I have an idea that could limit school shootings

[Rogue Trooper]

This device would only apply to assault weapons. Do you own assault weapons?

Under the US definition of an "assault weapon" yes I do.
High capacity semi automatic shotgun
High capacity semi automatic .22 rifles
And a couple of silenced rifles too.

I'm not actually in the US though but I suspect there will be people who are who are in the same circumstance as me.

What possible use could you have for a silenced rifile?

Sound suppressed weapons are fairly commonplace for hunting/sport shooting in Europe. The stigma of suppressed or "silenced" weapons being bad guy evil guns comes from hollywood. They're better on the shooter's ears, don't disturb others as much (in the case of ranges or varmit hunting), and don't scare away every bit of game for miles. Also, suppressed weapon vs. non-suppressed weapon, want to guess which does more harm? Bullets fired from suppressed weapons are generally much lower velocity, thus have less energy than non-suppressed.

Again, knee jerk reaction from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, but sees something that looks scary because that's how they've been conditioned. Thanks for helping prove a point.

That was a pretty funny response but anyway I have some expliening to do. Alright first thing first I do have some pretty good experience with firearms mostly shotguns and rifiles, which I had the opportunity to use and learn the workings of in my time in the army cadets.

 I never used silencers because the cadets don't need them so please don't same that I have been "conditioned" by Hollywood, because I haven't and it just makes you out to be an asshole. 

Although I never actually knew that silencers were used for hunting so thanks for telling me about that i suppose. Although that's not what am bothering to reply to you for.

This reason why I am is because generally your response to my question was very rude and I know guys like you. Who think just because they go shooting or hunting they like to think they are king dick and act all smug because of it. It was actually guys like you that forced me to leave cadets and I wouldn't be surprised if you were searching or waiting on these forms to just show the escapist community your mighty knowledge of firearm.

 Also silencers in a firing range is pretty stupid because any shooter worth is salt would know that wearing ear protection is a lot more cheaper than buying a silencer, or do guys like you just lack common sense? 

Using suppressors on the range isn't for the benefit of those there who would already be wearing hearing protection, but for the benefit of other people and businesses near the ranges. Also, even with hearing protection being used, it's generally a much more pleasant experience firing suppressed rifles, especially for newer shooters. I wasn't trying to be an asshole, or be funny, and I wasn't attempting to be rude. You admitted that you didn't know, so you learned something.

Being in the Cadets, at least you had more knowledge then most. But most people's experience comes solely from what they see in TV/Movies/Games, where "silencers" are only ever used for military/bad guy purposes (hitmen, assassins, etc.) and make the guns super quiet. Though this may have not been the case with you (though you admitted to not knowing), most people don't know better, the immediate reaction to hearing you have a suppressor or seeing that you have a silenced weapon, is "omg why do you have that!?" especially here in the US where suppressors are just about as difficult to obtain legally as a submachine gun, which is to say, an extremely difficult and lengthy process, whereas in Europe, having a suppressor on your weapon is generally considered courtesy to other shooters or nearby land owners.

I apologize if sharing knowledge with others to attempt to avert such unwarranted reactions as those I mentioned offended you, and I'm sorry to hear you were forced to leave the Cadets by dicks who acted like know-it-alls. I assure you that I don't trawl through message boards looking for people to belittle, I was simply attempting to spread awareness about something I'm knowledgeable about.

Not going to lie dude that put a smile on my face. Thanks for keeping your cool and not starting a spam war that's something that's hard to come round on the intranet and I can understand if you were trying to share your knowledge but sometimes it's hard to know whats what on the Internet.

Although I've never actually heard of people using silencers here in Europe to hunt, but I'll just take your word on it. Also thanks again for not coming back with something that would have escalated this disagreement.  

 

[Sensei Le Roof]

What works over in Glorious Socialist People's Republic of Europe does not transfer cleanly over here in America. We love freedom too much.

Oh yes. We love freedom so much that we're willing to throw it away in a heartbeat for the illusion of security. Just look at what we've done to air travel.

Or you know stop the media from blowing up school shootings as the second coming of christ, like that one forensic psychologist advised. Too much media coverage gives already disturbed people an incentive to actually go through with it.

I could get behind this. The day the Connecticut shooting happened, I'd first heard about it somewhere around 1:45 in the afternoon. They were still talking about it on the news and such at almost midnight. And my first thought was Oh geez, still?! Get over it! We hang on to these things for days, bringing up the odd back-seat point on every newscast until the ratings say it's time to stop talking. Psychoanalyze the shooter to death, interview each and every one of the survivors (but only televise those that garner maximal sob factor), and then go on for who knows how long with "How could we have stopped this?"

Oh, look. And here we are now.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

Fire with fire. It's just not going to happen. Let us bypass all the inconveniences and make it far more basic:

What if the teacher of the class the shooter had started in were Snake Plisken. He's invincible, a crack shot, and has a fully loaded SoCOM pistol with 2 spare clips in his back pocket.

Even if this were the scenario, he's going to be firing a gun in the vicinity of panicked unpredictable children.

As far as I'm concerned I'd rather the airport metal detectors at every school gate than another person with guns on the grounds, no matter who they are. (Granted neither is a very good option).

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Ok some people have made very good points. So have have a second more simple idea that I am sure has been thought of.

Why cant we have at least one trained and ballistic armored security person in each school to take out shooters going on rampages in schools? It would provide people with some jobs and a trained professional would do well against the average young shooter.

There are 98,817 public schools in the United States. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84 And you want one person in every school.

If you pay them 50,000$ in salary, you still have to give them other benefits as they are government employees. So lets say with yearly benefits all in all to keep someone like that on salary costs 60,000 $.

60,000 times 98,817 is 5,929,020,000. Or nearly 6 billion dollars per annum.

6 billion dollars to try to curb something that claims far less than 30 deaths yearly. 6 billion dollars that could go to cancer research. 6 billion dollars that could make roads, where tens of thousands of people die yearly, safer. 6 billion that could hire new doctors, nurses, paramedics and EMTs who could save way more lives than 100,000 dudes with guns scattered like jacks around the United States in order to do what? Catch the one guy who wants to shoot up a crowded place who upon hearing about it is just going to go ahead and shoot up a mall or a theme park instead?

A sword, bow and arrow are designed to kill. So yes people shouldn't have acces to them. On the other hand they don't have the same killing potential as a glock now do they? But you are right. They should be banned too.

Bow's have killed more people through out history than any other weapon. And that's not just an argument for their long usage. When the Mongolians killed 90,000 people stack their heads outside of Delhi the timeline was not years or months, it was days. Timur didn't wipe out 17 million Indians in a single campaign because bows were ineffective. The only reason we ever switched to guns in the first place is because they made a loud noise and a puff of smoke that was scary to people who weren't used to it.

An experienced archer can shoot very quickly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o9RGnujlkI
and she isn't even using the Kassai technique of holding a bunch of arrows in your hand so that you don't have to perform excessive movements to reload.

Furthermore, and more importantly, the US military expects to hit a target with between 8-11 rounds of ammunition before that target is out of the fight. There are recorded examples of a suspect being shot over 100 times with the coroner ruling 60+ of those shots to be lethal and the suspect continued to fire back at police for minutes before finally collapsing. The point is that bullets are not nearly as dangerous as people think they are. By and large, especially with the guns that have large magazines(the ones people are so afraid of) bullets tend to be small caliber and the body tends to be pretty resilient, so you can hit a target quite a bit as long as you don't hit a solid organ, major vessel, ect. Even a person with a popped lung has about an 80% chance of survival with bed rest alone.

Arrows however are a lot larger than bullets and are thus capable of dealing a lot more damage. They are much more likely to hit vital points. Archers through history have even been known to put feces on the tip of the arrow(something that wouldn't work with a gun,) so that anyone shot who managed to survive would almost certainly die of an extreme infection. Arrows can be specifically designed to be hooked backwards so that if you try to pull them out they will cause even more damage. And with composite pulley bows the archers of today can shoot very quickly, very far, and though steel plating with arrows.

Frankly a talented archer would be far more frightening than an experienced gunman. Not only is the killing power easily comparable but the emergency reaction time would be much slower. Arrows tend to be much quieter and make a sound that we aren't used to associating with danger. It is likely that cops would not get called nearly as quickly as with a gunman who as soon as he started, would be alerting nearly the entire school as well as surrounding neighborhoods of the danger. Which should have about a 5 minute response time. If they delay that call by even two or three minutes they would kill 50-60% more people.

Not to uh, give anyone any ideas. There tend to be less archers around trying to kill people, luckily. Probably because archery takes dedication to learn whereas any idiot can go buy a gun, point it, and pull the trigger.

 

[The Event]

What possible use could you have for a silenced rifile?

The most common uses for silencers on rifes in the UK are pest control & dear stalking. Almost everyone who uses a rifle for shooting rabbits has a sound moderator for it.

One of mine though is just for target shooting & because it enhances my collection to own it. It's an extremely rare World War 2 commando rifle that demonstrates just how well you can silence a firearm.

 

[spartan231490]

I know it is probably WAAAAAAAAAY out there but hear me out. Don't give people access to guns. Guns exist only to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything. Ergo don't give people guns.

Don't give people access to swords. Swords only exist to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything.
Don't give people access to Bows and Arrows. Bows and Arrows only exist to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything.
Don't give people access to cars that go over 65mph, cars that go over 65mph only exist to violate traffic laws and endanger others on the road. No ordinary person needs to violate traffic laws and endanger others.
Don't give people access to beer. Beer only exists to make one intoxicated putting themselves and others at risk. No ordinary person needs to poison themselves enough to put themselves and others in danger.

/sarcasme Yes that comparison is completely legit.
So according to you we should give nukes to all? All inventions are equally harmful and have the same killing potential? A car is built for transportation. Alcohol is intoxicating but isn't designed to kill. A sword, bow and arrow are designed to kill. So yes people shouldn't have acces to them. On the other hand they don't have the same killing potential as a glock now do they? But you are right. They should be banned too.
Your argument is invalid. Like I said: by your logic people should have access to nuclear weapons. Nice going!

No, he actually made the opposite argument, he said that whether or not an item has uses that citizens need should be irrelevant to whether or not it's legal. You are the only one who said it should be a determinant condition. You are extending your faulty logic onto his argument in order to dismiss it. Fact is, gun control doesn't stop criminals. I could post studies, but you wouldn't believe me anyway, just ignoring everything and posting your own studies, that would almost-certainly either be older, or contain flawed sample groups.

Fact is we could argue till we're blue in the face, the data will never be conclusive to one side or the other, and can you really justify violating the rights of millions of people on the basis of inconclusive research. Furthermore, the state could never afford to reimburse every gun owner the price of their guns that would need to be confiscated. There are more than 300 million privately owned firearms in the US, each and every one of which is worth several hundred or thousand dollars. Even the cheapest hunting rifle is about $250, the cheapest shotgun is about $300, and the cheapest handgun is closer to $500. So you are suggesting that the US government deprive over 70 million people their legal rights, and confiscate without reimbursement at least 100 BILLION dollars worth of their legally owned property on the basis of inconclusive research. And that's conservative. Considering you can get an M16 for $15,000; a Coonan Classic handgun, an AR-15, or a Bushmaster 5.56 for $1200; a Remington 700 bolt action hunting rifle for $1,000; and that's not even talking about the value of collector rifles like the Swedish .38 caliber rimfire that my friend owns which is so rare he's only even found ammunition for it on 2 occasions, and that value is probably closer to 200 or 300 billion dollars.

Now add in the value of lifetime hunting licences, $100 hunting coats or waders, ammunition, tree stands, cleaning kits, cleaning solvents, gun oils, targets, gun safes($500-$1500 or more), extra clips, scopes(which often cost at least half as much as the rifle they sit on), ect. Now you're looking at more than ONE TRILLION DOLLARS worth of stuff that you would be stealing from the American people. I say stealing, because the government definitely can't afford to pay them even half of the value of their guns and other, now useless, equipment.

And that's not even counting the number of companies, both in the US and world-wide that would have to close because of a lack of market. Or the billions maybe trillions of dollars worth of firearms goods that are sitting on store shelves that the stores would have no way to sell.

What you are suggesting, would destroy the American economy, in edition to betraying the ideals upon which this country was founded upon, and violating the legal rights of 70 million people, and would have no tangible benefit.

And you want to do all that, because it might help a tiny little bit, even when the evidence suggests it is far more likely to do nothing, and equally likely to cause a small amount of harm.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

I know it is probably WAAAAAAAAAY out there but hear me out. Don't give people access to guns. Guns exist only to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything. Ergo don't give people guns.

Don't give people access to swords. Swords only exist to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything.
Don't give people access to Bows and Arrows. Bows and Arrows only exist to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything.
Don't give people access to cars that go over 65mph, cars that go over 65mph only exist to violate traffic laws and endanger others on the road. No ordinary person needs to violate traffic laws and endanger others.
Don't give people access to beer. Beer only exists to make one intoxicated putting themselves and others at risk. No ordinary person needs to poison themselves enough to put themselves and others in danger.

Aaah, the slippery slope argument.

I love these kind of arguments.

Logically, humankind lives through flip-flopping between freedom and security; never is completely shifting to one side a good idea.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

Fire with fire. It's just not going to happen. Let us bypass all the inconveniences and make it far more basic:

What if the teacher of the class the shooter had started in were Snake Plisken. He's invincible, a crack shot, and has a fully loaded SoCOM pistol with 2 spare clips in his back pocket.

Even if this were the scenario, he's going to be firing a gun in the vicinity of panicked unpredictable children.

As far as I'm concerned I'd rather the airport metal detectors at every school gate than another person with guns on the grounds, no matter who they are. (Granted neither is a very good option).

Holy shit, you might be onto something here!

bullets are manufactured by some unique alloy, right? So just implement metal detectors in all schools that can pick up that kind of alloy.

 

[SextusMaximus]

Maybe stop people being total fucking psychopaths

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

I know it is probably WAAAAAAAAAY out there but hear me out. Don't give people access to guns. Guns exist only to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything. Ergo don't give people guns.

Don't give people access to swords. Swords only exist to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything.
Don't give people access to Bows and Arrows. Bows and Arrows only exist to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything.
Don't give people access to cars that go over 65mph, cars that go over 65mph only exist to violate traffic laws and endanger others on the road. No ordinary person needs to violate traffic laws and endanger others.
Don't give people access to beer. Beer only exists to make one intoxicated putting themselves and others at risk. No ordinary person needs to poison themselves enough to put themselves and others in danger.

/sarcasme Yes that comparison is completely legit.
So according to you we should give nukes to all? All inventions are equally harmful and have the same killing potential? A car is built for transportation. Alcohol is intoxicating but isn't designed to kill. A sword, bow and arrow are designed to kill. So yes people shouldn't have acces to them. On the other hand they don't have the same killing potential as a glock now do they? But you are right. They should be banned too.
Your argument is invalid. Like I said: by your logic people should have access to nuclear weapons. Nice going!

No, he actually made the opposite argument, he said that whether or not an item has uses that citizens need should be irrelevant to whether or not it's legal. You are the only one who said it should be a determinant condition. You are extending your faulty logic onto his argument in order to dismiss it. Fact is, gun control doesn't stop criminals. I could post studies, but you wouldn't believe me anyway, just ignoring everything and posting your own studies, that would almost-certainly either be older, or contain flawed sample groups.

Fact is we could argue till we're blue in the face, the data will never be conclusive to one side or the other, and can you really justify violating the rights of millions of people on the basis of inconclusive research. Furthermore, the state could never afford to reimburse every gun owner the price of their guns that would need to be confiscated. There are more than 300 million privately owned firearms in the US, each and every one of which is worth several hundred or thousand dollars. Even the cheapest hunting rifle is about $250, the cheapest shotgun is about $300, and the cheapest handgun is closer to $500. So you are suggesting that the US government deprive over 70 million people their legal rights, and confiscate without reimbursement at least 100 BILLION dollars worth of their legally owned property on the basis of inconclusive research. And that's conservative. Considering you can get an M16 for $15,000; a Coonan Classic handgun, an AR-15, or a Bushmaster 5.56 for $1200; a Remington 700 bolt action hunting rifle for $1,000; and that's not even talking about the value of collector rifles like the Swedish .38 caliber rimfire that my friend owns which is so rare he's only even found ammunition for it on 2 occasions, and that value is probably closer to 200 or 300 billion dollars.

Now add in the value of lifetime hunting licences, $100 hunting coats or waders, ammunition, tree stands, cleaning kits, cleaning solvents, gun oils, targets, gun safes($500-$1500 or more), extra clips, scopes(which often cost at least half as much as the rifle they sit on), ect. Now you're looking at more than ONE TRILLION DOLLARS worth of stuff that you would be stealing from the American people. I say stealing, because the government definitely can't afford to pay them even half of the value of their guns and other, now useless, equipment.

And that's not even counting the number of companies, both in the US and world-wide that would have to close because of a lack of market. Or the billions maybe trillions of dollars worth of firearms goods that are sitting on store shelves that the stores would have no way to sell.

What you are suggesting, would destroy the American economy, in edition to betraying the ideals upon which this country was founded upon, and violating the legal rights of 70 million people, and would have no tangible benefit.

And you want to do all that, because it might help a tiny little bit, even when the evidence suggests it is far more likely to do nothing, and equally likely to cause a small amount of harm.

Last I checked, human life is more valuable than a bunch of goods. Also, America was also founded on slavery, and at the time people thought it can't be taken away either. AND multiple economies thrive just fine without deadly firearms of war.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

Maybe stop people being total fucking psychopaths

My mind-control machine isn't ready yet. Give me time.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

I have an idea, i know it may sound crazy but: Get rid of the bazillions of weapons and/or if you really really want to keep them at least get a healthy relationship to those buggers.

Havin' tons of weapons and being gunnuts is a very unhealthy combination. Your statistics prove your claims, that everything is dandy with the status qou, wrong.

I know this will never happen, because that shit is deeply rooted within your nation and society blabla yaddayadda and/or your country makes way to much money with producing and selling weapons all over the world.
But still.

Change something or keep reading about those shootings every now and then.

 

[iseko]

I know it is probably WAAAAAAAAAY out there but hear me out. Don't give people access to guns. Guns exist only to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything. Ergo don't give people guns.

Don't give people access to swords. Swords only exist to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything.
Don't give people access to Bows and Arrows. Bows and Arrows only exist to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything.
Don't give people access to cars that go over 65mph, cars that go over 65mph only exist to violate traffic laws and endanger others on the road. No ordinary person needs to violate traffic laws and endanger others.
Don't give people access to beer. Beer only exists to make one intoxicated putting themselves and others at risk. No ordinary person needs to poison themselves enough to put themselves and others in danger.

/sarcasme Yes that comparison is completely legit.
So according to you we should give nukes to all? All inventions are equally harmful and have the same killing potential? A car is built for transportation. Alcohol is intoxicating but isn't designed to kill. A sword, bow and arrow are designed to kill. So yes people shouldn't have acces to them. On the other hand they don't have the same killing potential as a glock now do they? But you are right. They should be banned too.
Your argument is invalid. Like I said: by your logic people should have access to nuclear weapons. Nice going!

How does dangerous items with practical uses shouldn't be banned = everyone having nukes? I don't believe they have any relevant practical purposes, nice logic there.
My point was, especially with the first two, that things designed in the past for martial uses have very acceptable uses today. So by your thought, olympic archery, fencing, and shooting should be eliminated, since nobody should be allowed to possess the implements used? Should learning martial arts be banned too, since those were designed for fighting?

I never said practical items that could be dangerous should be banned. You said that. But a gun does not have a practical application other than killing now does it?

What practical use does a gun have besides killing someone? Name one, just for giggles. I don't mow my lawn with a gun, do you(cuz that would be funny)? That is my entire point. Guns are designed for nothing else except killing. Target practice may be fun for some people. Hell I'm pretty sure I would enjoy it. That does not take away the fact that guns' primary use is killing people. Putting guns on the same level as cars is wrong. The same goes for alcohol. My whole nuke point is this: you say guns and cars are equally useful and equally dangerous. That is pretty much your reasoning. Guns can kill people but so can cars right? True. But again: cars have a use OTHER than killing. I can not seem to stress this point enough. What is the use of a car? What is the use of knife? What is the use of a gun? What is the use of nuke?

A car is for driving to work/store/whatever. A knife can be used for cutting apples/steak/potatoes. A gun can be used for... killing (pretty much sums it up). A nuke can be used for... killing.

Second point, do you read a lot about people going medieval in high schools? Taking a broadsword to the teachers head? Drive by's where they shoot people with a bow? Not really. But let us ignore that fact. If noone except cops had a gun in society. How many people would you be able to kill with a sword before they shoot your ass? How would you even get around with it? killing potential (against other people): nuke > gun > bow > sword > knife > car > alcohol > kittens?
Those sports take years to learn, let alone master. And I do practice martial arts and one of the most important things you learn is self control. I've never hit someone out of the gym. Even after being punched myself. I walk away.

Last argument. Why do we have speed limits? Because most people shouldn't be driving very fast. We arn't all nascar drivers. Not all cars are equally good on the road. Some people could drive faster and still drive safe. But sucks to be one of them. Because we have to generalise our laws for everyone. Now if everyone has free access to a gun. We trust our every day joe to be responsible with it. Yea... that one is working out just fine so far. Can't remember the last time we had a kid shooting up a school in my country (where guns are all but illegal). Hmm let me think. Oh right, never. Never had a toddler shoot himself in the face with daddies gun either while daddy was passed out on the couch.

Conclusion: you don't need guns for ANY practical use in every day life. EXCEPT KILLING. And last time I checked that one was against the law. It is a big no no. So why do you need it? Plan on killing someone?

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

You say 'limit' like these things happen every week. Newsflash, they don't. We get one every half-decade or so. Yeah, this shit happens. It's a tragedy when they do happen.

Meh you had about 9 shootings, if you count in universities since Coloumbine.
All in all you had 32 mass shootings since 1999.

See the USA weapon problem is not only related to school shootings - you've basically a mass shooting every year, for fuck's sake you had 7 in 2009, and even 3 in the same month.
(With the excpetion of 2000/2001 where you had none... woohoo!)

Don't forget the big picture, it shows you how gievous this problem actually is.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Fire with fire. It's just not going to happen. Let us bypass all the inconveniences and make it far more basic:

What if the teacher of the class the shooter had started in were Snake Plisken. He's invincible, a crack shot, and has a fully loaded SoCOM pistol with 2 spare clips in his back pocket.

Even if this were the scenario, he's going to be firing a gun in the vicinity of panicked unpredictable children.

As far as I'm concerned I'd rather the airport metal detectors at every school gate than another person with guns on the grounds, no matter who they are. (Granted neither is a very good option).

Holy shit, you might be onto something here!

bullets are manufactured by some unique alloy, right? So just implement metal detectors in all schools that can pick up that kind of alloy.

You can make a bullet out of anything metal, really. Lead, copper, brass, steel, etc.

 

[iseko]

A sword, bow and arrow are designed to kill. So yes people shouldn't have acces to them. On the other hand they don't have the same killing potential as a glock now do they? But you are right. They should be banned too.

Bow's have killed more people through out history than any other weapon. And that's not just an argument for their long usage. When the Mongolians killed 90,000 people stack their heads outside of Delhi the timeline was not years or months, it was days. Timur didn't wipe out 17 million Indians in a single campaign because bows were ineffective. The only reason we ever switched to guns in the first place is because they made a loud noise and a puff of smoke that was scary to people who weren't used to it.

An experienced archer can shoot very quickly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o9RGnujlkI
and she isn't even using the Kassai technique of holding a bunch of arrows in your hand so that you don't have to perform excessive movements to reload.

Furthermore, and more importantly, the US military expects to hit a target with between 8-11 rounds of ammunition before that target is out of the fight. There are recorded examples of a suspect being shot over 100 times with the coroner ruling 60+ of those shots to be lethal and the suspect continued to fire back at police for minutes before finally collapsing. The point is that bullets are not nearly as dangerous as people think they are. By and large, especially with the guns that have large magazines(the ones people are so afraid of) bullets tend to be small caliber and the body tends to be pretty resilient, so you can hit a target quite a bit as long as you don't hit a solid organ, major vessel, ect. Even a person with a popped lung has about an 80% chance of survival with bed rest alone.

Arrows however are a lot larger than bullets and are thus capable of dealing a lot more damage. They are much more likely to hit vital points. Archers through history have even been known to put feces on the tip of the arrow(something that wouldn't work with a gun,) so that anyone shot who managed to survive would almost certainly die of an extreme infection. Arrows can be specifically designed to be hooked backwards so that if you try to pull them out they will cause even more damage. And with composite pulley bows the archers of today can shoot very quickly, very far, and though steel plating with arrows.

Frankly a talented archer would be far more frightening than an experienced gunman. Not only is the killing power easily comparable but the emergency reaction time would be much slower. Arrows tend to be much quieter and make a sound that we aren't used to associating with danger. It is likely that cops would not get called nearly as quickly as with a gunman who as soon as he started, would be alerting nearly the entire school as well as surrounding neighborhoods of the danger. Which should have about a 5 minute response time. If they delay that call by even two or three minutes they would kill 50-60% more people.

Not to uh, give anyone any ideas. There tend to be less archers around trying to kill people, luckily. Probably because archery takes dedication to learn whereas any idiot can go buy a gun, point it, and pull the trigger.

One, the rein of gengis khan is long over last I checked. Ok, that one was for giggles. I don't think that is a fair comparison tho. How long has the bow been around and how long has the gun been around? How many people are killed in a year by guns at average. How many were killed by bows at average? Ok that one wouldn't be fair either since there are more people around now and some parts of africa/middle east are still pretty... unhospitable. My point being. Can't compare a few thousand years to a few hundred .

Secondly (and I'm really thanking you for this one), an experienced archer is very deadly. What is the key word here? Experienced. How long would it take to train to become one of those?

Third, ever seen the effect of a shotgun to the chest? Some arrows are more deadly than some bullets. Some bullets are deadlier then arrows.

Fourth and last, there are some documented cases of a people being shot multiple times (as in a lot) and surviving. More then 50% of gunshots are lethal tho. Don't believe the movies where McClane (die hard reference) takes a bullet in the shoulder and walks it off . Go ask a doctor in which part of your body it couldn't hurt to get shot (and by couldn't hurt I mean: isn't lethal). You'd be surprised.

 

[gravian]

I think the main issue is the fact that guns can be acquired so easily by most people in the US and not kept secure, along with the belief that ever more lethal weapons owned by ever more people will somehow make society safer. If citizens arm themselves even more to protect themselves from others so will criminals, and robberies at homes or businesses will become more likely to end badly. There is also a big problem with the idea of when and where self defense applies and how its justified, in my opinion.

The whole attitude that it's OK to shoot any intruders on your property, and shoot to kill (due to the threat of being sued if just injured), even if they pose no threat or are running away, just seems to treat intruders/robbers effectively as "scum", in my mind. US citizens are effectively encouraged to act as judge, jury and executioner in deciding between life and death of any burglar, even those posing no threat. This in a country where the death penalty is heavily scrutinized, most on death row are spared lethal injection and the legality of the state sanctioning killing means several states have already banned it.

I mean, my family owns several shotguns and rifles, including a suppressed rifle for rabbit shooting, but here in the UK there seems to be more of a culture of telling children or young people introduced to guns to treat them with respect, and always be aware of the safety of you and others around you. We, and others in the country who own guns, are representing gun ownership to strangers around us and as such we need to be aware of our actions and how how we come across to a more sceptical public.

Having some of the toughest gun laws in the world also helps to minimize the number of mentally unstable people having guns and prevent shootings. The law states that all firearms have to be stored in a secure, concealed cabinet that only the owner can and knows how to access. All applicants for a firearms license must apply to the local police, who check through medical history to make sure you are fit to hold weapons, and you need 2 referees to vouch for you as well as a good reason (read: not self defense) to hold a weapon. Shotguns are also legally and most cases physically restricted from holding more than 3 cartridges at once (one in the barrel, two in the chamber).

There are a few exceptions, such as no strict age limit on shotgun ownership in the UK (ingraining lessons of respect at an early age is one of the best ways to teach safety as well as getting valuable experience), but otherwise after the school shooting at Dunblane in Scotland in about 1998 the UK has had very few incidences of mass killing by firearms.

 

[Brotha Desmond]

How about this...
tighter gun control.

 

[spartan231490]

I know it is probably WAAAAAAAAAY out there but hear me out. Don't give people access to guns. Guns exist only to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything. Ergo don't give people guns.

Don't give people access to swords. Swords only exist to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything.
Don't give people access to Bows and Arrows. Bows and Arrows only exist to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything.
Don't give people access to cars that go over 65mph, cars that go over 65mph only exist to violate traffic laws and endanger others on the road. No ordinary person needs to violate traffic laws and endanger others.
Don't give people access to beer. Beer only exists to make one intoxicated putting themselves and others at risk. No ordinary person needs to poison themselves enough to put themselves and others in danger.

/sarcasme Yes that comparison is completely legit.
So according to you we should give nukes to all? All inventions are equally harmful and have the same killing potential? A car is built for transportation. Alcohol is intoxicating but isn't designed to kill. A sword, bow and arrow are designed to kill. So yes people shouldn't have acces to them. On the other hand they don't have the same killing potential as a glock now do they? But you are right. They should be banned too.
Your argument is invalid. Like I said: by your logic people should have access to nuclear weapons. Nice going!

No, he actually made the opposite argument, he said that whether or not an item has uses that citizens need should be irrelevant to whether or not it's legal. You are the only one who said it should be a determinant condition. You are extending your faulty logic onto his argument in order to dismiss it. Fact is, gun control doesn't stop criminals. I could post studies, but you wouldn't believe me anyway, just ignoring everything and posting your own studies, that would almost-certainly either be older, or contain flawed sample groups.

Fact is we could argue till we're blue in the face, the data will never be conclusive to one side or the other, and can you really justify violating the rights of millions of people on the basis of inconclusive research. Furthermore, the state could never afford to reimburse every gun owner the price of their guns that would need to be confiscated. There are more than 300 million privately owned firearms in the US, each and every one of which is worth several hundred or thousand dollars. Even the cheapest hunting rifle is about $250, the cheapest shotgun is about $300, and the cheapest handgun is closer to $500. So you are suggesting that the US government deprive over 70 million people their legal rights, and confiscate without reimbursement at least 100 BILLION dollars worth of their legally owned property on the basis of inconclusive research. And that's conservative. Considering you can get an M16 for $15,000; a Coonan Classic handgun, an AR-15, or a Bushmaster 5.56 for $1200; a Remington 700 bolt action hunting rifle for $1,000; and that's not even talking about the value of collector rifles like the Swedish .38 caliber rimfire that my friend owns which is so rare he's only even found ammunition for it on 2 occasions, and that value is probably closer to 200 or 300 billion dollars.

Now add in the value of lifetime hunting licences, $100 hunting coats or waders, ammunition, tree stands, cleaning kits, cleaning solvents, gun oils, targets, gun safes($500-$1500 or more), extra clips, scopes(which often cost at least half as much as the rifle they sit on), ect. Now you're looking at more than ONE TRILLION DOLLARS worth of stuff that you would be stealing from the American people. I say stealing, because the government definitely can't afford to pay them even half of the value of their guns and other, now useless, equipment.

And that's not even counting the number of companies, both in the US and world-wide that would have to close because of a lack of market. Or the billions maybe trillions of dollars worth of firearms goods that are sitting on store shelves that the stores would have no way to sell.

What you are suggesting, would destroy the American economy, in edition to betraying the ideals upon which this country was founded upon, and violating the legal rights of 70 million people, and would have no tangible benefit.

And you want to do all that, because it might help a tiny little bit, even when the evidence suggests it is far more likely to do nothing, and equally likely to cause a small amount of harm.

Last I checked, human life is more valuable than a bunch of goods. Also, America was also founded on slavery, and at the time people thought it can't be taken away either. AND multiple economies thrive just fine without deadly firearms of war.

It's like talking to a poster. No matter how logical your argument is, and how little sense it makes, it will always say the same thing.

As I said, the data doesn't support any suggestion that gun control, or lack of guns, reduces the number of homicides that take place. Meaning, gun control won't help the problem, but will instead devastate our liberties and economy to no advantage. Also, to clarify, it isn't the lack of guns that would cripple our economy, it is the loss of TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF WEALTH and the destruction OF HUNDREDS OF BUSINESSES that revolve around making, distributing, and selling firearms.

Also to be perfectly frank, the fact that someone exists who would even consider comparing the possession of guns to the possession of PEOPLE makes me physically ill, and doing so has earned you the number one slot on my ignore list.