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.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Lets try to keep the politics out of it ok?

My bet; 3/4th of the first page, locked by the third.

Well, we are on page three and it's the same stupid gun thread it always becomes.

Can we make this prediction come true?

It's endorsed by the moderation team, so why not join the fun for a few pages?

If we're done with "How many shots does it take to get to the center of a madman?" debate and torture porn, can we get back to the sword guy.

Any more information on him being a right-wing nut job going after the poor/immigrants?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Lets try to keep the politics out of it ok?

My bet; 3/4th of the first page, locked by the third.

Well, we are on page three and it's the same stupid gun thread it always becomes.

Can we make this prediction come true?

It's endorsed by the moderation team, so why not join the fun for a few pages?

You made it jump to page 4!

 Sigvatr wrote:
The thread's going exactly where it has gone for at least 2 times already. Smacks throws his word out, gets debunked by people who actually know something about the matter at hand and can back their word up with actual experience. Always the same. Get your free +1s here.

Long story short: depending on the situation, firing 3-5 shots at the very least is perfectly reasonable in order to stop a suspect.

I don't know, looking at the situation to determine how many shots are appropriate to fire (or rather, when it is appropriate to stop firing) looks like something fairly sensible to me.

EDIT: as Kronk is right, back to the nutjob.

 kronk wrote:
can we get back to the shooter.

Any more information on him being a right-wing nut job going after the poor/immigrants?

Shooter was a policeman, so I hope not...

Do you mean the nutjob with the sword?

Before it gets locked, I do have a question for our Swede brethren/sisters...

Why does your royal naming convention make no sense?? I just saw his name was King "Carl" (I forgot the actual name here) XVI Gustav? Most other places you'd see the number come after all the other name stuff....




Also, can you guys start guarding schools with Vikings? Seriously, I doubt anyone would be dumb enough to attack a school protected by Vikings.

 Alex C wrote:

 kronk wrote:
can we get back to the shooter.

Any more information on him being a right-wing nut job going after the poor/immigrants?

Shooter was a policeman, so I hope not...

Do you mean the nutjob with the sword?

Sorry. Sword dude. Will fix that.

 cincydooley wrote:
Two makes certain of it? Are you serious? There are multiple recent instances where that simply isn't true.

It also requires that the two rounds you do discharge actually hit center mass. The adrenaline dump in those situations can cause a multitude of issues that make accuracy go down significantly.

Doesn't rapidly firing until you are out of bullets also decrease accuracy versus measured shooting? I think of the numerous incidents where bystanders were hit along with the suspect and wonder if controlled firing versus "firing until dry" would be the better course of action for law enforcement.

But that gets into training, and keeping a cool head under pressure which seems to be lacking in a lot of the officers who make the headlines.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Before it gets locked, I do have a question for our Swede brethren/sisters...

Why does your royal naming convention make no sense?? I just saw his name was King "Carl" (I forgot the actual name here) XVI Gustav? Most other places you'd see the number come after all the other name stuff...

Because it sounds cool.

Also, can you guys start guarding schools with Vikings? Seriously, I doubt anyone would be dumb enough to attack a school protected by Vikings.

Vikings don't grow on trees, man. We need them for the reenactments.

There really isn't much to discuss right now on the matter. Motivation was most likely motivated by racism, guy was just a maniac and it was killed by a police officer who I'd like to personally thank given we get the chance to meet him tomorrow. It's a tragedy for Sweden and it, once more, sadly shows that there is no way to stop such an event beforehand and even without guns, it's possible to pull something like this off.

Back to derailing the thread!

 LethalShade wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Cops should have killed him on the spot. Thats what terrorists get.

Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.

You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children.

What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.

Leave him in a cell for the rest of his life, denying him an early and relatively painless death ?

It is my personal opinion that society should not shoulder the cost of feeding, housing, clothing, educating, and lawyering for someone that would commit terrorist acts. Others may feel differently.

 Alex C wrote:

Smacks wrote:One shot is enough to stop most people in their tracks

It was enough to stop Tamir Rice.

Care to let me shoot you one time, we can test out how well you do?

 Sigvatr wrote:
The thread's going exactly where it has gone for at least 2 times already. Smacks throws his word out, gets debunked by people who actually know something about the matter at hand and can back their word up with actual experience. Always the same. Get your free +1s here.

Long story short: depending on the situation, firing 3-5 shots at the very least is perfectly reasonable in order to stop a suspect.

You know... You could just ignore him if you think he is wrong. There is no need to turn everything into a discussion about whether police violence in the US is justified or not. It is just recycling exactly the same arguments over and over again, so why even bother responding?

 Peter Wiggin wrote:


It is my personal opinion that society should not shoulder the cost of feeding, housing, clothing, educating, and lawyering for someone that would commit terrorist acts. Others may feel differently.

Fully agree. It's the weird image mankind has where somehow, a human is worth more than anything else just because he's a human. Which makes zero sense whatsoever.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Cops should have killed him on the spot. Thats what terrorists get.

Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.

You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children.

What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.

Paralyse them, so they can no longer move or speak, but still remain fully conscious. Make sure to keep them alive in some completely dark room. Now they are imprisoned within their own minds for the rest of their lives.
That is the most cruel, horrific punishment I can think of anyways. Execution really is not much of a punishment.

Thats fethed up. I'm not into torture, and I don't care about punishment. I feel that anyone who would walk into a school, play creepy music loudly, and then stab teachers & students to death should be removed from the face of the planet with zero fanfare. I feel they should be incinerated and the ashes scattered to the wind. No memory of their name, no grave for other extremists to visit.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:


It is my personal opinion that society should not shoulder the cost of feeding, housing, clothing, educating, and lawyering for someone that would commit terrorist acts. Others may feel differently.

Fully agree. It's the weird image mankind has where somehow, a human is worth more than anything else just because he's a human. Which makes zero sense whatsoever.

I actually do think a human is worth more than anything that is not a human, because she is a human.

Legal processes should be observed, summary executions should not be a thing. Or rather, our votes decide whether it should be a thing, and thus far our votes have given a plain no.

 Smacks wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

Smacks wrote:One shot is enough to stop most people in their tracks

It was enough to stop Tamir Rice.

Care to let me shoot you one time, we can test out how well you do?

I'm not a criminal pumped up with adrenaline and/or narcotics who is intent on murdering someone (despite what the left claims about gun owners).

It's amazing what the human body will ignore under such circumstances.

Anyway this is just ending up like many other threads, it's pointless to talk to you and I have better ways to spend my time, good day sir.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:


It is my personal opinion that society should not shoulder the cost of feeding, housing, clothing, educating, and lawyering for someone that would commit terrorist acts. Others may feel differently.

Fully agree. It's the weird image mankind has where somehow, a human is worth more than anything else just because he's a human. Which makes zero sense whatsoever.

I actually do think a human is worth more than anything that is not a human, because she is a human.

I'm curious.

Why do you believe this? No other animal treats the world (or other animals) or each other in the manner that humans do. No other animal calculates how to elicit maximum profit or misery from another life form.

No other animal displays our ability of complex thought either.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

Why do you believe this? No other animal treats the world (or other animals) or each other in the manner that humans do. No other animal calculates how to elicit maximum profit or misery from another life form.

You should read up on Sea Otters and Dolphins then.... Scientists have watched Sea Otters kill another otter, then fornicate with the eye hole, just to intimidate another otter. And Dolphins have been shown to rape and kill as well, as observed by marine biologists.

I didn't meant to say that your opinion is worth less than others. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it. My point is just that it's a fully emotional point of view that makes no sense. Two different but valid views.

In the topic at hand, forcing innocents to pay for the life of someone who clearly broke society's rules by e.g. murdering innocents is nonsense. If people were really interested in paying for them, there should be a kickstarter-esque system where people can subscribe to a prisoner or prisoners in general and if there are enough subscribers, i.e. people who actively support the system, they get prison. If there aren't enough people willing to pay for mercy, you're SOL. That would be a fair system as you can 100% accurately measure people's will to maintain the subjects' lives.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

Why do you believe this? No other animal treats the world (or other animals) or each other in the manner that humans do. No other animal calculates how to elicit maximum profit or misery from another life form.

Scientists have watched Sea Otters kill another otter, then fornicate with the eye hole, just to intimidate another otter.

Holy gak, otters are hard core! That is some honey badger level of "FETH YOU" right there. Eye-humping a corpse for intimidation purposes is just... yeesh!

 Ashiraya wrote:
No other animal displays our ability of complex thought either.

Disagree completely.

Animals most assuredly think, love, feel, and hurt. If you are talking about our use of technology I'd posit that the ability of humans to impact the world universally results in misery not only for other species, but for our own. The vanity of anthropocentric morality is part of the crowd-mentality though. <shrug>

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

Why do you believe this? No other animal treats the world (or other animals) or each other in the manner that humans do. No other animal calculates how to elicit maximum profit or misery from another life form.

You should read up on Sea Otters and Dolphins then.... Scientists have watched Sea Otters kill another otter, then fornicate with the eye hole, just to intimidate another otter. And Dolphins have been shown to rape and kill as well, as observed by marine biologists.

Damn...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

Why do you believe this? No other animal treats the world (or other animals) or each other in the manner that humans do. No other animal calculates how to elicit maximum profit or misery from another life form.

You should read up on Sea Otters and Dolphins then.... Scientists have watched Sea Otters kill another otter, then fornicate with the eye hole, just to intimidate another otter. And Dolphins have been shown to rape and kill as well, as observed by marine biologists.

I actually feel like you are pointing out that humans are no better or worse than other animals with this comment. Which is the same standpoint I am arguing, though I'm more jaded.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

Why do you believe this? No other animal treats the world (or other animals) or each other in the manner that humans do. No other animal calculates how to elicit maximum profit or misery from another life form.

Scientists have watched Sea Otters kill another otter, then fornicate with the eye hole, just to intimidate another otter.

Holy gak, otters are hard core! That is some honey badger level of "FETH YOU" right there. Eye-humping a corpse for intimidation purposes is just... yeesh!

I just imagined an otter humping an eye-socket, angrily looking at the camera man and flipping the bird. Made me giggle. Then realized otters don't have fingers. Sad again.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

Why do you believe this? No other animal treats the world (or other animals) or each other in the manner that humans do. No other animal calculates how to elicit maximum profit or misery from another life form.

Scientists have watched Sea Otters kill another otter, then fornicate with the eye hole, just to intimidate another otter.

Holy gak, otters are hard core! That is some honey badger level of "FETH YOU" right there. Eye-humping a corpse for intimidation purposes is just... yeesh!

I just imagined an otter humping an eye-socket, angrily looking at the camera man and flipping the bird. Made me giggle. Then realized otters don't have fingers. Sad again.

Don't worry, it'll probably just flip you the actual bird it just murdered and skullfethed 5 minutes beforehand.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

Why do you believe this? No other animal treats the world (or other animals) or each other in the manner that humans do. No other animal calculates how to elicit maximum profit or misery from another life form.

You should read up on Sea Otters and Dolphins then.... Scientists have watched Sea Otters kill another otter, then fornicate with the eye hole, just to intimidate another otter. And Dolphins have been shown to rape and kill as well, as observed by marine biologists.

I actually feel like you are pointing out that humans are no better or worse than other animals with this comment. Which is the same standpoint I am arguing, though I'm more jaded.

That's very much not what you said. You explicitly stated that humans do terrible things and that animals do not.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
No other animal displays our ability of complex thought either.

Disagree completely.

Animals most assuredly think, love, feel, and hurt. If you are talking about our use of technology I'd posit that the ability of humans to impact the world universally results in misery not only for other species, but for our own. The vanity of anthropocentric morality is part of the crowd-mentality though. <shrug>

Generally, no, I have yet to see any evidence that animals are able to think or theorise on levels beyond the immediate.

Don't get me wrong, I like animals, but I have not seen any indication of them being as intelligent as we are.

On the other hand, if they are craftier than I thought, it would explain many posts I have seen here on Dakka...

 Sigvatr wrote:
I didn't meant to say that your opinion is worth less than others. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it. My point is just that it's a fully emotional point of view that makes no sense. Two different but valid views.

In the topic at hand, forcing innocents to pay for the life of someone who clearly broke society's rules by e.g. murdering innocents is nonsense. If people were really interested in paying for them, there should be a kickstarter-esque system where people can subscribe to a prisoner or prisoners in general and if there are enough subscribers, i.e. people who actively support the system, they get prison. If there aren't enough people willing to pay for mercy, you're SOL. That would be a fair system as you can 100% accurately measure people's will to maintain the subjects' lives.

Or better yet, support the political party favouring summary execution, or create one that favours it if none exists, to do this democratically.

I'd argue that your position seems based on the idea of revenge, and just as if not more emotional.