First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Slaughters with weapons other than guns
Posted 2/29/16

Freddy96NO wrote:


SylveonLuna wrote:
Anything can be used as a weapon
was using dirt bombs since 1969
It was super effective!


How do you think mud bomb existed in pokemon?

They learned the hard way.
37281 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 2/29/16 , edited 2/29/16
That's the point I've been trying to make! Banning tools will not solve the problem of people wanting to kill other people. They'll just use something else. The problem has to be looked at from another angle.... Could it be overcrowding? Perhaps we need to un-glorify warfare and combat in our media? Look at how popular action shows, with guns and marshal arts are? Superheroes who solve problems by beating up the bad guys... etc.

I don't really know where to start looking, but it's become clear that banning "types of weapons" does not reduce the murder rate. It only changes what tools murders are committed with. There are those, however, who absolutely will not even try to entertain that idea. They are so focused on the tool that was used, and not on the individual that used it.

As long as the root problem, "people", is not addressed, then the problem will never go away.
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 2/29/16

DeadlyOats wrote:
I don't really know where to start looking, but it's become clear that banning "types of weapons" does not reduce the murder rate.
yes, some cases killing sprees could have worked out if staff members had guns vs other guns.
Even though it also means someone with out guns could also steal those guns as well (either from an inside job or "stealth" XP)

anyway, sometimes we need em sometimes not.
but overall more would most likely be killed by a gun that is far more deadly then a knife, even though a knife/sword can be better close range.

Posted 2/29/16 , edited 2/29/16

DeadlyOats wrote:

That's the point I've been trying to make! Banning tools will not solve the problem of people wanting to kill other people. They'll just use something else. The problem has to be looked at from another angle.... Could it be overcrowding? Perhaps we need to un-glorify warfare and combat in our media? Look at how popular action shows, with guns and marshal arts are? Superheroes who solve problems by beating up the bad guys... etc.

I don't really know where to start looking, but it's become clear that banning "types of weapons" does not reduce the murder rate. It only changes what tools murders are committed with. There are those, however, who absolutely will not even try to entertain that idea. They are so focused on the tool that was used, and not on the individual that used it.

As long as the root problem, "people", is not addressed, then the problem will never go away.


That's merely redirecting the problem somewhere else, which isn't a valid argument. True, when you say behavioral and psychological issues need be redressed, that is a concerning problem for all citizens of said nation, but this only redirects it from whether or not we do have looser than need be gun laws. We'll never eliminate mental illness, we'll never eliminate aggression, so every factor of a crime must be taken into account. I mean seriously, if men were angels, or could be angels, we wouldn't need gun laws, but achieving such an effect on society is impossible and highly unwanted.

Think of it this way. If gun laws were super loose, if we have no background checks, one could just as easily use your excuse without fail. Why, psychological issues are of the utmost important! Don't look at why we don't have background checks! Capesh?

Back on topic, I find it horrible how easy it is to get a gun COMPARED to a mental help.


And seriously, you want to undergo SOCIAL ENGINEERING on a broad scale by changing the media? If anything violence in media has made us less inclined to kill each other. Crime rate of youth and juvenile delinquency has fallen rapidly, while in my unholy experience, what is actually consider a crime tightened over these few years.
6627 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 2/29/16
I'll go one further. More than twice as many people were killed through punching and kicking than by rifles in 2011, according to the FBI.
Source: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

To follow the logic of the gun control lobby, we should ban limbs. I mean there were 726 people killed by punches and kicks. That is 726 too many. That's it America, your murder spree culture using your limbs is at an end. Everyone has 60 days to report to your nearest limb removal center to have your arms and legs removed so you don't kill anyone. This is so we can all live in peace and safety.

While that is certainly facetious, it highlights the stupidity and illogic of the gun control lobby's argument. As stated, guns are tools. They lack the ability to do things on their own. It takes a person using the gun, knife, or big, meaty fist to kill someone.

And according to the US Bureau of Crime Statistics, nine in ten gun related homicides are related to gang violence. If someone was really looking to reduce the number of firearm homicides they would crack down on gangs. But they're not; that may be offensive to certain groups that the gun control lobby is politically allied with. It is much easier for them to get the smug feelings of self-satisfaction by harassing law abiding people. While normally I wouldn't care how these people get their jollies, their harassments may actually make the problem worse by disarming or preventing law abiding people who would benefit from having a gun for personal safety.
Posted 2/29/16 , edited 2/29/16

Ravenstein wrote:

I'll go one further. More than twice as many people were killed through punching and kicking than by rifles in 2011, according to the FBI.
Source: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

To follow the logic of the gun control lobby, we should ban limbs. I mean there were 726 people killed by punches and kicks. That is 726 too many. That's it America, your murder spree culture using your limbs is at an end. Everyone has 60 days to report to your nearest limb removal center to have your arms and legs removed so you don't kill anyone. This is so we can all live in peace and safety.

While that is certainly facetious, it highlights the stupidity and illogic of the gun control lobby's argument. As stated, guns are tools. They lack the ability to do things on their own. It takes a person using the gun, knife, or big, meaty fist to kill someone.

And according to the US Bureau of Crime Statistics, nine in ten gun related homicides are related to gang violence. If someone was really looking to reduce the number of firearm homicides they would crack down on gangs. But they're not; that may be offensive to certain groups that the gun control lobby is politically allied with. It is much easier for them to get the smug feelings of self-satisfaction by harassing law abiding people. While normally I wouldn't care how these people get their jollies, their harassments may actually make the problem worse by disarming or preventing law abiding people who would benefit from having a gun for personal safety.


I disagree, that's an incredibly stupid strawman to pull out of the left. You're essentially exaggerating the argument by making their "logic" (Which you fail to understand the gist of) apply to extreme circumstances until no one can in good mind agree with it. It be like me saying the Right wants a war because they want to allocate funds to our defenses.

It's illogical to assume that the left's logic should apply to limbs as well, when it ignores the value and difference of guns versus limbs, which many left people acknowledge.
35140 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M
Offline
Posted 2/29/16 , edited 2/29/16
The impulse to kill is not due to any circumstances like overcrowding. Nor is mental illness the only cause.

Fact of the matter is that Nature/evolution rewards and has rewarded humans killing humans for thousands of years.

This has happened many times in the past: if a man kills his competitors for a woman, he gains access to her womb and gets to procreate. Jealousy has been the number one reason for murders in all pre-technological societies (those societies during which mankind evolved from primates). Families/clans have been rewarded by murdering other families/clans by gaining access to limited resources like land/water. Tribes have been rewarded by murdering other tribes.

Religions have been rewarded by murdering the people of competing religions, etc. States have been rewarded by murdering the people of competing states.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to stop mankind from murdering without changing the very rules of Nature/reality, and that's not going to happen any time soon.

A few things that could end murder:

1) Detachment from physical bodies. If we all get uploaded into the net and live as non-physical entities, there is no reason to compete for procreation, food, air, water, land. We may still fight for access to electricity and server room space, though.

2) Hive mind. If we all get tied into the same hive mind, then we would interoperate as one sentient being much like an ant colony. Ants within an ant colony rarely kill each other, except maybe to purge diseased ants.

3) Extreme abundance. If we all have access to so much stuff there is no need to fight over anything, then we should see murder disappear. Yes, it would still be possible to fixate on one mate even while plenty of other mates are available, so this is not a sure-fire way to end murder.
Posted 2/29/16

dchang0 wrote:

The impulse to kill is not due to any circumstances like overcrowding. Nor is mental illness the only cause.

Fact of the matter is that Nature/evolution rewards and has rewarded humans killing humans for thousands of years.

This has happened many times in the past: if a man kills his competitors for a woman, he gains access to her womb and gets to procreate. Jealousy has been the number one reason for murders in all pre-technological societies (those societies during which mankind evolved from primates). Families/clans have been rewarded by murdering other families/clans by gaining access to limited resources like land/water. Tribes have been rewarded by murdering other tribes.

Religions have been rewarded by murdering the people of competing religions, etc. States have been rewarded by murdering the people of competing states.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to stop mankind from murdering without changing the very rules of Nature/reality, and that's not going to happen any time soon.

A few things that could end murder:

1) Detachment from physical bodies. If we all get uploaded into the net and live as non-physical entities, there is no reason to compete for procreation, food, air, water, land. We may still fight for access to electricity and server room space, though.

2) Hive mind. If we all get tied into the same hive mind, then we would interoperate as one sentient being much like an ant colony. Ants within an ant colony rarely kill each other, except maybe to purge diseased ants.

3) Extreme abundance. If we all have access to so much stuff there is no need to fight over anything, then we should see murder disappear. Yes, it would still be possible to fixate on one mate even while plenty of other mates are available, so this is not a sure-fire way to end murder.


Some people murder for fun, but I get what you're saying. Even in the case of abundance pride might get in the way, ala "I must have more than you".
33051 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 2/29/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

There was a tractor Slaughter in 2010 with well.....a TRACTOR. In China. Let me dig it up.

Although no gun limit advocate ever said slaughters can't happen with knive, but are less likely to happen. Remember that school stabbing? Would be much worst if he had a gun. Now this isn't an argument for or against gun rights or gun control, but in my experience, guns are deadlier. There was a school stabbing at my school, would've probably been much worst.

In essence, I think Pickering was an exception rather than a rule. You can't even compare a knife to a gun. So basically, YOUR example was an exception to the rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Hebei_tractor_rampage


Wait! .... What if it's a knife gun!?
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 2/29/16

dchang0 wrote:

The impulse to kill is not due to any circumstances like overcrowding. Nor is mental illness the only cause.

Fact of the matter is that Nature/evolution rewards and has rewarded humans killing humans for thousands of years.

This has happened many times in the past: if a man kills his competitors for a woman, he gains access to her womb and gets to procreate. Jealousy has been the number one reason for murders in all pre-technological societies (those societies during which mankind evolved from primates). Families/clans have been rewarded by murdering other families/clans by gaining access to limited resources like land/water. Tribes have been rewarded by murdering other tribes.

Religions have been rewarded by murdering the people of competing religions, etc. States have been rewarded by murdering the people of competing states.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to stop mankind from murdering without changing the very rules of Nature/reality, and that's not going to happen any time soon.

A few things that could end murder:

1) Detachment from physical bodies. If we all get uploaded into the net and live as non-physical entities, there is no reason to compete for procreation, food, air, water, land. We may still fight for access to electricity and server room space, though.

2) Hive mind. If we all get tied into the same hive mind, then we would interoperate as one sentient being much like an ant colony. Ants within an ant colony rarely kill each other, except maybe to purge diseased ants.

3) Extreme abundance. If we all have access to so much stuff there is no need to fight over anything, then we should see murder disappear. Yes, it would still be possible to fixate on one mate even while plenty of other mates are available, so this is not a sure-fire way to end murder.


Wow that is the most inane oversimplification of why violent death happens I've seen in a long time.
10580 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Rabbit Horse
Offline
Posted 2/29/16
although both weapons can be used for assault, the efficacy with which they allow one to carry such criminal acts is vastly different.

guns allows one to carry a massive murder, and people targeted cannot protect themselves. the only limitation, really, is the amount of ammunition that the criminal is carrying.

attacking using a knife is slow and very inefficient. those being targeted have a fighting chance of protecting themselves.
even if they are not strong / skilled enough to disarm the criminal, they can always escape by running away or using some object to block the knife. good luck running away from a bullet though, and there's literally no easily accessible object that can protect one from a gun shot.
for those who still disagree with this, i suggest looking up on the school shootings in the US, and how many people died as a result, and then compare it with the number of fatalities (not injuries, deaths) caused by people carrying knifes.

also, even when attacked by a knife, people have a decent chance to survive the attack. maybe they'll need to undergo surgery, but it's not that unusual for people to survive an attack involving a knife

by contrast, when people are attacked with a gun, they almost always die, not only because of the impact (the impact of a knife doesn't even compare to the impact of a bullet to the body), but because the bullet themselves are toxic to the body. most of the time, there isn't even enough time to stop the bleeding and go to an emergency room. people die on the spot.
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/29/16 , edited 2/29/16

namealreadytaken wrote:

although both weapons can be used for assault, the efficacy with which they allow one to carry such criminal acts is vastly different.

guns allows one to carry a massive murder, and people targeted cannot protect themselves. the only limitation, really, is the amount of ammunition that the criminal is carrying.

attacking using a knife is slow and very inefficient. those being targeted have a fighting chance of protecting themselves.
even if they are not strong / skilled enough to disarm the criminal, they can always escape by running away or using some object to block the knife. good luck running away from a bullet though, and there's literally no easily accessible object that can protect one from a gun shot.
for those who still disagree with this, i suggest looking up on the school shootings in the US, and how many people died as a result, and then compare it with the number of fatalities (not injuries, deaths) caused by people carrying knifes.

also, even when attacked by a knife, people have a decent chance to survive the attack. maybe they'll need to undergo surgery, but it's not that unusual for people to survive an attack involving a knife

by contrast, when people are attacked with a gun, they almost always die, not only because of the impact (the impact of a knife doesn't even compare to the impact of a bullet to the body), but because the bullet themselves are toxic to the body. most of the time, there isn't even enough time to stop the bleeding and go to an emergency room. people die on the spot.


Wow, I don't post in here, but I just have to on this one. Way to go there, Dr Fackler, you clearly understand terminal ballistics.

No, seriously, I mean go read some of the studies by Dr Martin Fackler, I.E. someone who actually knows anything whatsoever about the effects of firearms projectiles upon the human body. Clearly your education on the subject was gleaned from Hollywood and/or special interest groups, because it is not founded on science.

Wow. Where to begin?

First, most bullet injuries are non-fatal. In fact, the vast majority of them are non-fatal. Death from a bullet injury is generally from one of a small number of wound mechanisms: disruption of the central nervous system, hypovolemic shock (bleeding out), or septicemia. Traumatic damage to organs other than the central nervous system *can* kill you, but in most cases it's not the actual damage to the organ that does it; it's because that organ has a high blood throughput, and damage to it rapidly causes hypovolemic shock (such as wounds to the heart, kidney, or liver).

NONE of those except damage to the central nervous system will kill an individual "on the spot". Particularly when one considers that the human body is inherently redundant in most major functions. Even damage to most parts of the brain is non-fatal. You might be surprised how low the fatality rate is on modern battlefields against high-caliber rifles, much less handguns as commonly used in crime.

When it comes to wounding mechanism, a blade is in many ways more traumatic than a bullet; it causes a much wider wound channel, more tissue disruption, and therefore more bleeding. The only thing that *sort of* holds back the lethality of a blade is the psychological effects that may prevent an attacker from putting full force into the strike. Firearms are somewhat psychologically easier to use, as the wounding mechanism is physically distanced from the actions of the aggressor.

Also, lead is not sufficiently toxic to the human body to be anything but a minor secondary concern, and that's assuming that it were even in a form to be absorbed by the victim, which (pro-tip!) a bullet is NOT. You will not get lead poisoning from being shot. Full stop. The human body will not absorb elemental (metallic) lead. It will *sort of* absorb lead oxide (that powdery white crap that lead rusts into), and it will readily absorb organic compounds of lead (like the combustion byproducts from leaded gasoline), but it will NOT absorb shiny metallic lead as from a bullet.



NOW, for the IMPORTANT bit of what I have to say:

You are all conflating a vanishingly tiny part of "the problem" with the *ACTUAL* problem.

Yes, in the context of mass murders where a determined attacker wants to randomly kill as many people as possible all in one event, a gun is more lethal than a knife or other weapon or instrument.

HOWEVER, only a tiny, tiny fraction of a percentage of homicides are of this type. While gun control might prevent a few dozen homicides of this type every year, it would NOT address the vast majority of homicides, which are the mundane, boring, doesn't-sell-airtime-and-newspaper type of crimes of passion. IE, husband catches his wife in bed with another man, and kills them both...with whatever weapon is most readily at hand. Disgruntled worker kills boss after argument... with whatever is at hand. For this sub-set of the crime of murder, if guns were not available, knives or other weapons would fill in with little difference in the technical effectiveness or ultimate lethality.

The vast majority of murders are crimes committed against a single individual, and in that context, a knife or other hand weapon is every bit as lethal as a firearm.
10580 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Rabbit Horse
Offline
Posted 2/29/16

outontheop wrote:
First, most bullet injuries are non-fatal. In fact, the vast majority of them are non-fatal. Death from a bullet injury is generally from one of a small number of wound mechanisms: disruption of the central nervous system, hypovolemic shock (bleeding out), or septicemia. Traumatic damage to organs other than the central nervous system *can* kill you, but in most cases it's not the actual damage to the organ that does it; it's because that organ has a high blood throughput, and damage to it rapidly causes hypovolemic shock (such as wounds to the heart, kidney, or liver).
NONE of those except damage to the central nervous system will kill an individual "on the spot".


and guess which part of the body the criminals often target when they use their gun (hint: it's in your quote). even if a single shot doesn't do the job, they can easily shoot multiple times.
"dying on the spot" and "dying because of excessive bleeding before receiving treatment in hospital" is pretty much the same to me.
37281 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 2/29/16

outontheop wrote:



NOW, for the IMPORTANT bit of what I have to say:

You are all conflating a vanishingly tiny part of "the problem" with the *ACTUAL* problem.

Yes, in the context of mass murders where a determined attacker wants to randomly kill as many people as possible all in one event, a gun is more lethal than a knife or other weapon or instrument.

HOWEVER, only a tiny, tiny fraction of a percentage of homicides are of this type.
While gun control might prevent a few dozen homicides of this type every year, it would NOT address the vast majority of homicides, which are the mundane, boring, doesn't-sell-airtime-and-newspaper type of crimes of passion. IE, husband catches his wife in bed with another man, and kills them both...with whatever weapon is most readily at hand. Disgruntled worker kills boss after argument... with whatever is at hand. For this sub-set of the crime of murder, if guns were not available, knives or other weapons would fill in with little difference in the technical effectiveness or ultimate lethality.

The vast majority of murders are crimes committed against a single individual, and in that context, a knife or other hand weapon is every bit as lethal as a firearm.


Perhaps I should not have singled out mass killings, and instead focused on killings in general. In the end, it is what I've been arguing. That banning a particular type of weapon will not solve the overall problem. Individuals or groups who are hell bent on killing will do it with whatever is available to them.

Machetes for example:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256293/More-500-people-slaughtered-machete-revenge-attacks-Christian-villages-Nigeria.html
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/29/16 , edited 2/29/16

namealreadytaken wrote:


outontheop wrote:
First, most bullet injuries are non-fatal. In fact, the vast majority of them are non-fatal. Death from a bullet injury is generally from one of a small number of wound mechanisms: disruption of the central nervous system, hypovolemic shock (bleeding out), or septicemia. Traumatic damage to organs other than the central nervous system *can* kill you, but in most cases it's not the actual damage to the organ that does it; it's because that organ has a high blood throughput, and damage to it rapidly causes hypovolemic shock (such as wounds to the heart, kidney, or liver).
NONE of those except damage to the central nervous system will kill an individual "on the spot".


and guess which part of the body the criminals often target when they use their gun (hint: it's in your quote). even if a single shot doesn't do the job, they can easily shoot multiple times.
"dying on the spot" and "dying because of excessive bleeding before receiving treatment in hospital" is pretty much the same to me.


Bro, do you even anatomy?

You know what the gold standard is for survival of a rifle-caliber bullet injury to the pneumothorax (upper torso) in military parlance?

They call it the "golden hour".

As in, if the medevac bird (or city ambulance) can get you to the hospital within an hour, your chances of survival are over 90%. There is essentially only one small area, about the size of a golf ball, in the human body that if damaged will lead to immediate death. Almost everywhere else can sustain massive trauma and still be survivable with medical assistance in (give or take) an hour.

I guess we have differing notions of "immediately", because an hour is a long time to receive medical aid.

Your original assertions are scientifically untenable. Period. People do not generally die of gunshot wounds immediately, or before receiving medical aid, where in comparison a penetrating blade injury to the neck is exceptionally easy to deliver, and results in *actual* immediate death (seconds, not minutes)

Also, criminals (nor, indeed, police or even well-trained soldiers) do not specifically target vital organs with gunfire. Many of them aren't even proficient with a firearm, and they certainly don't go to that level of minutia. They all tend to shoot center mass, and hit wherever they hit. With bladed implements, there is sometimes an attempt to target perceived vital points, but in even this case, they are often off, as most criminals don't actually know where the heart is, or how deep they need to go. They do, however, instinctively understand the neck is a vulnerable area, and there is instinctive pressure to target it with hand motions (to include blades). They're not often very *good* at it, thankfully, as the instinctive motions lead to slashing rather than thrusts against the neck, and open-hand strangulation (doesn't work) rather than actually effective stiff-handed strikes which can collapse a larynx. There is a heavy psychological influence from instinct at play there: evidence would indicate it is a behavioural holdover from displays of dominance in our more animalistic past: even today, making the neck vulnerable is a show of submission, dropping the chin to protect the neck is a show of defiance (or preparation to fight), and reaching for the neck is an instinctive attack.

Perhaps in addition to Fackler, you should read up on LTC Dave Grossman's studies. "On Killing" is an excellent primer on the psychological factors behind aggression and the deliberate act of killing. Very enlightening.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.