Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)63. Certainly it is unknowable
Maybe he bought some awesome ceramic body armor at a yard sale for cash and left the nylon vest he'd bought at home that night.
It is unknowable. (To us, at this time.)
As a supposition, he probably did not have a bulletproof vest on. Your side seems likelier to be correct.
But there is no proof on either side.
And no matter how much evidence is assembled it will all be meaningless when his get-up becomes a matter of public record.
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
227 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
i'm sure you're getting a lot of kicks right now. quite amusing during this stress time
samsingh
Jul 2012
#55
Oh man. That's awesome. But what would really 'show me' is proof about the 'bullet proof' vest.
Edweird
Jul 2012
#120
Yeah, that's the one in my OP. It's not a 'bullet proof vest'. It's just a vest.
Edweird
Jul 2012
#144
Seriously? We know what he bought and when and where he bought it. Why would this one item
Edweird
Jul 2012
#202
What's BS? Is that the liimit of your debating abilities? Here's my post, which you didn't read:
freshwest
Jul 2012
#43
Well, thanks for the kick. Right now I'm looking for bullet proof vest info. We can fight later.
Edweird
Jul 2012
#49
for pro-gun people, anything that can be used in favor of gun control does not exist.
samsingh
Jul 2012
#30
I SO agree with you. My first thought reading the orig post: "And this matters how?" /eom
dballance
Jul 2012
#131
well, ok then! I guess I'll just tiptoe out the door...don't get up. Really, I can let myself out...
CTyankee
Jul 2012
#72
he's trying to argue that everyone should have been armed in the theatre and that would prevented
samsingh
Jul 2012
#37
No, I want you to prove that he WAS wearing a bullet proof vest. Not "someone said"
Edweird
Jul 2012
#26
We know everything he bought. When and where. The news articles, like the one in my OP,
Edweird
Jul 2012
#100
We know the brand and model of everything else. I don't see how this is 'unknowable'.
Edweird
Jul 2012
#67
I don't see what you're geting at. Was he wearing a 'bullet proof' vest or not?
Edweird
Jul 2012
#124
You want accurate reporting based upon actual facts? Facts slow things down.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2012
#54
What does it matter? Bulletproof gear or not, are the victims any less dead?
Blue_Tires
Jul 2012
#59
I can't see it but I'm sure it's as witty as it is insulting - but shouldn't you be researching
Edweird
Jul 2012
#70
I'm looking for someone to come forward and show me what kind of bullet proof vest he was wearing.
Edweird
Jul 2012
#114
So this is a continuation of the thread where you called the victims "cowards"?
zappaman
Jul 2012
#77
*I* *I* Mischaracterize all you want. *I* don't care. *I* have to live with my actions
Edweird
Jul 2012
#103
Eh, that's people taking stuff out of context. We all know the theater was 'gun free'.
Edweird
Jul 2012
#184
Do you have ANY proof that he wore a 'bullet proof' vest besides "everyone says"?
Edweird
Jul 2012
#155
It would sting so much more if you could prove he was wearing a 'bullet proof' vest.
Edweird
Jul 2012
#119
I hesitate to even reply, but I could not really care less if he was wrapped in saran or encased in
likesmountains 52
Jul 2012
#125
That's true. I just had a rough fight with some long time members and if I'm wrong I want to know.
Edweird
Jul 2012
#137
Here is what he was wearing, according to earlier DU thread--looks different than
librechik
Jul 2012
#151
Maybe Holmes thought it was bullet proof. Doesn't change anything even if he were naked.
Hoyt
Jul 2012
#167
In this case, I really don't give a dang whether he was wearing armor or not. He did use guns that
Hoyt
Jul 2012
#175
It's ... not really possible for someone to confuse a tactical vest for body armor. (nt)
Posteritatis
Jul 2012
#226
If it didn't already exist, this post could've caused the invention of the word
CreekDog
Jul 2012
#173
No but the only proof I've come along so far leads to a 'tactical vest' or whatever
Edweird
Jul 2012
#189
That's fine. Reports usually are a bit disconnected in the first week or so...
chowder66
Jul 2012
#196
Ed, the FUCK does it matter what he was wearing? you're just trolling with this post.
dionysus
Jul 2012
#181
so you say you have already decided the issue, and now you want us to prove you wrong?
librechik
Jul 2012
#188
ooooh you really showed me didn't you! I will cry myself to sleep for a thousand nights....
Edweird
Jul 2012
#210
I need to start hiding threads until they put gun threads back in the gungeon.
Edweird
Jul 2012
#217