Huge Shooting in Colorado

[chevy01234]

http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html


Interesting "conspiracy theory"..

Manchurian Candidate.

That's what came to mind when I read it too!

[Seymore]

I've seen a military ballistics demo on a combat ready vest. They tested .45, 5.56, and 7.62. The close range(10yds) .45 put a pretty good whack on the vest and indented the dummy pretty good. I would say that if you extend that out to even 20-25yds it's still going to put a pretty good jolt into the guy especially if you dump a full mag at once. Weird how that kevlar hardens once it absorbs the energy of the round.

Wonder what 9MM, .40, or .380 would do. Kinda of bring homes the point of carrying as much firepower as one can comfortably carry. I know I couldn't carry any bigger than what I carry just because the weight would cause me more problems. I've got a Sig P238 and have it loaded with the best ammo I can find and carry an extra mag. Don't know that it would have helped any in this situation. Maybe have given some time for wife and kids to get to safety if I had been in that situation. Just hope I never have to confront it.

[SNOT]

http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html


Interesting "conspiracy theory"..

Manchurian Candidate.

That's what came to mind when I read it too!

It was an interesting theory for sure....when I read what happened yesterday I thought it was weird that the guy just went to his car and waited for the cops....seems like these nutjobs normally kill themselves afterwards or keep fighting til the cops kill them. If this whacko starts acting confused and doesn't remember what happened that'll be weird.

[donia]

the article questioning why no one fought back got me thinking ...could there have been a neurotoxin or inhibitor in the gas....he was, after all, studying neuroscience and wasn't it the joker that toyed with gases in the comics?

[tombstone]

nothing would surprise me with this administration. i have read so many conspiracy theories on obama being the manchurian candidate, i freaked myself out

[SFDdelta1]

Here is the radio traffic from the pd and fire on the scene.

http://www.firerescue1.com/mci-mass-cas ... r-rampage/

E

[SFDdelta1]

Unfortunately the shooter was very prepared which puts anyone responding at a huge disadvantage...some sort of tear gas, darkness, explosions, a packed crowd, body armor, and him having a long gun would put anyone at a huge risk engaging him.

I was up this morning watching the news when the story broke and immediately tried to think about how one could react to that situation. I am not a swat team, I am not a police officer, I am not a super expert marksman that is impervious to emotion or adrenaline. I have never been in a situation even remotely similar to that and pray I never am. I would like to think if I was in a position to engage him, at least it would draw fire away from the other people and hopefully persuade him to break off his shooting of innocents and focus on the guy shooting back at him. The catch with that plan is he would turn his superior firepower towards you which would not be good. I have night sights on my carry gun, how much good would that do if my eyes were tearing up and burning from some sort of tear gas? Probably not much. That would really hinder "precision" shots to say the least. I carry a flashlight when I am in dark places (like a movie theater), that would only give him an immediate "shoot the light" reaction. I could not sit by and watch him continue to shoot people though like most folks on here couldn't. It would be very hard to tell he had body armor on but there are other places to shoot someone wearing armor. The pelvic region will break him down instantly if you hit bone plus there are some pretty big arteries running around down there. Once he is down, you keep shooting until he stops moving. The head of course will remove his will to fight quickly but that target area is a small one, especially when you can't see your sights and he is moving/shooting. It would be ideal to flank him and catch him off guard for a shot to the back of the head but you would be shooting back toward the crowd trying to run away and you would stick out like a sore thumb running the opposite way of the crowd in their retreat. I, like anyone else cannot begin to fathom how I would react if in that situation. That is even more of a reason to hit the range and practice under as many circumstances as possible. Low Light/no light drills..failure to stop drills... precision shot drills..shooting while moving drills..shooting from barricaded positions...the list goes on. The only hindrance in that "practice" is the fact that there is no way to replicate the adrenaline dump or FEAR that would certainly come with that situation and as mentioned the addition of chemical agents designed to take your will to fight away. I pray none of us are ever in that situation. I also pray that if I am ever forced into that situation, I would have the composure and courage to run towards the gun fire instead of the natural urge to run away from it. I am not saying that sound heroic or ballsy or even dumb...again, I have no idea how I would react but if I was in a theater full of friends and family members, I could not sit by and let a massacre continue.

This is all coming from a single man with no wife or kids...would my reaction be different if I had a family in tow? Hell yea it would.

Prayers sent for all of those involved in Colorado. It really makes one dig deep into their "plans" and realize how you never stop preparing and learning from situations.

Well thought out Jody. I also hope I would have the courage to move towards the gun fire. I have been in some pretty tight situations but nothing even remotely close to this.

I Guees my thought is do you use cover and try to let the shooter get close before engaging or immediately engage the shooter.

Also who would suspect that body armor much less groin and throat armor. I feel like 3 or 4 rounds of 40 cal hydro shock center mass would have a pretty hard effect on the guy even with body armor.

If you carry a pistol I would suggest finding a range that has a FATS system or something like it. It aynalizes every move you make with your pistol and where all your shots go in a number of situations. I have gotten a lot of out.


E

[davidees]

The timing is very suspicious.

[booger]

Copied and pasted, good read from years ago. A whole lot to read but very informative.

In February 2005, Mark Wilson engaged David Arroyo on the steps of the courthouse in Tyler, Texas. Arroyo was wearing body armor and was armed with a Mak-90 7.62x39mm rifle. While Wilson was able to land hits from his .45 pistol on Arroyo, Arroyo’s body armor stopped them and Arroyo was able to kill Wilson. On the 20th of November, at a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, Dominick Maldonado opened fire on shoppers with a Norinco Mak-90 rifle. Maldonado, who at the age of 20 already had an extensive arrest record, had been taking methamphetamine for five days. He decided to take out his “rage” against the world by shooting complete strangers. A legally armed citizen, Brendan McKown, chose to intervene. He drew his 9mm pistol but did not fire. Instead, he verbally ordered Maldonado to put down his gun. Maldonado responded by firing four rounds into McKown’s torso. McKown survived his wounds but was grievously injured including a hit to the spine which may leave him unable to walk. Both Mark Wilson and Brendan McKown are the finest kind of people, heroes in truest sense. I would be proud to call either man my friend. Nevertheless, both men were shot and did not succeed in stopping the bad guy in their engagement. The good guys got shot and the bad guys walked away.

These incidents raise troubling questions. This is not the way things are supposed to go. The good guys are supposed to come out on top, or at least they shouldn’t lose their lives or become paralyzed. Were these outcomes simply fate, or could things have been done differently and a different outcome obtained? How do our ethics and religious principles affect our tactical decisions? And most importantly, are there lessons which can be learned from these incidents that could improve the outcome of a similar encounter in the future?

Analysis of these two fights runs the risk of criticizing two brave men who I consider to be heroes, and it’s my hope to avoid “Monday morning quarterbacking” although some of that will be necessary. Everything said here is in the context of deepest respect and appreciation for the sacrifices these men made

Firepower

It’s an interesting coincidence that in both of these incidents the bad guy was armed with a Mak-90, a semi-automatic AK-47 clone chambered in 7.62x39mm. This is a formidable weapon. At first glance, it would be easy to say, “Well, duh. Rifle trumps pistol. End of story.” Closer examination, however, would suggest that the rifle versus pistol matching made less difference in the outcome of these incidents than the first glance might suggest. Wilson landed body hits on Arroyo before Wilson was shot but the body armor worn by Arroyo stopped the bullets. A rifle capable of punching through body armor would have been of great benefit to Wilson in countering Arroyo. McKown did not fire his weapon so the comparison of guns is irrelevant. Maldonado was willing to shoot and shoot fast whereas McKown was not. At the range that Wilson first engaged, about 40 to 50 feet, the rifle wielded by Arroyo might have been an advantage, but the fatal shots fired by Arroyo were fired at close range when Arroyo came around the truck behind which Wilson had taken cover. The fatal shots were fired at point blank range. McKown engaged Maldonado at approximately 20 feet; so again, the rifle’s advantage at range is irrelevant.

Ethics and Religious Principles

The issue of ethics and religious principles comes into play at two distinct junctures in these incidents. The first is the deeply felt obligation to defend the innocent and the second is the Christian affirmation of the sanctity of life.

Both of these brave men chose to engage voluntarily. They were not personally under an immediate threat. Mark Wilson was in his apartment when he heard gunfire. His apartment had a clear view of the courthouse steps so he could see what was happening before he grabbed his Colt and went into the street to intervene. McKown was in another shop when he heard gunfire and went toward the sound to try to stop the mayhem. Both men could have opted to stay where they were and would have remained safe, but they chose to do otherwise. A hard-nosed, pragmatic analysis viewed from the perspective of personal survival would say that the wisest course of action would be to take cover and stay safe. Another CCW holder at the Tacoma mall who was there with his family chose to get his family to a safe place behind cover and defend them, but not to engage the crazy shooter. Had I been there with my family, I’m sure that I would have made a similar choice on the basis that my first obligation would be to defend and protect my loved ones.

It is clear in both cases that Wilson and McKown felt a moral obligation to intervene to save the lives of complete strangers, and they did. For guys like McKown and Wilson, simply taking cover and protecting themselves is not an ethically acceptable response. The clearest tactical judgment would tell us to take cover and defend ourselves, but there are times when our ethical convictions supersede our better tactical judgment.

McKown is the progeny of a deeply committed Christian family. His parents are involved in a prison outreach ministry, and he shares their convictions. By his own report, when he looked at the boyish Maldonado, he could not bring himself to take the shot. Instead, he chose to draw his gun and attempt to command Maldonado to drop his gun. (There is some confusion about what happened next. Some reports have McKown re-holstering his pistol and attempting verbal commands. Another report said that when the CZ pistol was found it appeared to have fired one round and then suffered a “double-feed.” McKown’s own report is not clear about this. At one point he says that he couldn’t fire at Maldonado because he looked like a kid and at another point he relates his attempt to crawl after Maldonado after he was shot because “I missed him.”) Maldonado’s response was to spin around and put four rounds into McKown’s torso. McKown’s compassion and respect for human life had prevented him from taking the shot on Maldonado, even though Maldonado was already firing and had shot people. God bless McKown, and I’d love to have him for a next door neighbor. However, the cold tactical analysis would suggest that the most effective course of action would be to take the shot when he had it, and make no attempt to verbally confront or command Maldonado.

Criminal Psychology

For the purposes of this discussion, I will divide those who criminally use firearms into two broad categories: rational criminals and crazy shooters. I am aware that other categories could be suggested such as thrill killers, “crimes of passion” and terrorists, but those aren’t particularly relevant for this analysis. By “rational criminals” I mean the folks whose basic “job” is some kind of crime, such as stick-up guys, burglars and dope dealers. While they may suffer from poor judgment and other character flaws, they are relatively “sane” and rational. They use their firearms as tools of the trade and only employ them to coerce and intimidate others or to defend themselves. These folks tend to react in more or less predictable and rational ways, and their responses can often be anticipated. If they’re cornered and you have the drop on them, they are more likely to surrender and cease their behavior, since, like other rational people, they don’t want to be shot and they know they can go to jail, call their lawyer, and be back out on the street in a few hours. If they aren’t cornered, they will flee – a rational response to the instinct for self-preservation. This is not to say that you should ever let your guard down, but with the rational criminal you have at least a common basis for communication and expectations.

The “crazy shooter” is a different breed of cat. He may be truly psychotic and hallucinating, very high on drugs, or in some other way distressed and no longer operating in a rational framework. His responses cannot be anticipated. He may be insensible to pain because of drugs and/or suicidal. He may be hoping for a “suicide by cop.” The values of the crazy shooter are totally different from those of rational people, and rational people are rarely able to empathize with or understand a crazy shooter without advanced professional training. He is a failed personality who has run out of options. These folks almost never have a realistic exit strategy for the situation because most often they are not really planning to live through the encounter.

Both Maldonado and Arroyo fall into this second category of crazy shooters. Maldonado has a long felony rap sheet and had been taking methamphetamine for five days prior to his shooting spree. Arroyo was perhaps more rational and capable of planning but he was ultimately suicidal. In the midst of a contentious divorce, he went to the courthouse to kill his ex-wife and his own son. He put on body armor which demonstrates planning, but the expectation that he could just get into his pickup and drive away shows that he was not thinking rationally and did not really expect to survive the day. He was stopped by the local police on his way out of town and killed in an exchange of gunfire with them.

When McKown ordered Maldonado to put down his gun, he was relating to Maldonado as if he were a rational criminal, but Maldonado was a crazy shooter, high on methamphetamine, and operating on a set of values which are totally alien to rational people. Our tactics must be appropriate for the adversary we face. It is safe to assume that a person standing in a public place and shooting total strangers is a crazy shooter and will not respond in rational ways. For a rational criminal, just the sight of a gun may dissuade him from further action, although you can’t count on that. With a crazy shooter, an “enemy” to shoot it out with may be just what he’s looking for.

Movement, Cover and Marksmanship

One factor that was present in both cases is that neither Wilson nor McKown were moving at the time they were shot. McKown went into a fixed stance with his gun drawn and issued verbal commands. He was in an open area of the store and there was no hard cover available to him. Wilson went prone behind a pickup. Witness Nelson Clyde III said that Wilson was hit and then went down into the prone position. Arroyo then came around the pickup and delivered the fatal shots. This is a report from a friend of Mark’s, Robert Langham, who viewed the courthouse security camera tape:

“Mark had heard the boom of gunfire from his loft apartment overlooking the Spring Street side of downtown Tyler… A glance out his windows would have shown the scene completely: the gunman advancing, the victims sprawled on concrete. Mark grabbed his Colt, bounded down the staircase to the sidewalk, crossed the corner intersection and sprinted to cover behind the first vehicle on the end of the block… David Arroyo was at that moment stepping forward to finish killing his own son on the courthouse steps… Mark lined up the sights on the gunman’s bulky back. He shot once, perhaps twice. The range is inside 20 yards. Less than 60 seconds had passed since he heard the first shot… Mark Wilson was in street, firing. The courthouse security camera shows Arroyo turning away from his son bleeding on the steps and running back to his truck… On camera, three sheriff deputies in the courthouse door began to fire steadily. Mark shoots again to no effect. The gunman is wearing an army flak jacket over body armor. Pistol shots will not penetrate… Wilson and Arroyo exchange shots across the truck bed popping up and down, perhaps three shots each before Mark falls to the red bricks, face down. Arroyo walks around the end of the truck, steps over him and shoots repeatedly…”

It’s hard to find fault with Mark Wilson’s performance that day from a tactical viewpoint, nor is that my desire. Wilson did almost everything right. It’s tragic that he couldn’t accomplish a head shot, that he didn’t grab a rifle to start with or retreat when Arroyo began to move toward him. If, if, if. If frogs had wings, they wouldn’t bump their butts when they hop. These are the facts and the fact is that Arroyo landed a disabling shot before Wilson did. It should be noted that, against a rifle such as an AK, the bed of a truck is concealment but it is not hard cover. An FMJ 7.62x39mm round will shoot through the bed of a truck.

What Can Be Learned Here?

“The faster you shoot, the less shot you will get.” – Jim Higginbotham
Act decisively. When your internal “go” signal is tripped, don’t hesitate. He who hesitates loses.

Use hard cover when possible. Learn the difference between hard cover and concealment.
“Hard cover” is a barrier that will stop bullets and protect you from incoming fire. “Concealment” is a barrier that hides you from the adversary but does not stop bullets. Weapons like the AK-47 will penetrate most building materials. They will also penetrate car bodies.

Move!
Moving targets are hard to hit. Especially when hard cover is not available, keep moving. Retreat is an honorable strategy. “He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day.” Practice shooting on the move, the faster the better.

Do a “gut check”
Are you really able and willing to pull the trigger on another human being? If you aren’t, don’t draw a gun on someone who is. I have talked to a number of people who choose not to carry a firearm for personal defense. Almost without exception, the reasons given are, “I just don’t think I could do it,” (meaning, “I can’t shoot someone.”), or “It would probably just get me in trouble,” (Meaning, “I don’t feel competent to fight with a firearm.”). I respect that position and I respect that level of self awareness. If that is your personal truth, then find other means and strategies for self-defense. On the other hand, no right thinking human being ever wants to shoot another, and being repelled by the idea does not necessarily mean that one would be incapable of armed self defense faced with a real threat. But in all things, “Know thyself.” Many folks seem to subscribe to a notion that I have come to call “The Magic Talisman” theory of pistolcraft. They seem to believe that somehow simply brandishing a handgun will solve the problem and make the bad guy act right. It might and it might not. The reality is that pistols require skill, training, and self control to employ effectively. If you draw it, be prepared to fire.

“A man’s got to know his limitations.” – Dirty Harry
Despite some of our negative stereotypes about police officers, most police officers have years of specialized training that the rest of us don’t have. Police officers will always appear more tentative than we might like in situations such as the Tacoma mall because they are trained to gather as much information as possible before acting. They know that sometimes bad guys set bombs and lay ambushes. They have to determine how many bad guys there are, their locations, if there are hostages and the locations of possible hostages. Many have seen colleagues fall because they didn’t have adequate information or backup. Armed citizens are not police officers, but sometimes it pays to take a cue from the way law enforcement approaches these kinds of situations.

Know what you can do. Know what your gun can do. Know what you can do with your gun. A fight is a terrible venue for new product testing.

Practice hard shots
Practice shooting from weird positions. Practice weak hand shooting. Practice for head shots. Practice on moving targets if possible. Practice malfunction clearances. Practice emergency reloads. Practice everything. Practice a lot. Get some training. Ammo is cheap and Murphy is alive and well.

Be flexible.
If what you are doing isn’t working, do something else.

“When going to a gunfight, take a long gun and a friend with a long gun.”
Pistols are close quarters self-defense weapons. All pistols are a trade-off of performance for convenience. When you go on the offensive, i.e., attack, all of the shortcomings of the pistol come into play with a vengeance – puny ballistics, limited firepower, limited range and difficulty in achieving accuracy quickly. Despite the silly propaganda from the gun grabbers, no pistols are “assault weapons.” If they were we wouldn’t bother with equipping our soldiers with rifles and machine guns

[Seymore]

Never fear. Obama is stopping by today for a 2 1/2 hour photo op with the families to show how much he cares before going on to San Francisco for campaigning Monday which was already scheduled. How convenient. Not advocating any conspiracy theory but it just real crawls my skin that this bozo is going to use a time of grief and sorrow to pander to the cameras.

As a side note, I read where nobody is rattling the gun control cage due to political fallout. Many Democrats believe gun control lost the election for Gore and lost the House the last election. Recent polls show that those who are in favor of gun control has fallen from over 70% a few years ago to a little over 50% today. The head of The Brady Campaign was quoted in the article as stating that sometimes is was necessary to do the unpopular thing politically for the greater good. The article further stated that as a whole the number of violent crimes in the US has dropped drastically. It went on to say that no candidate wants to be seen as running afoul of the NRA. Especially those in rural areas where guns are a way of life.

Google gun control after Colorado and the usual cast of character from the liberal media are screaming for it. You will see a few article showing what I mentioned. Wish I could find that article again. I was on my home page sometime yesterday.

[farmerc83]

May not be the same article you read, Seymore, but this one made many of the same points. There may not be a push to ban "assault weapons" because of this, but there will be a lot of calls to ban high capacity mags. One has to wonder tho, with the number of hi cap mags bought since the expiration of the Clinton ban in 2004, how much good would banning them now do in the near future?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07 ... -gun-laws/

[tombstone]

I have seen the california bank robber video at least fifty times. I am compelled to watch it. It is like a train wreck i have to stare at. Those guys are absolutely unphased by the hits to the body armor.

[Buckwabit]

I have seen the california bank robber video at least fifty times. I am compelled to watch it. It is like a train wreck i have to stare at. Those guys are absolutely unphased by the hits to the body armor.

Didn't the autopsy prove they had a major amount of Drugs in their systems and that's why they were in phased to the shooting. I swear I remember reading that somewhere...

[donia]

Didn't the autopsy prove they had a major amount of Drugs in their systems and that's why they were in phased to the shooting. I swear I remember reading that somewhere...

The North Hollywood shooters were doped up on Phenobarbetol which was a big reason the rounds didn't phase them..They were very relaxed and their pain receptors were dulled.

[Buckwabit]

A head shot would have proved their tolerances to pain and death. Case closed