There is no way that either armed civilians or armed law enforcement could have safely taken out the shooter in Aurora, Colorado. To have attempted to do so would violated the rules of gun safety; those rules apply MORE not less in a situation like the mass shooting in a movie theater in order to reduce casualties. There is nothing about that situation that would make setting aside those rules a desirable or intelligent exception.
I'm going to use the wikipedia entry here.
The scenario in Aurora Colorado - a dark theater, loud sound from the movie, a person wearing all matte black coming in from an outside door, not apparently back lit by direct outside lighting, throws canisters of a substance that acts as tear gas or pepper spray.
You have a lot of people moving around. You have an inability to breathe easily, choking, eyes are watering, lights are flickering in mostly darkness from the movie. There is tremendous confusion and movement, both the crowd and the shooter. The seating makes movement difficult.
Here is the gun safety rule that apply to responding in that situation, an excerpt from Wikipedia's Gun Safety entry ( added emphasis is mine - DG).
Gun Safety Rules
Be sure of your target and of what is beyond it
This rule is intended to eliminate or minimize damage to non-targets when a firearm is intentionally discharged. Unintended damage may occur if a non-target is misidentified as a target, if the target is missed, or if the bullet hits something or someone other than the intended target.
Handlers are taught that they must positively identify and verify their target. Additionally, they learn that even when firing at a valid target, unintended targets may still be hit, for three reasons:
- The bullet may miss the intended target and hit a non-target around or beyond the target.
- A non-target may pass in front of the target and be hit with a bullet aimed at the target.
- The bullet may pass through the intended target and hit a non-target beyond it, so called "overpenetration".
This may create situations that present dilemmas for a handler. Such situations are for instance a police officer in a riot, a civilian facing a possible intruder at night, or a soldier in a situation where civilians are near the enemy. Indecision or misjudgment of the handler's abilities in such a situation may cause undesired outcomes, such as injury to the handler due to hesitation, or the handler violating rules of engagement and causing unintended damage.
Training is used to minimize the risk of such outcomes. Target practice increases the precision with which the handler can discharge the firearm and thus increase the chances that the intended target is hit. Education about terminal ballistics gives the handler knowledge about the characteristics of a bullet after a target is hit. This knowledge coupled with insight into the handler's own capabilities makes it easier for the handler to make appropriate decisions about whether to discharge or not, even if given little time and/or put under severe stress.
Ammunition can be chosen to reduce the risk of overpenetration; see Terminal ballistics, Stopping power, and Hollow point bullet.
In the real world scenario, not the "I would be the hero" fantasy of the gun nuts and 2nd Amendment fanatics, you could not possibly safely shoot in the situation in Aurora, Colorado. No civilian or law enforcement office could know who was around and behind the shooter, or even have a clear view of the shooter, much less know if the shooter was alone or acting with others.
This was a situation where people could not breathe, and where their eyes were watering from near the shooter across most of the theater, and the gas created a visual barrier; the problems of being able to see the shooter clearly are compounded the further from the shooter a person was located. ADD to that situation that someone would or could be shooting at the person returning fire which inexperienced people tend to disregard or downplay, and you do not have a good return-fire situation, even for a swat team or a highly trained and talented sniper.
Now add to this that there is NO WAY WHATSOEVER for an armed movie patron to know if there is one bad guy attacking or multiple people involved. Whoever takes a shot at the shooter, rightly or wrongly in terms of safety, now becomes to other armed movie patrons a potential second attacker, or third or tenth bad guy.
There are documented cases of off duty law enforcement, in situations without these impediments of gas and darkness and crowds of people and noise, shooting each other because of this kind of difficulty in identifying who is a good shooter and who is the bad shooter(s).
A case in point where friendly fire has been just as deadly as unfriendly fire, and where the people involved had far more training and experience than an ordinary gun-carrying civilian:
How a Retired Officer, Trying to Stop a Robber, Shot an Agent Doing the Same
or the case of Omar Edwards, also in New York.
More people shooting at James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado not only would have caused MORE death and injury, they would have badly confused the situation for law enforcement to be able to correctly identify the attacker. Further complicating a correct identification of the attacker in that mass shooting was that the way he was dressed would have made law enforcement MORE likely to believe he might be one of them, and then shoot instead at an armed civilian trying to help by mistake.
The risk would be that the heroic person trying to take out the attacker would in turn be shot - shot by law enforcement, shot by another armed citizen or multiple armed citizens.........and the greater the number of rounds fired, the exponential increase that those rounds will hit someone else who is an innocent bystander in that theater OR IN THE NEXT THEATER.
I would point out here that some of the Aurora Colorado victims WERE in the adjoining theater; those rounds hit them AFTER going through the theater walls. Adding to the number of rounds fired would also have endangered THOSE PEOPLE in addition to the danger from the attacker.
The painful reality is that there was unlikely to be a good, safe, LEGITIMATE opportunity to shoot the shooter at any point in his attack, until he had voluntarily broken off firing and left the building, where he appears to have dropped his weapons, or placed them in his vehicle, and WAITED for police to arrest him without resistance.
Add to this scenario the facts that these carry crazy gun advocates won't mention. The reality is that even the most well-trained law enforcement officers who engage in shootings often have many if not most of their shots miss their targets. It is very different to be taking your time, in optimum lighting in a target shooting situation from the shooting in a real conflict. One of the most significant items of information that was included in my own firearm training were how often even at relatively close range law enforcement and civlians alike fired a lot of rounds at a threatening individual, at criminals, and had most of the rounds fired MISS their target.
This is an excerpt from an excellent op ed piece from a retired Chicago cop about his 30 years on the streets that describes exactly that experience of most shots missing their target in a real shooting situation: (my emphasis added in bold-DG)
When I reached one man, running in the darkness between two houses, he had already been shot by another officer. When the officer had ordered the man to stop and identify himself, the man had pointed a pistol at him. The officer ducked behind his car door and fired half the bullets in his Glock 21 before finally hitting the offender once in the left buttock. We eventually found the shooter’s silver semiautomatic deep in a snowdrift.
The suddenness and confusion of that moment points out the folly of the politician’s belief that an armed civilian could have easily taken out James Holmes. Imagine the scene: speakers blasting, larger-than-life heroes and villains on the screen, and suddenly real gunshots, a man in a gas mask firing one of three weapons — a shotgun, handgun and rifle, with extended magazines for extra ammo capacity — into the panicking crowd. Even a highly trained, armed police officer would have been caught off guard. Try adding a bunch of untrained, armed civilians into the mix — this type of intervention could have made things much worse.
A Glock 21 has a 13 round capacity magazine, which is larger than most standard handguns.
That those who advocate for open or concealed carry think this would have been a good instance for intervention only highlights how UNSAFE these people are among us. It is an understandable impulse, to want to stop someone doing something so horrible as this mass shooting, or any other crime. But the solution to these situations is NOT more guns, no matter how appealing the fantasy of being a hero is, or the fantasy that gun carriers have that they will shoot the bad guy -- and ONLY the bad guy; odds are they will miss, but the odds are all too good they would hit something or someone else.
The ONLY real solution is to stop guns and explosives getting into the hands of people like James Holmes, or Jared Loughner, or the hands of the many other people who commit crimes of gun violence every day in this country with smaller victim totals resulting. Those peole are just as dead, just as injured as anyone in the Aurora, Colorado shooting.
More guns are not the solution; they are part of the problem. Our gun culture is predicated on fantasies that can only result in more deaths and injuries and threats; our gun culture is a failure. Gun restrictive societies and cultures have been far more successful at reducing deaths, injuries, and incidents of intimidation or threats from firearms than our own gun culture has been. The clearly effective solution is not more guns, but fewer guns in the hands of fewer people who are more carefully selected and regulated (both the guns and the people who have them).
The time has come to choose, gun reality or gun fantasy. But that doesn't make for exciting movies or games; reality is less sexy than fantasy, so we probably won't succeed at making the right choice.
Great post. I actually believe that those gun guys who claim they would just have stood up and shot at Holmes would have done the same thing everyone else would have done= get down and away from the shooter or hide or run if possible. Their first instinct would most likely have been flight rather than fight. I have heard some of the gun guys on my blog tell me that CCW instructors tell them to get away from the situation unless that is impossible. Human nature would likely over power the fantasy of being a hero. And further, if the hero types had their families with them, I am quite sure they would have done what others did- throw themselves in front of a child or wife, or get them out of the theater without thinking of shooting back. So I believe those dreams of shooting someone would not have been realized when a real life situation was presented. All of this is predicated, of course, on the chance that a permit holder would have happened to have been in the theater for that particular film. Remember, only about 2-3% of the population have permits and not all of those carry all the time. There is also a chance that a gun in the theater could be discharged accidentally in the rush to get away or bend down to hide. Way too often, guns of permit holders discharge accidentally when they fall out of pants pockets or purses.
ReplyDeleteProblem, I have mentioned rules of engagement and most gunloons refuse to follow them. The Stand your ground/licence to kill laws have allowed for them to be ignored.
ReplyDeleteIt used to be that using a firearm for self-defence was a last resort, but now it's it the first resort even if one's life is not in danger.
Since you asked, the term "a shot in the dark" refers to shooting at an enemy one cannot see. Even if one has tritium sights, or other low light aiming tools, the muzzleflash will temporarily blind the shooter.
Despite, the myth, we haven't seen an "armed citizen" actually take on the threat in a crowded area (don't pull the woman in the Colorado Church, she was LEO). In fact, most don't use their weapons as was the case during the Tucson Shooting where Gabby Giffords was shot. If he had shot, he would have hit someone who was trying to stop the carnage.
No one has looked into the armed citizen myth, but I think there would be more than a handful where an innocent bystander was hit.
Unfortunately, the US has chosen gun fantasy to its detriment.
Even worse, there is now no reason that strong gun control laws could be implemented given that Heller-McDonald has said they do not offend the Second Amendment.
Strong gun laws only offend the NRA and its ilk.
Wayne La Pierre told them to always blame it on the gun free zone if possible. Without thinking, that's what they do.
ReplyDeleteLoughner was the best example of how armed citizens just don't work. I believe there were more then one or two armed citizens in that crowd, simply because it was Arizona where they have Constitutional Carry, yet, you know what happened.
On TTAG yesterday I read what Ted Nugent said. He's practiced for this precise possibility, a crowded theater. He used watermelons. His unforgettable quote: "I only shot the watermelons."
Thanks for the comment MikeB.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why anyone would believe a word out of the mouth of draft dodger Ted Nugent anyway, but you have to question how much of a simulation watermelons can provide.
What theater in the world would let Nugent practice that activity? None, obviously.
So, how would Nugent create such a simulation? Clearly he could not.
How much did the watermelons move around similarly to people? They don't.
And how could Nugent or anyone else simulate a situation like that in any meaningful way, if he set up where the watermelons were himself?
Clearly he couldn't; there is no way to simulate that kind of situation, including the surprise factor.
Even law enforcement made it clear that this was NOT a situation where fire could safely be returned without making this an enormously worse tragedy in terms of numbers of victims. When you have figures like a board member of the NRA making these bogus claims about carrying firearms and approprite shooting, it only aggravates bad judgment by others carrying firearms.
Nugent is an ass; and the NRA are a bunch of liars; they are all dangers to themselves and others, living in a gun loon alternate reality.
In Arizona UNARMED people stopped Jared Loughner, not gun carriers. UNARMED people, who did not make the situation worse.
Thanks for the comment Laci.
ReplyDeleteI believe that you meant, when you wrote 'there is no reason that strong gun control laws could be implemented', you meant could NOT be implemented, since the Heller McDonald ruling stipulates regulation is constitutional.
Watermelons? lol. That's rich.
ReplyDeleteI'm getting a good, hearty chuckle out of all the mutterings from the gun nuts about how they would have played the hero if they had been in that theater. It's fun to read them spouting off about it, sorta like listening to my 7-year old son imagine himself as Iron Man.
I've been in a shooting. It's nothing like standing at a firing range and calmly taking a breath, aiming, and plinking the target. It's chaotic, dirty, and loud. Your mind goes many different ways at once. Your pulse rate is high, and you can't think clearly. It takes a great deal of training in stress situations to even get close to control in those situations, as police and (some) military train, and they only hit their target 20% of the time.
Now add that to a nearly-pitch black theater crammed with screaming, running people, assault weapon firing from a 100-round drum, gas, and a guy covered head-to-toe with ballistic armor. Sure, pull out your pea shooter and take him down without hitting anyone or being confused as the shooter yourself.
But, hey, doesn't hurt to fantasize about being the hero, right? Except when, by doing so, you are encouraging people to make dumb choices if ever they are in the same situation.
If the shooter's letter had been delivered and the police notified just in time to burst into the theater as the shooter killed his first victim in the dark, smoky, noisy theater, what should the cops have done?
ReplyDeleteJoe - I'll reply to your question.
ReplyDeleteWhat the cops SHOULD have done is attempt to stop the shooter through whatever means necessary. However, that DOES'T include firing into a crowd of people. That by the way, is something they are both trained NOT to do, and are expected NOT to do, which sets them apart from a conceal and carry licensed private citizen. The private citizen goes to a gun safety course, they get advised when they ARE and when they aren't allowed to use deadly force, but they are neither trained nor do they practice in restraining fire for risk of hitting by-standers. In fact, the limits on private citizens are far more lax than those on police. To an extent of course they should be, it would be hard to require each person attend police firearms training and follow-up training each year and make the claim that access to 2nd Amendment liberties was not being infringed.
That said, please understand I am someone with considerable experience with firearms, including training with and in rapidly engaging targets in less than ideal conditions (dark of night) with automatic weapons (as any Army veteran is trained). Here are some realities.
Engaging targets in haste results in a high miss rate, no question.
Engaging targets in the dark, ditto
Engaging targets with a handgun, ditto multiplier (or more) depedning upon the range if at anything over about 10 yards.
The far most likely outcome had another person been present in that theartre with a handgun would have been that the shooter would have missed OR hit another person. Then, even assuming the shooter was successful, it is likely he/she would have hit the ballistic protection the assailant was wearing. The FAR lower likely outcome would have been hitting the assailant with enough of a wound to stop him BEFORE the assailant counterfired, probably hitting more innocents until the assailant hit our would-be hero. THEN the assailant would have had another weapon with which to shoot even more people after his primary weapon(s?) jammed.
That's not wise, it's wild-west foolishness. There's a reason many of the towns in the old-west which had reputations for gun-play banned the wearing of firearms in town. They found out just how foolish it is to have untrained, drunk people throwing lead around. The bottom line is, the FAR likeliest outcome is that your conceal carry citizen would have wound up shot and his/her weapon in Holmes' hands. It's not certain, just far more likely and in the world we like to call "the reality based community" we operate and make decisions upon the most likely outcome, not flights of fancy.
Thanks Pen for making my point. You omitted however the circumstance of considerable haze in the air from the exploding canisters, as well as the problems with what was some kind of pepper spray or tear gas further making it unlikely that a safe shot could have been taken.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you ever trained in the dark with unarmed people milling around you trying to get away while you were rapidly engaging a target.
Then there was the difficulty of seeing someone in matte black head to toe, or in being able to determine if someone else shooting was cooperating with James Holmes or trying to stop him......and of course the problem as well that many of the shots that didn't hit people in that theater could have hit people in the next theater, as well as making the situation more difficult for law enforcement to sort out.
You have to applaud the heart of someone for wanting so very much to be able to stop someone like James Holmes, especially if they put their own lives at risk to do so. But we cannot and should not applaud doing so when it risks MORE people without reasonable chance of success; that is simply bad judgment.
I am appalled at how many people who carry demonstrate they agree and support and would emulate that really really really bad judgment in when to fire.
I have to correct one thing, I should have said private citizens are trained, in that they are given verbal instruction, about restraining fire to avoid ancillary casualties, but that is not training which is routinely practiced, nor is it something on which they are required to follow-up, as police officers are. The restrictions on their use of deadly force are FAR weaker than the restrictions placed against police YET the police are far more trained on proper use, practice it far more often and likely in a stressful situation, due to that much more extensive training and practice, to react properly.
ReplyDeleteAs regards my own training, no I've never been asked to fire (live fire) in the dark, in haze, with someone shooting at me. The closest thing I've ever done is use MILES gear in the dark with smoke canisters in combat practice. Your heart races as you try not to get "killed", your fire accuracy plummets, you do stupid things, you waste ammunition and that's just in a practice situation, WITH training in restraining fire, not wasting ammunition. I think it is more than fair to say that the average person, certainly it's fair to say I think that the average conceal carry citizen is NOT as well trained as the average soldier. Some are, a few are, but those are anecdotal situations at best. I'd bet if we took the best shots in the Army and put them up against the best shots from among 2 million randomly selected adult, but not elderly citizens (in short an equally sized cross section of the population), those US Army or US Marine soldiers would vastly outperform the private sector sample. Are there private citizens who are exceptional shots, absolutely, and a great many of those I've known WERE in the military. However, a great many of the CC people I know were NOT, some were, but the vast VAST majority were not. Consequently, it feels and seems reasonable to conclude the average CC person would have fired multiple shots in that movie theater, would NOT have restrained firing, and very nearly certainly would have missed. Again, this isn't about the absolute perfect, best outcome, it's about using reason to see what the overwhelmingly outcome is to respond to ridiculous calls for expanding "gun totin'" solutions to every problem. Objective data would and does point to the fact that you might have a few happy outcomes, but you'd have far more bad ones. The few good do not outweigh the far more numerous bad, and the render the "good" outcomes as being the province of childish flights of fancy - of justifying something with nonsense rather than taking a reasoned approach, applying inherently obvious truths to decisions.
It sounds as if the answer to my question was "Shoot him."
ReplyDeleteDoesn't that break the Iron Rules of Gun Safety?
Wasn't that the whole point of this post: that the Gun Safety Rules are inviolable, even if it means people must die?
.