i wouldnt be interested in that
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3936
You know what I meant, RTHKI.
Would need to illegalize speed loaders for revolvers.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3936
27 deaths, every victim shoot at least twice. 54 bullets minimum.
Excellent level of pedantry. I was considering shaving my neck beard and joining a church, but this display has convinced me that we really can beat ignorance.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Just googled it. The entire SH shooting spree was a grand total of 6 minutes. The police entered the school ten minutes after it started.
http://www.khq.com/story/24073207/chill … g-released
I would be very interested in seeing someone kill 30 people with a revolver or musket within 6-10 minutes. It is pretty much impossible.
Also, Jay, I get the point: crime will always happen. But, you know, let's not make it any fucking easier?
Last edited by Pocshy2.0 (2015-12-07 19:39:27)
And yet despite how armed the US population is instances of these "heroes" are non existent. You'd think at least one of these John McClane types would have done something by now. But you have no way to know how an untrained person with a gun will act if faced with a mad gunman. Even the type who'd charge in to the rescue is probably just putting themselves and others in danger. There's a lot of panic, a lot of chaos, and you add a additional person running around with a gun and assume that's going to lead to a better outcome because the second person has good intentions? What's to say another McClane or the police won't mistake the hero for the assailant? What guarantee do you have that the hero can identify the assailant - that's before you even work out whether the untrained hero would be able to take out the assailant who would most likely be better equipped, have the advantage of wanting to kill people, and likely have very minimal self preservation intentions.Jay wrote:
The short term solution is to arm everyone until the crazies realize they will die the moment they pull out their weapon. Honestly I believe we just need one or two incidents where some hero thwarts a massacre and they'll stop.
And the idea that having everyone armed would mitigate the situation - come on. Everyone armed, everyone confused, everyone threatened. Christ, a mad bugger could probably just fire a couple of shots into the air and just let everyone else contribute to the body count Reservoir Dogs style. To get highly strung and frightened people in the same area and add guns is not my idea of safety. Or sanity.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
I wonder what the violent crime/murder rate is like for countries with high gun ownerships vs non armed populous is.
Have you ever tried loading a musket?Jay wrote:
Sandy Hook kid could've done the same with a musket or a revolver. His target was unarmed teachers and elementary school students. He could've fucking bayoneted them all and still had time left over.
There've been a few cases of nutballs being taken down while reloading, when you have a 30 round clip which can be changed in under a second its not so simple.
Fuck Israel
Because they keep attacking places where it's illegal to bring a gun: schools, theaters etc.Ty wrote:
And yet despite how armed the US population is instances of these "heroes" are non existent. You'd think at least one of these John McClane types would have done something by now. But you have no way to know how an untrained person with a gun will act if faced with a mad gunman. Even the type who'd charge in to the rescue is probably just putting themselves and others in danger. There's a lot of panic, a lot of chaos, and you add a additional person running around with a gun and assume that's going to lead to a better outcome because the second person has good intentions? What's to say another McClane or the police won't mistake the hero for the assailant? What guarantee do you have that the hero can identify the assailant - that's before you even work out whether the untrained hero would be able to take out the assailant who would most likely be better equipped, have the advantage of wanting to kill people, and likely have very minimal self preservation intentions.Jay wrote:
The short term solution is to arm everyone until the crazies realize they will die the moment they pull out their weapon. Honestly I believe we just need one or two incidents where some hero thwarts a massacre and they'll stop.
And the idea that having everyone armed would mitigate the situation - come on. Everyone armed, everyone confused, everyone threatened. Christ, a mad bugger could probably just fire a couple of shots into the air and just let everyone else contribute to the body count Reservoir Dogs style. To get highly strung and frightened people in the same area and add guns is not my idea of safety. Or sanity.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yeah it's time consuming. My point was they keep attacking places where they know they won't be disturbed. I blame god mode in Doom.Dilbert_X wrote:
Have you ever tried loading a musket?Jay wrote:
Sandy Hook kid could've done the same with a musket or a revolver. His target was unarmed teachers and elementary school students. He could've fucking bayoneted them all and still had time left over.
There've been a few cases of nutballs being taken down while reloading, when you have a 30 round clip which can be changed in under a second its not so simple.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay wrote:
Because they keep attacking places where it's illegal to bring a gun: schools, theaters etc.Ty wrote:
And yet despite how armed the US population is instances of these "heroes" are non existent. You'd think at least one of these John McClane types would have done something by now. But you have no way to know how an untrained person with a gun will act if faced with a mad gunman. Even the type who'd charge in to the rescue is probably just putting themselves and others in danger. There's a lot of panic, a lot of chaos, and you add a additional person running around with a gun and assume that's going to lead to a better outcome because the second person has good intentions? What's to say another McClane or the police won't mistake the hero for the assailant? What guarantee do you have that the hero can identify the assailant - that's before you even work out whether the untrained hero would be able to take out the assailant who would most likely be better equipped, have the advantage of wanting to kill people, and likely have very minimal self preservation intentions.Jay wrote:
The short term solution is to arm everyone until the crazies realize they will die the moment they pull out their weapon. Honestly I believe we just need one or two incidents where some hero thwarts a massacre and they'll stop.
And the idea that having everyone armed would mitigate the situation - come on. Everyone armed, everyone confused, everyone threatened. Christ, a mad bugger could probably just fire a couple of shots into the air and just let everyone else contribute to the body count Reservoir Dogs style. To get highly strung and frightened people in the same area and add guns is not my idea of safety. Or sanity.
Or maybe, in a civilized society, no sane person has a reason to bring a weapon into a school, theater, etc. Hell, they invented table knives so that diners at feasts weren't waving their personal daggers about at a meal.
Well, we don't live in a civilized society anymore now do we? You wanted a solution for the problem, well, this is the only real one. Unless you want to pay to have armed security guards everywhere. Maybe we can have the active duty military guard everything since we're already paying them.DesertFox- wrote:
Or maybe, in a civilized society, no sane person has a reason to bring a weapon into a school, theater, etc. Hell, they invented table knives so that diners at feasts weren't waving their personal daggers about at a meal.
Or, we can stop giving these people the attention they want and muzzle the fucking media. Crime rates are dropping. Mass shootings are NOT happening more often than in the past. They just receive significantly more media attention as time goes on. People WANT to think the world is going to shit and that some sort of apocalypse is going to occur during their lifetime. That's why events like this are ratings gold.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
hasn't there been like 300+ mass shootings in the US this year? and they are not increasing? lol fuck that. glad I do not live in America.
you're wrong.Jay wrote:
Because they keep attacking places where it's illegal to bring a gun: schools, theaters etc.Ty wrote:
And yet despite how armed the US population is instances of these "heroes" are non existent. You'd think at least one of these John McClane types would have done something by now. But you have no way to know how an untrained person with a gun will act if faced with a mad gunman. Even the type who'd charge in to the rescue is probably just putting themselves and others in danger. There's a lot of panic, a lot of chaos, and you add a additional person running around with a gun and assume that's going to lead to a better outcome because the second person has good intentions? What's to say another McClane or the police won't mistake the hero for the assailant? What guarantee do you have that the hero can identify the assailant - that's before you even work out whether the untrained hero would be able to take out the assailant who would most likely be better equipped, have the advantage of wanting to kill people, and likely have very minimal self preservation intentions.Jay wrote:
The short term solution is to arm everyone until the crazies realize they will die the moment they pull out their weapon. Honestly I believe we just need one or two incidents where some hero thwarts a massacre and they'll stop.
And the idea that having everyone armed would mitigate the situation - come on. Everyone armed, everyone confused, everyone threatened. Christ, a mad bugger could probably just fire a couple of shots into the air and just let everyone else contribute to the body count Reservoir Dogs style. To get highly strung and frightened people in the same area and add guns is not my idea of safety. Or sanity.
I agree that attention is a key driving force in these shootings happening. You're wrong about the rate of mass shootings.Jay wrote:
Well, we don't live in a civilized society anymore now do we? You wanted a solution for the problem, well, this is the only real one. Unless you want to pay to have armed security guards everywhere. Maybe we can have the active duty military guard everything since we're already paying them.DesertFox- wrote:
Or maybe, in a civilized society, no sane person has a reason to bring a weapon into a school, theater, etc. Hell, they invented table knives so that diners at feasts weren't waving their personal daggers about at a meal.
Or, we can stop giving these people the attention they want and muzzle the fucking media. Crime rates are dropping. Mass shootings are NOT happening more often than in the past. They just receive significantly more media attention as time goes on. People WANT to think the world is going to shit and that some sort of apocalypse is going to occur during their lifetime. That's why events like this are ratings gold.
We've had a spike this recently, yeah. Until this 2013 the trend was flat.uziq wrote:
hasn't there been like 300+ mass shootings in the US this year? and they are not increasing? lol fuck that. glad I do not live in America.
This is dated, but this graphic is until 2010:
We're still talking about a statistically microscopic number of incidents...
Last edited by Jay (2015-12-08 10:11:01)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I'm wrong? Really? The big events took place at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, the Aurora movie theater, the Louisiana theater and the sikh temple. I don't know what rules the Sikh's have, but guns are forbidden in the other places.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
you're wrong.Jay wrote:
Because they keep attacking places where it's illegal to bring a gun: schools, theaters etc.Ty wrote:
And yet despite how armed the US population is instances of these "heroes" are non existent. You'd think at least one of these John McClane types would have done something by now. But you have no way to know how an untrained person with a gun will act if faced with a mad gunman. Even the type who'd charge in to the rescue is probably just putting themselves and others in danger. There's a lot of panic, a lot of chaos, and you add a additional person running around with a gun and assume that's going to lead to a better outcome because the second person has good intentions? What's to say another McClane or the police won't mistake the hero for the assailant? What guarantee do you have that the hero can identify the assailant - that's before you even work out whether the untrained hero would be able to take out the assailant who would most likely be better equipped, have the advantage of wanting to kill people, and likely have very minimal self preservation intentions.
And the idea that having everyone armed would mitigate the situation - come on. Everyone armed, everyone confused, everyone threatened. Christ, a mad bugger could probably just fire a couple of shots into the air and just let everyone else contribute to the body count Reservoir Dogs style. To get highly strung and frightened people in the same area and add guns is not my idea of safety. Or sanity.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I'm a big fan of citing your sources. I get on macB all the time for it. If you're going to show a graph you should reference the source.
In the US there has been more than 1 mass shooting per day in 2015.
In the US there has been more than 1 mass shooting per day in 2015.
You're a fan of data, right?Jay wrote:
I'm wrong? Really? The big events took place at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, the Aurora movie theater, the Louisiana theater and the sikh temple. I don't know what rules the Sikh's have, but guns are forbidden in the other places.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
you're wrong.Jay wrote:
Because they keep attacking places where it's illegal to bring a gun: schools, theaters etc.
I can't click that
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
But counter to what gun-rights advocates claim, many of the active shootings in the FBI’s database occurred in areas that were not gun-free zones. Our own analysis of the FBI study, in which we looked at all 160 incidents, examining state and local laws along with the firearms policies of individual businesses, found that of the 65 shootings in open spaces and businesses with pedestrian traffic, at least 25 occurred in areas permitting firearms.
That may amount to less than 50 percent — but we counted only those cases in which the evidence indicating that the open space or business was not a gun-free zone is unmistakably clear. Complicating this analysis are differences in state laws governing whether “no-firearms allowed” policies in businesses are actually enforceable, and the fact that many concealed carriers aren’t aware of (or deliberately ignore) no-firearms policies.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ … aws-213222
that's also a decent read. I almost posted it last week, but i guess better late than never?
that's also a decent read. I almost posted it last week, but i guess better late than never?
65 shootings, but how many of those qualify as premeditated massacres? I think we can both agree that the gang or drug related shit is irrelevant.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
But counter to what gun-rights advocates claim, many of the active shootings in the FBI’s database occurred in areas that were not gun-free zones. Our own analysis of the FBI study, in which we looked at all 160 incidents, examining state and local laws along with the firearms policies of individual businesses, found that of the 65 shootings in open spaces and businesses with pedestrian traffic, at least 25 occurred in areas permitting firearms.
That may amount to less than 50 percent — but we counted only those cases in which the evidence indicating that the open space or business was not a gun-free zone is unmistakably clear. Complicating this analysis are differences in state laws governing whether “no-firearms allowed” policies in businesses are actually enforceable, and the fact that many concealed carriers aren’t aware of (or deliberately ignore) no-firearms policies.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat