mooeypoo

Seeing how so far your guesses were mostly misses, how about we go with trying to figure out facts rather than tossing out infuriating guesses?

Honestly, I don't think this claims is valid to anything other than emotional appeal, iNow. I was actually in a similar situation, only instead of my child (which I have none) it was a friend who got shot because of a "return fire" as you called it. They didn't die, but that was touch-and-go for a couple of weeks, and they have permanent damage. For the first 24 hours, we thought he was dead. And yes. It's horrible, and senseless, and you feel like "fate" (whatever it is) is the cruelest thing in the world. But I wanted to know what had happened; I wanted to know if the person that shot back was acting responsibly -- and he was, in that circumstance. I wanted to know that he knew how to use the gun, aim, and that he was aiming at the return shooter. He was. He also probably saved quite a lot of people that day. Any death is horrible, especially such a senseless death from random shooting. And even more so from this irony of fate from someone who dies from the shooting of a "friendly" fire (I *hate* that term) And yet, the "return shooter" killed the terrorist, and likely saved the lives of a dozen others in the street. My friend was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and to be perfectly honest with you, if he wouldn't have been shot by that guy trying to help, he might have (likely so) been killed by the terrorist. Maybe. Maybe not. We won't ever know. The only thing we CAN know for a fact is that the terrorist was planning to kill a whole lot more people, and that he was killed before that could happen. Shit happens. What I would like to do is make sure is that whoever has a gun on them knows what they're doing, so a shitty situation goes as shitty-less as possible. This isn't about making bad situation good - in real life, there's rarely "good" solution coming out of this, these type of "good" scenarios are usually reserved to theoreticians and movies. In real life, crap happens, and while I don't think people should replace cops, I also don't think your claim is valid as an opposition. For that matter, iNow, what would you do if that child died from a cop's fire as he killed the attacker? Isn't this the same type of question? Other than being emotionally involved, how does that make any judgment about reasons to carry (or not carry) weapons? As long as the so-called "savior" didn't act recklessly and as long as they were acting responsibly with their weapon for the sake of saving others - I can't see this as a reason to prevent people from having a gun, or responding to such event. ~mooey

I see your point. I think that my personal experience is creating a bias on my part to disagree with this statement, but, admittedly, I have no shareable evidence, only my personal opinion. I think the fact that it is something I lived with all my life also might make it seem easier-to-accomplish (in terms of training) than it might actually be. So it's weird for me, because I don't quite agree with your judgment that it would not be worth the cost; as far as I'm concerned, it absolutely would worth the cost of saving people's lives, especially when the potential threat usually involves *multiple* people at once. If a subway car explodes, for example, or if a plane goes down, we're talking about (at a minimum) hundreds of dead. I think that the "price" of increased training for people who are *meant* to be security personnel is well worth the potential prevention of this. In my personal experience, this type of "shift" in training doesn't take much, it's mostly a matter of using a different perspective on HOW to detect things, even if you don't go "all the way" to actually stopping people and search their bags. I don't think this costs much, but it may require a bit of time to implement. Some of this, by the way, is already underway to being implemented in airports around the US and around the world through new measures by Homeland Security. It takes time to change a big system. And money. I think the cost is worth it. But, admittedly, I might have both cost *and* benefit skewed on my own personal bias experience, which makes this whole thing a bit moot on my end. I'll have to think of either a way to prove (to myself mostly) whether I'm right or wrong, or accept that my experience is so radically different than many others, that I probably can't be completely unbiased in this case. ~mooey

Sadly, I can't, since the absolute majority of thwarted terror attacks are not publicized, and are kept secret for various security reasons. If you want to discard my statement out of that, feel free, I understand your request but cannot comply with it. I guess it shall remain a matter of opinion. We do more than just speaking to people. Also, the interview itself matters a LOT less than how the person behaves in general. It's our method of creating a "bottleneck". However, you can still do something like that in the airport while looking at people talking to the airport check-in rep. This is really difficult to discuss, I am aware I can't give out a lot of specific information which makes this tough to argue -- or believe. I don't blame you. I just can't really do anything other than say this is from my experience, and suggest that the published statistics in things related to terror and national security are not entirely complete. Despite everything I said in the reply above, I think that this relates to my point about 'extremes'. We seem to be talking "extreme measures" vs. "almost no measures". There is a middle ground, and while it might not be AS effective as the extreme, it is still effective somewhat. Isn't "somewhat effective" security better than none? Yeah I read that. Only serves to show that this particular event was not really an example we can make rules by. Though I must say, it seems (from what I've read) that the police and rescue response was quite impressive once they were called. ~mooey

Agreed, providing the one carrying the concealed weapon knows how to use it properly.

I disagree. I think this is a lot more effective than, say, allowing every citizen (almost) to own a gun. It is not as hard as people make it seem, we're talking about a change to the way the training goes (and improvement through time). Start with police officers -- they get training ANYWAYS. Train them for these things too -- continue "down" the ladder to the rest of the security personnel. I think this is more effective not just for these type of events (and, again, this particular one is a non-example in my opinion) but also for terrorism, and other such threats. Your TSA, for example, have got to be trained better for the current threats. Sure, you could also allow individuals with gun permits to board the plane - that would prevent another 9/11 type hijacking, probably. Then again, it wouldn't prevent bombings, and while I don't have a problem with people owning guns for their own defense, I don't see this as a solution to public safety. You see what I mean? Actually, I'll stop you here for one second, because I think you're actually making my point for me. One of the biggest problems I personally have with a security behavior of the TSA for instance, is that they go by examples. Someone tried to light their shoes on fire = let's get everyone's shoes off. Someone tried to blow up their underwear = let's check people's undies (or scan them "naked"). Someone said they're going to blow a plane up by mixing liquid chemicals = let's ban liquid chemicals at checkpoints. This method is temporarily effective, but it's NOT truly effective. People who want to hurt others, especially organized terrorist groups, are increasingly creative. They will look for the holes and find ways to abuse them. You start with checking shoes, but the next bomb might be in their hats, or part of the hand luggage, or dissembled and activated with a watch, etc etc etc. You can't plan for those things. What you can (and in my opinion, should) do in these cases is go by generalities. There are certain behaviors you can expect from terrorists as well as crazed (or rational, by the way) gunmen. I know people hate this term "profiling", but if you actually do it right -- as in, psychological profiling, rather than what people tend to think as racial profiling which doesn't work -- you can prevent 90% of attacks. You can't guess necessarily where or how the next attack will come, but you CAN anticipate the type of personality that carries it. Now, this, admittedly, is oversimplified -- I simplify this (1) because there are more than one "types" you're looking for and a number of ways of dealing with each one, and (2) I can't talk about some of it publically. The point, I hope, is clear though. I think the problem is not with how many people do security, or where they do security necessarily. The problem is *how* to do security. You will always find places this fails in. The case in the cinema, as I explained before, is, in my opinion, not an example. Would it happen in Israel? Likely not, but that's because our security measures override people's freedoms at times; for instance, we check people's bags (even casually, still) at EVERY entrance to EVERY populated public place. Our security guards are trained in what to look for in those places too. We're a tiny country under constant threat. We cannot make this comparison to the USA, and as I said before, I truly hope we don't need to. But you guys CAN take a few of those aspects to make security more effective. You dont need to have people check bags at entrances of malls, but if you train your security personnel better, you might not have to. You don't need to talk and "interview" every passenger on an outgoing (or incoming) flight, but if your security personnel know what to look for, you don't have to. You see what I mean? The guard doesn't have to waste time. If they know what to look for, they don't need to do anything differently other than watch for what they know they should, and do what they know they should once they spot it. Israel for that matter is not the only place that does this type of thing... I think we're talking about two relative extremes (too much security vs. virtually no security) while there *is* a middle ground. True. If we're just talking about preventing massacres, then my point wouldn't be valid. But I think there's more to it than these random massacre shootings. These are just part of the problem - there are inherent risks now of terrorism, especially after 9/11. Security personnel need to be trained better, and then by proxy they will be able to prevent massacres better (though not all, probably) -- but this is, in my opinion, more than "just" those senseless massacres. I agree, this is a lot about money. I am just disagreeing with you about the potential waste here. If we were talking only about the random shootings, there probably aren't "enough of those" (sorry to be so blunt and horrible) to justify the expense. But in my opinion, we're talking about more than that, and I think that even if we JUST start with police officers and TSA personnel first, it's worth it. And it might prevent these type of things by proxy, so all the better. ~mooey

You would also need to be very accurate; shooting at an angle wouldn't do much. You could also shoot his face through the gas mask, as those are not bullet resistent. Sure. But then again, how many people do you know (even those who know guns) that can be that cool, collected, rational and especially ACCURATE and FAST while being shot at by surprise through a cloud of tear gas? I do see the point people are trying to make about self defense, but I honestly think this type of case just goes against this point anyways. There are other examples to give that are much better in demonstrating how people carrying guns (and knowing how to use them properly) would save the day. I don't think this is one of them, Trip.

In this case, there was almost nothing that could be done. We could discuss other scenarios where we might be able to prevent this, and maybe discuss how to pay more attention to troubled people (if there was any sign at all) but I really don't see how we could treat this case as any sort of "example" to any discussion about gun control - pro or con. In THESE cases, yes. ALL security is limited, all the time, everywhere, no matter how trained the people are. The job of true security people is to be aware of those holes, try to patch them up as much as possible, and do what they can. You cannot prevent everything, and you will always have the exceptional planner madman who executes this type of horrific act despite your attempts. If I continue from my experience, Israel is quite well "trained" in preventing terror attacks, and we do prevent 90% of those, but there ARE terror attacks still. You can't prevent everything. I also agree with Greg H.'s point: I know this. I actually notice it fairly early in my existence in the USA when I reported a rather suspicious bag to a police officer and he, as a reply, kicked the bag hard and said "see? nothing to worry about." Needless to say, I was horrified. I was also working as a security personnel for EL AL airline. I've seen how the TSA works and I'm not too encouraged, hoenstly. Then again, the experience Israelis have is very very different than that Americans have. Also, this country is huge, and it's not easy to change the way you treat these jobs and positions. It isn't an easy thing to train people properly, especially since a lot of those "training properly" features are thinking outside the box, knowing what to look for, and doing your job responsibly. In Israel, this type of job is considered relatively elite (even though it doesn't pay well). Here, it seems to be considered very low in the ladder of awesomeness, to say the least. I assume this is part of the problem. But this is not impossible to do. We're discussing solutions that aren't easy anyways -- whether we discuss banning guns outright, or whether we discuss trying to get people to be more trained / have a bit of regulations on owning a gun -- or if we say we remove all restrictions and let anyone own a gun -- any one of those requires quite a bit of effort, and won't be easy. It will likely be something done over some period of time, and a solution "for the long run". Same goes with training security officers. I'm not talking about retraining citizens to pay more attention; all I'm saying is that if a person already has the job of being responsible for the security of others, they need to be aware of the risks, actually LOOK around them, and not be afraid to report and do something when they suspect something or someone. We have a problem with mall cops in Israel too. That, unlike airline security abroad, is cionsidered one of the lowliest jobs you can do. And yet, they go through some form of training, repeated drills, etc. Noticing a suspicious person with suspicious behavior is not easy, it takes experience -- but it CAN be done (and I say this out of 3+ years experience of doing that in the airport). I think that it's a valid point to make, that we need to put effort into our guards, our security people, our policemen, to prevent these things from happening. Admittedly, that is a separate issue from gun control (or lack thereof). But I really do think it's an issue we (and the media) tend to ignore when these things happen, and I wanted to make sure it's raised as an important issue to follow ALONGSIDE whatever gun regulations are discussed. ~mooey Actually, as far as I understood, guards at that particular place were off duty cops. But your point is well taken, especially since I don't think it's a general occurence to have off-duty cops doing mall guard duty (or cinema-guard duty). Yes. But so is any form of gun control or lack thereof. ~mooey

Mister petty details, are you really suggesting people go with their assault rifles or hunting rifles to the cinema? There we go. I think the point was that the claim that "this could have been stopped if someone else had a gun in the theater" is moot. Suggesting someone had a hunting rifle isn't exactly realistic. Then again, if the guard at the entrance was more trained, the situation could have been prevented. I think that would likely be a lot simpler and more realistic of a solution than having people conceal hunting rifles in their undies when going to see a movie.

Honestly, in a situation like this, a security guard in the ENTERANCE to the building should have noticed a guy carrying a big duffle-bag or several bags (whatever he used, there was way too much equipment for this not to appear weird in a cinema). This SHOULD have been odd enough in the cinema to start asking questions, which would likely have exposed at least some of the risk. I am much stronger proponent of preventative measures -- like training the security officers in places with large crowds, increasing the training of police officers, and teaching people how to notice weird shit -- than arguing that once the shooting starts, we should know how to respond. The chaos in that room, the tear gas, the methodical shooting of the attacker as well as what he was wearing and his extensive fireower simply made this unreasonable for the average 'joe' (or jane) to respond to, no matter how well trained they are with a hand gun. ~mooey P.S -- as a side note, in Israel most of the population is well trained with guns, since most of the population goes to the army and at the very minimum goes through bootcamp taht teaches you self defense and how to handle guns. That said, the absolute vast majority of thwarted attacks were stopped *BEFORE* something happened. Either a security person (or even average people on the street) noticed something and did something with it, or a security person prevented a terrorist from going into the building and preventing worse damage. Once this type of incident starts, it's a lot harder to stop than if you have people trained to spot weird crap BEFORE they happen. It might be unreasonable to expect average american citizens to spot suspicious behaviors because they are not entirely used to this (and by god, I hope they never need to be) And it's also a much larger country, with a lot of different people. Citizens, in an ideal situation, should NOT be walking around the streets worrying about these things. But it absolutely *is* reasonable to expect a security person to know and be aware of how to spot these things. Their job is to worry and be suspicious. They're just not trained well enough, in my opinion, as the past few examples show. Again, this is my personal opinion alone, and I say it from my own personal observation and experience.

There are certainly some unfortunate shooting events that would be prevented if there was a responsible person with a gun around. This is (PARTLY) why in Israel soldiers go off-base with their weapons; they can be the best first-responders in case some tragedy happens, and there's a risk of that type of tragedy happening in Israel as we all know. Of course, we need to be realistic; a bus explosion could not be prevented with an m-16. A rapid-fire into a crowd by a terrorist/madman probably can be reduced in severity. A kidnapping attempt could be thwarted. A mass stabbing event (which is at a risk of happening) can be stopped with a gun. That's also partly why some trips and hikes with masses of people (usually school children) are accompanied by some sort of armed security person. I was one of those for a while. I personally carried a geezer of a gun - a somewhat improved Carabine M1 rifle. It's originally a sniper rifle, and it's extremely accurate and rather reliable in terms of quick-to-fire. It's also big, so it works well as a deterrent. However, as a security person who was armed (and had other security people around with the other groups) I also knew my limits. If someone runs into the group with a bomb around their waist, I can do my best to shoot them in the head before htey blow, but there's a slim-to-none chance I succeed. Hence, my role if THAT happens, was to (a) get everyone on the floor to avoid injury as much as possible, (b) to jump on the terrorist and prevent him/her from getting too close, © provide medical assistance after-the-fact in case I live. Great. Then again, that's what I signed up for when I became an armed security escort -- I was responsible for the security of others. A random person with a gun might not see things this way, though I do hope that if something happens, they try to save the crowd as well as themselves. But that's beside my point. My point is this: The shooter in Aurora, CO had three guns that we know of on his person. An AR-15 assault rifle, a shotgun and an automatic hand gun. He was fully dressed in a FULL tactical suit, and according to several news sources, he was dressed even more than what SWAT team members use. He had a tactical helmet, which is bullet resistant; He had a pair of goggles and a gas mask (both); He had neck protection, bullet resistant; He had a bullet proof vest with arm protection and shooting gloves He had crutch protection; He had leg armor, bullet resistant This above scenario would be extremely difficult for a *trained soldier* to stop. Do you really suggest that a lone person with a self-defense gun (even one who's fully trained) could do anything other than draw fire to himself or accidentally hurt others? I do agree that if you *can* stop the shooter, then (sadly) the risk of hurting innocent bystanders for the purpose of making sure you stop the carnage may be acceptable. But in this case, the guy was more than just "prepared"; he was almost a walking fortress. I think my view on guns is clear by now, I think people can have them for self-defense within some reason, and hope that they know how to use them. But I'm also realistic. I don't think any person - knowledgeable or amateur - could stop the shooter in the cinema with a hand gun. Honestly, I think this type of thing is unrelated to whatever safety measures we take. Even if we outlaw guns altogether, this was a madman criminal - and we all know they can just find illegal guns. Even if we have guns to everyone in the room - that was a well-thought-out tactical "mission" almost, and the guy was dressed so damn fortified you'd have a hell of a hard time stopping him. I think we're pretty lucky he was caught off guard next to his car and surrendered. Could have been a lot worse with what he was carrying. We can't make laws just for madmen, because madmen and criminals will find a way to bypass laws anyways. We need to make laws and regulations for the average law-abiding citizen. This shooting was horrible, and it raised the issue of gun control, but I don't think this can be used as a reason whatsoever to either ban guns or allow guns. This is not the scenario for that. The only thing we can really examine off this case is, maybe, what should and shouldn't be allowed to be sold online or maybe how big of a magazine people should be allowed to have, etc. But the guy was dressed to kill, and you would likely have needed a sniper to shoot his face through the mask to really get him down -- or some heavy firepower through his bulletproof vest to get him down long enough for someone to jump him and get his helmet and vest off. I don't think that's reasonable at all. Even if there was an armed citizen in that cinema, I don't think it would have helped. ~mooey

Jody, we don't usually allow for actual job offer postings in this forum. When you asked for it in the IRC channel, I didn't realize you were looking to post a job posting, I thought you were looking for help or advice from a specific type of engineer. I suggest you try your luck at specific Engineering forums, I think some of them have specific job offer sections. The PhysicsToday site charges for postings, I am not sure about simplyhired. There are other sites that are either free or cheap, just look it up online.

! Moderator Note Welcome to Science Forums, Jody. I removed the email address, as it's against our policy - and you should be able to get replies and help in the forum. Feel free to visit our other threads and participate in the discussions, as well. Is this a job offer, or is it for any other purpose? Do they need to be in a specific country or have a specific work permit? Is this for help with a paper or anything that can be done online? I think if you answer the above questions and make the request more specific, you might get a bit more help. If this is a job offer, I would recommend looking into job-specific websites, like: PhysicsToday job site - http://www.physicstoday.org/jobs EE section of 'simplyhired' - http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/list/q-electromagnetic+engineer If you're looking for chat forums, you just need to put in "Engineering forums" on google and find quite a large amount of them.

He was refering to a very particular institution; he was dancing around the subject, though, remember it was the time of Galileo and the church wasn't all that happy about any of this. Institutions might be inevitable, but that doesn't mean that religion is the institution that sets up morality, I think that's ultimately what the point was. That said, I liked how he made ethics sound like it can stem out of an actually selfish person, individually. It's hard to explain in 2 sentences the entire paper, I try to prove it there. I'll do my best to find it and post it - maybe I can get some views on it ~mooey

! Moderator Note Amanbir's disruptive posts (and the replies thereafter) were erased. Please resume the original topic.

! Moderator Note That's not what we meant when we told you that you need to be clearer. This is a discussion forum, not your personal site. Do you have a point to make or are you just here to post chunks of weirdly-written english bits with not much sense in them? If it's the latter, I suggest you stop now. This is preaching (an unclear one at that) - which is against our rules. It's my utmost sencere recommendation you go over our rules once again, and start following them. Also, as we've discussed before, English sentences start with a capital letter, usually contain a verb, and end with a period. Stop... making.. making making.. making... your own version... version... your own... of what english... yes, english englishg... needs to look ... look like.. you're just being unclear.. unclear unclear unclear. If you don't have an actual CLAIM to make, don't post in the thread. The staff will start deleting pointless posts to avoid derailing a thread, and the next step is to delete your access. Follow our rules, Amanbir, that's not a request.

I actually wrote a paper about the topic (got an award, too!) about Hobbes' Leviathan, and how he seems to construct a purely "logical" / "rational" set of moral behaviors for humans outside the biblical influence, and independent from any "institution" (guess which institution he meant) I can try and find it, I probably have it in PDF format somewhere.

! Moderator Note Enough, you're in a discussion forum, not a gibberish-promoting blog. You have every opportunity to post a question in the forum, and we'd love to give you a chance to do so, but you will need to start by actually asking a coherent question. Otherwise, stop spamming the forum with incoherent babble posts, please. Thread closed.

Fully loaded suggest that you have loaded the magazine (or chambers) fully. Not partially, fully. Next time, phrase yourself more carefully if you want us to understand your meaning better. That said, I'm still waiting for some answer to my couple of points in the other quote. I actually think this is completely related to why guns kill people; if you use them in such a reckless manner, there's no doubt they'd be a danger. This is quite scary, honestly, and I ain't talking about the gun. ~mooey

I think you just broke a record in disproving your own claim in 2 sentences. I don't think there's anything I can add to this as a counter claim that would be any better than what you just wrote yourself. ~mooey Do 3 years carrying a gun in the military, as a Lieutenant, plus being responsible for 10 soldiers who carry guns themselves, count as experience to you? And I had quite a varied experience. I carried an Uzi, an m-16, an m16-short barrel, and even dabbled with a really nifty M1 (carabine) for a couple of months after the army. I slept with my gun regularly, 24/7, took it *everywhere*, and had to make sure no one steals it from me, because our commanding officers TRIED to as a drill. Multiple times. If any one of my soldiers told me they're not putting their safeties on, or sleep with their guns loaded, they'd be in serious trouble. And if they sleep with their gun loaded AND without the safety on, they'd be in military jail. I had such case in bootcamp, in fact. And you would be surprised how quickly one can wake up, grab for his or her unloaded gun, load it, cock it, unhatch the safety, aim and shoot as needed. And we slept with our guns, because there was a chance someone goes into our tents and steal them. If you know what you're doing, you can do a lot safely. Some people don't find this surprising. One can be safe AND smart; those two qualities are not mutually exclusive. ~mooey

That is probably the worst idea I've ever heard of. I assume you are joking, especially due to the 'safety off' remark, which is especially ridiculous, and would only show you to be someone who either doesn't understand anything about guns, or should never approach a gun at all. Otherwise, you seem to be supporting my initial statement that all gun owners should really have some sort of basic training on how to properly use, keep and maintain weapons safely.

Read my post above. The constitution gives you the right to bear arms, it doesn't mean we can't put some wise restrictions. The constitution also gives you the right for free speech, and we have (mostly) wise restrictions on that too. It's not an "either/or" right, it's a right with some safeties. That's not against the constitution.

This is something I don't quite understand: there are quite a number of rights people inherently have in the constitution that do have restrictions. I would claim those are (mostly) valid restrictions for the purpose of living together in a society, but regardless, there ARE restrictions. For instance, the First Amendment is freedom of speech. Thats one of the freedom laws that distinguishes the USA from many other countries in terms of personal rights. It's awesome. And yet, while freedom of speech exists as an inherent right in the constitution, it DOES have limitations. You cannot, for example, freely say anything you want and ruin my good name; I can sue you for that. You cannot lie in a courtroom. You cannot lie to the police. You cannot incite violence. Why are there restrictions? Because societies long realized that while personal freedom is essential, mutual and beneficial social coexistent is also essential. We make these rules so we can live together in social constructs and get along. We can disagree on the amount of restrictions (like, say, The Patriot Act, which in my opinion is a step too far) but there's no question restrictions DO exist. So I don't quite understand why people seem to take the gun issue to the extreme and say that not only do people have a right to bear arms, but that there should be zero restriction or oversight on it. I don't see this argument as strictly a "pro" or "anti" gun control. There *is* a middle ground and there are grey areas. This might stem out of my own personal confusion with this issue, but I get a lot of "but it's in the constitution!!" answers when I suggest we put some restrictions on the right. What does that have to do with anything? Having some restrictions on your right to bear arms does not negate your right to bear arms. It just adds security to the people who live near you, and to your security as someone who may live next to another arm bearer. ~mooey

Agreed. I'm not against people owning guns, I just don't think it's unreasonable to make sure they know how to use them properly. By the way, even if someone HAD a gun inside the theater, the attacker had a complete bullet-resistent tactical suite, including a helmet, goggles and gas mask. A gun wouldn't do much to stop this, even if there was one. Actually, I'd like to see those studies. Guns can be used for self defense, but the ONLY case they can be, is if the people who own them know what they are doing. "This is the trigger, just aim and pull the trigger" is not knowing what they're doing. I have no problem with people owning a gun for self defense. That said, if the purpose is self defense, there's absolutely NO reason for anyone to have an assault rifle. Those are not meant for self defense, and they're not designed for self defense; they're designed to storm buildings or attack. They're usually not very effective short-range, and they are not as accurate as they should be. The bullet speeds also mean that there are rarely "minor" wounds from them. Getting hit means a really bad exit wound. I don't see any valid reason why anyone should own one, honestly, especially when it's relatively so easy to get. There's a reason why soldiers repeatedly learn how to shoot these (and other) guns -- when something bad happens, your thinking cap is usually off. You panic (even if you think you won't) you get scared (even if you think you won't) and you do things out of instinct. Soldiers train so that their instincts are effective -- if you know the gun and its operation and how to effectively use it inside out then you will have much better odds of responding correctly when something happens. Training is key, *especially* with assault rifles that are about 100 times more dangerous and hard to operate PROPERLY than hand guns. I don't see why *police* should have them normally (S.W.A.T, maybe, in some cases, but not police) so I really don't see why individuals should either. Want to defend yourself? Get a good hand gun and learn how to use it. Want a rifle? Get a shotgun or hunting gun and learn how to use it. If you get an AR-15 or MK-45 or M-16, I don't see how you can claim it's for self defense. That's my 2 cents. ~mooey Oh, also, I don't think this is the full scope of the problem, but I do think it's definitely part of it:

! Moderator Note Pymander, speculative ideas belong in Speculation forum, and are not valid answers to mainstream-science discussions. Please refrain from putting your own ideas as mainstream science in these discussions, and stick to the original topic.