Newtown School Shootings

[Hooahguy]

Yeah but that's kind of his point isn't it? His way is the only way Taliban & co manages to be effective against the US Army: by their use of improvised explosives, which work indiscriminately even against far superior equipment and training.

They certainly do not win by their superior marksmanship, discipline or the quality of their guns.

I think a counter point could be the Chechen rebel/terrorist "armour hunter-killer teams" against the Russian forces but then again their equipment and organisation is very striking and they used a variety of more heavy weaponry (which most people in America would not have) in combination with the trusty old molotov.

Fair point, you got me, though looking at the statistics, IEDs only caused around 66% of all casualties, so there can still be a serious amount of casualties caused by small arms fire. Also within the gun community there is a high importance of accuracy, so Id bet US rebels here would be more accurate. Though I also wonder how quickly Russia or China would jump to help arm rebels in the US with bigger and better weapons?

As for relying on the state to protect us, that is something everyone wants, but the fact is, police response time is well over 5 minutes in most major cities, and 5 minutes is a very long time. Its sad that we must rely on arming ourselves if we want to feel safe but its the sad reality of the times we live in. If an armed attacker enters my home, I refuse to cower in my closet as I pray for the cops to arrive.

Though overall I have to overall agree with you. We do need stricter laws when it comes to guns. Banning them outright wont do jack, even if you just ban assault rifles. There are too many and how are you going to enforce it? What we do need, in addition to better mental health care, is more care devoted to tracking weapons and background checks.

[Greyblades]

As for relying on the state to protect us, that is something everyone wants, but the fact is, police response time is well over 5 minutes in most major cities, and 5 minutes is a very long time. Its sad that we must rely on arming ourselves if we want to feel safe but its the sad reality of the times we live in. If an armed attacker enters my home, I refuse to cower in my closet as I pray for the cops to arrive.

I get the point and its valid, though I'd think a soldier wouldn't need a gun to subdue an attacker in close quarters, even armed.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You have an impressive admiration for soldiers and the military structure that supports them. I think that you've gotten this through fanciful pursuits. Soldiers are tough, but they are mortal men. Western Military's are easily caved, especially when they don't have the support of the civilian population that they are serving. Soldiers are also more emotionally fragile now then they have been in times past for some reason. You think of it as a big unstoppable special forces machine. There is a reason that they are called "special". It'd because they are not the norm.

[Hooahguy]

I get the point and its valid, though I'd think a soldier wouldn't need a gun to subdue an attacker in close quarters, even armed.

Lets ignore the soldier thing for a second consider that most people arent in the military nor have military close quarters training. When I get married, and Mrs. Hooahguy is alone in the house and I was away somewhere and an intruder entered the house, Im sure she would want something substantial to defend herself with.

Soldiers are also more emotionally fragile now then they have been in times past for some reason.

PTSD has been around since the dawn of time, it was just called shell shock, combat stress, and now PTSD. Soldiers in WWI had it, in WW2, in Korea, Vietnam, and so forth. Do you think soldiers in the Napoleonic Wars didnt get it? Of course they did. Everyone who was on the front lines got it in some form or another. The difference now is that such a small percentage of people in this country serve or have served, so integrating back into society is so much harder because so few people can understand what they went through, and through this lack of understanding by the civilian sector we get this "tough guys dont show emotions" routine that the military is just starting to break. In WW2 it was like 11% who went into the military? Now its something like below 1% last I heard. But dont take it from me. Ask GC or MRD.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Lets ignore the soldier thing for a second consider that most people arent in the military nor have military close quarters training. When I get married, and Mrs. Hooahguy is alone in the house and I was away somewhere and an intruder entered the house, Im sure she would want something substantial to defend herself with.


PTSD has been around since the dawn of time, it was just called shell shock, combat stress, and now PTSD. Soldiers in WWI had it, in WW2, in Korea, Vietnam, and so forth. Do you think soldiers in the Napoleonic Wars didnt get it? Of course they did. Everyone who was on the front lines got it in some form or another. The difference now is that such a small percentage of people in this country serve or have served, so integrating back into society is so much harder because so few people can understand. In WW2 it was like 11% who went into the military? Now its something like below 1% last I heard. But dont take it from me. Ask GC or MRD.

Nonsense, rates are much higher and so are suicide rates. Explosive ordinances are much more damaging to the human brain than they have ever been. War has always been much worse than it is now, but traumatic brain injuries without death have never been as likely.

[Hooahguy]

Nonsense, rates are much higher and so are suicide rates. Explosive ordinances are much more damaging to the human brain than they have ever been. Ware has always been much worse than it is now, but traumatic brain injuries without death have never been as likely.

You act as if artillery and ordnance is a brand new thing. Humans have been bombing the hell out of each other since gunpowder was invented.

Traumatic brain injuries doesnt equal PTSD, by the way.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I was under the impression that a causal link has been suggested all year.

[Greyblades]

You have an impressive admiration for soldiers and the military structure that supports them. I think that you've gotten this through fanciful pursuits. Soldiers are tough, but they are mortal men. Western Military's are easily caved, especially when they don't have the support of the civilian population that they are serving. Soldiers are also more emotionally fragile now then they have been in times past for some reason. You think of it as a big unstoppable special forces machine. There is a reason that they are called "special". It'd because they are not the norm.

Um, actually I'm not under the impression the average soldier are super human or anything, just that considering that even basic trained soldiers are going to be a more capable in hand to hand than the average thief/muderer.

Lets ignore the soldier thing for a second consider that most people arent in the military nor have military close quarters training. When I get married, and Mrs. Hooahguy is alone in the house and I was away somewhere and an intruder entered the house, Im sure she would want something substantial to defend herself with.

May I suggest a tazer and/or mace? That way the intruder stays alive and you get an opportunity to give him several kicks in the nuts before the cops arrive.

[Hooahguy]

May I suggest a tazer and/or mace? That way the intruder stays alive and you get an opportunity to give him several kicks in the nuts before the cops arrive.

1) Taser: Not guaranteed to put the attacker down. Ive seen way too many videos of people needing multiple tases plus some manhandling to subdue. Plus they recover after a little while so I hope you got to cable ties handy to tie him up.

2) Mace: Will not stop a determined attacker. Its good if you need to delay the attacker so you can run, but to stop him dead in his tracks? Not good enough. In police training cops are trained to withstand mace. Also, we were at a demonstration in ROTC of MP's (military police) getting a monthly mace test. They get sprayed and have to react to certain situations to ensure they can still function without full use of their eyes. From the looks of it, some of the MP's seem to have built up something of a resistance.
Hilarious to watch though.

EDIT: Also, intimidation is half the battle. Whats more terrifying? The barrel of a shotgun or pistol, or a taser?

[ICantSpellDawg]

One or two armed people in an entire school keeping a maniac from running through rooms as quickly might do alot to lower the body count. Just making them think harder could cut it down a bit. They will probably die, but they would probably die anyway. I like the L.A. Police chief's idea of sending multiple police officers to stop by every school in the city randomly a couple times a day.

[Greyblades]

1) Taser: Not guaranteed to put the attacker down. Ive seen way too many videos of people needing multiple tases plus some manhandling to subdue. Plus they recover after a little while so I hope you got to cable ties handy to tie him up.

2) Mace: Will not stop a determined attacker. Its good if you need to delay the attacker so you can run, but to stop him dead in his tracks? Not good enough. In police training cops are trained to withstand mace. Also, we were at a demonstration in ROTC of MP's (military police) getting a monthly mace test. They get sprayed and have to react to certain situations to ensure they can still function without full use of their eyes. From the looks of it, some of the MP's seem to have built up something of a resistance.
Hilarious to watch though.

EDIT: Also, intimidation is half the battle. Whats more terrifying? The barrel of a shotgun or pistol, or a taser?

A shotgun with a tazer round?