No idea of motive or anything yet, but that headline certainly grabbed my attention.
I saw the reports this morning on BBC World News. The anchor announced that five people had been killed in a bow and arrow attack in Norway, and then went on to reassure us that experts said that “this sort of attack is exceedingly rare”. You don’t think?
Tragic and horrible. Sounds like a Jo Nesbo storyline, who I’m coincidentally reading at this very moment.
Right now it’s looking like a terror attack, as opposed to just running amok.
Just had to mention that you don’t often see the weapon and its projectile always mentioned together. A shooting isn’t a “gun and bullet attack”.
And yet it’s always “bow and arrow”. My first reaction was “Well, you have to say ‘arrow’, because the bow by itself is useless.”
But so is an empty gun.
Oh, great, now I’m picturing news anchors gravely informing the public about “A four-hour shotgun-and-shell standoff”; “A tragic car-and-driver crash”; “A terrorist grenade launcher-and-grenades attack”; “A dangerous slingshot-and-rock incident…”; “A deadly trebuchet-and-bigger-rock incident…”
I would conjecture that that is because bow is a short word with many meanings and at least two pronunciations. You certainly could imagine someone talking about a crossbow or even long bow attack.
Enough for the hijack. If he could get off that many arrows (I believe there were several more people injured) imagine what he could have done with an AK-47.
The NRA would like you very much not to imagine that. Quite the opposite in fact.
Click for accompanying “meme” that doesn’t show in my preview at least.
AKs don’t launch arrows.
But a shotgun can fire flechettes (small arrows).
For some reason, the idea of being shot-impaled by an arrow squicks me out far more than the prospect of being shot by a bullet, even though from a trauma standpoint both are pretty similar and severe wounds. Not sure why.
Speak for yourself.
The timeline in the CNN article mentioned the suspect firing arrows at the police. Because that’s how my monkey mind works, my first thought was, “Arrows aren’t ‘fired’.”
What is strange to me as a former bow hunter is that I expected, due to all the deaths, that these would be hunting broadheads. They are basically tipped with multiple razor blades and if you are hit most anywhere that you cannot apply a tourniquet to, you are going to bleed out and die within 20 minutes or so. And they will slice right through a body.
But I read on another site that bow hunting is not legal in Norway and then I saw pictures of the arrows and they appear to have just target points. Which are bad enough but this many deaths from target arrows seems unlikely. But like many news reports they are not well researched as to the actual equipment used. A semi-automatic gun becomes automatic, etc.
But killing five people with target arrows, well, it would be insensitive of me to say, “nice shooting”, so I won’t say it.
I’m the same way. For me, it’s because of the thought that “this thing’s going to do as much damage coming out of me as it did going in”, and having that going through your mind while trying to get help, and considering the possibility of more trauma incurred inadvertently while the darn arrow is sticking out of you…
…well, it gets me going like a Cronenberg film.
Ah, but see they have to use the phrase to distinguish them from all the gun-and-arrow attacks that happen.
Jesus fucking Christ, can you people give it a rest? It was an interesting observation digs made, but now you’re all just riding it into the ground. In a thread about murdered people.
I imagine that if you used just the bow itself you could beat the life out of someone if you were really aggressive about it.
So, we can’t call it a “Mass Shooting” so, what do we call it, a “Mass Archering”?
Suggestions taken here!
Moderating: this is a thread about a recent mass murder. Please drop the vocabulary-wanking.
Moderating: except you really did. Please don’t be a jerk.