2 ms·

Guns aren't necessary to wreak havoc. He could have brought in explosives, poison gas, knives, etc.

by grandalf 14y ago

vacri 14y ago
Explosives are much harder to obtain and use effectively, poison gas is much less lethal than people think (blame movies - even the Nazi purpose-designed gas chambers took 20 minutes to kill people), and knives aren't anywhere near as effective as guns - for example, police don't use them to control suspects, and soldiers don't use bayonets anymore. If you get into a knife-fight with someone, you are going to fuck them up... but you are at high risk of also being fucked up yourself due to poor stopping power and close quarters. Now repeat for each of the 12 deaths and 58 maimings seen in this event. The Tueller drill says that it is dangerous to have an opponent within 21 feet even when you have a firearm, because they can cover that distance and be on you in 1.5 seconds, a short time even if you're ready and aware of their location and their intention. Now consider that all knife fights happen inside that distance. Seriously, it's not a valid comparison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
- grandalf 14y ago
  Those are good points, but if someone is crazy enough to want to harm lots of people in a theater it's unlikely that the difficulty of surviving unscathed will be a deterrent. And if the attack were not simply someone being insane (if for example it was terrorism intended to strike fear into people) then the success criterion is even lower b/c much fear would still be caused even if the only injuries were 5 people with smoke inhalation, and both "sides" in the issue benefit from amplifying the perceived severity. My point is that the specific munitions used does not significantly alter the strategic aspect of this (if there is any).

2 ms·

Guns aren't necessary to wreak havoc. He could have brought in explosives, poison gas, knives, etc.

by grandalf 14y ago

Guns aren't necessary to wreak havoc. He could have brought in explosives, poison gas, knives, etc.

vacri 14y ago
Explosives are much harder to obtain and use effectively, poison gas is much less lethal than people think (blame movies - even the Nazi purpose-designed gas chambers took 20 minutes to kill people), and knives aren't anywhere near as effective as guns - for example, police don't use them to control suspects, and soldiers don't use bayonets anymore. If you get into a knife-fight with someone, you are going to fuck them up... but you are at high risk of also being fucked up yourself due to poor stopping power and close quarters. Now repeat for each of the 12 deaths and 58 maimings seen in this event. The Tueller drill says that it is dangerous to have an opponent within 21 feet even when you have a firearm, because they can cover that distance and be on you in 1.5 seconds, a short time even if you're ready and aware of their location and their intention. Now consider that all knife fights happen inside that distance. Seriously, it's not a valid comparison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
- grandalf 14y ago
  Those are good points, but if someone is crazy enough to want to harm lots of people in a theater it's unlikely that the difficulty of surviving unscathed will be a deterrent. And if the attack were not simply someone being insane (if for example it was terrorism intended to strike fear into people) then the success criterion is even lower b/c much fear would still be caused even if the only injuries were 5 people with smoke inhalation, and both "sides" in the issue benefit from amplifying the perceived severity. My point is that the specific munitions used does not significantly alter the strategic aspect of this (if there is any).