Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

MrMerlin wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:In the 1830's, a man in France committed mass murder with a billhook. A week ago, one in China managed to kill six and wound ten with a knife.

Now, what do you want to say with that? Imagine that chinese had had access to a semi automatic rifle.... things would have been MUCH worse. So actually, the fact that you can't get a gun easily in china saved a few lifes!

Not necessarily. You assume that he would have been automatically any good with it (He might have totally sucked) Like all weapons, guns take practice to use. Guns, btw, according to the Chicago PD, only account for 1/3 the violent crime knives do.

My point is that you're really no safer from mass murdering psychos with guns then without them. Take their guns away, and they just launch sarin gas attacks on subways.

My point is that you're really no safer from mass murdering psychos with guns then without them. Take their guns away, and they just launch sarin gas attacks on subways.

You had to bring that pont up

Well on a manufacturing scale its pretty cheap and can use common household goods

BaronIveagh wrote:In the 1830's, a man in France committed mass murder with a billhook. A week ago, one in China managed to kill six and wound ten with a knife.

With regards to the French one, exactly how many people did he kill?

For the Chinese one, the Colorado shooter killed twice as many people and wounded 5 (almost 6) times more people.

So yeah, the Chinese one doesn't really support the view that a gun makes you safer. It actually suggests that a spree with a gun will kill at least twice as many people as a knife spree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:

My point is that you're really no safer from mass murdering psychos with guns then without them. Take their guns away, and they just launch sarin gas attacks on subways.

You had to bring that pont up

Well on a manufacturing scale its pretty cheap and can use common household goods

You can also make plastic explosives out of household goods, but it's very dangerous as it could explode whilst you're making it and releases toxic fumes as it's being made.

Interestingly if you add Cocaine to the mixture it becomes inert.

For the Chinese one, the Colorado shooter killed twice as many people and wounded 5 (almost 6) times more people.

Are you including the physical injuries recieved while getting out or did he grand total shot that many people

Jihadin wrote:

For the Chinese one, the Colorado shooter killed twice as many people and wounded 5 (almost 6) times more people.

Are you including the physical injuries recieved while getting out or did he grand total shot that many people

I'm going by what he is on trial for. He is accused of shooting dead 12 people and injuring 58.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
I'm going by what he is on trial for. He is accused of shooting dead 12 people and injuring 58.

So, yeah, it includes the people injured in the panic (as he's legally responsible for those as well as the actual gunshot victims.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
For the Chinese one, the Colorado shooter killed twice as many people and wounded 5 (almost 6) times more people.

So yeah, the Chinese one doesn't really support the view that a gun makes you safer. It actually suggests that a spree with a gun will kill at least twice as many people as a knife spree.

He started in a house and took to the street rather then starting in a crowded Movie theater. He actually killed and wounded a higher percentage of the people present.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Interestingly if you add Cocaine to the mixture it becomes inert.

Depends on what you're mixing. Adding cocaine to Aunt Jemima, for example, just makes it a bit harder to detect with dogs unless they're also drug sniffing dogs.

BaronIveagh wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
For the Chinese one, the Colorado shooter killed twice as many people and wounded 5 (almost 6) times more people.

So yeah, the Chinese one doesn't really support the view that a gun makes you safer. It actually suggests that a spree with a gun will kill at least twice as many people as a knife spree.

He started in a house and took to the street rather then starting in a crowded Movie theater. He actually killed and wounded a higher percentage of the people present.

"He killed a higher percentage of those present"? What kind of armument is that? If a boxer kills his opponent in the ring, he murdered 100% of the people present. So is the boxing glove the most dangerous weapon in the world now?
the numbers say that the knife guy killed only half as many people as the gunner. Knifes are not as efficient at killing as guns are, its as simple as that. Had the chinese had the same weaponry as the american, he would have killed way more, I'm sure.

Here in Germany we've had a few nutjobs go on a rampage with axes or knives, and they usually only wound a few people, and kill one or two tops. If they could just walk into a shop and get all kinds of semi-automatics WITHOUT BEING CHECKED, things would be much worse.

MrMerlin wrote:If they could just walk into a shop and get all kinds of semi-automatics WITHOUT BEING CHECKED, things would be much worse.

I can walk into a hardware store, and get all sorts of things without being checked, that would kill way more than the few people that were shot or injured trying to escape in that theater.

Should we outlaw bleach too?

Personally, I'm glad he used a gun. More people lived then if he had, say, flooded the theater with chlorine gas.

thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

Some of us like to collect old rifles and pistols for their historical value. It doesn't do any good, but it doesn't necessarily do any harm, either. I don't think there is anything wrong with owning guns for sport or as a collection.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I can't seem to find this information anywhere, but was the gun the shooter used fully automatic?

No he did not have a full auto. He had a 100 round magazine that had a failure to chamber and more likely chambered a "dented" round from a double feed or kept getting a double feed. Glad he never pressed for membership at the range where someone could have shown him how to apply corrective action. (eject magazine and pull charging handle, reload magazine and pull charging hammer; problem presist replace magazine with a new one)) The spring in the magazine was never broken in.

edit
He can only fire it on "semi" so no burst or auto since he legally brought the weapons. Lack of experience firing the weapon (M4 style rifle) also prevented more deaths.

Also m4 style rifles often have a "plunger" thing that can be used to put a round into the chamber if its jammed.

"Forward Assist"

So, effectively, we had someone who didn't know what he was doing firing at a target he couldn't possibly miss.

Glad he didn't buy a shotgun and a drum mag loaded with fireflies.

He did a "Pray and spray" from what I read. Point the weapon and just squeeze the trigger repeatedly in the general direction of the target/targets.

Jihadin wrote:He did a "Pray and spray" from what I read. Point the weapon and just squeeze the trigger repeatedly in the general direction of the target/targets.

Doesn't take a semi-auto to make that dangerous when firing at a large crowd. Would have been much worse though if he had, say, chucked some nail-bombs into the crowd, though.

Casualties been higher if he knew how to adjust the spring in the 100 round mag or gotten advice at the range that 30 round mags are perfered to cut down on jams. Ever seen 100 round mags being used by the military? Also to know how to aply "SPORTS" to correct the malfunction. His weapon jam probaly after 5 rounds fired and he went to 2ndary.

BaronIveagh wrote:So, effectively, we had someone who didn't know what he was doing firing at a target he couldn't possibly miss.

Glad he didn't buy a shotgun and a drum mag loaded with fireflies.

He did use a shotgun. Unless I misunderstood the breakdown. He popped smoke and cleared his immediate vicinity with a shotgun. Then started in with the Ar-15, then the Glock.

Jihadin wrote:Casualties been higher if he knew how to adjust the spring in the 100 round mag or gotten advice at the range that 30 round mags are perfered to cut down on jams. Ever seen 100 round mags being used by the military? Also to know how to aply "SPORTS" to correct the malfunction. His weapon jam probaly after 5 rounds fired and he went to 2ndary.

Most reports said "less than 30" but probably more than 5; beta mags defiantly suck. Had he used PMAGS or the Surefire 60s it could have been worse, but remember Jared Laughner was taken out while he changed mags. That may have motivated his decision to run the beta mag.
It's probably better that psychopaths aren't anywhere near proficient, otherwise we get things like the DC sniper(s).

Most reports said "less than 30" but probably more than 5

Thanks for the update Auston

When it happened I was in the wilderness. So when I came back I got to look at everything at once which made it easier to filter through it.
Ugly story made worse by how much planning and how calmly he turned himself in. I'm thankful it wasn't better planned, or executed.

AustonT wrote:I'm thankful it wasn't better planned, or executed.

Yeah, imagine if he'd sealed the exits and detonated some incendiaries inside.

I'm still curious as to how he got in. He got in through the fire exit, right? But aren't fire exits in public buildings usually only openable from the inside and alarmed so that once it opens the fire alarm goes off?

A Town Called Malus wrote:I'm still curious as to how he got in. He got in through the fire exit, right? But aren't fire exits in public buildings usually only openable from the inside and alarmed so that once it opens the fire alarm goes off?

It seems that he actually used an emergency exit vice a fire exit, which is an assumption. Most theatres I've been to have those types of exits to move people out quickly, but since they are used everyday and not just in emergencies they are not alarmed. Like the doors at the front of the theatre next to the stage/screen.
The stories I read all agreed he entered through the front like everyone else and opened the door from the inside and propped it open.

BaronIveagh wrote:

My point is that you're really no safer from mass murdering psychos with guns then without them. Take their guns away, and they just launch sarin gas attacks on subways.

Such a bad argument, the average Joe cant make sarin. The average Joe who just had a really bad day can easily pick up an AK-47 and shoot the gak out of everyone in the vicinity.

I don't know why you cant grasp the obvious. Sure you can stab people, or bludgeon people, the simple fact is, if you want to kill as many people as possible before you get apprehended, then its better for all your potential victims if you are armed with things that don't fire 500 rounds a minute at people.

AustonT wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:I'm still curious as to how he got in. He got in through the fire exit, right? But aren't fire exits in public buildings usually only openable from the inside and alarmed so that once it opens the fire alarm goes off?

It seems that he actually used an emergency exit vice a fire exit, which is an assumption. Most theatres I've been to have those types of exits to move people out quickly, but since they are used everyday and not just in emergencies they are not alarmed. Like the doors at the front of the theatre next to the stage/screen.
The stories I read all agreed he entered through the front like everyone else and opened the door from the inside and propped it open.

Ah, guess that explains that. So now what they need is to either alarm the emergency exit and only use it for emergencies (so everyone leaves by the same way they came in), or have CCTV watching it and a full time security guard to monitor it so he could call the police as soon as he saw the guy coming back with the guns and get a fast response firearms team on the way. Ideally have both an alarm and CCTV.

mattyrm wrote:Such a bad argument, the average Joe cant make sarin.

No, but most mass murderers aren't your average Joe.

Just look at the level of preparation that this guy made in order to do this attack.

Now imagine that, instead of purchasing guns, he just purchased a few household chemicals and made himself a bathtub full of impromptu chemical weaponry. Or if he had just bought a few gallons of gasoline and petrol and made him some molotov cocktails, or a makeshift fuel-air-bomb. Any of them would have been pretty easy to do.

I could probably cook up some semtex or some other concealable explosive in my house, using stuff I can get at any Wal-Mart or hardware store. I wouldn't WANT to, mind you, but it's not exactly very hard if you have some basic knowledge of laboratory methods and a rather easy to get recipe.

Melissia wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Such a bad argument, the average Joe cant make sarin.

No, but most mass murderers aren't your average Joe.

Still, most mass murderers don't have access to a chemistry lab complete with full body hazmat suits and the chemicals required to make Sarin.

DOn't mix pine oil and bleach in a enclosed room

Sarin yes, but honestly you don't need to make Sarin in order to make deadly gas.

My point is I reckon 90% of the shootings in the States are done on a spur of the moment in a fit of rage, a bloke gets super pissed and shoots someone. If they slept on it, they probably wouldn't shoot the victim in the first place, and that's why firearms being all over the place are a problem.

Obviously a really committed guy could make a sarin bomb, but gak loads of stateside shootings aren't done by really committed guys, they are spur of the moment shootings.

mattyrm wrote:My point is I reckon 90% of the shootings in the States are done on a spur of the moment in a fit of rage, a bloke gets super pissed and shoots someone. If they slept on it, they probably wouldn't shoot the victim in the first place, and that's why firearms being all over the place are a problem.

Obviously a really committed guy could make a sarin bomb, but gak loads of stateside shootings aren't done by really committed guys, they are spur of the moment shootings.

Your reckoning doesn't really match with the newspaper stories. Most of the shootings, especially the more deadly ones, prepared for it weeks if nto months or years in advance.