By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ConservagameR said:
Barozi said:

Because it makes more sense comparing the US to other first world countries instead of using third world countries to distract from the US' problems.

The US is dead last when it comes to intentional homicide among the first world nations but it comes to no surprise that it's also the worst (by a large margin) when looking at firearm related deaths, even when ignoring suicides.

Also I don't think you realize that the assassin didn't use a real gun but an improvised one that is far inferior to a real gun. The thing he used had not enough power to kill someone from a distance, so he had to get close to the target. It didn't use superior gun powder but black powder. Also he would have to manually reload that thing. In short: The improvised gun was far less capable than a real gun and can only be used to kill one or two targets from a very close range. Not a good weapon for school shootings....

"The large plumes of white smoke seen after each shot indicate that the propellant the gunman used was not the typical “smokeless powder” used in commercial firearms, but something more akin to black powder, which was possibly procured commercially or even self-made with some knowledge of chemistry, noted Amael Kotlarski, editor of “Jane’s Infantry Weapons.”

As for the ammunition, it is difficult to determine what type was used, given the limited information made available thus far. However, based on an assessment of the weapon’s physical characteristics and firing signature, N.R. Jenzen-Jones, the director of Armament Research Services — a consultancy specializing in arms and munitions analysis — suspects that “separate-loading ammunition” was employed.

With this ammunition type, the propellant and projectile are loaded into the weapon separately, either from the breech or the muzzle, with the latter process resembling that of a musket.

“Conventional firearm cartridges are tightly controlled in Japan. As a result, the assailant was likely forced to resort to a weapon that could fire an alternative ammunition type,” Jenzen-Jones said. “This supports the notion that separate-loading ammunition may have been selected, in part to circumvent these legal controls.”

In terms of the projectiles used in the shooting, they may have been single “slugs.” However, given the diameter of the barrels and the low probability the weapon had rifling, the inner spiral grooves needed for an accurate bullet trajectory, the gunman may have instead loaded several buckshot-like smaller projectiles into each barrel to increase hit probability — not unlike a shotgun, according to Moss.

This appears to be supported by Abe’s autopsy report, which indicates that at least two projectiles struck the former prime minister, even though the first shot seems to have missed the 67-year-old entirely.

“Considering Abe’s apparent lack of reaction to the first shot, as captured on video, it appears likely that the assailant had loaded multiple projectiles into each barrel of his weapon, creating a crude shotgun,” said Jenzen-Jones.

Given the weapon’s rudimentary design and firing characteristics, experts are not entirely surprised that the assailant missed the first shot, which was fired from a distance of at least 6 meters.

“It is highly likely that smoothbore (nonrifled) barrels were used. This lack of rifling, taken together with the short-barrel length and generally crude construction, indicate that the firearm most likely possesses a very limited range and is imprecise,” Jenzen-Jones said.

This would probably explain why the shooter decided to move closer to Abe to fire off the lethal second round."

The US has third world problems, so let's compare them to first world nations without those problems? Doesn't entirely make sense to me.

I mentioned making a gun from a coconut and radio, which I straight up borrowed from COKTOE's earlier witty reply which mirror's yours.

Not great for school shootings under 3 conditions:

1) If they only do so singlehandedly. They could just partner up like they have before, or start to team up instead.

2) If they only made a single gun. They could just avoid background checks and get their hands on more coconuts and radio's and bring a bag.

3) If they choose a school unlike Uvalde, where the cops actually stop you instead of just watching the shooting like it's a war reenactment.

They had to get close to Abe, and did so, quite easily. How much closer could they have gotten? What other weapons could've been viable?

You'll never improve when you only look at the ones below you. The US wants to be a first world country but then it has to fulfill all the basic requirements and not just GDP per capita. Life expectancy, wealth inequality, homicide, labor rights etc. are all important parts of being a first world country.

But you make it seem like as long as it's better than North Korea and Syria, everything is fine. I mean seriously, how can you not at least compare the US to Canada, which is not only a neighboring state but also culturally almost the same or at least similar. After all, the US has the money and means to change all these things but it just doesn't happen. And that's the reason why it shouldn't be compared to Brazil, Mexico, South Africa or whatever.

As for the coconut radio gun thing, you saved me the work to demonstrate how much harder it would be compared to a regular gun.

1) The need for one or more partners to do decent damage. Makes it more unlikely to happen. Also when trying to find a partner, more people will know of the plans and thus increase the likelihood of them warning the police.

2) More of these guns doesn't change the fact that their bullets have less impact than regular bullets, are more inaccurate than regular guns and you have to get close to fatally harm someone. I don't see how a bag would help since you can only fire two bullets and then have to either manually reload them or grab a new gun from the bag, which you would have to carry around at all times.

3) The cops certainly didn't do a good job in Uvalde but a worse gun also means less risk for the police when storming the place. They could easily kill the guy without risking any harm as long as they keep the distance.

Thanks for explaining why banning guns would lead to less school (or mall) shootings and even less dead people in case it still happens.