14 dead and 50 injured in mass shooting in Colorado.

Post Reply New Topic

The crack of an AR-15 is loud. He would not be able to sneak around. If you've never shot one without ear protection you wouldn't understand (like most anti-gun nuts).

Asking a hard question about the incident is not pointless or classless. If he entered through an emergency exit and then left it open long enough to go back and get his guns, there is a problem. Most emergency exits will sound an alarm if opened. Why didn't these?

And so is the pretentious self-righteous douchebaggery of the anti-gun crowd. I f*****g hate politics in topics like these, period. Why are people so eager to bring politics into non-political topics? Politics turns any topic into a clusterf*ck of simplistic, self-righteous, chauvinistic and dishonest BS.

That I don't have a problem with. Politically motivated self-righteousness, simplistic BS, finger pointing at the other side, etc... etc.. is what gets on my nerves. As soon as a topic becomes political it's like the WWE. The emergency exit thing is strictly a security issue rather than a political one, so that isn't going to stir up nearly as much of a political shitstorm.

What do you mean non political? The guy walked into a Gander Mountain or whatever it was and bought an Ar 15 or whatever it is (not a sportsman or gun enthusiast so I am not up with the locations and the models) and he bought a drum that held multiple magazines if I am not mistaken all legally. He also bought something like 6000 bullets and no one should talk about it because it might be deemed political.

Facepalmed.

6000 rounds would be months worth for an active shooter. Some competitive shooters can go through 15000/year.

Buying the rounds online means no one asks, "what are you going to do with all those bullets." Of course, he would come up with a good reply if he was asked that.

An AR-15 isn't an 'assault rifle'. It doesn't have selective fire, it is only a semi-automatic gun. The main difference between it and a hunting rifle is just the appearance, maybe one of more knowledgeable posters on guns can expand on this.

Also, it's not looking good for the people hoping this guy isn't a "loner", no friends or girlfriends have come forward, current or former. No known internet footprint. The guy really is a mystery at this point. Hopefully they're able to get into his apartment and learn more about this guy.

That's my point though, Jacoby, they wouldn't come forward, especially if they only got to know him through something like AdultFriendFinder. They just met him from an online site and he is from a different state so they figure they don't know him that well anyway and they don't want to be involved in the investigation so they stay away. If these people are kind of out there or part of the counterculture,, they might not ever come forward. Him dying his hair orange could be an indication he had met some people who were not mainstream and was attempting to blend in with them.

His hair looks nothing at all like the Joker's hair so I am not buying the story that's the original reason he dyed it. It looks more like Johnny Rotten's hair to me.

Another reason they have for not coming forward is if they talked about this sort of thing with him and knew, sorta what was going to happen, or, if they actually planned it and helped him figure it out. Those people are never going to voluntarily come forward because it could mean going to prison. His ad on AFF did ask if someone would visit him in prison. Who is this someone????

There were plenty of people who knew him back in California, though, and they all have very positive things to say about him. In fact, one of his neighbors around the same age won't even believe he did it until it is proven. He just cannot believe it.

The paradigm shift suggests he had friends in Colorado and was trying to fit in with their clique.

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 21 Jul 2012, 12:50 pm, edited 3 times in total.

You almost have to feel sorry for the US anti-gun people, I mean they've been reduced to literally waiting around for a sufficiently large gun related tragedy to provide the emotional cover necessary for them to get any traction, you'll never see or hear them otherwise. They know that no one will listen to them in a clear state of mind, they need an emotional response overriding people's better judgment in order to have any hope of advancing their agenda. They're like ambush predators, virtually defenseless outside of their specific element, and if their one shot fails to land they have to go back to waiting for another "opportunity", read: tragedy. Gabby Giffords was practically still in the ambulance when Carolyn McCarthy and co were pulling dusty gun control schemes out of desk drawers, and in my own hometown the head of our local anti-gun group was actually at the scene of a shooting giving press interviews while the police were still inside investigating, spinning before the bodies could go cold. Even if I agreed with them, I'd be embarrassed by that behavior, they've become the trapdoor spiders of politics.

An AR-15 is the civilian version of the M16/M4, unfortunately it can only legally be semiautomatic because of a few BS laws. The reason this weapon is so hated by the anti-gun crowd is the appearance. It is common labeled an "assault weapon" or "black rifle" in an effort to demonize it. As for the term "assault weapon", it is the term for any weapon the government does not want you to have.

I don't know if I believe that people wouldn't come forward. People generally like to talk. Even for a 'loner' this guy seems pretty anonymous, maybe it's just early in the investigation.

I expect Colorado is going to clamp down some after this. You can bet law enforcement will rally behind a ban on these drums.

A round from a 10 round magazine will cause as much damage as a round from a 100 round magazine.

After seeing something like this guy and how prepared he was and how close those cops and first responders came to a huge shoot out with a heavily armored guy and all his trip wires left for them in his apartment. Yeah, it's a huge wake up call and all those cops and first responders in Colorado will rally behind change. It is a very close call for them and it will open their eyes to the what's out there when someone is determined.

To answer a few questions I've seen come up a few times here:

The theater was a no guns allowed zone by order of the property owner, which is why no one in the crowd was armed; guess the shooter missed the sign.

This shooter had a very good plan, especially the smokebomb. Whether an armed audience member would have made a difference is debatable, I'm not going to take a position either way. Here's a shooting instructors take on it: http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/ ... nion_.html

As to whether taking a shot at the guy would have done more harm than good, consider that he was standing at the front of the theater with the screen behind him, shooting into the audience. Any shot taken at him would have hit the wall behind him, and though it might not have penetrated his armor it certainly would have shaken him up, and given that he surrendered to police rather than shooting it out, might have even caused him to flee. Hell, if it hit him in the head or arms it could have been ended right there. The worst risk to others would seem to be a pass through on the wall or a ricochet, but given how we're talking pistol calibers here and likely hollowpoints, an injury from a spent bullet sounds a lot better than continued directed fire from the attacker. If it was me, I'd have taken the shot, as even a slight chance of stopping the attack would have been worth the risk of doing so.

Also, even in a dark theater with a movie on, muzzle flashes from an AR-15 pattern rifle are pretty distinctive, shooting from between the seats at the flash would be a fairly sound strategy. Think about the position of a shouldered rifle and where aiming at the flash would hit, the shooters hands, arms or head, none of which are armored and any of which would end the incident if solidly hit.

It doesn't mean no one in theater is armed, it just means officially concealed weapons are not allowed but theaters do not search people before they enter the premises. You might think if someone was armed, they would take a shot. Not necessarily. It might have not been possible to successfully shoot in there for some reason. We were not in there, so we do not know what it was like. People were choking on smoke and down in the seats hiding from the guy. Many people were not even that close to him, because auditoriums are rather large and the stage itself is a few feet from the first row of seats. The further away the harder the shot.

The hardest thing would have been taking him out before getting shot by him first since everyone was probably down on the ground behind the theater seats. Standing up and taking a shot might allow the gunman to shoot you before you can shoot him since no one else is standing, it's easy to see what you are doing so he just aims his gun at whomever is standing.

Then, besides that, he had all the protection so even if he was hit, he might be able to shoot back. And, most people didn't know what was going on until he started shooting first, leaving them no time to get a gun out of a holster to fire first.

Now what might have worked is someone with a concealed weapon distracting him first by throwing something in another direction and when he turns, shoot him then, but the bullet might not phase him with all the body armor.