Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: So If We Ban Guns...
  • Subject: So If We Ban Guns...
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: So If We Ban Guns...

Country: United States.
State: Pennsylvania.
County: Warren.
I graduated from high school on June-11-2011. I'm 19 right now. I'm turning 20 in December. I like playing video games, and board games. I like reading Sci-Fi, and World War II novels, and what not.

"There is nothing better in the world than being better at a video game than someone else....oh wait"

Posted by: Sev808
If I recall correctly, police are told to consider the life of everyone involved...including the shooter.

This has nothing to do with the topic, but it has been bothering me. Let's say you have a kidnapped victim with a plastic bag taped around their head. And the shooter out in the open hiding behind things. By out in the open I mean the ground force can't see him, but the sniper can. This person is making pop shots at the ground force. So they can't get to him easily.

How long would they spend negotiation with the shooter? Because at any minute that victim can die due to asphyxiation. If it was up to me I would snip the shooter as soon as I get the shoot and rush to the victim.

[Edited on 12.15.2012 5:28 AM PST]

  • 12.15.2012 5:25 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member

“Strange,” mused the Director, as they turned away, “strange to think that even in Our Ford’s day most games were played without more apparatus than a ball or two and a few sticks and perhaps a bit of netting. imagine the folly of allowing people to play elaborate games which do nothing whatever to increase consumption.”

The Black Chapter!

Posted by: BerzerkCommando
This has nothing to do with the topic, but it has been bothering me. Let's say you have a kidnapped victim with a plastic bag taped around their head. And the shooter out in the open hiding behind things. By out in the open I mean the ground force can't see him, but the sniper can. This person is making pop shots at the ground force. So they can't get to him easily.

How long would they spend negotiation with the shooter? Because at any minute that victim can die due to asphyxiation. If it was up to me I would snip the shooter and rush to the victim.
You misunderstand. If there is a threat to life, then the shooter is fair game. However, if the situation is stable and there is no immediate threat then ending the situation peacefully rather than just barging in and killing him is preferable.

  • 12.15.2012 5:27 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: BerzerkCommando
Posted by: Sev808
If I recall correctly, police are told to consider the life of everyone involved...including the shooter.

This has nothing to do with the topic, but it has been bothering me. Let's say you have a kidnapped victim with a plastic bag taped around their head. And the shooter out in the open hiding behind things. By out in the open I mean the ground force can't see him, but the sniper can. This person is making pop shots at the ground force. So they can't get to him easily.

How long would they spend negotiation with the shooter? Because at any minute that victim can die due to asphyxiation. If it was up to me I would snip the shooter and rush to the victim.
I believe that if they identify that the hostage was in immediate danger (the sniper sees that she has a plastic bag over her head) they will immediately start an assault on the compound. So the sniper would incapacitate the shooter and the police would send in the SWAT.

  • 12.15.2012 5:28 AM PDT

Just dance 4- Lindsey Stirling

Dead-body-ologist at The U.S. Army 18th Medical Command

Posted by: BerzerkCommando
Posted by: Sev808
If I recall correctly, police are told to consider the life of everyone involved...including the shooter.

This has nothing to do with the topic, but it has been bothering me. Let's say you have a kidnapped victim with a plastic bag taped around their head. And the shooter out in the open hiding behind things. By out in the open I mean the ground force can't see him, but the sniper can. This person is making pop shots at the ground force. So they can't get to him easily.

How long would they spend negotiation with the shooter? Because at any minute that victim can die due to asphyxiation. If it was up to me I would snip the shooter and rush to the victim.
If a tactical team can't make an assault than negotiations continue till an opportunity presents itself...Police Snipers aren't given that kind of tactical leeway. It's a whole different dynamic say if the Army was conducting the op. There are many variables that play into command decisions.

Telec got it.

[Edited on 12.15.2012 5:30 AM PST]

  • 12.15.2012 5:28 AM PDT

Country: United States.
State: Pennsylvania.
County: Warren.
I graduated from high school on June-11-2011. I'm 19 right now. I'm turning 20 in December. I like playing video games, and board games. I like reading Sci-Fi, and World War II novels, and what not.

"There is nothing better in the world than being better at a video game than someone else....oh wait"


Posted by: Telec
Posted by: BerzerkCommando
This has nothing to do with the topic, but it has been bothering me. Let's say you have a kidnapped victim with a plastic bag taped around their head. And the shooter out in the open hiding behind things. By out in the open I mean the ground force can't see him, but the sniper can. This person is making pop shots at the ground force. So they can't get to him easily.

How long would they spend negotiation with the shooter? Because at any minute that victim can die due to asphyxiation. If it was up to me I would snip the shooter and rush to the victim.
You misunderstand. If there is a threat to life, then the shooter is fair game. However, if the situation is stable and there is no immediate threat then ending the situation peacefully rather than just barging in and killing him is preferable.

Thanks.

  • 12.15.2012 5:29 AM PDT

Just dance 4- Lindsey Stirling

Dead-body-ologist at The U.S. Army 18th Medical Command

Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: BerzerkCommando
Posted by: Sev808
If I recall correctly, police are told to consider the life of everyone involved...including the shooter.

This has nothing to do with the topic, but it has been bothering me. Let's say you have a kidnapped victim with a plastic bag taped around their head. And the shooter out in the open hiding behind things. By out in the open I mean the ground force can't see him, but the sniper can. This person is making pop shots at the ground force. So they can't get to him easily.

How long would they spend negotiation with the shooter? Because at any minute that victim can die due to asphyxiation. If it was up to me I would snip the shooter and rush to the victim.
I believe that if they identify that the hostage was in immediate danger (the sniper sees that she has a plastic bag over her head) they will immediately start an assault on the compound. So the sniper would incapacitate the shooter and the police would send in the SWAT.
A word I tend to avoid as much as possible.

  • 12.15.2012 5:31 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: Sev808
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: BerzerkCommando
Posted by: Sev808
If I recall correctly, police are told to consider the life of everyone involved...including the shooter.

This has nothing to do with the topic, but it has been bothering me. Let's say you have a kidnapped victim with a plastic bag taped around their head. And the shooter out in the open hiding behind things. By out in the open I mean the ground force can't see him, but the sniper can. This person is making pop shots at the ground force. So they can't get to him easily.

How long would they spend negotiation with the shooter? Because at any minute that victim can die due to asphyxiation. If it was up to me I would snip the shooter and rush to the victim.
I believe that if they identify that the hostage was in immediate danger (the sniper sees that she has a plastic bag over her head) they will immediately start an assault on the compound. So the sniper would incapacitate the shooter and the police would send in the SWAT.
A word I tend to avoid as much as possible.
A word that to me means "shoot him until he longer presents a threat".

  • 12.15.2012 5:34 AM PDT

Just dance 4- Lindsey Stirling

Dead-body-ologist at The U.S. Army 18th Medical Command

Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Sev808
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: BerzerkCommando
Posted by: Sev808
If I recall correctly, police are told to consider the life of everyone involved...including the shooter.

This has nothing to do with the topic, but it has been bothering me. Let's say you have a kidnapped victim with a plastic bag taped around their head. And the shooter out in the open hiding behind things. By out in the open I mean the ground force can't see him, but the sniper can. This person is making pop shots at the ground force. So they can't get to him easily.

How long would they spend negotiation with the shooter? Because at any minute that victim can die due to asphyxiation. If it was up to me I would snip the shooter and rush to the victim.
I believe that if they identify that the hostage was in immediate danger (the sniper sees that she has a plastic bag over her head) they will immediately start an assault on the compound. So the sniper would incapacitate the shooter and the police would send in the SWAT.
A word I tend to avoid as much as possible.
A word that to me means "shoot him until he longer presents a threat".
And a definition that implies sloppiness.

  • 12.15.2012 5:35 AM PDT

A competitive players main goal is to win.
A casuals main goal is to have fun regardless of whether that results in a win or loss.
It has nothing to do with individual skill or knowledge, it has to do with the reason you play.

People who do these school shootings and such usually don't have criminal record.

  • 12.15.2012 5:37 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: sims3k
Or someone that was traumatised during school can just rock up to any gun store, buy an automatic rifle and a bulletproof vest and massacre an entire campus.
Get out of this thread. This statement is so ignorant and wrong that you have no business participating in this debate.

  • 12.15.2012 5:38 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: AaronG67
Posted by: milla da killa
...then they'll be off the streets and out of the hands of criminals, right? If that works, why don't we just make all the bad things illegal and ban them? Like cocaine, heroin, meth...
Cocaine, Herion and Meth are illegal.
You cannot get a prescribed version of a gun, and drugs can't be used to destroy another person's life as easily as weaponry. This thread is nul and void.
Way to completely miss the point (and the sarcasm).

OP's point is that banning things doesn't make them magically go away.

  • 12.15.2012 5:40 AM PDT

+1 for you good sir.


Posted by: milla da killa
...then they'll be off the streets and out of the hands of criminals, right? If that works, why don't we just make all the bad things illegal and ban them? Like cocaine, heroin, meth...
Ha, I get it.

  • 12.15.2012 5:45 AM PDT


Posted by: AaronG67
Posted by: milla da killa
...then they'll be off the streets and out of the hands of criminals, right? If that works, why don't we just make all the bad things illegal and ban them? Like cocaine, heroin, meth...
Cocaine, Herion and Meth are illegal.
You cannot get a prescribed version of a gun, and drugs can't be used to destroy another person's life as easily as weaponry. This thread is nul and void.


Hmmm I bet if you ran the numbers drug addiction has ruined more lives than firearms.

  • 12.15.2012 5:48 AM PDT

+1 for you good sir.

Here, the Bath School Disaster, is a great example proving that people will turn to other alternatives to harm others when a gun isn't readily available.

  • 12.15.2012 5:57 AM PDT

Posted by: Garland
Posted by: AaronG67
Posted by: milla da killa
...then they'll be off the streets and out of the hands of criminals, right? If that works, why don't we just make all the bad things illegal and ban them? Like cocaine, heroin, meth...
Cocaine, Herion and Meth are illegal.
You cannot get a prescribed version of a gun, and drugs can't be used to destroy another person's life as easily as weaponry. This thread is nul and void.
Way to completely miss the point (and the sarcasm).

OP's point is that banning things doesn't make them magically go away.
And my point was that, while that was true, it does make a substantial difference.

  • 12.15.2012 6:59 AM PDT

TRU7H. CARNAGE. BUNGIE


Posted by: AaronG67
Posted by: milla da killa
...then they'll be off the streets and out of the hands of criminals, right? If that works, why don't we just make all the bad things illegal and ban them? Like cocaine, heroin, meth...
Cocaine, Herion and Meth are illegal.
You cannot get a prescribed version of a gun, and drugs can't be used to destroy another person's life as easily as weaponry. This thread is nul and void.


It is impossible to make a joke simple enough that no genius ever won't take it seriously.

  • 12.15.2012 7:02 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2