moonbattery logo

Jul 23 2012

A Less Horrific Colorado Shooting Spree

James Holmes has a lot in common with fellow evil maniac Matthew Murray, who was also aged 24 when he barged into a church in 2007 determined to kill as many as possible. Like Holmes, he was armed to the teeth. But whereas Holmes killed 12 and injured at least 50, Murray’s body count was only 2 killed and 2 wounded. The difference? He encountered a law-abiding citizen who was armed:

Jeanne Assam … said she “did not think for a minute to run away” when a gunman entered the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and started shooting.

There was applause as Assam spoke to a small crowd saying, “God guided me and protected me.”

New Life’s Senior Pastor Brady Boyd called Assam “a real hero” because the gunman, Matthew Murray, “had enough ammunition on him to cause a lot of damage.” …

“I saw him coming through the doors” and took cover, Assam said. “I came out of cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down.” …

Murray was carrying two handguns, an assault rifle and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition, said Sgt. Jeff Johnson of the Colorado Springs Police Department. …

Boyd said Assam’s actions saved the lives of 50 to 100 people.

Did our liberal ruling class learn anything from this incident? What do you think?

Too bad Jeanne Assam wasn’t at the Century 16 last week; dozens of lives might have been saved. No wait; being law-abiding, she would have been defenseless in a gun-free zone.

Jeanne-Assam
More armed Jeanne Assams, fewer casualties of maniacs.

On tips from IOpian and J. Hat tips: Michelle Malkin, Nice Deb.

Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on StumbleUponShare on Facebook


  • Dr. 9

    Jeanne Assams represents what Americans used to be like. Now, having been deeply infected by the insidious virus known as “political correctness”, we are a nation of whining victims. And, since it’s our own fault for allowing this to happen, we deserve whatever happens to us.

  • J

    Holmes’ Gun Club Membership Rejected Over ‘Bizarre’ Behavior

    http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/07/22/holmes-gun-club-membership-rejected-over-bizarre-behavior/

  • J

    Red-haired ‘Dark Knight massacre gunman’ appears wide-eyed and unemotional in first court appearance as prosecutors seek death penalty

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2177736/James-Holmes-Dark-Knight-massacre-gunman-appears-court-prosecutors-seek-death-penalty.html#ixzz21SuMJKH5

  • J

    Theater ‘gunman’ makes first court appearance, has reddish orange hair

    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/colo_massacre_suspect_mum_as_he_u7cmDKWFZ3fckw36trd9II#ixzz21SuXIkjg

  • J
  • 762×51

    I don’t live near the scene of the shooting but my girlfriend does, only a few blocks. She was devastated by the incident and I spent a lot of the weekend consoling her. I explained to her that one little gray haired grandmother with a concealed carry permit could have prevented this crime. She said that the theater has signs up that say no guns are allowed in the theater so no one was armed, except the perpetrator.

    This shooting is a case study in why “gun Free” zones should be renamed “Shooting Galleries” because that is what the are in reality. Business have the right under private property laws to say you cannot bring a gun on the premises but customers have a right to not do business with them because of the danger that policy presents in today’s society. If you are a criminal or a lunatic, this is your hunting ground and people are always in season.

    She now understands the situation more clearly and will be getting her concealed carry permit in the next few weeks. On Sunday we went to the range so she could try different handguns to decide on an appropriate choice for everyday carry.

    Criminals are armed and have no problem using that force against you. An unarmed law abiding citizen is a willing victim, don’t be that guy.

  • Kanaka Girl

    It’s not a coincidence that the states with the most stringent gun laws are also the states that have the highest violent crime rates.

  • J
  • Sinister66

    Some other differences might be the body armor, Tear gas, dark room, and a major distraction called a movie.

  • Geeknerd

    Banning guns will keep the guns out of the criminals’ hands, huh? Did banning drugs get the drugs off the streets?

    Liberals are quick to complain about drug-control laws, but can’t apply the same thinking to gun-control laws. Textbook doublethink. Double-plus un-good.

  • http://moonbattery czuch

    It was a “GOOD GUY GUN FREE ZONE”.
    Theres no sucha thing as a bad guy gun free zone.
    They dont care and dont follow the law anyway.
    Private sale and 2012/2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  • http://www.henrypbabcock.com Henry

    “She said that the theater has signs up that say no guns are allowed in the theater so no one was armed, except the perpetrator.”

    Unless this is actually backed by law (e.g. schools or government buildings), ignore such signs if you are lawfully carrying concealed. If discovered, the only thing the business can do is ask you to leave. If they ask you to leave, do so and let them know you will not be giving them further business due to their policies creating an unsafe environment for their patrons.

  • J
  • Mr Evilwrench

    Henry, the laws on that vary state to state. Where I am, I always ignore them except going to a school, court, or whatnot. In other states, the signs carry the force of law.

  • Crabby-old-guy

    Listen all you cowboys and girls, having a gun and not knowing how to use it put more than you in danger. Guns are for killing – pure and simple and not for the macho. They are for a last resort in saving a life – not winning a fight. You better be prepared to face the consequences; an honest law abiding citizen is target #1. Listen, get a gun, know how to use it, then carry it around so that nobody knows you have it.

  • http://www.henrypbabcock.com Henry

    ^^^ Hence my notice about it being backed by force of law… I figure most CCW holders must be aware of local LAWS that restrict carry in their area.

    In this instance, Colorado CCW law covers:

    Public elementary, middle, junior high or high schools

    Facilities with security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices permanently in place at every entrance.

    Facilities with security personnel performing manual electronic screening (such as handheld wands).

    Also included in Colorado’s CCW law is preemption language which bars municipalities from creating “self-defense free” zones, denying permits, etc.

  • Nangleator

    A trained shooter in a lit room, in the daytime, is a different situation than a man in black body armor in a darkened theater that threw down tear gas first. A man with a 100-round magazine and a rifle.

    Here’s a believable summation from a gun lover: http://eb-misfit.blogspot.com/2012/07/could-rep-louie-gohmert-be-even-more-of.html

    Note, I’m not in favor of stringent gun control laws. I just don’t like the flippant meme that the solution to situations like this is more guns.

  • Nangleator

    Oh, that was badly typed. I meant to say the police woman was trained in shooting in combat situations, and her situation was easier than the theater one. The average gun-toting movie goer would be entirely less well prepared.

  • AC

    Police patrolmen arent always the best of shots or the best trined to handle an active shooter.

    Those defeatists here have a warped and understated view of the capabilities of law abiding citizens. I know I could have made rhat shot. I will bank on a trained citizen with a Glock and a light over an untrained madman in that situation.

    He was shooting indiscriminately. He had neither the sklll nor the training to promptly identify and neutralize adcersaries. A law abiding citizen could have drawn and emptied a mag before the shooter knew where it was coming from.

  • http://www.brycchancarey.com/abolition/wilberforce.htm Wilberforce

    Amen to what AC said. Plus, the guy was firing unchallenged at pretty much point blank range, mostly prostrate targets; no need to be a crack shot to achieve that.

  • M.Wilson

    As has already no doubt been mentioned, someone attempting to intervene in the theater would have been shooting across ten feet at most. At that range, hitting a human size target is not terribly difficult and most medium to high power rounds would likely blow clean through the “body armor”. Especially if it’s cheap Type I armor, which won’t protect against anything larger than a .22.

    One person who is calm and armed can make a difference.

  • Chris in N.Va.

    Even with body armor, arms, legs and head are vulnerable.

    Center-mass aim alone would carry sufficient likelihood of hitting an arm and/or hand, that alone being enough to at least break his rhythm a bit. Facing a defenseless gaggle, there’s little incentive for our real-life first-person-shooting-game-avatar to do more than just stand and shoot. One or more CCW carriers could at least reduce the body count. One or more rounds from, say, a 1911 .45 would be guaranteed to slow down this deranged wolf in Kevlar clothing.

  • Clingtomyguns

    Here’s a little test for our liberal friends: what do the Cinemax theater massacre site in Aurora, the Columbine High School massacre site, the Fort Hood massacre site, the Virginia Tech site in 2007 where 32 were slaughtered, and the University of Texas site when Whitman shot 16 in 1966, all have in common?

    Answer: Each was an unarmed victims zone, where law abiding citizens were not permitted to carry guns for self-defense.

    The folks who try to contort the facts and evidence (based on real life events) that an armed citizenry is far better off to prevent or mitigate these random senseless attacks than an unarmed citizenry are just ignorant fools.

    “Fort Hood is actually a perfect example of what happens in a room when nobody has a gun but the bad guy. If just one good soldier-say a veteran officer or a senior noncom-in that Readiness Center had had a loaded M4 or even a personal sidearm, there would have been a lot fewer casualties.

    Of course, this argument is not even discussed in the mainstream press. At the same time that they are bending over backward to find reasons other than Islamist fanaticism and jihad against the infidel to explain the shooting, the media is totally ignoring the real message of Fort Hood: Maybe somebody should have guns other than the people who are willing to break the law.”

    http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2009/12/unarmed-victim-zones.aspx

    As far as the school shootings are concerned, the killers could count on one thing: their victims, and the teachers and staff, would be unarmed. The killers knew they would face no resistance — because of “gun control” laws. What should be obvious is that if peaceful citizens are armed, then criminals will be deterred. Schools attract killers because the government has posted a big legal notice that says in effect: “Attention: this is a gun-free zone. We guarantee that all adults and children in this school are unarmed.”

    Two of the school shootings that happened in recent years were stopped by civilians with guns – not by the police. In one of these cases an Assistant Principal of the school had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. He kept that weapon in his car while at school and parked his car off school property so that he would not violate laws concerning guns on school grounds. When the shooting started he ran a quarter-mile to his car to get the gun, ran back to the school and held the shooter for the cops. In another case a passer-by heard the gunshots in the school. He grabbed the gun he kept in his car, ran into the school, and stopped the gun kid before he could shoot anyone else.

    Remember — when these liberals start talking about gun control, they’re only talking about keeping guns out of the hands of people who obey the law. Ask them what their plan is to get the guns away from the criminals and they’ll return a blank stare.

    “In Israel, teachers and parents who serve as school aides go armed at all times on school grounds, with semi-automatic weapons. Since this policy was put into effect, terrorist attacks in Israeli schools have dropped to zero. The only recent exception was the tragic case of a group of schoolchildren who were murdered by an Arab gunman as they visited the ‘Zone of Peace’ on the Jordanian border. The Jordanians specifically requested that the Israeli teachers and chaperones leave their weapons behind … which they did. American schools are, on the other hand, ‘gun free zones.’”

    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria

    http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/gun_facts.html

    George Zimmerman would have been another victim if he was unarmed. Ignore the calls that will come out of the anti-2nd amendment crowd and liberal collectivists – the evidence clearly shows if you want the best chance to prevent yourself from becoming another one of these types of victims, you should arm yourselves to the teeth.

  • Sinister66

    AC says:

    “He was shooting indiscriminately. He had neither the sklll nor the training to promptly identify and neutralize adcersaries.”

    Since everyone was an adversary I think he did what he intended.

    ” I know I could have made rhat shot. I will bank on a trained citizen with a Glock and a light over an untrained madman in that situation.”

    So under they effects of tear gas, in a dark theater, with patrons in a panic you would have made the one shot that would have bypassed his body armor to ultimately take this perp down. Not to mention somehow keeping patrons on either side of you from plowing you over to reach an escape and running in front of you as you try to aim.
    Easy to talk about and imagine what you would do.Alot different when your actually in the situation.

  • Sinister66

    M.Wilson says:

    “As has already no doubt been mentioned, someone attempting to intervene in the theater would have been shooting across ten feet at most.”

    Wow. They have small theater were your at.

  • Fiberal

    I just don’t like the flippant meme that the solution to situations like this is more guns.
    Nangleator says:
    July 23, 2012 at 11:27 am

    But it is. Read John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime.

    That’s a little flippant, but here’s the dilemma with graded or constricted gun control (besides the obvious ones of “gun free” zones).

    At what point do you want your gun rights restricted?

    Does the government have the right to take away your gun when it says that there is only 1 psychotic for every 300 million people?

    How about 1 psychotic for every 10 people?

    How about the ratio of criminals to law-abiding citizens?

    In other words, the government (some dumb bureaucrat) has no right to make a judgement call about your safety or mine because no such calls can take into account all contingencies faced that may pose a threat to your life.

    Only you can do that. And because it often takes a gun to protect yourself, the right to carry a gun over the ability of the government to control your right, was put into the constitution as an inalienable right of citizenship safety.

    .
    And BTW almost no gun owner carrying a firearm would fire wildly without a set target. Most gun owners know how to handle their guns.

    You are thinking more of drug addicts, psychotics and ghetto kids using illegal firearms to intentionally kill people.

    And I leave it to you to guess which of the above liberals want to take guns away from.

  • Fiberal

    Sinister66 says:
    July 23, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    I think the point is, that armed movie customers would have had a better chance of survival than unarmed movie customers.

    Again, who makes the call? You? Me?

    How about the movie customer?

  • Fiberal

    Put it this way. There probably would have been no massacre if Holmes thought that people in the theater could be carrying.

    These guys are never psycho enough to walk into a police station or shooting range blazing.

    They prefer gun-free areas and kindergartens.

  • Fiberal

    But having said all of the above, it is the sad case that government has forced its citizens to take a calculated risk against being assaulted or killed by a psychotic, a drug-crazed zombie, blacks or islamic terrorists, against a rational assessment of the probability of being prosecuted and going to jail if something happened.

    Most people assume nothing will happen. That’s their calculation, but its weighted by the force of government and is therefore not entirely rational.

    That is, the judgement call is more prone to error than it would be without the specter of government reprisal.

    The movie goers should have been carrying. All law-abiding citizens should carry; both for their own protection as well as for a more secure, just and constitutionally-guided society.

    The main reason decent people are not carrying is not because they are afraid to handle a gun, its because they fear the law more than they fear getting assaulted or killed.

    It’s a calculated risk which everyone is forced to make, but which is encumbered by fear of government.

    An error in this calculation, made by the movie goers, resulted in death.

  • M.Wilson

    Sinister: The size of the room does not equate to the most probably line of sight. To assume that every engagement will occur at the maximum possible distance with the maximum number of intervening obstacles is absurd.

    Someone making the decision to intervene would have to either already be in a place where he has a clear view of the target (likely within 10 feet in this situation) or will do his best to move to such a place before opening fire.

    Should he fail in the attempt, he will be no worse off than if he didn’t have a gun or didn’t attempt to intervene. After all, getting killed while unarmed doesn’t make you any less dead. As for going around body armor, it’s not nearly as invincible as the media portrays it. There are many grades of body armor, and the best grades cost thousands of dollars. For reference, a small military ballistic vest costs a little over $2000. The plates cost another $700 each.

    While it is not clear precisely what type of armor the perpetrator was wearing, there are quite a few handguns that can shoot clean through low-grade, affordable civilian armor.

    Is an armed citizen attempting to save the day guaranteed to succeed? Not even close. But their chance of success is better if they are armed. We’re playing with probabilities here, not cut and dry certainties. Armed citizens tip the odds in favor of the law-abiding.

  • http://www.henrypbabcock.com Henry

    Wearing body armor does not make you like Superman, standing there with bullets bouncing off your chest. The force of the projectile is transferred to the protective layers, spreading the energy out over a wider area of the body. While body armor can help prevent penetration, it does very little to protect the wearer from blunt trauma. Yes, thousands of lives have been saved by body armor, but those people did not just stand there and walk away. There are hundreds of documented instances of severe blunt trauma from wearing body armor, e.g. broken ribs, ruptured spleen, ruptured liver, pneumothorax, etc…

    Look at it this way: If a person is wearing body armor, and they are struck full force in the chest with a baseball bat (much less force than delivered by a bullet fired from even a 9mm), they will NOT be standing there ready for another blow. This could create enough time for follow up shots, or for another armed citizen to begin fire from a second direction.

    An armed citizen, or citizens, may have been able to stop the assault and limit the number of victims, but we’ll never know because the theater was a “no self defense” zone.

  • J
  • Stephan the Original

    Geeknerd says:
    July 23, 2012 at 10:15 am

    Great illogic pickup. Where could we use the term ‘double standard’ if it wasn’t for moonbats?

  • J
  • J
  • J
  • Clingtomyguns

    Sinister66 says:
    July 23, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    “So under they effects of tear gas, in a dark theater, with patrons in a panic you would have made the one shot that would have bypassed his body armor to ultimately take this perp down.”

    Is this an attempt to argue against concealed carry? If it is, it’s nonsense and defies reason. Is your message, if you can’t kill him with one shot don’t shoot and don’t carry. By the way, body armor might stop bullet penetration with some types of rounds, but shots to the armor and chest area could have at least broken ribs, caused him terrible pain and knocked him on his ass where he could be subdued. According to your insane worldview Sinister66, people should stand around like sitting ducks and do nothing when being fired upon, and not return fire … precisely what Holmes had anticipated.

  • Python

    My heart goes out to all those affected by this tragedy but I dont necessarilly agree that anyone carrying a gun could have prevented this. The guy threw smoke bombs which would have made visibility severely limited in an already darkend room. All he had to do was shoot anywhere where as anyone trying to defend themselves would have needed to calmly and correctly identify who and where the shooter was in amongst the chaos. I suspect far more would have been the victims of ‘friendly fire’

  • Clingtomyguns

    Python says:
    July 23, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    The problem with your opinion is based on your suspicion and nothing more. That is how liberals think, guided by their pure emotions not grounded in any objective evidence. Here’s some rebuttal evidence to your suspicions. Case in point of how a 62 year old armed citizen prevented an armed robbery by a couple of Trayvon types wearing hoods. No friendly fire casualties, but the Trayvons ran scurrying like stuck pigs and were arrested and taken to a hospital. This is what exercising your duty of self-defense looks like and I enjoy the hell out of watching it.

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/1740532587001/customer-opens-fire-on-armed-robbers/?playlist_id=86856&intcmp=obnetwork

  • Jester

    Nangleator says:

    the police woman was trained in shooting in combat situations

    It’s foolish to assume that ALL officers are highly (or even well) trained; as this surveillance video points out.

    and her situation was easier

    Only someone who has never ever experienced incoming fire would make such a pathetic, ignorant statement. Nangleator, being shot at is NEVER, EVER “easier” in any way.

    The average gun-toting movie goer would be entirely less well prepared

    Speak for yourself. And count yourself lucky if you’re ever sitting next to me in a place that gets shot up by one of these wingnut OWS types someday.

  • Jedediah Klunz

    God Bless saint Assam! if more Americans armed themselfs we could get read of crime with in a year. just think how many lives could have bin saved if the other studants at colambine had carryed weapons.

    This country needs more heavily armed God-fearing citazens. I wish i could have been their, that drugged up ass-jew wouldnt last a minite

  • Sinister66

    Clingtomyguns says:

    “Is this an attempt to argue against concealed carry?”

    No it isnt, nor is it implied. you assupmtion make you look stupid. Its an arguement against the” If I were there I could have taken him down” cowboy fantasy types.

    “According to your insane worldview Sinister66, people should stand around like sitting ducks and do nothing when being fired upon, and not return fire … precisely what Holmes had anticipated.”

    If thats what Holmes anticipated he wouldnts have used body armor. With the panic situation going on in that theater you would have had just as good of a chance of shooting a patron as shooting Holmes. Then you would be seated next to him in court.

    “Case in point of how a 62 year old armed citizen prevented an armed robbery by a couple of Trayvon types wearing hoods. No friendly fire casualties, but the Trayvons ran scurrying like stuck pigs and were arrested and taken to a hospital. This is what exercising your duty of self-defense looks like and I enjoy the hell out of watching it.”

    You going to compare a barely populated internet cafe to a packed movie theater.

    Lets get some things straight.

    1. He was 71
    2. He fired 6-9 shots and had 2 hits and he wasnt being fired on.

    So lets put that situation in a crowded, panicked movie theater were there would be return fire. He could have been responsible for killing additional patrons.

  • Frank95054

    Are we certain that the red headed freak we see drugged up in court is the shooter? No one saw his face because he was wearing a gas mask. How convenient that he just sat in his car and waited for the police.

  • J

    James Holmes Received $26K Grant From Bethesda-Based National Institutes of Health

    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/07/24/james-holmes-received-26k-grant-from-bethesda-based-national-institutes-of-health/

  • J

    Colorado Theater Shooting Victim Sues Warner Brothers For Making Violent Films

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/colorado-theater-shooting-victim-sues-warner-brothers-for-making-violent-films/

  • J
  • Pingback: Too Many Guns in the U.S. — or Too Few? « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy