[kyp275]

This is just getting too long, so I'm just going to counter some of your most egregious claims.

Originally Posted by Mentar

And on what ground would that be? Other western civilizations already do this - in Germany, for example, if you "lose" an assault rifle during your army time, you immediately gain a criminal record. It's merely a matter of drafting the law accordingly.

Christ, on what ground? how about basic common law? go look up what vicarious liability is and why it's almost never used for criminal offense where intent is required.

Pitiful straw man.

sigh, naturally, any country that doesn't fit your assertion are automatically straw man Obviously only you can cherry pick when to ignore the fact that every country have their specific set of circumstances and can't be directly compared.

And so, what is your theory, in an attempt to deflect the obvious and logical correlation between availability of guns and lethal outcomes? Just for the record, Mexico was an attempt to _inject_ bias, so forgive me my scepticism that you are arguing in good faith.

I really couldn't give two shits whether you think I'm arguing in good faith at this point, if you want to see some logical and reasonable debates on the statistics, go back and read the posts between me and Ledgem.

I find it comforting that you would consider this "slinging mud", because it implies that you concede that it's tarnishing for the image to reject Global Warming, Cancer as result of smoking and so on. A true Believer would stick to his guns here (pun intended). I could list poll numbers and their correlation here, but that might be overdoing it.

No, I was referring to the fact that you just categorically labeled over 300 million people as ignorant, if you can't see what's wrong with that, then there really is no hope for you.

You didn't get my point. Either an attacker was successfully foiled prior to harming people, then it was no massacre in the first place. Or he was stopped after he killed people, then the attack wasn't successfully prevented. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, because cutting 20, 30, 40 deaths or more down to two is a complete and utter failure, and should totally not be attempted

*lol* Now let's listen to the expert ... okay, let's tackle your "knowledge" bit by bit. I'll admit that I have my informations only from my training during my Army days and the sources I've read due to interest. What is your background constituting your expertise?

My opinion of the German Army just went down a few notches, and of you even more, because you should know better. My background? just 10 years in the U.S. Marine Corps and a few combat tours in the desert.

Correct. However, in general it is the safest option and should be preferred if available.

No kidding, why did you think I put the "if can't deny shooter access" bit in there?

Why do you think that e.g. in hostage situations, professionals pretty much NEVER encourage hostages to try to attack if they are able to communicate with them, but rather to try to escape?

Two completely separate scenario. In a hostage situations, the criminal is trying to negotiate for something/seeking help, and the hostage is his/her leverage. In this case there's much more to be gained by negotiating for a non-hostile end to the situation, as oppose to risking lives and injury.

In a mass shooting scenario, there IS no hostage, the killer has no intention whatsoever at keeping people alive, if escape is not possible, and you cannot deny the shooter access to your location, then you either fight, or you die, it's simple.

Rushing someone with leveled automatic or even semi-automatic weapons is madness unless it is absolutely clear that

1) there is no reason to hope that the attacker will not fire on others than his primary target
2) there is no chance to escape

because the likelihood is extreme that you will be shot and killed.

Really? your solution to the problem of "If I don't do anything and just sit here I'm going to die" is to sit there and hope the crazy guy with the gun shooting at everyone won't shoot you for some reason?

You really have no f*cking clue at all. Let's take the massacre at hand, where the attacker used an AR-15 with 30-shot magazines of .223 ammo which tumbles and fragments inside the target's body, meaning that it delivers almost all of its kinetic energy to the target while ripping terrible wounds. If you receive torso shots of this you will NOT run on and grapple with the shooter, you will halt and go down.

I don't need you to give me a lecture on ballistics, ballistic jelly is one thing, actual human body in motion is quite another. Let's just say I've seen how ineffective the 5.56 can be on a real person, which btw is not an uncommon complain from troops on the field.

You should consume fewer movies and games and educate yourself on the issue some. I still can't believe that you babbled about headshots...

I would also go back and work on that sarcasm meter if I were you, 'cause apparently you seem to have miss the part where the headshot statement to show how ridiculous your assertion was.

More stupid gun-nut posturing. Stop pretending and give a direct quote of mine where you demonstrate where I was allegedly wrong. Put up or shut up. After your talk up there, I doubt that you have any more knowledge on this topic than a chickenhawk range-shooter gun nut who never got any combat training in the first place.

Here you go:

Originally Posted by Mentar

And it is sheer madness against automatic weapons under pretty much all circumstances, particularly assault rifles.

Neither of which was used in any school shooting, even though that's the scenario we were discussing.

As for the rest of your vitriol, I think I'll refrain from sinking down to your level.

Particularly for people who would otherwise be inferior, this is a major factor and lowering inhibitions, especially under the influence of drugs or alcohol. But I'm sure you know that.

Expert that you are.

Stay classy Mentar.