This just in... Gunman fired over 170 shots - Page 2

Glenn E. Meyer · April 27, 2007, 12:42 PM

Doesn't take a lot of time for the first suprise wave. Assume 3 to 4 shots a second on stationary targets. Because of surprise and attentional factors you walk in and start shooting - I truly doubt instaneous mass charges. You have to get of your chair and down rows - some of which have bodies on the end. You ain't doing gymnastics to avoid being an easy target. If you stand up - well, then you are BIG target.

I don't doubt that folks might have just stood frozen. Some quickly hit the dirt and then were shot at.

My point - you really need to analyze the first attack before you think it was so easy to charge him.

The real decision point is awareness for the next room. That could have been defended - and some were if you recall.

The real solution is sufficient folks with distance weapons and training to quickly respond for the first wave attack. However, as I said repeatedly it won't change without legislative action - no major school will allow carry. It will have to forced.

If that is the case, then Mr. Shooter goes to a private school unless you override the property rights crowd.

So - if carry is allowed don't send you kid to private school. Even then - can you guarantee that each class will carry.

2 to 4% of folks get permits. Some estimate 70% do it for just car carry (stupid).

I live this environment and have reasonable knowledge of the issues and 90% of the discussion is hot air. Bah!

If one was trained and could carry - if you weren't taken by surprise - you could have a real chance of stopping the first wave attack.

You might get taken by surprise. Don't tell me you are always at condition orange - BS. Folks open door and wander into classes all the time. If they walk in and ask if this is Lecture 1300-2, are you supposed to shoot them? Hell of a type I stat error.

It is more complex then getting fire hose and running down the hall and frisbeeing your laptop under aimed fire.

PS - as I also said elsewhere, it is the insitution's inability to deal with threatening folks as they feel lawsuits that guts preventive measures and leads us to babble about building a bazooka in chem and engineering and entering the fray. Let's have them have some more guts on the threatening kids. They have little.

**JohnKSa** · April 27, 2007, 10:19 PM

I have heard casualty figures as high as 61 but can't verify that. The only number that seems to get reported commonly is the deaths.

Quote:

Remember Paducah? a five or six shot revolver in a "crowded hallway" and he hits TWO people....

If this is in reference to the Paducah shool shooting by Michael Carneal then the figures are incorrect. 14 year old Carneal fired 8 shots and hit 8 different targets. Reports have him making either 3 or 5 head shots (depending on the source) with the remainder being upper torso hits.

Neal in GA · April 29, 2007, 02:10 AM

A lot of the injuries were from people jumping out of windows. They weren't all, or even a majority, GSWs. Most GSW victims were killed.

nbk2000 · May 7, 2007, 11:27 PM

Who needs a gun to kill large numbers of people?

Fire can kill far more far quicker and surer than bullets. An example is an arson fire which killed 87 people trapped in an unlicensed social club called "Happy Land" in New York City, on March 25, 1990.

A small explosive charge (few ounces) on the main water line for the fire sprinklers (often conveniently labeled in the utility room or outside) prevents any water from reaching the fire sprinkles and stopping the fire from spreading.

Chain or screw the unused secondary emergency exits shut.

Several five gallon cans of homemade napalm (Gas/acetone/styrofoam) are fired with squibs or fuse delays in the stairwells and hallways at both ends.

Stand outside with the gun and shoot anyone trying to escape, or just walk away and wait for the cries of the media whores to ban gasoline 'for the childrens sake' to start up.

threegun · May 8, 2007, 05:42 AM

NBK2000, Look up Billy Ferry 1983 in Tampa, Fl. Killed 5 I think with a bucket of gas in an open Winn Dixie grocery store. Imagine in a confined space.

Groundhog,

Quote:

Any new ban will only be based on an emotional knee jerk reaction that defies all reason. If they get enough ground swell of support, they'll win. If not, we'll maintain.

You just described a Liberal....kneejerk reaction. Anyone with half a brain understands that mag capacity would have changed nothing.........except the libs that is.

Glenn E. Meyer · May 8, 2007, 09:12 AM

Typical knee jerk reaction, look in the mirror. Remember the great liberal Bob Dole sunk the chance to repeal the AWB way back when.

Remember the great liberal GWB and his little friend, Alberto Gonzales were all in favor of signing a new AWB. Reagan was in favor of the Brady Bill - the great liberal.

I think you need to grow up a bit in your political opinions before just spewing out cliches.

ShootemDown · May 8, 2007, 12:10 PM

"Reagan was in favor of the Brady Bill "

regan was not in the right mind, he was shot in the butt at the time.

Glenn E. Meyer · May 8, 2007, 02:05 PM

He was shot in the chest, IIRC. Almost died.

My point was that one does not have to be a social conservative to support the RKBA and plenty of 'conservatives' are not friends of the RKBA.

Thus, the cliche rant does us no good in defending the RBKA.

threegun · May 8, 2007, 02:38 PM

Glenn,

Last time I checked most F rated political candidates according to the NRA were liberal democrats. Most A rated were conservative Republicans. If you were a betting man on what group would you risk your money? Am I really painting with a broad brush?........not really. Most liberals around the globe tend to react to tragedy without thinking through an issue AKA kneejerking. Conservatives tend to think through issues more thoroughly. This has been my expierience when argueing/debating liberals. There are exceptions for both groups of course.

BTW I am referring to todays democrats which have moved left of center in the past 4 decades.

April 27, 2007, 12:42 PM	#26
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Doesn't take a lot of time for the first suprise wave. Assume 3 to 4 shots a second on stationary targets. Because of surprise and attentional factors you walk in and start shooting - I truly doubt instaneous mass charges. You have to get of your chair and down rows - some of which have bodies on the end. You ain't doing gymnastics to avoid being an easy target. If you stand up - well, then you are BIG target. I don't doubt that folks might have just stood frozen. Some quickly hit the dirt and then were shot at. My point - you really need to analyze the first attack before you think it was so easy to charge him. The real decision point is awareness for the next room. That could have been defended - and some were if you recall. The real solution is sufficient folks with distance weapons and training to quickly respond for the first wave attack. However, as I said repeatedly it won't change without legislative action - no major school will allow carry. It will have to forced. If that is the case, then Mr. Shooter goes to a private school unless you override the property rights crowd. So - if carry is allowed don't send you kid to private school. Even then - can you guarantee that each class will carry. 2 to 4% of folks get permits. Some estimate 70% do it for just car carry (stupid). I live this environment and have reasonable knowledge of the issues and 90% of the discussion is hot air. Bah! If one was trained and could carry - if you weren't taken by surprise - you could have a real chance of stopping the first wave attack. You might get taken by surprise. Don't tell me you are always at condition orange - BS. Folks open door and wander into classes all the time. If they walk in and ask if this is Lecture 1300-2, are you supposed to shoot them? Hell of a type I stat error. It is more complex then getting fire hose and running down the hall and frisbeeing your laptop under aimed fire. PS - as I also said elsewhere, it is the insitution's inability to deal with threatening folks as they feel lawsuits that guts preventive measures and leads us to babble about building a bazooka in chem and engineering and entering the fray. Let's have them have some more guts on the threatening kids. They have little. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

May 7, 2007, 11:27 PM	#29
nbk2000 Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 2000 Posts: 216	Who needs a gun to kill large numbers of people? Fire can kill far more far quicker and surer than bullets. An example is an arson fire which killed 87 people trapped in an unlicensed social club called "Happy Land" in New York City, on March 25, 1990. A small explosive charge (few ounces) on the main water line for the fire sprinklers (often conveniently labeled in the utility room or outside) prevents any water from reaching the fire sprinkles and stopping the fire from spreading. Chain or screw the unused secondary emergency exits shut. Several five gallon cans of homemade napalm (Gas/acetone/styrofoam) are fired with squibs or fuse delays in the stairwells and hallways at both ends. Stand outside with the gun and shoot anyone trying to escape, or just walk away and wait for the cries of the media whores to ban gasoline 'for the childrens sake' to start up. __________________ (\ /)Those who seek power are not to be trusted with it. (< >) Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America (")V(")The Bunny has been Terminated!

May 8, 2007, 09:12 AM	#31
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Typical knee jerk reaction, look in the mirror. Remember the great liberal Bob Dole sunk the chance to repeal the AWB way back when. Remember the great liberal GWB and his little friend, Alberto Gonzales were all in favor of signing a new AWB. Reagan was in favor of the Brady Bill - the great liberal. I think you need to grow up a bit in your political opinions before just spewing out cliches. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

May 8, 2007, 02:05 PM	#33
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	He was shot in the chest, IIRC. Almost died. My point was that one does not have to be a social conservative to support the RKBA and plenty of 'conservatives' are not friends of the RKBA. Thus, the cliche rant does us no good in defending the RBKA. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

April 29, 2007, 02:10 AM	#28
Neal in GA Senior Member Join Date: August 26, 2002 Location: Georgia Posts: 172	A lot of the injuries were from people jumping out of windows. They weren't all, or even a majority, GSWs. Most GSW victims were killed.

May 8, 2007, 12:10 PM	#32
ShootemDown Junior member Join Date: April 25, 2007 Posts: 254	"Reagan was in favor of the Brady Bill " regan was not in the right mind, he was shot in the butt at the time.

May 8, 2007, 02:38 PM	#34
threegun Junior member Join Date: March 1, 2006 Location: Tampa,Fl Posts: 4,000	Glenn, Last time I checked most F rated political candidates according to the NRA were liberal democrats. Most A rated were conservative Republicans. If you were a betting man on what group would you risk your money? Am I really painting with a broad brush?........not really. Most liberals around the globe tend to react to tragedy without thinking through an issue AKA kneejerking. Conservatives tend to think through issues more thoroughly. This has been my expierience when argueing/debating liberals. There are exceptions for both groups of course. BTW I am referring to todays democrats which have moved left of center in the past 4 decades.