ROFL there was a massacre BECAUSE the fire was only one way. Had two of three people been carrying they have had a very good chance to put him down quickly and stopped the carnage. He was standing lower than them in an open area fully exposed.
And if he hadn't had guns he clearly knew how to build bombs and incendiary devices he could have used to kill even MORE people. That being said all that protection doesn't make you invincible. And there is what is known as suppression fire when you catch your enemy in a crossfire from multiple points and disrupt their ability to fire back. And getting hit in the arms makes it impossible to fire your weapon. The gun control lobby loses on this one, had there been two or three armed people in that theater the death rate could have been markedly lower.
If Zimmerman had been in that theatre, he would have shot the innocent black people and left the shooter. It wouldn't matter if people were armed, the shooting would have happened anyway. Why do Americans have to pretend they are big heroes and act like they would have saved the day? You would have all been on the ground with everyone else, firing your gun would have been the last thing you'd think of.
You are incorrectly assuming that punk boy Z would have known how to use his weapon against somebody who is shooting back. Dumb thing to expect. I am all for concealed carry, but there needs to be some training and accountability. Z punk has never demonstrated that. Why that sociopath Z ever got a CCW is beyond me.
Yeah, that's just what we need, more hyped up paranoid people packing heat. Because everyone secretly wants to be observed and followed by a stranger carrying a gun while on a harmless trip to the store.
I was under the impression that Zimmerman followed firearms rules correctly. According to others in this thread, the movie theater has a rule that no firearms are allowed inside. Therefore, Zimmerman would have been unarmed if he was in that theater. Of course, if you disagree with the assumption and think that Zimmerman is a criminal who does what he pleases with firearms, then I guess you might have a point - more criminals are needed, in order to combat those who carry legally obtained firearms. Wait, what?
TBH that's the first I've heard of that but I'll take your word for it, you've probably followed the story more closely than me. So OP really is saying we need more disobedience of rules concering firearms, in order to combat people who up until that point have followed all the rules properly? Interesting stance, for sure.
Your sarcasm has had its effect on me! I think what is implied, is that we need MORE regulation, MORE legislation, MORE laws, MORE restrictions on our individual freedoms! Time and again, this recipe has shown to produce the elusive panacea! Alcohol is bad! Solution: Prohibition! Drugs are bad! Solution: War on drugs! Gun are bad! Solution: Gun Control! What do we have? LESS CRIMINALS! Wait, what? As much as we may disagree with each other and as much as we see a conundrum in a certain societal grievance, we MUST always side on the side which insures and protects our freedoms as individuals and as a society. Yes, always! While many today may believe the founding fathers as people shrouded in mist, archaic, ethereal and really not applicable to our society today, we must remember that although they did not know about automatic weapons, AK-47's, AR-15, Tanks, F-14 tomcats and tactical nuclear missiles, however, they did now about tyranny. Tyranny from bullies, tyranny from oppressive governments, tyranny from extremist religions, tyranny from criminals, etc... Frankly, I think Zimmy is a criminal and had no business interfering with that kid. Why didn't he just watch him and let him go about the neighborhood, we'll now never know. Just because those that want MORE gun regulation, MORE infringement by the government, MORE protection from the government and would rather depend on something bigger than them to protect them, doesn't mean those that want to have the ability to protect themselves from tyranny should be taken away.
Sorry, that wasn't quite what I was going for. Mainly I was lambasting the idea that Zimmerman is some kind of good guy. On the issue of regulation I am indeed generally in favour, but I think it's more of a red herring - the REAL issue, as I've commented in other threads here, is what causes people to want to commit crimes with weapons in the first place. If anyone, pro or anti gun control, pushes the view that gun control is the answer or the problem, then they're missing the point imho.
Actually, I have never followed a crime story before, but its a HOT summer. George stated that he carried everywhere except work. I can't imagine that Target stores permit guns, but there you have it.
I think only a very heroic person could have possibly stopped him while the shooting was going on. The place was dark and crowded and a guy that looked like a cop or a movie extra threw smoke or maybe tear gas into the crowd. Mr Holmes was wearing a gas mask at the time, which limited his peripheral vision, and as an untrained psychopath, could not do an immediate action, or double feed drill on his AR rifle when it jammed. He was not willing to shoot it out with cops outside. So he was not invicible by any means. For the average concealed carry Joe, it would have taken a good bit of resolve and luck to fire back and hit Holmes. In such a paniced situation, they would have aimed center of mass (at his vest). Holmes was on Vicodin or similar drugs at the time, so it is possible that any non-vital hit might not have stopped him or caused him to lay down his arms. Most CC-Joes, probably with their families, would have ran out the back with out firing back. A trained combat operative---a really good one---could have come around behind him and took him out with a knife or his bare hands, if they were in the right position. Any of them with a gun would have likey killed Holmes within a few seconds.
The people knew soon enough this was someone trying to kill them. Had there been two or three or more people carrying they could have put him in a cross fire and suppression saving lives. Yep and put him in a crossfire he may have been killed, probably wounded, at the least under suppression making it more difficult for him to return fire and saving lives. SUPPRESSION is the first goal, then wound then kill. Had he been hit in the arm or the leg that could have put him down and unable to return fire. He had the screen and the wall to his back so getting behind him unless someone came in the door not likely. HOWEVER that put in out in the open and a good target, he had no cover.
I think the point being is that many of us, in a fight or flight situation, when flight is untenable then atleast give us a fighting chance. For those of us who wish to stand up to the tyranny of a criminal wishing us immediate bodily harm, when our government is not there, to let us fight to get away. There is no way a peace wanting, law abiding citizen would want to antagonize and get into a shoot out with a nut job like Holmes. That is what I pay the police salary for. And I'd like the ability to get on an even playing field to get away.
ROFL you ARE KIDDING aren't you! You wouldn't use your weapon on a guy who dressed like a ninja came armed with 1000 bullets and tear gas and who had booby trapped his apartment to explode and kill his neighbor or landlord and is now in the process of firing off at a crowd killing and maiming people right and left because you might "antagonize" him.
The police weren't there to save anybody. If I were there and I were carrying, I would most certainly shoot it out with Holmes. Otherwise I would be just another potential victim for him. It is NOT the job of the police to protect us. This has been clarified in numerous legal findings. Relying on them to protect you will most likely end in disappointment.
I wouldn't want to get into a stand off with anyone! If I was allowed I'd pop off as many rounds at him to let as many people get away! My point EXACTLY: The police weren't there. Did they have to shoot any of their guns even once? And for the record, "defending" myself and "antagonizing" mean very different things to me.
I'm totally against gun control as much as any Constitutional loving American Citizen. However, Zimmerman killed an unarmed teenager. He should've listened to dispatch and stopped following the kid. He should've used MUCH better "threat assessment," and wiser judgement. Unfortunately, he and others like him make those that legally and lawfully own firearms look bad and frowned upon, thus causing politicians to force even MORE gun control and restraints upon us. Granted, I see and understand the case that during the scuffle, the boy may have noticed Z had a gun, and the boy may have tried to get a hold of it. But that is speculation. And I see the side where Z could've been knocked unconscious, thus losing control of his firearm, and the boy using it on him, killing Z. Z should've stood down from following the teenager to begin with, as directed by dispatch. There should NEVER be a self appointed neighborhood watch to begin with. I DO NOT WANT ANYONE like Zimmerman armed and in any theatre, because someone unarmed is going to get killed. Having someone or several people armed in a theatre is a great idea. There needs to be in school and on campuses, too. No doubt, many carry concealed in such places already, even before the tragic event in Colorado. I just don't want such people to be a "Zimmerman", because unarmed people could end up dead, like Martin. "Threat Assessment" plays a vital role and part for self defense. OODA Loop. Observe, Orient, Decide, Act If done correctly, the Zimmerman / Martin Case would NEVER have happened.
So much information and lack of context Who was assaulting him. Although he was under no obligation to do and in fact had no idea where Martin was in order to "follow him" so he told the dispatcher "OK" and was heading back to his truck when Martin reappeared and assaulted him. For what? Martin reappeared and cold-cocked him and then jumped on him and started beating him. He does nothing of the sort and in fact reinforces why it is a good idea to have one in case you get assaulted. Yep, Zimmerman had reason to fear for his life and serious bodily harm. HE DID..............................geez get with the facts. He wasn't. Only if the kid is committing a felony assault. Yes, Martin after running off and losing Zimmerman and getting back to the apartment had he simply gone inside and watched TV instead of going back and confronting and assaulting Zimmerman he'd be alive today.
You said Martin cold-cocked him. Martin confronted Zimmerman. You cannot cold-**** and confront someone. Zimmerman would've been unaware of Martin's presence if Z was really cold-cocked.
gz and tm are daniel kelly and austin bodahl wannabe's vote. for an amendment to make abortion rights and the second amendment the same amendment and immune from further change. they're both ridiculously annoying issues and no one is going to change either of them without a fight anyway. let’s stop fighting about it.
Sure you can. I was working at a plant in Chicago back in the 70's as a production supervisor. I was trying to get the daily production out the door when I noticed things were backing up at a particular station. I investigated and found that the two guys who were supposed to installing a part were over moving stuff around in the storeroom. I pulled them back to the line and a few minutes later the storeroom manager confronted me and asked why I did that and I told him the guys worked for me not him and if he needed help to come ask me and if I could spare them, which I could not at the time, I would let him have them for a hour or so. As I turned to go back to my office he cold-cocked me. Fortunately the plant manager was standing where he saw what occurred and he fired the guy. Funny to think back but a few weeks later I saw the guy on TV promoting some city minority group as a community organizer.
As it is, GZ was going around, looking to shoot somebody, who didn't have a gun. GZ heard, from SPD dispatch, "We don't need you to do that," whereupon he terminated the call and went over to where TM was talking to his gf Dee Dee, to accost TM, which Dee Dee heard, before TM's call terminated. GZ shot TM, then turned TM over, on his face, sat on TM, and choked TM, while failing to call for paramedics and instructing a witness, to simply call police. GZ is going to trial, for murder 2, when he perped murder 1. The cost to Florida is already tremendous. If you pup a bunch of tweaking GZs, be sure and let them run around, in YOUR state, not in my state. Just saying. GZ may figure, in gun control. But O'Mara will have to get GZ's fans on the jury, to get his rip-off of state funding to free GZ. If GZ were charged, with murder 1, maybe he'd plead, instead of having O'Mara cowboy around.
