Find the hole in this Theory...

Edward429451 · July 23, 2012, 11:56 AM

I hope this is the right forum for this. Here is my theory. Since we only fight with a pistol, to get back to the rifle that we shouldn't have laid down...then the pistol is merely a stand in for the rifle. From this perspective, we can say that even a big pistol is a lot more compact than even a short barreled carbine. Easier to carry, easier to shoot well than a pocket pistol, and almost always in a serious caliber which is much more versatile. So why bother with mouse guns?

In the movie theater, someone walked in with an AR, armored, and began shooting people. I have heard it surmised that it was too bad that no ccws were in the theater which could have returned fire. Maybe there was. Perhaps there was two or three LCPs or 380s in peoples pockets that day, but when the balloon went up, they knew they were under gunned. Who in their right mind would want to engage a shooter with an AR, with only a mouse gun?

A K or N frame size gun, or a service sized pistol would have been a lot easier to engage with, with a higher probability of a better outcome for all but the BG. Doesn't it make sense to carry a service size pistol over a pocket pistol?

SocialAnarchist · July 23, 2012, 12:04 PM

Kind of hard to conceal a large frame revolver or semi-auto in shorts and a t-shirt.

kayakersteve · July 23, 2012, 12:06 PM

Yes it makes sense to carry as big of a gun as you WILL actually carry. If I was unarmed or underarmed in that scenario, getting my family/self to safety would be my primary concern. If without family and properly armed, then a may have considered engaging - But am not sure. If I clearly am outpowered, then considering fight or flight - I'll take flight and run like hell.

freebird72 · July 23, 2012, 12:07 PM

Not everyone is built like Harry Callahan.

Patriot86 · July 23, 2012, 12:22 PM

It has not been revealed exactly what type of "body armor" this guy was wearing. My guess would be no higher than level III, probably only IIIA. Unless he was seriously on some pills like the guys in North Hollywood
contrary to the way TV portrays it getting shot in the vest hurts. Also contrary to TV where shots to the bulletproof vest always impact where the vest protects the most (center mass) many commercially available vests leave good sized sections (below the naval, arms/armpit) unprotected.

A P239 in 357 SIG even to the center of the vest would have made this guy take notice. A shot to the legs or arms would have caused a lot of trauma to that particular appendage limiting his ability to continue the fight. A shot to the head would have stopped it right then and there.

The P239 is not exactly a "service sized" gun but the 357 SIG cartridge packs a punch.

Considering the situation it sounds like the only way to "Flight" would be through the gunmans clear line a fire.

ScottRiqui · July 23, 2012, 12:27 PM

Given the totality of the circumstances, the practical difference between having a .380 and something larger is just about nil.

I can't imagine thinking "Well, if I had my .38, I'd do this, but since I only have a .380, I'll do this instead."

The difference between ANY gun and NO gun is much, much greater than the difference between the various pistol calibers.

BlueTrain · July 23, 2012, 12:43 PM

Yes, a larger caliber would probably get his attention, if that's what you want.

I don't know how long that thing lasted but chances are, it was over pretty fast. And chances are, given what movie theaters are like, you would have had a hard time exiting from most places. Tough situation. Sort of like you're sitting in traffic waiting for the light to change and another car barrels across the median strip heading straight for your side door, randomly chosen, of course. I actually saw that happen but it was someone else's door.

Strafer Gott · July 23, 2012, 12:54 PM

This may be in poor taste, but practicing on small targets has real applicability when the chips are down. Call it punkin' shootin', or whatever, but a .38 target load in the windows will stop most fights. Anybody proficient enough to hunt small game with a handgun can easily score hits on the punkin'. If your pocket pistol won't nail a popcan at ten or fifteen yards, get a better piece, or practice until you can. There are citizens who take cc seriously enough to prepare for the day that we hope never comes. It sure takes a lot of confidence and mindset to stand up to a monster. Build it while you can.

**Tom Servo** · July 23, 2012, 01:03 PM

Quote:

A K or N frame size gun, or a service sized pistol would have been a lot easier to engage with, with a higher probability of a better outcome for all but the BG. Doesn't it make sense to carry a service size pistol over a pocket pistol?

It does, and I frequently carry a K-Frame. However, we're assuming a lot about the situation at hand, and even if I'd had a subgun under a jacket, I'm not sure engaging the shooter would be effective.

Firearms aren't magical talismans, and they can't fix everything.

BlueTrain · July 23, 2012, 02:03 PM

You may be correct. Every go hunting on a foggy night?

Ronbert · July 23, 2012, 02:04 PM

It was dark and chaotic. We only know in hindsight that the guy was armored.

Emptying your CCW into his center of mass - or whatever spread you could make under the circumstances- would have attracted fatal attention. Perhaps you could have wounded him with a wild shot, perhaps not. This is one case where a hi-cap magazine dump in his direction might actually have some validity. Or not.

Sometimes it's a losing scenario.

He could have used a bomb.

g.willikers · July 23, 2012, 02:07 PM

The gun, the size and caliber, is really the least of it.

Slopemeno · July 23, 2012, 02:19 PM

Looks like his vest turned out to just be a "tactical" vest, and not body armor.

Edward429451 · July 23, 2012, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Given the totality of the circumstances, the practical difference between having a .380 and something larger is just about nil.

I do not agree with this. The circumstances were a dark room full of chaos with a random shooter, you seem to be saying that a pocket sized 380 would stand as much chance as a full frame, easier to shoot pistol in this case? You go on to state that any gun is better than no gun, and you are correct in this, however, I am clearly comparing the mouse guns to bigger pistols, and the bigger pistols as a stand in for a rifle.

It is debatable whether or not a bigger gun would be a significantly better option than a pocket pistol (hence the thread), because, as noted, any gun is not a magic talisman with guarantees. Point well taken. Yet that does not mean that a service size pistol, perhaps with night sights, would be no better than your Seecamp! Oversized room in the dark, armored perp, exit blocked.

I've been lugging this 5" Colt 45 around for a lotta lotta years now, and I will admit that the few close calls that I have had, a 380 would have sufficed. I've thought about downsizing, but recent events have made me re-think it in another light. Service size pistols are easier to shoot well with than compacts because of increased sight radius, larger controls, and a proper grip. All these things will become important in an incident. You'll be highly stressed, fine motor skills gone, and probably in a loud chaotic environment. If all these cards will be stacked against you, then it makes sense to me to choose a larger gun over a smaller one.

I am built like Harry Callahan. Tall and thin. It's no feat to conceal a 5" 1911 IWB under a t-shirt. It's all about having the right holster and belt. I'm not tryin to carve anything into stone here fellahs, just tossin some ideas around.

Nanuk · July 23, 2012, 02:46 PM

The sad fact is, few people are willing to invest in the time and expense it takes to truly master their carry gun. Its good enough for a certain percentage of situations. I always train for the worst case scenario, if it does not turn out that way cool.

This evil individual set his ambush up very well indeed. There are two ways the military trains in regards to ambushes, exit the kill zone and/or attack the ambush. Granted this was not a military maneuver but it was a well executed ambush. The shooter had a lot of advantages to be sure, depending on where you were in the theater, a well trained individual could have turned the tables. A small bright light is part of my EDC if I am going to be out and about in the dark.

Target identification is critical, we know this. Carry enough gun - Friends don't let friends carry mouse guns. I have found if I can carry a Keltec PF9 I can carry a J frame 357, If I can carry that I can carry my G27. But then again I can conceal most handguns, I am built like a lineman.

huntinaz · July 23, 2012, 02:52 PM

Quote:

I can't imagine thinking "Well, if I had my .38, I'd do this, but since I only have a .380, I'll do this instead."

I guess I can. Say a body had a flanking position on the shooter at 25 yards or so. If it was me, I might try to put a SWC thru his gas mask. Wouldn't even consider it with a 380 pocket pistol.

There are a million scenarios and arguing about it seems kinda silly, but I guess I hold the same opinion as Ed; a full size carry pistol could potentially be advantageous over a mouse gun in certain situations, and this is one of those situations.

Ronbert · July 23, 2012, 02:54 PM

The service gun would certainly be easier to shoot accurately.
It's just darned incovenient to carry and conceal for most of us.

I personally have proven to myself (and others at the range) I can shoot my DA .357 snubbie (38 spl rounds) and keep all the rounds on a standard bullseye target at 50'. But shooting a 1911 would be easier.

I'd be proud to stand up alongside you and return fire. We'll let the police figure out the hit factor afterwards. Ok?

**Tom Servo** · July 23, 2012, 03:15 PM

Quote:

I personally have proven to myself (and others at the range) I can shoot my DA .357 snubbie (38 spl rounds) and keep all the rounds on a standard bullseye target at 50'.

That's good shooting, but it's done at leisure.

Being able to do so under the stress, distraction, and panic of the situation in question is something else altogether.

jmhyer · July 23, 2012, 03:21 PM

I must say that I agree with the OP here.

I can't imagine a scenario where if I was given a choice between a .40 or .45 and a .380, I would take the shot with a .380. And, let's admit it...you always have that choice...it's just a matter of how much you are willing to be inconvenienced for your safety. As for me, I carry a 4" M&P everywhere. I dress around my weapon of choice. I don't choose my weapon based on how I'm dressed.

That's what I do. What the knowledge is worth to you might be exactly what you paid for it.

mySig229 · July 23, 2012, 03:26 PM

This is why I carry an extra magazine. People underestimate the impact of "suppressive fire". If you had 14+1 loaded (FNX-40) and fired your rounds while moving closer to the target and cover...you'd still have another 14 with the extra mag. That 14+1 is a long time to line up a good shot and get to a better position. The theater shooter was only wearing a vest, no armor.

Yes firing at the guy may make you a target...but, isn't that better than a sitting duck?

And remember guys...keep it civil

shaunpain · July 23, 2012, 03:49 PM

For me, personally, I doubt I would engage the shooter even if I had my own AR on deck. The chance for hits in the dark, through smoke, and with innocents running in all directions wouldn't work for me in panic mode. While the shooter has no problem blasting into any space, I wouldn't take the chance of my strays hitting anything but my target.

I had a friend over FB (I know, I know...) comment on how he felt that the drum magazine gave the shooter the advantage of not having to reload. If he was reloading, he'd be vulnerable and some hero would knock his block off - saving the day. I opined that I don't believe I know of too many men or women that would resort to that choice instantaneously under extreme duress, while being fired at with a black rifle of any sort.

Fact is, we don't have the facts to say much about it. Tragic.

shaunpain · July 23, 2012, 03:51 PM

Oh, and not to mention the cacophony of screaming and getting kicked, punched and trampled by a herd of terrified people.

Dwight55 · July 23, 2012, 04:09 PM

Actually the conversation is null an void: the theater was a "gun free zone" from what has been posted.

Carrying there would most likely have gotten the sheep dog thrown out and possibly even legal charges leveled against him/her.

All in all, . . . just another good reason to subscribe to Netflix.

May God bless,
Dwight

markj · July 23, 2012, 04:40 PM

Why just the other day in the Ozarks in Misouri of all places, a man was escourted out of the theater for OCing a sidearm.

hindsite is always 20-20, but to actually be there.......well cant say how anyone will re act to that.

I feel for them that were there and were hurt in any way. Is all I can do..

Neal_G. · July 23, 2012, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Here is my theory. Since we only fight with a pistol, to get back to the rifle that we shouldn't have laid down...then the pistol is merely a stand in for the rifle.

Whenever I hear this I always wonder in what part of the US are people always trying to fight their way back to a rifle?

I don't suit up for combat when I leave the house. I'm not changing my carry choice because one nutball inflicted a massacre on one day, in one movie theatre, in one town, within one state, of the 50 states that make up the US...

For the threats I see in my general location, which are mostly robbery, car-jacking, etc, my Glock 26 will work just fine. If I for some reason think I have to prepare to go to-to-toe with mass murderers or a team of them in a Mumbai style attack, I might as well just not go outside. Thats not exactly 'living'.

July 23, 2012, 11:56 AM	#1
Edward429451 Junior member Join Date: November 12, 2000 Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado Posts: 9,494	Find the hole in this Theory... I hope this is the right forum for this. Here is my theory. Since we only fight with a pistol, to get back to the rifle that we shouldn't have laid down...then the pistol is merely a stand in for the rifle. From this perspective, we can say that even a big pistol is a lot more compact than even a short barreled carbine. Easier to carry, easier to shoot well than a pocket pistol, and almost always in a serious caliber which is much more versatile. So why bother with mouse guns? In the movie theater, someone walked in with an AR, armored, and began shooting people. I have heard it surmised that it was too bad that no ccws were in the theater which could have returned fire. Maybe there was. Perhaps there was two or three LCPs or 380s in peoples pockets that day, but when the balloon went up, they knew they were under gunned. Who in their right mind would want to engage a shooter with an AR, with only a mouse gun? A K or N frame size gun, or a service sized pistol would have been a lot easier to engage with, with a higher probability of a better outcome for all but the BG. Doesn't it make sense to carry a service size pistol over a pocket pistol?

July 23, 2012, 12:06 PM	#3
kayakersteve Senior Member Join Date: March 17, 2007 Location: Western NY Posts: 925	Yes it makes sense to carry as big of a gun as you WILL actually carry. If I was unarmed or underarmed in that scenario, getting my family/self to safety would be my primary concern. If without family and properly armed, then a may have considered engaging - But am not sure. If I clearly am outpowered, then considering fight or flight - I'll take flight and run like hell. __________________ See Ya!

July 23, 2012, 12:43 PM	#7
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	Yes, a larger caliber would probably get his attention, if that's what you want. I don't know how long that thing lasted but chances are, it was over pretty fast. And chances are, given what movie theaters are like, you would have had a hard time exiting from most places. Tough situation. Sort of like you're sitting in traffic waiting for the light to change and another car barrels across the median strip heading straight for your side door, randomly chosen, of course. I actually saw that happen but it was someone else's door. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

July 23, 2012, 02:03 PM	#10
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	You may be correct. Every go hunting on a foggy night? __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

July 23, 2012, 02:07 PM	#12
g.willikers Senior Member Join Date: September 28, 2008 Posts: 10,442	The gun, the size and caliber, is really the least of it. __________________ Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez: “Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.”

July 23, 2012, 12:04 PM	#2
SocialAnarchist Junior member Join Date: April 16, 2011 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 508	Kind of hard to conceal a large frame revolver or semi-auto in shorts and a t-shirt.

July 23, 2012, 12:07 PM	#4
freebird72 Senior Member Join Date: March 25, 2010 Posts: 241	Not everyone is built like Harry Callahan.

July 23, 2012, 12:22 PM	#5
Patriot86 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2010 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 1,293	It has not been revealed exactly what type of "body armor" this guy was wearing. My guess would be no higher than level III, probably only IIIA. Unless he was seriously on some pills like the guys in North Hollywood contrary to the way TV portrays it getting shot in the vest hurts. Also contrary to TV where shots to the bulletproof vest always impact where the vest protects the most (center mass) many commercially available vests leave good sized sections (below the naval, arms/armpit) unprotected. A P239 in 357 SIG even to the center of the vest would have made this guy take notice. A shot to the legs or arms would have caused a lot of trauma to that particular appendage limiting his ability to continue the fight. A shot to the head would have stopped it right then and there. The P239 is not exactly a "service sized" gun but the 357 SIG cartridge packs a punch. Considering the situation it sounds like the only way to "Flight" would be through the gunmans clear line a fire.

July 23, 2012, 12:27 PM	#6
ScottRiqui Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2010 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 2,905	Given the totality of the circumstances, the practical difference between having a .380 and something larger is just about nil. I can't imagine thinking "Well, if I had my .38, I'd do this, but since I only have a .380, I'll do this instead." The difference between ANY gun and NO gun is much, much greater than the difference between the various pistol calibers.

July 23, 2012, 12:54 PM	#8
Strafer Gott Senior Member Join Date: May 12, 2011 Location: New Mexico Posts: 1,315	This may be in poor taste, but practicing on small targets has real applicability when the chips are down. Call it punkin' shootin', or whatever, but a .38 target load in the windows will stop most fights. Anybody proficient enough to hunt small game with a handgun can easily score hits on the punkin'. If your pocket pistol won't nail a popcan at ten or fifteen yards, get a better piece, or practice until you can. There are citizens who take cc seriously enough to prepare for the day that we hope never comes. It sure takes a lot of confidence and mindset to stand up to a monster. Build it while you can.

July 23, 2012, 02:04 PM	#11
Ronbert Senior Member Join Date: September 23, 2009 Location: Ft. Collins, CO. Posts: 398	It was dark and chaotic. We only know in hindsight that the guy was armored. Emptying your CCW into his center of mass - or whatever spread you could make under the circumstances- would have attracted fatal attention. Perhaps you could have wounded him with a wild shot, perhaps not. This is one case where a hi-cap magazine dump in his direction might actually have some validity. Or not. Sometimes it's a losing scenario. He could have used a bomb.

July 23, 2012, 02:19 PM	#13
Slopemeno Senior Member Join Date: January 19, 2007 Posts: 2,663	Looks like his vest turned out to just be a "tactical" vest, and not body armor.

July 23, 2012, 02:46 PM	#15
Nanuk Senior Member Join Date: January 2, 2005 Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam. Posts: 3,082	The sad fact is, few people are willing to invest in the time and expense it takes to truly master their carry gun. Its good enough for a certain percentage of situations. I always train for the worst case scenario, if it does not turn out that way cool. This evil individual set his ambush up very well indeed. There are two ways the military trains in regards to ambushes, exit the kill zone and/or attack the ambush. Granted this was not a military maneuver but it was a well executed ambush. The shooter had a lot of advantages to be sure, depending on where you were in the theater, a well trained individual could have turned the tables. A small bright light is part of my EDC if I am going to be out and about in the dark. Target identification is critical, we know this. Carry enough gun - Friends don't let friends carry mouse guns. I have found if I can carry a Keltec PF9 I can carry a J frame 357, If I can carry that I can carry my G27. But then again I can conceal most handguns, I am built like a lineman. __________________ Retired Law Enforcement U. S. Army Veteran Armorer My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.

July 23, 2012, 02:54 PM	#17
Ronbert Senior Member Join Date: September 23, 2009 Location: Ft. Collins, CO. Posts: 398	The service gun would certainly be easier to shoot accurately. It's just darned incovenient to carry and conceal for most of us. I personally have proven to myself (and others at the range) I can shoot my DA .357 snubbie (38 spl rounds) and keep all the rounds on a standard bullseye target at 50'. But shooting a 1911 would be easier. I'd be proud to stand up alongside you and return fire. We'll let the police figure out the hit factor afterwards. Ok?

July 23, 2012, 03:21 PM	#19
jmhyer Senior Member Join Date: June 19, 2012 Location: MS - USA Posts: 899	I must say that I agree with the OP here. I can't imagine a scenario where if I was given a choice between a .40 or .45 and a .380, I would take the shot with a .380. And, let's admit it...you always have that choice...it's just a matter of how much you are willing to be inconvenienced for your safety. As for me, I carry a 4" M&P everywhere. I dress around my weapon of choice. I don't choose my weapon based on how I'm dressed. That's what I do. What the knowledge is worth to you might be exactly what you paid for it.

July 23, 2012, 03:26 PM	#20
mySig229 Senior Member Join Date: July 19, 2011 Posts: 120	This is why I carry an extra magazine. People underestimate the impact of "suppressive fire". If you had 14+1 loaded (FNX-40) and fired your rounds while moving closer to the target and cover...you'd still have another 14 with the extra mag. That 14+1 is a long time to line up a good shot and get to a better position. The theater shooter was only wearing a vest, no armor. Yes firing at the guy may make you a target...but, isn't that better than a sitting duck? And remember guys...keep it civil

July 23, 2012, 03:49 PM	#21
shaunpain Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2008 Location: Chicago Posts: 854	For me, personally, I doubt I would engage the shooter even if I had my own AR on deck. The chance for hits in the dark, through smoke, and with innocents running in all directions wouldn't work for me in panic mode. While the shooter has no problem blasting into any space, I wouldn't take the chance of my strays hitting anything but my target. I had a friend over FB (I know, I know...) comment on how he felt that the drum magazine gave the shooter the advantage of not having to reload. If he was reloading, he'd be vulnerable and some hero would knock his block off - saving the day. I opined that I don't believe I know of too many men or women that would resort to that choice instantaneously under extreme duress, while being fired at with a black rifle of any sort. Fact is, we don't have the facts to say much about it. Tragic. __________________ "Shut up, crime!"

July 23, 2012, 03:51 PM	#22
shaunpain Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2008 Location: Chicago Posts: 854	Oh, and not to mention the cacophony of screaming and getting kicked, punched and trampled by a herd of terrified people. __________________ "Shut up, crime!"

July 23, 2012, 04:09 PM	#23
Dwight55 Senior Member Join Date: June 18, 2004 Location: Central Ohio Posts: 2,568	Actually the conversation is null an void: the theater was a "gun free zone" from what has been posted. Carrying there would most likely have gotten the sheep dog thrown out and possibly even legal charges leveled against him/her. All in all, . . . just another good reason to subscribe to Netflix. May God bless, Dwight __________________ www.dwightsgunleather.com If you can breathe, . . . thank God! If you can read, . . . thank a teacher! If you are reading this in English, . . . thank a Veteran!

July 23, 2012, 04:40 PM	#24
markj Senior Member Join Date: October 27, 2005 Location: Crescent Iowa Posts: 2,971	Why just the other day in the Ozarks in Misouri of all places, a man was escourted out of the theater for OCing a sidearm. hindsite is always 20-20, but to actually be there.......well cant say how anyone will re act to that. I feel for them that were there and were hurt in any way. Is all I can do..