Driver1 0 #1 April 22, 2015 And he didn't need a gun to do it. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/boy-in-spain-attack-burst-into-tears-after-killing-teacher/ar-AAbsG74There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #2 April 22, 2015 Murder rates per 100,000 population: USA - 4.7 (3.3 with guns) Spain 0.8... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #3 April 22, 2015 Driver1And he didn't need a gun to do it. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/boy-in-spain-attack-burst-into-tears-after-killing-teacher/ar-AAbsG74 When it happens in Spain it is global news. Not sure it even makes the local news cycle when it happens in the US. Like running over a stray cat....no big deal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kadde 0 #4 April 22, 2015 "It was the first time that a teacher has been killed at a school in Spain since 1975."' In the same article. Also, he got the weapons from his fathers collection. (crossbow and knifes) Imagine if his father had a collection of assault rifles... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #5 April 22, 2015 KaddeImagine if his father had a collection of assault rifles... QuoteA 13-year-old boy armed with a crossbow and knife who killed a teacher at his school in Spain "burst into tears" after he realised what he had done. Probably wouldn't have made any difference. The idea that a particular weapon "makes it easy" to kill a bunch of people presupposes that the mechanical act of causing enough damage to multiple human bodies such that they die is the most difficult part of of killing a bunch of people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #6 April 22, 2015 Kadde"It was the first time that a teacher has been killed at a school in Spain since 1975."' In the same article. Also, he got the weapons from his fathers collection. (crossbow and knifes) Imagine if his father had a collection of assault rifles... The Spaniards had a history of using crossbows to inflict genocide on conquered civilians. Glad to see they're hanging onto their past. Imagine if German dads kept collections of Zyklon B in their closets. Things that make you go hmmm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #7 April 22, 2015 QuoteThe idea that a particular weapon "makes it easy" to kill a bunch of people presupposes that the mechanical act of causing enough damage to multiple human bodies such that they die is the most difficult part of of killing a bunch of people. In that case, couldn't you guys save a lot of money by outfitting your military with bow and arrow in stead of guns? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #8 April 22, 2015 SkyDekkerQuoteThe idea that a particular weapon "makes it easy" to kill a bunch of people presupposes that the mechanical act of causing enough damage to multiple human bodies such that they die is the most difficult part of of killing a bunch of people. In that case, couldn't you guys save a lot of money by outfitting your military with bow and arrow in stead of guns? If we also don't train them physically and mentally (to the extent one can ever be trained mentally for combat) and sell them on the idea that the enemy they are up against is worth killing (if they aren't sold already) then, yeah... we may as well give them a bow and arrow. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #9 April 22, 2015 champu***QuoteThe idea that a particular weapon "makes it easy" to kill a bunch of people presupposes that the mechanical act of causing enough damage to multiple human bodies such that they die is the most difficult part of of killing a bunch of people. In that case, couldn't you guys save a lot of money by outfitting your military with bow and arrow in stead of guns? If we also don't train them physically and mentally (to the extent one can ever be trained mentally for combat) and sell them on the idea that the enemy they are up against is worth killing (if they aren't sold already) then, yeah... we may as well give them a bow and arrow. But with the training being equal, a gun would be somewhat more efficient to kill than the bow and arrow. Or not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #10 April 22, 2015 SkyDekker******QuoteThe idea that a particular weapon "makes it easy" to kill a bunch of people presupposes that the mechanical act of causing enough damage to multiple human bodies such that they die is the most difficult part of of killing a bunch of people. In that case, couldn't you guys save a lot of money by outfitting your military with bow and arrow in stead of guns? If we also don't train them physically and mentally (to the extent one can ever be trained mentally for combat) and sell them on the idea that the enemy they are up against is worth killing (if they aren't sold already) then, yeah... we may as well give them a bow and arrow. But with the training being equal, a gun would be somewhat more efficient to kill than the bow and arrow. Or not? Depends on the situation.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #11 April 22, 2015 SkyDekker***If we also don't train them physically and mentally (to the extent one can ever be trained mentally for combat) and sell them on the idea that the enemy they are up against is worth killing (if they aren't sold already) then, yeah... we may as well give them a bow and arrow. But with the training being equal... ...and the selling them on the idea of killing the people they're up against, you left off that part. That part is equally if not more important... SkyDekker...a gun would be somewhat more efficient to kill than the bow and arrow. Or not? It depends, really, but probably. In recent (and ongoing) conflicts in the middle east? Yeah. If you're in the woods for long periods and don't expect to encounter more than one or two "bad guys" at a time then a bow and quiver of arrows might be a better choice. It's quieter, lighter, and you can probably reuse the arrows several times. But you're intentionally drifting this exchange away from my point. When it comes to someone going on a shooting spree (not synonymous with "mass shooting" as the FBI defines it, mind you) you replace "mental preparation and being sold on the justice of taking the life of your enemy" with "profound mental illness." And it's this profound mental illness that is way more rare than firearm ownership, or even "assault weapon" ownership however broadly that term is defined. Without the profound mental illness, no weapon makes killing large numbers of people easy. Based on this Spanish kid's reaction to having killed one person I don't think the situation would have been much different if he had a firearm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #12 April 22, 2015 So would you say that in more situations the gun is more efficient or the bow and arrow? If the answer is the bow and arrow, why has your military leadership been so stupid for all these years? Shouldn't you at least hire somewhat capable members in the officers rank? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #13 April 22, 2015 QuoteBut you're intentionally drifting this exchange away from my point. Lol, no that's what you did with your original comment. Once people have made up their minds that they are going to kill, the gun is a pretty efficient weapon to do so. Sure we can all think of some pretty scenarios where another type of weapon is more efficient. But, there is a reason why pretty much all militaries around the world outfit their soldiers with guns in stead of cross bows, or pipebombs or etc etc. All that additional weaponry tends to be on top of the firearm, not in stead of the firearm. I'll never understand why people will argue that they need a gun for self defence, but then refuse to admit it is a pretty efficient weapon to kill some one with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #14 April 22, 2015 SkyDekker I'll never understand why people will argue that they need a gun for self defence, but then refuse to admit it is a pretty efficient weapon to kill some one with. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"; Emerson.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastRodriguez 0 #15 April 22, 2015 Andy9o8***"It was the first time that a teacher has been killed at a school in Spain since 1975."' In the same article. Also, he got the weapons from his fathers collection. (crossbow and knifes) Imagine if his father had a collection of assault rifles... The Spaniards had a history of using crossbows to inflict genocide on conquered civilians. Glad to see they're hanging onto their past. Imagine if German dads kept collections of Zyklon B in their closets. Things that make you go hmmm. The things i learn in dz :D"I don´t stop when I am tired. I stop when I am done" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #16 April 22, 2015 SkyDekkerQuoteBut you're intentionally drifting this exchange away from my point. Lol, no that's what you did with your original comment. How could I have possibly drifted away from the point of my original comment with my original comment? SkyDekkerOnce people have made up their minds that they are going to kill, the gun is a pretty efficient weapon to do so. I've said nothing to the contrary. I'm done with your trolling nonsense in this thread. I don't think I need to add anything else to the point I've presented. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #17 April 22, 2015 QuoteHow could I have possibly drifted away from the point of my original comment with my original comment? Lol, unless you started the thread your comment is not the original comment. So if some one started the drifitng.... QuoteI've said nothing to the contrary. Then what is your point, that it is still hard to kill if you don't have the right mindset...agreed, and a gun makes that easier to do. Less messy than sticking the knife in or connecting the bat to the skull. QuoteI'm done with your trolling nonsense in this thread. lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #18 April 22, 2015 SkyDekkerSo would you say that in more situations the gun is more efficient or the bow and arrow? If the answer is the bow and arrow, why has your military leadership been so stupid for all these years? Shouldn't you at least hire somewhat capable members in the officers rank? Usually, a fire arm is more efficient, but bows have their place. http://www.quora.com/Are-bows-used-by-any-modern-military-unit-in-combatI'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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #19 April 22, 2015 champu***QuoteBut you're intentionally drifting this exchange away from my point. Lol, no that's what you did with your original comment. How could I have possibly drifted away from the point of my original comment with my original comment? Because you're sneaky like that?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #20 April 23, 2015 >Depends on the situation. In what situation would an intelligent military decide to equip their troops with crossbows instead of guns? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #21 April 23, 2015 QuoteIn what situation would an intelligent military decide to equip their troops with crossbows instead of guns? Zombie apocalypse. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #22 April 23, 2015 billvon>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.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #23 April 23, 2015 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Driver1 0 #24 April 23, 2015 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. Rambo says crossbows are used by pussies. There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #25 April 23, 2015 SkyDekker******>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.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
