JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited August 2008
Explain to me how a situation can be escalated beyond "Cutting someone's head off and eating their flesh in front of a crowd"
And I'll counter-posit that rather than a complete incompetent who has purchased a gun and never fired it, our armed person is an...off duty pistolero from a wild west show/ex navy seal.
See what-ifs are fun.
It was clearly outlined that the killer was in the last row of seats. No one behind him. All you do is step back into the seats, rest your gun on the headrest, aim carefully, and pull the trigger. If you're not capable of doing it, you don't, and you leave with the rest of the crowd. If you hesitate, who dies that wouldn't have died anyway?
Well, there's only ONE body at the moment. Giving Mr. Crazy a firearm could have made it worse.
And again, even people with training routinely miss under stress. We're not talking complete incompetents here, we're talking about police officers, soldiers, everyone. In a lot of situations it doesn't matter, because you just keep firing until SOMETHING happens, but in a crowd?
How would one bullet ricochet and hit a woman in the leg and the jaw?
Bullets deflect off bone. In surprising and unpredictable ways it turns out - the popular military story was the guy who was hit in the head and had it come out his foot.
Magic bullet.
BTW, I'm not linking it for the readers. I'm not inclined to promote intellectual laziness today.
It was clearly outlined that the killer was in the last row of seats. No one behind him. All you do is step back into the seats, rest your gun on the headrest, aim carefully, and pull the trigger.
My position: Any armed response by anyone on the bus is superior to being shot in the back ad nauseum while fleeing the bus, thus, if anything, you need a gun MORE when the other person has one.
Circular reasoning much?
ah...no?
It's not circular at all. I think you may be confusing circular with unfortunate or realistic.
You see nothing circular about using getting shot in the back as an example of why guns would have helped in a situation where there were no guns?
Glal on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited August 2008
ah...someone asked me "what if the attacker had a gun, too"
How would one bullet ricochet and hit a woman in the leg and the jaw?
Bullets deflect off bone. In surprising and unpredictable ways it turns out - the popular military story was the guy who was hit in the head and had it come out his foot.
Magic bullet.
BTW, I'm not linking it for the readers. I'm not inclined to promote intellectual laziness today.
It was clearly outlined that the killer was in the last row of seats. No one behind him. All you do is step back into the seats, rest your gun on the headrest, aim carefully, and pull the trigger.
Whatever you say, Agent 47.
In hindsight, we know this guy just really wanted to kill one person and eat them in public. In hindsight, we know he didn't attack anyone else. In hindsight, we know the person he attacked probably wasn't savable. But if you were there, you couldn't make those assumptions. It would actually not be reasonable to make those assumptions.
You would have to operate under the assumption that he'd be after a second victim when the first died. You'd have to operate under the assumption that the first guy might benefit from medical attention. Under that assumption, drawing on him makes much more sense.
I'm sorry if I'm some sort of crazy person because I'd rather not let someone butcher and eat someone in front of me if I had the means to prevent it. I didn't realize the anti-murder, anti-cannibalism stance put me in the crazy category.
Yes, because there are so many ex-navy SEALS just taking the bus all over the place.
You can assert the hypothetical person is untrained, I can assert he's very trained. The truth, you know, would likely be toward the middle. Most people don't carry a gun every day and never shoot it.
Yes, because there are so many ex-navy SEALS just taking the bus all over the place.
You can assert the hypothetical person is untrained, I can assert he's very trained. The truth, you know, would likely be toward the middle. Most people don't carry a gun every day and never shoot it.
No, see the hypothetical person is the "hypothetical average person." And the hypothetical average person has something called a combat stress reaction. Unless you've got experience firing under those circumstances, your aim will be nowhere near as good as it would be at the range.
Not to mention that for your "easy kill" argument, the gunmen would have to be in a seat immediately in front of our crazed cannibal. Otherwise he's got to shoot past the people fleeing from those seats.
The ways in which a gun could have helped this situation are far smaller in number than the ways in which a gun could have made this situation even worse.
Yes, because there are so many ex-navy SEALS just taking the bus all over the place.
You can assert the hypothetical person is untrained, I can assert he's very trained. The truth, you know, would likely be toward the middle. Most people don't carry a gun every day and never shoot it.
Most people don't see a guy getting stabbed to death, decapitated, and eaten every day. I don't see how having a CHL would prepare you for that kind of shit. Hell, I don't see how being a Navy SEAL would prepare you for that kind of shit, and I even actually know a couple of squids who were in the SEALs. So, I submit that the idea of the cannibal on the bus with a hitman to be as competely ludicrous as the actual act itself. It's a goddamned Quintin Tarentino movie. So, I am going to continue to laugh at someone for intimating that they have the teremity to walk over and whack Mr. Stabby as if they're in a video game, because I know it's an internet badass claim that only a sociopath could fulfill.
GungHo on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited August 2008
I don't consider myself someone who really scares too easily... and if I see a motherfucker chopping someone in the back of a bus with a rambo knife and I'm unarmed, chances are I'm not going to try and get involved.
You can assert the hypothetical person is untrained, I can assert he's very trained. The truth, you know, would likely be toward the middle. Most people don't carry a gun every day and never shoot it.
No, see the hypothetical person is the "hypothetical average person." And the hypothetical average person has something called a combat stress reaction. Unless you've got experience firing under those circumstances, your aim will be nowhere near as good as it would be at the range.
Not to mention that for your "easy kill" argument, the gunmen would have to be in a seat immediately in front of our crazed cannibal. Otherwise he's got to shoot past the people fleeing from those seats.
The ways in which a gun could have helped this situation are far smaller in number than the ways in which a gun could have made this situation even worse.[/QUOTE]
The gunman could be anywhere in the bus, he only has to stand up and move into the isle, or wait while the panicing people rush from the bus. Remaining calm is really all he has to do. He then has all the time he needs to kill our crazed knife wielding psycho.
Thats if the victim is already dead, we will never know someone had stood up and said "Stop or I will shoot" could have stopped things after the first stab or not.
We really dont know. What we do know is that had he decided to continue on hacking people their was very little anyone could have done to stop him.
I have a fun exercise for all of you internet toughguys.
Take a shirt you don't care about, a friend, and an expo marker. Have your friend pretend the expo marker is a knife.
Now try to take the knife from him without getting expo all the fuck over yourself. If you end the battle with even one or two little streaks you're probably a goner. Even if you do know techniques to disarm they are not easy to use in a real danger situation.
There was nothing anyone could've done besides get themselves killed. Leaving was the proper choice.
Sushisource on
Some drugee on Kavinsky's 1986
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I have a fun exercise for all of you internet toughguys.
Take a shirt you don't care about, a friend, and an expo marker. Have your friend pretend the expo marker is a knife.
Now try to take the knife from him without getting expo all the fuck over yourself. If you end the battle with even one or two little streaks you're probably a goner. Even if you do know techniques to disarm they are not easy to use in a real danger situation.
There was nothing anyone could've done besides get themselves killed. Leaving was the proper choice.
That's actually a very neat idea. I need to bring that up to the hand-to-hand combat sergeant.
The gunman could be anywhere in the bus, he only has to stand up and move into the isle, or wait while the panicing people rush from the bus. Remaining calm is really all he has to do. He then has all the time he needs to kill our crazed knife wielding psycho.
Oh man, glad to know it's as easy as remaining calm as someone's getting stabbed to death and decapitated by a rambo knife on a bus.
The gunman could be anywhere in the bus, he only has to stand up and move into the isle, or wait while the panicing people rush from the bus. Remaining calm is really all he has to do. He then has all the time he needs to kill our crazed knife wielding psycho.
Wait, seriously? That makes no sense. There's absolutely no value in just killing the psycho after the victim is already dead. Then you just have two corpses. If our gunman isn't going to save the victim, he should leave and (like the people actually did) help contain the psycho in the bus until the police arrive to take him away.
I assumed we were talking about saving a life here. If we're just talking about getting your execution on, then it's even more pointless.
I have a fun exercise for all of you internet toughguys.
Take a shirt you don't care about, a friend, and an expo marker. Have your friend pretend the expo marker is a knife.
Now try to take the knife from him without getting expo all the fuck over yourself. If you end the battle with even one or two little streaks you're probably a goner. Even if you do know techniques to disarm they are not easy to use in a real danger situation.
There was nothing anyone could've done besides get themselves killed. Leaving was the proper choice.
I have actually done this drill. It is ok. It doesn't approximate "scratches", but when you exit it with streaks and such along were the arteries in your arms are when you didn't even know you'd been marked there at all, it's a bit sobering. I usually avoid the torso marks, but I can tell you I'd never have the use of my hands again. Someone might say, "well, hey, at least it's your hands, and not your lungs"... sure, but I kinda like my hands.
I have a fun exercise for all of you internet toughguys.
Take a shirt you don't care about, a friend, and an expo marker. Have your friend pretend the expo marker is a knife.
Now try to take the knife from him without getting expo all the fuck over yourself. If you end the battle with even one or two little streaks you're probably a goner. Even if you do know techniques to disarm they are not easy to use in a real danger situation.
There was nothing anyone could've done besides get themselves killed. Leaving was the proper choice.
I have actually done this drill. It is ok. It doesn't approximate "scratches", but when you exit it with streaks and such along were the arteries in your arms are when you didn't even know you'd been marked there at all, it's a bit sobering. I usually avoid the torso marks, but I can tell you I'd never have the use of my hands again. Someone might say, "well, hey, at least it's your hands, and not your lungs"... sure, but I kinda like my hands.
Plus, if Psycho Dude just cut up your hands, what are you going to do to stop him from cutting up your lungs?
I guess if someone had a gun he might have shot the guy. What's the point of this tangent, though? That there should be more guns on buses, or is it just a "it would've been sweet if..."
Because it would've sweet if none of this happened. Boof! I just saved a life.
Elki on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
I have a fun exercise for all of you internet toughguys.
Take a shirt you don't care about, a friend, and an expo marker. Have your friend pretend the expo marker is a knife.
Now try to take the knife from him without getting expo all the fuck over yourself. If you end the battle with even one or two little streaks you're probably a goner. Even if you do know techniques to disarm they are not easy to use in a real danger situation.
There was nothing anyone could've done besides get themselves killed. Leaving was the proper choice.
I've done that drill. Hence why I think you should shoot the guy. I've also actually had someone try to stab me. Hence I think it is best to be armed with a gun.
The gunman could be anywhere in the bus, he only has to stand up and move into the isle, or wait while the panicing people rush from the bus. Remaining calm is really all he has to do. He then has all the time he needs to kill our crazed knife wielding psycho.
Wait, seriously? That makes no sense. There's absolutely no value in just killing the psycho after the victim is already dead. Then you just have two corpses. If our gunman isn't going to save the victim, he should leave and (like the people actually did) help contain the psycho in the bus until the police arrive to take him away.
I assumed we were talking about saving a life here. If we're just talking about getting your execution on, then it's even more pointless.
Now our vigilante is Hypothetical Jean Grey and can tell the guy is only going to kill one person and the exact moment of death of the victim.
Also, in this thread, guns are so hard to use that not even SEALS can shoot people, much less any crazy right winger who only has the gun as a phallic symbol in the first place. No veteran or off duty cop or trained shooter or anyone with any other type of life experience would or could carry and/or wield this hypothetical gun, the ONLY person I am "allowed" by the rest of you to place in this scenario is "the typical average person" ... who doesn't even carry a gun in the first place.
There are about 1.5 million violent crimes in the united states every year. The MOST conservative estimate I could find - the lowest number least favorable to me, in other words - was 65,000 (and change) defensive gun uses a year. Consensus figures look more like 100,000+ defensive gun uses a year.
That means 7% of the time or so, a civilian gun prevents a given violent crime. About 2% of US citizens carry guns on regular basis. So you know, the armed citizens seem to successfully point their guns and stop crimes.
I have a fun exercise for all of you internet toughguys.
Take a shirt you don't care about, a friend, and an expo marker. Have your friend pretend the expo marker is a knife.
Now try to take the knife from him without getting expo all the fuck over yourself. If you end the battle with even one or two little streaks you're probably a goner. Even if you do know techniques to disarm they are not easy to use in a real danger situation.
There was nothing anyone could've done besides get themselves killed. Leaving was the proper choice.
I've done that drill. Hence why I think you should shoot the guy.
Do the following drill: Take a paintball gun. Get all your friends and rent a bus. Give one guy the magic marker. Then go huff paint until your urge to pontificate on the internet about how a gun would have solved a problem is gone.
Professor Phobos on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
I have a fun exercise for all of you internet toughguys.
Take a shirt you don't care about, a friend, and an expo marker. Have your friend pretend the expo marker is a knife.
Now try to take the knife from him without getting expo all the fuck over yourself. If you end the battle with even one or two little streaks you're probably a goner. Even if you do know techniques to disarm they are not easy to use in a real danger situation.
There was nothing anyone could've done besides get themselves killed. Leaving was the proper choice.
I've done that drill. Hence why I think you should shoot the guy.
Do the following drill: Take a paintball gun. Get all your friends and rent a bus. Give one guy the magic marker. Then go huff paint until your urge to pontificate on the internet about how a gun would have solved a problem is gone.
Wow "go huff paint"
I feel totally rebuttled.
What is your problem? I brought up in a one line post that it's too bad no one had a gun, and all the sudden FUCK YOU GUNS SO HARD TO USE YOU CANT EVEN POINT ONE WITHOUT KILLING HALF THE CROWD YOU INTERNET TOUGH GUY BESIDES THE NINJA PSYCHO WOULD JUST SNATCH THE GUN OUT OF YOUR HAND AND SHOOT PEOPLE WITH IT ALSO USE A MARKER TO SIMULATE TAKING AWAY A KNIFE BARE HANDED TO LEARN A VALUABLE LESSON ABOUT SOMETHING YOU WEREN"T ACTUALLY AT ANY POINT ADVOCATING
There is an irritating tendency for gun-nuts to, every time something like this happens, be obnoxious about how if only there was a True American John Wayne type packin' concealed carry in the audience/school/bus/church/haunted windmill, tragedy could be averted!
Serious thought on the subject- and, like, statistics- reveal that a gun is just as likely, if not much more likely, to aggravate a situation as to resolve it. In most situations like this, the last thing anyone wants is for some amateur marksman to start shooting. If I am short with you, it is because this is a dance I have seen many times before.
I guess if someone had a gun he might have shot the guy. What's the point of this tangent, though? That there should be more guns on buses, or is it just a "it would've been sweet if..."
Because it would've sweet if none of this happened. Boof! I just saved a life.
Serious thought on the subject- and, like, statistics- reveal that a gun is just as likely, if not much more likely, to aggravate a situation as to resolve it.
Do you have these statistics?
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
There is an irritating tendency for gun-nuts to, every time something like this happens, be obnoxious about how if only there was a True American John Wayne type packin' concealed carry in the audience/school/bus/church/haunted windmill, tragedy could be averted!
Serious thought on the subject- and, like, statistics- reveal that a gun is just as likely, if not much more likely, to aggravate a situation as to resolve it. In most situations like this, the last thing anyone wants is for some amateur marksman to start shooting. If I am short with you, it is because this is a dance I have seen many times before.
There is an irritating tendency for the anti-gun person to somehow pretend that a gun is both a MASSIVE DANGER to everyone around the wielder, including herself, yet not dangerous enough to resolve the situation. That the gun is magic gas that can only burn the bystanders and not the criminal when poured on the fire.
See, I'd actually like to drop it, because it was a flippant remark initially to tell you the truth, but you had to just keep it up. And you had to use the phrase "gun nut" to tar anyone who might disagree with you, and that pisses me off.
Not interested in this flamewar, thank you very much. I regret getting into it as much as I already have.
So I give real statistics, you say statistically I'm wrong without giving any, and then you slink away when confronted on your stating of opinion as fact?
Just read this thread.
Wow.
Just wow.
I can only imagine if all the tough guys in this thread went to Iraq all the problems would be solved in a day.
In the mind of the internerd, there are only two types of people - those who would never use a gun, and those that lie and say they would. Saying I'm willing to pull a gun on a criminal doesn't make me Rambo.
Not interested in this flamewar, thank you very much. I regret getting into it as much as I already have.
So I give real statistics, you say statistically I'm wrong without giving any, and then you slink away when confronted on your stating of opinion as fact?
Just read this thread.
Wow.
Just wow.
I can only imagine if all the tough guys in this thread went to Iraq all the problems would be solved in a day.
In the mind of the internerd, there are only two types of people - those who would never use a gun, and those that lie and say they would. Saying I'm willing to pull a gun on a criminal doesn't make me Rambo.
The assailant sounds pretty fucked up. I think everyone did the right thing exiting. I won't deny there are people who carry guns who might have killed the crazy knife murderer, but they probably wouldn't have done it in time to save the person being stabbed from bleeding to death. And attacking the assailant before people exited the bus, when there might have been a chance to save the victim would only put more people at risk, weather your attacking him with a gun or a fist or anything in between.
Also, if you can afford a gun, and associated permits and training, are you really riding the 22 hour long inter-city bus when a flight would only be a little more? Driving an old beater would cost about the same in gas as the bus fair and get you there twice as fast.
Do people with permits and training who carry guns prevent crime, save lives? sure. Does that mean more guns would be good overall? Doubtful.
Personally, I'd be scared to work at whatever facility the crazy knife murderer ends up in, and there is no way I'd have tried to stop him on the bus.
there isn't even decent space to throw luggage at him on those buses, unless you happen to be carrying bowling balls or some shit what could you expect to accomplish? Any attempt to stop him without a gun would probably have just gotten more innocent people hurt or killed. Try to stop him with a gun and anything could have happened, but I doubt the outcome would have been any better in this case.
WINNIPEG - Greyhound has scrapped an ad campaign that extolled the peaceful, worry-free upside of bus travel following the beheading of a passenger near Winnipeg.
The punch line of the ad was "There's a reason you've never heard of 'bus rage."' Greyhound spokeswoman Abby Wambaugh says the company feels the ad, launched last year, could be offensive and that it is no longer appropriate.
Raiden333 on
There was a steam sig here. It's gone now.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
WINNIPEG - Greyhound has scrapped an ad campaign that extolled the peaceful, worry-free upside of bus travel following the beheading of a passenger near Winnipeg.
The punch line of the ad was "There's a reason you've never heard of 'bus rage."' Greyhound spokeswoman Abby Wambaugh says the company feels the ad, launched last year, could be offensive and that it is no longer appropriate.
I know I shouldn't laugh, but...
Daedalus on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
Li, 40, took a seat at the front of the bus beside a woman named Stacy after getting on board in Brandon. The pair chatted and were even seen smoking together during a rest stop.
As the bus resumed its ill-fated journey towards Winnipeg, Li suddenly moved to the back of the bus and sat beside McLean, who was listening to his headphones and apparently asleep.
Moments later, McLean was being repeatedly stabbed until he was decapitated.
McLean's family and friends don't believe Li's change-of-seating was a coincidence. And they question why he was charged with second-degree murder and not first-degree murder, which indicates planning and premeditation.
"I have this unbelievably strong feeling that him sitting beside Stacy had something to do with this," McLean's former girlfriend, Alexandra Storey, told the Free Press in an exclusive interview Monday.
Tim and Stacy had become friends while working together at various western Canadian fairs through North American Midway Entertainment.
They were travelling together to Winnipeg - although seated separately in different areas of the bus - and had planned to meet up with a mutual friend in the city before all heading to British Columbia.
McLean's loved ones now desperately want to speak with Stacy - her last name is not known to them - to find out more about her dealings with Li on the bus.
They only know that she quickly returned to B.C. after McLean's killing, and presumably after an interview with police.
What the fuck did you say to him, woman!?
Storey is also haunted by a series of text messages McLean sent to her as he made his way through Manitoba. Her ex-boyfriend - to whom she remained very close - mentioned that some people were doing ecstasy on the bus.
This just doesn't fit at all. Apparently the guy was a schizo too, but I can't find the link to where I may have read that.
What the fuck, dudes... what the fuck.
Darius Black on
Quick, quiet, confident
Comfortable, permanent
Undisputed, every tense
Not a trace of what went left
More equal than the best
Unparalleled success
Everybody, V-impressed
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited August 2008
What the hell was going on in that bus?
It's like an episode of CSI.
Kagera on
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited August 2008
So the people knew each other and were carnies? Gee I wonder what the mething link is.
PETA ad compares Greyhound bus attack to slaughtering animals
Last Updated: Wednesday, August 6, 2008 | 8:29 PM ET Comments87Recommend35CBC News
An animal rights group has posted an ad on its website comparing the recent stabbing and decapitation of a young Winnipeg man to how humans kill animals for food.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said the advertisement is meant to make people understand how animals suffer when they are killed in slaughterhouses. The group posted the imageless advertisement on its blog site Wednesday.
"PETA's ad…is meant to spur people to think about the terror and pain experienced by animals who are raised and killed for food. The group aims to demonstrate that animals — just like humans — are made of flesh, blood, and bone and deserve protection from needless killing," said a statement on PETA's website, also posted Wednesday.
Tim McLean, 22, was stabbed and then beheaded by a fellow passenger as the two rode an eastbound Greyhound bus across Manitoba last Wednesday. The man accused of second-degree murder, Vince Weiguang Li, allegedly engaged in cannibalism during the attack, which occurred just west of Portage la Prairie.
Designed using large, bold type, the ad compares McLean's struggles to those endured by an animal being slaughtered for its meat. It then refers to Li's alleged act of cannibalism before saying, "It's still going on!"
In its statement, PETA said it intended to run the notice in the Portage Daily Graphic, the local newspaper in Portage la Prairie, Man. PETA also sent out a news release to major media outlets across Canada announcing its plan to run the ad in the Manitoba paper, according to a story on the newspaper's website Wednesday.
The paper's publisher Barry Clayton, however, said the advertisement is in bad taste and will not be allowed to run.
PETA acknowledges in the ad itself that the notice may be offensive to some, but spokesman Bruce Friedrich said the goal is to inspire people to think about what they can do to stop violence against animals.
"We can't do anything to bring Tim back or bring his family relief from their suffering. But all of us can ask what we personally can do to decrease our support for this sort of violence," Freedrick said.
PETA said it will discuss later this week whether to attempt to run the ad in other publications.
Posts
And I'll counter-posit that rather than a complete incompetent who has purchased a gun and never fired it, our armed person is an...off duty pistolero from a wild west show/ex navy seal.
See what-ifs are fun.
It was clearly outlined that the killer was in the last row of seats. No one behind him. All you do is step back into the seats, rest your gun on the headrest, aim carefully, and pull the trigger. If you're not capable of doing it, you don't, and you leave with the rest of the crowd. If you hesitate, who dies that wouldn't have died anyway?
I host a podcast about movies.
And again, even people with training routinely miss under stress. We're not talking complete incompetents here, we're talking about police officers, soldiers, everyone. In a lot of situations it doesn't matter, because you just keep firing until SOMETHING happens, but in a crowd?
Magic bullet.
BTW, I'm not linking it for the readers. I'm not inclined to promote intellectual laziness today.
Whatever you say, Agent 47.
?
I host a podcast about movies.
In hindsight, we know this guy just really wanted to kill one person and eat them in public. In hindsight, we know he didn't attack anyone else. In hindsight, we know the person he attacked probably wasn't savable. But if you were there, you couldn't make those assumptions. It would actually not be reasonable to make those assumptions.
You would have to operate under the assumption that he'd be after a second victim when the first died. You'd have to operate under the assumption that the first guy might benefit from medical attention. Under that assumption, drawing on him makes much more sense.
I'm sorry if I'm some sort of crazy person because I'd rather not let someone butcher and eat someone in front of me if I had the means to prevent it. I didn't realize the anti-murder, anti-cannibalism stance put me in the crazy category.
I host a podcast about movies.
You can assert the hypothetical person is untrained, I can assert he's very trained. The truth, you know, would likely be toward the middle. Most people don't carry a gun every day and never shoot it.
I host a podcast about movies.
No, see the hypothetical person is the "hypothetical average person." And the hypothetical average person has something called a combat stress reaction. Unless you've got experience firing under those circumstances, your aim will be nowhere near as good as it would be at the range.
Not to mention that for your "easy kill" argument, the gunmen would have to be in a seat immediately in front of our crazed cannibal. Otherwise he's got to shoot past the people fleeing from those seats.
The ways in which a gun could have helped this situation are far smaller in number than the ways in which a gun could have made this situation even worse.
Sorry.
No, see the hypothetical person is the "hypothetical average person." And the hypothetical average person has something called a combat stress reaction. Unless you've got experience firing under those circumstances, your aim will be nowhere near as good as it would be at the range.
Not to mention that for your "easy kill" argument, the gunmen would have to be in a seat immediately in front of our crazed cannibal. Otherwise he's got to shoot past the people fleeing from those seats.
The ways in which a gun could have helped this situation are far smaller in number than the ways in which a gun could have made this situation even worse.[/QUOTE]
The gunman could be anywhere in the bus, he only has to stand up and move into the isle, or wait while the panicing people rush from the bus. Remaining calm is really all he has to do. He then has all the time he needs to kill our crazed knife wielding psycho.
Thats if the victim is already dead, we will never know someone had stood up and said "Stop or I will shoot" could have stopped things after the first stab or not.
We really dont know. What we do know is that had he decided to continue on hacking people their was very little anyone could have done to stop him.
Take a shirt you don't care about, a friend, and an expo marker. Have your friend pretend the expo marker is a knife.
Now try to take the knife from him without getting expo all the fuck over yourself. If you end the battle with even one or two little streaks you're probably a goner. Even if you do know techniques to disarm they are not easy to use in a real danger situation.
There was nothing anyone could've done besides get themselves killed. Leaving was the proper choice.
That's actually a very neat idea. I need to bring that up to the hand-to-hand combat sergeant.
Oh man, glad to know it's as easy as remaining calm as someone's getting stabbed to death and decapitated by a rambo knife on a bus.
Wait, seriously? That makes no sense. There's absolutely no value in just killing the psycho after the victim is already dead. Then you just have two corpses. If our gunman isn't going to save the victim, he should leave and (like the people actually did) help contain the psycho in the bus until the police arrive to take him away.
I assumed we were talking about saving a life here. If we're just talking about getting your execution on, then it's even more pointless.
Plus, if Psycho Dude just cut up your hands, what are you going to do to stop him from cutting up your lungs?
Because it would've sweet if none of this happened. Boof! I just saved a life.
I've done that drill. Hence why I think you should shoot the guy. I've also actually had someone try to stab me. Hence I think it is best to be armed with a gun.
Now our vigilante is Hypothetical Jean Grey and can tell the guy is only going to kill one person and the exact moment of death of the victim.
Also, in this thread, guns are so hard to use that not even SEALS can shoot people, much less any crazy right winger who only has the gun as a phallic symbol in the first place. No veteran or off duty cop or trained shooter or anyone with any other type of life experience would or could carry and/or wield this hypothetical gun, the ONLY person I am "allowed" by the rest of you to place in this scenario is "the typical average person" ... who doesn't even carry a gun in the first place.
There are about 1.5 million violent crimes in the united states every year. The MOST conservative estimate I could find - the lowest number least favorable to me, in other words - was 65,000 (and change) defensive gun uses a year. Consensus figures look more like 100,000+ defensive gun uses a year.
That means 7% of the time or so, a civilian gun prevents a given violent crime. About 2% of US citizens carry guns on regular basis. So you know, the armed citizens seem to successfully point their guns and stop crimes.
I host a podcast about movies.
Do the following drill: Take a paintball gun. Get all your friends and rent a bus. Give one guy the magic marker. Then go huff paint until your urge to pontificate on the internet about how a gun would have solved a problem is gone.
Wow "go huff paint"
I feel totally rebuttled.
What is your problem? I brought up in a one line post that it's too bad no one had a gun, and all the sudden FUCK YOU GUNS SO HARD TO USE YOU CANT EVEN POINT ONE WITHOUT KILLING HALF THE CROWD YOU INTERNET TOUGH GUY BESIDES THE NINJA PSYCHO WOULD JUST SNATCH THE GUN OUT OF YOUR HAND AND SHOOT PEOPLE WITH IT ALSO USE A MARKER TO SIMULATE TAKING AWAY A KNIFE BARE HANDED TO LEARN A VALUABLE LESSON ABOUT SOMETHING YOU WEREN"T ACTUALLY AT ANY POINT ADVOCATING
I host a podcast about movies.
Serious thought on the subject- and, like, statistics- reveal that a gun is just as likely, if not much more likely, to aggravate a situation as to resolve it. In most situations like this, the last thing anyone wants is for some amateur marksman to start shooting. If I am short with you, it is because this is a dance I have seen many times before.
Do you have these statistics?
but they're listening to every word I say
There is an irritating tendency for the anti-gun person to somehow pretend that a gun is both a MASSIVE DANGER to everyone around the wielder, including herself, yet not dangerous enough to resolve the situation. That the gun is magic gas that can only burn the bystanders and not the criminal when poured on the fire.
See, I'd actually like to drop it, because it was a flippant remark initially to tell you the truth, but you had to just keep it up. And you had to use the phrase "gun nut" to tar anyone who might disagree with you, and that pisses me off.
SO ... let's see your statistics.
The ones I just gave, btw, are real.
I host a podcast about movies.
Wow.
Just wow.
I can only imagine if all the tough guys in this thread went to Iraq all the problems would be solved in a day.
According to this thread, everyone but who they're after will be shot at and killed. Then they will take the guns and shoot more people.
So I give real statistics, you say statistically I'm wrong without giving any, and then you slink away when confronted on your stating of opinion as fact?
In the mind of the internerd, there are only two types of people - those who would never use a gun, and those that lie and say they would. Saying I'm willing to pull a gun on a criminal doesn't make me Rambo.
I host a podcast about movies.
In other news, here's the victim.
http://orz.4chan.org/wg/src/1217937338167.jpg
(Yes, it's a 4chan link, because I don't want to re-host it. Relax, it's in /wg/. I left it a text link for all the paranoids.)
The assailant sounds pretty fucked up. I think everyone did the right thing exiting. I won't deny there are people who carry guns who might have killed the crazy knife murderer, but they probably wouldn't have done it in time to save the person being stabbed from bleeding to death. And attacking the assailant before people exited the bus, when there might have been a chance to save the victim would only put more people at risk, weather your attacking him with a gun or a fist or anything in between.
Also, if you can afford a gun, and associated permits and training, are you really riding the 22 hour long inter-city bus when a flight would only be a little more? Driving an old beater would cost about the same in gas as the bus fair and get you there twice as fast.
Do people with permits and training who carry guns prevent crime, save lives? sure. Does that mean more guns would be good overall? Doubtful.
Personally, I'd be scared to work at whatever facility the crazy knife murderer ends up in, and there is no way I'd have tried to stop him on the bus.
there isn't even decent space to throw luggage at him on those buses, unless you happen to be carrying bowling balls or some shit what could you expect to accomplish? Any attempt to stop him without a gun would probably have just gotten more innocent people hurt or killed. Try to stop him with a gun and anything could have happened, but I doubt the outcome would have been any better in this case.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/08/05/6356496-cp.html
I know I shouldn't laugh, but...
Busted.
What the fuck did you say to him, woman!?
This just doesn't fit at all. Apparently the guy was a schizo too, but I can't find the link to where I may have read that.
What the fuck, dudes... what the fuck.
Comfortable, permanent
Undisputed, every tense
Not a trace of what went left
More equal than the best
Unparalleled success
Everybody, V-impressed
It's like an episode of CSI.
I host a podcast about movies.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/06/peta-mclean.html