University Shootings

[Dragonium]

Originally posted by SaiKar
It grates me on me a little bit when people romanticize medieval times. A sword may be a more flashy weapon than a gun, but that era was full of nonsenseical and meaningless violence. "Wars would be more fun?" Yeah, there's nothing fun about the guy who owns your land saying you need to go fight in his honor for years at a time. Medival wars were slow, in part because it DID take longer to fight with swords and the general level of technology they had back then.

And guns may be the result of manking's laziness, but so was the indstrial revolution. And electricity, not needing to rely on oil and lamps. And the internet, lightspeed communication anywhere in the world. Being able to do stuff faster is the driving force of almost all progress. Welcome to the future.

Me says, if you like medival weapons, that's cool. Everyone has their passions. Make training, reenactments, or collecting a hobby. But don't try to use it to impose some sort of whack nostalgia on the present.

Certainly I agree that swords and their ilk are romanticised. But so are guns. When was the last time you saw a rap video where everyone was toting swords?

Also, I have taken part in a few reenactments. There's a group who work near to me, a voluntary thing, that reenact battles that happened in our area of the country. It's quite fun really. Of course your argument will be "it wouldn't have been fun if it was real", so I'll just save you the trouble by saying: okay.

I'll agree that I do have a passion for that sort of thing. Wars aren't supposed to be "fun", I know (Which was why I implied with my ":D" that that comment was actually a "joke"). But I dislike modern weaponry for all it's worth, and I prefer to speak my mind than go along with everyone else. So hush.

Originally posted by drenrin2120
Dying by the blade of a sword is, I'd imagine, way more brutal and just out-right disturbing then a gun shot to the head. And half the time you didn't die instantly, you'd be ripped open at the stomach or mortally wounded elsewhere, unable to move on the ground, then trampled on by both foe and allie. If you were lucky, maybe you'd get stabbed through the head, heart or major artery.

Probably just person opinion, but I'd prefer that than being shot from some ridiculous distance away by some "gangsta" who thinks that now he's "busted" me his "crew" will think he's a "playa".

I also don't particularly think that modern weapons are that much more humane. A bullet to the head will still destroy most (or at least a sizeable chunk) of the brain on impact. With a powerful weapon the skull shatters. Then we have the modern fragmentation grenade - if the flying shrapnel doesn't kill you the explosion causes a "ballooning effect" or something like that which causes the blood vessels in the victim's body to burst.

I'd rather be stabbed to be honest.

So yeah. I like swords and think they're better. No need for everyone to get all period-y about it. Especially you Meis, you big female.

EDIT: Lol, wall of text.

Also, this is fairly irrelevant, but I thought I'd bring it up. This is Thermobaric weapons, the latest weapons the military are developing.

"Thermobaric" roughly means "heat and pressure", which is exactly what it creates. In short, the explosion creates a cloud of highly explosive gas, and then ignites it with a second charge. This creates a large fireball which, after being ignited, keeps growing, and produces a lot of heat and pressure, thus burning and crushing everything engulfed by the fireball. This is quite often lethal to anyone within the fireball's large range. Once the fireball has burned up all its fuel, it suddenly contracts. This creates a vacuum. Anyone who, by some good fortune, is still alive when this happens, will have the air sucked from their lungs, or, in some cases, will have their lungs ripped right out of their mouth.

So yeah. In my opinion, modern weapons aren't really much more humane than our old ones.

[HackersTotalMassLaser]

Originally posted by j_master

imagine police standing at a buildings entrance with swords in their hands!
A sword isnt gonna stop a suicide bomber, is it?

I don't think you understood the whole swords thing. Nobody said guns should be replaced. It is obvious that by today standard's we must use the latest in order to defend, or likewise, kill, with more ease.

 

Probably just person opinion, but I'd prefer that than being shot from some ridiculous distance away by some "gangsta" who thinks that now he's "busted" me his "crew" will think he's a "playa"

XD yeah, think about it; at least with a sword you'll have a fighting chance. Though playa doesn't mean bustin caps on someone's crew, that's something else.


As far as "With guns you wont have much of a mess." it can be true to a point but I have personally seen what a shotgun can do to a head. it is not a tidy site. Neither are bombs, or granades, or landmines. You know with the whole severe limbs and bloody guts flying everywhere. Sure the person might not feel tha pain, but you'll hurl at the site of it.

Indeed, you can be lucky by getting one single shot in a vital spot by a handgun and dies instantly, but there are other more explosive firearms out there that would sure leave a good mess. And those are accesible as well. And this is on the argument of swords being more brutal than guns.

[Moosetroop11]

There's no point in a quick killing. You only get one death. When I die I want it to be really interesting so I can think "Oh, that's how it feels to get killed by a medieval sword in the gut whilst falling out of an airship strapped to an atom bomb with a mouth full of cement whilst recieving a lapdance from a russian informant."

[Meiscool-2]

Originally posted by Dragonium
I'm such a dumbass.

No... no... no....

We are comparing a sword to a gun, not a naplam implosion to a sword.

Aside from that, killing something in a humane way is considered: "A quick, or painless, death usually resulting from a toxin injected into the blood system or a blow to the head."

A gun to the head will cause less pain than a sword to the head, seeing as bullets have less radius and travel faster. A gun to the lung will cause a same speed but less painful death than a blade to the lung. An explosion that tears your body apart will cause less pain and be quicker than a blade hitting you multiple times to tear your body apart.

Also, not only is there the initial strike of the sword that causes more pain than a bullet, but the fact that the sword generally has to be pulled out of you (as most melee weapons don't have the power to litterally cleave a person without getting stuck on something midway), also causes pain.

There is no way to say that a sword is more humane than a gun. Saying such is stating a buzzaw is also more humane than a gun. And if there were a way, it would be responcible for the bullet being made of something toxic to the body (such as lead), rather than the actual propolsion of the bullet.

[Dragonium]

Originally posted by Meiscool
We are comparing a sword to a gun, not a naplam implosion to a sword.

I apologise Meis. I completely understand how Thermobaric weapon could be misread as napalm implosion.

Originally posted by Meiscool
Aside from that, killing something in a humane way is considered: "A quick, or painless, death usually resulting from a toxin injected into the blood system or a blow to the head."

A bullet in the skull doesn't count as a blow to the head, Meis.

Besides, regarding the injection thing:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=68867

Originally posted by Meisfool
A gun to the head will cause less pain than a sword to the head, seeing as bullets have less radius and travel faster. A gun to the lung will cause a same speed but less painful death than a blade to the lung. An explosion that tears your body apart will cause less pain and be quicker than a blade hitting you multiple times to tear your body apart.

If I were to choose how I would rather die, I'd still go with the sword option. I'd prefer to be found dead with multiple stabwounds than found dead with half my head missing.

Originally posted by Meistool
Various other points which are pretty much obvious and as such will be ignored be Dragonium.

Yeah.

Originally posted by Meisgay
There is no way to say that a sword is more humane than a gun. Saying such is stating a buzzaw is also more humane than a gun.

I never implicitly said a sword was more humane than a gun. I simply said modern weapons aren't as humane as we say. People have survived with a bullet lodged into their brain, but have been pretty much hospitalized for life by it. If you aim for another vital organ, there's the chance you'll miss.

I'd say more, but arguing with you is pointless. It's like explaining A-Level Biology to a duck.

[Revolution911]

Modern guns are more humane.  Not only does it make it all look cleaner, its less painful.  The only acception would be a shotgun.  And you use that fireball bullshit as if every violent individual is carrying around a thermobaric bomb.

I dont like how you make everything with a sword sound so simple and clean.  I also dont like how you try to use some type of gang shooting you as a negative toward a gun.  As if there weren't any thieves or thugs in sword eras.  And yeah, a bullet to the head will blow up your brain, but a sword to the head will ****ing CUT IT IN HALF


Edit: I'm not angry or nothing, so dont get it all...twisted and whatnot.

[HackersTotalMassLaser]

Originally posted by Dragonium

I'd say more, but arguing with you is pointless. It's like explaining A-Level Biology to a duck.

lol the duck will just keep on quacking pointlessly.


Well, more on the thread's point... I am still wondering how he managed to kill 32 people with two handguns in one room. He HAD to reload at some point.

[SaiKar]

Originally posted by Dragonium
Meistool

I lol'd

[Osmose]

It wasn't in a single room, he walked the halls and went to multiple rooms.

[ZeroKirbyX]

Look what I've done XD


Coilguns ftw.

[Razor]

Originally posted by HackersTotalMassLaser

Probably just person opinion, but I'd prefer that than being shot from some ridiculous distance away by some "gangsta" who thinks that now he's "busted" me his "crew" will think he's a "playa"

XD yeah, think about it; at least with a sword you'll have a fighting chance. Though playa doesn't mean bustin caps on someone's crew, that's something else.

...why would you point that out? He was taking the p
iss. No one actually cares.

[Meiscool-2]

Originally posted by Dragonium

Originally posted by Meiscool
We are comparing a sword to a gun, not a naplam implosion to a sword.

I apologise Meis. I completely understand how Thermobaric weapon could be misread as napalm implosion.[/B]

OH SH*T. I used an anology to compare something to another like object. I'm such a dumb****. You own dear sir.

Originally posted by Dragonium

Originally posted by Meiscool
Aside from that, killing something in a humane way is considered: "A quick, or painless, death usually resulting from a toxin injected into the blood system or a blow to the head."

A bullet in the skull doesn't count as a blow to the head, Meis.[/B]

Do tell me what that justifies as being then. You yourself state that you're comparing modern weaponary to those of the romantic period. Tell me what kind of modern anti-personal (meaning most current and up to date) gun couldn't pierce the skull?

Originally posted by Dragonium

Originally posted by Meiscool
A gun to the head will cause less pain than a sword to the head, seeing as bullets have less radius and travel faster. A gun to the lung will cause a same speed but less painful death than a blade to the lung. An explosion that tears your body apart will cause less pain and be quicker than a blade hitting you multiple times to tear your body apart.

If I were to choose how I would rather die, I'd still go with the sword option. I'd prefer to be found dead with multiple stabwounds than found dead with half my head missing.[/B]

That's special. However, how you would choose your death is irrevelant to how humane death by gun/sword is.

Originally posted by Dragonium

Originally posted by Meiscool
There is no way to say that a sword is more humane than a gun. Saying such is stating a buzzaw is also more humane than a gun.

People have survived with a bullet lodged into their brain, but have been pretty much hospitalized for life by it. If you aim for another vital organ, there's the chance you'll miss.[/B]

That is yet another retarded point to make. Arrows had a chance of missing. Sword stabs have a chance of missing. All weapon strikes have chances of missing vital areas. Also, such misses are less clean and more jagged than a gunshot, so guess which wound would cause more pain, and guess which wound people would have a higher percent chance of recovering from.

Also, guns are responcible for fewer brain failures than blunt force trauma caused by, duh hoi, hand to hand objects used as a weapon. I just felt that this should be noted, seeing as you found it a noteable point to say that: sometimes bullets don't kill, they just hospitalize you.

Originally posted by Dragonium
I'd say more, but arguing with you is pointless. It's like explaining A-Level Biology to a duck.

God damn! Your clever insults never end.

[Ben]

Lets just all agree that Being killed by a weapon is generally Undesirable.

[Meiscool-2]

Awww, why'd you have to go an' edit a playa's post?

[Ben]

I just changed a meany Mc Meanerson Swear.

I Still love you.
I love you both. It tears me apart to see you fight.