h a l f b a k e r ycarpe demi
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
When I'm at a crowded public event I often wonder:
"What
would we do if bunch of crazies stormed in here right
now
and started shooting everyone?" I would like to think
that
me and my fellow citizens would storm them and take
away their weapons by hand. There would be so many of
us,
and the attackers do have to reload or change
weapons. Yes, some would get shot, but as we know
from
zombie movies and video games, it's not that easy to
defend yourself from a massive number of unarmed
bodies.
What's worse (for the attackers) is that this would not be
slow, dumb zombies, these would be sprinting, dodging,
quick thinking humans. The only problem with that
approach is bravery. I doubt that in the moment I'd be
brave enough to actually take a bullet in the head for
the team. I'm sure my instinct to survive would make
me scurry away like a rat along with the rest.
Here is where the bullet proof shield comes in. Imagine
you hear gunshots and screams in the lobby of a crowded
cinema.
1) Grab one of the many readily available bullet proof
shields. They can look like part of the wall. Or they
could
even have ads on them. They are not noticeable until
you
need them.
2) Run towards the gun shots (along with 100 other like
minded individuals)
3) Storm the attackers, and take away their weapons.
Kick
them in the head a few times for good measure.
This is far safer alternative than the current trend of
people buying hand guns to protect themselves. First:
handguns are prohibited at public events already. So you
won't have your handgun when you really need it.
Second:
The logic for owning a gun is that you never know which
one of the people around you is crazy. They will try to
kill
you so you better be ready to defend yourself. But what
if
you are the crazy person and don't know it? The
definition
of being crazy is that you'll never know that you are
crazy.
You can never say "I'm not crazy" with any certainty. The
more certain you are that you are not crazy, the more
crazy you likely are. So now you have a bunch of armed
crazies running around town shooting each other.
Changing the solution from an offensive weapon to
defensive one solves this problem.
Edit: This has broader implications for gun control and
2nd amendment. Some people believe that the only
way to keep government in check is with the threat of a
violent citizen uprising. I won't debate whether that is
justified or not. However, if every citizen is given a
bullet proof vest, surely the government has to be in
line with the will of the people. If 1,000,000 shield
wielding citizens decide to
storm Washington and remove corrupt government of the
future they
will succeed - there is no doubt. Same goes for any
other
revolution.
Perhaps the way to help the citizens during an Arab
Spring type of uprising is to do a massive air-drop of
bullet proof shields. Much safer than arming
mentally unstable militia groups.
Suicide and Firearm access
http://www.hsph.har...-ownership-and-use/
[MechE, Jan 06 2016]
An average subway ride in the US
http://backgroundar...com/image/672910839
Link in suppor of xenzag's assertion that 'Everyone in the USA has at least ten guns each'. [DrBob, Jan 08 2016]
armigerous gun control
(Coat_20of)_20arms_...20safety_20measures
[not_morrison_rm, Jan 08 2016]
[link]
|
| |
You could perhaps pick up one of the first obviously-dead
victims of the attack, and use the body as a shield. |
|
| |
Fashion-setters could promote this by sending their models out with customised long bullet-proof shields slung on a shoulder-strap as part of a new urban look. Celebrities will help by wearing them to public engagements, and being photographed wearing them for gossip mags and tabloid papers. The latest season’s shield designs can be sold in trendy high-street shops. Before long, being out without your shield will be regarded as as odd as being out without shoes. |
|
| |
Like any volunteer force expected to act expeditiously and in the public good, one would need practice. There would be drills like fire drills where handy folks would be expected to stop what they were doing, grab a shield and rush the gunman. For practice these gunmen would be encouraged to wear special vests marking them as drill gunmen, not the real thing. Real gunmen would not be allowed to wear such vests. |
|
| |
And if we are going to practice why not practice with those automatic defibrillators that are mounted here and there. How many folks have actually cracked one of those and tried to use it? |
|
| |
And fires! Places have fire hoses mounted in stairwells. Extinguishers handy. I feel like I have even seen axes in glass cases. But how to use effectively? Ad hoc firefighting would also be more effective with a little practice. |
|
| |
[Bungston], that's brilliant, Public Emergency Preparedness. That's what a PEP rally was originally meant to be, I'm sure of it. |
|
| |
The definition of "bulletproof" needs to be specified.
One way, for example, includes lots of ricochets of
bullets (not good for someone else); another way
absorbs the energy of a bullet (typical BP vests; the
impacts STING!). Also, there are such things as "armor
piercing" bullets, which your typical BP item won't
stop.... |
|
| |
I'm pretty sure [bungston] is being facetious.
"Real gunmen would not be allowed to wear such
vests."
Sounds like an invitation for them, in their effort to get
away from the consequences! |
|
| |
Seeing as your talking about public places,
use metal detectors, then put tall impenetrable
bullet screens around the people who are
carrying guns. Or is that just too obvious? |
|
| |
I don't think stationed shields would work as they show their position. It would be good to have common objects, chairs, desks, white boards, to have panels of BP material. Good to hide behind but also to lead a counter offensive. |
|
| |
I am thinking less training and more gut instinct but tooled up. |
|
| |
Since a rancher was charged with "terrorism" in the form of
"arson" for starting a backfire that saved his ranch (and hurt
nothing) I'm more concerned about the US government than
any terrorism. |
|
| |
What does hiding the shields accomplish other than making
it harder to find one when you need it? |
|
| |
If you made this "bulletproof shields at pubic places" I could grant it a bun. I feel for those poor British soldiers in Afghanistan fighting in flak jackets and boxer shorts. I mean I sympathize, not grope around for them, so far. |
|
| |
I think it goes deaths per annum, bad driving
33,000, shot by another citizen 30,000 and
about 900 shot by the police. |
|
| |
BTW, if you look at US fatalities for the 20th
century then bad driving killed more than the
German and Japanese armies combined. |
|
| |
So best option is to go for a public transport
system that works and cheap. |
|
| |
/ bad driving killed more than the German and Japanese armies combined/ |
|
| |
I would have thought the Germans at least would be better drivers than that. |
|
| |
Me too, it's not like it's driving on the other side
of road. |
|
| |
Perhaps panzer driving skills don't transfer
that well? |
|
| |
" I think it goes deaths per annum, bad driving 33,000, shot by another citizen 30,000 and about 900 shot by the police. " |
|
| |
Your numbers made me go look to see if that was approximately accurate. Wikipedia sez: |
|
| |
in the United States results in thousands of deaths and injuries annually. |
|
| |
[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) |
|
| |
[2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000), |
|
| |
[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm, |
|
| |
[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm, |
|
| |
[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent" |
|
| |
[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.[1][6] |
|
| |
The placement of those numerals may be off a little, which is one of the reasons I don't carry when I'm drinking. |
|
| |
Hmm, that many suicides... |
|
| |
So, no1 priority would be fix the transport
systems, as that's the biggest and non-disease
killer. |
|
| |
…which is why I think “total deaths by firearm" is a disingenuous way to represent the data. Suicides are nearly 2/3 the firearm deaths. Now, suicides are most definitely unfortunate, but they don’t present a hazard to others. That’s not a “nice” discussion to have, but there it is. |
|
| |
There’s enough homicide by firearm in the US to qualify as a huge problem, without conflating the issue with misinformation. |
|
| |
Far and away, the inflicting of nonfatal injuries is the favored use for firearms. This gets back to my scheme of giving away rubber bullets. |
|
| |
I've test fired some of those condom rounds. |
|
| |
I think short bullets should be shielded as well. |
|
| |
//1) Suicide percentage does not change
significantly in the gun-only sample. What this
means is guns do not affect the rate of suicides.// |
|
| |
Um, that argument is not actually supported by
the evidence. You are neglecting the fact that the
firearm data is subsumed in the broader data. |
|
| |
It does mean that access to guns causes the suicide
and other violent death rates to go up
proportionally, but it does not touch on whether or
not firearms access increases the suicide rate. |
|
| |
In fact, if guns are harder to get (less common in
the home) the suicide rate does drop. (see link) |
|
| |
Both the vast majority of suicides and the vast
majority of homicides are impulsive acts. Ease of
access to a means of carrying them out increases
the rate, and it's logical to believe that the rate
would increase roughly proportionally. |
|
| |
That data also excludes the larger number of Americans
who are shot but not killed each year, which amounts to
about 70k, including 15k children. |
|
| |
I'm starting to think homicide might be the answer. |
|
| |
Interesting statistics, but I don't think they really tell us
anything useful. |
|
| |
If I wanted to kill someone, based on my inexperience
and my education watching movies and TV, I'd guess that
a gun might be the most effective way to do that safely.
Therefore it's not surprising that a large percentage of
homicides are committed with a gun. |
|
| |
The legal intervention statistic is somewhat interesting.
There are 12 times as many done with guns. That could
mean that when a gun is used to intervene, it is 12 times
as likely that the offender will end up dead. That could
also mean that, it is 12 times more likely that someone
will intervene or that the intervention will be successful.
The reality is probably that the majority of legal
interventions don't actually result in a death. So without
a lot of additional data, we can't draw a conclusion. |
|
| |
What we really need to know are how many additional
homicides were committed because guns were available,
how many homicide attempts were prevented because
the possibility of an armed victim gave the perpetrator
pause, how many homicide attempts were prevented by
the victim or a bystander being armed, then weigh that
with the probability of government oppression and
invasion. |
|
| |
With enough study I believe it should be possible to
conclusively prove that there is no way to reduce the
uncertainty on such statistics to the point where when
added together the errors don't make any conclusion
impossible. |
|
| |
Alternatively, try tracking funding for the NRA,
logically speaking this would be Al Quaeda's
easiest route. |
|
| |
//indicating that guns do not greatly influence a
person's decision to kill themselves// |
|
| |
Once again, that is not in evidence. You are
comparing suicide to violent death, not suicides as
a percentage of the population. Despite the total
number of guns owned in the US, only about 32% of
households have a gun. Even assuming that every
person in those households have access to the
gun(s), that still means that 2/3rds of the
population does not have routine access to
firearms. |
|
| |
Therefore, if firearm access were not a factor in
increasing suicide (or any type of violence), you
would expect the numbers to be about 2/3rds non-
firearm to 1/3 firearm. The fact that 51.6% of
suicides are by firearm indicates that suicide is
about 1.5x more likely in a household with a gun
than in one without. |
|
| |
...Unless the decision to commit suicide was precipitated by going out and getting a gun. |
|
| |
Lies, lies and damned statistics. |
|
| |
It wasn't. See my link for more comprehensive
analysis of the data than my comments here. Put
simply, easy access to the means of suicide increases
the rate of suicide. |
|
| |
Again, I am not asking you to take my unsupported
word. Look at my link. Read the papers it cites. |
|
| |
Given that 51.6% of the suicides in your numbers are
by fire arm, even 42% (and that's the number Gallup
reports, not 47%) household gun ownership
would represent a 22-23% higher than expected
suicide rate by firearm. |
|
| |
Are guns not a problem outside the USA? This discussion seems rather tenuously related to the idea. |
|
| |
Everyone in the USA has at least ten guns each. They need them as they are all terrified of each other, on account of everyone having ten guns each. In the future only those with more than ten guns and a tank will survive in America. |
|
| |
This is why we can't have nice things (like respectful debates). |
|
| |
...Anyhow - I'm just not confident about the logical link being made. Surely "reason for obtaining the firearm" is critical to making that assumption. Similarly, "length of ownership of the firearm before the incident". |
|
| |
How about selling all the front-row tickets to tall
people? |
|
| |
Except that there is no evidence that gun
ownership is around 50%. There is evidence that it
is significantly lower. |
|
| |
And yes, firearms based suicide attempts are more
likely to be fatal. So? It doesn't change the fact
that access to firearms results in more suicides. |
|
| |
It's sort of like gun advocates pointing to mass
knifings in countries with restrictive gun laws,
while ignoring the fact that these incidents
typically have numbers like 1 dead 7 injured, as
opposed to 7 dead 1 injured from mass shootings.
Yes, attacks, or suicide attempts will still happen,
but the harm from them is hugely reduced. |
|
| |
I think there are lots of reasons to restrict gun ownership. |
|
| |
That people inclined to suicide, in a society which does little else to help them, choose to use firearms because they are effective; is not one of them. |
|
| |
Restricting gun ownership away from people inclined to suicide might also work. I for one, am not inclined to suicide, so I don't need anyone to take my guns away from me for this imagined threat. |
|
| |
...But I'm not a US citizen, just an interested observer. |
|
| |
//If I wanted to kill someone, based on my inexperience and my education watching movies and TV, I'd guess that a gun might be the most effective way to do that safely//
Especially if you also obtain a police uniform...and one of those bullet-proof shields that I hear they are going to put up in public places. |
|
| |
Refers back to own armigerous gun control.
Does what it says on the bend sinister. |
|
| |
//Especially if you also obtain a police uniform...and one
of those bullet-proof shields that I hear they are going to
put up in public places. |
|
| |
That's actually the perfect reason to have bullet-proof
shields. When what you are describing happens; grabbing
a shield, approaching the shooter and taking away their
gun when they are reloading is far more effective than
some kind of a wild shootout (without shields). |
|
| |
//Call it a hunch based on evidence of record gun
sales in the past year.// |
|
| |
Which has zero basis in reality. The same surveys
absolutely show that the number of guns per capita is
increasing, which is what causes your record gun
sales. However, more and more of those guns are in
fewer and fewer hands. |
|
| |