Why use guns for killing

Post Reply New Topic

means shooting someone 6x is not a reasonable force. It is murder.

Oh God, yet another gun control advocate that knows nothing about guns...

Do you know what the only guaranteed way of dropping someone right in their tracks is? A shot to the CNS. While shots to the organs are lethal they do not guarantee incapacitation right off the bat. So it could take anything from 2 shots to even 15. Obviously the wise thing to do would be to shoot until he's no longer a threat. Why should any of us take your word for what constitutes "reasonable force"?

means shooting someone 6x is not a reasonable force. It is murder.

2 shots should suffice if your good at aiming one in the chest and one in the head.

he shooting spree that killed 12 people in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater on Friday has sparked a public debate about the availability of automatic weapons. Gun control advocates argue that mass murder is exceedingly difficult without them. One source told the Washington Post, “It’s kind of hard to be a pseudo-commando with a musket in the 18th century.” How did people commit mass murder before the advent of automatic weapons?

Often with fire. Revolutionary War veteran Barnett Davenport is widely considered the first mass murderer in U.S. history. On the evening of Feb. 3, 1780, Davenport burst into the bedroom of his employer, Caleb Mallory, and began to bludgeon Mallory and his wife with a club. When the club broke in two, Davenport beat the couple to death with Mallory’s gun. If Davenport had stopped there, he would be remembered as just an ordinary killer; most criminologists define mass murder as the killing of at least three people in a single incident. After beating the Mallorys to death, however, Davenport burned the house down, killing their three grandchildren.

Hundreds of other mass murderers have perpetrated their crimes without automatic firearms. Frenchman Pierre Riviere killed his mother, sister, and brother with a bill hook in 1835. In 1932, Julian Marcelino, a Filipino immigrant of relatively small stature, managed to kill six and wound 15 on a Seattle street using only a pair of blades. In 1915, Monroe Phillips shot seven dead and wounded 32 with a shotgun in Georgia.

Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

The U.S. mass murder rate does not seem to rise or fall with the availability of automatic weapons. It reached its highest level in 1929, when fully automatic firearms were expensive and mostly limited to soldiers and organized criminals. The rate dipped in the mid-1930s, staying relatively low before surging again in the 1970s through 1990s. Some criminologists attribute the late-century spike to the potential for instant notoriety: Beginning with Charles Whitman’s 1966 shooting spree from atop a University of Texas tower, mass murderers became household names. Others point out that the mass murder rate fairly closely tracks the overall homicide rate. In the 2000s, for example, both the mass murder and the homicide rates dropped to their lowest levels since the 1960s.

A mass murderer’s weapon of choice depends somewhat on his victims. Attacks with guns, fire, knives, and bare hands are far more likely to be directed against family and acquaintances than total strangers, while mass murderers prefer to use explosives against people they don’t know. Also of note: Those who use firearms in a killing spree turn the gun on themselves 34 percent of the time, while only 9 percent of mass-murdering arsonists take their own lives.

2 shots should suffice if your good at aiming one in the chest and one in the head.

01001011 wrote:

We haven't brought anything invalid unless you've re-defined the term. We have reality and you have emotion based wishful thinking.

Figure of speech; I should have stated it more factually.

"The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there."
I was partially wrong; they do not have it issued to them for practice but it is at least subsidized.

To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

It is, however, quite common to see a person serving military service to be en route with his rifle.

Conditions for getting a Carrying Permit
....

Transporting guns

Guns may be transported in public as long as an appropriate justification is present. This means to transport a gun in public, the following requirements apply:

The ammunition must be separated from the gun, no ammunition in a magazine.
The transport has to be direct, i.e.:
For courses or exercises hosted by marksmanship, hunting or military organisations,
To an army warehouse and back,
To and from a holder of a valid arms trade permit,
To and from a specific event, i.e. gun shows.[10]

How ironic it is such comment coming from a person who admits he would rather be a criminal than giving up his gun. Maybe the argument you brought, if any, is 'valid' in your little delusional mind.

"The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there."
I was partially wrong; they do not have it issued to them for practice but it is at least subsidized.

To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

It is, however, quite common to see a person serving military service to be en route with his rifle.

Conditions for getting a Carrying Permit
....

Transporting guns

Guns may be transported in public as long as an appropriate justification is present. This means to transport a gun in public, the following requirements apply:

The ammunition must be separated from the gun, no ammunition in a magazine.
The transport has to be direct, i.e.:
For courses or exercises hosted by marksmanship, hunting or military organisations,
To an army warehouse and back,
To and from a holder of a valid arms trade permit,
To and from a specific event, i.e. gun shows.[10]

Ok, now that I look at aSKperger's post again, I think I got too aggressive...

I.E. a direct comparison between the efficacy of gun vs spray in the hands of a lone woman trying to protect herself and her baby from a big nasty male attacker.

What exactly was the point of posting if you didn't consider the use of a gun, in a scenario comparing gun vs spray on a thread about killing people with guns?

There are many cases where non lethal means and martial arts trainings suffices. There are cases even an assault rifle is not enough.

Saying we're acting like as*holes for merely supporting gun rights?

2 shots should suffice if your good at aiming one in the chest and one in the head.

I think the fact, that police and security personnel is equipped with batons, tear gas, taser and other stuff verify this quite enough. Firearm is the last option used in specific situations.
But some people think of firearm as the first, last and only option. But we are not soldier at warzone, so we should consider the nonlethal options first.

I support gun rights too. And love shooting. But I just don't think it is necessary for public to carry guns on the streets. It is contraproductive and couses more harm than strick gun policy aka no guns (only at shooting ranges or in woods)