Another school shooting in the USA

indough

Nailz wrote: »

Well if they didn't have guns they'd find it feckin' hard to do so! Who's the idiot that invented guns!? :rolleyes:

There are plenty of ways to kill a person that don't involve the use of a gun and that would be easier than shooting someone

Nick_oliveri

Blame Sam Colt. With his revolver. Massacre with having to shove gunpowder and lead down a barrel with every shot? Ich dont think so.

Rovi

Nailz wrote: »

Well if they didn't have guns they'd find it feckin' hard to do so! Who's the idiot that invented guns!? :rolleyes:

Exactly! If only we could go back to the time before guns were invented (developed, more correctly), when the world was a peaceful utopia of rainbows and lollipops. :rolleyes:

Manic Moran

Terry wrote: »

What would you consider good cause?

Defense of life and limb would certainly count, I think.

Shooting should be a privelege and not a right.

To the annoyance of some in the US, it is a privilige. If it were a right, you would not need background checks and so on before purchasing a firearm.

Guns are dangerous weapons and the less people who have them, the better off we all are.

Depends on who 'we' are. Strapping 25-year-olds probably have less need of them than 80-year-olds.

Selling ammunition in supermarkets is irresponsible. It should only be sold to people who have been vetted and deemed sane enough not to go around killing others.

As ammunition is in effect useless without a firearm to shoot it with, and as firearm sales are regulated, I don't see the issue. It's not as if you get asked for a driver's license when you fill up your petrol tank to make sure you have, indeed, been deemed safe enough to control a motor vehicle.

Teenagers should not be allowed to get their hands on guns because they tend to be unstable at times.

Most people agree with you, at least when it comes to unsupervised access.

Gun are designed to injure or kill. That's their only purpose. They have no other use.

This does not mean that all their occurrences for use are bad. Figures for Defensive Gun Uses vary depending on source, but the US Government figured on 1.5million per year. That would be a beneficial contribution to society.

Your point is somewhat lost on me

Sorry. The Hello Kitty XM-8 rifle was an airsoft contraption, not a real rifle. The Kalashnikitty pistol I linked to was a normally functioning firearm.

pretty sure you need a license to own a gun in the states, but manic would be the man to ask about that.

Rules for purchase, and rules for ownership (Not necessarily the same as someone can be gifted a firearm by choice or inheritance, provided the recipient himself is not prohibited from ownership) have a basic Federal minimum, and vary from there from state to state. At the very minimum, a purchasor is checked to make sure he is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm such as due to age, criminal history or mental illness. States can add requirements onto that, such as California's Basic Firearms Safety Certificate which checks to make sure you know which way around your bullets go if you own a pistol.

NTM

Nailz

indough wrote: »

There are plenty of ways to kill a person that don't involve the use of a gun and that would be easier than shooting someone

I know there are other ways, but shooting someone is the most easy one, as you can shoot the person from a distance and requiers little skill... unless it was a hard target but thats beside the case.

indough

Nailz wrote: »

I know there are other ways, but shooting someone is the most easy one, as you can shoot the person from a distance and requiers little skill... unless it was a hard target but thats beside the case.

Obviously you've never fired a gun. There are plenty of far easier ways to kill people.

wyk

With the amount of guns in the US(which numbers in the hundreds of millions), we can expect this to happen over and over again as access is relatively easy. Americans, especially conservatives, are very paranoid of each other, and the government. So do not expect the gun culture to wane any time soon. In order to make America more safe, it would take an outright ban, confiscation, and more aggressive arrests for posession of any type of weapon, similar to how they do it here. The liberals have a long way to go to wrench control from the conservative gun pundits with any effectiveness. So I doubt we can expect any reasonable gun control over in the states for decades to come. Fair enough, it is a very dangerous place, and one of the few places in the 1st world where I would say the government or the criminals would go completely out of control without the armed civilians. America is an insanely corrupt place.

WYK

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, let's see.

Illegal for a 14-year-old to own firearms. Check.
Illegal to bring firearms to school. Check.
Illegal to shoot at people. Check.

Gotta love these laws designed to stop school shootings.

I'm not, however, particularly surprised that those of the 'Only police should carry guns' opinion didn't mention the cop who killed six this week. One would have thought that would be more newsworthy than a student who didn't manage to kill anyone.

NTM

wyk

indough wrote: »

Obviously you've never fired a gun. There are plenty of far easier ways to kill people.

I have been shooting guns since I was 8. I am 38. And I can not think of an easier way to kill someone except maybe running them down at a crosswalk with my HGV. The gun might also be more cost effective, considering how dear diesel is at the moment, and the fact my HGV gets 7MPG.

WYK

wyk

Manic Moran wrote: »

Rules for purchase, and rules for ownership (Not necessarily the same as someone can be gifted a firearm by choice or inheritance, provided the recipient himself is not prohibited from ownership) have a basic Federal minimum, and vary from there from state to state. At the very minimum, a purchasor is checked to make sure he is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm such as due to age, criminal history or mental illness. States can add requirements onto that, such as California's Basic Firearms Safety Certificate which checks to make sure you know which way around your bullets go if you own a pistol.


NTM

In Texas, I only have to go through one FBI background check when I acquire my conceal carry permit. After that, the permit allows me to purchase a firearm simply by showing it. There is no wait, or check other than making sure my permit is up to date.

If I purchase from a private individual vs a gun shop, there is no background check required. Any person can sell, or give, anyone else a gun in Texas that is not a licensed firearms dealer.


WYK

Manic Moran

wyk wrote: »

In Texas, I only have to go through one FBI background check when I acquire my conceal carry permit. After that, the permit allows me to purchase a firearm simply by showing it. There is no wait, or check other than making sure my permit is up to date.

That makes sense: If you are ever forbidden from owning a firearm, your CCW will be revoked.

If I purchase from a private individual vs a gun shop, there is no background check required. Any person can sell, or give, anyone else a gun in Texas that is not a licensed firearms dealer.

How does one get around the federal "Straw Purchase" laws with that, then? I would have thought it was illegal to sell a firearm to anyone you knew to be prohibited from owning a firearm, even without going through a dealer.

NTM


WYK[/QUOTE]

Mr.Micro

The fact is even if a person legitimately gets a gun and goes through all the checks etc ,that gun can be borrowed,stolen or lost all amounting to it getting into the hands of a would be killer.If all the checks are so rigorous then why all the gun crime?

indough

wyk wrote: »

I have been shooting guns since I was 8. I am 38. And I can not think of an easier way to kill someone except maybe running them down at a crosswalk with my HGV. The gun might also be more cost effective, considering how dear diesel is at the moment, and the fact my HGV gets 7MPG.

WYK

Stabbing someone is easier than shooting them, poisoning someone is easier than shooting them, smashing someone across the head is easier than shooting them.

Terry

indough wrote: »

Stabbing someone is easier than shooting them, poisoning someone is easier than shooting them, smashing someone across the head is easier than shooting them.

You can't stab of poison someone from a distance.

indough

Terry wrote: »

You can't stab of poison someone from a distance.

Could you shoot someone from a distance? Its easier to walk up closer to someone and stab them than it is to become a good shot.

Terry

You can shoot someone from 5 feet away.
Do you have a 5'2" knife?

indough

Terry wrote: »

You can shoot someone from 5 feet away.
Do you have a 5'2" knife?

Actually I have about 3 knives very close to that length. They're called Katana

It's still easier to walk the 5'2" and stab someone than it is to shoot them from that distance. Look at 50 Cent, shot 9 times (in one incident) from extreme close range and alive to this day. I doubt he would have survived 9 stabbings at once.

Guns for show, knives for a pro

Orange69

indough wrote: »

Actually I have about 3 knives very close to that length. They're called Katana

It's still easier to walk the 5'2" and stab someone than it is to shoot them from that distance. Look at 50 Cent, shot 9 times (in one incident) from extreme close range and alive to this day. I doubt he would have survived 9 stabbings at once.

Guns for show, knives for a pro

On a scale of dumbness, ranging from 1 - 10, i would rate this post at 5 million..

To say that a its easier to kill someone with a knife vs. a gun is ludicrous.. Why do you think that all modern armies are primarily armed with guns?

indough

Orange69 wrote: »

On a scale of dumbness, ranging from 1 - 10, i would rate this post at 5 million..

To say that a its easier to kill someone with a knife vs. a gun is ludicrous.. Why do you think that all modern armies are primarily armed with guns?

I don't think we're talking about the military. Obviously when someone expects you to kill them a gun is easier, if they don't then its not exactly hard to get that distance. But like I said, we weren't talking about war :rolleyes:

By the way, have you never heard of the bayonet? Or context?

Try reading the thread or at least its title before calling anyones post stupid.

Manic Moran

The rule of thumb is generally 30 feet. Beyond that, the guy with the firearm has the advantage, any closer than that, and the winner is probably going to be the guy with the knife. Reaction time vs speed of movement.

Bayonets are a different kettle of fish, their primary purpose is psychological. Bayonet charges are usually won or lost before the opposing sides make contact. After that, the winner of a bayonet fight is the person whose buddy shows up first with a rifle.

NTM

Lirange

indough wrote: »

Stabbing someone is easier than shooting them, poisoning someone is easier than shooting them, smashing someone across the head is easier than shooting them.

Indough so you're one of those that brings a knife to a gunfight?

Guns kill more efficiently than knives or bare hands. Whatever your feelings on guns I don't see how you could possibly offer a logical argument otherwise. Pulling a trigger is something small children can do (and have done). Some of the other examples you mention however ...

Black Swan

Nailz wrote: »

Like this only happens in America,

Nope. Happens elsewhere too. The Germans have had their school shooting problem over the years, not as frequently as the USA, but the USA has about 3.6 times the population (Germany 82,400,996 and USA 301,139,947 both July 2007 estimates). This is an old (2002) link to the BBC on the history of school shootings, but it does suggest that the school shooting problem is not just an American problem.

Some countries may have press censorship too? See China link (2006).

Reku

The whole knives versus guns arguement just makes me laugh...
with a knife you have reduced penetration as such there are fewer quick kill points (many of which are behind bone or cartilage and so harder to get at with a knife) and you are also at a high risk of being stabbed yourself if the person is in anyway proficient at close combat (either through training or experience), with a gun you have the advantage of range, allowing for a wounding shot before closing for the kill (assuming a lack of any training to allow for a one shot kill) and unless the person is also carrying a gun you are unlikely to end up being shot in the process.

Due to the range factor guns (assuming you didn't decide to go for the antique rifle you have to manually pack the powder in) are also easier to get in a suprise attack with. This is the basis of why crossbows require a licence in Ireland whereas recurve and compound bows do not. A crossbow is still highly accurate in untrained hands and the smaller models can be concealed until the last instant before taking the shot. Again, other than the machete, the only restrictions on the ownership of knives/swords is those designed to be concealed (sword canes/umbrellas, flick knives, belt buckle knives, etc....).
Surprise is a very powerful factor in a fight.


Lets face it, if knives and swords had a hope against guns then the Oriental armies would all be ninjas.

Manic Moran

farohar wrote: »

The whole knives versus guns arguement just makes me laugh...
with a knife you have reduced penetration as such there are fewer quick kill points (many of which are behind bone or cartilage and so harder to get at with a knife) and you are also at a high risk of being stabbed yourself if the person is in anyway proficient at close combat (either through training or experience), with a gun you have the advantage of range, allowing for a wounding shot before closing for the kill (assuming a lack of any training to allow for a one shot kill) and unless the person is also carrying a gun you are unlikely to end up being shot in the process.

Never underestimate a knife at close quarters.

http://www.policeone.com/columnists_internal.asp?view=94340&vid=102828

Among other police instructors, John Delgado, retired training officer for the Miami-Dade (FL) PD, has extended the 21-Foot Rule to 30 feet. "Twenty-one feet doesn't really give many officers time to get their gun out and fire accurately," he says. "Higher-security holsters complicate the situation, for one thing. Some manufacturers recommend 3,000 pulls to develop proficiency with a holster. Most cops don't do that, so it takes them longer to get their gun out than what's ideal. Also shooting proficiency tends to deteriorate under stress. Their initial rounds may not even hit."

Beyond that, there's the well-established fact that a suspect often can keep going from momentum, adrenalin, chemicals and sheer determination, even after being shot. "Experience informs us that people who are shot with a handgun do not fall down instantly nor does the energy of a handgun round stop their forward movement," states Chris Lawrence, team leader of DT training at the Ontario (Canada) Police College and an FSRC Technical Advisory Board member. Says Lewinski: "Certain arterial or spinal hits may drop an attacker instantly. But otherwise a wounded but committed suspect may have the capacity to continue on to the officer's location and complete his deadly intentions."

Reku

That's in a reactive situation, unless I'm completely missing the plot the discussion has been more about killing someone as the person acting as opposed to reacting. As such the time to draw the weapon is not so much of an issue. And assuming it is an unexpected ambush odds are they will either be standing or walking, as such the would need to get up their momentum to either escape or charge, giving you the time to aim.

nor does the energy of a handgun round stop their forward movement

lol
Damn these people need to study basic physics (or at least watch Mythbusters) as this is right up there in the no **** sherlock leagues.

indough

farohar wrote: »

That's in a reactive situation, unless I'm completely missing the plot the discussion has been more about killing someone as the person acting as opposed to reacting. As such the time to draw the weapon is not so much of an issue. And assuming it is an unexpected ambush odds are they will either be standing or walking, as such the would need to get up their momentum to either escape or charge, giving you the time to aim.

I see what you're getting at here with the whole element of surprise thing, but I would have to say that a knife is more suitable in this case. When you are up close to someone it's easier to pull out a knife and just stab them than it is to pull out a gun, take the safety off, aim and then shoot. With a gun you've totally lost the element of surprise and given them time to either escape or take the gun from you. There are also other factors involved, some of them are outlined in this web page:

http://www.usadojo.com/articles/knife-vs-gun.htm

I was initially talking about close range with my comments as that is the context of the thread as far as I can see, but it has since been pointed out to me that within the distance of 30 feet a gun loses quite some effectiveness.

Another thing that you have to take into account is the different type of wound received by a knife vs. a gun attack:

"For those people that think guns are more dangerous than knives, think again. More than 60% of all people shot with firearms even multiple times survive the attack. Cutting and stabbing victims don’t do nearly as well. Bullet wounds self-seal because of the elastic nature of human tissue. Knife cuts lay open and bleed profusely as the veins and arteries are opened wide."

It's true that a gun is more suitable for long distances, but it is harder to learn to shoot someone at a long distance than it is to walk up to them and stab them, and my point was that it is easier to kill someone by stabbing than by shooting. Thats when they weren't expecting an attack, as per the context of the thread.

The time to aim will always be an issue, if you don't take your time to aim then you are going to miss, its not like in the movies.

Vegeta

farohar wrote: »

Actually that's just shotguns (according to the article I was refering to when meantioning this figure in a similar thread about 2 weeks back) so there are in fact even more legally owned guns.:(

Actually no your just plain wrong there

On statistics, I am informed by the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána that the there are currently 220,715 firearms licences in the State, including 49,218 rifle, 170,156 shotgun, 1,228 handgun and 113 other various firearms licences. I am informed by the Commissioner that providing a breakdown of firearms licences by county could not be achieved without a disproportionate use of time and resources. The following table sets out firearms licences by Garda divisions.

Garda Division Total no. of firearms licensed
Mayo 10,613
Clare 7,895
Kerry 8,948
Donegal 11,288
Limerick 8,759
Cork City 3,739
Cork West 10,260
Cork Nth 8,579
Tipperary 14,347
Galway West 8,911
Louth/Meath 17,362
Laois/Offaly 13,030
Sligo/Leitrim 6,802
Carlow/Kilkenny 15,865
Cavan/Monaghan 14,379
DMR Eastern 4,157
DMR West 3,821
DMR Nth 3,617
DMR Nth Central 223
DMR South 2,675
DMR Sth Central 511
Wexford/Wicklow 17,815
Longford/Westmeath 11,478
Roscommon/Galway 11,052
Waterford/Kilkenny 11,644

Orange69

indough wrote: »

When you are up close to someone it's easier to pull out a knife and just stab them than it is to pull out a gun, take the safety off, aim and then shoot. With a gun you've totally lost the element of surprise and given them time to either escape or take the gun from you.

Rubbish... and a fine example of bias..

Gun - pull out, aim generally and pull trigger repeatedly.

Knife - pull out, aim generally and stab repeatedly.

The only difference is that a knife requires significant physical force to operate and is utterly useless at medium to long distance (unless you're Davey Crockett).

indough

Orange69 wrote: »

Rubbish... and a fine example of bias..

Gun - pull out, aim generally and pull trigger repeatedly.

Knife - pull out, aim generally and stab repeatedly.

The only difference is that a knife requires significant physical force to operate and is utterly useless at medium to long distance (unless you're Davey Crockett).

No it isn't rubbish. Refer to the posts of Manic Moran if you doubt me, he knows more on the subject than you ever will.

Manic Moran

indough wrote: »

No it isn't rubbish. Refer to the posts of Manic Moran if you doubt me, he knows more on the subject than you ever will.

Actually, I'm not so well up on knife-fighting. All I know is that I've been taught that if a guy with a knife is ten yards from me or less, he's too close for my own survival. He may take a few hits himself, but I still lose. There are ample reports of persons continuing to fight despite having been shot a few times. As a result, the CQ classes I've gone to have included methods of the use of the pistol as a club in hand-to-hand, even with rounds still in the magazine. The point about the relative lethality of knife and bullet wounds made above is also valid.

Gun - pull out, aim generally

The "aim generally" bit is the operative word here. You ever watch those "World's Scariest Police Videos" shows? You may have noticed that a lot of the gunplay takes place at only a few paces' range, with neither side obtaining a hit. Only good training will override this, something which even police are often deficient at.

Now, this is all generally academic as regards this thread, as most school shooters seem not to be physically strong and can probably be restrained if they're using a knife (after the first two or three stabbings). All I'm pointing out is 'Respect the blade'

NTM

indough

A knife to a blood-vital can disable a person in 10-60 seconds. A bullet to a non-nervous center vital area can disable a person from blood loss in a time range between 1 and 10 minutes. Blood loss from a knife attack will occur at a faster rate than that from a gunshot wound, especially if the knife is pulled out from the wound. Thats why if you're ever stabbed either intentionally or accidentally its important not to remove the blade if possible, as it seals the wound somewhat.

Edged weapons are used from a fluid platform, i.e. someone's rapidly moving arm, using footwork and shifts of weight to strike effectively. Handguns are designed to be used from a relatively stable position, shot from a hand held in a relatively stable position - in line from the shooter's eye to the target. You may be moving, but to shoot the other guy, you must keep your gun on target. This applies unless you're talking about shooting from the hip, in which case you're more than likely going to miss.

Anyone doubting the theory behind the 21-foot rule should look up the Tueller Drill.