Trump: A Good Guy With A Gun Could Have Helped Stop Orlando Massacre

[Alystyr]

There is also the high likelihood of a terrorist perpetrating such an act will be wearing full body armor. The "good" citizen would have to be a crack shot on most likely a moving target. Head shots are rare under those circumstances. Unless your "pistol has a laser pointer attached or a scope, going up against the AR15 is stupid. The terrorist was trained with weapons. Your "good" citizen would also need the kind of close in combat training necessary.

Just sayin...

Full body armor is rare, expensive and likely to attract FBI attention and depending on how "Full" could tip off security or others that you are about to do something.

AND still does not cover everything.


Head shots at 10 or 20 feet are not that "rare".

A head shot might not even be necessary.
Getting hit by a .357, .40, or .45, even with body armor + trauma plate, is going to HURT. Like getting bashed by a baseball bat kind of hurt.
Something like that would likely put someone out of action for at least a few seconds - seconds that could be used to either make an escape or close in to disarm or otherwise subdue.

People in bad situations don't react like James Bond. Many freeze. Many just lose their minds and just completely tune out. Only one in a hundred have the where with all to run TOO danger. I doubt if any of those types are homosexuals. Stop trying to view the world like in a Hollywood action movie. Average people can't afford to have stunt doubles follow them around to do the action shots.

I never said that anyone would "react like James Bond". I was responding to Correll regarding the necessity of head shots where body armor was involved. The topic of Hollywood was neither expressed nor implied.

My idea of "Hollywood" was just an example...not a topic. I think many people expect too much from those victims in Orlando.

You could very well be right about that. Panicked people in a dark, loud area may not be capable of much rational thought.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yeah, it would have been sooo much better with a bunch of NRA gun nuts shooting blindly in the dark.

When has that ever happened?

waco, Twin Peaks restaurant.

That was a gang fight. Try again.

The allegation was "a bunch of NRA gun nuts shooting blindly in the dark".

The question was "When has that ever happened?"

It happened at Twin Peaks in Waco, TX.

Examine the widely distributed video of the incident for proof.

Certainly, you're not alleging that only gang members were present; are you?

Precisely, and the example of Twin Peaks doesn't fit. Give the name(s) of the innocent bystanders who pulled out their guns and shot back at the perps and hit other innocent bystanders. This scenario never happens, but the gun grabbers keep using it as an excuse to justify gun free zones. In fact, I can only think of two instances where return gunfire at an attacker resulted in innocent bystanders being hurt and in both instances it was done by the NYPD, not the average Joe Blow with a CWP.

 

[Lakhota]

Combat veterans shoot down the NRA: ‘Good guy with a gun’ is based on a ‘fantasy world’ – DeadState

Trump is full shit.

 

[bripat9643]

Donald Trump Wishes There Had Been More Armed Orlando Clubgoers Shooting Blindly In The Crowded Room

There actually was a security guard with a gun. That didn’t stop the massacre.

Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, believes that if there’d been more people with guns at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, Saturday night, the horrific massacre that resulted in at least 50 people dead wouldn’t have been as bad.

“If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy that you had,” Trump said in a CNN interview Monday morning.

Trump is pushing the “good guy with a gun” theory, a favorite of groups like the National Rifle Association that want to stop any gun control measures. The argument is that mass shootings can be stopped more quickly if other people have guns and are able to fire back at the shooter.

But as CNN pointed out to Trump, there actually was a good guy with a gun at the Orlando nightclub. As the Los Angeles Times reported:

Orlando Police Chief John Mina said an off-duty police officer working security at the club in uniform traded gunfire with the attacker.

Officials said that after police responded to reports of the violence, the attacker retreated to a bathroom with hostages. Police held back because the attacker made statements about having explosives, they said.​

Trump, however, insisted that the answer was simply more people firing guns in dark, crowded nightclubs.

“If you had guns in that room, if you had — even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn’t have had that tragedy,” Trump said.

Attempts by armed civilians to stop mass shooters are incredibly rare — and they often end up being deadly for the well-meaning civilians. It’s also hard in those chaotic, fast-moving situations for untrained civilians to sort out the good guys from the bad guys.

More: Trump: A Good Guy With A Gun Could Have Helped Stop Orlando Massacre

Trump failed to realize, or acknowledge, that there WAS a good guy with a gun there who traded gunfire with the attacker - an off-duty police officer in uniform.

There is no doubt in the mind of reasonable people of average and above intelligence that Donald Trump is both a charlatan and a demagogue. His comments over the past few days have proved this.

Actually, only morons like you believe that. They also believe Hillary is a good candidate. That's the ultimate in gullibility.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah, it would have been sooo much better with a bunch of NRA gun nuts shooting blindly in the dark.

When has that ever happened?

waco, Twin Peaks restaurant.

That was a gang fight. Try again.

The allegation was "a bunch of NRA gun nuts shooting blindly in the dark".

The question was "When has that ever happened?"

It happened at Twin Peaks in Waco, TX.

Examine the widely distributed video of the incident for proof.

Certainly, you're not alleging that only gang members were present; are you?

Precisely, and the example of Twin Peaks doesn't fit. Give the name(s) of the innocent bystanders who pulled out their guns and shot back at the perps and hit other innocent bystanders. This scenario never happens, but the gun grabbers keep using it as an excuse to justify gun free zones. In fact, I can only think of two instances where return gunfire at an attacker resulted in innocent bystanders being hurt and in both instances it was done by the NYPD, not the average Joe Blow with a CWP.

You've strayed into the area where you're identifying a distinction without a difference. Whether or not the guy firing the weapon means to or not, he may hit the "opponent" or a bystander. In both cases of whether the guy firing is part of the melee or not you had an untrained assailant hitting an innocent bystander.

 

[Contumacious]

When has that ever happened?

waco, Twin Peaks restaurant.

That was a gang fight. Try again.

The allegation was "a bunch of NRA gun nuts shooting blindly in the dark".

The question was "When has that ever happened?"

It happened at Twin Peaks in Waco, TX.

Examine the widely distributed video of the incident for proof.

Certainly, you're not alleging that only gang members were present; are you?

Precisely, and the example of Twin Peaks doesn't fit. Give the name(s) of the innocent bystanders who pulled out their guns and shot back at the perps and hit other innocent bystanders. This scenario never happens, but the gun grabbers keep using it as an excuse to justify gun free zones. In fact, I can only think of two instances where return gunfire at an attacker resulted in innocent bystanders being hurt and in both instances it was done by the NYPD, not the average Joe Blow with a CWP.

You've strayed into the area where you're identifying a distinction without a difference. Whether or not the guy firing the weapon means to or not, he may hit the "opponent" or a bystander. In both cases of whether the guy firing is part of the melee or not you had an untrained assailant hitting an innocent bystander.

Sheriff David Clarke's radio ad says 911 not best option, urges residents to take firearms classes

 

[Claudette]

Donald Trump Wishes There Had Been More Armed Orlando Clubgoers Shooting Blindly In The Crowded Room

There actually was a security guard with a gun. That didn’t stop the massacre.

Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, believes that if there’d been more people with guns at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, Saturday night, the horrific massacre that resulted in at least 50 people dead wouldn’t have been as bad.

“If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy that you had,” Trump said in a CNN interview Monday morning.

Trump is pushing the “good guy with a gun” theory, a favorite of groups like the National Rifle Association that want to stop any gun control measures. The argument is that mass shootings can be stopped more quickly if other people have guns and are able to fire back at the shooter.

But as CNN pointed out to Trump, there actually was a good guy with a gun at the Orlando nightclub. As the Los Angeles Times reported:

Orlando Police Chief John Mina said an off-duty police officer working security at the club in uniform traded gunfire with the attacker.

Officials said that after police responded to reports of the violence, the attacker retreated to a bathroom with hostages. Police held back because the attacker made statements about having explosives, they said.​

Trump, however, insisted that the answer was simply more people firing guns in dark, crowded nightclubs.

“If you had guns in that room, if you had — even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn’t have had that tragedy,” Trump said.

Attempts by armed civilians to stop mass shooters are incredibly rare — and they often end up being deadly for the well-meaning civilians. It’s also hard in those chaotic, fast-moving situations for untrained civilians to sort out the good guys from the bad guys.

More: Trump: A Good Guy With A Gun Could Have Helped Stop Orlando Massacre

Trump failed to realize, or acknowledge, that there WAS a good guy with a gun there who traded gunfire with the attacker - an off-duty police officer in uniform.

I wish there had been more "good guys with guns" there too.

Perhaps one of them could have gotten a good shot at the guy before the Death Toll reached 50.


The idea that armed civilians stopping mass shootings being rare, is pretty stupid.

When you consider that mass shootings are rare.

I agree. Good folks with guns would have blown that asshole away.

 

[Correll]

It wasn't a No Ninja Zone, or a No Good Guy With Boss Throwing Skills zone. It was a No Gun Zone, and if the people in there were armed, they'd have stopped it.

Right and because they werent armed they all decided trying to live isnt worth it? Guns make people brave!

Now you're just showing how ignorant you are. If they had guns, they'd have been able to shoot him from a distance. Without said guns, they were just either trying to escape or being shot... or both. Or do you not think that holding a gun significantly increases your chances of survival? If that's the case, feel free to try protecting your house and family from an armed burglar with your bare hands. I'm sure it'll work out great.

"IF" a lot of things but you guys arent even considering the fact that some people were more interested in saving themselves than saving everyone.

I mean, could someone with a gun make a difference? Sure. Will they because they have a gun decide to act? No.

COULD THEY? Yes. I mean, if we're playing the anything is possible game then sure!

We are playing the anything is possible game.

You lefties are playing WI there was tight gun control.

We righties are playing, WI there was one or more, more guys with guns.


Both are legitimate in discussions of policy.

In a nightclub? I thought they had security there...Didnt they?

How is the fact that they had security there relevant to the WI there were armed people there who could fight back?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Donald Trump Wishes There Had Been More Armed Orlando Clubgoers Shooting Blindly In The Crowded Room

There actually was a security guard with a gun. That didn’t stop the massacre.

Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, believes that if there’d been more people with guns at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, Saturday night, the horrific massacre that resulted in at least 50 people dead wouldn’t have been as bad.

“If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy that you had,” Trump said in a CNN interview Monday morning.

Trump is pushing the “good guy with a gun” theory, a favorite of groups like the National Rifle Association that want to stop any gun control measures. The argument is that mass shootings can be stopped more quickly if other people have guns and are able to fire back at the shooter.

But as CNN pointed out to Trump, there actually was a good guy with a gun at the Orlando nightclub. As the Los Angeles Times reported:

Orlando Police Chief John Mina said an off-duty police officer working security at the club in uniform traded gunfire with the attacker.

Officials said that after police responded to reports of the violence, the attacker retreated to a bathroom with hostages. Police held back because the attacker made statements about having explosives, they said.​

Trump, however, insisted that the answer was simply more people firing guns in dark, crowded nightclubs.

“If you had guns in that room, if you had — even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn’t have had that tragedy,” Trump said.

Attempts by armed civilians to stop mass shooters are incredibly rare — and they often end up being deadly for the well-meaning civilians. It’s also hard in those chaotic, fast-moving situations for untrained civilians to sort out the good guys from the bad guys.

More: Trump: A Good Guy With A Gun Could Have Helped Stop Orlando Massacre

Trump failed to realize, or acknowledge, that there WAS a good guy with a gun there who traded gunfire with the attacker - an off-duty police officer in uniform.

I wonder who would have more of a chance you with out a gun or me with a gun?

.

 

[Correll]

Donald Trump Wishes There Had Been More Armed Orlando Clubgoers Shooting Blindly In The Crowded Room

There actually was a security guard with a gun. That didn’t stop the massacre.

Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, believes that if there’d been more people with guns at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, Saturday night, the horrific massacre that resulted in at least 50 people dead wouldn’t have been as bad.

“If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy that you had,” Trump said in a CNN interview Monday morning.

Trump is pushing the “good guy with a gun” theory, a favorite of groups like the National Rifle Association that want to stop any gun control measures. The argument is that mass shootings can be stopped more quickly if other people have guns and are able to fire back at the shooter.

But as CNN pointed out to Trump, there actually was a good guy with a gun at the Orlando nightclub. As the Los Angeles Times reported:

Orlando Police Chief John Mina said an off-duty police officer working security at the club in uniform traded gunfire with the attacker.

Officials said that after police responded to reports of the violence, the attacker retreated to a bathroom with hostages. Police held back because the attacker made statements about having explosives, they said.​

Trump, however, insisted that the answer was simply more people firing guns in dark, crowded nightclubs.

“If you had guns in that room, if you had — even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn’t have had that tragedy,” Trump said.

Attempts by armed civilians to stop mass shooters are incredibly rare — and they often end up being deadly for the well-meaning civilians. It’s also hard in those chaotic, fast-moving situations for untrained civilians to sort out the good guys from the bad guys.

More: Trump: A Good Guy With A Gun Could Have Helped Stop Orlando Massacre

Trump failed to realize, or acknowledge, that there WAS a good guy with a gun there who traded gunfire with the attacker - an off-duty police officer in uniform.

Something else Trump doesn't know anything about.

Something else Trump knows more about than lefties.

 

[Correll]

To my utter amazement, I just learned from a U.S. Senator on MSNBC that if someone is on the terrorist watch list - that does not prevent them from legally buying a gun.

So, suspicion from a law enforcement agency is cause for loss of rights?

 

[Correll]

Donnie is full of shit .

THE SECOND THE FIRST SHOTS WERE HEARD ..... IMPULSE TRAINING

rule 1 .... hit the deck ( self preservation)
rule 2 .... identify target
rule 3 .... eliminate target ONLY when a CLEAR shot presents itself.

Fuck Trump and any of you Trumpbots who actually believe an armed guard or armed civilian could have made a huge difference in a dark club with 300 people freaking out in mass confusion.

Nothing in your list makes it clear that an armed civilian could NOT have made a "huge difference" in this situation.

All the people would be running AWAY from the man killing them.

An armed person on the ground or behind cover might then have a CLEAR shot to the gunman.


THe gunman is looking at hundreds of people. The armed civilian is looking at ONE person. That reverses the element of surprise from the murderer to the armed civilian.

 

[Correll]

Donald Trump Wishes There Had Been More Armed Orlando Clubgoers Shooting Blindly In The Crowded Room

There actually was a security guard with a gun. That didn’t stop the massacre.

Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, believes that if there’d been more people with guns at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, Saturday night, the horrific massacre that resulted in at least 50 people dead wouldn’t have been as bad.

“If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy that you had,” Trump said in a CNN interview Monday morning.

Trump is pushing the “good guy with a gun” theory, a favorite of groups like the National Rifle Association that want to stop any gun control measures. The argument is that mass shootings can be stopped more quickly if other people have guns and are able to fire back at the shooter.

But as CNN pointed out to Trump, there actually was a good guy with a gun at the Orlando nightclub. As the Los Angeles Times reported:

Orlando Police Chief John Mina said an off-duty police officer working security at the club in uniform traded gunfire with the attacker.

Officials said that after police responded to reports of the violence, the attacker retreated to a bathroom with hostages. Police held back because the attacker made statements about having explosives, they said.​

Trump, however, insisted that the answer was simply more people firing guns in dark, crowded nightclubs.

“If you had guns in that room, if you had — even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn’t have had that tragedy,” Trump said.

Attempts by armed civilians to stop mass shooters are incredibly rare — and they often end up being deadly for the well-meaning civilians. It’s also hard in those chaotic, fast-moving situations for untrained civilians to sort out the good guys from the bad guys.

More: Trump: A Good Guy With A Gun Could Have Helped Stop Orlando Massacre

Trump failed to realize, or acknowledge, that there WAS a good guy with a gun there who traded gunfire with the attacker - an off-duty police officer in uniform.

I wish there had been more "good guys with guns" there too.

Perhaps one of them could have gotten a good shot at the guy before the Death Toll reached 50.


The idea that armed civilians stopping mass shootings being rare, is pretty stupid.

When you consider that mass shootings are rare.

Yeah, it would have been sooo much better with a bunch of NRA gun nuts shooting blindly in the dark.

There is also the high likelihood of a terrorist perpetrating such an act will be wearing full body armor. The "good" citizen would have to be a crack shot on most likely a moving target. Head shots are rare under those circumstances. Unless your "pistol has a laser pointer attached or a scope, going up against the AR15 is stupid. The terrorist was trained with weapons. Your "good" citizen would also need the kind of close in combat training necessary.

Just sayin...

Full body armor is rare, expensive and likely to attract FBI attention and depending on how "Full" could tip off security or others that you are about to do something.

AND still does not cover everything.


Head shots at 10 or 20 feet are not that "rare".

A head shot might not even be necessary.
Getting hit by a .357, .40, or .45, even with body armor + trauma plate, is going to HURT. Like getting bashed by a baseball bat kind of hurt.
Something like that would likely put someone out of action for at least a few seconds - seconds that could be used to either make an escape or close in to disarm or otherwise subdue.

THe vast majority of guns someone would carry in a nightclub would be of smaller caliber.

But yes, that did occur to me.

But, I try to keep things as simple as possible when talking to libs. Too much information overloads their lefty brains and they get confused.


AND the level of "too much" is lower than you think, with lefties.

 

[Correll]

Adolf Trump is completely unhinged and full of hyperbole and bullshit. Hitler in the making...

MADMAN-IN-CHIEF

Donald Trump Delivers Terrifying Post-Orlando Speech...

Doubles Down On Muslim Ban...

'I Don't Want Them In Our Country'...

Fearmongers On Refugee Crisis...

'Radical Islam Is Coming To Our Shores'...

Suggests Arresting People Who Don’t Report Suspicious Neighbors...

Earlier: Says Obama May Be Sympathetic To Islamic Terrorism...

Calls On President To Resign...

Peddles Discredited 'Good Guy With A Gun' Myth...

Revokes Washington Post Press Credentials For Reporting The News...

Chait: Trump Is 'The Fearmonger Republicans Have Been Waiting For'...

Good thing the Left doesn't play to Fear.

 

[rdean]

If the police found a gay person with a gun, they would open fire in self defense. At least, that would be the argument. They would see it like a black guy carrying a toy gun in a store. Better safe than sorry. At least, that would be the defense.

 

[Correll]

I wish there had been more "good guys with guns" there too.

Perhaps one of them could have gotten a good shot at the guy before the Death Toll reached 50.


The idea that armed civilians stopping mass shootings being rare, is pretty stupid.

When you consider that mass shootings are rare.

Yeah, it would have been sooo much better with a bunch of NRA gun nuts shooting blindly in the dark.

There is also the high likelihood of a terrorist perpetrating such an act will be wearing full body armor. The "good" citizen would have to be a crack shot on most likely a moving target. Head shots are rare under those circumstances. Unless your "pistol has a laser pointer attached or a scope, going up against the AR15 is stupid. The terrorist was trained with weapons. Your "good" citizen would also need the kind of close in combat training necessary.

Just sayin...

Full body armor is rare, expensive and likely to attract FBI attention and depending on how "Full" could tip off security or others that you are about to do something.

AND still does not cover everything.


Head shots at 10 or 20 feet are not that "rare".

A head shot might not even be necessary.
Getting hit by a .357, .40, or .45, even with body armor + trauma plate, is going to HURT. Like getting bashed by a baseball bat kind of hurt.
Something like that would likely put someone out of action for at least a few seconds - seconds that could be used to either make an escape or close in to disarm or otherwise subdue.

People in bad situations don't react like James Bond. Many freeze. Many just lose their minds and just completely tune out. Only one in a hundred have the where with all to run TOO danger. I doubt if any of those types are homosexuals. Stop trying to view the world like in a Hollywood action movie. Average people can't afford to have stunt doubles follow them around to do the action shots.

ONE homosexual with a gun could have made the difference.

He would not have to run towards danger.

Take cover and when he could see the shooter, start returning fire.


ALSO keep in mind the SHOOTER is not a Hollywood action star either.

 

[Correll]

Full body armor is rare, expensive and likely to attract FBI attention and depending on how "Full" could tip off security or others that you are about to do something.

AND still does not cover everything.


Head shots at 10 or 20 feet are not that "rare".

A head shot might not even be necessary.
Getting hit by a .357, .40, or .45, even with body armor + trauma plate, is going to HURT. Like getting bashed by a baseball bat kind of hurt.
Something like that would likely put someone out of action for at least a few seconds - seconds that could be used to either make an escape or close in to disarm or otherwise subdue.

People in bad situations don't react like James Bond. Many freeze. Many just lose their minds and just completely tune out. Only one in a hundred have the where with all to run TOO danger. I doubt if any of those types are homosexuals. Stop trying to view the world like in a Hollywood action movie. Average people can't afford to have stunt doubles follow them around to do the action shots.

I never said that anyone would "react like James Bond". I was responding to Correll regarding the necessity of head shots where body armor was involved. The topic of Hollywood was neither expressed nor implied.

My idea of "Hollywood" was just an example...not a topic. I think many people expect too much from those victims in Orlando.

You could very well be right about that. Panicked people in a dark, loud area may not be capable of much rational thought.

Hiding and shooting back at someone trying to kill you would not take a lot of "rational thought".

Hiding and self defense are Instinctual.

 

[HUGGY]

Yeah, it would have been sooo much better with a bunch of NRA gun nuts shooting blindly in the dark.

There is also the high likelihood of a terrorist perpetrating such an act will be wearing full body armor. The "good" citizen would have to be a crack shot on most likely a moving target. Head shots are rare under those circumstances. Unless your "pistol has a laser pointer attached or a scope, going up against the AR15 is stupid. The terrorist was trained with weapons. Your "good" citizen would also need the kind of close in combat training necessary.

Just sayin...

Full body armor is rare, expensive and likely to attract FBI attention and depending on how "Full" could tip off security or others that you are about to do something.

AND still does not cover everything.


Head shots at 10 or 20 feet are not that "rare".

A head shot might not even be necessary.
Getting hit by a .357, .40, or .45, even with body armor + trauma plate, is going to HURT. Like getting bashed by a baseball bat kind of hurt.
Something like that would likely put someone out of action for at least a few seconds - seconds that could be used to either make an escape or close in to disarm or otherwise subdue.

People in bad situations don't react like James Bond. Many freeze. Many just lose their minds and just completely tune out. Only one in a hundred have the where with all to run TOO danger. I doubt if any of those types are homosexuals. Stop trying to view the world like in a Hollywood action movie. Average people can't afford to have stunt doubles follow them around to do the action shots.

ONE homosexual with a gun could have made the difference.

He would not have to run towards danger.

Take cover and when he could see the shooter, start returning fire.


ALSO keep in mind the SHOOTER is not a Hollywood action star either.

This may be true but don't you think in most cases someone with the intentions to do such an act would do some kind of training to prepare?

 

[HUGGY]

A head shot might not even be necessary.
Getting hit by a .357, .40, or .45, even with body armor + trauma plate, is going to HURT. Like getting bashed by a baseball bat kind of hurt.
Something like that would likely put someone out of action for at least a few seconds - seconds that could be used to either make an escape or close in to disarm or otherwise subdue.

People in bad situations don't react like James Bond. Many freeze. Many just lose their minds and just completely tune out. Only one in a hundred have the where with all to run TOO danger. I doubt if any of those types are homosexuals. Stop trying to view the world like in a Hollywood action movie. Average people can't afford to have stunt doubles follow them around to do the action shots.

I never said that anyone would "react like James Bond". I was responding to Correll regarding the necessity of head shots where body armor was involved. The topic of Hollywood was neither expressed nor implied.

My idea of "Hollywood" was just an example...not a topic. I think many people expect too much from those victims in Orlando.

You could very well be right about that. Panicked people in a dark, loud area may not be capable of much rational thought.

Hiding and shooting back at someone trying to kill you would not take a lot of "rational thought".

Hiding and self defense are Instinctual.

Maybe. It would entirely depend on the individuals involved. Without having been there my first guess id that the shooter would have all the advantage. He would be looking for someone to fight back probably and concentrate on neutralizing resistance.

 

[Katzndogz]

Gay bar The Abbey in Los Angeles is considering hiring armed guards.

West Hollywood gay bar considering armed guards after Orlando shooting