Forums » General
Didn't you read my post, Lecter? I don't seek a reduction in the overall violence in the world, I actually advocated a maximization of violence over a short period...
You seemed to be doing so quite tongue-in-cheek.
Dr. Lecter, I agree mostly with your (long) post.
Especially the part about how admission to firearms should be regulated is important, since if people know what firearms are (tools with the purpose to harm or kill another person) and how to use them (not just point&click; maintenance, drilling et cetera are also necessary), abuse or over-use might be reduced to a minimum.
I think that continuous training is needed to achieve that minimum, but that requires resources: time, money, manpower; it is as such not really feasible, especially since you cannot prevent certain things.
Take, for instance, Switzerland, where every male citizen who has 'done his duty' (recently, a certain percentage of the female population as well), is required to store and maintain a fully automatic weapon, complete with enough ammunition for two magazines. The degree of training is relatively high, with everyone who has received such a weapon in the army being required to do a refreshing course every year (consists of shooting one magazine, usually). Still, such occurrences as this one in Virginia happen, precisely because there are so many weapons around, even though everyone who enters the army has to pass various tests.
An after-thought: You said the hijackers were armed with edged weapons... and now they (try to) strip passengers of every conceivable thing that might have so much as a point. Surely you do not agree with this, rather short-sighted, measure?
Especially the part about how admission to firearms should be regulated is important, since if people know what firearms are (tools with the purpose to harm or kill another person) and how to use them (not just point&click; maintenance, drilling et cetera are also necessary), abuse or over-use might be reduced to a minimum.
I think that continuous training is needed to achieve that minimum, but that requires resources: time, money, manpower; it is as such not really feasible, especially since you cannot prevent certain things.
Take, for instance, Switzerland, where every male citizen who has 'done his duty' (recently, a certain percentage of the female population as well), is required to store and maintain a fully automatic weapon, complete with enough ammunition for two magazines. The degree of training is relatively high, with everyone who has received such a weapon in the army being required to do a refreshing course every year (consists of shooting one magazine, usually). Still, such occurrences as this one in Virginia happen, precisely because there are so many weapons around, even though everyone who enters the army has to pass various tests.
An after-thought: You said the hijackers were armed with edged weapons... and now they (try to) strip passengers of every conceivable thing that might have so much as a point. Surely you do not agree with this, rather short-sighted, measure?
Let's not forget the Beltway sniper.
Guns are a great equalizer.
Assume you are 6'9", very fit, and quite well trained in hand to hand combat...
This is impressive.. and took you many many years of training in both the combat art, and in strength and health fitness training.. And you decide you want to become a criminal.
Now, assume I'm 5'11", a little overweight, but carry a .50 desert eagle, with only an intent to protect myself and my family.
Who do you think is going to survive? I guarantee it won't be you.
Unfortunately for me, I cannot carry it while driving my rig, so it sits at home with my wife most of the time. (who, surprisingly for her diminutive 5'3" 140lbs, can handle it fairly well, the first shot is within an inch or two of where she aims, which.. with a 50caliber pistol, is "good enough for govment work' as we say down here.
for those that don't know the eagle: http://www.billnkc.com/images/Dreamweaver/DesertEagleFacts.cfm
Mine doesnt have a scope, adds too much bulk
Assume you are 6'9", very fit, and quite well trained in hand to hand combat...
This is impressive.. and took you many many years of training in both the combat art, and in strength and health fitness training.. And you decide you want to become a criminal.
Now, assume I'm 5'11", a little overweight, but carry a .50 desert eagle, with only an intent to protect myself and my family.
Who do you think is going to survive? I guarantee it won't be you.
Unfortunately for me, I cannot carry it while driving my rig, so it sits at home with my wife most of the time. (who, surprisingly for her diminutive 5'3" 140lbs, can handle it fairly well, the first shot is within an inch or two of where she aims, which.. with a 50caliber pistol, is "good enough for govment work' as we say down here.
for those that don't know the eagle: http://www.billnkc.com/images/Dreamweaver/DesertEagleFacts.cfm
Mine doesnt have a scope, adds too much bulk
One trained (and proficient) in hth combat knows about the dangers of both knives and guns, but that is neither here nor there.
Lecter, that's one reason I wanted to become a lawyer. I just don't think I could survive lawschool or the bar.
/me salutes Lecter.
It's much, much better for everyone to have a gun then one person to have a gun. Imagine one mechiening gun with several crates of ammo. That dude with the gun could take everyone else in an entire city. But if there were 2 guns, then that dude would be dead in a heartbeat,
In other words, I agree with break19. Getting a gun and owning a gun and maintaning a gun are important.
Also, adressing the whole 'minutemen' arguement; In the early colonial age, everyone had a gun. And in america, everyone who had a gun was a minutemen. Why? Because everyone grew up learning how to shoot, arm, and clean a gun. Even the woman could shoot the 'ole shotgun. Because owning a gun was part of life, (and it was given respect) when the time came to defend their country, they didn't shy away, they rose up with confidence in their weapions to defeat the britsh. (Also, they most likely had good aim. Shooting game, contests, ect.)
/me salutes Lecter.
It's much, much better for everyone to have a gun then one person to have a gun. Imagine one mechiening gun with several crates of ammo. That dude with the gun could take everyone else in an entire city. But if there were 2 guns, then that dude would be dead in a heartbeat,
In other words, I agree with break19. Getting a gun and owning a gun and maintaning a gun are important.
Also, adressing the whole 'minutemen' arguement; In the early colonial age, everyone had a gun. And in america, everyone who had a gun was a minutemen. Why? Because everyone grew up learning how to shoot, arm, and clean a gun. Even the woman could shoot the 'ole shotgun. Because owning a gun was part of life, (and it was given respect) when the time came to defend their country, they didn't shy away, they rose up with confidence in their weapions to defeat the britsh. (Also, they most likely had good aim. Shooting game, contests, ect.)
what the hell does this thread have to do with VO?
yeah it's tragic; what happened... but this is a thread that belongs in off topic from the get-go...
shame on you lecter... for shame.
yeah it's tragic; what happened... but this is a thread that belongs in off topic from the get-go...
shame on you lecter... for shame.
Drdoak, it's spiraled into a discussion. Ironicly, you aren't even contributing to that, or the original topic.
I think it is time that I weigh in on this subject.
Speaking as one of the few trained to employ modern weapons under fire, I can think of nothing more absolutely stupid than more weapons in that situation yesterday, and here is why.
Assume two individuals with half the level of aggression that I have. That is enough for them to draw their weapons when they hear shots and go into the hallway to try and locate the gunman. Now they see one another, holding guns. What do you do? How the hell do they know that the other responding student is not the gunman? They'll shoot at one another, compounding the problem. You've just artfully created a building-wide last man standing for everyone with firearms.
Police and the military do not have this problem. We have three things that any body of the populace will never have. Chain of command, discipline, and uniforms. We can recognize friend from foe, we can stop attacking when need be, and we know who decides whether we stop or not. An armed mob of frightened students with guns has NONE of these things, and if they're in the building with weapons the cops will take them out too, assuming they are also belligerents.
Yes, a single student with a gun might have made a difference, but not without a great deal of know-how on how to put their own gun down afterward without being shot for drawing it. I spent an hour last night trying to figure out how to make my intentions clear to the police assuming I was there and had a weapon.
No, the police have to be the only ones with weapons in this sort of situation, because no one else can determine friend from foe. There are just too many people. As you can see, a gunman is a nightmare for law enforcement no matter how the people prepare. The only way to "win" is to prevent shooters from developing from students. You've already lost when weapons show up.
Speaking as one of the few trained to employ modern weapons under fire, I can think of nothing more absolutely stupid than more weapons in that situation yesterday, and here is why.
Assume two individuals with half the level of aggression that I have. That is enough for them to draw their weapons when they hear shots and go into the hallway to try and locate the gunman. Now they see one another, holding guns. What do you do? How the hell do they know that the other responding student is not the gunman? They'll shoot at one another, compounding the problem. You've just artfully created a building-wide last man standing for everyone with firearms.
Police and the military do not have this problem. We have three things that any body of the populace will never have. Chain of command, discipline, and uniforms. We can recognize friend from foe, we can stop attacking when need be, and we know who decides whether we stop or not. An armed mob of frightened students with guns has NONE of these things, and if they're in the building with weapons the cops will take them out too, assuming they are also belligerents.
Yes, a single student with a gun might have made a difference, but not without a great deal of know-how on how to put their own gun down afterward without being shot for drawing it. I spent an hour last night trying to figure out how to make my intentions clear to the police assuming I was there and had a weapon.
No, the police have to be the only ones with weapons in this sort of situation, because no one else can determine friend from foe. There are just too many people. As you can see, a gunman is a nightmare for law enforcement no matter how the people prepare. The only way to "win" is to prevent shooters from developing from students. You've already lost when weapons show up.
Good intuition, but I'd rather me, owning a gun, being there. 'cuz I trust my own sense of judgement. The person with both guns out and blood on his clothing with a ton of ammunition should be easily idetifiyable by the students running away from him, add that to the fact that he shot on sight...
Also, if you aren't shooting someone, you usually keep the gun pointed downwards. Common sense says that someone with their gun pointed downwards is a 'good guy' because they don't want to shoot someone. When a 'bad guy' is carrying around a gun, they hold it in front; so they can shoot people right off the bat.
Small differences, but it's really the whole 'snap' decision thing. I personally, envision myself with a gun, stalking him. The gunner didn't have time to keep looking behind his back, if someone (say, you) had a gun, they wouldn't just shoot, they watch for a second (unless they were getting shot at) to try and identify who had the gun. When they saw the dude shooting people, they'd be able to go "hm, I think I should shoot this dude"
Anyway, if that's too incoherent, go dip it in salsa. That should clear things up.
Also, if you aren't shooting someone, you usually keep the gun pointed downwards. Common sense says that someone with their gun pointed downwards is a 'good guy' because they don't want to shoot someone. When a 'bad guy' is carrying around a gun, they hold it in front; so they can shoot people right off the bat.
Small differences, but it's really the whole 'snap' decision thing. I personally, envision myself with a gun, stalking him. The gunner didn't have time to keep looking behind his back, if someone (say, you) had a gun, they wouldn't just shoot, they watch for a second (unless they were getting shot at) to try and identify who had the gun. When they saw the dude shooting people, they'd be able to go "hm, I think I should shoot this dude"
Anyway, if that's too incoherent, go dip it in salsa. That should clear things up.
i dont want to water down anyone's party but you're all fucktards for discussing dick-to-gun size ratios in this thread.
try to have compassions for those who died and those who are directly affected by the shootings down at vt.
my best wishes of recovery for those who were injured over there. both physically and emotionally. get well, heal, be strong and resume your lives best you can and become those you intended to become when you first started your studies.
--mgl
try to have compassions for those who died and those who are directly affected by the shootings down at vt.
my best wishes of recovery for those who were injured over there. both physically and emotionally. get well, heal, be strong and resume your lives best you can and become those you intended to become when you first started your studies.
--mgl
Aramarth: while your training gives you a unique perspective, it's also a part of the mindset that currently infects professionals. Namely: that the presence of a handgun among the civilian population is an anomaly that automatically indicates a threat. Sorry, wrong.
In a Marine, it's a useful mindset, since you're not allowed to operate domestically and anything that's friendly but armed that you encounter when carrying your weapon should be in a uniform. Such a mindset has been drilled into law enforcement, too, however... and it is simply unacceptable. Holding a weapon and not having badge does not equate to valid target. It does represent a potential threat and both law enforcement and civilian have to know their roles in the situation.
You cite three things that civilians lack: discipline, chain of command, uniforms. Of course, all three are useful. However, you function as a unit; I don't. My requisite discipline as a CCW holder and user is that necessary to maintain proficiency and the mental preparation for knowing, before a situation arises, when I will draw my weapon, how I will make sure of my target, how I will handle other armed civilians and law enforcement. Conversely, part of law enforcement's discipline is knowing that armed civilian friendlies are potential factors, and not adopting an unwarranted 'it has a gun, I'm putting it down' approach to the situation.
I don't need a chain of command, since I don't function as a unit; I have to determine, on my own and based off the situation, when I should holster (or release and slowly place on the deck) my weapon. In actuality, this is not different from law enforcement: chain of command can provide a definitive 'all clear' message to the unit, but most decisions on what to do in a situation (that would be encountered by CCW and police alike) are made on an individual basis. Perhaps you mean the chain of command has propagated a RoE and thus assists the decision?
Uniforms are great. When your adrenaline is fighting with your ability to focus and think before you act, an instant visual substitute for an otherwise difficult to signal message ('I'm on your side!') is a great thing to have. But they are not essential to law enforcement being able to sort friend from foe: how do you think off-duty cops manage to intervene without getting shot? Amusingly, a number of CCW holders seem to have taken advantage of the uniform response, buying these bright, shiny official looking "CCW" badges. They have zero authority or meaning behind them, but the shape and concept of 'BADGE' are so ingrained in police that showing it in conjunction with properly disarming has the desired effect of forcing the cop who's pointing his gun at you to stop and think about why the man in front of him might be armed... other than that he's a bad guy. So, yes, they're very helpful. But they're hardly necessary in the law enforcement context.
Finally, you're absolutely correct that the number of handguns controlled by individuals correlates at least directly with the CFage (for lack of a better term) factor of such a situation. Thankfully(?), there aren't many people who even consider taking advantage of CCW when it is legal, much less who go through the steps necessary to properly carry and be able to use a handgun in such a situation. A greater concern would be if even one person, student, faculty or staff, would have been able to intercede.
You need to step back from the context in which you've been trained and reconsider whether law enforcement should really be acting under the same sort of RoE decisional process as you would when sifting through a civilian population outside the U.S. You had a hard time figuring out how to prevent from appearing not only like a potential hostile, to be covered and challenged, but like an outright target... when dealing with the VA state police coming into a chaotic college lecture hall. Something isn't right with that scenario; hint, the flaw isn't in your hypothetical response.
[Edit teh first] God, I hope Blackhole will never carry a gun. Ever.
[Edit teh dux] Doak, it started as a request for the pilots who live at Tech, of which I knew there to be at least one, to check in. That it launched from there into a discussion is my fault, but so be it. At this point we can probably banish to /8; the only reason I started with /1 was for greater chance of Tech pilots seeing and responding.
In a Marine, it's a useful mindset, since you're not allowed to operate domestically and anything that's friendly but armed that you encounter when carrying your weapon should be in a uniform. Such a mindset has been drilled into law enforcement, too, however... and it is simply unacceptable. Holding a weapon and not having badge does not equate to valid target. It does represent a potential threat and both law enforcement and civilian have to know their roles in the situation.
You cite three things that civilians lack: discipline, chain of command, uniforms. Of course, all three are useful. However, you function as a unit; I don't. My requisite discipline as a CCW holder and user is that necessary to maintain proficiency and the mental preparation for knowing, before a situation arises, when I will draw my weapon, how I will make sure of my target, how I will handle other armed civilians and law enforcement. Conversely, part of law enforcement's discipline is knowing that armed civilian friendlies are potential factors, and not adopting an unwarranted 'it has a gun, I'm putting it down' approach to the situation.
I don't need a chain of command, since I don't function as a unit; I have to determine, on my own and based off the situation, when I should holster (or release and slowly place on the deck) my weapon. In actuality, this is not different from law enforcement: chain of command can provide a definitive 'all clear' message to the unit, but most decisions on what to do in a situation (that would be encountered by CCW and police alike) are made on an individual basis. Perhaps you mean the chain of command has propagated a RoE and thus assists the decision?
Uniforms are great. When your adrenaline is fighting with your ability to focus and think before you act, an instant visual substitute for an otherwise difficult to signal message ('I'm on your side!') is a great thing to have. But they are not essential to law enforcement being able to sort friend from foe: how do you think off-duty cops manage to intervene without getting shot? Amusingly, a number of CCW holders seem to have taken advantage of the uniform response, buying these bright, shiny official looking "CCW" badges. They have zero authority or meaning behind them, but the shape and concept of 'BADGE' are so ingrained in police that showing it in conjunction with properly disarming has the desired effect of forcing the cop who's pointing his gun at you to stop and think about why the man in front of him might be armed... other than that he's a bad guy. So, yes, they're very helpful. But they're hardly necessary in the law enforcement context.
Finally, you're absolutely correct that the number of handguns controlled by individuals correlates at least directly with the CFage (for lack of a better term) factor of such a situation. Thankfully(?), there aren't many people who even consider taking advantage of CCW when it is legal, much less who go through the steps necessary to properly carry and be able to use a handgun in such a situation. A greater concern would be if even one person, student, faculty or staff, would have been able to intercede.
You need to step back from the context in which you've been trained and reconsider whether law enforcement should really be acting under the same sort of RoE decisional process as you would when sifting through a civilian population outside the U.S. You had a hard time figuring out how to prevent from appearing not only like a potential hostile, to be covered and challenged, but like an outright target... when dealing with the VA state police coming into a chaotic college lecture hall. Something isn't right with that scenario; hint, the flaw isn't in your hypothetical response.
[Edit teh first] God, I hope Blackhole will never carry a gun. Ever.
[Edit teh dux] Doak, it started as a request for the pilots who live at Tech, of which I knew there to be at least one, to check in. That it launched from there into a discussion is my fault, but so be it. At this point we can probably banish to /8; the only reason I started with /1 was for greater chance of Tech pilots seeing and responding.
Yeah, because all this is totally relevant to the situation at hand. I mean, any dummy can see that the only reason college students don't each have ten or fifteen guns is because the campus fascists don't let them exercise their constitutional right to bear arms!
The same reason you never see underaged drinking or drug use around college campuses!
The same reason you never see underaged drinking or drug use around college campuses!
Lecter, don't worry. You won't feel a thing.
er... dont confuse me with doak, lectah.
I didn't.
And Genka, your trolling is usually a bit more apt. Wha' happened?!
And Genka, your trolling is usually a bit more apt. Wha' happened?!
Things have wandered pretty far afield. I'd like to know if any of our players were involved in the VA Tech tragedy, and express sympathies to any who lost friends in that event.
A full-blown second amendment discussion, while understandably tied to the VA Tech incident, is better suited to the Off-Topic forum.
A full-blown second amendment discussion, while understandably tied to the VA Tech incident, is better suited to the Off-Topic forum.
I'm glad no one from the world of VO was harmed, and express my sorrow to the families of the victims.
So far incarnate, it seems like I was the closest. I was on my way to class when I got word, so it was just a matter of turning around. My friends are taking it far harder than I am. Had the event taken place say, twenty minutes later, I would have been three buildings away. Not a big deal considering I will be in Iraq soon, but I am the exception among these students, not the rule. Virginia Tech has an uncommon unity that I've enjoyed being a part of. I'll let you guys know if any of my classmates fail to show up next week when classes resume, but until then I don't believe I know any victims.