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

calimary

(90,039 posts)
34. There's also the matter of the tear gas.
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:51 PM
Jul 2012

Okay, say there WERE people carrying in there when this guy started his attack. First, as I understand the circumstances, he threw a tear gas canister into the crowd, via an emergency exit through which he got in. So there goes your visibility, almost immediately, especially if that tear gas is stirred up and spread more quickly around the room by a full house of instantly panicking people, in an outbreak of extreme chaos? When people panic they start running every which way, looking for exits they probably can't see well because there's tear gas obstructing the view, AND filling their eyes with stinging tears, which means they'd be blinking frantically and temporarily nearly blinded. In the best of circumstances, how would one take aim? How would one even be able to spot the perpetrator? How would they even know for sure that WAS the perpetrator? I mean, consider that guy in the Giffords shooting, as referenced just above, here -

"He saw a man with a gun, and was concerned that he might not be the shooter, and he was right, as he was seeing a man who had just disarmed the shooter.

"He also worried that if he drew his gun, he'd be mistaken for the shooter, and get shot. He really was a well-trained and intelligent person, and I can't argue with the decisions he made. But it underscores the lack of credibility of the pro-CC claims."

How would you know? How could you tell? How could you even see? And with all those people running and hiding and panicking and screaming and some getting shot - how could you tell where the shots were coming from? How could you avoid shooting some other innocent person (or maybe more than one innocent person) by accident, even if you WERE gunning for the gunman and completely well-intentioned? How could you see to shoot through all that chaos and madness and mayhem?? How could you even take aim in the first place? Wouldn't your first instinct be to take cover? And where would THAT be? Could you even find cover in an uncontrolled, insane, chaotic scene like that? How do you know your hands wouldn't be shaking uncontrollably and maybe you couldn't even get a good grip on your precious sacred fucking gun in the first place?

It's awfully easy for these reckless free-guns advocates to sit there and say. I think many of these self-flattering "Dead-Eye Dicks" have been watching too many gunfight scenes and other assorted action movies.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Reason 100+ mil I don't do facebook Knobheads! (nm) Rambis Jul 2012 #1
we don't know if no one was carrying a Concealed Gun for protection demtenjeep Jul 2012 #2
380 v 556, 7.62, 9mm or 40 is bad. ileus Jul 2012 #3
Yeah maybe more Innocent people would have been hit! upaloopa Jul 2012 #7
Maybe if there wasn't any fucking gun at all the people could have enjoyed the movie! upaloopa Jul 2012 #12
I had this image of Tim "the tool man" Taylor doing his "oooo ooooo oooo" dialog DrDan Jul 2012 #29
More people with more guns is like fucking for virginity upaloopa Jul 2012 #4
Virginity is more like fucking people with more guns IMHO zzaapp Jul 2012 #30
Yes, if we ALL were armed to the teeth, there'd be no violence. Lex Jul 2012 #5
you should see the movie theater's facebook page maryellen99 Jul 2012 #6
yes. because others were in the way or identity was difficult. nt xchrom Jul 2012 #13
strawman Tejas Jul 2012 #21
I remember that well Courtesy Flush Jul 2012 #24
There's also the matter of the tear gas. calimary Jul 2012 #34
Holy COMPLETELY DISIMILAR stories, Batman! Chorophyll Jul 2012 #8
Not to mention that he threw smoke grenades before he attacked. Drale Jul 2012 #19
This message was self-deleted by its author GarroHorus Jul 2012 #9
Well lit cafe vs dark crowded theater with f/x and smoke bombs NightWatcher Jul 2012 #10
first case was a Robbery and though we can't say for sure JI7 Jul 2012 #11
Colorado is a shall issue state bluestateguy Jul 2012 #14
A shoot-out in a crowded, dark movie theater. That would have ended well. n/t Ian David Jul 2012 #15
Exactly.... hlthe2b Jul 2012 #18
You know what would also be fun? A shoot-out at the Aquarium! n/t Ian David Jul 2012 #20
why is that man dressed like a marshmallow? who is the robber & who the citizen? HiPointDem Jul 2012 #16
*Edited* charlie Jul 2012 #22
you mean the marshmallow was the citizen? why was he dressed like that? HiPointDem Jul 2012 #23
Yeah charlie Jul 2012 #25
dunno -- i can id all the other people despite any washing out. white beard???? doesn't look HiPointDem Jul 2012 #26
Good gawd. Colorado has tons of concealed weapons holders the odds are plenty were in the theater hlthe2b Jul 2012 #17
They didn't miss a beat, did they? MrMickeysMom Jul 2012 #27
Tho I wouldn't do it out of respect. I could easily do one about the armed officers shot in Seattle progressivebydesign Jul 2012 #28
Yeah...dark, crowded, smoky theater...the outcome would have been SO much different AngryOldDem Jul 2012 #31
Absolutely moronic. earthside Jul 2012 #32
Oh look, it's Ammoland again Scootaloo Jul 2012 #33
I heard a police officer say such an idea of armed people last night mmonk Jul 2012 #35
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I can't believe this is a...»Reply #34