So I just survived a school shooting...
- Thread starter FaceFaceFace
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I've heard that people are often times unusually happy before they do it. Like they're thrilled they have "a way out" of they're situation.
Ah. Well, at least no one got harmed. 'cept him. Poor guy. Suicide is always sad.thethingthatlurks said:
That's child's play. My sister survived a grenade while cheering after the Bar Exams (It's a time-honored tradition that school spirit be shown in support of their would-be lawyers). Apparently they got bored and decided to go eat at the nearest McDonald's. 5 Minutes later, BOOM. 30 people or so injured, one became a double amputee. To answer the second question, no, it isn't blamed on videogames, but on the more rational gang violence.FaceFaceFace said:
I sense a troll, if someone shoots themselves at your school you dont go and post about it on a gaming website, acquiring an AK47 isnt an easy thing to do especially for a uni student, if he simply killed himself why use an AK, why not a pistol, this whole thing reeks of troll
I would. Two reasons, Escapist is not just gaming, forums tend to be about anything. Secondly, it's the only forum I use often and therefore I'm much more likely to post here. And thirdly (zomg bonus round) I would expect the usual 'videogames did it' argument to pop up soon and this is the place to discuss that.JackKrauserFtw said:
You are indeed (very generally at least) correct. The last point, however, is not entirely correct. An Assault Weapon (per the ban) had less to do with the performance and function of a particular weapon than it did with how said weapon looked. An Assault Rifle, from the historical standpoint, is quite different from it's contemporaries. They tend to have the capacity for automatic fire (volume of fire does wonders to cover an advance, especially when said advance is rapid enough that it cannot be covered effectively with crew served weapons) and they also have large magazine capacity (to reduce the time a soldier might spend reloading, which translates directly into a higher sustained volume of fire). Round per round, an assault rifle is just a rifle. Hell, most of the time, an assault rifle is fired in a semi-automatic fashion as automatic fire is generally used specifically for the purpose of maintaining volume of fire. If you take the US Army weaponry, you'll find that automatic rifle fire is used during times when the automatic riflemen are busy doing other things (reloading, swapping barrels, etc).manaman said:
The law that prohibited new automatic rifles from being sold (The Assault Weapons ban) expired in 2004.manaman said:
This is, very generally, true. With respect to the 5.56mm NATO round, the problem is, the current round in use tends to neither yaw nor fragment but rather simply penetrates straight through a target, resulting in a significant loss of energy. Additionally, those features that make the round stable in flight also lend said round a (generally) narrow wound channel. Thus why there have often been attempts to come up with a round that maintains all those positive aspects of the 5.56mm while compensating for the flaws present in many of said rounds.manaman said:
The 9mm round you mention is, without reservation or caveat, less energetic than a 7.62x39. It has more mass (most of the time, I'm quite sure I could find some extraordinarily light 9mm round and some unusually heavy 7.62x39 round), certainly, but the dramatically lower muzzle velocity is the telling difference. What's more, the particular design of the 7.62x39, while not terribly well suited to penetrating armor, tends to deliver a significant portion of it's energy to the target before exiting. In most any case you care to mention, the energy delivered to a fleshy target will be greater with a 7.62x39 than that 9mm parabellum.manaman said:
Even compared to other pistol cartridges, the 9mm parabellum round is inferior in most respects to many other common rounds. It carries significantly less energy than .40 S&W or .45 ACP (which are 1 mm and ~ 2mm larger respectively), and even less than the significantly smaller .357 Magnum. In exchange, you have a weapon that is easier to fire quickly (less recoil) with a larger ammunition count fitting into an equivalent space (12 rounds for a .40 S&W to a similarly sized 15 9mm magazine). In the case of the US, the transition was made not because the 9mm round is good, but rather because we were the only NATO nation still using a .45 ACP. Combine that with the fact that the m9 is, all things considered, actually an excellent weapon in spite of it's caliber and can be acquired for a fraction of the cost of the m1911a1 and it was a shoe in. To this day however, special operations units continue to use handguns in other calibers, as do police departments across the nation. When given a choice in the matter, few officers would actually choose to carry a 9mm when there are plenty of other, better, options available.
The .22 LR isn't a particularly useful round for killing people and, yet, it is the round of choice for especially small weapons. The 38 special is inferior even to other roughly equivalent rounds and yet it is still used thanks to it's amazingly low cost and low recoil. Unsurprisingly, in the realm of weapons designed for personal defense, lethality is not, nor has it ever been, the chief concern. I can certainly better defend myself with a full sized handgun that fires a .45 ACP round but such a weapon is large and difficult to conceal, has an uncomfortably large grip with the magazine is double stacked and is more expensive to maintain my proficiency in (in terms of ammunition cost). Thus why I opted for a short barreled, smaller caliber round. I maintain a reasonable ammunition count (10 rounds), and high probability of lethality (.40 has ~ 50% more energy at the muzzle than a 9mm round from the same handgun yet ~ 30% less than a .45 ACP), compact design (makes it easier to conceal and carry without discomfort) thanks to such a decision.manaman said:
I'm quite sure the post you are responding to is rubbish. Yes, a .50 BMG has a habit of removing limbs and turning people into hamburger but this has absolutely nothing to do with bullet drop. Instead, you find that, when you move an object rapidly through a fluid (the body works just fine) it creates a disturbance, that radiates outward. The more energetic the object, the more energetic the disturbance. The .50 BMG, simply put, has so much energy that, when introduced to the body, produces a wound channel that is frighteningly large (many inches on a side). Tissue has only so much capacity to stretch and shift before it gives leading to amputation and sudden torso cavity evacuation among other things. The reality of the matter is that the .50 BMG was never intended for use against people but was instead developed as an early anti-tank round. While it is certainly terrifyingly effective against people, other, smaller rounds work just as well for the purposes. To this day, the weapons in the US arsenal that use the .50 BMG are the M2HB, a machine gun that provides light anti-vehicle firepower in a (reasonably) mobile package, and one of several anti-material rifles (weapons that can deliver the hugely energetic .50 BMG round very precisely, commonly used to destroy or disable important things or as a counter-sniper weapon). The heft of the weapon (~120 lbs for the former and ~30 lbs for the latter) and the brutal recoil of the latter (not to mention blowback) mean that other weapons are still used in spite of the fact other options are inherently less lethal on a round per round basis.manaman said:
He was holding it and going "woohoo!" you say?
Sounds like he shot himself by accident then because it sounds like he was quite a cheerful fellow to me.
Sarcasm aside. You don't hear allot about depressed, suicidal people going "woohoo!".
Not to be insensitive or rude, but are you sure he didn't do it out of stupidity?
Not being rude or insensitive, just asking.
Sounds like he shot himself by accident then because it sounds like he was quite a cheerful fellow to me.
Sarcasm aside. You don't hear allot about depressed, suicidal people going "woohoo!".
Not to be insensitive or rude, but are you sure he didn't do it out of stupidity?
Not being rude or insensitive, just asking.
Ahem (see bold).spartan231490 said:
And as everyone's so helpfully pointed out that it's far less trouble to kill yourself with some pills, why didn't he do just that instead of acquiring a rifle and taking it into school?
As I said in another post, you've got to look at other school shootings (of which America has many) too in which the gunmen did kill others too.
hmm sounds a lot like my school, in the time ive been there (3.5 years) so far there has been.DCFowl said:
1 bomb threat,
1 attempted suicide
1 kid was killed by a car
science wing burnt down
something about sexual assault
kids selling 'home brew' alcohol
and not to long ago a teacher was caught looking up porn in a class. Oz schools ftw
as for that actual topic, how the hell did he get an AK47 into the actual school and then successfully shoot himself without anyone trying to stop him??
what about all the troubled individuals out there suffering from depression or who knows what who don't kill anyone, who own firearms. It has nothing to do with availability of firearms, if firearms weren't htere they would use bows, or swords, or kitchen knives. Firearms don't make the choice to kill people, the user does, and if you tried hard enough, you could kill someone with a feather, so availability of firearms have nothing to do with it.Woodsey said:
Its become a cliche, but it's good that no one else was hurt. And as much as you might be pissed off at the guy for willingly attempting to kill people (near that infamous clocktower as well) you still have to feel a little sorry for whatever was wrong with his life and made him think that would be a good idea.
I agree, though, that it would be bullshit if this was pinned on Video Games or something
I agree, though, that it would be bullshit if this was pinned on Video Games or something
Your the guy saying a 9mm glock is more powerful than an ak47...manaman said:
& about the bullet drop of a Barret cutting someone in half, yes I mean straight down the middle (but there are also cases where it is just torso separation). If you knew anything about military operations you would know that snipers are usually positioned at higher altitude. In that certain case he was on a cliff-side looking down at the battlefield from long range, which made the angle even more great when entering the other mans neck I believe. If you think it is laughably ridiculous then join the army and see what bullets can do for yourself.
I thought one of the rules of the escapist was no trolling?
He got the AK47 from illegal dealers probably (trust me, there are more of them than you think.Demented Teddy said:
And killed himself because he's insane, obviously
Yeah, I'd say I'd prefer to live anywhere but America with all the weapons and stuff... Although I guess China'd be bad too if you're too liboral. Or Korea/Thailand for that matter...Finch58 said:
Still, I think they should ban weapons in America (yes they'll make a fuss about it being their constitutional right to bear arms and it'll take a while [read: several decades] to get nearly all weapons either destroyed or stored away, but in the end they'll see the truth, and those who don't probably never have changed anyway)
Yeah, every state's different. I think states without waiting periods may outnumber those with waiting periods. Florida has waiting periods for long guns? I've never even heard of that before. Handguns, sure, but rifles generally don't.jacx said: