" most cops wear type II or IIA (im talking patrol not swat).

until the trial we wont fully know exactly what type of armor or vest he was wearing.