US Journalists shot dead live on air [MOD WARNING in opening post]

pmasterson95 wrote: »

A bullet can pass through 2 people if the range/calibre/bullet/trajectory is correct. Do you think a throwing knife can kill two people with one throw?

Do you think you can chase and slash as many victims as you could while standing still and allowing the bullets do the chasing?

Its clear more than one person learned Physics from Darwin.

Where was I talking about physics? I was stating that if Flanagan didn't have access to a gun, then he would have found some other method of killing someone.

Maybe it would have been more difficult without a gun, but very possible to kill more than two people with a knife.

Google all the stabbings that happen in China.

smash wrote: »

Because even after firing multiple shots at close range, Alison Parker was able to make a run for it.

Thats more to do with a **** aim than guns not being affective killing machines but sure whatever suits your argument.

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Thats more to do with a **** aim than guns not being affective killing machines but sure whatever suits your argument.

I'm a gun owner and I'll agree with you that guns are very effective for murdering people. Luckily millions and millions of law abiding gun owners don't use them for this purpose. I'm one of those law abiding gun owners.

BattleCorp wrote: »

He used the gun at close range. What's your point?

Both a baseball bat and a gun are pretty lethal at that range.

The baseball bat would take longer to kill somebody, and it would have been easier for others to subdue him.

cdeb wrote: »

Do you think the others are going to stand around and wait their turn, or are they going to leg it immediately?

Then it becomes a long-range issue where gun >> baseball bat.

Ah it'd be awful rude to run if your in a line. Like you dont wanna upset the system/rythm. You'll have to wait. Maybe have a snack/tayto. Be grand like.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I have five guns. All licenced. I haven't shot up a school or murdered any co-workers. I'm in a club with over 300 members and none of them have shot up a school or murdered any co-workers either. We take part in a sport. If we misuse our firearms or behave aggressively etc., then the Gardai take them from us. I have absolutely no problem with that.

Yes, guns can kill people more efficiently than bows and arrows, knives etc. I'm not debating that point.

My point simply is that if Vester Flanagan was so hell bent on killing somebody in revenge for his percieved grievance, then he would have found a way.

Here's a question.

Who do you blame for the killing?

Is it Vester Flanagan's fault or is it the guns fault?

I think that's a loaded question, as saying either/or discounts the symbiotic nature of killing anyone with any weapon. I think the fact is that guns are so often the choice of your spree killer, where they're readily available, because they offer a deadliness and immediacy, and, as you say, an efficiency in killing that a knife, or your bare hands would not. I can't think that America's the only place with crazy people, people who are bent on killing over some grievance, real or imagined, and yet in other civilized countries this kind of regular, random gun violence dealt upon ordinary innocent people is relatively unheard of.

In terms of a single killing, it's always basically the gunman's fault, because they're the only sentient being in the man-gun team, but in terms of this spree killing thing as a general phenomenon, that's a multi-faceted societal issue. You can blame the gunman and move on, but at the terrible cost of not recognising the bigger problems at play in the United States, and little real progress will ever be made on curtailing it all. Small answers for huge, huge questions. For that reason, gun attacks like this look set to become a fact of life in America, and a built-in danger of living there.

Bambi wrote: »

Guns protect precious freedom from the NSA

Alex Jones to Piers Morgan in the wake of Sandyhook or Aurora,

"Hitler took the guns! Stalin took the guns! Mao took the guns! Fidel Castro took the guns! Hugo Chavez took the guns!

"I'm here to tell you — 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"

cdeb wrote: »

Genuine question - why do you own five guns?

I can't actually understand why anyone would want to own five items whose basic only function is to cause huge damage to people.

I asked an American gun-owner once - the reply was "Because I can". It then descended into nonsense about defending his freedom.

Genuinely never heard a reply to the question I can fathom.

I use guns for my sport. My sport is target shooting. I do lots of different types of target shooting.

I use a semi-automatic rifle for gallery rifle competitions. These competitions are a mix of accuracy and speed so a semi-automatic rifle is necessary.

I use a bolt action rifle for benchrest shooting in the heavy varmint category. It's a specialist rifle designed for this sport. The semi-automatic rifle wouldn't be accurate enough for this sport.

I use a different bolt action rifle for gallery precision competitions. The semi-auto rifle wouldn't be accurate enough and the specialist benchrest rifle would be too heavy to hold for this competition. So I have a lightweight bolt action rifle for this event.

I have a pistol for pistol competitions.

I have a shotgun for clay pigeon shooting.

That's why I need 5 guns, and even though it's all target shooting, it's pretty much 5 different sports.

In your house, I'm betting that there is or was a football, basketball, rugby ball, golf ball, tennis ball at some stage. If you want to play basketball, you can't play it with a rugby ball. If you want to play golf, you can't use a basketball and so on. I'm the same with my sport, I can't use the rifle in a pistol competition etc.

That's why I have 5 guns.

And if I wanted to shoot airgun comps, then I'd need another gun. And if I wanted to shoot Light Varmint I'd need anther gun. And if I wanted to shoot FTR I'd need another gun.

The same as if you wanted to take up another sport, you'd need the sporting equipment to allow you to take part in it.

cdeb wrote: »

Target shooting - why would you need to own a gun? I presume target shooting is done down a range - why not borrow one at the range? And a pellet gun at that - why does it need to be a full gun? And why would you need to own five?

Protection to me sounds very close to the American concept of "If we arm everyone, no-one gets killed" - which is obviously highly dangerous.

Hunting? Really? Do you need five guns to go off killing animals?

Not trying to wind gun owners up here; just genuinely can't get into their headspace.

It's like talking to a PC enthusiast or car enthusiast. Do you really need that big ugly looking spoiler and turbo engine? Do you really need to have an overclocked CPU and light up fans? Probably not in both cases. It's boys and their toys, basically. I've never shot a gun, but I can imagine how it would be a very gratifying and empowering experience for someone, and become a lifelong interest or hobby, or even, dare I say, fetish.