Why didn't someone in the theater shoot the gunman?

Self defense was prohibited by the theater owner.

If you have a CWP you should be packing all the time where you can or it does you no good in life threatening circumstances.

Good point, I didn't think of that, but yet I'm not some of the idiots coming up with idiotic answers either lol.

Full body armor, a dark theater full of smoke and the element of surprise. An average gun owner wouldn't have been able to stop him, possibly a military vet with special training, but not your average Joe.

That's the rub with US gun laws, the place you will need your firearm is prohibited from carrying it. Theatres, courthouses, hospitals, etc. etc. Even if you have a permit to carry, you have to stow your piece in the trunk of your car where it is useless.

Don't know but maybe we will find out eventually.

You answered your own question.

Just maybe they (ccw holders) had locked them up in their cars before attending the movie? The theater was posted "NO FIREARMS" Most law bidding citizens will follow the posted laws.. Yet the criminals and crazies don't even think or worry about breaking the law.. However, this nut case had it planned very well. With Full bullet proof body armour.(head, groin, and legs) He brings the attack on from the front of the theater, with bright lite movie screen to his back.. Deployment of smoke canster's to the back area's of the theater.

Had someone had a handgun? The only shot they could have made is the "ocular/nasal" target triangle area.. That is only about 4 to 6 sq.inch. of face target area, to hit at 20 / 40 yards? Even the best handgun pistol smith would find that shot very hard to make in the dark of the theater... I for one are not in favorite of "Gun Free Zones." I'll only shop at stores that don't have a sign, " No Firearms." But like most law bidding citizens, I did lock up my sidearm in the car last time I attended a movie theater.. Now, I May Not Do That The Next Time?

The theatre may have been dark but the projector was pointing at the shooter. You are making up distances,someone with a legal gun could have been in the front row and been within feet of the shooter. The point is that the theatre owner should be lose everything for banning people from protecting themself.

Dan Lano, I disagree with you there.. the projector lighting up the screen would tend shadow out his face and body..(more light coming off the screen than his face) As for "making up distances," Are you not making up that someone "could have been in the front row?" Yes, and Batman could have come out of the screen and saved the day too!

And what the hell is a "Legal Gun?" There are no such things as legal or illegal guns.. Only those persons that are legal, or illegal to have or own them...

Now about your point of the theater owners? I may not agree with their rules personally. But, I'll stand by their property rights, as owners to set them as they see fit.. If you don't like the law's, go and try to change them.. Good Luck On That One Bubba.. LOL..

Don't blame them if they use the law's to set their company policy... It's still a Free Country, and property Rights are a part of that Freedoms..

P.S. "Cult of Victimology?" Blame everyone, but the perp... HAHAHA...

All I know is this. This shooter came into a theatre to kill people. The way it went down is it was him against alot of unarmed people. If someone had a firearm, they could have got off a few rounds undercover and at least then the shooter would have had something more than fish in a barrel to contend with. It may and yes it may have given alot of people the chance to get out of there without being shot. It may not have. But the problem is they have not taken our 2nd Amendment Right away yet. But they sure have passed alot of laws that renders them impotent.

I for one will never try to shoot someone in the chest or other extremity simple to disable them. If I am going to shoot at someone, it will be to kill them. So it would follow that I am going to go for a kill shot, That means I am going to try to shoot you in the head. If that means I have to empty my gun out to do that, so be it. If I get killed by trying to do that then it is better than trying to outrun bullets.

CENTER MASS.. BUBBA.. ALWAYS GO FOR CENTER MASS INTO THE CHEST FIRST.. IT'S A BIGGER TARGET AND EASYER TO HIT.. TO MAKE THAT HEAD SHOT IS MUCH HARDER.. AND KILL ZONE ON A HEAD SHOT IS EYES, NOSE, MOUTH AREA. CALLED THE OCULAR - NASAL TRIANGLE.. THE FIRST TWO OR MORE SHOTS SHOULD BE HEART LUNG AREA.. THEN MAYBE A HEAD SHOT.. UNDER STRESS IT'S VERY HARD TO GET A GOOD SHOT ON A BOBBING MOVING HEAD.. "THE RUSSIAN DOUBLE OR TRIPLE TAP" IS A HIGHLY TRAINED AND SKILLED SHOT.

I would go with that. In this nutball's case. Putting a shot into his chest would prove to a shooter that he is not going down so he must be protected somehow and the only thing left to do is play the Lotto and go for the head. Either way it is still better than trying to outrun bullets.

I blame the idiots that would rather see 12 people killed instead of having someone with a carry permit in the theatre.

I don't blame anyone other than the shooter in this case.. Even if there had been a person with a CCW Permit in the Theater.. And I've been in both those shoes, having been armed in a theater, and locking up my pistol before going into one.. It may have taken a highly trained person, (policeman or military trained) to react to this perp.. There could have been other security things that could, or should have been in place.. Like a exit door alarm, and video camera on the doors. That well could become a legal point in the future? It been reported that the shooter left the exit door ajar for ten minutes or longer? Parking lot security camera's may have spotted the threat then secured all doors. To blame the threater company for it's firearms policy is a waste of time.. Liablaty laws for not having a "No Firearms" policy in place are some times a greater risk to business.. Most all would like to dream about what WE would or could do if only we were there? Under That Much Stress we don't really know how we will react...

Why didn't they overpower him, take his rifle or handgun & shot him??? There were enough people to overtake him.... All the more reason for everone to know how to shot & carry a gun for protection

The point is that if the theatre didn't ban guns the murderer wouldn't have been the only one with a gun.

Exactly. What is the point in having a CCW permit if they have regulated out being allowed to carry one in circumstances where you would need your firearm? I submit that anyone with a permit to carry is most likely a responsible person and is not going to sit in a theatre and "John Wayne" twirl his/her firearm while watching the movie. At a courthouse, a CWW holder is not going to brandish their firearm in an adult show and tell to impress anyone. They could show their permit to the court officers and be allowed to carry it with them. The point is not to back up the cops there should anything go south. It is the fact that someone holds a CWW, it should be proof that the person knows when and how to use it and also shows that they are responsible enough to have obtained it in the first place. In any case their firearm should not be stripped away from them

Nadal went crazy on a military base that had a gun free zone. the crazies don't follow the rules !

i do not go into any business that won't allow me to carry my gun.

AMEN BROTHER... I SECOND THAT STATEMENT... THOSE ARE JUST THE PLACE THAT CROOKS AND CRAZIES LOOK TO DO THEIR DIRTY DEEDS AT...

Good point. No one had a gun handy. Legalize hand and carry hand guns.

It was the theatres policy to ban guns. Colorado is a shall issue state.

EVEN THE VERY BEST HANDGUNNER WOULD HAVE FOUND THAT SHOT VERY NEAR IMPOSSIBLE... BACK LIGHTING OF THE SCREEN.. AND TARGET AREA ONLY EYES, NOSE & MOUTH TRIANGLE AREA., WITH FULL BODY ARMOUR.. IT'S "CQB" ONLY.. NOT 20 TO 40 YARDS..

I would rather have a slim chance than none at all. You are talking about the slim chance to succeed in killing your target when what you should be saying is you would grovel at the shooter's feet and beg him not to kill you. No thanks. I will go out fighting. If it means I have a slim chance to take him out before he kills me, then let's go at it, If I am going to die anyway, maybe he will get overzealous and fill me with 30 or 40 rounds. Maybe I would have bought the bullet that killed the 6 year old or the baby.

With all the noise from the people screaming and the loud guns blasting. With all the chaos, someone could have snuck in behind his back with a knife if they had one. This would also keep him buisy defending from you. It might have save some lives. Fighting back is better than dyin in place. Also, one has to be tactical if the gunman has the upper hand. Like playing dead until he passes by close enough for you to grab him. It is all talk but harder to do in real situations with a panic.

"Why didn't someone in the theater shoot the gunman?"
I have heard sutpid assed questions before that this one just put the stu in Stupid.
Some one has been watching far to many cops and robbers movies...A PLACE FULL OF KIDS AND SOMEONE WANTS TO BE STUPID TO PULL A GUN AND SHOOT THE SHOOTER....
What if one of those bullets just happen to find the head of a kid?
I guess Mr. Spock said it best THE NEEDS OF THE MANY OUTWEIGH THE NEEDS OF THE FEW.
Now instead of responding with something stupid just think on the meaning of those words that Mr. Spock said...LIVE LONG AND PROSPER.

The theatre policy of banning peole from protecting themself is just stupid. A child was killed because no one else was armed.

Agreed but what if some one shot at that moron and the bullet hit a kid accidentally. No one thought of that.
Dan there is no guarantee that someone with a weapon is going to hit their target...even a master marksman will tell you have.
But now one thinks of that ONLY THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE A WEAPON.
Dan, I have weapons of my own, and there have been times I wanted to use one of them on a few of my neighbors, but, I was taught at 10 when I got my first 22 rifle that WEAPONS DON'T KILL PEOPLE .... PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.
Mom and dad taught me the right way do use a weapon and when to and when not to use them, also they are to be used for hunting and protection...NOT TO CARRY ONE AROUND AND SHOOT THE FIRST S.O.B. THAT LOOKS CROSS-EYED AT YOU.
Dan, there IS no right answer to this and there is no wrong answer. But what I will say is that SOMEONE NEEDS TO MAKE IT HARDER TO OBTAIN WEAPONS AND SUPPLIES FROM DEALERS.
I believe the papers said this kid ordered $15000 worth of munitions for his bobbie traps and his little spree at the theater, though I think the figures are a little off, point it he ordered them one day and received them the next...THAT in my opinion is ONE DUMB ASS SUPPLIER THAT ONLY HAD CASH REGISTERS FOR EYES.
Again, Dan there is no easy answer to avoid this in the future.

He killed a kid. A legally armed person might have been ble to stop that. The law abiding citizen woul not take a shot if he did not have a clear shot. There is a right answer to this question. People that are legally carrying a gun should be able to protect themself anywhere.

You are believng news media that has a very anti-gun agenda. There is no evidence that the claims the media is making are true. He purchased the weapons and ammo over 6 months time. The paper that said it was one day lied to get more gun contol that only takes the guns out of law abiding citizens.

Either way Dan these companies that supply munitions and firearms to people without verifying them, other then the fact you have a credit card to prove you are over 18, is what I am talking about.
There are several places here in Ohio that all you have to do is show a drivers license, major credit card and you can walk out with ammo, weapons and whatever else you can think of.
I am a law abiding citizen but just because you and I are does not mean others are.
Personally I am hoping that this moron gets the same as what he doled out to others especially to that little 6 year old and that poor kid that just turned 27 what a hell of a birthday.

There is no place in the country that you can just walk out with any weapon with just a drivers license. That is another anti-gun lie. This country has more than enough gun laws that do nothing but keep murdering cowards safe.

"what if some one shot at that moron and the bullet hit a kid accidentally. No one thought of that." ... this isn't Star Trek man...this is real...the theater would have allowed you to bring your 'phazer' dude...and they would have even let take it off 'stun'...I think IF YOU were there....you would have been praying for ANYBODY to take the chance to shoot him before he shot YOUR child in the head while you stood there with your 'phazer' making shooting sounds with your mouth.., I personally would certainly be grief stricken if one of my loved ones were killed in that situation, but if in during the battle I was to find out that my loved one was killed by friendly fire that ultimately saved some one else, it would not matter, my loved is still dead. Police officers and military personnel are stuck with this dilemma all the time...grow up and get in the real world...criminals with guns don't care if YOU 'live long and prosper'.

Obviously your fat ass has not the ability to read either....or to use logic...which comes with common sense....which again obviously you have none.
LEARN TO READ FIRST THEN SHOOT OFF YOUR MOUTH.
It is people like YOU that are the reason morons like this idiot are allowed to go about shooting off weapons and not their mouths.
Damn no wonder Michigan is all screwed up....but lets wait till this thing happens to you or someone close to you...then we can talk like real men...

Hey, Hey. At ease soldier. I am from Michigan. There is no need to be insulting the home states. I am insulted by how you are downgrading people. I have known some vets from that war. Vietnam did some really messed up things to alot of good men, but they worked through it. I am seeing when someone disagrees with you, you go off on some name calling tangent. If you can't accept a differing opinion, perhaps you should go to basket weaving or something more calm and soothing. The way Michigan is right now has no bearing whatsoever on your arguement that has any value. You are the one that started with this Mr. Spock reference and we all ran with it. You simply must deal with that one. The possibility of a child being hit by someone trying to stop this gunman is real, I get that. But it would have been better than the almost certainty that this shooter DEFINITELY would shoot the child if he even had laid eyes on him/her. Obviously he had a total disregard for the public simple because he engaged in this behavior. Bullets were flying but the problem is they were all flying at others and not this guy. All anyone here is saying is that to have some of those bullets flying in his direction could have made the difference in lives.

So you would rather have 12 dead including a six year old girl than having a law abiding gun owner in the theatre?

uhhhh...I'm on your side Dan...