Oslo Blast Gun Derail

[FBM]

2.97%. That's the annual firearm-related homicide rate in the US per 100,000. Nowhere near the leader, who marks up over 50%.

[MrJonno]

2.97%. That's the annual firearm-related homicide rate in the US per 100,000. Nowhere near the leader, who marks up over 50%.

I don't if you are reading the same table but it shows me that the US murder rates are 4 times higher than any other western country

[FBM]

2.97%. That's the annual firearm-related homicide rate in the US per 100,000. Nowhere near the leader, who marks up over 50%.

I don't if you are reading the same table but it shows me that the US murder rates are 4 times higher than any other western country

Look in this column:

Firearm homicide rate
per 100,000 pop.

[mistermack]

And no, it's not harder to kill someone with a knife, it's far easier and more sure. I'd much rather face someone armed with a handgun than a knife because they are harder to use, require some skill to produce a killing shot, and are more easily evaded.

Congratulations, you've just proved what I suspected, that all of your talk about weapons is fantasy. You clearly have never used a gun in anger, if you can write such bollocks.

This from the hoplophobe to the retired police detective... Yawn.

Firstly, I will suggest some obvious defences against a knife, which are clearly not obvious to you, for some reason.

1) Run away. If you're a better runner, you are perfectly safe from a knife.
2) Swim away. Same thing applies.
3) Find an improvised weapon. An iron bar, or jack handle, or camera tripod, or even a solid lump of wood, would be handy. If there were two or three of you, the knifeman would not be favourite..

Wasn't talking about improvised weapons, escape or other defenses, was talking about a confrontation between a knife-wielding suspect and me, armed with a gun, versus a confrontation between a crook armed with a gun and me, armed with a gun.

What's clear is that you've obviously never seen your average street crook shoot. I have. You've also obviously never seen a man laid open from guggle to zatch in one sweeping slash of a straight-razor dying on the dance floor with his intestines out. I have.

I'd much rather face someone armed with a handgun than a knife because they are harder to use, require some skill to produce a killing shot, and are more easily evaded.

This has to be the most stupid thing you've ever written. (I hope). You've clearly never used a gun in anger.

Says the unarmed UK hoplophobe to the retired US police detective who's been packing heat for a quarter century.

You don't need to produce a killing shot. You just have to not-miss.

Really? Strange how we train to continue to defend ourselves and take out the opponent even after we've been wounded. It's the civilians and bad guys who fall down screaming when they suffer a minor wound. Sometimes they die of shock from a survivable wound primarily out of fear. But when you train to fight through the wound and prevail, you're less likely to be incapacitated by a flesh wound. Just ask the cops at the LA bank shootout.

Did you know that most guns hold more than one bullet? Especially those used by mass killers. You deserve some sort of award for that comment.

It's only one bullet at a time no matter how many are in the mag, and each one has to be properly aimed to hit the target with a debilitating blow. "Spray and pray" is not generally useful, unless you have a machine gun. All one has to do is be out of the path of each bullet and they are harmless in a fraction of a second. Sometimes that isn't possible, and you die. But again, crooks are notoriously bad shots. I'm not. I'm an exceedingly good shot, thanks to decades of training and practice.

And it's my experience that bad guys generally are not as well trained as police officers to stand fast and take careful aim in the face of incoming rounds. They tend to rabbit and fire wildly into the air, ground and adjacent objects rather than taking the time for target acquisition. You never hear the one that kills you, and in a firefight your accuracy on target is far more important than anything else, because a solid hit will stop the gunfight instantly. So, you take cover if you can, but if you can't, you exercise the skills you've learned after many hundreds of hours at the range and you put the assailant down with as few shots as possible and stop the fight.

Don't try to teach grandpa to suck eggs. You're trying to make fun of someone who has thousands of hours of defensive and offensive firearms training and decades of experience in law enforcement and firearms training and use, and you're making an ass out of yourself in the process.

Go back to shuffling your papers and let the experts pass out the reliable information on self-defense because you haven't a fucking clue.

Dream on Mister Mitty. Or can I call you Walter?
Your cover has been blown, and no amount of bullshit will hide you now.
Just go back to your silly books.

[MrJonno]

2.97%. That's the annual firearm-related homicide rate in the US per 100,000. Nowhere near the leader, who marks up over 50%.

I don't if you are reading the same table but it shows me that the US murder rates are 4 times higher than any other western country

Look in this column:

Firearm homicide rate
per 100,000 pop.

Ah the few 3rd world countries most of which have civil wars and insurrections going on, yup I give you than shopping in the US is probably safer than Somalia but wasnt safer when we had a civil war in Northern Ireland

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the very point some people are trying to make is objectively reasonable: If some of the victims had been armed and competent, the call to the police would have been to report an attempted massacre.

Had there been guns available, and people competent to use them, the death toll might have been "one". Note the word "competent". Seeth will posit that the entire first grade class should be packin', of course, but having a half-dozen teachers who can and will use firearms would be a much better, and saner, idea. Hunters and veterans, for example.

[FBM]

I think the very point some people are trying to make is objectively reasonable: If some of the victims had been armed and competent, the call to the police would have been to report an attempted massacre.

Had there been guns available, and people competent to use them, the death toll might have been "one". Note the word "competent". Seeth will posit that the entire first grade class should be packin', of course, but having a half-dozen teachers who can and will use firearms would be a much better, and saner, idea. Hunters and veterans, for example.

Thank you. For once, a reasonable solution proposed instead of PC-driven, empty rhetoric.

[mistermack]

Hunters and veterans, for example.

Strange, the very people most likely to end up as a loony gunman.

Is this some form of homeopathy? Fight the infection with the infection?
Would they have to be diluted a hundred thousand times?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the very point some people are trying to make is objectively reasonable: If some of the victims had been armed and competent, the call to the police would have been to report an attempted massacre.

Had there been guns available, and people competent to use them, the death toll might have been "one". Note the word "competent". Seeth will posit that the entire first grade class should be packin', of course, but having a half-dozen teachers who can and will use firearms would be a much better, and saner, idea. Hunters and veterans, for example.

Thank you. For once, a reasonable solution proposed instead of PC-driven, empty rhetoric.

Got a link to any of my PC-driven, empty rhetoric.

ETA, or did you mean my post was an alternative to that?

Damnit, speak Engrish!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Hunters and veterans, for example.

Strange, the very people most likely to end up as a loony gunman.

Evidence, please.

Is this some form of homeopathy? Fight the infection with the infection?
Would they have to be diluted a hundred thousand times?

Hunters and veterans are more likely to have been taught weapons discipline. Combat veterans and game hunters have seen things die and the sane ones know it's not a game.

There's a reason John Wayne wasn't a real Marine.

[Feck]

Man dressed as police man gets off boat asks if they have heard about the bomb , says it was an attack on the party ,asks if there are any guns held on the Island ... The idea if there were guns held on the island there would have been no massacre is not certain is it ?

the last figures I saw for the US stated that the ratio of crimes commited using guns to crimes stopped by guns was about 6:1

[MrJonno]

Man dressed as police man gets off boat asks if they have heard about the bomb , says it was an attack on the party ,asks if there are any guns held on the Island ... The idea if there were guns held on the island there would have been no massacre is not certain is it ?

the last figures I saw for the US stated that the ratio of crimes commited using guns to crimes stopped by guns was about 6:1

Wasting your time, these people live in their own little bubble (or is that bomb shelter), trying to explain that even Norwegian police don't carry guns never mind most civilians is something that will never compute with them

[FBM]

Man dressed as police man gets off boat asks if they have heard about the bomb , says it was an attack on the party ,asks if there are any guns held on the Island ... The idea if there were guns held on the island there would have been no massacre is not certain is it ?

Just police protocol, probably. And no, there's not a buttload of certainty in much of anything I can think of relating to human beavior, except that if you keep trying the same solutions, you're likely to get the same results. In this case, stacks of bodies and a nutcase getting 3 hots and a cot on the taxpayers' dime.

the last figures I saw for the US stated that the ratio of crimes commited using guns to crimes stopped by guns was about 6:1

Good reason to change the laws in the way 'zilla suggested, so we can turn those numbers around. Just need a segment of the population who knows how to handle firearms safely and be effective with them.

[FBM]

I think the very point some people are trying to make is objectively reasonable: If some of the victims had been armed and competent, the call to the police would have been to report an attempted massacre.

Had there been guns available, and people competent to use them, the death toll might have been "one". Note the word "competent". Seeth will posit that the entire first grade class should be packin', of course, but having a half-dozen teachers who can and will use firearms would be a much better, and saner, idea. Hunters and veterans, for example.

Thank you. For once, a reasonable solution proposed instead of PC-driven, empty rhetoric.

Got a link to any of my PC-driven, empty rhetoric.

ETA, or did you mean my post was an alternative to that?
Damnit, speak Engrish!

영어찮아. 참 우리 마찬가지야...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

the last figures I saw for the US stated that the ratio of crimes commited using guns to crimes stopped by guns was about 6:1

I'm willing to bet that your numbers include folks who have never had training in using weapons or self-defense techniques. When I was 24 I taught my mother some basics and she had to use them once. If she hadn't had the will to fight back and at least some small amount of knowledge things would have gone badly for her.