Ca Patriot
Regular Member
this could lead to an open carry ban in california
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
BREAKING NEWS: At Least 10 Dead, 20 Hurt in Aurora Colorado Shooting Spree
- Thread starter M-Taliesin
- Start date
twpetry
Regular Member
Agreed and many riot helmet are not ballistic rated. The ones that are can be restricted to civilians in some states, but it is against the law for a felon to possess Body Armor under both federal law (unless required by your employer, see, Sec. 931) Many stores require police or military ID to purchase their products and the BlackHawk company for example wont sell you their ballistic product regardless if your not Military or an police officer.
Kevlar Helmets offer good ballistic protection from Fragmentation and most pistol caliber threats which is why you see most military and SWAT teams in helmets. An even more common reason for helmets is blunt trauma protection from impact with walls, vehicles, clubs, fists, etc., etc. But please be aware that your head is much more susceptible to blunt trauma than your body. ANY impact of a bullet on a helmet WILL CAUSE INJURY AND CAN CAUSE DEATH. You put the odds more in your favor with head protection, but (as with ANY armor) no guarantee of invulnerability can be made. Of course blunt trauma is usually preferable to the alternative!
Last edited:
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
DING! DING! DING! DING!
I believe that if just one person (wanna be hero, for you cowards) was able to get a few shots at the guy, the attack would have ended much sooner. I haven't done a study, but the strong impression I get from shootings I've seen and read about is when GG start shooting back at BG many (probably most) times they try to run.
The idea that the BG would take a few rounds in the vest and calmly mow you down is ridiculous, un-backable, anti's crap.
SFCRetired
Regular Member
1. Continuing prayers for the dead and wounded and their families in this horrible circumstance.
2. I'm not a hero and I most definitely do not want to die. But, I firmly believe that, had I been armed and in that theater, I would have tried like Hell to fight through the tear gas (yes, it can be done unless it is some of the more powerful stuff) and at least distract this maniac long enough for others to escape. Yes, I would probably have died in the attempt, but better this old man who has lived his life than one of the many young people and children killed and wounded.
3. Rifle vs. handgun: Several years back, a man started shooting people with a rifle outside, if I remember right, a courthouse. A witness, armed with a handgun, fired on him. It cost the handgunner his life, but, in the words of the county sheriff, he saved many more lives. Again, I am not a hero, but I hope I would have it in me to do the right thing.
4. I do not believe there is a man or woman on this forum who, after having made sure their own family was safe, would not have attempted to engage the bg at least enough to distract him and let others escape.
2. I'm not a hero and I most definitely do not want to die. But, I firmly believe that, had I been armed and in that theater, I would have tried like Hell to fight through the tear gas (yes, it can be done unless it is some of the more powerful stuff) and at least distract this maniac long enough for others to escape. Yes, I would probably have died in the attempt, but better this old man who has lived his life than one of the many young people and children killed and wounded.
3. Rifle vs. handgun: Several years back, a man started shooting people with a rifle outside, if I remember right, a courthouse. A witness, armed with a handgun, fired on him. It cost the handgunner his life, but, in the words of the county sheriff, he saved many more lives. Again, I am not a hero, but I hope I would have it in me to do the right thing.
4. I do not believe there is a man or woman on this forum who, after having made sure their own family was safe, would not have attempted to engage the bg at least enough to distract him and let others escape.
Medic1210
Regular Member
How many MASS Shootings have you seen or read about where this has happened? I'm not talking about the thugs trying to rob an Internet cafe being shot at by a 71 y/o guy, I'm talking about the pre-meditated, planned execution of many.
Ridiculous to think eh? You don't know what he would have done, so to say he wouldn't mow you down is just as ridiculous to think. I guess it's fortunate for him you weren't at that theater.
Gil223
Regular Member
BATFE Sings The "Company Song", acompanied by the full Media Chorus
This is a truly tragic incident, which could possibly have been minimized by the presence of one or more law-abiding armed theatergoers. As it stands, it was the proverbial "fish in a barrel" time for James Holmes. Of the interviews that the media made available, the one that stuck with me was
Yeah, it was probably a "black gun"... but I seriously doubt that it was capable of full-auto operation (which is the generally accepted standard of distinction between a sporting rifle and an "assault rifle"). But "assault rifle" has a more ominous, deadlier, more chaotic sound to it than simply calling it a "rifle", and that's what the gun-grabbers want the ignorant, uninformed general public to believe - that there is a proliferation of fully-automatic weapons, readily available on any street corner to anybody who wants one. Striking unsubstantiated fear into the hearts and minds of the uninformed, is how the gun-grabbers expand their support base. And, make no mistake about it, the current administration is in bed with the left-wing, anti-gun, anti-American activists. The BATF doesn't define the term "assault weapon" (that I could ascertain, anyway), but there are several dictionary definitions - at least one of which includes semi-automatic rifles (I have to assume , since it wasn't specified, that they mean to include those semi-auto rifles without select fire capability).
Just one more example of the left-wing, lamestream media supporting anything the left-wing Administration desires - even when the government desires to corrupt the Constitution. Pax...
P.S. I am not of a religious bent, but nonetheless, here's a short Voter's Prayer -
Dear (insert your favorite Supreme Being here),
Please save us from demonstrating our stupidity - again - during the upcoming Presidential election. Thanks so much!
This is a truly tragic incident, which could possibly have been minimized by the presence of one or more law-abiding armed theatergoers. As it stands, it was the proverbial "fish in a barrel" time for James Holmes. Of the interviews that the media made available, the one that stuck with me was
They seem to trot out that old, tattered and shop-worn "assault rifle" plum at every opportunity.
Yeah, it was probably a "black gun"... but I seriously doubt that it was capable of full-auto operation (which is the generally accepted standard of distinction between a sporting rifle and an "assault rifle"). But "assault rifle" has a more ominous, deadlier, more chaotic sound to it than simply calling it a "rifle", and that's what the gun-grabbers want the ignorant, uninformed general public to believe - that there is a proliferation of fully-automatic weapons, readily available on any street corner to anybody who wants one. Striking unsubstantiated fear into the hearts and minds of the uninformed, is how the gun-grabbers expand their support base. And, make no mistake about it, the current administration is in bed with the left-wing, anti-gun, anti-American activists. The BATF doesn't define the term "assault weapon" (that I could ascertain, anyway), but there are several dictionary definitions - at least one of which includes semi-automatic rifles (I have to assume , since it wasn't specified, that they mean to include those semi-auto rifles without select fire capability).
Just one more example of the left-wing, lamestream media supporting anything the left-wing Administration desires - even when the government desires to corrupt the Constitution. Pax...
P.S. I am not of a religious bent, but nonetheless, here's a short Voter's Prayer -
Dear (insert your favorite Supreme Being here),
Please save us from demonstrating our stupidity - again - during the upcoming Presidential election. Thanks so much!
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
According what I've heard here you are pretty wrong. A few people claim they wouldn't. A few more criticize those that say they would.
I promise you this, I would much rather die trying to stop a lunatic than die cowering in the corner hoping he shoots someone else instead of me or shot in the back running away.
Gil223
Regular Member
I'm guessing your statement is meant sarcastically, since that ship sailed some time ago in CA, and you apparently live there? Pax...
paramedic
Regular Member
I really thought that through your training, that you would know even if someone is wearing body armor, that they would go down if struck. The armor just keeps the bullets from entering the body, not from causing multiple injuries. I guess you have never had to respond to an officer that has been struck in the vest.
davidmcbeth
Banned
They're slipping ! Should be "high powered assault rifle".
What should happen due to this incident: nothing
These are going to happen; like people driving cars into buildings. SCOTUS realized this in its Heller ruling.
If the guns are SO dangerous, then police cannot be trusted with them either.
paramedic
Regular Member
I could not have said it better myself, even though I have been trying:banghead:
Ca Patriot
Regular Member
I was being partly sarcastic. Open carry of handguns was banned and now the legislature has a bill pending to ban open carry of long guns. I am guessing this shooting will be used to justify the long gun open carry ban.
I only live in CA part time. I moved my residency to a more free state last year.
Medic1210
Regular Member
Seriously? There are more than a few dashcam videos that prove your definitive statement wrong. I have seen many take several rounds to the vest only to retreat enough to draw and return fire. As for my experience and training, I have been a paramedic for a long time, and been around the block more than a time or two. I'm not some cocky rookie who's still wet behind the ears and thinks he knows everything. BTw, what part of your paramedic class did they go over bullet proof vests, and how people react when hit in one? Is that part of the D.O.T. National curriculum nowadays?
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
hmmm.... I wonder how many people could have made it to safety if this assclown was forced to retreat even a little for a short time....
Let's see today I OC'd a Sig 9mm with a 17rd clip in it...and one spare.... Let's say for the sake of argument someone with such a firearm started firing on this schmuck.... you really think he would be totally and completely unaffected? Projectiles bounce harmlessly off his force field without so much as a distraction....right.
Ca Patriot
Regular Member
I would have thought there would have been more killed given number of shot and weapons used.
The VT shooter only had handguns and he killed almost 3 times as many people with much fewer hit.
I am wondering if many of those shot in CO were hit with shotgun pellets.
The AR with the 100 rd mag should have killed about 30 people by itself.
The VT shooter only had handguns and he killed almost 3 times as many people with much fewer hit.
I am wondering if many of those shot in CO were hit with shotgun pellets.
The AR with the 100 rd mag should have killed about 30 people by itself.
KYGlockster
Activist Member
Of course he had an AR-15. This UN ATT is much more important than many on here think, and the fact that 58 Senators stated they would not ratify the treaty did not set well with the administration. Is it not odd that all of these shootings have happened under Obama's watch, and with Fast and Furious to add to it all, it seems like more than a coincidence. This happens 2 weeks before senate ratification vote on the ATT, Cong. Gifford shooting happened while Fast and Furious was in operation, etc., and we now have e-mails stating that the whole motive for F&F was to demonize the 2A! The government will do whatever they can to demonize our firearms and right to own and bear them, and I find it absurd. We have had all these good citizens in the news lately that have used their firearms to save lives, and it does not help their cause. Obviously something had to be done to demonize our guns again. The good news is that the majority of the population have seen past the lies and scare tactics, and know the truth when it comes to crime and gun ownership.
I feel deep sorrow for those that have lost their lives and the families who will now have to deal with the pain of losing their loved ones. I just wish someone had been carrying a firearm in that theater so they could have prevented this madness.
Last edited:
"Holmes told the officers arresting him that he was "The Joker," http://gma.yahoo.com/colorado-batma...d-student-085940589--abc-news-topstories.html
This guy was out there!
This guy was out there!
KYGlockster
Activist Member
You think this is random? They didn't succeed in AZ, they had to try again.