Rep. Gohmert: "Did no one else in the Aurora theater have a gun?"

[Iwillnevergiveup]

##snip##

"For the moment, let's set aside Gohmert's babbling about how such things wouldn't happen if people were able to pray more in public. Let's instead look at the situation you'd be faced with if you were at that theater with you concealed pistol."

##snip##

http://eb-misfit.blogspot.ca/2012/07/could-rep-louie-gohmert-be-even-more-of.html

[Panasonic]

1. Since we *do* have open carry laws here, but not everyone

brings their guns to movies.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

3. Apparently, Mr. Holmes brought his. n/t

[4th law of robotics]

20. No law abiding citizen could have brought their gun to the movies

the cinema prohibits carrying guns on their property unless you are a LEO.

Apparently gun bans don't work on criminals.

[tanyev]

2. Better yet, what if several people in the theater had had guns?

Nobody would have known if they were accomplices or also trying to defend themselves. A wild West shoot-out in a dark theater filled with tear gas and panicked movie-goers--what could possibly go wrong?

[lunatica]

21. Don't forget the wild flickering movie during a very loud shoot out on the screen.

I doubt anyone could come up with a more thoroughly bizarre and disorienting scenario

[drm604]

4. How do we know somebody didn't have a gun?

Under those circumstances it would be kind of foolish to try to use it even if you were carrying. The guy was armored, anyone shooting at him might just have made themselves a target.

It was a dark smoke-filled theater full of panicking people. Starting a shootout with the guy might have led to more casualties.

[JaneQPublic]

5. Another gun would have been worthless...

...because Mr. Holmes came suited up with a bullet-proof vest, a helmet, facial protection, even a "cup."

The dirt bag had no intention of dying by bullet wound the way his victims did.

You'd think Rep. Gohmert would have bothered to read the details of the shooting before getting up to parrot the NRA talking points.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Ahhhh not so fast there

The vest was not a Class II/III vest, but a carrier. Prior post on DU said it was this one: http://tacticalgear.com/blackhawk-urban-assault-vest?utm_source=gs&utm_medium=sce&gclid=CLnxhfu5rbECFYeo4AodBF0AWA

Being hit while wearing ballistic armor slows you down and disrupts what you are doing. It also hurts like hell.

That said it is far from clear that anyone would have had the opportunity to shoot back. More coming on that I would expect.

[JaneQPublic]

13. "hurts like hell"

I'm no shrink, but I would think that, for someone with Holmes' mindset, getting hurt "like hell" would only heighten his rage and "embolden" him all the more to obliterate the populace at large.

He came dressed for combat, was presumably expecting it, and certainly wouldn't have been thrown off his game by a few well-aimed bullets bouncing off his gear.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. I gather physics is not your strong suit

Even with a Class II/III vest, bullets do not bounce off. The get stopped part way into the material and most of the energy gets absorbed by the wearer. It not like the banderillas in a bull fight and Sir Issac must be paid. Looks at some of the videos on youtube where it has been demonstrated.

It appears his gear may not have even been ballistic armor, though there should be more to come on that. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=997722

A well placed bullet could well have stopped the massacre. The question is if it would have been possible to shoot one. The recreations are not yet complete or public. Smoke, darkness, people running everywhere, elevation changes...most civilians or cops would have had a hard time with that. SOF or SWAT veterans maybe...just maybe. The cowboys who said they could have easily done it are idiots.

[JaneQPublic]

32. And conducting a civil discussion is not your strong suit

Who the hell are you to make a snide-ass comment about my knowledge of physics? You know nothing about me, other than the fact that that I dared to disagree with you.

If your socials skills were as advanced as your presumed intellect, "Professor," then you could certainly find a way of expressing yourself in public without stooping to a personal attack... just like someone else.

An ad hominem attack = you lose the debate.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

34. Let us review the subthread

In post #5 you stated things as facts that were not even close to true
In post #9 I pointed out your errors. But stated it was not clear counter fire was possible
In post #13 you persisted in your false claims and assertions.
In post #28 I take a stronger line since the soft one was clearly ineffective
In post #32 your claim incivility and I know nothing about you. That is untrue

It is clear to all of us that you know nothing about ballistic armor or you would not have repeatedly made incorrect statements.

Facts matter, get to know some.

[JaneQPublic]

35. Your opinions are opinions, not facts.

Identifying your opinions as facts does not make it so.

The only thing that distingishes your opinions from the millions of others expressed here at DU is the degree to which you rely on personal attacks as a crutch.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. Everything I stated as fact is independent verifiable

In this case, please show anywhere that handgun bullets bounce off of ballistic armor as you claimed. There is a large mountain of data that says it does not.

It is true I do not suffer fools and their poutrage well. I generally try the soft approach the first time, but after that, one uses what is necessary to break through the biases and blindness.

If you think I am big on personal attacks, you should the hit and run posters in the RKBA group and the stuff in GD the last few days

[4th law of robotics]

19. So he was as well armored as an average US soldier

and this made him impervious?

Fancy. I wonder why our soldiers die then?

[lunatica]

22. Could it possibly have something to do with being in a fucking war zone

[4th law of robotics]

23. The poster claimed body armor made him invincible to return fire

like from the small arms that are killing our similarly armored troops in Iraq/Afghanistan all the time.

[JaneQPublic]

25. Remember, many troops in Iraq had to buy their own...

...bullet-proof vests, etc. Some had to write home and ask their folks to send them body armour.

Additionally, I would presume Rep. Ghomert is advocating citizens carry handguns to supposedly stop shooters, not the use of Improvised Explosive Devises, shoulder-launched rockets, bombs, and other sorts of weaoponry used in a war zone. Combat that our servicemembers experience is a bit more involved than a mere pistol shoot-out, Holmes' automatic assault rifle notwithstanding.

[4th law of robotics]

26. Funny thing about body armor

it doesn't do much for the areas not covered.

Like say the head.

Also it's worth noting that the people in the theater would have been legally prevented from carrying a gun.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. Probably less, maybe even considerably less

Earlier post showed he bought an carry vest which is not armored. Then again it may not have been the only vest he bought.

In addition to a different vest he might also have been able to get a hold of ceramic plates for it, but that will not protect the other areas.

What is not clear is if under the circumstances it was possible for someone to return fire. That may come out over time, but I doubt anything about that will be released publicly.

[gordianot]

6. So Mr. Gohmert carries his gun in the public?

I can just picture this dweeb pulling a pistol in a crowded theatre at night after someone with full body armour and a gas mask tosses a grenade then opens up with a semi automatic rifle. This would be a nightmare for professionals. Only a totally ignorant dipshit would even suggest such a scenario. Considering it is Gohmert who pals around with a known terrorist like Bachman it is understandable.

[JHB]

10. The cops who shot Amadou Diallo in much less chaotic conditions...

...missed over half their shots (41 shots fired, 19 gunshot wounds on the victim). Those missed shots went into a door and wall. In a theater with people pushing and scrambling, how many people would be hit by off-target shots?

[spanone]

7. fuck gomer

[JHB]

8. You mean the guy who had body armor, Louie?

It's not particularly likely that a gun would have stopped Holmes, and highly likely missed shots would have hit even more people.

You know what they did have available Louie, and would have a better chance of working? A flying tackle. That didn't happen though, for what should be obvious reasons. Or maybe someone did try and is among the dead. But we don't see your tweets about that, do we?

There's a reason why people call you a Pyle of Gohmert, Louie.

[progressivebydesign]

11. the guy that saved lives in the Cafe Racer shooting in Seattle, threw bar stools.

A flying tackle by a few strong men would have knocked the guy down, most likely.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

38. Its not clear if anybody tried that, which was somewhat surprising

Until there are recreations of the scene, it will be hard to tell.

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. The death toll would have been exponentially higher

in the crossfire coupled with the dark environs and the smoke bomb. With the confusion, who could even tell if there was one or several people - and the one they would have needed to target was head to toe in protective gear.

Be careful what you wish for, Gohmert.

[4th law of robotics]

18. A common prediction that has thus far failed to pan out

you would think with all the CHL holders in this country if this scenario you describe is likely it would be a daily occurrence.

And yet . . . nothing.

[LonePirate]

27. Gohmert seemingly wants to absolve people for shooting the innocent if they were returning fire

Will something like this hold up in court: "I'm sorry, officer, I was merely trying to protect myself and take down the shooter when this innocent bystander stepped in the way of my bullets. I bear no responsibility for this death." I'll bet that victim's family will be relieved to hear that their loved one died not at the hands of the shooter but at the hands of someone aiming for the shooter.

He is one stupid man. Unfortunately far too many people share his view.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. "exponentially"

Do you understand the meaning of that word?

[Ruby the Liberal]

40. Yes. Even spelled it right.

Do you have a point?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. That its use was clearly hyperbole

[Iwillnevergiveup]

14. Steve Benen on maddowblog

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/20/12856827-how-not-to-respond-to-a-tragedy?lite

[ecstatic]

15. Weren't the lights off? How would another gun toter

know who to shoot? And then, that person would be at risk of getting killed by another armed person who thinks the other person is the killer... etc

[Iwillnevergiveup]

16. Shirley McKellar

Anyone in the first CD of Texas know if she's still running against Gohmert???

http://www.votemckellar.com/#

[4th law of robotics]

17. No law abiding citizen; the theater chain prohibits firearms from being carried

on their properties, even by licensed holders (except LEO of course).

So it was officially a gun-free zone and hence no shooting could have occurred.

[JaneQPublic]

30. "Colorado allows residents to obtain concealed carry permits."

Or so says Rep. Gohmert in his editorial cited in the OP:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/rep-gohmert-did-no-one-else-in-aurora-theater-have-a-gun/

The theater chain may prohibit guns, but it's not a law -- the same way violating their rule against bringing in your own refreshments does not equate to law-breaking.

That said, I'm very glad no one did have a concealed handgun, whether "legal" or not. More innocent lives would have been lost, while the dirtbag with armour covering even his head, face, and "junk" would not have been taken out.

[4th law of robotics]

31. CHL does not allow you to carry on private property against the wishes of the property owner

[Motown_Johnny]

24. Please watch this video from one of Rachel's old shows

on this page, dunno how to embed here



http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-more-guns-does-not-equal-les

[Progressive dog]

29. wonder how much higher the casualty count would have been if everyone had a gun

Can't carry handguns in the theater, bet you they have rules about alarms on exit doors too. Doesn't that violate my second amendment rights?

[Iwillnevergiveup]

33. Counties in Gohmert's district

Is it hopeless??? Can he be defeated???

Angelina
Cass
Gregg
Harrison
Marion
Nacogdoches
Panola
Rusk
Sabine
San Augustine
Shelby
Smith
Upshur

[Mz Pip]

42. Monday morning quarterbacking at its most lame

Does Gohmert know anything about guns or how to use them? It takes a certain amount of concentration to hit a stationary target bullseye in broad daylight. Even if someone in the crowd had a gun getting off a viable shot in a dark room, with teargas smoke affecting your vision and people running and screaming and bumping into you would be pretty damn hard to do, even if you had the presence of mind to give it a try.

Maybe there were people in the audience who had guns. Fortunately they didn't add to the chaos by trying to use them.

Gohmert seems to think this is like some video game.

[meow2u3]

43. meow2u3 to Rep. Gohmert: ARE YOU FREAKING INSANE?

The movie theater is dark, for Pete's sake! Even if the moviegoers were carrying a gun, they couldn't see what they'd be shooting at, so if they opened fire, they may well have killed an innocent instead of the gunman.

[RagAss]

44. Another Texas Goober.

Do they grow this crap down there?

[AnnieBW]

45. He Was Wearing Body Armor!

The shooter was wearing military-grade body armor! Even if someone had been packing and gotten a shot off, it wouldn't have done much good.

Besides, there were members of the Air Force and Navy in the audience. Is Rep. Gohmert calling THEM cowards?

[gkhouston]

46. If you see a hungry zombie roaming around, that's the one who ate Gohmert's brain.

Obviously wasn't enough there for a full meal.