Would an armed person have changed the results in Aurora?

[R/T Hemi]

This thread is typical of many making their way around the internet. Typically, they appear at boards where gun ownership is looked at as a social disease. They scream about how bad guns are and how lucky we are to have police willing to risk their lives to save us in such situations. I find that a little naive. Cops are brave, they are welcome sight when you're in a bad situation. But the reality is, the cops showed up 1 minute and 30+ seconds after the shooting started in Aurora. They did not rush in and stop the shooting. No one can blame them for that, after all, it takes a little while to assess the situation and determine what's really happening, then form a plan of action and the execute it. Regardless, the shooting was over by then. Hence this question.

Would an armed member of the audience have changed the Aurora outcome? Monday morning quarterback thread.

Here's the facts. It's dark in the threater. It's also crowded. A gunman enters through a door near the screen area. He tosses some kind of a device that makes smoke, it may be tear gas, it may be a smoke device. You don't know. He may, by some accounts, be wearing a ballestic jacket, others called it a shooting jacket (lots of pokets and pouches). He's bacically armed with an assault type rifle and instantly begins shooting into the audience. Shot after shot after shot. People panic, scream, run. It's a mad house.

One person is sittingin the audience with a CC permit and a Glock. He's a trained and practiced marksman. His family and friends are also in the theatre with him.

The shooting continues for 2 minutes. It seemed like an eternity. Some repotrts state that the theatre held 75 people, and it was full. Other reports say it held up to 200. in either case, the percentage of people who bacame victims is quite high.

Our guy with the Glock sees what's happening. He assess the situation. He feels there is no means to safely escape, he's faced with hiding and hoping he and his family aren't hit, or, taking action.

What should he do?

[stebo0728]

I think there is another aspect to be considered here. Certainly there is the question as to what effect an armed person in the crowd would have had against the assailant. Thats a valid question, and the answer may in face be that the result would have been the same. But lets consider another question.

What if the assailant had to take a risk that someone would be armed in his target crowd? In other words, what if CC law already allowed for there to be any number of armed individuals inside the theater? The presumption here, is that current CC law emboldens criminals, they know that the risk is very low that anyone will be violating CC law and be armed, therefore their chances of being retaliated against are low. What if that presumption was off the table? What if an assailant had to take a very real risk as to how armed his victims would be? Would it have changed his plans? Well maybe not, its possible that he was off his rocker anyway, and would have done this regardless of whether 50 cal's were mounted at the ticket booth. But how about assailants that ARE of a higher sanity? Would looser CC law reduce the amount of actual attacks and robberies? I tend to believe yes.

[bigbadberry3]

Too many what ifs on either side.

[ImStricken06]

WAAAAAAY to many variables to answer this question honestly, and in a way that makes sense.

lets put it this way, this dirt bag knew he was choosing a movie theater that was a "gun free safe zone". he knew the chances of return fire were slim to non. thats certainly a possibility why he chose to basically 'corner' his victims.

back to the OP'S QUESTION: "Would an armed person have changed the results in Aurora?"

as much as id love to be like "ya, i told you so, the dirt-bag wouldnt have killed as many, see - we conservatives are right, blaa blaa blaa"... i simply cant say that.
It all depends on so many variables. and iv tossed this around in my head a few times already. you have so many elements of the movie theater that makes for a really tense shooting environment: 1)dark 2)noisy) 3)lots of people) 4)elevation 5)flickering light 6)distance 7)element of surprise 8)thin isles 9)stairs = for the major ones. The movie theater is a death trap - if you really look at it from a tactical stand-point of view. Plus he was almost flush with the screen, so he is in the darkest spot of the movie theater if you think about it.

i drew a picture depicting what i think it looked liked. the green triangles are really the only spots that could have had a good shot. very few, and limited - and frankly... I DONT THINK MUCH WOULD HAVE BEEN CHANGED HAD THERE BEEN PEOPLE CARRYING WEAPONS THERE. The first thing anyone who carries would have done is dropped to the floor and shielded their loved ones. then possibly thought about taking a shot. but with someone shooting a round off, almost every second - it wouldnt have given anyone time to even risk sticking your head up.


To many things going against the victims. too many variables. to many people. to short of a time. he didnt move around much. he was in the darkest spot of the movie theater.
did he shoot the first few rows first? if not - that would have given the front row time to return fire.
did he come in with guns pointed to the air like a rambo type, to announce his presence?
did he only shoot at the stairs? did he shoot at the isles?

[themadscientist]

As someone who carries when stateside this is my take. You have a dark theatre, smoke, screaming people running around and too much uncertainty to do much. If I'm in the middle of the crowd of course I draw my weapon, but mission one is to determine the nearest exit and the location of the shooter. I would shield my wife and steer her towards the exit while trying to keep the shooter in sight. If I had a clean shot at him I would take it, but I'm 5'10" and I doubt in that situation I would have an unobstructed shot. I wouldn't want to hit an innocent person.

I would like to think I would move towards the guy to get that clean shot and that like every trip to the range those shots would hit where I intended them to, but nobody can be 100% sure of what they will do until the situation goes down. I'm not going to pound on my chest and say I'd be some badass. The only thing I have complete certainty of is getting my wife out of there.

[Bubba1]

I'm sure there are some "Eugene Tackleberry" types that would say yes, but there were too many things working against an armed good samaritan making it an unwise decision jump in. Think about it, it was dark, smokey, crowded, chaotic, and the wacko was wearing body armor. I would think the first priority would be to protect those around you by helping them escape or hide.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJdmnMtpAwI[/youtube]

[IBCoupe]

You guys have redeemed my faith in humanity. From a response to the very argument we're talking about I wrote up elsewhere:

Why is the assumption that it's always better to have the bullets travel only in one direction - from the killer towards his victims?

I don't always assume that. Consider this: he chose his target well. It was the darkest, most cramped, and most crowded place in Denver that night.

I specifically did not argue that a "few" bullets traveling in the opposite direction will always make things worse. I specifically discussed the realities of this case, and specifically pointed out how the facts here affected the analysis.

Picture yourself in a completely packed movie theater. Between the two armrests on either side of you, you have use of a cumulative one, if you're lucky. You have just enough space in front of you to cross your legs. Maybe the kid behind you is kicking your seat. Now imagine there's a gunshot. From the time that first shot is fired, how much time do you think it takes for everyone in front of, beside, and behind you to stand up.

So the crowd's in a panic. Probably some people are still seated, some have dived (or fallen) to the floor, blocking aisleways. But I'm sure many people are trying to escape. Now tell me, what can you see of the shooter, who is located towards the right side of the theater, beneath the screen? How much effort does it take to draw your firearm? How much space do you have to take aim? With people stumbling over each other in the narrow aisles between rows, occasionally being shot, how is it that you think you can get any shots off, let alone one that has a hope of hitting the assailant, instead of one of his targets? My guess: he was hoping someone in the audience was armed.

This guy was smart: he chose this target in particular. He booby-trapped his apartment, and set his radio to an alarm that would blare electronic dance music on repeat, rousing his neighbors and eventually prompting someone to try to enter the apartment to turn it off, burning the building (and perhaps those adjacent to it) to the ground.

What you advocate is an argument looking for a fact pattern to attach to. This was not it.

[stebo0728]

I agree with pretty much all of what the general consensus here is. Dark place, smoke, scared folks scurrying around. The chances of an armed individual changing the outcome are pretty slim. My point from the start has been that the presumption of what to expect has a large outcome on what someone will choose to attempt in a given setting. Having the tables evened, by increasing the probability of an armed individual being in the environment will have an extremely larger effect in terms of deterrent than an actual armed individual in the heat of the moment would. Again I qualify that with the understanding that some people who set out to do these types of things are far gone past the point of considering risks, so this is not a perfect solution by any means. But by far I believe that uncertainty of armed status speaks volumes toward actions that a cowardly person would take.

[stebo0728]

Let me also chase that with this: if a legally armed person does happen to be in this crowd, and we have in place laws that ensure that this individual has been trained, and must be trained ongoing to retain legal status, then I have no problem with the risk involved in their retaliation. I realize I'm not the only person in the crowd, and I dont have the right to speak for the rest, but I would imagine the majority would agree.

[szh]

I agree with the comments in this thread in general.

I have not fired a gun in many years and do not carry one now, or even have it in the house. But, years ago, I was good enough to be on a pistol team and could put my shots into a 1 to 2 inch circle at 50 feet almost all the time (where a score of ten meant I nicked the center dot - not a circle, a dot - on the target.

Those were ideal conditions. I would still not feel comfortable enough inside the theater in question, to take a shot at a killer, had I been armed.

Regardless of which, I would still like to point out that without the courage of conviction of people, a clear need for action, even under stress - unarmed(!) - one flight that crashed in Pennsylvania was in all likelihood destined for the White House back in September of 2011.

Fortunately, these folks on board had more time to think, decide and "roll" into action. But people can do amazing things under stress, and maybe, just maybe, somebody armed (and trained) may have been close enough to the shooter in the theater to make a difference.

More importantly, what about the deterrence factor?

I know I may be re-visiting here a bit, but if the shooter knew that some percentage of the theater was likely to be armed and respond in kind, would he have been as likely to proceed?

Maybe he was insane enough anyway, and the deterrent would not prevent those.

But there are plenty of analogous situations that we can consider. For example, the penalty for petty theft in Saudi Arabia was (and is) so harsh that thefts simply did not occur (till the large influx of foreign workers after the oil money came in the mid 1970's).

Z

[IBCoupe]

My point from the start has been that the presumption of what to expect has a large outcome on what someone will choose to attempt in a given setting. Having the tables evened, by increasing the probability of an armed individual being in the environment will have an extremely larger effect in terms of deterrent than an actual armed individual in the heat of the moment would.

More importantly, what about the deterrence factor?

He was wearing body armor of some sort. He had more ammo than he could fire. He set his apartment up to explode. His therapist thought he was dangerous and warned the school about him.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say, "No. No deterrent effect here." Looks like you guys are choosing an argument and trying to find a fact pattern to support it. There might be such a fact pattern out there, but this isn't it.

[szh]

More importantly, what about the deterrence factor?

He was wearing body armor of some sort. He had more ammo than he could fire. He set his apartment up to explode. His therapist thought he was dangerous and warned the school about him.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say, "No. No deterrent effect here." Looks like you guys are choosing an argument and trying to find a fact pattern to support it. There might be such a fact pattern out there, but this isn't it.

You are probably right ... I was not proposing (and will not either) that as an effective argument for this particular shooting incident.

Like I said in my earlier post: "Maybe he was insane enough anyway, and the deterrent would not prevent those. But there are plenty of analogous situations that we can consider."

So, I was more thinking along the lines of other crimes ... car jackings, home invasions, and the like, where physical violence (including murder) occurs. Where the likelihood of an armed response may deter some criminals.

Z

[IBCoupe]

I think that's an interesting thought experiment. I'm sympathetic to the theory, but I'm not sure that there's any evidence out there that could convince me to sign onto it as a policy.

The only evidence in favor of it is too easily flipped on its head (less crime with less gun control? Well, why would a legislator pass stricter gun control when there's no crime to worry about?) and further undermined from a law enforcement policy (only criminals would have guns? Then I guess it makes a cop's job that much easier) for me to side with that kind of a drastic change in theory from the status quo.

[themadscientist]

Well it has been demonstrated in cases where gun access was made notably easier and public knowledge that crime will often go down. Criminals interviewed indicating that the potential for the victim possessing a firearm weighing heavily on their minds.

I am not for making gun laws tougher, or, in most cases, easier. the ownership and use of a firearm is a serious enterprise. It is not just a personal freedom, it's a public trust. If you decide that for whatever reason you need to carry a weapon for your personal safety, I'm ok with that. I do as well. I need to have reasonable assurance, however, that you are a responsible individual who has been trained and continues to train to maintain safety and proficiency with your chosen firearm, that you adhere to a reasonable set of rules of engagement and appreciate the destructive power you possess.

When I strap on a gun and walk out of the house I am on high alert. I am not paying attention to others any more than I normally do, I already watch people very closely. No, I am more aware of what I am doing. I am aware because I have a gun on me. In most cases that makes me the most dangerous person in any given room and that is not "cool" it's a serious responsibility. My goal is to make it home having never needed to draw that weapon. This is accomplished by making smarter choices during the day. I avoid dangerous places more than when I am unarmed. Sounds counter intuitive, doesn't it?

When I am unarmed, I might become involved in a fight in a certain place. Not having the gun means I am at greater danger, but there is less potential for me to inflict harm. A fist fight will not escalate past that. I am accepting a greater risk profile for myself and gamb|ing that any potential threats do not intend to take it to lethality. If, however, I am attacked by a person or persons while armed, there is no measured response available to me. That gun must come out and here is why. First, their attack must be stopped. Drawing the gun and instructing them to do so will usually accomplish this. If I let them beat me down they could get my gun and kill me or someone else. I have said innumerable times in gun control arguments, the gun is a dumb tool; it does what the wielder tells it to. I left home with MY gun and it is 100% my responsibility to make sure I bring MY gun home. If some thug can get my gun from me I have failed in that mission and bear the weight of what he does with it to another person. I will make every effort to make sure that does not happen up to and including firing my weapon.

I am often at odds with gun enthusiasts who focus on the right without considering the responsibilities that come with that right. It's the same way with free speech. Yes, you have the right to say whatever you want. You do not, however, enjoy amnesty from the results of the things you say. I am very glad that I have the right to keep and bear arms and it is one of my high tier issues since it very much ensures the others, but I also appreciate that right comes with responsibilities. If I want to retain that right, I need to attend to that.

[stebo0728]

I think that's an interesting thought experiment. I'm sympathetic to the theory, but I'm not sure that there's any evidence out there that could convince me to sign onto it as a policy.

As far as policy, I think this theory lends credence more toward policy that says "we wont disarm law abiding citizens to any greater degree than we can disarm criminals". Its not so much that you want to increase guns to lower crime, that's a statistically supported effect, but its more that you want to be sure not to create a society of defenseless victims.