# Navy seal recommends a flashlight for defense against movie theater shooting



## Blue72 (Jul 23, 2012)

Interesting read, not one I totally agree with, but I thought might be an article of interest for cpf


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/for...yourself-in-a-shooting-like-that-in-colorado/


----------



## MichaelW (Jul 23, 2012)

You might need a big dog light, ala Olight SR51 or better, so you can find the actual perpetrators not just some died hair drugged up patsy.


----------



## SDM44 (Jul 23, 2012)

Interesting, and I can see the concept working. But realistically, if I'm sitting in a large theater (like the ones in my area where I usually go) and I'm a good 40-50 yards away from the front row where a shooter might be, do you think my Klarus XT11 from that distance would make an impact on a shooter when there's already light in his face from the projector?

IMO, I would assume it would make you more of a possible target for the gunman to shoot at, or at least towards your general direction. But then again, I haven't tried giving my XT11 to my friend an asking him to go back 40-50 yards from me at night and hit me with the light, so I can't say if or how it would really affect me or others.


----------



## spydie fanatic (Jul 23, 2012)

I would recommend 4sevens' maelstrom XM18 on high mode 


See Rule #3 Do not Hot Link images. Please host on an image site, Imageshack or similar and repost – Thanks Norm


----------



## nissanmaster1996 (Jul 23, 2012)

I recommend something like a thru-nite scorpionV2 with the turbo head and a Glock 40!


----------



## metalophile (Jul 23, 2012)

Some may laugh, but I think one of those flood-to-throw zoom flashlights would do more to temporarily blind/distract the perp than most ordinary EDC non-zoom types. I admit I use mine sometimes to signal my displeasure to other drivers whenever I get a mild case of road rage!


----------



## biglights (Jul 23, 2012)

metalophile said:


> I admit I use mine sometimes to signal my displeasure to other drivers whenever I get a mild case of road rage!



 get out my way. LOL


----------



## Mikeg23 (Jul 23, 2012)

SDM44 said:


> Interesting, and I can see the concept working. But realistically, if I'm sitting in a large theater (like the ones in my area where I usually go) and I'm a good 40-50 yards away from the front row where a shooter might be, do you think my Klarus XT11 from that distance would make an impact on a shooter when there's already light in his face from the projector?
> 
> IMO, I would assume it would make you more of a possible target for the gunman to shoot at, or at least towards your general direction. But then again, I haven't tried giving my XT11 to my friend an asking him to go back 40-50 yards from me at night and hit me with the light, so I can't say if or how it would really affect me or others.



If you were truly 40-50 yards away then I would agree that drawing attention to your self would be a bad idea. If you were looking for a second of "disorientation" from a flashlight it would be after you fear that you are a target or just before you engage the threat.


----------



## jorn (Jul 24, 2012)

metalophile said:


> Some may laugh, but I think one of those flood-to-throw zoom flashlights would do more to temporarily blind/distract the perp than most ordinary EDC non-zoom types. I admit I use mine sometimes to signal my displeasure to other drivers whenever I get a mild case of road rage!


Point a blue tinted light with strobe in their general driection, and they will pull over


----------



## Snareman (Jul 24, 2012)

I'd think that pointing a light in his direction is more likely to get a bunch of bullets sprayed in your direction. He doesn't need to be able to see well to point his gun in the direction of your light and start spraying.


----------



## fyrstormer (Jul 24, 2012)

jorn said:


> Point a blue tinted light with strobe in their general driection, and they will pull over


...later on, as you're being arrested for impersonating a police officer...


----------



## fyrstormer (Jul 24, 2012)

Snareman said:


> I'd think that pointing a light in his direction is more likely to get a bunch of bullets sprayed in your direction. He doesn't need to be able to see well to point his gun in the direction of your light and start spraying.


Yeah. I tend to think, if you want to move tactically against an aggressor, doing so in the dark will be more effective because they can't prepare for your arrival by killing you in mid-charge.

Seriously, the speculation about tactical use of flashlights needs to stop, permanently. The topic has been beaten to death so many times it isn't even mildly entertaining anymore. Flashlights have two possible tactical uses: lighting your own path and momentarily blinding the target. If that extra 1 second doesn't give you enough time to escape or eliminate the threat, it will do no good whatsoever. Using a flashlight as a deterrent _might_ work via the "hitchhiker's towel" effect, but someone who is _already shooting at you_ is not going to be intimidated by the possibility that you might have a weapon as well as a flashlight.


----------



## yellow (Jul 24, 2012)

... when being near enough ANY light _could_ have the slightest impact on the shooter,
one IMMEDIATELY had to try to engage him physically
--> but is too far away and blocked by seats or other ppl from having any chance

when You are too near, You are dead / heavily hurt, when far enough away _and_ near an exit _and_ reacting quickly, You survive
no matter what any experts theorize.


poor fellas there


----------



## cland72 (Jul 24, 2012)

I think his suggestion is being taken out of context... He's saying it is a good tool to have, but not necessarily says it would've stopped the shooting. 

In my opinion, unless I had a gun, I wouldn't have been pointing a flashlight at the shooter. I can see if you're in the first few rows and want to "blip" the shooter to temporarily disorient and blind so you could run, but anything further back than a few feet would only make you a target.


----------



## Schuey2002 (Jul 24, 2012)

This same guy was on Fox News earlier today with Megyn Kelly.

Not only did he show off a SureFire P2X-B Fury to the camera, but he talked briefly about its 500 lumen output, and even flashed it at the camera...


----------



## Mikeg23 (Jul 24, 2012)

cland72 said:


> I think his suggestion is being taken out of context... He's saying it is a good tool to have, but not necessarily says it would've stopped the shooting.



Absolutly, much like saying if you had a wench you could fix your car... Well you have to know how to use it, and you have to know when not to use it... And lots of times a fool with a wrench has made things worse.


----------



## fyrstormer (Jul 24, 2012)

Mikeg23 said:


> Absolutly, much like saying if you had a wench you could fix your car... Well you have to know how to use it, and you have to know when not to use it... And lots of times a fool with a wrench has made things worse.


Like the time I saw an employee at Iffy Lube tightening the hollow aluminum oil pan drain plug on my VW by banging on the wrench with a hammer.

But yes, I agree a flashlight is a good tool to have...as long as you don't play Glock/Paper/Scissors with it, because Glock beats everything.


----------



## Paladin (Jul 24, 2012)

fyrstormer said:


> Like the time I saw an employee at Iffy Lube tightening the hollow aluminum oil pan drain plug on my VW by banging on the wrench with a hammer.
> 
> But yes, I agree a flashlight is a good tool to have...*as long as you don't play Glock/Paper/Scissors with it, because Glock beats everything.*



Carry permit, training, hard *** attitude, and less sheeple would be dead. Keeping this tragedy in perspective, about 14 people died in a highway accident last weekend in Texas. Dead is dead, it doesn't matter why...and a light is not enough by itself.

Paladin


----------



## Quiksilver (Jul 24, 2012)

Mikeg23 said:


> Absolutly, much like saying if you had a wench you could fix your car... Well you have to know how to use it, and you have to know when not to use it... And lots of times a fool with a wrench has made things worse.



There wasn't much that would have made that situation worse ... Its nice to speak in a condescending tone about how "doing something" might have made the situation worse, but I disagree and think it was already as bad as it could possibly get. 

That means a CCW holder could have been justified in taking a shot even in a dynamic environment where he has potential to hurt/kill another innocent. Police engage criminals in situations all the time that aren't cut and dry, because they believe that if they DO NOT engage, that more harm will be done than if they DO ATTEMPT to engage. 

If someone in the first or second row had a good light and knife on him, it was possible he could have flashed the guy and lunged at his throat. Yes its conjecture.

Just as likely, is someone near the back who could see what was unfolding and had a firearm on him, could have fired a few "risky" shots at the guy and taken him out after only two or three deaths.

I think doing nothing--because it might be risky--is the bureaucratic solution and not the one that made any of our countries great or inspired any pride.


----------



## CYMac (Jul 25, 2012)

Imagine this, if the CPF's members all went out for movie together, sudden this guy came in with the gun and stuff... What will happen? Everybody draw out their 700+ lumens stuff and some draw out a Tiny monster or RRT3 like me.. turn all on lights on together and beam it at the guy, I am sure that will be the best thing on news ever. One of us NEED to have the wicked torch too, and shove it up his back as a punishment, make a youtube vid, and that is why you need a TORCH and flashlight together. The heat generated from the 4000 lumens torch is a must in this situation. 

That will be the best news ever and all flashlights vendors will get mega rich in a month, haha!


----------



## jorn (Jul 25, 2012)

fyrstormer said:


> ...later on, as you're being arrested for impersonating a police officer...


Maby in usa


----------



## fyrstormer (Jul 25, 2012)

Paladin said:


> Carry permit, training, hard *** attitude, and less sheeple would be dead.


Glock/Paper/Scissors is just my name for attempting to confront someone who has a gun, when you yourself have _anything other than_ a gun. If they're not afraid to start shooting, you're guaranteed to lose. Obviously if you have a gun as well, that is an entirely different scenario.

Generally speaking, shooting deaths occur where guns are present, not where guns are absent, so I remain unconvinced that more guns would've improved the outcome, but I concede it would've at least evened the odds.


----------



## fyrstormer (Jul 25, 2012)

jorn said:


> Maby in usa


It's legal to impersonate a police officer in Norway? Hmm, I should visit sometime.


----------



## jnj1033 (Jul 25, 2012)

Mikeg23 said:


> ...if you had a wench you could fix your car...



My wench doesn't fix my car, but she will make me a sandwich while I work on it.

Sent from my phone. There are many like it, but this one is mine.


----------



## chanjyj (Jul 25, 2012)

If I were the gunman, the first thing I would shoot at if I saw a blinding light at me would be - the light.

The only way you can get round this is to activate the light, deactivate the light, move off, engage. Which obviously, is not possible in this scenario.


----------



## Cataract (Jul 25, 2012)

Snareman said:


> I'd think that pointing a light in his direction is more likely to get a bunch of bullets sprayed in your direction. He doesn't need to be able to see well to point his gun in the direction of your light and start spraying.



Flash then move. It would de-sensitise his eyes to the dark long enough to get away from the spray, but only do that if the spraying is directed in your general direction to start with... unless you want to be the (dead) hero and help people from the other side escape.


----------



## jorn (Jul 25, 2012)

> It's legal to impersonate a police officer in Norway?


No. Would you say that turning on one of your cooler tinted lights in strobe mode is the same as impersonate a police officer?


----------



## fyrstormer (Jul 25, 2012)

jorn said:


> No. Would you say that turning on one of your cooler tinted lights in strobe mode is the same as impersonate a police officer?


You said "blue", not "cool-tinted".  Blue strobe lights are always associated with police cars in the USA, even if some police cars have other colors of lights too.

A cool-tinted light should be fine, but shining it in the face of a motorist would probably be considered reckless endangerment.


----------



## Larbo (Jul 25, 2012)

I have thought about this also, I carry my TN-11 among other bright torches, and being forced in a situation like this you kinda have few options, try and hide, run, or take some kind of action towards the gunman as you likely to get injured anyway. I would think at close range out to 20 feet or so (assuming you have the chance) a really bright light shined on someone with somewhat night adapted vision should give you enough time (measured in seconds) to jump on and grab him, I for one would have to try at least if this guy ended up close enough.


----------



## jamesmtl514 (Jul 25, 2012)

For those that feel they stand a chance vs this guy wearing a ballistic helmet with what appears to be tinted visor... with only a flashlight in hand....





http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...fficials-say/2012/07/22/gJQAL9XN2W_print.html

I wouldn't try to blind him, temporarily disorientate or in other words, attract his attention my way unless I was wearing 10x the armor he was.


----------



## enomosiki (Jul 25, 2012)

For a flashlight to work, it has to be within range so that it can overwhelm and impair the assailant's vision.

And, when I say "overwhelm", it's not about not being able to look in the general direction because there's a bright blotch in your field of view. It means that you have a *WHITE WALL* in front of your face.

Even with a high-powered light, such as TN11, the maximum range to completely overwhelm one's vision in dark environment is about 15 meters or less. Any further and the effectiveness rapidly decreases.

If complete vision impairment cannot be achieved, you just end up making yourself a damned target.


----------



## calipsoii (Jul 25, 2012)

Someone might want to point out all the common sense posts in this thread to Fenix Outfitters and their latest advertisement over on the Marketplace.


----------



## m.nadz (Jul 25, 2012)

[ threadjack ]



fyrstormer said:


> Like the time I saw an employee at Iffy Lube tightening the hollow aluminum oil pan drain plug on my VW by banging on the wrench with a hammer.




I'm a VW tech at a dealer near me and you'd be surprised how many cars come in on the hook with stripped/missing drain plugs courtesy of Iffy Lube or "their mechanic."

[ /threadjack ]


----------



## Mikeg23 (Jul 25, 2012)

Quiksilver said:


> There wasn't much that would have made that situation worse ... Its nice to speak in a condescending tone about how "doing something" might have made the situation worse, but I disagree and think it was already as bad as it could possibly get.
> 
> That means a CCW holder...



I had no intention of sounding condesending... Additionally you are putting words in my mouth. The OP was about a flashlight not a CCW. 

I firmly believe everytime I see something like this in the news that if more people took their own security into their own hands that criminals would be less successful. I understand that this individual was wearing armor but I still would hope that if ever I was in such a predicament I manage to put rounds in the... guy.


----------



## Mikeg23 (Jul 25, 2012)

Mikeg23 said:


> Absolutly, much like saying if you had a wench you could fix your car... Well you have to know how to use it, and you have to know when not to use it... And lots of times a fool with a wrench has made things worse.





jnj1033 said:


> My wench doesn't fix my car, but she will make me a sandwich while I work on it.



Haha


----------



## Evltcat (Jul 25, 2012)

dd61999 said:


> Interesting read, not one I totally agree with, but I thought might be an article of interest for cpf
> 
> 
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/for...yourself-in-a-shooting-like-that-in-colorado/



Nothing against a SEAL Team member, but IMHO, Regular dude + EDC Light shine/flash/strobe vs. Gun = Dead. 
I also agree with the thought that about all you're going to do is draw fire to your light.

EDC Knife + clear path to shooter + distance < 25 feet + figuring I may die anyway = fighting chance, with possibility of getting shot/killed.
Still can't say I'd do it vs. hitting the ground and playing dead.


----------



## fyrstormer (Jul 26, 2012)

jamesmtl514 said:


> For those that feel they stand a chance vs this guy wearing a ballistic helmet with what appears to be tinted visor... with only a flashlight in hand....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All that crap and the pansy surrendered when confronted by police. It's so ridiculous. I have to agree with one of the victims' relatives: if he was going to wear all that armor, he should've used it in a _real_ shootout.


----------



## Quiksilver (Jul 26, 2012)

Most of that isn't bullet resistant ... It's just impact resistant like for riot control when people are chucking rocks, swinging sticks, throwing molotovs and road flares ...

Seeing that though, there's no way I would have stuck around to shine my light in his eyes. As soon as the people I was with would be outta there, so would I.

Let victims be victims in the Gun Free Zones.


----------



## SoCalDep (Jul 26, 2012)

That's not a picture of what he was actually wearing... Reports are he was wearing a plate carrier with nine spare AR mags, among his other gear, so that picture is a "guess" at what he might have "kinda" looked like. 

Until we know much more of what he actually planned, what he actually had/used, and what actually happened, it is very hard to monday-morning-quarterback and say what we would have done or what would have worked. It was a really bad situation, and after speaking to some of the officers who responded, it's one of those deals where the odds are not in the good guy's favor, but I would hope I would do "something" rather than nothing.


----------



## recycledelectrons (Jul 27, 2012)

deleted.

Calling BS, etc is of no use.

I'm sorry.


----------



## TweakMDS (Jul 27, 2012)

This advice is complete BS in this situation.
A strobe light *from up close* might give you a fraction of a moment extra to turn your back and run if someone is in your face to mug you. A strobe light, combined with shouting in a heavy voice can also diffuse a violent third party situation (for example if you see someone get beaten up) because they can't see you and might choose to take off. 
If a crazy person is looking for targets to shoot, the strobe will only give him something to aim at.

You have a better chance of taking him out by throwing the light at his face, or quickly overcharging your 18650's and hoping for an explosion on impact...


----------



## fyrstormer (Jul 27, 2012)

Interesting blog post regarding the situation in the theater and why new laws wouldn't help: http://blog.frankmtaylor.com/2012/0...eep-your-opinions-on-gun-control-to-yourself/


----------



## braddy (Jul 27, 2012)

> Originally posted by fyrstormer-- Generally speaking, shooting deaths occur where guns are present, not where guns are absent, so I remain unconvinced that more guns would've improved the outcome



That perfectly describes when police end a crime with gunfire or with the threat of using their gun, you think the police shouldn't have guns ?


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Jul 27, 2012)

braddy said:


> That perfectly describes when police end a crime with gunfire or with the threat of using their gun, you think the police shouldn't have guns ?



Redirect to Underground?


"Shooting deaths occur when there are guns" is not a helpful argument, since the sentence merely defines the first two words ("Shooting deaths"), AND requires the assumption of things that can't be made true ("gun free zones"). Sometimes it is easy to argue by making assumptions like that, since people who agree with you have made those assumptions already.

Heck, "Shooting deaths occur where there are guns," "Drownings only happen where nonbreathable things are inhaled," and "House fires only happen with sources of ignition" are just as applicable. These statements are true, and attempt to state a way to achieve something desirable (No shooting deaths, no drownings, no house fire deaths). But I can't think of a reasonable policy that could remove guns, nonbreathable things, or ignition sources, without trampling on the rights of many. Of course, it would be lovely to have some way to keep people who will later do harmful things from getting tools to do so, but _we don't know what people will do in the future._ And since we can't tell them from everyone else, we can only forbid things to most people (Except those who will get guns anyway), or allow them.

The statistics on "Does a higher rate of concealed carry reduce the severity of shooting incidents?" are pretty slim, in my knowledge. Maybe there's plenty more out there, but that would be a topic for one of our sibling forums, like The Underground.


----------



## lightplay22 (Jul 28, 2012)

The only light I would even consider shining at a gunman like this would be a crimson trace laser, probably shined at the gas mask/visor, swiftly followed by a steady trigger pull. 
Its a pretty sure bet that a flashlight would quickly draw a hail of bullets in your general direction which, if your there with your family, would be a very bad thing. The only thing I would use a flashlight for would be to light a path toward the exit.


----------



## Woods Walker (Jul 28, 2012)

I am no navy seal but feel a flashlight should be used to see in the dark not for a defense against a rifle or shotgun.


----------



## redaudi (Jul 29, 2012)

Funny, you never seem to hear of a gun range getting held up or attacked... or a police station, or an armory.

Why?

I personally feel that if there were more guns available and carried, people would be less inclined to use one in the first place.

I guess it seems that ''gun free'' zones seem to be targeted, because it makes for a soft target. Criminals don't care what's legal, and they will have guns wherever they feel like committing crimes. banning guns only serves (in my opinion) to disarm the law abiding and make it harder to defend yourself. 

Personally? I carry. Sign posted that forbids guns at a location? It's a sign, not a cop. concealed is concealed. Only place I don't is govt. buildings. I don't go to schools, so that's a non-issue.


Also, in a situation like the aurora shooter... trying to use a flashlight to take on an active shooter is just advertising yourself as an easily identified target.


----------



## Ezeriel (Jul 29, 2012)

The fact is; we sell guns in this country that there is no way for a person, ninja or armed police officer to defend themselves against. 

If that shooter hadn't surrendered, there would have been cops splattered all over the back lot of that theater as well.


----------



## MichaelW (Jul 29, 2012)

I think it is time for this thread to be closed. The premise is debunked.
In court documents, it was released that this mind control subject was under the care of an Air Force doctor BEFORE the shooting. Total false flag crime by the government. Qui bono


----------



## DanM (Jul 29, 2012)

A year ago Norway lost 98 of its people due to a gun man. Norway also some of the strictest gun laws. In Norway almost all
guns used in crimes were smuggled in.


----------



## fyrstormer (Jul 29, 2012)

redaudi said:


> Funny, you never seem to hear of a gun range getting held up or attacked... or a police station, or an armory.
> 
> Why?


Because they have nothing of value. In any event, police stations and armories DO get attacked routinely during riots and revolutions. So, your premise is flawed.


----------



## fyrstormer (Jul 29, 2012)

DanM said:


> A year ago Norway lost 98 of its people due to a gun man. Norway also some of the strictest gun laws. In Norway almost all
> guns used in crimes were smuggled in.


Good point.



AnAppleSnail said:


> "Shooting deaths occur when there are guns" is not a helpful argument, since the sentence merely defines the first two words ("Shooting deaths"), AND requires the assumption of things that can't be made true ("gun free zones"). Sometimes it is easy to argue by making assumptions like that, since people who agree with you have made those assumptions already.
> 
> Heck, "Shooting deaths occur where there are guns," "Drownings only happen where nonbreathable things are inhaled," and "House fires only happen with sources of ignition" are just as applicable. These statements are true, and attempt to state a way to achieve something desirable (No shooting deaths, no drownings, no house fire deaths). But I can't think of a reasonable policy that could remove guns, nonbreathable things, or ignition sources, without trampling on the rights of many.


You're taking my statement out of context. The first part of my statement, which is apparently the contentious part, was not my argument, it was my premise. Shooting deaths happen where guns are present, not where they are absent -- there is no possible way to dispute this. The_ argument_ I was making is: I'm not convinced more guns being present would've reduced the number of deaths. I don't think there was a way for this scenario to play out without approximately 12 bystanders getting killed.

It was a dark theater, full of flashing lights and loud noises and tear gas and terrified people. Do you really think a good samaritan with a gun would've killed the shooter amidst all the chaos with perfect accuracy and not created any more victims in the process? Do you really think people would've thought "oh, okay, someone's shooting back, I'll just duck behind the seats and wait so I won't get in the way?" Not bloody likely.

The only thing I can think might've helped is if the shooter's gun purchases had been registered, so someone somewhere could've said "hmm, this guy's been buying guns and stuff to make explosives lately, maybe we should swing by and see whether he just has a gopher problem." Whether it's possible to do that without turning the USA into a police state, I don't know -- but given the setting of the attack itself, the fates of the victims were pretty much decided in advance, even if there had been good samaritans with guns present.


----------



## Quiksilver (Jul 29, 2012)

Simple self-evident truth:

> If you want a Gun-Free Zone to be such, you require airport-style security and perimeter security. If you are not willing to do this, then your Gun-Free Zone is not Gun-Free.

As a result, I do not see a valid reason why a good person should obey the rule, since it is easy for a bad person to disobey. 

I'd rather have a "criminal" good person there with a gun in the seat beside me when that thing kicked off, than that same person beside me, with the gun in the glovebox of their vehicle. 

A Gun-Free Zone without adequate border/perimeter security and screening procedure, is at best a mislead and false "feel good" rule. At worst, it could be challenged in civil court as a statement that leads to the unnecessary homicide of many individuals.

Heck, even off-duty cops cannot carry their firearm there.


----------



## Federal LG (Jul 29, 2012)

jamesmtl514 said:


> For those that feel they stand a chance vs this guy wearing a ballistic helmet with what appears to be tinted visor... with only a flashlight in hand....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+1.

It´s ridiculous to think that a powerful flashlight can help you against someone heavy armed/armored. Maybe only if you use it to light your path while trying to escape in the dark cinema room.

Real shootings are very different from what we see in the movies. I lost my count of how many citizens was shot trying to react in a danger situation here in my country, unfortunately. And I work with this every day...

My advice: only people well armed and WELL TRAINED should react. I would love to know that there was a military or a LEO well armed inside that movie theater to engage that son of a b****, but it doesn´t happened... 

My condolences to the americans for that tragic event.


----------



## Quiksilver (Jul 29, 2012)

Federal LG said:


> +1.
> 
> It´s ridiculous to think that a powerful flashlight can help you against someone heavy armed/armored. Maybe only if you use it to light your path while trying to escape in the dark cinema room.
> 
> ...



As if police officers are somehow more proficient with their firearms than civilians are with theirs.


----------



## jmpaul320 (Jul 29, 2012)

if you hit someone in the face with a bright light that was already shooting, it would disorient and surprise them, but if they were already on a shooting rampage wouldnt they just instinctively start shooting in the the direction of the light even if they couldnt see?


----------



## maxtherabbit (Jul 29, 2012)

MichaelW said:


> You might need a big dog light, ala Olight SR51 or better, so you can find the actual perpetrators not just some died hair drugged up patsy.



with unsynchronized eyes no less - they were still synched in the before pics of the sucker...


----------



## fyrstormer (Jul 29, 2012)

Quiksilver said:


> As if police officers are somehow more proficient with their firearms than civilians are with theirs.


Skill is only a small part of the equation, and the pro-carry lobby is willfully ignoring everything else. Ask a cop whether they could maintain focus long enough to aim and shoot accurately in a dark theater, with 100+ people running and screaming and climbing over the chairs and slamming into them as they attempt to escape.

There wasn't a better way for the scenario to play out, unless dumb luck played in favor of the audience. I actually think the audience did get lucky, because the shooter's rifle jammed shortly after he started using it. He could've killed a lot more people with a 100-round clip, if he'd been able to fire them all.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jul 29, 2012)

Yes, this probably should be continued in the Underground. We moved from flashlights to guns pretty fast. which is OT for this thread. Not saying I am against guns, see my username, but we should keep on track, based on the original premise of the thread. Closing this thread.


----------

