• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Evidence suggests Colorado Shooter selected theater because of no guns policy

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
I received this from Nik Clark (President of Wisconsin Carry, Inc.) a few minutes ago:



Greetings in Freedom:

An interesting opinion piece was published on Foxnews.com that contained research pertaining to the Colorado movie theater shooting. See article at the following link:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater/

Pro right-to-carry advocates have often speculated that mass-shooters intentionally select locations where law-abiding carry is banned because they are "safer" for mad-men to go on shooting rampages. (Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc)

Evidence researched for the above piece strongly suggests this may be true. From the article:

(quote)
So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer’s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, **it was the only one where guns were banned.** In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.
Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance.

According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killer’s apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemark’s Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.
There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the "home of Colorado's largest auditorium," according to their movie hotline greeting message. The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns.
So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media – disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks.

(end quote)

We know the shooter in this instance planned his attack with exceptional attention to detail (rigging explosives at his apartment) AND he went to unusual lengths to try to protect himself from being shot (bullet proof body armor, helmet, and arm and leg protection). Every logical analysis of this situation would conclude that it seems virtually inconceivable that the "no-gun policy" of this theater was not a primary factor in the shooters selection of this location. He didn't want to encounter an armed citizen and get shot.

Wisconsin Carry encourages our members to share this information with businesses who have chosen to post "no guns" signs as it seems very plausible that those signs could well attract criminals who seek defenseless victims.

Carry On,

Nik Clark
Chairman/President - Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
www.wisconsincarry.org
nik@wisconsincarry.org
www.youtube.com/wisconsincarry
www.twitter.com/wisconsincarry
www.facebook.com/groups/wisconsincarry
 

okiebryan

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
447
Location
Director, Oklahoma Open Carry Association

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
What about ease of illicit exit and re-entry? It would have mattered if I was the planner.:(
That door exists for exiting during both emergency and non-emergency situations. Re-entry through that door, however, is typically forbidden.
 

Deacon Blues

Newbie
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
124
Location
Birmingham, AL
Just for the sake of accuracy, it was later discovered that his vest was not ballistic. It was a tactical vest for which he paid $106 online.
I think this is especially relevant to the thread; it seems that Mr. Holmes was quite concerned about unarmed resistance. He obviously didn't want to take a hit to the head, arms, legs, or groin... but bullets apparently weren't a concern. With you combine the fact that he selected a non-ballistic vest and that he picked the only nearby theater with a posted no gun policy, it sure makes it look like his whole plan depended on his being the only one with a gun.

Same old story, same old song and dance.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Just for the sake of accuracy, it was later discovered that his vest was not ballistic. It was a tactical vest for which he paid $106 online.

http://fox2now.com/2012/07/21/colorado-shooter-bought-tactical-gear-in-st-louis/

http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2012/07/not-bulletproof.html

The Aurora, CO Police Chief’s description of what suspect James Holmes was wearing during the shootings struck a heart-wrenching chord for the owners of the on-line tactical gear store in Chesterfield, Cat-5 Commerce, which does business online as Tactical Gear.com.

Why would the owners of the tactical gear store have any emotional attachment to the incident ... I'm sure the gun dealer just said "eh?" As to if the guy picked the theater because it does not allow carry, we don't know ... all the stuff here is conjecture and opinion based on facts not from the shooter and only facts of theaters that don't allow carry ... maybe he got ripped off on popcorn there, who knows?
 

okiebryan

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
447
Location
Director, Oklahoma Open Carry Association
The Aurora, CO Police Chief’s description of what suspect James Holmes was wearing during the shootings struck a heart-wrenching chord for the owners of the on-line tactical gear store in Chesterfield, Cat-5 Commerce, which does business online as Tactical Gear.com.

Why would the owners of the tactical gear store have any emotional attachment to the incident ... I'm sure the gun dealer just said "eh?"

Personally, I'd be kinda horrified if something I sold to someone was used in a crime like this one. I'm surprised that you don't get that.


As to if the guy picked the theater because it does not allow carry, we don't know ... all the stuff here is conjecture and opinion based on facts not from the shooter and only facts of theaters that don't allow carry ... maybe he got ripped off on popcorn there, who knows?

Just because one cannot prove or disprove a theory doesn't make it wrong. The facts as we know them completely fit this theory, and none of the facts indicate that this theory is likely to be false.... if it quacks like a duck... prolly a damn duck.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Personally, I'd be kinda horrified if something I sold to someone was used in a crime like this one. I'm surprised that you don't get that.
.

Then you should not hold a ffl. Not the ffl's fault, right? Why would the ffl have any sincere remorse ... like a car dealer who sold a car to a guy who runs over 100 school children with it.

Ditto for other sellers selling legally. The gov't wants you to feel remorse, as it indicates responsibility.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Someone, at some point, is going to do something bad, with something someone sold them.
It's axiomatic!

Do not place guilt on the person who did no wrong.
It's as anti as idiots who would want to sue gun manufactures for crimes done with guns.
 

Mark 1911

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
94
Location
Munster, IN
"Evidence" that suggests Colorado Shooter selected theater because of no guns policy?

Not to be flippant, but does "Chicago" suggest anything? (as in pick a place where the victims won't be shooting back).

In a shooting that was planned as meticulously as the Aurora CO shooting was, it would be extremely naive to think that the shooter did not work a major detail like the theater's "no guns policy" into his plan.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
"Evidence" that suggests Colorado Shooter selected theater because of no guns policy?

Not to be flippant, but does "Chicago" suggest anything? (as in pick a place where the victims won't be shooting back).

In a shooting that was planned as meticulously as the Aurora CO shooting was, it would be extremely naive to think that the shooter did not work a major detail like the theater's "no guns policy" into his plan.

Logical and consistent with other facts does not equal fact to that point...anyone have a statement by the police or shooter that because of the no firearms policy of the theater, it was chosen?

Does not sound like he planned too well , or he would have used an AK-47 and wore armor
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Someone, at some point, is going to do something bad, with something someone sold them.
It's axiomatic!

Do not place guilt on the person who did no wrong.

You're missing the point by 180 degrees. No one is placing guilt. Those of us who're decent human beings, with compassion and feelings towards our fellow man, however, would quite naturally and very understandably be aghast if something we sold to another was used for a horrific crime.

The fact that you and a couple others here don't feel a thing bothers us. It suggests an element of a pathological nature.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
I don't get it either. Would you be willing to explain it?

Well I mean If I sold a gun that was used in such a terrible incident I'd probably feel sick to my stomach, It's not a rational reaction, but being on solid legal ground doesn't equate to a clean conscious. Think about cops and armed citizens who kill in self-defense, most feel overwhelming guilt and shame at themselves following the shooting, at least most I've read about on Ayoob Files that is.....

just being legally in the clear won't clear the emotional reaction, they're two separate things.
I don't blame any of the sellers of this clowns gear for what he did, Holmes and Holmes alone is responsible for his act, but it would not be unexpected if someone felt guilt over helping him even if they had no idea
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
No one is placing guilt.
Those of us who're decent human beings.....would quite naturally and very understandably be aghast if something we sold to another was used for a horrific crime.

The fact that you and a couple others here don't feel a thing bothers us. It suggests an element of a pathological nature.

Your statement makes no sense. Your not placing guilt.... but if the person doesn't feel guilt he's pathological?

Well I mean If I sold a gun that was used in such a terrible incident I'd probably feel sick to my stomach, It's not a rational reaction, but being on solid legal ground doesn't equate to a clean conscious. Think about cops and armed citizens who kill in self-defense, most feel overwhelming guilt and shame at themselves following the shooting, at least most I've read about on Ayoob Files that is.....
just being legally in the clear won't clear the emotional reaction, they're two separate things.
I don't blame any of the sellers of this clowns gear for what he did, Holmes and Holmes alone is responsible for his act, but it would not be unexpected if someone felt guilt over helping him even if they had no idea

So let me get this straight. Your pretty sure of having a "not rational reaction" to something that has never happened to you before? And your pretty sure that "not rational reaction" would not be unexpected?
It should be unexpected and condemned.
Feeling guilty, and placing guilt on others where none is deserved is an extremely dangerous ideology. It is a terrible justification for blurring the distinction of right and wrong.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Your statement makes no sense. Your not placing guilt.... but if the person doesn't feel guilt he's pathological?



So let me get this straight. Your pretty sure of having a "not rational reaction" to something that has never happened to you before? And your pretty sure that "not rational reaction" would not be unexpected?
It should be unexpected and condemned.
Feeling guilty, and placing guilt on others where none is deserved is an extremely dangerous ideology. It is a terrible justification for blurring the distinction of right and wrong.

How did I place guilt on anyone else, I didn't condemn anyone who felt no guilt nor did I say anyone else was guilty, I'm saying it's not unexpected for someone to feel guilty even if they had no control or did nothing wrong. I read an Ayoob File store a few years ago about a police detective who shot a man in an interrogation room the camera in the room showed clearly the man drew on the detective first (he came in willingly as a witness he didn't get arrested, which is why he wasn't searched) and the detective drew his revolver and shot the interviewee. As justified as it comes. and yet this detective described feeling incredible guilt and shame, to the point in which he felt ashamed to show his face in public, and to where he didn't feel worthy to enter his church. legal justification does not clear the conscious, for most people that is. some people have no issues to speak of, but most people will. So your idea of mocking the owners of this shop, see you accuse us of placing guilt, and yet you appear to openly mocking the owners of this shop who do feel guilty, who is really placing what on who?
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Logical and consistent with other facts does not equal fact to that point...anyone have a statement by the police or shooter that because of the no firearms policy of the theater, it was chosen?

Does not sound like he planned too well , or he would have used an AK-47 and wore armor

I would agree if the plan was really to kill as many people as possible. That and the AK-47 ammo normally costs less than AR-15 ammo.

I believe that this was a staged event and that is why he submitted to police so easily.
 
Top