Another school shooting in Murrica (Oregon edition)

[AntiBlitz]

Than do it like the Šwiss. Put detonation charges on everything, give everybody some gun, but keep the ammo highly regulated. Arming the civilian population with real bullets and real guns is quite a bad idea. As we can clearly see from the current example.

[LordBerenger]

Or give more financial aid to scientists and techheads who'll eventually come up with cheaper and better body armors and soon we'll have cybernetics that will protect our heads too.

Win

Our future is augmented

[Turkhammer]

You talk so much about weapons as a defense against an armed attack ... is there any statistics on successful self-defense ?? After the charlie hebdo someone tried to recreate the attack but with the condition that all journalists were armed. I can not say the exact result, but it was about the same with what happened. And out of mb 10 cases, only one was able to shoot one of the attackers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESPr7PXmHFk

There's all kind of horseshit on youtube Vovka, including videos that "prove" Russian missiles did not shoot down the Malaysian airliner. 

There was one "documentary" by a liberal source to prove that being armed would make no difference in a violent encounter.  The participants were equipped with paintball guns and protective masks with the pistols under long shirts.  They were in an auditorium full of unarmed participants.  Two instructors playing assailants came in with paint ball pistols and threatened or actually did shoot the lecturer at the front of the auditorium. 

The only catch was that it was a set up.  The instructors knew exactly who the armed participants were and exactly where they were seated.  My point is you can set any demonstration up to give the results you want.

[Turkhammer]

Than do it like the Šwiss. Put detonation charges on everything, give everybody some gun, but keep the ammo highly regulated. Arming the civilian population with real bullets and real guns is quite a bad idea. As we can clearly see from the current example.

The Swiss live on a mountain.  It's easy to defend.

[Tibe]

Yeah. And how many people would be willing to go through the hassle? Im pretty sure you can also invent a gun by studing it from Youtube. You can also make drugs with little effort. Does that make anti-druglaws completely pointless? Definately no. Again, I think you are confusing the whats possible with what is how easily accessible. Personally im starting to understand pro-gunnuts. They dont really claim that it doesnt really work, their general claim is that it does not work 100% and thereby is a worthless attempt. Or that it doesnt work in the US, because US is different than other fairylands. Ofcourse their claim that it wont work in the US is true.

[Xant]

There's all kind of horseshit on youtube Vovka, including videos that "prove" Russian missiles did not shoot down the Malaysian airliner. 

There was one "documentary" by a liberal source to prove that being armed would make no difference in a violent encounter.  The participants were equipped with paintball guns and protective masks with the pistols under long shirts.  They were in an auditorium full of unarmed participants.  Two instructors playing assailants came in with paint ball pistols and threatened or actually did shoot the lecturer at the front of the auditorium. 

The only catch was that it was a set up.  The instructors knew exactly who the armed participants were and exactly where they were seated.  My point is you can set any demonstration up to give the results you want.

You have to be amazingly detached from reality anyway to think making a scenario like that proves a single fucking thing.

People who don't have experience with guns seem to think they're not objects like everything else, like a glass or a chair, no, guns are made out of magic, and when you touch one, everyone receives the same magical skills and abilities.

When in reality... how the fuck can a YouTube video prove anything? Guns don't make anyone an elite killer, neither the aggressor nor the defender. The outcome depends on who the aggressor is and who the defender is. Guns are just tools. You can't prove that a carpenter can't hit a nail with a hammer by giving a hammer to a newborn baby and telling it to hit a nail.

[Jeade]

I'm posting this in bold so you'll see it and click on it.
It's clear and totally understandable that most of you outside the US see US gun culture as insane.
I think the link above sheds some light on it and helps explain our differences.
Please check it out!

I'll say again that I'm all for mandatory registration, but I'm skeptical about mental health screenings and the possibility they might be abused or used incorrectly.
With the Oregon shooter, he apparently had Asperger's syndrome, so perhaps there's a fight to be had there? Who knows.

You can't prove that a carpenter can't hit a nail with a hammer by giving a hammer to a newborn baby and telling it to hit a nail.

Something that bothered me with the Hebdo reenactment is that the YT's failed to understand that, in an active shooter situation, an armed civilian might die, but might also save others in the process or scare off the shooter.
Granted, the smartest thing to do is run, but that may not always be a possibility.
If you do have the opportunity to fight back, you accept the consequences of attempting to do so.
It may work out, and it may not.
Certainly, "advancing on the threat" and running down a hallway guns blazing is a surefire way to get shot and killed.

[Xant]

Something that bothered me with the Hebdo reenactment is that the YT's failed to understand that, in an active shooter situation, an armed civilian might die, but might also save others in the process or scare off the shooter.
Granted, the smartest thing to do is run, but that may not always be a possibility.
If you do have the opportunity to fight back, you accept the consequences of attempting to do so.
It may work out, and it may not.
Certainly, "advancing on the threat" and running down a hallway guns blazing is a surefire way to get shot and killed.

One of the things about concealed carry is that you don't have to draw your gun. You just have the option to do so; "warriors are the only ones who can choose pacifism, others are condemned to it." If you judge your odds better if you just submit, then you can do that even if you're armed. If, however, you're unarmed and judge your odds worse if you submit, i.e., the shooters are walking around the office executing everyone, you can't magic a gun out of thin air.

But like I said before, those "reenactments" are ridiculous. All they prove is that that particular person, in a made up setting, against those particular "attackers", all armed with fake guns, wasn't able to "kill" them both. It certainly doesn't prove that there wasn't someone in the Hebdo offices who, given a gun, couldn't have handled the situation against the two incompetent attackers.

[Molly]

I'd like to throw a thesis into the room and see how it pans out:

I say that having extensive, reality-driven hand to hand combat training gives you a higher percentage on successfully protect yourself/your family/your property than simply owning a gun, going to a range sometimes/hunt with buddies 5 times a year.

Discuss

[Kafein]

A thread with Jeade is always a pleasure.

[Xant]

I'd like to throw a thesis into the room and see how it pans out:

I say that having extensive, reality-driven hand to hand combat training gives you a higher percentage on successfully protect yourself/your family/your property than simply owning a gun, going to a range sometimes/hunt with buddies 5 times a year.

Discuss

Having both the training and a gun gives you even better odds.

[Laufknoten]

You have to be amazingly detached from reality anyway to think making a scenario like that proves a single fucking thing.

People who don't have experience with guns seem to think they're not objects like everything else, like a glass or a chair, no, guns are made out of magic, and when you touch one, everyone receives the same magical skills and abilities.

When in reality... how the fuck can a YouTube video prove anything? Guns don't make anyone an elite killer, neither the aggressor nor the defender. The outcome depends on who the aggressor is and who the defender is. Guns are just tools. You can't prove that a carpenter can't hit a nail with a hammer by giving a hammer to a newborn baby and telling it to hit a nail.

Armed Civilian = can stop the shooter and therefore stop the killing
Unarmed Civilian = can't stop the shooter -> everyone dies

It's as simple as that.

[Jeade]

A thread with Jeade is always a pleasure.

Not sure if sarcasm but

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Grytviken]

I'd like to throw a thesis into the room and see how it pans out:

I say that having extensive, reality-driven hand to hand combat training gives you a higher percentage on successfully protect yourself/your family/your property than simply owning a gun, going to a range sometimes/hunt with buddies 5 times a year.

Discuss

Scripted situational training does not stack up against Boxing/Muay Thai etc other full contact competition sports. Every time I see those casual mom-friendly self-defense classes I just think those people are better off running for their lives in 100% of situations. They just give people enough confidence for someone physically stronger to pummel the shit out them because there's no physical conditioning involved.

Source: I've boxed for 12 years on and off and one thing you quickly learn is how fast you can be on the wrong end of a lopsided struggle if you are outmatched.

[Turkhammer]

I'd like to throw a thesis into the room and see how it pans out:

I say that having extensive, reality-driven hand to hand combat training gives you a higher percentage on successfully protect yourself/your family/your property than simply owning a gun, going to a range sometimes/hunt with buddies 5 times a year.

Discuss

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YyBtMxZgQs

Depends.