World Peace. 
It was also followed by this, but you’d run for cover by then.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15264547&postcount=84
I am no expert in these matters, but I am certain that the real Dirty Harry would have assessed and taken out the gunman before he got his gun out, just based on the way he held his popcorn funny. Or was that Beverly Hills Cop? As I said, no expert…
The use of less with count nouns has a history dating back to King Aelfred c. 888 which frankly, makes it about as standard as you can get. If you choose to make the stylistic choice to only use less with mass nouns and fewer with count, that’s your business, but it’s certainly not a ‘rule’.
[/hijack]
Why do you automatically assume he/she learned that in a CCW class?
Here’s the situation:
You’re in a theatre preparing to watch a film. It’s a dark, cramped interior space with no natural lighting and it’s filled with more people than you can count. The aisle lights are already dimmed, and if you were to get up from your seat and head toward the lobby – let’s assume that you want to purchase some popcorn or soda, maybe a soft pretzel because those are delicious – you’d need almost total concentration to avoid tripping over feet, stumbling over purses, and what not.
Some fucked-up, half-retarded spree-killer begins his assault on the theatre by releasing canisters of tear gas into the crowd. Most people remain absolutely still because they assume it’s a publicity stunt. (It’s a midnight premiere of a popular action film, why not?) It’s not until the gunfire begins that people suspect anything is amiss. The sounds that rattle off from his assault rifle are explosive and deafening, made even louder by the acoustics of the theatre. All hell breaks loose.
People are running around, screaming. They’re jostling you as they make a wild scramble for the exit. It’s impossible to exaggerate how disorienting the scene has become. The theatre is filling with smoke that scrapes your larynx raw when you inhale and tears are streaming down your face because tear gas is a powerful irritant even in small doses. People are falling underfoot as others attempt to flee and at no point do you cut a heroic figure, standing removed from the crowd, keen-eyed with a hardened resolve. People are pushing you as they try to find the exit, and you’re taking elbows from all directions, getting shoved around by people whose survival instincts have kicked into high gear.
You’re looking for the shooter and this is what you see: a shadowy figure stalking the darkness, firing an assault rifle whose muzzle flash dazzles your vision and leaves you seeing colorful spangles. Have you left the theatre and stepped out into bright sunlight and had to squint because it’s so bright? Well, imagine doing that after you’ve been soaking your eyeballs in tear gas and you’d come close to imagining what it was like in that theatre.
The difficulty of hitting a moving target? Hard, even under optimal conditions. The difficulty of hitting this particular target? Nigh on impossible, for these reasons:
-
It’s dark inside the theatre.
-
The muzzle flash from an AR-15, as you’ve illustrated, is bright. If you’re looking at him, you’re going to suffer light blindness.
-
You’re crying from the tear gas.
-
You can hardly breathe because of the tear gas.
-
You’re half deaf from the noise.
-
People are jostling you trying to escape. You will not be able to hold your gun level.
-
People are running between you and your target, dozens of them. Constantly. A flow of panicky, screaming people forever interrupting your aim. To risk a shot is to risk shooting and killing an innocent person.
-
He’s wearing body armor. So unless you’re a crack shot, you’re going to be firing on this guy multiple times.
So take your fucking shot, Clint Eastwood. The probability that you’ll hit your intended target instead of an innocent by-stander is highly unlikely, assuming that you’re crazy enough to take the shot in the first place.
For extra bonus points, imagine that a dozen other people have had the same thought as you; go ahead and calculate the casualties now, with a dozen people cross-firing into a dark theatre. Are you still stupid enough to think your little heroic masturbatory gun fantasy is tenable? If so, feel free to quible with any of the above points. I’m sure you’ll find something to argue with – oh, the muzzle flash isn’t that bright!! oh, it’s not that loud!! oh, it’s really not that hard, I SWEAR – something, anything to keep your fucking insane delusion intact.
What was there to respond to? They linked to stories and said "what about these?, without showing that they were inaccurate.
Now, if you’re done digging up unrelated past posts of mine, how about discussing something you said in this thread:
- How many states require a CCW course, and
- In what way do they prepare you to handle a situation like this any better than the average joe?
Well, it’s more civil than assuming he pulled it out of his ass. Not more accurate, but more civil.
Here’s an idea
You take your shot and the shooter ducks for cover, and many people use that time to escape.
Jesus Christ!
Can you idjiots stop feeding the fucking trolls?
Morons.
So you’re campaigning on the more dildoes per asshole platform? Brave stance.
The campaign would come to a stop once it hit a 2:1 ratio, I assure you, assuming one for every man and two for every woman.
Sexist.
Last I counted, both men and women only had 1 asshole a piece.
The best way to deal with this type of attacker would be to approach him from the side or back, out of his direct line of sight, and simply body-tackle him. You wouldn’t need to disarm him, just stay ‘glued’ to him until you got some help. His guns were too long to be used in a wrestling match, which is what you’d want to turn this into. Also, his body armor would restrict HIS movement, not yours, which would give you an advantage.
Fuck the whole handgun idea. Pistol versus assault rifle is too lopsided, unless you can shoot him from the side or back, and even then you might miss, or only superficially wound. A body tackle doesn’t miss.
Here’s an idea: Someone who is also armed sees you shooting and him ducking, and makes an assumption that you might not see as optimal.
Here’s an idea.
You take your shot and take out an innocent person.
I don’t have any problem with you trying to be a hero as long as you don’t inadvertently take anybody else out with you. And as I think has been adequate shown in this thread, the chance of that happening is much greater than the chance that you’re going to be able to make any real constructive contribution to crime fighting.
Unless you’re Penn Jilette’s son.
Didoes have another use-ask any female.
Just thought we were counting the dildo to asshole ratio, not the dildo to orifice ratio.
Also, truth be told, I find Dido puts me to sleep.
Back to the thread, not my words but a conversation I was having with a friend (and also CHL holder):
[QUOTE=Random Guy You May not Know]
I’ve only been involved in a couple of really life-threatening events in my life, and although I think I’ve generally done OK at responding to them, I have always had a little bit of a delay where I was thinking - wait, really? is that what’s going on here? And I expect that something like that would occur if I was really in one of these spree killing situations. I’d be sitting there and thinking, hold on, is that for real? Is this guy really shooting up everyone? If your first reaction to an unusual stimulus is to pull out your gun and shoot something then you’re probably as big a threat as the villain. It sucks, but the attacker is always going to have a psychological advantage in this scenario because he’s the one who (at least initially) knows what is going on. Can’t solve that one with technology.
[/quote]
And some other theater patron thinks “holy tapdancing fuck, there’s two shooters!” and pulls out their own gun and suddenly you’ve got that built-in chest ventilation shaft you’ve always wanted.
I put the question “would people shooting have helped in this situation” to my coworker, a retired state police major with +30 years in law enforcement.
What he said? “Oh, God, no.” Because, besides all the points listed in **Tarwater’**s most excellent post, as things were happening law enforcement didn’t know if the guy was a loner or working with one or more accomplices and would likely have nabbed anyone waving a gun around. And if God forbid you hit someone besides the gunman, law enforcement isn’t gonna just let you say “oopsie, my bad,” and let you go on your merry way.
We’ve already established that any shot requires the target be identified and the line of sight uninterrupted. That’s pretty much the rule followed by every responsible gun owner. The general rumble here seems to think that guns and wild ass over the head shooting is the norm. Far from it.