Skip to comments.Disarmed Citizens Became Helpless Victims in Colorado Shooting
Posted on 07/20/2012 2:08:36 PM PDT by jmstein7
The fatal shootings in Colorado today underscore the dangerous consequences of so-called "gun control." Had but one - ONE - citizen in the the theater been lawfully armed, this tragedy could have been avoided. Instead, as a result of gun control, and those who peddle this dangerous - and unconstitutional - policy, an entire theater full of disarmed citizens were left defenseless - victims. This is an outrage.
Take notice that these crimes do not happen in Right-to-Carry states, such as Texas... it simply does not happen. The point is well conceded - by real statistics - that Right-to-Carry states have significantly lower rates of total violent crime (by 26 percent), murder (31 percent), robbery (50 percent!), and aggravated assault (15 percent). Armed citizens are safe citizens. Armed families are safe families. The proof is in the numbers.
The upshot to today's shootings should be vocal demands that our Federal and State governments STOP disarming us and let us defend ourselves! It is our constitutional RIGHT.
Call your local and state officials and DEMAND that our right to self defense, the right to bear arms, be preserved so that such tragedies can be avoided.
Colorado is a “right to carry” State.
*** Had but one - ONE - citizen in the the theater been lawfully armed, this tragedy could have been avoided.***
I doubt that. He had on body armor head to toe. An armed citizen shooting back might have shook him up so he might have missed a few. Now, if the citizen had a .30 Tokarev or a FN 5.7 mm he might have gotten through some of the armor.
Cinemark needs to be sued into the ground. Only way they’re going to get the message about their act of reckless endangerment.
It might have helped, but consider the guy had ballastic armor over most of his body. It would have required a face/head shot to take him down - very difficult for a hand gun in a dark/smokey theatre with chaos ensuing around you. Still, getting hit by return fire could have thrown the guy into a panic of his own and caused him to retreat earlier than he did.
“Take notice that these crimes do not happen in Right-to-Carry states, such as Texas...”
Yes they do. A simple web search would tell you otherwise.
The proper point to make is that violent crime is indeed lower and there is a better chance that a gunman’s shooting spree will be cut short in a right to carry state, but saying they don’t happen is just plain wrong.
Except for that, nice rant.
Explain ... all information I find is "shall issue".
If more folks had been carrying, this would have played out VERY differently. IF it was KNOWN that more folks carried in places like this, it might not have happened at all...
We can "might" and "maybe" this all day long. We KNOW that we cannot take our safety for granted. We KNOW we have the tools to help protect ourselves. We KNOW that factions in our government want us vulnerable and dependent on them.
Do not let them divide us. Do not give up your Rights. Demand that victim disarmament laws be stricken from the books. Do it now...
I hope you are being sarcastic...if not, why does Cinemark have any blame here?? The blame needs to be placed 100% on the killer..no one else..
One reason why this country is so dang screwed up..lawyers and frivilous lawsuits.
I hear you, but body armor isn’t a personal defense shield: there are gaps and weak spots. This is why they don’t test it by standing in a hail of bullets.
Inside leg, armpit, eyes, inside hand, gun, waistband - just fire enough and you might get a lucky hit.
Plus he’s not a grizzly bear: impact from a few hits might have knocked him down or spun him round.
You get no arguement from me, and I think I echoed your points. Screw the gun grabbers on this one.
Why did no-one in that cinema have a gun?
Fun fact which will be discovered at trial: it wasn't Jamie Holmes who prevented a huge crowd of Americans from being able to defend themselves. It was Cinemark.
We can discuss ballistic kevlar until we're blue in the face but the plain fact is that the shooter didn't need body armor. Cinemark disarmed his targets.
Ironically, when unarmed citizens are rendered helpless because of restrictive gun laws as in the Aurora outrage, the gun control lobby seizes upon it as evidence that the citizenry needs even more restrictive gun laws. In the mean time, criminals, oblivious to gun laws, continue to arm themselves to prey upon defenseless victims.
Yes, those ‘gun-free zones’ really stop these crazed shooters!
How did he get an AR in there?.....all that garb he had on? I think overal length has to be 26”.
There are reports he propped open an exit door, ran to his car, got the munitions, and came back in that way.
I’ve been in some theaters where the exit leads outside, and doesn’t go through the lobby.
Shoot him in the head, neck, legs, crotch, arms, anywhere would have stopped him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.