lovmuffin
Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
ORIGINAL: thishereboi
quote:
ORIGINAL: Politesub53
quote:
ORIGINAL: thishereboi
And that it would have happened anyway is your opinion.
WTF..... The dead and injured are still dead and injured, whichever way you wish to spin it.
I wasn't spinning anything. I pointed out that the whole thing might not have happened if the gunman had thought the other people were armed. It's called a discussion. You have a problem with it, use the block feature.
You created an imaginary set of circumstances that (surprise!) were tailored to suit your point of view. It's called conjecture, speculation or fantasy.
The term doesn't matter as much as the fact that the scenario you invented is imaginary
As do others with their assumptions that the good guys bullets can't possibly be as accurate as the bad guys and with their presumption that when the cops showed they might have shot both but we can be sure they would have shot the good guy
I haven't seen that assumption made here.
The assumption made here and repeated religiously, mantra-like by the faithful (to the extent that is presented as quasi-fact/"common sense"), is that if theatre goers were armed, they would have dealt quick smart with the lunatic firing a rifle at them.
Leaving aside the problem that is it is a wholly self serving assumption, it claims that the armed theatre goers would have shot the deranged shooter before he did too much damage, presumably with handguns (unless someone wants to encourage theatre goers to arm themselves with automatic rifles or machine guns to watch a movie) . While I am far from up to scratch on the technical aspects of firearms, I do believe it is the case that handguns are notoriously inaccurate unless fired at close range.
So not only would our erstwhile white knights need to be armed, they would also have to located in close proximity to the deranged gunman, and be very good shots too for the assumption to have any validity. There are a number of other necessary prerequisites too - they'd have to correctly identify the shooter amid the chaos , they'd have have clear sight in a darkened theatre, they'd have to avoid being shot themselves (hand gun vs rifle - not exactly a level playing field ) , ...... etc etc etc.
As the number of assumptions and prerequisites necessary for the 'armed white knight' scenario to work realistically increase, the possibility of its ever occurring let alone succeeding, accelerates towards extreme improbability.
In the end, all one is left with is a self serving highly improbable 'Dirty Harry' fantasy.
You're right about not being up to scratch on technical aspects of firearms though you're partly correct on their accuracy from a significant distance. However many handguns are quite capable of reasonable to pinpoint accuracy at 30, 50, or even 100 yards and then some. The smaller short barrel handguns typically will have accuracy limitations at longer ranges, especially in low light, though certainly not all of them. It is also typical that these smaller handguns are the ones carried by those of us with permits as they are generally light, easy to conceal and overall more convenient. Most of the time a small handgun will do the job because most gunfights happen within a range of 10 feet. Larger, longer barrel *quality* handguns, not as easy to conceal, heavier to carry and less convenient will certainly be preferable if you ever really needed to use it at a distance.
The biggest problem with accuracy in the theater was the low light or dark atmosphere. Even with an accurate handgun its difficult to line up the sights in the dark from a significant distance. In the theater the situation would boil down to tactics. If you're not within 5 or maybe 8 rows from the shooter you will have to work your way in closer without getting shot. Keep in mind the shooter has the same accuracy problem in the dark. He's just shooting indiscriminately every witch way with a crap load of ammo and guns as fast as he can. The fact that he has a rifle probably doesn't mean much if anything because the armed citizen, unknown to the shooter has a tactical advantage in that regard. I believe the shooter also had a shotgun witch would be the more problematic gun.
Did you notice post #180 about laser sights and post #181 that links to some of them ? With a laser set up on a quality handgun, assuming you can make out the shooters head you can easily take him out within or not much more than a second of drawing your weapon from quite a distance. 3 dot glow in the dark sights will work well in this situation too. Even some of the smaller quality handguns such as Ruger or Smith & Wesson .380 autos come with laser sights though I've never tried them out.
We've come a long way since the Dirty Harry days.
_____________________________
"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown
"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir
|
RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread