First lawsuit in the Colorado theater shooting wants to blame Warner Brothers for an event planned months before the movie came out. Somehow ten million other people saw the movie this weekend without shooting anyone. [Overlawyered] I’m surprised a pr…

It would depend on what type of tactical vest and garments he was wearing, and the type of handgun, sights and skill of the person acting in self defense.

Personal armor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_armor provides a reasonable review of the levels of protection. However, it states that personal armor meeting Level 1 will stop penetration by a .380 ACP. That’s not true of some of the.380 ACP ammo that is now available, and, if you are like me, you have a laser sight and practice head shots, since a .380 ACP isn’t a round that knocks someone down. But, although Level II or IIA armor will likely prevent a .380 ACP round from penetrating, there’s still plenty of force behind it, possibly enough to break ribs or dislocate a joint, either of which would significantly impair the shooter and increase the chances for people to escape.

Level IIIA is supposed to stop .45 ACP, 9 mm Parabellum, and .40 S & W rounds. Assuming that is true, there would still be a significant impact felt, possibly enough to knock the person down.

Level IV is essentially military style personal armor, which the shooter was not wearing.

In addition, you need to figure in the First Law of War for both the original shooter and anyone shooting back. The First Law of War is that War isn’t fun anymore when the other guy starts shooting back. In this case, the original shooter immediately surrendered when confronted by armed police. It is not unreasonable to conclude that he would have run away had there been someone to shoot back, and he may have picked the theatre since it was a gun free zone. However, in returning fire, that fact that may result in someone shooting (back) at you makes the situation much different than plugging targets at the range. Here the original shooter had a long gun, and trading shots using a pistol against someone with a semi-auto sports version of an assault rifle falls on the Bad Idea side of the Good to Bad spectrum. Still, we all tend to be Courageous When Drunk and Brave From A Distance, and that may be reflected in some of the comments. However, being armed and having a small chance beats being unarmed and a mere target.

Personally, I would rather have some (small) chance than no chance. However, I realize that self-defense is a last resort when society’s normal controls have failed. Here, the more important issue than gun control is how someone that sick went unnoticed and unhelped until he went to a threatre to kill randomly. Holmes didn’t fall through a crack. He fell through a canyon. The standards for civil commitment for evaluation and liability exposure of mental health providers for seeking such need serious revision. Till then, while I hope to experience random acts of kindness, I have to prepare for random acts of violence. I will run away if I can, but will be able to fight back if I have to. I see no other option except resigning myself and family to being victims, and hoping that my family and I are not unlucky and become them.

And firing back at the attacker would no doubt have diverted his attention from the unarmed innocents in the theater, giving them precious seconds to escape.

Ron: I carry a concealed pistol because I’m NOT expecting trouble – just as I always buckle up even though I never think I’ll get into a crash. If I’m expecting trouble, I’ll bring a high cap, high power rifle and 300 rounds of “black tip” ammo.

The point being that discussions of this type DO inform the debate – more guns in the good guys / gals hands (responsible citizens) = less crime, period. Anti-2nd Amendment types wish to remove guns from non-criminal citizens hands, leaving them defenseless to such depredations as just occurred. One well placed shot to the head of this sick bast*** would have ended this slaughter before it got too far along.

* – Blunt force trauma to the upper nervous system is the best way to promptly render an assailant physically incapable of continuing their assault. It’ll knock ’em out, even if the blow isn’t fatal. The shots to the chest will bleed them out by severing the aorta or heart, rendering them unconscious via blood loss, and an unconscious attacker is physically incapable of continuing. However there is the lag time between inflicting this chest shot blow and it becoming effective, during which a determined attacker can still inflict fatal wounds as evidenced by the Miami FBI shootout in the early 80’s. The challenge with head shots is, of course, that it’s a much smaller target than the center of mass (e.g. chest) so standard practice is to sequentially fire on both aim points to achieve a successful defensive engagement.

Point is, what would have or would not have helped in that movie theater does not well inform the gun control debate we are having in this country.

The news report on CNN were quite explicit as to the shooter being completely covered, including his neck and groin areas. They could be wrong. I am sure that many remember the two bank robbers who held off an entire police department until suitable high powered weapons that could overwhelm the bank robbers armor were brought into play.

Bob

There is some doubt on that at this point. I have read conflicting reports on what exactly he was wearing – this report indicates he was wearing a “tactical vest,” which is NOT bulletproof (although it is a military-style garment).

Nevertheless, getting shot while wearing a bulletproof vest is no picnic – there is a lot of energy behind even the smallest caliber bullet, and all that force has to go somewhere. A vest does a pretty good job at spreading it out, but it’s a very solid hit and the guy wearing the vest is going to feel considerable pain. If nothing else, “if only somebody else had a gun,” and that somebody had shot Holmes, Holmes would have paused to reconsider his attack – and probably retreated.