StarGateWars Forums

I gotcha they were scared, but he shot 50 people, dozens got out. So their were at least what? 100 people in that building. If they had just run at him they coulda ripped him up, taken him alive and probably only lost what?

Many reasons.
First - I don't think there were ever enough students in one place to mob him.
You have to take the number needed and inflate it by a great deal to account for the conditions (fear mostly) which would limit the number actually rushing him.

Second - and I don't think it is neccesary or appropriate to detial out the emotions they were probably feeling... let it suffice that in my experiance leading, instructing, and teaching - it's hard to get people to act even with excellent communication, and no external stress.
You put an untrained group into something as begein as a paintball game, and you'll have half of them fail to respond to something as simple as an order to 'charge' and none of them are going to respond to a detailed attack plan.

So no... I wouldn't entertain the possiblity of succesfully rushing him.
You'd need open communication between the students, a sufficiant number of students so that the percentage of those who remain frozen don't handicap the assault, and a hindsight about the shooter's motive and frame of mind I don't think they hand.

------------

So... no... I don't see it as a surprise that he wasn't mobbed.
Not at all.

Instead they'd rather lock them away and charge us for their room and board. Then pay a cop to pull everyone over whos going one mile over the speeding limit to write tickets, making the city richer. Do we really need police guys? Common!!!!

Erm... I am a libertarian in many respects, don't get me wrong - but I don't think we can be quite so quick to dismiss police and the law -
I think our focus needs to be on fixing their flaws, not throwing out the institutions whole-hog.

There are problems with vigilantiasm (as with all systems), as it is really no differant that a autocratic government... thus all is fine while the vigilante is a good one, but when his son comes into power, will he also look out for the common good?

I'm not saying our current system is perfect... it needs a tremendous amount of work - including the example's you've given. I just want to be sure that we're not calling for anarchy, or a pseudo-anarchy.

i got that, but there were whole classrooms with about five minutes before they reached them. I suppose surprise isn't the right word, wondering why we shouldn't put those matters in. I myself would try and organize a group, and there would be a 50/50 chance if it was to help all of us get out no matter the cost or to get him no matter the cost.

i got that, but there were whole classrooms with about five minutes before they reached them. I suppose surprise isn't the right word, wondering why we shouldn't put those matters in.

I don't know... it just sounds to me like you believe the students should have been capable of this, and I feel it would have been an astounding achievement of leadership, motivation, and luck to pull off.

There are so many things that must be aligned before anyone rushes someone threatening them. Hindsight is everything, but the students couldn't have known how many gunmen, the intent of those gunmen, and the relative closeness of authority. Sure, when that first guy comes through the door, we can try and grab him - but what about the columbine-like guy behind him?
Maybe this is two guys in a firefight with each other, maybe he's just after one person, maybe he just wants to take hostages. Does he/they have an assault rifle, a handgun, two handguns? Are they storming rooms or just staying the corridors. etc. etc. etc.

It gives me nausea to even try and reconstruct that second shooting, and I just cannot see how anyone could have pulled off a mobbing. Even with a multi-day hindsight and speculation we don't know much about what went on, and the student's would have known even less.

i got that but according to some reports he lined them up and shot them one by one. See thats the time where i'd charge him and try and take him out just to try and not die pointlessly.

i got that but according to some reports he lined them up and shot them one by one. See thats the time where i'd charge him and try and take him out just to try and not die pointlessly.

There I agree... I just think it would be an indvidual action.
Ah well, it does me little good to dwell on this; It just makes me sick.

Apadamek-Hitman Of Spam wrote:i got that but according to some reports he lined them up and shot them one by one. See thats the time where i'd charge him and try and take him out just to try and not die pointlessly.

I am no expert on psychology but I yesterday in history class we watched a video on the slaughter at Nanking. The professor said that this movie was rated beyond R and that we did not have to watch it if we did not want to. This was original video from 1937 and the Japanese would line up the Chinese and one by one cut off their heads then the next row would push the other row into a pit and then get their heads cut off. It went through about 20 rows and they were not even tied up but they would just "let" them cut off their head. There were only two people cutting off the heads but there were about 50 people who were getting killed. I am sure the mind would break down in a situation such as that. I know that I am still upset from just watching that video.

Just putting this out there:

1. First, the murderer, Cho Sueng-Hui, was schizophrenic.
2. One of the professors reported him as a threat before the shootings - they ignored it.
3. Cho Sueng-Hui was also depressed,
4. The Genovese effect: When people are in groups, they won't react - nobody knows why.
5. Gun control has almost nothing to do with the number of murders in a country. Canada has 1/20 the population of the us, with 1/1000 murders. Gun laws in Canada are relatively close.
6. When a mob chases someone, they'll run and fire into the crowd. I don't know about you, but I'd be dispersing by then.
7. 33 people died in the VT shootings, and all of north america and many parts of the rest of the world know about it. In the next 8.25 days, 33 people will die from asthma attacks. In the next 9.5 hours, 33 people will commit suicide. Heart attacks kill 33 people every 24.75 minutes in the US alone. Smoking will kill 33 people in the next 3.575 minutes. 33 people die from hunger every 2.5 seconds.

Capo wrote:5. Gun control has almost nothing to do with the number of murders in a country. Canada has 1/20 the population of the us, with 1/1000 murders. Gun laws in Canada are relatively close.

Laws may be close but there's way less guns in households..

Apadamek-Hitman Of Spam wrote:i got that but according to some reports he lined them up and shot them one by one. See thats the time where i'd charge him and try and take him out just to try and not die pointlessly.

appy, i think ive sadi this before
you dont realy know what you would do in such a situation

gold demon weaver wrote:

Apadamek-Hitman Of Spam wrote:i got that but according to some reports he lined them up and shot them one by one. See thats the time where i'd charge him and try and take him out just to try and not die pointlessly.

appy, i think ive sadi this before
you dont realy know what you would do in such a situation

Agreed. It's easy to say you'll do something without experiencing the fear, the doubt and the adrenaline of the situation. It's easy to say you'll score a goal with one minute left to win the game, much harder to do.

Tollan Phoenix wrote:

gold demon weaver wrote:

Apadamek-Hitman Of Spam wrote:i got that but according to some reports he lined them up and shot them one by one. See thats the time where i'd charge him and try and take him out just to try and not die pointlessly.

appy, i think ive sadi this before
you dont realy know what you would do in such a situation

Agreed. It's easy to say you'll do something without experiencing the fear, the doubt and the adrenaline of the situation. It's easy to say you'll score a goal with one minute left to win the game, much harder to do.

Yeah, most of those people were probably paralyzed in fear. Kinda hard to move anywhere or do anything.

Saturnine wrote:for real. A lot of oponents of anarchy argue that without law there would be no order. Guess what? Without law people would protect and serve themselves..
(...)
In all reality, if there was no law you wouldnt have chaos. The ones that decided to make it would get there ass blown away real fast by the ones who were sick of it.

Sorry but you are terribly wrong here! If there's no law, ppl spontaneously start to create it. Take a look at south american shanty towns. These ppl live outside the official law, so they aren't protected by it. So to protect themselves they create local laws and groups to enforce it. These aren't necessarily mafias. Similar situation was in the US in XVIII-XIX centuries.
(recommended book: Hernando De Soto: "Mystery of Capital" - or sth like this, can't remember now exactly)

Saturnine wrote:the libs dont want to crack down on the guns. Gun control is a conservative concept.

Don't know bout the gun control but the libs(American meaning of the word, here in Europe we call them socialists) overall philosophy is to gain more and more control over the citizens turning them slowly into slaves of the government.

BTW: I wouldn't call GW Bush "conservative". He? Conservative? Best joke I've ever heard What he did after 9/11? That wasn't conservative reaction.

Actually canadians have nearly the same amount of guns per capita as americans. An average of 32% of americans households have, and 29% of canadians. Canada last year had 0.76 people per 100,000 killed by firearms, the US had 3.72.
Also: The high murder rate is probably not drug related, since Canada exports roughly 70% of all marijuana in the world each year, and a large chunk of most other drugs (except cocaine)

I'm pretty sure that a lot of crimes in America (not most, but a lot) are caused by drugs because they are illegal. Makes it harder to get, more expensive and therefore some addicts go to extreme measures such as armed robbery to get money (which, if botched badly, leads to 2nd degree murder).

I was watching the History Channel and they ran a show on killing a cartel member (I think it was Carlos Ebanez, something like that). Anyway, one thing that suprised me was the reported increased crime rate due to Colombian drug exports. So, Canada having legal drugs might make crime less necessary, in that regard.

true, but having 45% of the country **Filtered** would make the economy nonexistent. There would be a massive amount of unemployment with a huge amount of jobs open, and things would collapse.

On the plus side, 45% of the cuontry would be so baked that crime would basically cut in half.