Boy kills teacher in Spain

[billvon 2,400]

>Zombie apocalypse.

There ya go. I think I saw that movie.

[kallend 1,623]

turtlespeed

*********>Depends on the situation.

In what situation would an intelligent military decide to equip their troops with crossbows instead of guns?

How loud is the bang of a cross bow?

When quiet is needed, or when limited penetration of a projectile is needed, there are almost unlimited uses.

So every soldier in the US military is trained on the use of cross bows? Or is it maybe more in the realm of 1 out of every 50,000 or more?

Unbelievable how hard of a time people have admitting that a gun is efficient at killing people, that is the reason most people carry is for defensive purposes. It is also the reason it is so often used for offensive purposes.

I said that bows have their place.
I also said that a firearm is much more efficient.

What you ACTUALLY wrote was "Usually, a fire arm is more efficient, but bows have their place."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kadde 0]

Im not sure if you guys are just making jokes or not.
Kid with ~25 teachers names on a list comes to school with a crossbow (must i remind you that a crossbow fires once, then anyone can basicly run up to him and punch the little sucker in the face if they wanted) he is forced to start finishing his molotov cocktail and thats when a teacher comes over to stop him with a stick but it simply ends with them both dropping thier weapons.

Now how can you possibly think that an assault rifle wouldnt have done a "better" job here? No time to think or change your mind - drop 5 people a second if you are "lucky".

Maybe i just dident get your irony, in that case ignore this post.

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

************>Depends on the situation.

In what situation would an intelligent military decide to equip their troops with crossbows instead of guns?

How loud is the bang of a cross bow?

When quiet is needed, or when limited penetration of a projectile is needed, there are almost unlimited uses.

So every soldier in the US military is trained on the use of cross bows? Or is it maybe more in the realm of 1 out of every 50,000 or more?

Unbelievable how hard of a time people have admitting that a gun is efficient at killing people, that is the reason most people carry is for defensive purposes. It is also the reason it is so often used for offensive purposes.

I said that bows have their place.
I also said that a firearm is much more efficient.

What you ACTUALLY wrote was "Usually, a fire arm is more efficient, but bows have their place."

Am I not allowed to paraphrase myself? I didn't use quotes.

What is your point?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[gunver79 0]

turtlespeed

What is your point?

It's rather the question what your point is. It has been said that the boy in the given scenario could have managed to wreak much more havoc before he came to his senses if he had a gun.

Champu countered with the argument that killing is not only about technical or mechanical action, but also about the psychological ability to do so.
While this is true, the level of psychological training needed increases with decreasing distance to the target. It's a lot harder to kill someone in hand-to-hand-combat than with a knife, it's a lot harder to kill someone with a bow than with a rifle and so on. The psychological cost (trauma, chance of PTSD) increases, too. The actual psychological mechanism is more complex, but what it boils down to is:

SkyDekker

a gun makes that easier to do. Less messy than sticking the knife in or connecting the bat to the skull.

Therefore, it has already been made clear in this thread, that modern firearms make it easier to kill not only mechanically but also psychologically.
At which point I am really wondering what your point is.

I can already hear someone joking around that German military is not real military and that I therefore have no idea what I am talking about. Please note that your OWN military guys are in complete agreement with me on the basic psychological principles of killing, which in fact, they have researched and made established in the field. I don't not expect you to take my word for it, you may prefer to read it for yourself:
http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316040932/
http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920549/

Please also note that since I am no US citizen I have no opinion on whether the US should have stricter gun control laws or not. I'm simply not in favor of pointless arguments that are purely based on misconceptions.

[turtlespeed 212]

gunver79

***What is your point?

It's rather the question what your point is. It has been said that the boy in the given scenario could have managed to wreak much more havoc before he came to his senses if he had a gun.

Champu countered with the argument that killing is not only about technical or mechanical action, but also about the psychological ability to do so.
While this is true, the level of psychological training needed increases with decreasing distance to the target. It's a lot harder to kill someone in hand-to-hand-combat than with a knife, it's a lot harder to kill someone with a bow than with a rifle and so on. The psychological cost (trauma, chance of PTSD) increases, too. The actual psychological mechanism is more complex, but what it boils down to is:

SkyDekker

a gun makes that easier to do. Less messy than sticking the knife in or connecting the bat to the skull.

Therefore, it has already been made clear in this thread, that modern firearms make it easier to kill not only mechanically but also psychologically.
At which point I am really wondering what your point is.

I can already hear someone joking around that German military is not real military and that I therefore have no idea what I am talking about. Please note that your OWN military guys are in complete agreement with me on the basic psychological principles of killing, which in fact, they have researched and made established in the field. I don't not expect you to take my word for it, you may prefer to read it for yourself:
http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316040932/
http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920549/

Please also note that since I am no US citizen I have no opinion on whether the US should have stricter gun control laws or not. I'm simply not in favor of pointless arguments that are purely based on misconceptions.


Ummm, my point is that Someone reiterated what I wrote,
Then I paraphrased what I said, and Kallend corrected me, (because that is what he likes to do, he lives to try to correct people), So I asked him what his point was.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,122]

The point is simple:

The pro-gun crowd in the US perceives any negativity towards guns as an immediate attack on freedom.

Killing is generally negative, so when anybody mentiones that guns are quite effective at killing, there is an immediate reaction to try and downplay that assertion.

The reaction is so ingrained, it is very similar to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pthhpQU1-dQ#t=6

[kallend 1,623]

turtlespeed

***************>Depends on the situation.

In what situation would an intelligent military decide to equip their troops with crossbows instead of guns?

How loud is the bang of a cross bow?

When quiet is needed, or when limited penetration of a projectile is needed, there are almost unlimited uses.

So every soldier in the US military is trained on the use of cross bows? Or is it maybe more in the realm of 1 out of every 50,000 or more?

Unbelievable how hard of a time people have admitting that a gun is efficient at killing people, that is the reason most people carry is for defensive purposes. It is also the reason it is so often used for offensive purposes.

I said that bows have their place.
I also said that a firearm is much more efficient.

What you ACTUALLY wrote was "Usually, a fire arm is more efficient, but bows have their place."

Am I not allowed to paraphrase myself? I didn't use quotes.

What is your point?

Your paraphrase was modified to change its emphasis significantly. You inserted a new modifier ("much") and deleted another ("usually").

Good example of weaseling.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

gunver79

It has been said that the boy in the given scenario could have managed to wreak much more havoc before he came to his senses if he had a gun.

Champu countered with the argument that killing is not only about technical or mechanical action, but also about the psychological ability to do so.

While this is true, the level of psychological training needed increases with decreasing distance to the target. It's a lot harder to kill someone in hand-to-hand-combat than with a knife, it's a lot harder to kill someone with a bow than with a rifle and so on. The psychological cost (trauma, chance of PTSD) increases, too. The actual psychological mechanism is more complex, but what it boils down to is:
***a gun makes that easier to do. Less messy than sticking the knife in or connecting the bat to the skull.

Therefore, it has already been made clear in this thread, that modern firearms make it easier to kill not only mechanically but also psychologically.

I will certainly agree that the psychological challenge of killing can decrease with increasing range, making walking up to someone with a hammer and clubbing them to death "harder" than shooting someone on the street with a rifle out of a third story window. I think if you're in the five to ten yard range inside a building a crossbow and a firearm probably aren't all that different in that regard. (I can't speak from experience.)

My statement was that given what I've read about this incident, I don't think a rifle for the crossbow would have changed the outcome much. I think people are assuming that automatically means I think Sandy Hook would have had the same result if Adam Lanza had a crossbow and that's not my argument at all, nor do I believe that.

This incident reminds me of the guy at LAX a couple years ago who went in with a rifle (a scary black one with 30 round mags) to "kill pigs." He killed one TSA agent and injured a few other people before holing up in a corner. It is not as common as people assert for a weapon's efficiency to be the limiting factor in how many people get killed when something tragic like this happens.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

champu

It is not as common as people assert for a weapon's efficiency to be the limiting factor in how many people get killed when something tragic like this happens.

Agreed, a much bigger limiting factor is the ease with which a perpetrator can get their hands on the weapon that allows them to kill within their psychological make up/training.

This boy had access to cross bow and knife easily. Yet, he chose the cross bow. As you have asserted, there is a rather large question if this murder would have taken place if all he had easy access to was a knife.

[champu 1]

SkyDekker

***It is not as common as people assert for a weapon's efficiency to be the limiting factor in how many people get killed when something tragic like this happens.

Agreed, a much bigger limiting factor is the ease with which a perpetrator can get their hands on the weapon that allows them to kill within their psychological make up/training.

It's not clear to me that "Agreed..." was the correct way to start that sentence. I may not be parsing it correctly.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

I am agreeing that the weapon's efficiency is the limiting factor in how many people are getting killed.

Then I am stating that the limiting factor is more driven by the ease at which a perpetrator can get their hands on weapons etc etc.

You stated that the psyche is involved with a person's ability to commit murder. I agree. You also agreed that this influence is probably reduced by the distance involved.

This incident somewhat proves that. The boy had access to knives and a cross bow. He chose the cross bow, likely because it prevented him from having to stab some one, which would have been harder psychologically.

[gunver79 0]

So your point was that the limiting factor on many occasions is the willingness/determination of the perpetrator and not his psychological (or technological) ability? Then I misunderstood you and you clearly have a point.

But think about this: Given that having a firearm makes it psychologically easier to kill someone relative to most other types of weapons this also reduces the minimum willingness/determination required that is necessary for someone to actually get killed in such an incident. I am aware that this belongs to the realm of speculation, it's just meant as food for thought.

I agree that in the given incident it probably would not have changed much. Still, 'not much' can easily mean the difference between the life or death of one more person.

SkyDekker

The boy had access to knives and a cross bow. He chose the cross bow, likely because it prevented him from having to stab some one, which would have been harder psychologically.

Just for clarification: This is about the only point that I tried to make above (and one that obviously isn't really challenged by anyone here. At least by now).

[champu 1]

SkyDekker

I am agreeing that the weapon's efficiency is the limiting factor in how many people are getting killed.

This is not helping to clarify your last post.

gunver79

So your point was that the limiting factor on many occasions is the willingness/determination of the perpetrator and not his psychological (or technological) ability? Then I misunderstood you and you clearly have a point.

But think about this: Given that having a firearm makes it psychologically easier to kill someone relative to most other types of weapons this also reduces the minimum willingness/determination required that is necessary for someone to actually get killed in such an incident. I am aware that this belongs to the realm of speculation, it's just meant as food for thought.

I agree that in the given incident it probably would not have changed much. Still, 'not much' can easily mean the difference between the life or death of one more person.

I was probably mixing willingness/determination with psychological ability but yes, I think the overall mental state of the person is going to be the most common limiting factor. I appreciate the food for thought and, yes, "not much difference" could translate to "a couple more people being injured and another person being killed" depending on the situation, which I understand is a bit cold to try and downplay.

Measures to keep weapons (crossbows and rifles alike) out of the hands of children and the mentally ill are swell. Once you start regulating how many bolts you can keep with your crossbow or rounds in the magazine of the rifle you're off in weeds in terms of saving lives. It's silly to use an incident like this as an example of the failings or futility of firearms laws like the OP intended, or as an example of the success of firearms laws as the person I originally responded to intended.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

This is not helping to clarify your last post.

That's just because you have already decided to be obtuse.

[Andy9o8 0]

SkyDekker

Quote

This is not helping to clarify your last post.

That's just because you have already decided to be obtuse.

[pedant]
I think as a matter of definition it is impossible for one to decide to be obtuse. It is, however, possible to be intellectually dishonest and decide to feign obtuseness.
[/pedant]