View Single Post
  #18  
Old 06-12-2019, 11:36 AM
SenorBeef is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse View Post
Yes, high-performance guns matter a lot when you're going up against other people with guns. Other than that, perhaps the size of the first magazine can make a difference but after that, everyone's running or hiding.
People have a misconception about "battlefield weapons" - now, if you're shooting up time square on new years eve, having an MG-42 would absolutely be effective in that scenario, but in general, war doesn't work how people think it does. They assume that everyone shoots off a few dozen rounds and hits someone else, and enough people doing this and that's how battles are decided. But in reality, between around 250,000 to 750,000 rounds are fired for every small arms combat casualty in combat. The number of rounds fired and their relative ineffectiveness is staggering. In WW2, small arms in total - machine guns, rifles, everything - accounted for less than 20 percent of casualties inflicted. In most battles, the purpose of small arms was basically to throw enough lead at your enemy so they were locked in place and keeping their heads down, which means they weren't doing the same to you. At that point you call in artillery and wait for that to do the actual work.

Quote:
What factors made him so effective?
I actually have no idea. I don't buy into the fascination with spree shooters. I don't look up information about them or the shootings. I assume he was just well practiced - it's actually fairly tricky to kill people with pistols compared to pretty much any long arm, so for him to get that kill count I assume he was just very good with them.

Quote:
Media/incentives matter more than guns/resources here. I'm wondering how that could be changed though. Even if you get most of the media to go along, how do you get the people working at Fox to be decent human beings?
This isn't a Fox News thing, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. It's not a conservative/liberal thing. All Americans love news designed to scare them, news designed to focus on the sensational and salacious. We want to be scared out of our minds. WHAT COMMON ITEM UNDER YOUR SINK WILL KILL YOU? WHAT CUTE WHITE GIRL WAS KIDNAPPED LAST WEEK? WATCH OUR NEW 3D RECREATION OF THE LATEST MASS SHOOTINGS! This is common to almost all American news. And people are gobbling it up, because if they wanted good responsible news they could watch PBS newshour, and they don't.

You ever get a chance to see the news media in other countries? It's so much better, so much more responsible, so much less focused on giving you that recreational fear that you (the collective you) love so much. Americans seem uniquely addicted to shitty news designed to scare us and provoke outrage. Our news media is really a huge outlier in the world.