09-16-2012, 04:08 AM
I read Webb's post Aurora article. The high intensity light is a good idea, but in the Aurora case, I'm not sure it would have been helpful other than a point at which to aim. My understanding was there was a lot of smoke in the theater (from whatever chemical device he tried to use at the beginning of this assault).
My other take away from Webb's article was he didn't seem to be a fan of armed resistance for the average citizen (he advocates "non-lethal self defense") but I wrote that off to being a Kalifornia citizen/native (or a weapons skill snob).
The other good point he made was not stopping to render first aid until the assailant was verified as being neutralized. There was a case in Tyler, Texas where a man went on a rampage outside of a court house following divorce proceedings, armed with a MAK90. The assailant was able to fend off LEO (who were armed only with pistols). A concealed carry citizen engaged the assailant from behind with his .45, knocking him down. The way it was relayed to me, the citizen shot once, then went to render first aid. Problem was the assailant, who was wearing body armor, got up and re-engaged him, ultimately killing the citizen. The well intentioned citizen should have continued the engagement relentlessly, closing the distance, until confirming the assailant was neutralized.
Was the Aurora shooter really wearing LE/MIL grade body armor or was it simply ballistic nylon clothing? (does the press even know the difference?)
I believe that if there were concealed carry permit holders who were actually carrying inside that particular showing, there wouldn't be 12 dead. Are there any lawsuits against the theater owners yet?
Personally, I don't give business to those establishments that prohibit concealed carry...they are merely "victimization zones".
My other take away from Webb's article was he didn't seem to be a fan of armed resistance for the average citizen (he advocates "non-lethal self defense") but I wrote that off to being a Kalifornia citizen/native (or a weapons skill snob).
The other good point he made was not stopping to render first aid until the assailant was verified as being neutralized. There was a case in Tyler, Texas where a man went on a rampage outside of a court house following divorce proceedings, armed with a MAK90. The assailant was able to fend off LEO (who were armed only with pistols). A concealed carry citizen engaged the assailant from behind with his .45, knocking him down. The way it was relayed to me, the citizen shot once, then went to render first aid. Problem was the assailant, who was wearing body armor, got up and re-engaged him, ultimately killing the citizen. The well intentioned citizen should have continued the engagement relentlessly, closing the distance, until confirming the assailant was neutralized.
Was the Aurora shooter really wearing LE/MIL grade body armor or was it simply ballistic nylon clothing? (does the press even know the difference?)
I believe that if there were concealed carry permit holders who were actually carrying inside that particular showing, there wouldn't be 12 dead. Are there any lawsuits against the theater owners yet?
Personally, I don't give business to those establishments that prohibit concealed carry...they are merely "victimization zones".