school shooting in Noblesville (teacher, charges, hospital)

[MillennialMaverick]

Originally Posted by MortonR

How about a bolt action rifle? That would do the trick. And it's certainly not a semiautomatic firearm. No way I could list all of the possibilities, but there are plenty of them.

RM

Indeed, Charles Whitman killed 17 people and injured 35 with a bolt action rifle. 52 direct victims. A motivated killer with the proper planning is capable of massive amounts of damage, no matter the tools he uses.

[W & C]

Originally Posted by MillennialMaverick

The student who shot up Sante Fe High School in Texas used a pump-action shotgun and a .38 revolver. No semi-auto weapons to speak off, still killed 10 people, injured a dozen more. That's 22 direct victims in a short amount of time. Point being; a motivated and deranged individual who has adequately planned for such an event can cause an extensive amount of damage no matter his choice of weaponry.



If the Vegas shooter was using a revolver or shotgun, he wouldn't have planned to carry out his plan in that setting. These killers know what they're doing. The Vegas shooter specifically picked that area and those firearms--designed for long range--because of his vantage point.



Let's not pretend that the tool results in amount of damage caused as opposed to the setting, planning, and execution of that plan by the murderers.

So had he been using a revolver or a shotgun in a different setting, would he have likely been able to rack up the same body/injury count ?

[MillennialMaverick]

Originally Posted by W & C

So had he been using a revolver or a shotgun in a different setting, would he have likely been able to rack up the same body/injury count ?

You're missing the point, those wouldn't be his weapon(s) of choice if he had decided on the different setting. These attacks aren't spur of the moment things, they're methodically and sadistically planned.


Would the truck attack in Nice have killed fewer people if he was driving on a highway as opposed to a crowded area? You bet. But the killer specifically chose a crowded area with a large vehicle because he knew it would cause maximum damage. It's not the tool that guarantees the destruction, it's the person, their planning, and their motivation to cause harm.



And like I said in another post, it's not the function-type or caliber of weapon that decides the destruction. Charles Whitman was up in an observatory tower and attacked over 50 people with a bolt action rifle. Other shooters in recent memory have used semi-automatic weapons and killed/attacked fewer people. Why? They didn't have the vantage point that Whitman did. Goes to show it's the plan and the execution of the plan, not the weapon.

[W & C]

Originally Posted by MillennialMaverick

You're missing the point, those wouldn't be his weapon(s) of choice if he had decided on the different setting. These attacks aren't spur of the moment things, they're methodically and sadistically planned.


Would the truck attack in Nice have killed fewer people if he was driving on a highway as opposed to a crowded area? You bet. But the killer specifically chose a crowded area with a large vehicle because he knew it would cause maximum damage. It's not the tool that guarantees the destruction, it's the person, their planning, and their motivation to cause harm.



And like I said in another post, it's not the function-type or caliber of weapon that decides the destruction. Charles Whitman was up in an observatory tower and attacked over 50 people with a bolt action rifle. Other shooters in recent memory have used semi-automatic weapons and killed/attacked fewer people. Why? They didn't have the vantage point that Whitman did. Goes to show it's the plan and the execution of the plan, not the weapon.

What point could I possibly be missing when all I'm doing is asking a very simple question (for the third time now, I might add) ?

Morton stated that a revolver or a shotgun are just as deadly as "automatic" weapons. And my question is that had a killer been equipped with one of these instead of he had, what kind of a body/injury count would have occurred ?

Yes, I generally agree with your observation that these attacks are premeditated and planned out to cause the maximum destruction with whichever tools that happen to be available at one's disposal. But that has nothing to do with the question that I've asked.

[MillennialMaverick]

Originally Posted by W & C

What point could I possibly be missing when all I'm doing is asking a very simple question (for the third time now, I might add) ?

Morton stated that a revolver or a shotgun are just as deadly as "automatic" weapons. And my question is that had a killer been equipped with one of these instead of he had, what kind of a body/injury count would have occurred ?

Yes, I generally agree with your observation that these attacks are premeditated and planned out to cause the maximum destruction with whichever tools that happen to be available at one's disposal. But that has nothing to do with the question that I've asked.

The reason your question isn't being entertained is because it's rhetorical. The scenario in which your question assumes wouldn't exist, because if the weaponry is restricted to a specific type, the killers will pursue a different plan.

Morton was not making the argument about the Vegas shooter being just as deadly with non-automatic weapons. You've inserted that situation yourself. Morton was saying that it's not the function of the weapon that makes it more or less dangerous, the weapons are lethal regardless. As someone who owns both semi-auto and non semi-auto firearms, I can attest that neither are more inherently deadly than the other. It's the situation one would use them in that determines their lethality.

I'll leave it here because I'm not a fan of circular arguments. I'm glad we can at least find agreement in that planning, motivation, and contextual aspects are the largest factors in determining the amount of destruction caused by these deranged beings.

[W & C]

Originally Posted by MillennialMaverick

The reason your question isn't being entertained is because it's rhetorical. The scenario in which your question assumes wouldn't exist, because if the weaponry is restricted to a specific type, the killers will pursue a different plan.

But that paragraph in itself answers my question quite nicely, does it not ? So, the assumption here is that - if restricted to only a revolver or a shotgun, the killer would likely seek a different way to achieve his goal than using firearms at all, like you just stated above. Therefore, a revolver/shotgun is less deadly than an automatic weapon.

And so, question answered.

Morton was not making the argument about the Vegas shooter being just as deadly with non-automatic weapons. You've inserted that situation yourself. Morton was saying that it's not the function of the weapon that makes it more or less dangerous, the weapons are lethal regardless. As someone who owns both semi-auto and non semi-auto firearms, I can attest that neither are more inherently deadly than the other. It's the situation one would use them in that determines their lethality.

I'll leave it here because I'm not a fan of circular arguments. I'm glad we can at least find agreement in that planning, motivation, and contextual aspects are the largest factors in determining the amount of destruction caused by these deranged beings.

Situation CAN determine lethality to a degree, however, certain weapons are generally considered more deadly than others because they can bring about greater mayhem and loss of life in a shorter span of time.

[MortonR]

Originally Posted by MillennialMaverick

The reason your question isn't being entertained is because it's rhetorical. The scenario in which your question assumes wouldn't exist, because if the weaponry is restricted to a specific type, the killers will pursue a different plan.

Morton was not making the argument about the Vegas shooter being just as deadly with non-automatic weapons. You've inserted that situation yourself. Morton was saying that it's not the function of the weapon that makes it more or less dangerous, the weapons are lethal regardless. As someone who owns both semi-auto and non semi-auto firearms, I can attest that neither are more inherently deadly than the other. It's the situation one would use them in that determines their lethality.

I'll leave it here because I'm not a fan of circular arguments. I'm glad we can at least find agreement in that planning, motivation, and contextual aspects are the largest factors in determining the amount of destruction caused by these deranged beings.

Don't feed the trolls. They'll just keep coming back... I've found that ignoring them is the most effective way of dealing with them. And well done, thank you!

RM

[MillennialMaverick]

Originally Posted by MortonR

Don't feed the trolls. They'll just keep coming back... I've found that ignoring them is the most effective way of dealing with them. And well done, thank you!

RM

Yeah I am starting to see that, especially with his latest response in which he makes an assumption based off of things I did not say or imply. Like I said, I'll leave it there and the rest of the viewers can determine what they will.


Thank you as well, I appreciate the advice!

[indy_317]

If a person uses a revolver, they are definitely not going to likely kill or injure as many people in terms of shooting. Saying a killer, if they could only get a revolver or lever action rifle would just change their method of attack is just speculation. If someone uses a box truck to run into people, that will cause more damage than if they used a moped. It is always possible a mass shooter, lacking magazine feed, semi-auto rifles and/or pistols, could decide to use a bomb. While that is a possibility, bombs are much harder to make than people realize. They are also harder to carry, conceal, etc.. I can conceal a Glock with thirty rounds and pretty much no one would know (good holster, pockets). It would be much harder to conceal even a one pound propane tank.

I'm well aware the future attackers will likely try something different. The question is will the body count be lower, thus saving more lives? Guess in the end it is all speculation. The using vehicles as weapons isn't new, but it it a trend that seems to be becoming more popular.

[W & C]

Originally Posted by indy_317

If a person uses a revolver, they are definitely not going to likely kill or injure as many people in terms of shooting. Saying a killer, if they could only get a revolver or lever action rifle would just change their method of attack is just speculation. If someone uses a box truck to run into people, that will cause more damage than if they used a moped. It is always possible a mass shooter, lacking magazine feed, semi-auto rifles and/or pistols, could decide to use a bomb. While that is a possibility, bombs are much harder to make than people realize. They are also harder to carry, conceal, etc.. I can conceal a Glock with thirty rounds and pretty much no one would know (good holster, pockets). It would be much harder to conceal even a one pound propane tank.

I'm well aware the future attackers will likely try something different. The question is will the body count be lower, thus saving more lives? Guess in the end it is all speculation. The using vehicles as weapons isn't new, but it it a trend that seems to be becoming more popular.

Common sense.