The theater shooting the media missed

http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/the-t ... us-on-why/

No, they won't report the good that comes from using the gun.

the media IS the cause of many,many bad seeds being planted. those who control thier ability to spew thier for profit verbage,are indeed the sickest of all humans... it just common sense..... a kid sees his parent strike an ole blue tip match to light a fire, then tells the kid,NO! TOUCH!, and puts em on the mantle,.....will find that kid out back of the shed next saturday with a few matches and a head full of wonder and amazement.

the oldest advise in the book is along the lines of ....."teach a kid to fish.......

the stinking media

Got that right guys. The media will go down in history as complicit traitors. If this country does indeed fail, it will rest on their shoulders.

The Founders would be aghast at what our media has become .

My wife pointed this out to me the day after the shooting. She immediately went into her, "This is why there shouldn't be any guns" tirade and I was quick to point out that the shooter was stopped because someone else in the theater was packing. She quickly changed her tune and said that it was good that someone was able to stop the gunman.

Thanks for posting this. I am sure there are a ton more articles out there like it where a gun saves a life, but the media can't cause a mass hysteria so they stay away from these stories.

Good point about the matches. Goes back to parenting. A parent places the gun on their top shelf and treats it like it is a living, breathing thing and the kid just has to have his hands on it. Teach them about guns, how to use them, the power of them, and they learn to respect them, not be curious about them.

So -- and what I say proves nothing one way or the other, it's just a question --

Let's say we have the bad guy (1) and the off-duty (out of uniform) police officer (2). YOU are the third armed person in the theater, and you look across and see (1) and (2) shooting at each other. You don't know what went before, you just see two "civilians" shooting at each other. You'd like to help, but how? Much as you'd like to shoot somebody, which one do you shoot?

rberq wrote:So -- and what I say proves nothing one way or the other, it's just a question --

Let's say we have the bad guy (1) and the off-duty (out of uniform) police officer (2). YOU are the third armed person in the theater, and you look across and see (1) and (2) shooting at each other. You don't know what went before, you just see two "civilians" shooting at each other. You'd like to help, but how? Much as you'd like to shoot somebody, which one do you shoot?

If I'm IN the theater as you say, then I know who the bad guy is. If I don't know who the bad guy is, I don't shoot. Is it really that hard to comprehend?

I know the common theory is that every gun owner is one step away from Bernie Goetz and just waiting to shoot someone but that just isn't the case.

IF you are in the theater and a bad guy has a gun, would you like me to have one or not? Simple question. Don't go into OMG extrapolation mode.
I would say most untrained people would freeze when confronted with that dilemma and trained people would know how to figure it out. But even trained people make mistakes. You seem to imply that we can't have any mistakes. How else did the cops in NYC shoot several bystanders last month? But that was deemed ok by everyone.

Kevin

Living in MA, I will ABSOLUTELY NOT even THINK of taking my weapon out of it's holster UNLESS I witness, with my own eyes, someone being a threat to either myself or others in my immediate area.

I don't have enough money in the bank to run toward gunshots that I'm not involved in. I'd end up doing life in prison for trying to be a hero. I can't afford a lawyer. The political machine that is Massachusetts would churn me up and spit me out as an example to the world. No thanks. If it didn't happen in my general area, I'm running like a coward for my own good.

KLook wrote: Don't go into OMG extrapolation mode.

OK, but don't go into over-simplification mode.

9 out of every 10 people in that theater might be armed, but all they see is one person with a gun chasing another person with a gun. Or more likely, they see one person chasing another, and unless they are right up close they don't see whether there are guns. What can all those people do to prevent the good guy from getting hurt by the bad guy, and how do they even figure out which is which? You all say, we are responsible and will do nothing until we know the facts. So how does that protect anybody? You WON'T know the facts until it is too late. Or you say, we will only use the gun to protect ourselves. OK, very good, nobody was under threat in the theater except the girlfriend, but of course you don't know that, so still you will do nothing until it is too late for her. The only reason the cop got involved here is because she IS a cop and her mind-set is to intervene. That's exactly opposite the mindset each of you is expressing, that you will stay out of it unless you yourself are directly threatened.

I grant you, in certain unique situations you may be able to protect yourself and your loved ones if you are armed. But YOU have to "go into OMG extrapolation mode" to specify those situations. Don't pretend that there many OTHER situations where your packing heat will help ANYBODY.

I can't see that happening at all. Especially in a theater, that FIRST shot will be VERY obvious ... and thus it will be very obvious who the bad guy is.

I don't know about anyone else, but IF I am in doubt as to who's who, I'm gonna GTFO of dodge.

Hypotheticals can go on all day. Bottom line is you just train, and prepare the best you can. Nobody can predict how any situation will go down. "What if's" just give the left more ammo to cry GUN CONTROL. Being a defenseless sitting duck is NOT an option.

rberq wrote:So -- and what I say proves nothing one way or the other, it's just a question --

Let's say we have the bad guy (1) and the off-duty (out of uniform) police officer (2). YOU are the third armed person in the theater, and you look across and see (1) and (2) shooting at each other. You don't know what went before, you just see two "civilians" shooting at each other. You'd like to help, but how? Much as you'd like to shoot somebody, which one do you shoot?

As much as you would like to shoot someone??? What the hell is that? I dont WANT to shoot anyone. I WANT to make sure my family is safe. That is my number 1 priority. After that, I focus on the life of those around me. If I am in a theater that is suddenly under gunfire, my first instinct will be the safety of my wife and kids. Getting them to safety and making sure they are out of harms way is it.

After that, if I chose to go back into a live situation, then I need to make decisions. If I am sitting there and suddenly a man burst in and starts shooting up the place, my family is hitting the deck and I am pulling my gun. Period. If I can take the shot and stop it, so be it, if I dont feel like I can without causing more chaos, I wont. It is game time decision, but if I see the opening, I am taking it. No doubt about it. I am not going to pull my weapon and just start shooting blindly!

If I see 2 peope shooting at one another, well then I again just get my family to safety and mind my own damn business. If they arent targeting anyone else but one another, so be it. Let em' kill one another off. Kind of like a shoot out in the center city. I am not stopping to help 2 rival gangs, let them kill each other, i will just keep driving on by with my hand on my trusty .45 in the event that I need it.

I was just in Detroit over the New Year. I was carrying everywhere. When we would stop somewhere, the wife would run inside with her .380 on her side and I would stay in the car with the 4 kids and my hand on my .45. Many times a "thug" would be walking by the car and I would simply lift my flannel, pop the velcro on my holster, and grip my weapon, prepared to pull it if said "thug" decided the running car was a good target. We went to Bass Pro and the crowded mall there, thousands of people everywhere, and I felt safe knowing my .45 was tucked in my side loaded with 230 grain hydra-shoks. No better feeling. Every night when we went to sleep at the hotel, the wedge alarm went under the door, and the .45 was right beside me. I slept like a baby.

I dont want to shoot anyone, but if you jeapordize the safety of my wife or children, I will protect them as swiftly and violently as possible and by all means possible.

rberq wrote:

KLook wrote: Don't go into OMG extrapolation mode.

OK, but don't go into over-simplification mode.

9 out of every 10 people in that theater might be armed, but all they see is one person with a gun chasing another person with a gun. Or more likely, they see one person chasing another, and unless they are right up close they don't see whether there are guns. What can all those people do to prevent the good guy from getting hurt by the bad guy, and how do they even figure out which is which? You all say, we are responsible and will do nothing until we know the facts. So how does that protect anybody? You WON'T know the facts until it is too late. Or you say, we will only use the gun to protect ourselves. OK, very good, nobody was under threat in the theater except the girlfriend, but of course you don't know that, so still you will do nothing until it is too late for her. The only reason the cop got involved here is because she IS a cop and her mind-set is to intervene. That's exactly opposite the mindset each of you is expressing, that you will stay out of it unless you yourself are directly threatened.

I grant you, in certain unique situations you may be able to protect yourself and your loved ones if you are armed. But YOU have to "go into OMG extrapolation mode" to specify those situations. Don't pretend that there many OTHER situations where your packing heat will help ANYBODY.

So should cops have guns? How do they know who the bad guy is when they roll up to a situation? Contrary to popular belief, they don't wear capes. They are regular people that have a job to do.

reberq, in this specific case, what do you think would have happened if this off duty officer wouldn't have intervened?