The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by **achilles** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 4:03 pm

muddyglass wrote:
the most dangerous shooters are the ones with military training. both silka and whitman were excellent marksmen with military backgrounds. in these situations, if civilians were armed and attempted to try to take these guys out, the body count could become quite high. i know a partial solution is gun education for gun owners so they know how to use their weapons, but charles whitman was a trained u.s. marine after all...

i'm not saying the 8 hours response time in britain was wonderful or anything, but i think a gun battle with armed civilians might not really be the answer in all cases. the british case was mostly a problem with law enforcement not being armed, rather than civilians not being armed.

Well, it's long been known that most of the best military snipers were drawn from guys who hunted extensively as kids. Carlos Hathcock among many others fit that bill. And in the Texas situation, armed citizens did indeed help get the guy. Most of whom were hunters.

So in a sense, I'd agree that it certainly depends on the citizen. Joe Average who just shoots a couple times a year at a gun range probably would have to get lucky, or at least be close to the guy on the rampage. Much better would be an experienced hunter, or even better in most cases would be a CCW holder in those states that require extensive training, or someone who participates in the IDPA, (international Defensive Pistol Association), style shooting matches, which basically mimic Secret Service type training.

Which is a popular shooting sport.

by **muddyglass** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:31 pm

achilles wrote:
Well, it's long been known that most of the best military snipers were drawn from guys who hunted extensively as kids. Carlos Hathcock among many others fit that bill. And in the Texas situation, armed citizens did indeed help get the guy. Most of whom were hunters.

So in a sense, I'd agree that it certainly depends on the citizen. Joe Average who just shoots a couple times a year at a gun range probably would have to get lucky, or at least be close to the guy on the rampage. Much better would be an experienced hunter, or even better in most cases would be a CCW holder in those states that require extensive training, or someone who participates in the IDPA, (international Defensive Pistol Association), style shooting matches, which basically mimic Secret Service type training.

Which is a popular shooting sport.

if hathcock were around to handle things, then the rampage shooter would have no chance! his shot through the enemy sniper's scope has made a permanent impression on me. i'm not a gun lover, but it's hard not to appreciate the amazing skill it took to make that shot. on the other hand, i shudder to think what would happen if someone of hathcock's skill went berserk after calculated planning.

by **achilles** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:40 pm

muddyglass wrote:
if hathcock were around to handle things, then the rampage shooter would have no chance! his shot through the enemy sniper's scope has made a permanent impression on me. i'm not a gun lover, but it's hard not to appreciate the amazing skill it took to make that shot. on the other hand, i shudder to think what would happen if someone of hathcock's skill went berserk after calculated planning.

It made an even more permanent impression on the enemy sniper... :wink:

As for the other, I'd say we'd all better hope that none of our snipers decides to go on a murder spree.

by **Losty** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:52 am

very fucked up, in Australia we dont have as many guns and Im happ about that

by **Jubilee** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:00 pm

Total firearms murders, 2011: 8,583
% change, 2010-11: -3
Fire- arms murders as % of all murders: 68
Fire- arms murders rate: 2.75
Fire- arms robberies rate: 39.25
Fire- arms assaults rate: 43.77

Just putting these here

RATES ARE PER 100,000 PEOPLE. SOURCE: FBI UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS

by **habitual** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:53 pm

Natural Selection is far more effective in the U.S. it seems compared to socialist countries

Hab

by **Rockman** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:55 pm

Looks they went down

as they have been for the past 20 years

by **Jubilee** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:58 pm

habitual wrote:Natural Selection is far more effective in the U.S. it seems compared to socialist countries

Hab

....

I'm sure we have natural selection to thank for those 20 dead children you sick fuck.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

by **DMM** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:05 pm

Jubilee wrote:
....

I'm sure we have natural selection to thank for those 20 dead children you sick fuck.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Please tell me the percentage of those firearm murders that are mass murders of innocent children, or mass murders in general.

by **muddyglass** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:27 pm

Jubilee wrote:
....

I'm sure we have natural selection to thank for those 20 dead children you sick fuck.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

maybe he's just a "horrible person" ™.

by **muddyglass** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:31 pm

Rockman wrote:Looks they went down

as they have been for the past 20 years

the -3% relative change is unimportant when you're focusing on the 8,583 total murders!

edit: fixed a rate error.

by **NuggetFiend** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:39 pm

muddyglass wrote:
the -3% relative change is unimportant when you're focusing on the 8,583 total murders per 100,000!

That is the total murders per the whole population, I believe. A rate of 8,583 per 100,000 would put as at something like 26 million murders in 2011. We love guns and murder, but not quite that much.

by **muddyglass** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:49 pm

NuggetFiend wrote:
That is the total murders per the whole population, I believe. A rate of 8,583 per 100,000 would put as at something like 26 million murders in 2011. We love guns and murder, but not quite that much.

hmm, looking at the stats again, something doesn't seem quite right.

the 8,583 was just the absolute total, and not the rate per 100,000.

the fire-arms murder rate was 2.75 per 100,000, or in other words, 0.00275%.

now it's ok to for us to love guns and murder again!

edit: to put that murder number in perspective, i looked up the number of deaths per year from heart disease. apparently it's around 600,000 per year in america.

by **habitual** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:44 pm

Jubilee wrote:
....

I'm sure we have natural selection to thank for those 20 dead children you sick fuck.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Oh please do fuck off you pretentious little prick :lol:

We Americans own guns because of people like you

Hab

by **Jubilee** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:29 pm

habitual wrote:
Oh please do fuck off you pretentious little prick

We Americans own guns because of people like you

Hab

What does that even mean?

Dude, less than a month after one of the worst mass killings in American history, you're talking about how guns are good for natural selection.

It's that kind of lack of remorse evident in 5 year olds. It was a horrific joke and you've shown yourself up. Again.