Man, I can't wait until they finally get these guns out of the hands of crazy people.
(CNN) -- At least 15 people were injured in a stabbing incident Tuesday morning at Lone Star College's CyFair campus in the Houston area, according to Robert Rasa, spokesman for the CyFair Volunteer Fire Department.
Authorities have detained one suspect at the campus in Cypress, Texas -- so far the only suspect at this point, a sheriff's spokesman told reporters Tuesday afternoon.
The school was on lockdown Tuesday afternoon while authorities combed the campus to ensure no other injured people or attackers were there, Harris County sheriff's spokesman Alan Bernstein said.
It wasn't clear whether all of the injured people were stabbed, Bernstein said.
"It's possible other people were running away" and became injured that way, Bernstein said.
Four people were taken to a hospital by helicopter, authorities said. The conditions of the victims weren't immediately available.
The four flown to a hospital "were in a dire enough situation that they were taken out on helicopters," Bernstein said.
Bernstein said it will take time for authorities to go through the campus and "make sure there (is) not another suspect or suspects."
"I do believe the confrontation was limited to a few (classrooms) or just one classroom -- not anybody roaming around and getting into a large number of areas," Bernstein said.
Details about what led to the incident weren't immediately released.
"Stay away from the area. Seek shelter in a secure location until the incident is resolved," the school posted on its website.
Tuesday's incident comes more than two months after three people were wounded in a shooting at a different Lone Star College campus -- the North Harris campus in Houston.
Honestly, I had never heard of it before the first event, and I've lived in Houston for 15 years...
It's a community college, so I can't see it as being any more stressful to get through than another community college.
edit: It's possible I have heard of them in my 15 years here, but I never made a connection with them and Houston. Also, I rarely watch the news as I get my information from Dakka Dakka!
2nd Edit: I texted my teacher GF here in Houston, in case she has former students there. Her reply "How do you stab 15 people in public? How dumb are those other 14 people?"
daedalus wrote: Yeah, Texas seems to have had a bad run as of late.
Anything in particular about Lone Star that would explain this? Like, is it renown for being a stressful school to get through?
Its a school where the most "nontraditional" of "nontraditional" college students go. (EDITed, the comment about the stadium is deleted as I maybe thinking of another school)
EDIT AGAIN yea this was the school. I used to live there in ancient times and moved further out into the sticks and seemingly back in time after that. Yea, it has this massive stadium for what is effectively a high sized campus. Its kind of a third tier community college system.
I thought UH was bad, at least it was only the off campus people trying to sneak into the parking lots and rob/mug/assault you. We didn't stab each other. If only one of those students was a ninja or even justa flying monkey, all that could have been avoided.
There are 4 or 5 campuses, from what a quick google map search reveals. 2 are not in great areas of town, 2 look like they're out in the sticks, and one is in the middle of The Woodlands, which isn't exactly a high crime area. :-)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Are we even sure the suspect was a student? Nothing I've seen has identified him yet.
The previous incident was a student. But I haven't heard about today's suspect, so he could have been a crazy that walked onto campus.
In Colorado, Massachusetts, and New York they "baned" high-capacity magazines so that rampages like this wouldn't happen. Stupid "gun show loophole" that allows criminals to buy these deadly knives without a background check...
Man, I can't wait until they finally get these guns out of the hands of crazy people.
(CNN) -- At least 15 people were injured in a stabbing incident Tuesday morning at Lone Star College's CyFair campus in the Houston area, according to Robert Rasa, spokesman for the CyFair Volunteer Fire Department.
...
...
Tuesday's incident comes more than two months after three people were wounded in a shooting at a different Lone Star College campus -- the North Harris campus in Houston.
These must be forenners or even DamnYankees. No self respecting Texan would just stab someone. Thats too lightweight, unless we were on the back of a longhorn at the time.
Man, I can't wait until they finally get these guns out of the hands of crazy people.
(CNN) -- At least 15 people were injured in a stabbing incident Tuesday morning at Lone Star College's CyFair campus in the Houston area, according to Robert Rasa, spokesman for the CyFair Volunteer Fire Department.
...
...
Tuesday's incident comes more than two months after three people were wounded in a shooting at a different Lone Star College campus -- the North Harris campus in Houston.
Also there was a thread in the DCM Mosh Pit of a "gun designer" in which several of our esteemed Dakkanauts made a picture of a gun that shot knives...
Given that this guy managed to get 14 people with just a knife and thats pretty high compared to most shootings its hard to tell. About the same probably.
A gun going off also does give away whats happening, its hard to tell just by sound if someone got stabbed. But everyone within earshot will hear the gun go off.
Easy E wrote: So, if the attacker had used a semi-auto pistol would the attack have been worse, same, or less dangerous?
I guess we will never know for sure, but we can all speculate quietly to ourselves.
If one of the victims had had a semi-auto pistol it probably would have been less dangerous. Unless the person with the pistol was potential victim number 16, then it probably would have been the same.
Grey Templar wrote: Given that this guy managed to get 14 people with just a knife and thats pretty high compared to most shootings its hard to tell. About the same probably.
A gun going off also does give away whats happening, its hard to tell just by sound if someone got stabbed. But everyone within earshot will hear the gun go off.
Not yet. Critical condition implies the unfortunate possibility though.
You contrast this with the mere 3 people wounded (and also not dead, I might add) from the shooting, and the argument that "bad guys" will shoot more people than they can stab starts to slip a little.
Grey Templar wrote: Given that this guy managed to get 14 people with just a knife and thats pretty high compared to most shootings its hard to tell. About the same probably.
A gun going off also does give away whats happening, its hard to tell just by sound if someone got stabbed. But everyone within earshot will hear the gun go off.
Is anyone dead?
Not yet anyway. We don't know the status of the 4 people that got airlifted in critical condition. Airlifting people out is never a good sign.
A knife can be more dangerous than a gun for any number of reasons. especially with injury. More potential bleeding for one, depending on the exact circumstances.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: i heard the Lonestar shooting was gang related, not a "fething psychopath" incident.
As to this we should ban assault knives immediately. Also wonder if this could have happened if Texas had legal CCW on their campus.
I think the important question is, where any barbeque sandwiches harmed in the incident?
I can say with some authority that, law or no, if someone breaks out a knife on campus, there will be lots of gunplay. Many night student were heavily armed due to the robberies that were going on when I was there (I have an alibi! hey someone has to supplement their income somehow).
KalashnikovMarine wrote: i heard the Lonestar shooting was gang related, not a "fething psychopath" incident.
As to this we should ban assault knives immediately. Also wonder if this could have happened if Texas had legal CCW on their campus.
I think the important question is, where any barbeque sandwiches harmed in the incident?
I can say with some authority that, law or no, if someone breaks out a knife on campus, there will be lots of gunplay. Many night student were heavily armed due to the robberies that were going on when I was there (I have an alibi! hey someone has to supplement their income somehow).
Not sure thats an Alibi Fraz, more like a confession.
Grey Templar wrote: Given that this guy managed to get 14 people with just a knife and thats pretty high compared to most shootings its hard to tell. About the same probably.
A gun going off also does give away whats happening, its hard to tell just by sound if someone got stabbed. But everyone within earshot will hear the gun go off.
Is anyone dead?
News says said four were lifeflighted so that should be four.
.
Grey Templar wrote: Given that this guy managed to get 14 people with just a knife and thats pretty high compared to most shootings its hard to tell. About the same probably.
A gun going off also does give away whats happening, its hard to tell just by sound if someone got stabbed. But everyone within earshot will hear the gun go off.
Is anyone dead?
News says said four were lifeflighted so that should be four.
.
Hopefully not, but there is a very high probability that they may not make it.
Squigsquasher wrote: Peh, who cares about knives? I worry about the presence of lethal assault screwdrivers on our streets!
In all seriousness...Oh no, not AGAIN. There seems to be a bit of a pattern emerging here.
Not really, the previous shooting was machismo gang wannabees. Don't know with this one.
However we should immediately pass a law limited house hold kitchen knives to ten or less.
Grey Templar wrote: Given that this guy managed to get 14 people with just a knife and thats pretty high compared to most shootings its hard to tell. About the same probably.
A gun going off also does give away whats happening, its hard to tell just by sound if someone got stabbed. But everyone within earshot will hear the gun go off.
Is anyone dead?
News says said four were lifeflighted so that should be four.
.
Hopefully not, but there is a very high probability that they may not make it.
Grey Templar wrote: Given that this guy managed to get 14 people with just a knife and thats pretty high compared to most shootings its hard to tell. About the same probably.
A gun going off also does give away whats happening, its hard to tell just by sound if someone got stabbed. But everyone within earshot will hear the gun go off.
Is anyone dead?
Not yet anyway. We don't know the status of the 4 people that got airlifted in critical condition. Airlifting people out is never a good sign.
A knife can be more dangerous than a gun for any number of reasons. especially with injury. More potential bleeding for one, depending on the exact circumstances.
Yes, I remember a long argument with someone who said that knives were more dangerous than guns.
It's complete rubbish, of course, when you look at the epidemiological studies.
Grey Templar wrote: A gun going off also does give away whats happening, its hard to tell just by sound if someone got stabbed. But everyone within earshot will hear the gun go off.
Wait... the knife had a silencer? Is that even legal?
Grey Templar wrote: Given that this guy managed to get 14 people with just a knife and thats pretty high compared to most shootings its hard to tell. About the same probably.
A gun going off also does give away whats happening, its hard to tell just by sound if someone got stabbed. But everyone within earshot will hear the gun go off.
Is anyone dead?
Not yet anyway. We don't know the status of the 4 people that got airlifted in critical condition. Airlifting people out is never a good sign.
A knife can be more dangerous than a gun for any number of reasons. especially with injury. More potential bleeding for one, depending on the exact circumstances.
Yes, I remember a long argument with someone who said that knives were more dangerous than guns.
It's complete rubbish, of course, when you look at the epidemiological studies.
I said can be more dangerous. Depends on all the variables.
RatBot wrote: Clearly this is a conspiracy by the Obama administration to enact boxcutter control and limit the length of blades. WAKE UP, SHEEPLE.
No, clearely its a conspiracy by opponents of gun control to show that whackos will still commit mass attacks on schools. Just with different weapons. But that's clearly not true at all!
RatBot wrote: Clearly this is a conspiracy by the Obama administration to enact boxcutter control and limit the length of blades. WAKE UP, SHEEPLE.
No, clearely its a conspiracy by opponents of gun control to show that whackos will still commit mass attacks on schools. Just with different weapons. But that's clearly not true at all!
Maybe. Either way, it's obvious that relatively simple situations must inherently be Machiavellian conspiracies to push a sinister agenda, all in the name of our secret reptilian overlords.
RatBot wrote: Clearly this is a conspiracy by the Obama administration to enact boxcutter control and limit the length of blades. WAKE UP, SHEEPLE.
No, clearely its a conspiracy by opponents of gun control to show that whackos will still commit mass attacks on schools. Just with different weapons. But that's clearly not true at all!
Maybe it's a conspiratcy by people to show that crazy people will be crazy, but that it is harder to injure and kill people with some weapons than others?
Grey Templar wrote: Given that this guy managed to get 14 people with just a knife and thats pretty high compared to most shootings its hard to tell. About the same probably.
A gun going off also does give away whats happening, its hard to tell just by sound if someone got stabbed. But everyone within earshot will hear the gun go off.
Is anyone dead?
News says said four were lifeflighted so that should be four.
.
Hopefully not, but there is a very high probability that they may not make it.
Sorry I meant four critically injured.
Is there any update on this? Are they recovering now?
Last report showed 3 were no longer in critical condition from what I gathered, course thats just what the news headline showed. Couldn't hear anything else the cafeteria TV said.
Breotan wrote:In Colorado, Massachusetts, and New York they "baned" high-capacity magazines so that rampages like this wouldn't happen. Stupid "gun show loophole" that allows criminals to buy these deadly knives without a background check...
Is anyone dead? No? Hmmm... when was the last time there was a massive school shooting with zero fatalities?
Hordini wrote:If one of the victims had had a semi-auto pistol it probably would have been less dangerous.
This has proved to be observably false in just about ever occasion.
Grey Templar wrote:A knife can be more dangerous than a gun for any number of reasons. especially with injury. More potential bleeding for one, depending on the exact circumstances.
And a teddy bear can be more dangerous than a gun. Especially with asphyxiation. Depending on exact circumstances. And let's not forget all those puddles of water in the streets, which can be more dangerous than knives. Especially with drowning. Depending on exact circumstances.
For the second time today, I'll ask: do you ever think about the ridiculous things you say sometimes?
azazel the cat wrote: This has proved to be observably false in just about ever occasion.
No, it hasn't. There's a list of mass shootings stopped by someone with a gun who doesn't happen to be a cop. Oddly, they tend to get considerably less media coverage.
Is anyone dead? No? Hmmm... when was the last time there was a massive school shooting with zero fatalities?
If you're trying to say that guns are more dangerous than knives, then I agree with you. Of course guns are more dangerous than knives, that's the whole point of a gun. Hence the oft-quoted bit of folk wisdom I'm pretty sure we're all familiar with: "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."
Hordini wrote:If one of the victims had had a semi-auto pistol it probably would have been less dangerous.
This has proved to be observably false in just about ever occasion.
Seaward already covered it, but you're mistaken. There are multiple examples of civilians using firearms to defend themselves in a variety of situations, including active shooter scenarios. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd be interested in checking it out.
Grey Templar wrote: Given that this guy managed to get 14 people with just a knife and thats pretty high compared to most shootings its hard to tell. About the same probably.
A gun going off also does give away whats happening, its hard to tell just by sound if someone got stabbed. But everyone within earshot will hear the gun go off.
Is anyone dead?
Not yet anyway. We don't know the status of the 4 people that got airlifted in critical condition. Airlifting people out is never a good sign.
A knife can be more dangerous than a gun for any number of reasons. especially with injury. More potential bleeding for one, depending on the exact circumstances.
Yes, I remember a long argument with someone who said that knives were more dangerous than guns.
It's complete rubbish, of course, when you look at the epidemiological studies.
I said can be more dangerous. Depends on all the variables.
I think you would not deny, though that in general guns are more deadly than knives.
azazel the cat wrote: This has proved to be observably false in just about ever occasion.
No, it hasn't. There's a list of mass shootings stopped by someone with a gun who doesn't happen to be a cop. Oddly, they tend to get considerably less media coverage.
Cite something.
Also, don't cite the 5 most likely ones, because they're all demonstrably false. I'm not even going to go into details why, because this article does the job for me. I was also going to cite that courthouse shootut in Texas an a better example of what happens when someone's John McLane fantasy kicks in, but I think the same article also includes that, as well.
I'm sure it's nice to think that in a situation like that you'd go all Die Hard on a shooter, but that's really just a power fantasy that's been marketed to you by Bushmaster et al.
I don't see how the fact that many of the CCW holders were Marines or former police officers or Army reserve members invalidates the point. Those are some of the most likely people to have CCWs in the first place which I don't think is a bad thing at all. If you're going to make the argument that they're not "regular citizens" because there is something that sets them apart from the general population, then you might as well say that CCW holders aren't "regular citizens" because they have CCWs.
I realize that people have also been injured while attempting to stop a bad situation with their weapon. That is a risk that every CCW holder has and it is a personal decision as to whether or not they draw, and the individual has to accept that that could cause the shooter to target them specifically.
As for an example, there were multiple civilian shooters who assisted law enforcement in stopping Charles Whitman during the bell tower shootings at University of Texas at Austin.
Outside of mass shootings, there are also instances of civilian CCW holders saving police officers.
How about the Clackamas Mall Shooting just last December? Shooter kills two, is confronted by an armed citizen, retreats and suicides. Or another attempted theater shooting in San Antonio around that same time, defender was an off duty Cop sure, but when the badge comes off, sorry you're just another schmuck.
As to that Mother Jones article, 1. Really? Mother JONES? Come on Az. 2. They even contradict themselves multiple times. The Winnemucca shooting was stopped by a Marine in his late 40s, a retiree, so a veteran yes, but still a civilian. Jeanne Assam was not a licensed Colorado security officer. She was a volunteer, same as people volunteer to be ushers and the like at your local church. New Life Church is right up the road from me, she engaged the shooter with her private carry weapon. It was quite the stir when it happened, New Life is about 10 minutes drive from me
Then the article your MJ article cites about police officers disliking armed civilians? Minimal citation, and it's another MJ article. Compared to professionals like Larry Correia http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/ or my own County Sheriff, or my Campus Police department, who wholeheartedly endorse armed citizens being able to defend themselves and others.
Good guys with guns in the right place and right time can absolutely stop bad guys with guns.
I'm not sure why you're so desperate to be powerless before these pscyhopaths but your death is your own choice. At the very least I'll die with a weapon in my hand and go to my gods with a clean conscience. Cower in your corner, maybe they'll shoot you in the head and make it quick.
Breotan wrote: In Colorado, Massachusetts, and New York they "baned" high-capacity magazines so that rampages like this wouldn't happen. Stupid "gun show loophole" that allows criminals to buy these deadly knives without a background check...
I know right? All those deaths caused by one crazy person and a knife... Wait a minute, no one died here. I wonder if that would be different had he had some magical device designed to kill people efficiently?
I think the guy that did this needs to get a football scholarship. He manages to stab 15 people??? Not only is that great dexterity and speed, he also showed a great amount of focus to get to #15 victim.
I predict he will be #1 draft pick as a RB in the NFL draft in 2 years time or optionally gets an acting part as "roberto" in a futurama movie.
azazel the cat wrote: I'm sure it's nice to think that in a situation like that you'd go all Die Hard on a shooter, but that's really just a power fantasy that's been marketed to you by Bushmaster et al.
Not really. Something like this goes down when I'm around, I'm getting me and mine out of Dodge and letting everyone else fend for themselves. I've been shot at enough for one lifetime.
Also, I adore that Bushmaster has become the latest bogeyman for the moonbats.
azazel the cat wrote: I'm sure it's nice to think that in a situation like that you'd go all Die Hard on a shooter, but that's really just a power fantasy that's been marketed to you by Bushmaster et al.
Not really. Something like this goes down when I'm around, I'm getting me and mine out of Dodge and letting everyone else fend for themselves. I've been shot at enough for one lifetime.
Also, I adore that Bushmaster has become the latest bogeyman for the moonbats.
Poor Armalite. They invent the gun, Bushmaster gets all the credit.
Grey Templar wrote: Given that this guy managed to get 14 people with just a knife and thats pretty high compared to most shootings its hard to tell. About the same probably.
A gun going off also does give away whats happening, its hard to tell just by sound if someone got stabbed. But everyone within earshot will hear the gun go off.
Is anyone dead?
Not yet anyway. We don't know the status of the 4 people that got airlifted in critical condition. Airlifting people out is never a good sign.
A knife can be more dangerous than a gun for any number of reasons. especially with injury. More potential bleeding for one, depending on the exact circumstances.
Yes, I remember a long argument with someone who said that knives were more dangerous than guns.
It's complete rubbish, of course, when you look at the epidemiological studies.
I said can be more dangerous. Depends on all the variables.
I think you would not deny, though that in general guns are more deadly than knives.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How about the Clackamas Mall Shooting just last December? Shooter kills two, is confronted by an armed citizen, retreats and suicides. Or another attempted theater shooting in San Antonio around that same time, defender was an off duty Cop sure, but when the badge comes off, sorry you're just another schmuck.
As to that Mother Jones article, 1. Really? Mother JONES? Come on Az.
2. They even contradict themselves multiple times. The Winnemucca shooting was stopped by a Marine in his late 40s, a retiree, so a veteran yes, but still a civilian.
Jeanne Assam was not a licensed Colorado security officer. She was a volunteer, same as people volunteer to be ushers and the like at your local church. New Life Church is right up the road from me, she engaged the shooter with her private carry weapon. It was quite the stir when it happened, New Life is about 10 minutes drive from me
Then the article your MJ article cites about police officers disliking armed civilians? Minimal citation, and it's another MJ article. Compared to professionals like Larry Correia http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/ or my own County Sheriff, or my Campus Police department, who wholeheartedly endorse armed citizens being able to defend themselves and others.
Good guys with guns in the right place and right time can absolutely stop bad guys with guns.
I'm not sure why you're so desperate to be powerless before these pscyhopaths but your death is your own choice. At the very least I'll die with a weapon in my hand and go to my gods with a clean conscience. Cower in your corner, maybe they'll shoot you in the head and make it quick.
Your signature's kinda ironic isn't it?
Exalted
Az and anyone else... we have hang gunz...deal with it. (you should be ashamed for reading Mother Jones ) Further Gun Control measure limits law abiding citizens. I'd much rather that all this effort to increase gun controls is instead used for proper safety training and education. Because, in the end... criminals don't abide by the law anyways.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Yeah I really can't get over Mother Jones being cited as a reputable source of information. That's like citing Alex Jones and InfoWars.
The reason why gun wounding are so much higher in Canada, the UK, Japan, France, etc (all the usual suspects) compared to the USA, is that only the US has guns freely available to citizens whereas in all those other countries they are only freely available to criminals.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why gun wounding are so much higher in Canada, the UK, Japan, France, etc (all the usual suspects) compared to the USA, is that only the US has guns freely available to citizens whereas in all those other countries they are only freely available to criminals.
Huh? That doesn't quite compute... unless my brain is in Frazzled's frying pan...
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why gun wounding are so much higher in Canada, the UK, Japan, France, etc (all the usual suspects) compared to the USA, is that only the US has guns freely available to citizens whereas in all those other countries they are only freely available to criminals.
Huh? That doesn't quite compute... unless my brain is in Frazzled's frying pan...
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why gun wounding are so much higher in Canada, the UK, Japan, France, etc (all the usual suspects) compared to the USA, is that only the US has guns freely available to citizens whereas in all those other countries they are only freely available to criminals.
Huh? That doesn't quite compute... unless my brain is in Frazzled's frying pan...
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why gun wounding are so much higher in Canada, the UK, Japan, France, etc (all the usual suspects) compared to the USA, is that only the US has guns freely available to citizens whereas in all those other countries they are only freely available to criminals.
Perhaps with the exception of Canada, guns aren't freely available to criminals in any of those countries because they don't have nearly the amount of guns in circulation as the US does. That's the difference.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why gun wounding are so much higher in Canada, the UK, Japan, France, etc (all the usual suspects) compared to the USA, is that only the US has guns freely available to citizens whereas in all those other countries they are only freely available to criminals.
I'm with Whembly on this one. That makes no sense at all.
After some research, I found that in Britain they classify just threatening with a fire arm as an "injury" hence why the numbers are so high there.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why gun wounding are so much higher in Canada, the UK, Japan, France, etc (all the usual suspects) compared to the USA, is that only the US has guns freely available to citizens whereas in all those other countries they are only freely available to criminals.
Huh? That doesn't quite compute... unless my brain is in Frazzled's frying pan...
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Yeah I really can't get over Mother Jones being cited as a reputable source of information. That's like citing Alex Jones and InfoWars.
Next thing you'll be telling me that Electronic Intafada isn't a reliable source when it comes to Israel/Palestine
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why gun wounding are so much higher in Canada, the UK, Japan, France, etc (all the usual suspects) compared to the USA, is that only the US has guns freely available to citizens whereas in all those other countries they are only freely available to criminals.
Huh? That doesn't quite compute... unless my brain is in Frazzled's frying pan...
Coming soon in this thread: British posters commenting that Americans don't "get" irony. Stay tuned!
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why gun wounding are so much higher in Canada, the UK, Japan, France, etc (all the usual suspects) compared to the USA, is that only the US has guns freely available to citizens whereas in all those other countries they are only freely available to criminals.
Huh? That doesn't quite compute... unless my brain is in Frazzled's frying pan...
Coming soon in this thread: British posters commenting that Americans don't "get" irony. Stay tuned!
Edited: We also lack poor reading comprehension skills when sleep deprived.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why gun wounding are so much higher in Canada, the UK, Japan, France, etc (all the usual suspects) compared to the USA, is that only the US has guns freely available to citizens whereas in all those other countries they are only freely available to criminals.
I'm with Whembly on this one. That makes no sense at all.
After some research, I found that in Britain they classify just threatening with a fire arm as an "injury" hence why the numbers are so high there.
Doc: Where did he hurt you?
Brit: My feelings doc, they took a nasty hit.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why gun wounding are so much higher in Canada, the UK, Japan, France, etc (all the usual suspects) compared to the USA, is that only the US has guns freely available to citizens whereas in all those other countries they are only freely available to criminals.
I'm with Whembly on this one. That makes no sense at all.
After some research, I found that in Britain they classify just threatening with a fire arm as an "injury" hence why the numbers are so high there.
Doc: Where did he hurt you?
Brit: My feelings doc, they took a nasty hit.
American: Sue him for a million dollars, feelings are worth that much.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why gun wounding are so much higher in Canada, the UK, Japan, France, etc (all the usual suspects) compared to the USA, is that only the US has guns freely available to citizens whereas in all those other countries they are only freely available to criminals.
I'm with Whembly on this one. That makes no sense at all.
After some research, I found that in Britain they classify just threatening with a fire arm as an "injury" hence why the numbers are so high there.
Doc: Where did he hurt you?
Brit: My feelings doc, they took a nasty hit.
American: Sue him for a million dollars, feelings are worth that much.
Hordini wrote:I don't see how the fact that many of the CCW holders were Marines or former police officers or Army reserve members invalidates the point.
It does when the entire point is that those marines & off-duty cops are not regular citizens; they have had proper combat training.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Good guys with guns in the right place and right time can absolutely stop bad guys with guns.
"Can"? Sure.
"Do"? Almost never. Which is sorta my point.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I'm not sure why you're so desperate to be powerless before these pscyhopaths but your death is your own choice. At the very least I'll die with a weapon in my hand and go to my gods with a clean conscience. Cower in your corner, maybe they'll shoot you in the head and make it quick.
Because unless I had a distinct tactical advantage (read: rifle and distance; preferably cover and subterfuge as well) I like to think that I'd just keep my head down and get the Hell outta Dodge as quickly and safely as possible, rather than directly engage in a gunfight.
So you can enjoy Valhalla; and I'll enjoy consoling your widow. (Honestly, I can't decide if that's tasteless or not, so please take it in the most jovial sense possible. )
whembly wrote:Further Gun Control measure limits law abiding citizens. I'd much rather that all this effort to increase gun controls is instead used for proper safety training and education. Because, in the end... criminals don't abide by the law anyways.
I agree with you that proper safety training and education would be of most benefit, for sure. However, you really can't make that training & education optional, or all the moron who need it the most (see: Bushmaster ad campaign above) are the ones who won't bother with it.
And I have a feeling that a much higher percentage of criminals in the USA have firearms than do the criminals in Canada.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Yeah I really can't get over Mother Jones being cited as a reputable source of information. That's like citing Alex Jones and InfoWars.
It's really not. It's more like citing the News Corp.-era Wall Street Journal.
Hordini wrote:That might be an interesting film but nobody should ever be making self-defense decisions based off of something they saw in a movie.
Go tell that to every person who's ever said a good guy with a gun is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun.
Hordini wrote:I don't see how the fact that many of the CCW holders were Marines or former police officers or Army reserve members invalidates the point.
It does when the entire point is that those marines & off-duty cops are not regular citizens; they have had proper combat training.
Where I'm from, with the exception of a small number of people granted temporary emergency permits which require evidence of imminent danger, everyone with a CCW permit has had training. It varies by state, and my state has one of the higher training requirements, but most states require a basic level of firearms training before someone can be granted a CCW.
Hordini wrote:That might be an interesting film but nobody should ever be making self-defense decisions based off of something they saw in a movie.
Go tell that to every person who's ever said a good guy with a gun is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun.
I like the .gif
Back to the topic: I would love to hear your suggestions on other, better ways to stop a bad guy with a gun. And don't say running or hiding, because that doesn't stop the bad guy.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why gun wounding are so much higher in Canada, the UK, Japan, France, etc (all the usual suspects) compared to the USA, is that only the US has guns freely available to citizens whereas in all those other countries they are only freely available to criminals.
Perhaps with the exception of Canada, guns aren't freely available to criminals in any of those countries because they don't have nearly the amount of guns in circulation as the US does. That's the difference.
Your argument is circular.
It needs to start with an explanation of why it is hard to obtain guns illegally in these countries. Do you think that in the USA it is easy for criminals to get guns because there isn't a licensing regime?
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why gun wounding are so much higher in Canada, the UK, Japan, France, etc (all the usual suspects) compared to the USA, is that only the US has guns freely available to citizens whereas in all those other countries they are only freely available to criminals.
Perhaps with the exception of Canada, guns aren't freely available to criminals in any of those countries because they don't have nearly the amount of guns in circulation as the US does. That's the difference.
Your argument is circular.
It needs to start with an explanation of why it is hard to obtain guns illegally in these countries. Do you think that in the USA it is easy for criminals to get guns because there isn't a licensing regime?
I think it's easier for criminals to get guns here because we already have a lot of guns. Guns can be stolen or bought illegally through straw purchases - all things that are already illegal and have harsh penalties. A licensing regime wouldn't change that at this point because there are already so many guns in private hands. All the guns that are already owned will still be owned unless there was some sort of mandatory confiscation, which isn't going to happen, and even if it did, a few law-abiding citizens would be the only ones to even consider turning their guns in. Criminals likely wouldn't turn in their guns, which would leave us with an armed criminal element and an unarmed or lesser-armed law-abiding populace.
Hordini wrote:Back to the topic: I would love to hear your suggestions on other, better ways to stop a bad guy with a gun. And don't say running or hiding, because that doesn't stop the bad guy.
I'm a pretty big fan of trained law enforcement officers.
Were I in a lecture hall when someone starts shooting; I'd be keeping my head down and trying to make my way to an exit as fast and safely as possible. The thought of having not only the perp's bullets flying overhead, but one or two people thinking they're living out their Die Hard fantasies is even worse in some respects.
See, here's what essentially informs my thought process on this issue, in a broad sense:
I am more concerned about catching a stray from an overcompensating moron than I am about being targeted by a malicious shooter, I think that a lot of current firearms marketing is targeting exactly the kind of idiots that I do not believe should have easy access to firearms.
They show up 20 minutes after a shooting has started.
Were I in a lecture hall when someone starts shooting; I'd be keeping my head down and trying to make my way to an exit as fast and safely as possible.
What if it was like Virginia Tech, where the assailant had chained the doors?
The thought of having not only the perp's bullets flying overhead, but one or two people thinking they're living out their Die Hard fantasies is even worse in some respects.
But you're cool with former military carrying and engaging, right? You said that above. Due to "combat training."
See, here's what essentially informs my thought process on this issue, in a broad sense:
I am more concerned about catching a stray from an overcompensating moron than I am about being targeted by a malicious shooter, I think that a lot of current firearms marketing is targeting exactly the kind of idiots that I do not believe should have easy access to firearms.
When's the last time someone got hit by a "stray" from an overcompensating moron during a mass shooting, out of curiosity?
When's the last time someone got hit by a "stray" from an overcompensating moron during a mass shooting, out of curiosity?
I don't recall hearing about an armed citizen hitting bystanders anytime recently, but I do recall those trained law enforcement officers hitting something like 9 bystanders in New York while trying to drop one guy.
Keep in mind, I'm not bashing on LEO's. I intend on becoming one myself post-military. That being said, I also realize that trusting them to keep you safe is foolhardy.
When's the last time someone got hit by a "stray" from an overcompensating moron during a mass shooting, out of curiosity?
I don't recall hearing about an armed citizen hitting bystanders anytime recently, but I do recall those trained law enforcement officers hitting something like 9 bystanders in New York while trying to drop one guy.
Keep in mind, I'm not bashing on LEO's. I intend on becoming one myself post-military. That being said, I also realize that trusting them to keep you safe is foolhardy.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why gun wounding are so much higher in Canada, the UK, Japan, France, etc (all the usual suspects) compared to the USA, is that only the US has guns freely available to citizens whereas in all those other countries they are only freely available to criminals.
Perhaps with the exception of Canada, guns aren't freely available to criminals in any of those countries because they don't have nearly the amount of guns in circulation as the US does. That's the difference.
Your argument is circular.
It needs to start with an explanation of why it is hard to obtain guns illegally in these countries. Do you think that in the USA it is easy for criminals to get guns because there isn't a licensing regime?
We also have a border where I can purchase a full auto Chavez supplied AK, some grenades, a kilo of cocaine, and a human slave all in one shopping trip. Texas, so close to Mexico, so far from God.
Honestly, with this current wave of directionless, and emasculated "men" that our society is going through right now, that ad is fething brilliant! I love it personally. But the direction that "men" are going in, in western society is a whole other topic. I really do not think that the problem with America, in regards to these mass attacks is in the weapons themselves, it is still IMO, in the lack of parenting the kids get.
This really interests me. Tell me more about how this feeds into/or does not feed into the Gun Culture of America?
This is all just opinion from me here, and I am in no way an expert. But, if we look at the direction that schooling in America has gone, particularly in the fields of recess and recreational time, just about everyone can see that basically all forms of recreation in which, especially boys, can vent of their aggression (dodgeball, cops and robbers, etc.) they instead must keep it held up tight. Then, we turn into the classroom, where these same boys who have all this pent up aggression and energy become "disruptive" to others suddenly they had ADD, or ADHD (which some genuinely do have, but no where near the percentage being reported today). After school we send them home, and many of these kids are growing up with no Father or "father figure" in the house, instead it's mom or grandma raising them. They are often times simply ignored, and told to play their video games, where they learn about all sorts of things, many of them related to guns. Now, because they don't play outside with other kids, they lose out on certain social aspects of life, and as we have seen with many of these mass shootings, develop into young-adulthood with numerous mental health problems, and lack the skills to effectively deal with their issues. Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone, but I feel that I have seen it enough times now, that this is in essence what is happening, where it is no longer OK to be a boy, and later on it's no longer OK to be a "Man".
In my time in the Army (which I know shades many of my opinions), I have seen that the bulk of the "worst" soldiers that I have been around, were those who were raised without a father. I was raised in a household with both my parents, and it was my Dad who taught me everything I need to know about firearm safety (the army just sorta reinforced it), he took time out of his schedule to support my decisions: he never missed a football game, and only missed 2 track meets due to work commitments (and one of those was a 3 hour drive from home), he cared for my family unconditionally and showed it in many ways. Even in moments where he wasn't actively teaching me something, he was still teaching, and it's only now that I have kids of my own that I can see this.
I personally feel that there is nothing wrong with A gun culture in America, however the one that we have now needs some work. I do hate the media blaming other media sources (movies, video games, music, etc.) for all the problems, as I feel that the problems stem from home.
This really interests me. Tell me more about how this feeds into/or does not feed into the Gun Culture of America?
This is all just opinion from me here, and I am in no way an expert. But, if we look at the direction that schooling in America has gone, particularly in the fields of recess and recreational time, just about everyone can see that basically all forms of recreation in which, especially boys, can vent of their aggression (dodgeball, cops and robbers, etc.) they instead must keep it held up tight. Then, we turn into the classroom, where these same boys who have all this pent up aggression and energy become "disruptive" to others suddenly they had ADD, or ADHD (which some genuinely do have, but no where near the percentage being reported today). After school we send them home, and many of these kids are growing up with no Father or "father figure" in the house, instead it's mom or grandma raising them. They are often times simply ignored, and told to play their video games, where they learn about all sorts of things, many of them related to guns. Now, because they don't play outside with other kids, they lose out on certain social aspects of life, and as we have seen with many of these mass shootings, develop into young-adulthood with numerous mental health problems, and lack the skills to effectively deal with their issues. Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone, but I feel that I have seen it enough times now, that this is in essence what is happening, where it is no longer OK to be a boy, and later on it's no longer OK to be a "Man".
In my time in the Army (which I know shades many of my opinions), I have seen that the bulk of the "worst" soldiers that I have been around, were those who were raised without a father. I was raised in a household with both my parents, and it was my Dad who taught me everything I need to know about firearm safety (the army just sorta reinforced it), he took time out of his schedule to support my decisions: he never missed a football game, and only missed 2 track meets due to work commitments (and one of those was a 3 hour drive from home), he cared for my family unconditionally and showed it in many ways. Even in moments where he wasn't actively teaching me something, he was still teaching, and it's only now that I have kids of my own that I can see this.
I personally feel that there is nothing wrong with A gun culture in America, however the one that we have now needs some work. I do hate the media blaming other media sources (movies, video games, music, etc.) for all the problems, as I feel that the problems stem from home.
Worth an exalt my man
This is my perception too! I have two boyz and I worry about this...
This really interests me. Tell me more about how this feeds into/or does not feed into the Gun Culture of America?
This is all just opinion from me here, and I am in no way an expert. But, if we look at the direction that schooling in America has gone, particularly in the fields of recess and recreational time, just about everyone can see that basically all forms of recreation in which, especially boys, can vent of their aggression (dodgeball, cops and robbers, etc.) they instead must keep it held up tight. Then, we turn into the classroom, where these same boys who have all this pent up aggression and energy become "disruptive" to others suddenly they had ADD, or ADHD (which some genuinely do have, but no where near the percentage being reported today).
Ensis has a bit of a point in the first paragraph actually.
I have few requirements of the wee ones, and even less that they actually listen to. But one is that they have to be involved in some sort of PE activity (in school or out). It really helped with the Boy.
All that aggression that boys have must be special to Americans. Other countries get on fine with educating children without providing special aggression play courses for boys.
Kilkrazy wrote: All that aggression that boys have must be special to Americans. Other countries get on fine with educating children without providing special aggression play courses for boys.
don't other western country's at least allow them to play various "violent" sports, like rugby, without significant alterations to the rules?
Hordini wrote:Back to the topic: I would love to hear your suggestions on other, better ways to stop a bad guy with a gun. And don't say running or hiding, because that doesn't stop the bad guy.
I'm a pretty big fan of trained law enforcement officers.
Were I in a lecture hall when someone starts shooting; I'd be keeping my head down and trying to make my way to an exit as fast and safely as possible. The thought of having not only the perp's bullets flying overhead, but one or two people thinking they're living out their Die Hard fantasies is even worse in some respects.
See, here's what essentially informs my thought process on this issue, in a broad sense:
I am more concerned about catching a stray from an overcompensating moron than I am about being targeted by a malicious shooter, I think that a lot of current firearms marketing is targeting exactly the kind of idiots that I do not believe should have easy access to firearms.
I certainly would not begrudge anyone for keeping their head down and trying to make an exit as fast as possible during a mass shooting. In the majority of cases that's probably the best idea. Worrying more about being hit by a CCW holder than by a malicious shooter during a mass shooting situation seems incredibly paranoid though. Do you think it's easier to get shot by someone who's not trying to shoot you than it is to get shot by someone who is trying to shoot you? If a CCW holder draws a weapon while everyone else is running away, there's a good chance that even if the CCW holder doesn't succeed in stopping the malicious shooter, he/she will at least draw the shooter's attention away from everyone else who is trying to flee.
If someone, whether that person is a CCW holder or a police officer, succeeds in stopping the threat during a mass shooting, even if they accidentally hit a bystander in the process, that's better than letting the malicious shooter go wild until he runs out of ammo or kills himself.
Do you think all CCW holders are overcompensating morons with Die Hard fantasies?
Just to clarify: I understand having the concern that in a mass shooting where a CCW holder is present, there is the possibility that a bystander could be hit by a bullet fired by the CCW holder while attempting to stop the shooter. Worrying more about being accidentally hit by the CCW holder than by the malicious shooter who is actively trying to murder everyone in sight is what I find paranoid.
Here is a sobering thought to the "only LEO or veterans should have guns" group.
It is a fact that most citizens have more range-time than LEOs. More range time means more familiarity with their weapon, as well as accuracy.
Many former military about 2/3 are not combat experienced. Thats right, only about 33% of all military personnel (less so in branches such as the Navy [only a select few fire the vessel's weapons] and the Air Force [not everyone is a pilot or PJ]) have actually been through AIT or another "close" combat school. The other 66% are support and logistics personnel a d have training appropriate for their MOS. That's not to say that a 12Kilo or 88Mike would never fire a weapon or be called out for patrol duty (an 88M would probably have to worry about ambush so may have some more trigger-time and training) but it is less likely than an 11Baker.. Further down you have your mechanics, IT personnel, finance, and human resource personnel.
So can you really say that vets are more qualified than any other civilian to carry a CCDW, when so many of them haven't fired a weapon since basic?
The only way to get proficient with a firearm is to practice. How mass shooters can hit anything is beyond me, but there you have it.
A LEO only has to do enough shooting to maintain his/her qualification
Kilkrazy wrote: All that aggression that boys have must be special to Americans. Other countries get on fine with educating children without providing special aggression play courses for boys.
don't other western country's at least allow them to play various "violent" sports, like rugby, without significant alterations to the rules?
No.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xraytango wrote: Here is a sobering thought to the "only LEO or veterans should have guns" group.
It is a fact that most citizens have more range-time than LEOs. More range time means more familiarity with their weapon, as well as accuracy.
...
...
You've got no way of knowing that because there isn't any kind of licensing or qualification mechanism for civilians.
xraytango wrote: Here is a sobering thought to the "only LEO or veterans should have guns" group.
It is a fact that most citizens have more range-time than LEOs. More range time means more familiarity with their weapon, as well as accuracy.
...
...
You've got no way of knowing that because there isn't any kind of licensing or qualification mechanism for civilians.
There is no licensing or qualification mechanism for civilian gun ownership in most states beyond being a law-abiding citizen and meeting the age requirements. There are strict licensing and training requirements for CCW permits in the majority of states that allow CCWs, however.
Everyone I know that owns a gun goes to the range at least once a month, usually more. From what I know about LEO training its almost always less than that.
Easy E wrote:This really interests me. Tell me more about how this feeds into/or does not feed into the Gun Culture of America?
I feel this is apt.
Hordini wrote:Do you think all CCW holders are overcompensating morons with Die Hard fantasies?
All? Absolutely not. Not even a majority, I'd like to think.
But the ones who are specifically being targeted by ads such as Bushmaster's? Absolutely. As well as anyone that tries to equate firearms with notions of masculinity.
Hordini wrote:Do you think all CCW holders are overcompensating morons with Die Hard fantasies?
All? Absolutely not. Not even a majority, I'd like to think.
But the ones who are specifically being targeted by ads such as Bushmaster's? Absolutely. As well as anyone that tries to equate firearms with notions of masculinity.
And what exactly is wrong with intertwining masculinity with guns? It gets mashed together with just about everything else, why should guns be any different then things like Ford pickups, Old Spice, or beer?
Advertizing in general is about playing off of the feelings of the consumer, feelings that may include a desire to feel empowered. Why revile a company for doing what everyone else that sells anything is doing? Selling guns is no different from selling any other product, its just advertising. No more malicious than any other form of advertising.
Not that guns are purely masculine in reality, they're a tool of protection that can also be used for recreational and hunting purposes. Let people think its macho to do stuff like that think that, after all "Macho" is different for everyone. Its like trying to define fun, fun doesn't mean the same thing for everyone.
Hordini wrote:Do you think all CCW holders are overcompensating morons with Die Hard fantasies?
All? Absolutely not. Not even a majority, I'd like to think.
But the ones who are specifically being targeted by ads such as Bushmaster's? Absolutely. As well as anyone that tries to equate firearms with notions of masculinity.
Okay, fair enough. One thing to keep in mind is that not every gun owner (probably not even the majority of gun owners) have CCW permits. The people being targeted by those ads might not be the same people who are willing to go through all the effort it takes to get a CCW license.
I get what you're saying about the advertisements, but I think it's worth noting as well that being interested in owning and shooting an AR-15 after viewing an ad like that isn't the same thing as being interested in going on a rampage or indulging in a Rambo/Die Hard fantasy after viewing an ad like that.
Its a silly advertisement, ultimately it means nothing.
Privateer Press used a similar vein of thought with their "Play like you've got a pair" ad. Simply for the "catch" factor, it gets attention.
That's all it is there for, no huge philosophical reasoning, just something humorous to get notice and increase brand awareness. Freudian, yes; serious, no.
xraytango wrote: Its a silly advertisement, ultimately it means nothing.
Privateer Press used a similar vein of thought with their "Play like you've got a pair" ad. Simply for the "catch" factor, it gets attention.
That's all it is there for, no huge philosophical reasoning, just something humorous to get notice and increase brand awareness. Freudian, yes; serious, no.
xraytango wrote:Privateer Press used a similar vein of thought with their "Play like you've got a pair" ad. Simply for the "catch" factor, it gets attention.
Privateer Press sells toys; not deadly weapons that are being marketed like toys.
xraytango wrote:Privateer Press used a similar vein of thought with their "Play like you've got a pair" ad. Simply for the "catch" factor, it gets attention.
Privateer Press sells toys; not deadly weapons that are being marketed like toys.
Wow, really did you just... ... I mean, wow.
That completely misses the point.
You know the products are being marketed to two completely different groups right?
Toys for big boys.
I would venture that the largest portion of the anti-gun crowd has never fired a weapon.
Shooting is fun. Tin cans, watermelons, paint cans, paper targets all at various ranges with different firearms and different loads can be a very enjoyable activity, not to mention skeet-shooting as well as tactical time-trials.
These activities also have competitive as well as contemplative (zen-like) attributes.
Guns kill people? My firearms have never once attacked me or any of my house-guests, nor am I worried that they will load themselves and attack innocent people on the street some balmy afternoon. But that is what many believe that they will do.
Guns do not make anyone go out and commit a crime, they simply have no power of persuasion, and if a gun is talking to you, then you may have bigger issues that need to be addressed.
Guns kill people? My firearms have never once attacked me or any of my house-guests, nor am I worried that they will load themselves and attack innocent people on the street some balmy afternoon. But that is what many believe that they will do.
I'm glad to see you've joined the party, late and ignorant of the discussion up to this point.
Let me bring you up to speed:
1. I have a firearms license.
2. My concern is not with firearms; it's with the people who are able to obtain them without first proving they have even a modicum of responsibility...
3. ...such as those who think firearms are "toys for big boys". This denotes a lack of respect for the firearms, and as such a lack of safety likely follows.
4. I'm not concerned about you intentionally shooting me. I'm concerned about you misfiring, and the bullet passing through the walls of your house and mine.
azazel the cat wrote: 4. I'm not concerned about you intentionally shooting me. I'm concerned about you misfiring, and the bullet passing through the walls of your house and mine.
Heh, okay.
Seriously though, that's the Bushmaster ad you find morally reprehensible? I was hoping to find something at least as morally repugnant and awesome as a Carl's Jr. commercial.
Guns kill people? My firearms have never once attacked me or any of my house-guests, nor am I worried that they will load themselves and attack innocent people on the street some balmy afternoon. But that is what many believe that they will do.
I'm glad to see you've joined the party, late and ignorant of the discussion up to this point.
Let me bring you up to speed:
1. I have a firearms license.
2. My concern is not with firearms; it's with the people who are able to obtain them without first proving they have even a modicum of responsibility...
3. ...such as those who think firearms are "toys for big boys". This denotes a lack of respect for the firearms, and as such a lack of safety likely follows.
4. I'm not concerned about you intentionally shooting me. I'm concerned about you misfiring, and the bullet passing through the walls of your house and mine.
If a firearm is used in sporting activity, target shoots and hunting, isn't it being used for a non-essential, and entertaining activity? The very definition of what you do with a "toy".
I am well aware of the fact that guns are not toys. Not only do I come from a family of hunters and owners of multiple guns, but for a short period of time the state in which I live actually had a natural resources conservation program that taught firearms safety and marksmanship. In public schools no less. We also had hunter safety education, that dealt with firearms safety and marksmanship as well as fish&game laws.
Only those unfamiliar with firearms or misinformed by Hollywood are the only ones that I have ever seen handle them in an unsafe method.
I don't really care if you have a firearms license, it means very little here to the south of your border.
You may not be familiar with the term "big toys for big boys" as you are Canadian and is a popular American colloquialism, it means that an item that is costly or dangerous is not for children, nor is it cavalier in it's tone as it merely denotes a demographic.
Why would I be wanting to shoot inside my house? And why on earth would I use a round that could pass through both of our houses? I would use a frangible or a low velocity, or any other home defense round appropriate for shotgun or pistol. You make it sound as though I am going to be firing a 30-06 willy nilly, and that simply isn't the case.
Honestly, I don't own a firearm that could shoot through my house, then go all the way to Canada, then go through your house.
Ignorant of the discussion up to this point? Nope, read every post actually.
What I have really seen though is a lot of tired old rhetoric.
Guns kill people? My firearms have never once attacked me or any of my house-guests, nor am I worried that they will load themselves and attack innocent people on the street some balmy afternoon. But that is what many believe that they will do.
I'm glad to see you've joined the party, late and ignorant of the discussion up to this point.
Let me bring you up to speed:
1. I have a firearms license.
2. My concern is not with firearms; it's with the people who are able to obtain them without first proving they have even a modicum of responsibility...
3. ...such as those who think firearms are "toys for big boys". This denotes a lack of respect for the firearms, and as such a lack of safety likely follows.
4. I'm not concerned about you intentionally shooting me. I'm concerned about you misfiring, and the bullet passing through the walls of your house and mine.
Az... check this out: http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf In March, PoliceOne conducted the most comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’ opinions on the topic gripping the nation’s attention in recent weeks: gun control.
More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility.
Here are two striking results:
1) What effect do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic
firearms, termed by some as "assault weapons," would have on reducing violent crime?
71% said None
2) . Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold
more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime?
95.7% said NO
Questions 19 - 22 are probably more pertinent to Az's line of questioning which is more based on the armed citizen then "assault weapons"
Also that Bushmaster ad is so freakin eye roll worthy. At least in my circles it was openly mocked by everybody including one female shooter who racked the slide on her very nice Colt AR (the ad poster had somehow made it down range) and made a comment to the effect of "Guess this Colt makes me a really manly man compared to a low grade piece of gak like that" as she sighted in and proceeded to send said ad to the next life for posters.
xraytango wrote:Only those unfamiliar with firearms or misinformed by Hollywood are the only ones that I have ever seen handle them in an unsafe method.
Yeah, given the power-fantasy marketing campaigns of virtually every firearms manufacturer in the US, I'd say this is an apt description of many immature firearm owners.
xraytango wrote:I don't really care if you have a firearms license, it means very little here to the south of your border.
Cool story.
Since it seems to have eluded you: I'm just pointing out that I'm not against firearms; I'm just against idiots having unrestricted access to them.
xraytango wrote:You may not be familiar with the term "big toys for big boys" as you are Canadian and is a popular American colloquialism, it means that an item that is costly or dangerous is not for children, nor is it cavalier in it's tone as it merely denotes a demographic.
No, it's pretty cavalier anytime something is described as a 'toy'.
xraytango wrote:Why would I be wanting to shoot inside my house? And why on earth would I use a round that could pass through both of our houses? I would use a frangible or a low velocity, or any other home defense round appropriate for shotgun or pistol. You make it sound as though I am going to be firing a 30-06 willy nilly, and that simply isn't the case.
The fact that you don't understand how every 5.56 round from an AR-15 has the capacity to penetrate several walls is very telling of your actual understanding of the firearm, and really emphasizes my point. Additionally, I don't know why you would want to shoot in your house. But your motivation is not relevant; the fact that you actually might discharge a firearm is the point.
I don't think that kid "wanted" to discharge his firearm in his bedroom, either. But it still happened.
Whembly, I just want mandatory safety training for all gun owners as a requirement prior to ownership. That's all. I generally don't want to take the entire populace's guns away.
azazel the cat wrote: Whembly, I just want mandatory safety training for all gun owners as a requirement prior to ownership. That's all. I generally don't want to take the entire populace's guns away.
Should we make it as extensive as the safety training for the police department that the deputy sheriff mentioned in the other thread worked for?
xraytango wrote:Only those unfamiliar with firearms or misinformed by Hollywood are the only ones that I have ever seen handle them in an unsafe method.
Yeah, given the power-fantasy marketing campaigns of virtually every firearms manufacturer in the US, I'd say this is an apt description of many immature firearm owners.
xraytango wrote:I don't really care if you have a firearms license, it means very little here to the south of your border.
Cool story.
Since it seems to have eluded you: I'm just pointing out that I'm not against firearms; I'm just against idiots having unrestricted access to them.
xraytango wrote:You may not be familiar with the term "big toys for big boys" as you are Canadian and is a popular American colloquialism, it means that an item that is costly or dangerous is not for children, nor is it cavalier in it's tone as it merely denotes a demographic.
No, it's pretty cavalier anytime something is described as a 'toy'.
xraytango wrote:Why would I be wanting to shoot inside my house? And why on earth would I use a round that could pass through both of our houses? I would use a frangible or a low velocity, or any other home defense round appropriate for shotgun or pistol. You make it sound as though I am going to be firing a 30-06 willy nilly, and that simply isn't the case.
The fact that you don't understand how every 5.56 round from an AR-15 has the capacity to penetrate several walls is very telling of your actual understanding of the firearm, and really emphasizes my point. Additionally, I don't know why you would want to shoot in your house. But your motivation is not relevant; the fact that you actually might discharge a firearm is the point.
I don't think that kid "wanted" to discharge his firearm in his bedroom, either. But it still happened.
Whembly, I just want mandatory safety training for all gun owners as a requirement prior to ownership. That's all. I generally don't want to take the entire populace's guns away.
1. Advertising is advertising, they sell fantasy. Everything from soap to soda-pop is sold with overstatement and a strong sense of fantasy.. It is nothing to get uptight about.
2.. Sure there are a few idiots that have firearms, but we license far more idiots to drive cars and look how many people are killed in traffic accidents each year.. I admit, that's not a strong argument, but neither is yours. The fact that you have a license for a firearm does not mean that you have any more sense or that you are any safer or proficient than anybody else.
3. Yes, please go on and tell me all the things that I don't know about firearms.
azazel the cat wrote: Whembly, I just want mandatory safety training for all gun owners as a requirement prior to ownership. That's all. I generally don't want to take the entire populace's guns away.
Should we make it as extensive as the safety training for the police department that the deputy sheriff mentioned in the other thread worked for?
Again with your nirvana fallacies. For the third time, in this thread I will repeat for you: it's not a perfect solution, but that doesn't make it a worthless solution.
xraytango wrote:1. Advertising is advertising, they sell fantasy. Everything from soap to soda-pop is sold with overstatement and a strong sense of fantasy.. It is nothing to get uptight about.
Yeah, it is when the advertising is selling deadly weapons and marketing them as toys (as you've even attested yourself). That kind of advertising diminishes the level of respect and caution that people will display when handling firearms and making decisions about them. See the video I posted earlier as an example.
xraytango wrote:2.. Sure there are a few idiots that have firearms, but we license far more idiots to drive cars and look how many people are killed in traffic accidents each year.. I admit, that's not a strong argument, but neither is yours. The fact that you have a license for a firearm does not mean that you have any more sense or that you are any safer or proficient than anybody else.
And I'm sure, to some degree, the driver's licensing program filters out some people who absolutely should never get behind the wheel. However, it's important to note that the average American commuter spends 65 minutes a day driving a car. I don't know what the amount of time they spend handling firearms is, but it's a safe bet it's nowhere near 65 minutes every single day. So if you want to compare accidents, let's take into account the amount of time spent on each activity, and then consider what the comparable rate is.
And yes, if you compare 10,000 people who have gone through safety training with their firearms with 10,000 people who have not, I guarantee you the trained group will have more sense, on average, than the untrained group. This idea really isn't that tough to figure out, and it applies to every skill, ever.
xraytango wrote:3. Yes, please go on and tell me all the things that I don't know about firearms.
You make it sound as if the Bushmaster ad is marketing to children in the middle of saturday morning cartoons. Gun ads are run in *surprise* gun magazines.
A Ferrari is also considered a "big-boy's toy" but no one is getting upset that it is a "toy" i.e something that is not essential for life but may be used as a diversion. So the colloquial use of the word 'toy' is not incorrect for a nonessential firearm. It is merely a turn of phrase.
Sometimes I refer to my hand tools as "toys" though they quite clearly are not toys, but when I purchase a new one I sometimes tell my co-workers that I bought a new "toy". These "toys" bring me satisfaction and enable my gainful employment, but can be very dangerous if used incorrectly. Am I barred from calling them "toys" because of that?
So in this 99% safe gun licensing program of yours, will it be retroactive, and where is the money going to come from for this program, and what about infrastructure, what level of personnel will it take to handle these training programs and all the attending paperwork. Who will operate and maintain the database? Seems a bit wishful at this point.
And what about criminals, will they get a license, or how about someone who inherits a firearm, how will that be tracked?
Do you know that 2/3 of all firearm related deaths are suicides? Will licensing curb that number? Did you know that last year more people were killed by stabbing, bludgeoning, strangulation, or being beaten with hand and fist than were killed by any "assault" rifle?
Does that mean we need to license hammers and rope, or that we could be arrested for carrying a concealed weapon if we put our hands in our pockets? Do I need a license for my kitchen knives?
And now you make an ad hominem attack. That is so classy, I have no witty riposte for this other than: Where did you learn your debate skills, the Piers Morgan Institute of Meaningful Dialogue?
It is an ancient truth that when someone makes an ad hominem attack, they really have nothing left to say. This I what I leave to you.
[=xraytango]3. Yes, please go on and tell me all the things that I don't know about firearms.
I don't have the kind of time that would require.
This seems like he is saying that I don't know anything about firearms, in fact that I am stupid and I am taking it as an attack on my knowledge of the subject, therefore it is an attack on me. Herein he dismisses me as a person with experience, knowledge and cognitive ability.
In essence an ad hominem attack. No, not by dint of an attack on my physical person, or the like, but an attack on my personal validity to make my argument. The non-physical person of the internet.
I may be using the wrong concept paired with the wrong word, but my knowledge of firearms is unassailable, I know what I know and have had years of experience with the subject and do not need to enumerate upon it here to someone that refuses to engage in a reasonable and intelligent dialogue. In fact we are dealing with someone who wants to make an emotional argument, not one of fact as he has not addressed any of my actual points and keeps on with a "moral" outrage at what has got to be one of the dumbest gun ads in history. One that far too many people are putting too much stock in as being indicative of the reason why people buy a gun, namely an Armalite style semi-auto.
My opening point was that it is just an ad, nothing to get excited about, it's stupid and pointless, he countered that with ZOMGthatsterriblethinkofthechildrendontcallgunstoyspplethatcallgunstoyscantberesponsible!!!!
Far too emotional for my taste.
Are any of my points that I have made wrong? Please, show me where that is, but don't "cherry-pick" half a sentence out of a transitional paragraph and become morally over-righteous about it.
xraytango wrote:So in this 99% safe gun licensing program of yours, will it be retroactive, and where is the money going to come from for this program, and what about infrastructure, what level of personnel will it take to handle these training programs and all the attending paperwork. Who will operate and maintain the database? Seems a bit wishful at this point.
With this new turn, am I to assume that your argument has now changed from "we don't need change because there's no problem" to "the problem is too big to fix"?
xraytango wrote:And what about criminals, will they get a license, or how about someone who inherits a firearm, how will that be tracked?
xraytango wrote:Do you know that 2/3 of all firearm related deaths are suicides? Will licensing curb that number? Did you know that last year more people were killed by stabbing, bludgeoning, strangulation, or being beaten with hand and fist than were killed by any "assault" rifle?
I am well aware that more than 2/3 of death via firearm is suicide. Do you know why many bridges have those fences to prevent people from jumping? It's because studies have found that the vast majority of suicide attempts which are thwarted are not repeated. That is, if a suicidal person doesn't have a firearm readily available at he exact moment they're having a really, really bad day, then then generally won't go through with the extra effort.
And saying "well all those other problems are worse" in no way makes this problem better. I don't hear you crying about how we should stop trying to cure HIV because Cancers kill more people each year, after all.
xraytango wrote:Does that mean we need to license hammers and rope, or that we could be arrested for carrying a concealed weapon if we put our hands in our pockets? Do I need a license for my kitchen knives?
Well, first let's consider the level of deadliness between your bare hands and a firearm. And I believe you can be arrested already for carrying a concealed knife, but I can't say for certain as it may vary from state to state.
I don't consider this issue as black and white as you clearly do, and your all-or-nothing stance towards carrying weapons is very regrettable, as it will always prevent you from engaging in a rational, adult discourse.
xraytango wrote:And now you make an ad hominem attack. That is so classy, I have no witty riposte for this other than: Where did you learn your debate skills, the Piers Morgan Institute of Meaningful Dialogue?
I have yet to make an ad hominem attack. I merely gave your question the answer that it deserved. If you want to whine and cry in hopes of playing the martyr when someone calls you on your foolish statements, then you are welcome to do so. However, I think you will find little sympathy here.
Additionally, we aren't having a debate. If we were, your rampant use of logical fallacies would have caused you to lose long before the figurative curbstomping I've been delivering to you.
And you riposte was not witty; I suspect you are aware of that. Otherwise, you would have simply called it a repartee. I'm afraid your retort was merely juvenile and laden with desperation.
Anyway, I've engaged with your posts a handful of times now in this thread, and you have yet to contribute anything new, challenging or of interest to the debate. Instead, you have brought strawman arguments, assorted logical fallacies, pointless rhetoric, some ironic claims of being hard done by phantom ad hominem attacks, and finally an absolutely laughable appeal to your own authority.
EDIT: Since that has brought a smile to my face, I'm going to disengage on that high note. But you just keep shooting for the stars, xraytango!
xraytango wrote: Here is a sobering thought to the "only LEO or veterans should have guns" group.
It is a fact that most citizens have more range-time than LEOs. More range time means more familiarity with their weapon, as well as accuracy.
It's almost like LEOs have ridiculously demanding schedules and little time to do what constitutes a "hobby" to citizens.
Let's just keep playing pretend that range time and accuracy alone constitutes what makes someone effective in a situation where they're having to shoot another human being and/or being shot at in the process.
whembly wrote:Az... check this out: http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf In March, PoliceOne conducted the most comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’ opinions on the topic gripping the nation’s attention in recent weeks: gun control.
More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility.
Here are two striking results:
1) What effect do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic
firearms, termed by some as "assault weapons," would have on reducing violent crime?
71% said None
2) . Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold
more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime?
95.7% said NO
Check it out....
Of course it won't have any effect on "reducing violent crime". The people who regularly are committing violent crimes (notice: REGULARLY COMMITTING violent crimes, not just COMMITTING violent crimes) with firearms are likely not using legally obtained firearms.
But I guess we're just going to pretend that those tidbits aren't relevant when discussing measures primarily aimed at preventing instances like Aurora, where individuals who were able to legally obtain firearms did so.
Actually, the poll is deceptive for other reasons: an "assault weapon" ban would have basically no impact on violent crime because violent crime is almost never carried out with an "assault weapon", since those are rather more expensive, and much less concealable, than low-end handguns and the like.
There is also, as stated, much more than target shooting experience to determining someone's effectiveness in a gunfight. Statistically, the ability to determine what will provide the best cover is far more important than precision shooting abilities, and much of modern military training is rooted in removing the psychological blocks humans generally have against killing one another, to ensure they both aim at the enemy and pull the trigger without hesitation.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: There is also, as stated, much more than target shooting experience to determining someone's effectiveness in a gunfight. Statistically, the ability to determine what will provide the best cover is far more important than precision shooting abilities, and much of modern military training is rooted in removing the psychological blocks humans generally have against killing one another, to ensure they both aim at the enemy and pull the trigger without hesitation.
Could you point us towards those statistics sometime?
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Actually, the poll is deceptive for other reasons: an "assault weapon" ban would have basically no impact on violent crime because violent crime is almost never carried out with an "assault weapon", since those are rather more expensive, and much less concealable, than low-end handguns and the like.
There is also, as stated, much more than target shooting experience to determining someone's effectiveness in a gunfight. Statistically, the ability to determine what will provide the best cover is far more important than precision shooting abilities, and much of modern military training is rooted in removing the psychological blocks humans generally have against killing one another, to ensure they both aim at the enemy and pull the trigger without hesitation.
I hardly see how that makes the poll deceptive. Its actually spot on.
People are trying to ban the mythical "assault" weapon, yet thats not what is used to commit most crimes(nor is assault weapon clearly defined)
Thats why these LEOs are saying the ban, or indeed any ban, targeting assault weapons will do nothing. because "assault" weapons arn't used to commit all this gun related crime.
Which just shows that the majority of gun control proponents have zero idea what they are talking about when it comes to legislation, they arn't trying to solve the problem. They want to look like they are solving the problem so they simply choose the high profile way of appearing like they are doing something to help. They do this instead of focusing on the real causes of violence, like economic depression, poor mental health care, cultural issues, organized crime, etc...
Bullockist wrote: I think the guy that did this needs to get a football scholarship. He manages to stab 15 people??? Not only is that great dexterity and speed, he also showed a great amount of focus to get to #15 victim.
I predict he will be #1 draft pick as a RB in the NFL draft in 2 years time or optionally gets an acting part as "roberto" in a futurama movie.
Well you do run faster with the knife out... so he had that going for him.
Bullockist wrote: I think the guy that did this needs to get a football scholarship. He manages to stab 15 people??? Not only is that great dexterity and speed, he also showed a great amount of focus to get to #15 victim.
I predict he will be #1 draft pick as a RB in the NFL draft in 2 years time or optionally gets an acting part as "roberto" in a futurama movie.
Well you do run faster with the knife out... so he had that going for him.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Actually, the poll is deceptive for other reasons: an "assault weapon" ban would have basically no impact on violent crime because violent crime is almost never carried out with an "assault weapon", since those are rather more expensive, and much less concealable, than low-end handguns and the like.
There is also, as stated, much more than target shooting experience to determining someone's effectiveness in a gunfight. Statistically, the ability to determine what will provide the best cover is far more important than precision shooting abilities, and much of modern military training is rooted in removing the psychological blocks humans generally have against killing one another, to ensure they both aim at the enemy and pull the trigger without hesitation.
I hardly see how that makes the poll deceptive. Its actually spot on.
People are trying to ban the mythical "assault" weapon, yet thats not what is used to commit most crimes(nor is assault weapon clearly defined)
Thats why these LEOs are saying the ban, or indeed any ban, targeting assault weapons will do nothing. because "assault" weapons arn't used to commit all this gun related crime.
Which just shows that the majority of gun control proponents have zero idea what they are talking about when it comes to legislation, they arn't trying to solve the problem. They want to look like they are solving the problem so they simply choose the high profile way of appearing like they are doing something to help. They do this instead of focusing on the real causes of violence, like economic depression, poor mental health care, cultural issues, organized crime, etc...
Aren't they trying to reduce the chance of massacres caused not by criminals, but people who have more or less mentally cracked for whatever reason?
These massacres still haven't been caused by assault weapons.
An AR-15 is not an assault weapon, its a semi-auto rifle.
heck, we even call an AR-15 a different name from its full auto version because its a completely different weapon.
The way to stop a crazy person from going on a rampage is to get them the help they need, not restrict their access to weaponry(that helps but doesn't stop the issue) Certainly not when restricting their access also impedes the constitutional rights of others.
I hardly see how that makes the poll deceptive. Its actually spot on.
Sorry, I meant the way it was presented, or seemed to be, was deceptive. The argument it got tossed into was over licensing, not "assault weapons".
People are trying to ban the mythical "assault" weapon, yet thats not what is used to commit most crimes(nor is assault weapon clearly defined)
Thats why these LEOs are saying the ban, or indeed any ban, targeting assault weapons will do nothing. because "assault" weapons arn't used to commit all this gun related crime.
Right, "assault weapons" are a silly thing to go after, since they're basically just toys for enthusiasts and collectors. People want some flashy, impractical weapon to fire at ranges, or feel cool for owning. No sane civilian is going to think "wow, this knockoff M16 will really come in handy for anything, ever!"
Which just shows that the majority of gun control proponents have zero idea what they are talking about when it comes to legislation, they arn't trying to solve the problem. They want to look like they are solving the problem so they simply choose the high profile way of appearing like they are doing something to help. They do this instead of focusing on the real causes of violence, like economic depression, poor mental health care, cultural issues, organized crime, etc...
To be fair, it's not like their opposition is real big about solving the root causes either.
Bullockist wrote: I think the guy that did this needs to get a football scholarship. He manages to stab 15 people??? Not only is that great dexterity and speed, he also showed a great amount of focus to get to #15 victim.
I predict he will be #1 draft pick as a RB in the NFL draft in 2 years time or optionally gets an acting part as "roberto" in a futurama movie.
Well you do run faster with the knife out... so he had that going for him.
Eh what?
In Counter Strike, you run faster with a knife out than with a gun. Though I recall the scout sniper rifle was even faster, though perhaps that was just in the gamemode I played.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: There is also, as stated, much more than target shooting experience to determining someone's effectiveness in a gunfight. Statistically, the ability to determine what will provide the best cover is far more important than precision shooting abilities, and much of modern military training is rooted in removing the psychological blocks humans generally have against killing one another, to ensure they both aim at the enemy and pull the trigger without hesitation.
Could you point us towards those statistics sometime?
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: There is also, as stated, much more than target shooting experience to determining someone's effectiveness in a gunfight. Statistically, the ability to determine what will provide the best cover is far more important than precision shooting abilities, and much of modern military training is rooted in removing the psychological blocks humans generally have against killing one another, to ensure they both aim at the enemy and pull the trigger without hesitation.
Could you point us towards those statistics sometime?
Seriously though.
Yeah, I gotta admit, I'm skeptical about that as well... if I had to come up with a ranked list of what I thought the most important skills to have in a gunfight would be, it'd look something like this:
And I would be fairly confidant that most people's innate instincts would be sufficient enough to be able to find decent cover. Maybe not make a judgement choice between good cover and better cover or have the skills to move from cover to cover, but something that advanced doesn't strike me as being super important during a shooting.
Grey Templar wrote:And I would be fairly confidant that most people's innate instincts would be sufficient enough to be able to find decent cover. Maybe not make a judgement choice between good cover and better cover or have the skills to move from cover to cover, but something that advanced doesn't strike me as being super important during a shooting.
I suspect it would matter more during a prolonged combat.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: There is also, as stated, much more than target shooting experience to determining someone's effectiveness in a gunfight. Statistically, the ability to determine what will provide the best cover is far more important than precision shooting abilities, and much of modern military training is rooted in removing the psychological blocks humans generally have against killing one another, to ensure they both aim at the enemy and pull the trigger without hesitation.
Could you point us towards those statistics sometime?
Seriously though.
Why don't you, who I'm presuming has a computer that's not so godawful that using google crashes your browser (as frequently happens with the phone I'm using), look it up? It was some police study that determined better/faster analysis and selection of cover was more important to officers in a gunfight than being good on a range, as I recall. I've read mentions of it, but never bothered to track it down myself.
Normally, its the person that claims study X shows Y who has to show the proof. Not that I'm the best example when it comes to this
I don't feel inclined to go looking for something that just seems fishy, its why I don't look up tons of conspiracy theories all the time(unless I'm bored)
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: There is also, as stated, much more than target shooting experience to determining someone's effectiveness in a gunfight. Statistically, the ability to determine what will provide the best cover is far more important than precision shooting abilities, and much of modern military training is rooted in removing the psychological blocks humans generally have against killing one another, to ensure they both aim at the enemy and pull the trigger without hesitation.
Could you point us towards those statistics sometime?
Seriously though.
Why don't you, who I'm presuming has a computer that's not so godawful that using google crashes your browser (as frequently happens with the phone I'm using), look it up? It was some police study that determined better/faster analysis and selection of cover was more important to officers in a gunfight than being good on a range, as I recall. I've read mentions of it, but never bothered to track it down myself.
I giggled.
How can you expect anyone to treat any claim you make seriously if you can't be bothered to back it up yourself?
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Why don't you, who I'm presuming has a computer that's not so godawful that using google crashes your browser (as frequently happens with the phone I'm using), look it up?
Because there's too many unknown variables for me to even tell what I'm looking for. I don't know what you mean by "the range," for example. If you're talking just simply slowfire at stationary targets, then yeah, that makes sense. If you're talking about actually worthwhile defensive pistol training, which of course occurs on a range of some sort, then it makes no sense at all. But I don't know if you're talking about spending half an hour at the local gun shop, or if you're talking about spending a week at Rogers Shooting School.
It has been assumed that if a man can hit a target at 50 yards he can certainly do the same at three feet. That assumption is not borne out by the reports.
An attempt was made to relate an officer's ability to strike a target in a combat situation to his range qualification scores. After making over 200 such comparisons, no firm conclusion was reached. To this writer's mind, the study result establishes that there is indeed a disconnect between the two.
If there was a connection between range marksmanship and combat hitsmanship, one would expect the combat hit potential percentages, to be well above the dismal ones reported. That is because the shooting distance was less than 20 feet in 75 percent of the 4000 encounters studied.
The element reported as the single most important factor in the officer's survival during an armed confrontation was cover.
In a stress situation an officer is likely to react as he was trained to react. There is almost always some type of cover available, but it may not be recognized as such without training.
And, twice while I was trying to copypaste that, this tab decided I was no longer using it, and cleared itself from memory.
Kilkrazy wrote: All that aggression that boys have must be special to Americans. Other countries get on fine with educating children without providing special aggression play courses for boys.
In some countries males youths are called "Kalashnikovs" because they like to shoot peopleand join revolutions. No the US is not special. It rather lightweight.
)
