Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    BBC Article

    (Original post by BBC fair use excerpt)
    A police officer has died after suffering a gunshot wound to the chest in a training exercise in Manchester.

    The male officer died in hospital after the incident, which took place in Thorp Road, Newton Heath, about a mile from the city centre, at about 1135 BST.

    The officer was taken to North Manchester General Hospital, where he was pronounced dead later.
    It sounds as though he's been shot either accidentally by a colleague, or by malfunction of his firearm. I'm only speculating, but I think it will be more likely due to the former. Handgun malfunctions don't cause people to receive rounds to the chest.

    My condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.
    Offline

    17
    What's the point in this thread? Yes, it's a sad thing. My condolences also to his family, friends and colleagues. What are we supposed to be discussing?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Why guns are bad? :rolleyes:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/7442327.stm
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Oh my god that's awful! I bet the guy who did it feels WELL bad.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Thud)
    Why guns are bad? :rolleyes:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/7442327.stm
    How many more would he have killed if he had a gun though... you can't run away from a gun so easily.

    Also, guns remove the killer from the killing slightly; you aren't actually physically tearing through their flesh, like with a knife. It'd be easier to remove yourself emotionally from a murder using a gun than a murder using a knife.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Overground)
    How many more would he have killed if he had a gun though... you can't run away from a gun so easily.

    Also, guns remove the killer from the killing slightly; you aren't actually physically tearing through their flesh, like with a knife. It'd be easier to remove yourself emotionally from a murder using a gun than a murder using a knife.
    People go mental with guns, people go mental with knives, they'd go mental with pitchforks if they were desperate.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Thud)
    People go mental with guns, people go mental with knives, they'd go mental with pitchforks if they were desperate.
    If someone goes mental with a gun, they can kill a lot more people in a shorter amount of time than with any other handheld weapon (other than buttons to a nuclear warhead) that I can think of. Do you seriously think the risk posed by a nutter with a knife is equal to the risk of a nutter with a gun? It's a lot easier to safely disarm someone with a knife, and knives can't kill at distance.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Overground)
    If someone goes mental with a gun, they can kill a lot more people in a shorter amount of time than with any other handheld weapon (other than buttons to a nuclear warhead) that I can think of. Do you seriously think the risk posed by a nutter with a knife is equal to the risk of a nutter with a gun? It's a lot easier to safely disarm someone with a knife, and knives can't kill at distance.
    And if other people are allowed to carry guns, they can quickly take out said nutter with just as much ease.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Overground)
    If someone goes mental with a gun, they can kill a lot more people in a shorter amount of time than with any other handheld weapon (other than buttons to a nuclear warhead) that I can think of. Do you seriously think the risk posed by a nutter with a knife is equal to the risk of a nutter with a gun? It's a lot easier to safely disarm someone with a knife, and knives can't kill at distance.
    You can throw knives.
    Depends how many bullets the gun has.
    How long it takes to reload.
    How powerful it is.
    How long the knife is.
    How sharp it is.
    The physical condition of the psycho.
    The distance the gun can be used at.

    Knives can be just as dangerous, If the guy wasted his whole clip and killed/injured about 5 people, he'd be defenseless while he reloaded. Just my speculation on things...
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Thud)
    And if other people are allowed to carry guns, they can quickly take out said nutter with just as much ease.
    Although if everyone carried guns, the risk posed by each nutter would increase drastically, and turn minor domestic disputes turn into murders. A gun cannot be used to defend, only to kill. If everyone was given handguns to use against 'nutters', people would start using them against people vandalising their property, trespassers, petty criminals etc.

    Yeah, I know this doesn't happen in Switzerland. It does in the USA though.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Overground)
    Although if everyone carried guns, the risk posed by each nutter would increase drastically, and turn minor domestic disputes turn into murders. A gun cannot be used to defend, only to kill. If everyone was given handguns to use against 'nutters', people would start using them against people vandalising their property, trespassers, petty criminals etc.

    Yeah, I know this doesn't happen in Switzerland. It does in the USA though.
    And Canada?


    Anyone can start slashing with a knife, a gun requires training to use accurately. Your average person won't be able to start shooting and kill many people as they're running away in panic.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Overground)
    If someone goes mental with a gun, they can kill a lot more people in a shorter amount of time than with any other handheld weapon
    (Original post by Overground)
    How many more would he have killed if he had a gun though... you can't run away from a gun so easily.
    Ironically enough, the worst single school massacre in the United States (the school massacre capital of the world) was perpetrated with a bomb, not a gun.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

    (Original post by Overground)
    Also, guns remove the killer from the killing slightly; you aren't actually physically tearing through their flesh, like with a knife. It'd be easier to remove yourself emotionally from a murder using a gun than a murder using a knife.
    Have you ever been hunting with a firearm? Scratch that - have you ever even shot a gun? Physical distance =/= emotional separation.

    If you had any experience with firearms, you'd know that was a ridiculous statement. I've known many people to come to truly appreciate the power of a firearm when they shoot one for the first time.

    (Original post by Thud)
    And if other people are allowed to carry guns, they can quickly take out said nutter with just as much ease.
    Yep.

    Had a student present during the Va. Tech shooting been carrying a concealed weapon, they'd have been able to take Cho down easily. Cho was a novice - an experienced marksman can easily place two rounds centre of mass, from a distance, within three seconds.

    (Original post by Overground)
    Although if everyone carried guns, the risk posed by each nutter would increase drastically, and turn minor domestic disputes turn into murders.
    That's why convicted criminals or those involuntarily admitted to psychiatric facilities are not allowed to possess firearms.

    (Original post by Overground)
    A gun cannot be used to defend, only to kill.
    Nonsense. In a self-defense situation, a firearm is the most effective means of neutralising an assailant. A firearm is an incredibly potent deterrent - both physically and psychologically - against a would-be attacker.

    (Original post by Overground)
    If everyone was given handguns to use against 'nutters', people would start using them against people vandalising their property, trespassers, petty criminals etc.
    That's why there are laws against that. Firearms are, despite common public perception, quite easy to obtain *legally* in the UK. You need to pass the necessary police tests and be issued with a firearms certificate, but as long as you are legitimate and law-abiding, the police won't harass you. How come there aren't shootings left, right and centre? Nobody has been murdered by a legally-owned firearm in the UK in over ten years.

    (Original post by Thud)
    And Canada?
    And Australia?
    Norway?
    Sweden?
    Finland?
    Austria?
    Czech Republic?

    All nations with a much higher rate of gun ownership and laxer gun laws than the UK, and - most importantly - low violent crime rates. If guns are the problem, then why aren't these nations crippled by mass shooting sprees every other day?
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.