TexasCHLforum.com

RHenriksen wrote:And this is a classic example of where the whole background check and psychiatric issue breaks down.

Do HIPAAs rules against sharing patient medical information have any exemptions for dangerous psychiatric disorders? If not, the Democrats need to focus on fixing what's broken there - not try to take everyone's guns away.

C-dub wrote:

philip964 wrote:http://abcnews.go.com/US/james-holmes-p ... Bp8tfWBpyc

University has a threat assessment team in place to stop Virginia Tech type killings. His psychiatrist was a member of that team. She notified the team about James Holmes, but when he dropped out of school. He was no longer their problem and no action was taken.

This is going to bite them hard. Did they think they had no responsibility to the rest of the community or society in general? I thought if a psychiatrist thought a client was going to commit a crime the "doctor-patient" confidentiality thing flew out the window. That might be, obviously, true since the doc went to the team with her opinion.

philip964 wrote:http://abcnews.go.com/US/james-holmes-p ... Bp8tfWBpyc

University has a threat assessment team in place to stop Virginia Tech type killings. His psychiatrist was a member of that team. She notified the team about James Holmes, but when he dropped out of school. He was no longer their problem and no action was taken.

philip964 wrote: Here you go. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162- ... ome-peers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The AMC at Dunvale near Westheimer in Houston, has the sign stenciled on the doors near the bottom of the door in big letters. I have never compared the writing to see if it is the updated wording, but it looks legit enough. There are fifty front doors, but since it is printed on one of them that seems OK too.

emcee rib wrote:Does anyone else think it's strange that he didn't shoot at the cops and then warned them about the alleged booby trap? That sounds about as likely as Marines capturing an insurgent who doesn't shoot at them and also warns them about a bunch IEDs. It all sounds very strange to me.

C-dub wrote:This whole thing is too weird. The guy recently graduated college and was accepted to and working on a PhD. He's a smart guy and planned this out very well. However, he leaves his apartment rigged to blow when someone enters, which suggests he doesn't plan on going back there. I don't know if because he doesn't plan on surviving or because just won't go back there. I'm not sure since he wore body armor and all that, but that doesn't sound to me like someone that had a death wish and he didn't kill himself afterward or put up any resistance at all. Then, he tells the police that his apartment is rigged and they shouldn't go in there. This makes no sense unless it wasn't meant for the police, but someone else instead. IDK!

What was his plan for after? Why did he do it at all? I don't buy the insane bit with this one. Sure, he's got a screw loose, but I hope they do not find him incapable of being tried. It took too long to plan and was meticulous in it's detail and well executed. Of course, that's where we're at with Jared Loughner (sp?). I wouldn't go so far as to say he was put up to it by someone in our government, but it won't keep them from licking their chops because this came along and might get done what Fast & Furious didn't. He could be delusional and think that he will become a martyr for the gun control cause. Would that keep him from being tried?

I think there is more to this than him just being a nut job. I just don't know what.

Heartland Patriot wrote:The only personal positive to this, and I mean this with a grain of salt, is that, for me at least, the quality of movies has gotten so bad lately that I pretty much don't go to movies at the theater anymore..."Men of Valor" was the last thing I bothered to go see...I have a feeling it will be a while before they put something out again that will draw me, especially now.

philip964 wrote:James Holmes had two Glock .40 mm handguns, one with him and one left in the car. Don't know why Smith and Wesson would be called. But maybe the anti's just call anyone to harass.

In other news James Holmes was within 30 days of being evicted, since his apartment was students only, and he had quit.

The theater chain (Cinemark) normally has armed security (off duty police) on Friday and Saturday nights at this theater. Since this was a late Thursday night/ early Friday morning showing the police were not there. Certainly if police are normally needed on Friday and Saturday night, they would be needed for this special showing. In fact at a number of Cinemark theaters doing the same Batman midnight showing off duty police were present to handle problems with the large crowds that were expected. But for some reason not at this particular theater.

I know that my local AMC theater normally has 4 to 5 policeman in uniform, when I am there. Going to the movie theater is not the polite genteel thing it once was. Course I remember in the early '60's some movie was playing and it seemed to cause teens to vandalize the stores and businesses nearby after they saw it. Rebel without a Cause or something like that.

You know if your going to ban concealed weapons from your business, the least you can do is provide police on site for protection.

Installing metal detectors (which wouldn't have helped in Aurora) that has been mentioned is going to make me really stay away from movie theaters. And I am one of their best customers.

AMC bans guns with a real legal sign, so I haven't been to the theater since the shooting.

WildBill wrote:

Hola Gato wrote:Jumping on the shooter and stopping them would be like jumping on a grenade. Jumping on your bunkmate doesn't do anything to stop the threat to anyone else.

What is your point?

Hola Gato wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

smoothoperator wrote:

Jaguar wrote:Maybe there was not an appropriate moment or situation for those that wanted to - to do so. I will not disparage anyone in that horrible event, but allow me to point out some heroes.

I wonder if the married guy who died protecting his girlfriend had good life insurance for his wife and their two kids.

People earn the Medal of Honor for such courage and self-sacrifice in the military.

Can you give me a few examples? I'm familiar with many MOH stories where they closed with and destroyed the enemy at great risk to themself. I don't know any where they were honored for jumping on the person next to them as a human shield. There may be some but I don't know any.

philip964 wrote:In case you had any doubts, the shooter was seeing a psychiatrist who specializes in Schizophrenia.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/colorado-shoot ... BNdI_WBpyc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I assume she will be sued.

So do you become a psychiatrist, and risk that every patient you see, will go and do something "crazy" and you will be blamed?

SewTexas wrote: So, here's the deal (as I understand it) yes, Colorado has a CHL law, for the most part it's like the TX law. Denver and Aurora claim "Home Rule" however and have said "NOT HERE" "Not in our buildings" "Not on our streets"

Charles L. Cotton wrote:As more witnesses are being interviewed by the media we learn more about what happened. Apparently, there was no military style sweep from the exit door through the theater in one motion. He apparently fired the shotgun until it was empty and then switched to the AR. There was a lull in the action at that time, but the duration is unknown. There was a lull of several seconds while he tried to clear the AR when it jammed. I've seen three people interviewed who stated the shooter would stop in the isle and talk to/threaten people, even pulling them out of their seats and grabbing them by the hair. Then he shot them. During these times, he was vulnerable. If he’s close enough to touch me, he’s close enough for me to shoot him squarely in his unprotected face. As the Navy Seal in the linked article mentioned, there are almost always opportunities. His helmet was a vision barrier and if he really was wearing a gas mask, that destroyed his peripheral vision. I say "if" because I've heard some interviews that cast doubt on whether or how long he wore a mask.

The crowd was panicked which means the shooter didn't have control of the scene. This can work to a defender's benefit because the shooter cannot keep an eye on everyone in every direction. (Apparently he didn't care about doing so, if he stopped to threaten people individually and put his hands on them.) From the descriptions available, it certainly doesn't appear that he had every person in the crowd in front of like a drover riding drag.

KHOU Ch. 11 TV in Houston interviewed a retired FBI agent now working as a security consultant in the private sector. When he first came on the air, I thought "here we go with the anti-gun, do-nothing speech" but boy was I wrong! He was reserved in his comments, but the message was clear. With no way to escape or barricade against a dedicated shooter, would-be victims must act, react, do something because no one is going to rescue you. He made it clear that the reaction needs to be an immediate and violent response to the threat. Again, these are not quotes, but that was the message.

Passengers' response to the 9/11 hijackers have been discussed, including the difference with the folks on flight 93. It wasn't courage that made the difference in the reactions of the passengers on flight 93, it was knowledge. They knew from cell phone conversations with loved ones that this was not an "ordinary" hijacking and they were not going to be rescued. Their future was in their own hands. They made the decision to save themselves or die trying and by their death, save countless others. Armed with the knowledge gained on 9/11, airline passengers know they must act to save themselves and they have successfully taken action against terrorists and threatening passengers (and even one pilot). The passengers on a Southwest Airlines flight killed a passenger who was trying to open a door while in flight.

Unlike the passengers on flight 93 who didn't gain critical knowledge until they were in the midst of a deadly threat, we have known for years that dedicated shooters (or "active shooters" if you want to use the current, less descriptive term) rely upon 1) slow response by law enforcement (if any); and 2) a timid, sheep-like response from their victims. Law enforcement ranking officers and elected officials need to be honest with the public and tell them exactly what the retired FBI agent stated on his TV interview. React swiftly and violently as a group. Some will probably die, but the body count will be greatly reduced. Perhaps more importantly, people who want to massacre the innocent will come to realize that they would not standing before a herd of sheep, but cattle who will most certainly trample them to save themselves and others.

I want to acknowledge that my opinions are based upon my training and experience, as well as my age. I’m 62 years old with grown children who are quite capable of raising my grandchildren and I have plenty of life insurance to take care of my wife if I die. I also realize that some people run to the sound of gunfire while some run away. The former are not foolhardy and the latter are not cowards; it's just the way we are wired. But dedicated shooters in confined settings with the potential for mass casualties, while rare, present a unique situation where the flight response so natural for some is simply not a viable option.

Chas.

ajwakeboarder wrote:They guy didn't have the 12 Gauge. It was in his car. His AR-15 jammed. I would probably try to keep low and think initially, but as soon as there was a lull in the gunfire, i would have tried to do something. I'm not afraid of death. I've got that all squared away, but what I do fear is living with the knowledge I could have done something to save someone's life and I didn't.

sjfcontrol wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: I understand completely. Guys with boxcutters killed the pilot, and took the plane. BGs had the plane. GGs rushed the the BGs that had boxcutters AND the plane. BGs used the plane to kill the GGs.

No. GGs prevented the BGs from using the plane as a missile. The GGs were successful. The BGs failed their mission.

74novaman wrote:

C-dub wrote: I don't plan on being killed while cowering in fear.

The Mad Moderate wrote:

C-dub wrote:

The Mad Moderate wrote:Apples and oranges, you cannot compare the two.

Not apples and oranges. Maybe red delicious and granny smith, but still apples to apples.

A few hijackers with box cutters vs 6-7 people does not equal a heavily armed man wearing armor vs 1 guy with a handgun no matter how you add it up.