5 Killed in Campus Shooting

[Avenger]

Uhm, I don't think you understand the amount of damage 22 bullets from a rifle will do, Rocky. Unless this person got his/her arms and legs amputated, there is no way for them to have survived. If one is shot five times in the back, they will die. Maybe a handgun would allow them to survive 22 rounds (to the legs and arms alone), but the difference between a handgun and a rifle is that the rifle usually fires its rounds so fast, that the shockwave alone tears through flesh (if you miss someone with an M-16 by an incn or so, you'll still injure them partly).

When someone goes into shock, they have the habit of dying pretty fast, and combined with massive blood-loss, there tends to be few if any measures the paramedics can take to save the person's life. I'd rather risk jumping off a building than be shot 22 times by an AK (unless I wanted to die). At least then I have some way of limiting the damage.

Anyway, I kind of agree with Volkov. Personally I would rather be assaulted by men with heavy swords, than a crack-head with a gun. At least I'd have a chance of defending myself against someone using a melee weapon.

If I carried a shield, I could probably avoid getting arrow'd in the face as well. You can't possibly say that anyone would succeed in killing 88 people, or even 30, with a sword, unless they are extremely adept at its use. The fact is, the second anyone saw the spectacle, they would tackle said person, and or throw heavy objects at their temple, because there is no risk of being injured.

 

[Rocky]

Uhm, I don't think you understand the amount of damage 22 bullets from a rifle will do, Rocky. Unless this person got his/her arms and legs amputated, there is no way for them to have survived. If one is shot five times in the back, they will die. Maybe a handgun would allow them to survive 22 rounds (to the legs and arms alone), but the difference between a handgun and a rifle is that the rifle usually fires its rounds so fast, that the shockwave alone tears through flesh (if you miss someone with an M-16 by an incn or so, you'll still injure them partly).

When someone goes into shock, they have the habit of dying pretty fast, and combined with massive blood-loss, there tends to be few if any measures the paramedics can take to save the person's life. I'd rather risk jumping off a building than be shot 22 times by an AK (unless I wanted to die). At least then I have some way of limiting the damage.

Anyway, I kind of agree with Volkov. Personally I would rather be assaulted by men with heavy swords, than a crack-head with a gun. At least I'd have a chance of defending myself against someone using a melee weapon.

If I carried a shield, I could probably avoid getting arrow'd in the face as well. You can't possibly say that anyone would succeed in killing 88 people, or even 30, with a sword, unless they are extremely adept at its use. The fact is, the second anyone saw the spectacle, they would tackle said person, and or throw heavy objects at their temple, because there is no risk of being injured.

http://forum.esforces.com/showthread.php?t=72018 Here's the thread of the guy who fell from the building.

I'm not saying the story is true, I think it's stupid to think anybody could be hit by any kind of gun let alone a rifle and not sustain some form of injury. The point I'm trying to get across is impossible things do happen, and if somebody can survive a fall from a skyscraper, it is possible somebody could survive being shot 22 times from an AK-47. That is all.

About the other point, firstly, the number 88 is in reference to Kill Bill, considering that Beatrice Kiddo cut her way through O'ren Ishii's (sp?) personal army the crazy 88's. It was also a gross over-exaggeration, I'd have hoped you'd have at least picked up on that. You could also argue that if somebody is holding a rifle that there is possibly somebody from behind that could tackle and/or throw large heavy objects to stop them.

I personally, would rather be up against a person with a rifle and attempt to run the **** away, then try and tangle with a person with a really big sword. I would hope that they'd have ****ty aim and miss me, rather than stand up close and let them take a swing at me. Also and this might be off topic, but I'd rather be shot than stabbed.

As far as carrying a shield against a person with a bow/arrow, why not wear full armoured riot gear against those with guns. It's just silly to suggest that one weapon designed to kill people is any less than another weapon to design to kill people. In the end, they're both weapons designed to kill people and thats pretty much what they do, only some are more efficient at doing it than others.

-edit

Anyway I'm going to bed, I'm sure I'll enjoy reading your colourful reply tomorrow.

 

[Avenger]

My point is that it's far less likely to survive a barrage of bullets to your torso than to survive a fall from a skyscraper.

...Why would you run away from a person with a ranged weapon, but not a person with a heavy sword?

Also, "why not wear full riot armour"? Because there's nothing that protects against rifle-fire, and still lets you move reasonably freely. A bow has to load for every shot, and is far less accurate than a rifle (I know this, because I used to be an archer). Your argument "made to kill people" is ridiculous. The bow was not designed to kill people, it was designed to kill animals. You know, for eating?

I could argue that a pencil was designed to kill people, since it can - but I'd much rather be facing a lunatic with a pencil than a lunatic with a fully automatic rifle.

 

[Spunky]

Holy ****, 22 times? Putting aside vital organ damage, his blood pressure would have dropped to zilch in no time.

 

[wheres_]

So it was an AK47? And yeah thats exactly what i thought? i didnt feel like talking to her, so i kinda just got off after that. I'll ask her for details, because for one, im sure that someone gettin shot 22 times would've been on the news, and two.. im sure he wouldnt be ok. The torso is littered with organs, theres no way he got shot and lived there unless he was far away or something.

Thats the kinda logic you get out of the sex with the small brain. Probs can't even count to 22, stupid *****.

 

[john_volkov]

...Why would you run away from a person with a ranged weapon, but not a person with a heavy sword?

if you try to run from a ranged weapon you will probably be the first to get killed , and a sword it's verry hard not to notice it, or even a bow those things you can notice verry fast .An ak you can hide it even under your jacked and pull it out and start shooting,as for a bow you will need to have arrows hand , and the bow itself it's preaty big.

Oki one guy has a sword you can freaking chalage him he can like get one swing out of that sword before he can do an other (don't trust movies , movies like kill bill it's more to see someting fun),only some how the guy speed his all teenage life traing with the weapon from the day of birth to the day he started choping guys he wold be that good.

 

[Dzamija]

The bit in bold is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, you think if guns werent invented there'd be less killing?

Thing is, you can't actually get close to a guy with an uzi, while someone who maybe is trained in the martial arts or any fighting technique, who is generally better at fighting than the assaultant, can get close and take the ****er out. Not to mention that if swords were still used, kids couldn't get ahold of them that easily.

But yeah, killing would still be there. Hell, I think there was MORE killing in the middle ages when swords and arrows existed, since people had less rights and killing was less of a crime.

 

[Avenger]

The killing in the middle-ages was due to lack of social development. They weren't called the dark ages for nothing.

 

[Chakra-X]

Weren't sword-influenced battle very bloody? And what do you do if someone has robbed you and they are running away? I could come up with many more scenarios, but basically, the lack of range would be costly for law enforcement/protection.

 

[Avenger]

My point was mainly that assault weapons are pointless, and should be destroyed if they won't be contained properly in military facilities. Small arms should still be "legal", if they were registered and licensed.

 

[Killface]

Alright I'm talking to her right now.. she said that he got shot with a Shotgun shooting out bird shot (the pellets). That would explain the 22 shots.. since bird shot shouldn't go in THAT far into the body unless he was close. However that is just an assumption.. I don't know much about guns =P

And just to be sure, this is at NIU, right? Cuz thats where he got shot at.

 

[Avenger]

Shotgun is something entirely different. Slow moving pellets, and they're scattered. You can survive a shotgun blast easy (depending on the distance, of course).

 

[Rocky]

My point is that it's far less likely to survive a barrage of bullets to your torso than to survive a fall from a skyscraper.

...Why would you run away from a person with a ranged weapon, but not a person with a heavy sword?

Also, "why not wear full riot armour"? Because there's nothing that protects against rifle-fire, and still lets you move reasonably freely. A bow has to load for every shot, and is far less accurate than a rifle (I know this, because I used to be an archer). Your argument "made to kill people" is ridiculous. The bow was not designed to kill people, it was designed to kill animals. You know, for eating?

I could argue that a pencil was designed to kill people, since it can - but I'd much rather be facing a lunatic with a pencil than a lunatic with a fully automatic rifle.

I never said which scenario would be "more likely to kill" I just said that if a person can survive a fall like that, it's possible a person could survive being shot 22 times with an assault rifle. That is all, there's nothing more to discuss on the subject.

I also would run away from both sword and rifle, my comment was in reference to your saying that somebody would tackle the sword-wielding maniac or throw something at him/her.

Whether or not the bow was created to kill animals or people, is irrelevant since it has been used historically to kill people. So I don't think it's ridiculous to say that, bolt action sniper rifles need to be reloaded after every shot, that doesn't make them any less dangerous. As far as the pencil arguement goes, while there may be cases of people killing other people with a pencil, you can't possibly argue that a pencil has been used like a bow has. Historically, bows have been used en masse as a part of ancient armies, I don't think the same can be said for pencils. Far less accurate is a matter of skill. People who practice archery every day will be very adept at using the bow.

And so you'll lug around a massive shield to protect you from arrow fire, but you won't carry around a piece of titanium (or something I dunno) that protects you from rifle fire? Don't say stuff like that, it has no purpose. If you're willing to protect yourself from arrows, why not everything else that can harm you (including those killer pencils).

Anyway if we're discussing ancient weapons technologies, we can talk about crossbows, which add an inbetween of guns and bows. Basically, the overall point I'm trying to make is that weapons that kill people, succeed in killing people no matter what. If you're gonna ban one type of weapon, you might as well ban all types of weapons, let's also ban pencils, and any other object that might be used to inflict physical harm on another. What I think I'm trying to get at here, is that no matter what's available, kids are still gonna flip out and kill people/themselves.

***

Ahh in regards to the rest of the thread. A shotgun is far more believable than a rifle.