Navy seal recommends a flashlight for defense against movie theater shooting

[TweakMDS]

This advice is complete BS in this situation.
A strobe light from up close might give you a fraction of a moment extra to turn your back and run if someone is in your face to mug you. A strobe light, combined with shouting in a heavy voice can also diffuse a violent third party situation (for example if you see someone get beaten up) because they can't see you and might choose to take off.
If a crazy person is looking for targets to shoot, the strobe will only give him something to aim at.

You have a better chance of taking him out by throwing the light at his face, or quickly overcharging your 18650's and hoping for an explosion on impact...

 

[fyrstormer]

Interesting blog post regarding the situation in the theater and why new laws wouldn't help: http://blog.frankmtaylor.com/2012/0...eep-your-opinions-on-gun-control-to-yourself/

 

[braddy]

Originally posted by fyrstormer-- Generally speaking, shooting deaths occur where guns are present, not where guns are absent, so I remain unconvinced that more guns would've improved the outcome

That perfectly describes when police end a crime with gunfire or with the threat of using their gun, you think the police shouldn't have guns ?

 

[AnAppleSnail]

That perfectly describes when police end a crime with gunfire or with the threat of using their gun, you think the police shouldn't have guns ?

Redirect to Underground?


"Shooting deaths occur when there are guns" is not a helpful argument, since the sentence merely defines the first two words ("Shooting deaths"), AND requires the assumption of things that can't be made true ("gun free zones"). Sometimes it is easy to argue by making assumptions like that, since people who agree with you have made those assumptions already.

Heck, "Shooting deaths occur where there are guns," "Drownings only happen where nonbreathable things are inhaled," and "House fires only happen with sources of ignition" are just as applicable. These statements are true, and attempt to state a way to achieve something desirable (No shooting deaths, no drownings, no house fire deaths). But I can't think of a reasonable policy that could remove guns, nonbreathable things, or ignition sources, without trampling on the rights of many. Of course, it would be lovely to have some way to keep people who will later do harmful things from getting tools to do so, but we don't know what people will do in the future. And since we can't tell them from everyone else, we can only forbid things to most people (Except those who will get guns anyway), or allow them.

The statistics on "Does a higher rate of concealed carry reduce the severity of shooting incidents?" are pretty slim, in my knowledge. Maybe there's plenty more out there, but that would be a topic for one of our sibling forums, like The Underground.

 

[lightplay22]

The only light I would even consider shining at a gunman like this would be a crimson trace laser, probably shined at the gas mask/visor, swiftly followed by a steady trigger pull.
Its a pretty sure bet that a flashlight would quickly draw a hail of bullets in your general direction which, if your there with your family, would be a very bad thing. The only thing I would use a flashlight for would be to light a path toward the exit.

 

[Woods Walker]

I am no navy seal but feel a flashlight should be used to see in the dark not for a defense against a rifle or shotgun.

 

[redaudi]

Funny, you never seem to hear of a gun range getting held up or attacked... or a police station, or an armory.

Why?

I personally feel that if there were more guns available and carried, people would be less inclined to use one in the first place.

I guess it seems that ''gun free'' zones seem to be targeted, because it makes for a soft target. Criminals don't care what's legal, and they will have guns wherever they feel like committing crimes. banning guns only serves (in my opinion) to disarm the law abiding and make it harder to defend yourself.

Personally? I carry. Sign posted that forbids guns at a location? It's a sign, not a cop. concealed is concealed. Only place I don't is govt. buildings. I don't go to schools, so that's a non-issue.


Also, in a situation like the aurora shooter... trying to use a flashlight to take on an active shooter is just advertising yourself as an easily identified target.

 

[Ezeriel]

The fact is; we sell guns in this country that there is no way for a person, ninja or armed police officer to defend themselves against.

If that shooter hadn't surrendered, there would have been cops splattered all over the back lot of that theater as well.

 

[MichaelW]

I think it is time for this thread to be closed. The premise is debunked.
In court documents, it was released that this mind control subject was under the care of an Air Force doctor BEFORE the shooting. Total false flag crime by the government. Qui bono

 

[DanM]

A year ago Norway lost 98 of its people due to a gun man. Norway also some of the strictest gun laws. In Norway almost all
guns used in crimes were smuggled in.

 

[fyrstormer]

Funny, you never seem to hear of a gun range getting held up or attacked... or a police station, or an armory.

Why?

Because they have nothing of value. In any event, police stations and armories DO get attacked routinely during riots and revolutions. So, your premise is flawed.

 

[fyrstormer]

A year ago Norway lost 98 of its people due to a gun man. Norway also some of the strictest gun laws. In Norway almost all
guns used in crimes were smuggled in.

Good point.

"Shooting deaths occur when there are guns" is not a helpful argument, since the sentence merely defines the first two words ("Shooting deaths"), AND requires the assumption of things that can't be made true ("gun free zones"). Sometimes it is easy to argue by making assumptions like that, since people who agree with you have made those assumptions already.

Heck, "Shooting deaths occur where there are guns," "Drownings only happen where nonbreathable things are inhaled," and "House fires only happen with sources of ignition" are just as applicable. These statements are true, and attempt to state a way to achieve something desirable (No shooting deaths, no drownings, no house fire deaths). But I can't think of a reasonable policy that could remove guns, nonbreathable things, or ignition sources, without trampling on the rights of many.

You're taking my statement out of context. The first part of my statement, which is apparently the contentious part, was not my argument, it was my premise. Shooting deaths happen where guns are present, not where they are absent -- there is no possible way to dispute this. The argument I was making is: I'm not convinced more guns being present would've reduced the number of deaths. I don't think there was a way for this scenario to play out without approximately 12 bystanders getting killed.

It was a dark theater, full of flashing lights and loud noises and tear gas and terrified people. Do you really think a good samaritan with a gun would've killed the shooter amidst all the chaos with perfect accuracy and not created any more victims in the process? Do you really think people would've thought "oh, okay, someone's shooting back, I'll just duck behind the seats and wait so I won't get in the way?" Not bloody likely.

The only thing I can think might've helped is if the shooter's gun purchases had been registered, so someone somewhere could've said "hmm, this guy's been buying guns and stuff to make explosives lately, maybe we should swing by and see whether he just has a gopher problem." Whether it's possible to do that without turning the USA into a police state, I don't know -- but given the setting of the attack itself, the fates of the victims were pretty much decided in advance, even if there had been good samaritans with guns present.

 

[Quiksilver]

Simple self-evident truth:

> If you want a Gun-Free Zone to be such, you require airport-style security and perimeter security. If you are not willing to do this, then your Gun-Free Zone is not Gun-Free.

As a result, I do not see a valid reason why a good person should obey the rule, since it is easy for a bad person to disobey.

I'd rather have a "criminal" good person there with a gun in the seat beside me when that thing kicked off, than that same person beside me, with the gun in the glovebox of their vehicle.

A Gun-Free Zone without adequate border/perimeter security and screening procedure, is at best a mislead and false "feel good" rule. At worst, it could be challenged in civil court as a statement that leads to the unnecessary homicide of many individuals.

Heck, even off-duty cops cannot carry their firearm there.

 

[Federal LG]

For those that feel they stand a chance vs this guy wearing a ballistic helmet with what appears to be tinted visor... with only a flashlight in hand....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...fficials-say/2012/07/22/gJQAL9XN2W_print.html

I wouldn't try to blind him, temporarily disorientate or in other words, attract his attention my way unless I was wearing 10x the armor he was.

+1.

It´s ridiculous to think that a powerful flashlight can help you against someone heavy armed/armored. Maybe only if you use it to light your path while trying to escape in the dark cinema room.

Real shootings are very different from what we see in the movies. I lost my count of how many citizens was shot trying to react in a danger situation here in my country, unfortunately. And I work with this every day...

My advice: only people well armed and WELL TRAINED should react. I would love to know that there was a military or a LEO well armed inside that movie theater to engage that son of a b****, but it doesn´t happened...

My condolences to the americans for that tragic event.

 

[Quiksilver]

+1.

It´s ridiculous to think that a powerful flashlight can help you against someone heavy armed/armored. Maybe only if you use it to light your path while trying to escape in the dark cinema room.

Real shootings are very different from what we see in the movies. I lost my count of how many citizens was shot trying to react in a danger situation here in my country, unfortunately. And I work with this every day...

My advice: only people well armed and WELL TRAINED should react. I would love to know that there was a military or a LEO well armed inside that movie theater to engage that son of a b****, but it doesn´t happened...

My condolences to the americans for that tragic event.

As if police officers are somehow more proficient with their firearms than civilians are with theirs.

 

[jmpaul320]

if you hit someone in the face with a bright light that was already shooting, it would disorient and surprise them, but if they were already on a shooting rampage wouldnt they just instinctively start shooting in the the direction of the light even if they couldnt see?

 

[maxtherabbit]

You might need a big dog light, ala Olight SR51 or better, so you can find the actual perpetrators not just some died hair drugged up patsy.

with unsynchronized eyes no less - they were still synched in the before pics of the sucker...

 

[fyrstormer]

As if police officers are somehow more proficient with their firearms than civilians are with theirs.

Skill is only a small part of the equation, and the pro-carry lobby is willfully ignoring everything else. Ask a cop whether they could maintain focus long enough to aim and shoot accurately in a dark theater, with 100+ people running and screaming and climbing over the chairs and slamming into them as they attempt to escape.

There wasn't a better way for the scenario to play out, unless dumb luck played in favor of the audience. I actually think the audience did get lucky, because the shooter's rifle jammed shortly after he started using it. He could've killed a lot more people with a 100-round clip, if he'd been able to fire them all.

 

[Bullzeyebill]

Yes, this probably should be continued in the Underground. We moved from flashlights to guns pretty fast. which is OT for this thread. Not saying I am against guns, see my username, but we should keep on track, based on the original premise of the thread. Closing this thread.