Could an LTCH holder have done anything to lessen the damage caused in Colorado?

[iChokePeople]

Then I would offer that they aren't training effectively.

There's definitely some of that, but there's also the human reaction to the horror of what's happening. Soldiers with exactly the same training, in many cases all together, go into combat. Some do amazing, heroic things. Others curl up in a ball and do nothing. They KNOW what to do, but sometimes the shock and horror is too much. Not everyone can deal with it, and it's very difficult to tell which one you'll be until you've been in that situation, with real bullets, and real casualties, and blood and screaming and all of the mental stress that goes with it.

Could perfect training overcome that? In theory, maybe, but I don't think anyone's found that yet.

 

[GNRPowdeR]

I CCW for the defense of my loved ones and myself. In that order. It is my God given duty to protect my family first above myself.

...

 

[esrice]

They KNOW what to do, but sometimes the shock and horror is too much. Not everyone can deal with it, and it's very difficult to tell which one you'll be until you've been in that situation, with real bullets, and real casualties, and blood and screaming and all of the mental stress that goes with it.

I'm not suggesting that there isn't an unknown element that exists in such extreme circumstances, but unless people are training for what they're most likely to encounter, they are wasting their time. If the likelihood exists that we could one day face a similar threat to the one in Colorado, then we should be training to overcome things like freezing, poor decision making, fumble fingers, overwhelming thought processes, loud noises, flashes, guns in faces, etc.

What is the point of training if, when the day comes, you curl up into a ball because "this is just how my body reacts". Might as well not spend the time and money training.

My point is, if you can't say with some amount of certainty "I would do this, and then this, and I would not do this", then you need to reevaluate your training goals and stop leaving circumstances up to chance.

 

[Fixer]

There's definitely some of that, but there's also the human reaction to the horror of what's happening. Soldiers with exactly the same training, in many cases all together, go into combat. Some do amazing, heroic things. Others curl up in a ball and do nothing. They KNOW what to do, but sometimes the shock and horror is too much. Not everyone can deal with it, and it's very difficult to tell which one you'll be until you've been in that situation, with real bullets, and real casualties, and blood and screaming and all of the mental stress that goes with it.

Could perfect training overcome that? In theory, maybe, but I don't think anyone's found that yet.

+1
My point, but better stated!

 

[Fixer]

True story. Friend of mine was in the military. they were doing a live fire excersize at night where they were advancing in foxholes in pairs. They were to fire down range after advancing to the first position then get leapfrogged by the next pair and so on. One soldier fell asleep and when he was startled awake, he automatically started firing down range with my friend and his partner in the forward position. They had bullets hitting the front of their cover. My friend dove for cover, and his partner got upset and went back and beat the crap out of the guy. Same training 2 different actions.
Until you have real bullets coming at you you can not say 100% you would do X, anything else is just bravado.

 

[iChokePeople]

My point is, if you can't say with some amount of certainty "I would do this, and then this, and I would not do this", then you need to reevaluate your training goals and stop leaving circumstances up to chance.

I agree -- you absolutely should train. You absolutely should go through those thought processes. You should try to practice for the worst, the tough shot, the tough circumstances, the biological responses and the stress. You should be aware, and you should think through your options in your everyday life and when things like this happen. You should be able to say, given a situation, what you would do. You should try to improve your performance, your thinking, and your chances. Nobody's questioning your commitment to training or the value of it. The only place we disagree, I think, is that I'm absolutely convinced that there's still this part that you just can't simulate and can't really predict. Even in guys who've seen combat before.

I think every time this subject comes up, you interpret my comments as being anti-training or somehow diminishing the value of training. That is not the case. I'm for good training, 100%. I invest my time and money in training, and I don't think it's wasted. I just don't believe it's ever 100%. Or within arm's reach of 100%, for that matter.

 

[esrice]

Until you have real bullets coming at you you can not say 100% you would do X, anything else is just bravado.

Then what's the point of ever training? If everything is left up to some unknown decision at some unknown moment, why train?

 

[indytechnerd]

So where is Shay to weigh in on this? This is right up Mindset Labs' alley. Darken the place, crank up Metallica or something, add smoke and strobes, and shoot at a minimum size target while no-shoots are swung back and forth between you and the target. Oh yeah, student gets to sit in lowlight for 20mins prior to the stobes and music coming on.

 

[esrice]

The only place we disagree, I think, is that I'm absolutely convinced that there's still this part that you just can't simulate and can't really predict. Even in guys who've seen combat before.

We actually agree on this point, but perhaps assign it different values in terms of its importance. While it does exist, I think training should seek to diminish this "unknown factor".

My comments were more geared to the many that use the excuse of "No one really knows . . . " to give themselves an out.

 

[iChokePeople]

We actually agree on this point, but perhaps assign it different values in terms of its importance. While it does exist, I think training should seek to diminish this "unknown factor".

My comments were more geared to the many that use the excuse of "No one really knows . . . " to give themselves an out.

And I completely echo your points both on what and how we should train. The point I always bring up should, if anything, motivate us to do MORE training, not less. That's really one of the primary points I'm trying to make with this line of reasoning -- that you should continue training, REALLY training, pushing yourself, demanding more and better, even if you flew through the best FoF course around with flying colors... because that's not enough. Everything you felt there will be amplified 100x when it's real. That should motivate the ones who are serious about all of this to train HARDER to be prepared. Yes, and maybe it'll convince the ones who aren't really serious to bag it, I suppose.

 

[wolfts01]

I think there is a slim chance that a lone LTCH holder would be able to take out the bad guy carefully without incurring civilian casualties.

On that note, however, I think one must weigh the cost of possibly wounding/killing a few civilians against the potential to stop the bad guy from wounding/killing ten times the amount.

I know I would have a hard time making such a decision, but if inaction would allow more to die it would be the right thing to do.

What I would like to know is what would have happened if the closest 10 able-bodied people rushed the guy. Wouldn't that be a great news story to hear: "Gunman overpowered by heroic moviegoers"

 

[iChokePeople]

So where is Shay to weigh in on this? This is right up Mindset Labs' alley. Darken the place, crank up Metallica or something, add smoke and strobes, and shoot at a minimum size target while no-shoots are swung back and forth between you and the target. Oh yeah, student gets to sit in lowlight for 20mins prior to the stobes and music coming on.

This would be a really cool study.

 

[shannonneumann]

If the question is "could someone have made a difference", then the answer is of course, anything is possible. As others have pointed out on various threads, any incoming lead may have at least distracted him long enough for a few people to get out of harms way. It may have also gotten our hero killed. What I tell people about carrying is that I prefer to have the option. I'd rather have the option and not need it or be able to use it, than to not have the option at all.

 

[CX1]

For those who think an armed citizen would have had no effect in the theater shooting, I ask why even carry a weapon? Sereously gun, knife... Why even bother, you will always face the posablity of being out guned, outnumbered. But you underestimate the one true advantage of CCW, Suprise.

I liken that attitude to be similar that if I can't execute a perfect J-turn I shouldn't try to drive to the grocery store.

I carry because I feel there are some situations where it may save my life. But I have the realistic expectation that it is not going to save me in every possible situation.

As far a theater carry I would carry to increase my security to and from the theater and the parking lot, the possibility that the box office might be robbed while I am in the lobby or a mugging attempt while in the bathroom.

I would not carry with the idea I may need to engage in a fire fight with a heavily armed and armored attacker during the movie. The rarity of the event makes it an unrealistic concern for me.

Muggings and robberies are much more common than spree killers and they are what I am concerned with defending myself from.

 

[shannonneumann]

Muggings and robberies are much more common than spree killers and they are what I am concerned with defending myself from.

^^^^^^^^
This is an excellent point. Preparing for potential events in order of decreasing probability is a good strategy. On any given day, it is FAR more likely that I'll be present for a c-store (or gas station or bank) robbery.

 

[Fixer]

I think I would try to find cover for me and my family and concentrate on defending them. I cannot do that if I get shot. My first priority is to defend them. If I did have a clean shot to the BG then I would take it, but not before being able to assess the situation somewhat. I wouldn't just start firing at him hopeing to neutralize the threat. If not, I would defense my position until I was forced to act. Better he move towards my cover than me go on the offensive, since I didn't open carry my AR into the movie.

 

[kludge]

I say yes. There are many instances where and armed person, security guard, or LEO has been in the right place at the right time, and it has definitely made a difference.

At the very least, someone shooting back would necessitate a change of plan.

 

[wagyu52]

I liken that attitude to be similar that if I can't execute a perfect J-turn I shouldn't try to drive to the grocery store.

I carry because I feel there are some situations where it may save my life. But I have the realistic expectation that it is not going to save me in every possible situation.

As far a theater carry I would carry to increase my security to and from the theater and the parking lot, the possibility that the box office might be robbed while I am in the lobby or a mugging attempt while in the bathroom.

I would not carry with the idea I may need to engage in a fire fight with a heavily armed and armored attacker during the movie. The rarity of the event makes it an unrealistic concern for me.

Muggings and robberies are much more common than spree killers and they are what I am concerned with defending myself from.

Did I say that a CCW would have saved this situation, no. It may have changed the outcome had someone been able to return fire. my comment is directed at the person(s) saying return fire would have been useless. No one tried how do we know. "The rarity of the event makes it an unrealistic concern for me" really? I am sure the people in Aurora thought the same way.

 

[CathyInBlue]

There's definitely some of that, but there's also the human reaction to the horror of what's happening. Soldiers with exactly the same training, in many cases all together, go into combat. Some do amazing, heroic things. Others curl up in a ball and do nothing. They KNOW what to do, but sometimes the shock and horror is too much. Not everyone can deal with it, and it's very difficult to tell which one you'll be until you've been in that situation, with real bullets, and real casualties, and blood and screaming and all of the mental stress that goes with it.

Could perfect training overcome that? In theory, maybe, but I don't think anyone's found that yet.

This is why in addition to putting lead through concentric rings on paper at 25 ft., it is also necessary to use human silhouettes at point blank range. With a human shape right in front of you, lift your sidearm to just contact the target and pull the trigger. Most gunfights happen in the range of 0-5 ft. If you can only gunfight at 10-25 ft., you'll always freeze up at 0 ft.

 

[VN Vet]

People, he only has two feet. He can be knocked down as easily as a naked man. All it would take would be one brave soul down front to act when the BG was looking the other way.

Of course, you may think this is only an armchair quarterback talking, but I can say I would do it because of my age and I have no fear of being shot or killed. If I were there with my loved ones and were down front where the BG was close, you can bet your sweet bippy I would act.