Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > The Woodshed

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 07-26-2012, 01:16 PM
adamt adamt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie View Post
We're just talking about the possibility of friendly fire in certain situations.
i understand, but i just didn't want the dialogue to slip too much into a hypothetical scenario and based on nothing but "what ifs".

that's too much like saying we have to allow all abortions because what if the mother was raped/incest/life at danger, which is like a total of less than 4 percent.

if friendly fire occurred 4 percent of the time i would still be for arming people against evil idgits like aurora.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 07-26-2012, 01:22 PM
PRShrek's Avatar
PRShrek PRShrek is offline
Formerly Dethbob
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamt View Post
and since i am on a roll, i propose that any place that wants to proclaim themselves gun free ought to be required by law to provide security for the people they are disarming and also be held liable for any damages that occur while under their watch
Now THAT is an interesting idea! I suppose you're thinking small, like theaters and restaurants, but maybe once the precedence is established it could be applied on a larger scale... like, say, New York City?
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 07-26-2012, 02:07 PM
PRShrek's Avatar
PRShrek PRShrek is offline
Formerly Dethbob
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamt View Post
if friendly fire occurred 4 percent of the time i would still be for arming people against evil idgits like aurora.
I was actually calculating around two percent, but four sounds fair enough. I figure the odds of getting shot by the bad guy at around sixty percent, about the same whether I’m shooting back or hiding/begging/fleeing. The odds of other people getting shot if no one does anything: One hundred percent.

I figure the odds of getting shot fighting back empty handed at around seventy five percent, nothing-verses-gun is less than optimal, but I'm betting even at my age I can still cross a room and shoulder check a weirdo faster than he can change a magazine.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 07-26-2012, 08:01 PM
adamt adamt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRShrek View Post
I was actually calculating around two percent, but four sounds fair enough. I figure the odds of getting shot by the bad guy at around sixty percent, about the same whether I’m shooting back or hiding/begging/fleeing. The odds of other people getting shot if no one does anything: One hundred percent.

I figure the odds of getting shot fighting back empty handed at around seventy five percent, nothing-verses-gun is less than optimal, but I'm betting even at my age I can still cross a room and shoulder check a weirdo faster than he can change a magazine.
+1
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 07-26-2012, 08:28 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,982
Default

Its like military strategy in this thread

...Erm...American Friendly fire might be an issue...it certainly has been on the battlefield I'm afraid
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 07-26-2012, 08:50 PM
PRShrek's Avatar
PRShrek PRShrek is offline
Formerly Dethbob
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
...Erm...American Friendly fire might be an issue...it certainly has been on the battlefield I'm afraid
Another potshot Dave?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_111972.html

Quote:
Nine British troops have been injured in a "friendly fire" incident in Helmand, Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed. A UK Apache helicopter opened fire on troops from 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment on Wednesday after they were "mistaken for the enemy".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...iers-dead.html

Quote:
A British tank crew who killed two Army colleagues with 'friendly fire' in Iraq were not told about a change to their firing boundaries, an inquest has heard.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 07-26-2012, 09:05 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,982
Default

oh yes...we do it to

But I do honnestly think in a room full of smoke, with a stunded population that doesnt know who, or how many are shooting...if others opened fire, there would definately be crossfire...those who arent armed are running, they could get in the way.

...some may not have even been aware after a couple of shots that it wasnt just part of the film if they were over the otherside...I dont know...its very, VERY easy to pretend that if we were in the situation we would know what to do and execute a plan of action which would work...but its a kinda phantasy that will never be prooved

As I said in my weekly video blog...this wasnt about gunlaws...this was really a case of, legal, or illegal, one mad person using a firearm to massicre as many as possible....no amount of gun laws will save you from that...and neither will any amount of concealed carry except circumstantially by those who rehash it like this in retrospect.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 07-27-2012, 12:30 PM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,484
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
oh yes...we do it to

But I do honnestly think in a room full of smoke, with a stunded population that doesnt know who, or how many are shooting...if others opened fire, there would definately be crossfire...those who arent armed are running, they could get in the way.

...some may not have even been aware after a couple of shots that it wasnt just part of the film if they were over the otherside...I dont know...its very, VERY easy to pretend that if we were in the situation we would know what to do and execute a plan of action which would work...but its a kinda phantasy that will never be prooved

As I said in my weekly video blog...this wasnt about gunlaws...this was really a case of, legal, or illegal, one mad person using a firearm to massicre as many as possible....no amount of gun laws will save you from that...and neither will any amount of concealed carry except circumstantially by those who rehash it like this in retrospect.
On a side note: I read that the majority of mass murders are on antidepressants.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 07-27-2012, 01:43 PM
PRShrek's Avatar
PRShrek PRShrek is offline
Formerly Dethbob
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar View Post
On a side note: I read that the majority of mass murders are on antidepressants.
The standard rebuttal to that is ‘of course they were on meds, they’re crazy!’ but depression is not ‘shooting everyone’ crazy. This medication is for people who can’t get out of bed, there are other medications for getting people off the ceiling, and the mass shooters are rarely people on those.

Interestingly, these antidepressants work by tampering with the chemistry of the brain. A close friend of mine tried these briefly and she said they helped her depression largely because they helped her to stop caring about other people. Without the constant need to consider the feelings of others she was better able to sort out her own stuff. Imagine if her problem had been that caring about others was preventing her from shooting them all.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 07-28-2012, 04:23 AM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

I gotta weigh in on this "crossfire" or "friendly fire" topic. It's a point that I am seeing brought up more and more when the discussion of gun control comes up after tragedies like this.

It's a flawed argument from the get-go, because typically people are running AWAY from the psycho who is shooting into a crowd, so it's much less likely that any bullets fired TOWARD the psycho in question are in danger of killing any innocents. Obviously it's not 100%, but what do you want? We ARE talking about a psycho (or psychos in the case of Columbine) shooting at people without prejudice.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.