Media Quiet About San Antonio Theater Shooting

[Brainiac]

On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!

Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you’d like to know.

Agenda revealed! If you had any doubts that the media was pushing for this and who their masters were, doubt no longer. This is spooky. Alot of what you read in the ‘conspiracy world’ is bull but there IS alot of truth too.. You just have to sort out the facts yourself. -Mort

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...g-2524596.html

[notorious]

AR-15 5.56:



AK-47 7.62x39:




I will search for the webpage that has all calibers. It is really interesting stuff.

[notorious]

Here it is:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

.45 ACP



5.56/.223




They aren't even close. .45 has one advantage in which it has less of a chance to travel through more walls to hit a loved one.

[Aries Walker]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

This is where this 'study' is flawed. Look at the Portland Mall Shooting for example:

http://now.msn.com/nick-meli-who-had...on-mall-killer

That is from an MSNBC source.

Okay, this guy again. Again, the gunman did not see the citizen and immediately kill himself; he ran down the hallway, considered shooting a stockboy, for whatever reason didn't, and then shot himself. Also, we only have the citizen's word for it that the gunman might have even seen him at all - he was behind a pillar, remember. I would put this as a "maybe".

However, you do have a point - how many shootings were stopped by return fire doesn't include how many were stopped by the threat of a brandished weapon. Now, I could go through the link and count how many fit that qualification, but I have a feeling it would just be met with "Well, how many shootings were stopped completely by civilians brandishing weapons, and so didn't even make that dude's list?"

That leads do my next question: What do you want? Do you want weapons everywhere? If so, it's entirely legal and possible for every movie theater and restaurant to hire an off-duty cop to stand guard already, so that's not the question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the solution you're proposing is to have so many armed civilians haunting every public place at all times, that any crazed killer will a) have no easy targets, and b) meet armed resistance immediately upon launching his infernal plan.

I think this is a terrifying concept, because of the implications. Even the most well-meaning armed citizen - likely without the proper training or authority - would most likely cause far more damage than he prevents. The Aurora theater shooting is a perfect example: Imagine one, or two, or a half dozen theatergoers firing back at the gunman in that situation. They would have been taken by surprise, firing at a full armored assailant with no morals or limits on his actions, with other people in the seats ahead of them, all in smokey darkness in the middle of the night. Meanwhile, the police would show up and be confronted with not one gunman, but many.

It would also mean, quite obviously, guns everywhere. The nature of firearms is that they make killing easy; A man could stab someone to death with a pocket knife, but hand him a .45, and he could kill lots of people, quickly, at range, with much less energy expended. This is the wisdom behind the gun-free zones: the more firearms there are in any given population, the more chances are that they will be used, as people have their Falling Down moments. What would otherwise be an awful day at work, or a painful breakup, or an argument over a jacket, would become a shooting spree as the gunman simply snaps.

The thinking behind this is basic human nature. Too often in this debate, things get over simplified as good and evil; people refer to "bad guys" on shooting sprees, and "good guys" with guns to stop them. The fact of the matter is that humanity is not that black and white. All of us, you and me, have it in ourselves to become heroes when given something to fight for, and villains when our systems can't handle the load. People who are one sometimes become the other. This is a complex and stressful society, and people will and do snap; guns in their hands means they will do more damage when they do.

Both sides could produce anecdotal evidence all day long, but most of the armed interventions of potential spree shooters are carried out by professionals, and that is how it should be. Vigilante guardianship by armed civilians is a plea for disaster. History, statistics, and common sense all tell us that an armed society is not a polite society, it is the Wild West.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

Okay, this guy again. Again, the gunman did not see the citizen and immediately kill himself; he ran down the hallway, considered shooting a stockboy, for whatever reason didn't, and then shot himself. Also, we only have the citizen's word for it that the gunman might have even seen him at all - he was behind a pillar, remember. I would put this as a "maybe".

However, you do have a point - how many shootings were stopped by return fire doesn't include how many were stopped by the threat of a brandished weapon. Now, I could go through the link and count how many fit that qualification, but I have a feeling it would just be met with "Well, how many shootings were stopped completely by civilians brandishing weapons, and so didn't even make that dude's list?"

That leads do my next question: What do you want? Do you want weapons everywhere? If so, it's entirely legal and possible for every movie theater and restaurant to hire an off-duty cop to stand guard already, so that's not the question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the solution you're proposing is to have so many armed civilians haunting every public place at all times, that any crazed killer will a) have no easy targets, and b) meet armed resistance immediately upon launching his infernal plan.

I think this is a terrifying concept, because of the implications. Even the most well-meaning armed citizen - likely without the proper training or authority - would most likely cause far more damage than he prevents. The Aurora theater shooting is a perfect example: Imagine one, or two, or a half dozen theatergoers firing back at the gunman in that situation. They would have been taken by surprise, firing at a full armored assailant with no morals or limits on his actions, with other people in the seats ahead of them, all in smokey darkness in the middle of the night. Meanwhile, the police would show up and be confronted with not one gunman, but many.

It would also mean, quite obviously, guns everywhere. The nature of firearms is that they make killing easy; A man could stab someone to death with a pocket knife, but hand him a .45, and he could kill lots of people, quickly, at range, with much less energy expended. This is the wisdom behind the gun-free zones: the more firearms there are in any given population, the more chances are that they will be used, as people have their Falling Down moments. What would otherwise be an awful day at work, or a painful breakup, or an argument over a jacket, would become a shooting spree as the gunman simply snaps.

The thinking behind this is basic human nature. Too often in this debate, things get over simplified as good and evil; people refer to "bad guys" on shooting sprees, and "good guys" with guns to stop them. The fact of the matter is that humanity is not that black and white. All of us, you and me, have it in ourselves to become heroes when given something to fight for, and villains when our systems can't handle the load. People who are one sometimes become the other. This is a complex and stressful society, and people will and do snap; guns in their hands means they will do more damage when they do.

Both sides could produce anecdotal evidence all day long, but most of the armed interventions of potential spree shooters are carried out by professionals, and that is how it should be. Vigilante guardianship by armed civilians is a plea for disaster. History, statistics, and common sense all tell us that an armed society is not a polite society, it is the Wild West.

There is almost NOTHING worthwhile or correct in this post. I'll properly rebut it later, right now I am far too hungover and busy making Hopping John . I will however take the time now to point to one ignorant idea that you promote here that I have seen before and really bugs the shit out of me. Body armor is not some sort of magic shield that will make bullets bounce off a person. If I shot the Aurora shooter with a .45 2 or 3 times he would go down. PERIOD. The armor MAY protect him from any serious injury but it sure as shit isn't going to somehow break the laws of physics and keep him from being impacted. The concept that the body armor would somehow nullify any armed response is not just ignorant, it's ****ing stupid.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by notorious

Here it is:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

.45 ACP



5.56/.223




They aren't even close. .45 has one advantage in which it has less of a chance to travel through more walls to hit a loved one.

It depends on the situation you are in. In close quarters the 45 is very effective, also a shoulder shot is a knock down shot with a 45. Your research leaves much to be desired~

[RNR]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

There is almost NOTHING worthwhile or correct in this post. I'll properly rebut it later, right now I am far too hungover and busy making Hopping John . I will however take the time now to point to one ignorant idea that you promote here that I have seen before and really bugs the shit out of me. Body armor is not some sort of magic shield that will make bullets bounce off a person. If I shot the Aurora shooter with a .45 2 or 3 times he would go down. PERIOD. The armor MAY protect him from any serious injury but it sure as shit isn't going to somehow break the laws of physics and keep him from being impacted. The concept that the body armor would somehow nullify any armed response is not just ignorant, it's ****ing stupid.

You gave it more than it was worth~

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

I created a thread about this in the main forum the day it happened. It never gained much traction at the time. Dec. 17th. and yes, it did make alot of national news outlets like Drudge for a day or two.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...ential+theater

Thread over.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

This is where this 'study' is flawed. Look at the Portland Mall Shooting for example:

http://now.msn.com/nick-meli-who-had...on-mall-killer

That is from an MSNBC source.

In these cases, even being CONFRONTED causes these guys to kil themselves. They would rather have the control and kill themselves rather than fight back against armed resistance or take the chance of humiliation by being taken into custody. This is why they CHOOSE to do these rampages in weapon free zones.

"These" cases? I am unaware of a wave of mass-killing gunmen who kill themselves in the presence of a civilian who is armed, or who kill themselves prior to a gunfight altogether.

[Aries Walker]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

There is almost NOTHING worthwhile or correct in this post. I'll properly rebut it later, right now I am far too hungover and busy making Hopping John . I will however take the time now to point to one ignorant idea that you promote here that I have seen before and really bugs the shit out of me. Body armor is not some sort of magic shield that will make bullets bounce off a person. If I shot the Aurora shooter with a .45 2 or 3 times he would go down. PERIOD. The armor MAY protect him from any serious injury but it sure as shit isn't going to somehow break the laws of physics and keep him from being impacted. The concept that the body armor would somehow nullify any armed response is not just ignorant, it's ****ing stupid.

I don't see in there anywhere where I say that a body-armored assailant is going to be invulnerable to harm. I know full well that it doesn't turn him in to , but it does provide protection that the average (in this case) theatergoer would not have.

I look forward to your full rebuttal. I hope your hangover eases up soon.

[demonhero]

Nope, we like to shoot through the fleeing civilians you would see in Iraq and hit the jihads while on patrol .

[notorious]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

It depends on the situation you are in. In close quarters the 45 is very effective, also a shoulder shot is a knock down shot with a 45. Your research leaves much to be desired~

Absolutely.

A thief will thank you for knocking him down with a .45 ACP. He won't be doing anything but taking a dirt nap if shot with a 5.56 from that range.


Here are some photos of a .223 hitting a criminal's leg.

NSFW

http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=17111.0

[rockymtnchief]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/c...icle-1.1121161

With a single exception, every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms.

Nor have I found a single example on record of a multiple-victim public shooting in which a permit holder accidentally shot a bystander.

http://marquettetribune.org/2012/02/...es-study-says/

The authors also said concealed carry policies on college campuses lead to a reduction in crime, using two Colorado schools as test cases. After the state enacted its concealed carry law in 2003, Colorado State University decided to allow students to carry concealed weapons while the University of Colorado prohibited them. The report found a 60 percent decrease in crime at Colorado State since 2004, while the University of Colorado saw a 35 percent increase during the same time period.

[demonhero]

I hope you guys understand that the 5.56 round destroys the body like a person trying to get out of a corn maze before it makes an exit wound.

[rockymtnchief]

Originally Posted by demonhero

I hope you guys understand that the 5.56 round destroys the body like a person trying to get out of a corn maze before it makes an exit wound.

No doubt.

I knew this would be a touchy subject. I'll just say that I don't want to be shot by either.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by rockymtnchief

No doubt.

I knew this would be a touchy subject. I'll just say that I don't want to be shot by either.

Yes.