Senator Feinstein: Concealed & Carry Laws Would Have Meant a “Firefight in the Theater” With Many Killed …(Huh? 12 Innocents Were Slaughtered, Senator) (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/senator-feinstein-concealed-carry-laws-would-have-meant-a-firefight-in-the-theater-with-many-killed-huh-12-innocents-were-slaughtered-senator/)



On FOX News Sunday, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said concealed and carry laws in Denver would have meant “a firefight and killed many more people.” She forgot that there already was a massacre where 12 unarmed Americans were slaughtered in cold blood – including two military personnel.

[video at link]

What an idiot

What an idiot

^^^^^^ yea, that.

What an idiot

Perhaps so but, not for that comment. She is likely correct. Let's take her comments at face value for a moment. But, what does that mean? What would it likely have meant? Consider;

Only someone(s) who have actively been training and/or experienced in a sudden combat type situation would have been likely to respond effectively. So, if we were a second amendment nation, perhaps there would have been what, maybe a dozen, more or less, people who took the responsibility seriously enough to even be armed, right? So, among them, how many would have responded well? Not shot themselves or someone else drawing? Not just opened up and hit innocent people? We like to idealize the ONE man who is so cool, so confident and experienced that he would, under enormous pressure and confusion, fired off one well placed kill shot, party over, watch the rest of the movie, right?

Well, that's not likely.

So, now, I, you, most of us would STILL prefer to have SOME chance instead of NO chance and THIS is where the debate NEEDS to be; when someone like Di Fi says something reasonable that has to be considered, instead of dismissing it and coming up with some sort of playground rebuttal, take that concern and turn it around;

"Well, the Senator raises a good point. This is why we need more public acceptance of our second amendment rights, more awareness, more training, more tolerance and understanding of those among us who are different, who choose to try and be part of the solution, who take the time and effort to be good citizens and helps stop this sorts of crimes and horrors. Far better, Senator, to prepare and deal with our problems rationally and reasonably rather than reactionary worries and fears that not only make this sort of thing more likely but, worse, make all of us helpless victims."

Thunderous applause.

:buddies:

I would rather take a chance someone kills me in the confusion, of trying to return fire on the mass murder, then cower on the floor waiting to get shot in the back .....

Person A starts shooting ........

B,C,D,E,F,G return fire .....

maybe H finally pops his head up and shoots at D

:buddies:


Dalton Gang's Raid on Coffeyville (http://www.historynet.com/dalton-gangs-raid-on-coffeyville.htm)


Isham's and another hardware store handed out weapons to anybody who wanted them, and more than a dozen citizens were set to ventilate the gang members as they left the banks. The first shots were fired at Emmett and Bob, who dove back into the First National and then out the back door, killing a young store clerk in the process.

Perhaps so but, not for that comment. She is likely correct. Let's take her comments at face value for a moment. But, what does that mean? What would it likely have meant? Consider;

Only someone(s) who have actively been training and/or experienced in a sudden combat type situation would have been likely to respond effectively. So, if we were a second amendment nation, perhaps there would have been what, maybe a dozen, more or less, people who took the responsibility seriously enough to even be armed, right? So, among them, how many would have responded well? Not shot themselves or someone else drawing? Not just opened up and hit innocent people? We like to idealize the ONE man who is so cool, so confident and experienced that he would, under enormous pressure and confusion, fired off one well placed kill shot, party over, watch the rest of the movie, right?

Well, that's not likely.

So, now, I, you, most of us would STILL prefer to have SOME chance instead of NO chance and THIS is where the debate NEEDS to be; when someone like Di Fi says something reasonable that has to be considered, instead of dismissing it and coming up with some sort of playground rebuttal, take that concern and turn it around;

"Well, the Senator raises a good point. This is why we need more public acceptance of our second amendment rights, more awareness, more training, more tolerance and understanding of those among us who are different, who choose to try and be part of the solution, who take the time and effort to be good citizens and helps stop this sorts of crimes and horrors. Far better, Senator, to prepare and deal with our problems rationally and reasonably rather than reactionary worries and fears that not only make this sort of thing more likely but, worse, make all of us helpless victims."

Thunderous applause.

:buddies:Yes, she is an idiot for that comment. A firefight between two armed combatants means that they are shooting specifically at each other, not spraying rounds directly at unarmed movie watchers and children.

I would rather take a chance someone kills me in the confusion, of trying to return fire on the mass murder, then cower on the floor waiting to get shot in the back .....

Person A starts shooting ........

B,C,D,E,F,G return fire .....

maybe H finally pops his head up and shoots at D

:buddies:

Or, maybe, in an honest second amendment type nation, a gunman never even bothers because he knows two things; resistance is very likely and he is very, very likely, like 100% likely to get killed before the cops can usher him off to enjoy his work.

In Israel, their enemies used to send gunmen off to wreak havoc. This stopped because the results were poor. Their guys were getting popped by grandma's with UZI's before they could mount much of a body count and it all became suicide missions.

So, they formalized what it was and went to idiots with bombs.

Yes, she is an idiot for that comment. A firefight between two armed combatants means that they are shooting specifically at each other, not spraying rounds directly at unarmed movie watchers and children.

I'm sure your way will work better in congress. I'm sure of it.

A good point Larry but my problem with Diane F-ing einstein is her definitive statement that concealed carry WOULD have resulted in a firefight. Her statement is incendiary and, although spouted as a fact, is in reality nothing more than the opinion of a misguided moron.

I think that almost any armed response is better than none. Granted, the amount of armed citizens who take the time to learn emergency response as opposed to just plinking might be low. But it only takes one to derail his plan. No one thinking clearly expects a Rambo in every crowd, or a Jack Bauer. But you dont need those, in most circumstances, the simple armed response is enough to throw these guys of their game.

Liberals like to think that it would turn into some Mel Brooks type gunfight, with all the noncombabtants getting plugged, but reality isnt like that.

A good point Larry but my problem with Diane F-ing einstein is her definitive statement that concealed carry WOULD have resulted in a firefight. Her statement is incendiary and, although spouted as a fact, is in reality nothing more than the opinion of a misguided moron.




I would expect if someone is in the theater has a CCW, and some nut job starts gunning down patrons, the CCW is going to return fire, and not lay there waiting to die .....

I'm sure your way will work better in congress. I'm sure of it.Splain Lucy.

Splain Lucy.

The laws come from there. You, me, would do better taking over the debate and arguing for MORE tolerance of guns, MORE training, MORE acceptance that we are a second amendment nation rather than just ignore any concerns of what may have happened had good armed citizens been on hand and call a US senator with a vote an idiot.

My point is that there is an argument to be won that, in my view, serves the national interest by being won. You engage. You make a better case. You do it civilly. You don't make hardened opponents who will go out of their way to stop you. You make someone who is opposed perhaps less likely to be vehement about it. And, if not them then the next person or the next. Be the reasonable, thought out person over time, not just another shrieker.

:buddies:

I would expect if someone is in the theater has a CCW, and some nut job starts gunning down patrons, the CCW is going to return fire, and not lay there waiting to die .....

I'd prefer that. I'd like to think so. In Maryland, that would be against the law. So, we win, bit by bit, by engaging in the debate and making a better case. Feinstien has gift wrapped the issue. It won't be won by calling her an idiot. It will be won by winning the debate.

It WAS a shooting gallery. Better that some are shooting back because liberty is more important than security. Liberty IS security. Engage. Make the case. Win the debate.

:buddies:

A good point Larry but my problem with Diane F-ing einstein is her definitive statement that concealed carry WOULD have resulted in a firefight. Her statement is incendiary and, although spouted as a fact, is in reality nothing more than the opinion of a misguided moron.

Exactly. Engage. Make a better case. Win the the debate.

This is EXACTLY like the shooting; an reactionary person spouts off but, with bullets instead of words. A good, responsible citizens responds, deliberately, picks the best time and spot and 'wins' the debate. If one less person gets shot or killed, THAT is winning. Add to that the possibility that a good, responsible citizens ends it MUCH sooner. Add to that the fact that if NO ONE has second amendment rights then we DO get just what happened.

Engage. Respond. Win the debate.

Or, if you like;

OODA; Observe, orient, decide, act.

I almost agree that in this case it is possible of an even greater injury/death count if there were multible armed people in the theater.
Think about people jumping up and shooting at the guy, people on either side of him. In the dark, limited visability,,,
Am I the only one that can vision the possible shooting past the originial shooter and hitting others on the other side of him?

To me, gun control means taking into consideration what could happen if certain things all fell into place in the wrong way.

I almost agree that in this case it is possible of an even greater injury/death count if there were multible armed people in the theater.
Think about people jumping up and shooting at the guy, people on either side of him. In the dark, limited visability,,,
Am I the only one that can vision the possible shooting past the originial shooter and hitting others on the other side of him?

To me, gun control means taking into consideration what could happen if certain things all fell into place in the wrong way.

I agree...it would have resulted in a greater death count, +1 for the shooter!!!!

The laws come from there. You, me, would do better taking over the debate and arguing for MORE tolerance of guns, MORE training, MORE acceptance that we are a second amendment nation rather than just ignore any concerns of what may have happened had good armed citizens been on hand and call a US senator with a vote an idiot.

My point is that there is an argument to be won that, in my view, serves the national interest by being won. You engage. You make a better case. You do it civilly. You don't make hardened opponents who will go out of their way to stop you. You make someone who is opposed perhaps less likely to be vehement about it. And, if not them then the next person or the next. Be the reasonable, thought out person over time, not just another shrieker.

:buddies:Thanks! :buddies:

Suzanna Hupp raise a good point in the GOCRA video [which I reposted]


Gun Rights organizations [GOA More so then the sellouts at the NRA] need to trot out the Single Black Mother living in the inner city unable to defend herself


Scream LONG and Loud - Guns Control Laws are Racist

I almost agree that in this case it is possible of an even greater injury/death count if there were multible armed people in the theater.
Think about people jumping up and shooting at the guy, people on either side of him. In the dark, limited visability,,,
Am I the only one that can vision the possible shooting past the originial shooter and hitting others on the other side of him?

To me, gun control means taking into consideration what could happen if certain things all fell into place in the wrong way.

From what I know, he stayed near the place he entered the whole time, in which case, past him would have been the back wall, not a crowd of people. If he were in the center, that makes sense, but I haven't seen any information to that effect.

Perhaps so but, not for that comment. She is likely correct. Let's take her comments at face value for a moment. But, what does that mean? What would it likely have meant? Consider;

Only someone(s) who have actively been training and/or experienced in a sudden combat type situation would have been likely to respond effectively. So, if we were a second amendment nation, perhaps there would have been what, maybe a dozen, more or less, people who took the responsibility seriously enough to even be armed, right? So, among them, how many would have responded well? Not shot themselves or someone else drawing? Not just opened up and hit innocent people? We like to idealize the ONE man who is so cool, so confident and experienced that he would, under enormous pressure and confusion, fired off one well placed kill shot, party over, watch the rest of the movie, right?

Well, that's not likely.

So, now, I, you, most of us would STILL prefer to have SOME chance instead of NO chance and THIS is where the debate NEEDS to be; when someone like Di Fi says something reasonable that has to be considered, instead of dismissing it and coming up with some sort of playground rebuttal, take that concern and turn it around;

"Well, the Senator raises a good point. This is why we need more public acceptance of our second amendment rights, more awareness, more training, more tolerance and understanding of those among us who are different, who choose to try and be part of the solution, who take the time and effort to be good citizens and helps stop this sorts of crimes and horrors. Far better, Senator, to prepare and deal with our problems rationally and reasonably rather than reactionary worries and fears that not only make this sort of thing more likely but, worse, make all of us helpless victims."

Thunderous applause.

:buddies:

Did you see the footage of the 70 year old man with a .380 in a diner??

Two thugs come in, demand everyone give up the goods.. OLD (apparently untrained) 70 something year old man draws his gun, shoot a few rounds, doesn't hit a damn thing.. but the first round sent the miscreants running pushing each other out the door..

Granted different scenario, but crooks are generally cowards. Doesn't really matter how great a shot you are, you may just scare him away..

That, and personally, if in that situation, I'd at least like the CHANCE to go out with the "F-You" mentality, and not crying and sobbing curled up in a ball while he puts one in my cranium.

I almost agree that in this case it is possible of an even greater injury/death count if there were multible armed people in the theater.
Think about people jumping up and shooting at the guy, people on either side of him. In the dark, limited visability,,,
Am I the only one that can vision the possible shooting past the originial shooter and hitting others on the other side of him?

To me, gun control means taking into consideration what could happen if certain things all fell into place in the wrong way.

Not necessarily in this situation..

Figure you're returning fire shooting at him, he's standing, where are you?

Are you going to go toe to toe with him, handgun to semi auto rifle, Mano Y Mano, or are you going to be behind the seats, crouched as low as you can get?

If you're crouched you are shooting UP at him, where is everyone else? Standing around, talking on their cell phones? No, they're either still sitting in there seats because they think it's part of the show, OR they are getting sticky in the gum, soda, and other human excretions on the floor.

On top of that, if it's a tiered theater (I don't know any that aren't) the chances are REAL good that you'd be shooting uphill at him. From what I gather he never stepped out of the entrance to the Theater (he held the high ground).



Chances are pretty slim (in this particular instance) that there would be any unintended casualties.

Did

That, and personally, if in that situation, I'd at least like the CHANCE to go out with the "F-You" mentality, and not crying and sobbing curled up in a ball while he puts one in my cranium.

I TOTALLY agree and to that end, to me, the political gun battle needs to be won to promote that chance as much as possible.

In Maryland, if you are a responsible citizen, have acquired a permit and chose to carry to the movies, by Maryland law, BY LAW, you would first be required, under penalty, severe penalty, to evade and escape. Only if you see no other way out and feel in imminent threat of severe harm and/or death of YOURSELF or your family, could you shoot. That doubt, that deliberation alone WOULD cost innocent people their lives.

The great irreconcilable problem with proper, constitutional gun law is that, sometimes, SOMETIMES, law abiding people will shoot the wrong person or use their weapon improperly. However, that, in my view MUST be argued against the backdrop that, absent the deterrent effect of doubt on the part of criminals as to the likelihood of someone able and willing to stop you, criminals operate with a free hand and WILL, every time, use their weapon illegally.

In Kileen Tx, the shooter calmly walked around the restaurant shooting people

On FOX News Sunday, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said concealed and carry laws in Denver would have meant “a firefight and killed many more people.” She forgot that there already was a massacre where 12 unarmed Americans were slaughtered in cold blood – including two military personnel.


This would be true - only if Holmes had people on his side.

Since he was a lone gunman, All it would have taked is one bullet between his running lights, and the "battle" would've been over.





It sickens me that this episode is being leveraged for political gain on both sides.

I think that almost any armed response is better than none. Granted, the amount of armed citizens who take the time to learn emergency response as opposed to just plinking might be low. But it only takes one to derail his plan. No one thinking clearly expects a Rambo in every crowd, or a Jack Bauer. But you dont need those, in most circumstances, the simple armed response is enough to throw these guys of their game.
Liberals like to think that it would turn into some Mel Brooks type gunfight, with all the noncombabtants getting plugged, but reality isnt like that.

That. This guy went in expecting exactly what he got. Unarmed people either diving for cover, or running. ANY return fire would have diverted him from what he wanted to do, which was to shoot whoever he wanted at his leisure.

I almost agree that in this case it is possible of an even greater injury/death count if there were multible armed people in the theater.
Think about people jumping up and shooting at the guy, people on either side of him. In the dark, limited visability,,,
Am I the only one that can vision the possible shooting past the originial shooter and hitting others on the other side of him?

To me, gun control means taking into consideration what could happen if certain things all fell into place in the wrong way.

I agree that a firefight would have been messy in there. Possibly the wrong people getting hit, or what if there were more than one person shooting back and they wound up mistaking each other for the bad guy? What if the first responders came in and mistook those people returning fire for the criminal? They would have been in normal street clothes while he was concealed in black.

But I still feel that the body count would have been lower if there had been return fire in the theater.

Both sides of this argument are wrong. Increased gun control would not have prevented this. If he hadn't been able to get the AR, he may have just carried more 9mm's. If you take away all guns, he would have found another way to do it. Remember, he made bombs.

CCW probably wouldn't have made a difference either. He was wearing body armor. A 9mm into body armor would not have slowed him enough to stop him from returning fire. You would need that lucky shot that hit an unprotected part.

Just as the anti-gun nuts are wrong to try to capitalize on this, the pro gun people are wrong to use it to their advantage.

That, and personally, if in that situation, I'd at least like the CHANCE to go out with the "F-You" mentality, and not crying and sobbing curled up in a ball while he puts one in my cranium.


Here's how the pacifists and sundry anti-gun twerps want you to act in the event of a gun:


pdNLiUd_rUE

CORRECTION..

I had my story wrong..

Customer shoots suspects during Internet cafe robbery - FOX 35 News Orlando (http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/19035444/customer-shoots-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery)

Not a diner, but an "internet cafe"... and he didn't miss..

Of course the Press isn't talking about this one.

Armed Victim against Armed Criminal... Victim wins..

Of course I have to re-think my above scenario about people sitting or cowering as evidenced in this videa a woman(?) practically walks right through the "gunfight" while putting her hands over her ears..

And of course the flipside to this GREAT story, as mentioned above, the Killeen, TX, Luby's massacre..

"The first victim was local veterinarian Michael Griffith, 48, who ran to the driver's side of the pickup truck to offer assistance to the driver after the truck crashed through the window. Hennard also approached 32-year-old Suzanna Hupp and her parents. Hupp reached for her revolver in her purse, only to remember she had left it in her car to comply with Texas law.Her father Al, 71, rushed at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him but was fatally shot in the chest. A short time later, as Hupp was escaping, her mother Ursula, 67, was shot in the head and killed as she cradled her wounded husband."

What came of this crime??

"In response to the massacre,[5] the Texas Legislature in 1995 passed a shall-issue gun law, which requires that all qualifying applicants be issued a Concealed Handgun License (the state's required permit to carry concealed weapons), removing the personal discretion of the issuing authority to deny such licenses. To qualify for a license, one must be free-and-clear of crimes, attend a minimum 10-hour class taught by a state-certified instructor, pass a 50-question test, show proficiency in a 50-round shooting test, and pass two background tests, one shallow and one deep. The license costs $240 to $290, depending on the added instructor's fee.

The law had been campaigned for by Dr. Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the time of the massacre where both of her parents were shot and killed. She later expressed regret for obeying the law by leaving her firearm in her car rather than keeping it on her person due to the fact that it could have cost her her chiropractic license.[6] She testified across the country in support of concealed handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996.[7] The law was signed by then-Governor George W. Bush."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre

Not necessarily in this situation..

Figure you're returning fire shooting at him, he's standing, where are you?

Are you going to go toe to toe with him, handgun to semi auto rifle, Mano Y Mano, or are you going to be behind the seats, crouched as low as you can get?

If you're crouched you are shooting UP at him, where is everyone else? Standing around, talking on their cell phones? No, they're either still sitting in there seats because they think it's part of the show, OR they are getting sticky in the gum, soda, and other human excretions on the floor.

On top of that, if it's a tiered theater (I don't know any that aren't) the chances are REAL good that you'd be shooting uphill at him. From what I gather he never stepped out of the entrance to the Theater (he held the high ground).



Chances are pretty slim (in this particular instance) that there would be any unintended casualties.


Bob, from what I understand, he came in the rear entrance, down by the screen so any defender would be shooting down at him, and since folks would have been running away towards the normal exits, should not have been many around him. Like aircraft, people tend to go back the way they came in, "closest" exit isnt clearly judged.

I hate that this domestic terrorism incident is being politicized.

If Mrs. Fienstein is so opposed to CCW laws I wonder if she would agree that her security detail should only carry handcuffs.