Las Vegas Shooting

[Time the Crestfallen]

3 minutes ago, Lushen said:

This is actually a good thing to look into.  I couldn't find anything on Australia specifically but...brace yourself...

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

Graphs from https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans

Well speaking as an Australian, I have posted gun statistics from here before. I went back into old threads and found some of them for you. If you want more, just ask.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia
http://d3bo5ucoqkgs8h.cloudfront.net/yXObk/1/

[Res]

Banning guns may not prevent my spouse or family member (the largest percentages of homicides are committed by people close to their victims) murdering me, but it means less chance of me being killed by a random person in a club or at a concert or on the street. It means less chance of my children being killed at school. So yes, there IS validity in looking at gun deaths and not just overall homicides.

Gun-related accidents are also significant in the U.S. A child is killed in a gun-related accident almost every other day.

What was really significant in Australia was suicides drastically fell. Suicides by methods other than guns remained about the same, but suicides by guns drastically decreased, thus decreasing the overall suicide rate. People have a far better chance of surviving a suicide attempt by cutting or poisoning.

Also, relevant paragraph from the Slate article I posted earlier:

Quote

If we examine data from within the United States, the odds aren’t any better for gun owners. The most recent study examining the relationship between firearms and homicide rates on a state level, published last April, found a significant positive relationship between gun ownership and overall homicide levels. Using data from 1981–2010 and the best firearm ownership proxy to date, the study found that for every 1 percent increase in gun ownership, there was a 1.1 percent increase in the firearm homicide rate and a 0.7 percent increase in the total homicide rate. This was after controlling for factors such as poverty, unemployment, income inequality, alcohol consumption, and nonhomicide violent crime. Further, the firearm ownership rate had no statistically significant impact on nonfirearm homicides, meaning there was no detectable substitution effect. That is, in the absence of guns, would-be criminals are not switching to knives or some other weapons to carry out homicide. These results are supported by a host of previous studies that illustrate that guns increase the rate of homicides.

 

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Res

[Tetragrammaton]

6 minutes ago, Res said:

Banning guns may not prevent my spouse or family member (the largest percentages of homicides are committed by people close to their victims) murdering me, but it means less chance of me being killed by a random person in a club or at a concert or on the street. It means less chance of my children being killed at school. So yes, there IS validity in looking at gun deaths and not just overall homicides.

Gun-related accidents are also significant in the U.S. A child is killed in a gun-related accident almost every other day.

What was really significant in Australia was suicides drastically fell. Suicides by methods other than guns remained about the same, but suicides by guns drastically decreased, thus decreasing the overall suicide rate. People have a far better chance of surviving a suicide attempt by cutting or poisoning.

Also, relevant paragraph from the Slate article I posted earlier:

I believe this could be prevented as well

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/arizona-girl-fatal-shooting-accident/index.html

[Time the Crestfallen]

Oh, there's also this utterly depressing website that keeps track of all the mass shootings that happen in the US, not just the most newsworthy ones.

[Lushen]

26 minutes ago, Magus of Flowers said:

Well speaking as an Australian, I have posted gun statistics from here before. I went back into old threads and found some of them for you. If you want more, just ask.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia
http://d3bo5ucoqkgs8h.cloudfront.net/yXObk/1/

Excellent articles.  Still, it seems quite different from the situation in America right now.  For example, I saw this graph

http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_image/269/figure_02.gif

What was the situation in Australia that made it so only males were dieing from guns?  Not sure if its relevant, but it definitely catches the eye.  What I'm expecting to find is some extreme differences in American culture that would explain why it worked in Australia but didn't work in any of the cases I posted.  Because there has to be a reason.  I'm also guessing that my data would more closely resemble what we could expect as far as an American trend because one of the things I cited was the increased acceleration of homicide with respect to more regulation of gun control in Chicago which is in the united states. 

Either way, one situation where it worked doesn't account for four situations where it caused the exact opposite to happen at a greater acceleration in the opposite direction, one being in America.

 

15 minutes ago, Res said:

<snip>

I'm not sure a comparison between the number of gun owners and the number of shootings and homicide can tell you what will happen if a gun ban is put in place.  I think its more likely that places where people have less interest in guns, there are less homicides either because people don't feel the need to have guns or they don't have as many people with murderous tendencies in the area.

Or am I understanding the article wrong?  I can't actually read the study because I'd have to purchase it.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Lushen

[Time the Crestfallen]

16 minutes ago, Lushen said:

http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_image/269/figure_02.gif

What was the situation in Australia that made it so only males were dieing from guns?  Not sure if its relevant, but it definitely catches the eye.  What I'm expecting to find is some extreme differences in American culture that would explain why it worked in Australia but didn't work in any of the cases I posted.  Because there has to be a reason.  I'm also guessing that my data would more closely resemble what we could expect as far as an American trend because one of the things I cited was the increased acceleration of homicide with respect to more regulation of gun control in Chicago which is in the united states. 

There's no title on it, so I'm just gonna ask; is this for homicides or all deaths via guns? Cause if it's all deaths, the rate is gonna be heavily skewed by suicide rates.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Magus of Flowers

[Magical CC]

7 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

...our origins are that of a pre-industrial agrarian society with no state police or ability to move word of an attack faster then the speed of horseback. And where the most dangerous weapons available for personal use were muskets that an exceptionally skilled operator could use to fire off about one shot every 20 seconds. There's a fine line between abandoning our origins and outgrowing them. 

America origin is a bunch of land thieves and murderous immigrants. Without a lot of guns in the hand of the people, it will make killing the natives a hard chore. I mean, when there's a price for each native head you have, using a gun is faster and safer than pitchfork and knives. The truth is America thrives on gun market. There is no way anything relates to gun control gonna be passed so it's pointless to talk about it anyway. Money > human life, simple.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Magical CC

[Shoblongoo]

36 minutes ago, Magus of Flowers said:

There's no title on it, so I'm just gonna ask; is this for homicides or all deaths via guns? Cause if it's all deaths, the rate is gonna be heavily skewed by suicide rates.

It worked in Australia but didn't work in Chicago because Chicago is right next to Indiana, which is a Republican controlled no-gun-control red state, and guns from Indiana come flooding into Illinois. Whereas gun control in Australia is national law, and is not subject to the problem of guns from unregulated provinces popping up in nearby population centers. This was already explained to him. He ignored it.

[Lushen]

51 minutes ago, Magus of Flowers said:

There's no title on it, so I'm just gonna ask; is this for homicides or all deaths via guns? Cause if it's all deaths, the rate is gonna be heavily skewed by suicide rates.

Good question but actually it doesn't really matter since the graph is more about the 80s/90s than the 90/00. 

But I still can't find a graph that shows a trend where Australia's homicide rate went down after Arthur Gun reforms.  Yes, there's the second graph you posted but that was about the cause of death being assault rifles which to me sounds like the same propaganda that was posted to me earlier.   The idea that making guns illegal will make less people use guns to kill people is obviously true, but the data I posted seems to suggest that the overall homicide rate goes up substantially.  I can't find any graphs for the overall homicide rate.

 

Let me explain with  graph I previously posted.

So it's clear that within two years of the Handgun ban in Birtain, we saw a GIANT spike in homicide.  Yes, I'm sure you could find a graph that shows that homicides related to gun violence has gone down...but as I said I care more about the overall number of homicides more than how homicides are distributed.  Now you may say "well look it got better in 2008-2010.  Yea...it took 10ish years of extra high homicide rates to return to normal.  Great job gun ban.  Also keep in mind that America is probably (not entirely sure) a lot more passionate about gun rights than Britain probably was which, if true, means we could expect a significantly larger spike and a longer period of time to "go back to normal".  Finally, "going back to normal" for the other graphs did not mean staying constant but rather going back to a steady increase in homicides from a substantial increase in homicides. 

 

BTW, I am perfectly fine with disbarment by way of "Buy Back" organizations.  I am also not opposed to stricter regulation in the number of bullets that can be kept at one time as I am unaware of what exactly this legislature looks like now.  The concept of having a right to bear arms to go against government oppression does not mean a single individual shooting thousands of bullets at the government.  I think the best way to prevent situations like this specific shooting from taking place would be to have government agencies keep a tighter watch on how millionaires spend their money.  I mean come on, he had over 10 illegal guns (which would be tremendously more expensive than regular guns) and over a thousand rounds of ammunition.  This shit is expensive, I would think someone would have noticed him taking this much money out without having a clue where it was going. 

Also note that considering it can cost an average between $400 and $1,000 per gun, the government could not buy back everyones guns without paying a maximum of a trillion dollars so gun bans in America would probably mean America just steals everyones guns.

 

@ShoblongooIt's not that it "didn't work", it's that it had the exact opposite effect and made things WORSE.  Look at the graph. 

Spoiler

It wasn't ineffective, it was effective at having  the exact opposite trend intended.  And I'm pretty sure illegal purchases of weapons tend to be more expensive so you should still see less guns in Chicago.  If I were smuggling guns, I would charge more than I originally paid for when I bought them legally.  Instead of claiming that I'm ignoring something how about you explain to me how every time (except Australia) a place institutes more gun regulation homicide rates go up.

 

46 minutes ago, Magical CC said:

America origin is a bunch of land thieves and murderous immigrants. Without a lot of guns in the hand of the people, it will make killing the natives a hard chore. I mean, when there's a price for each native head you have, using a gun is faster and safer than pitchfork and knives. The truth is America thrives on gun market. There is no way anything relates to gun control gonna be passed so it's pointless to talk about it anyway. Money > human life, simple.

Well that's one perspective.... What country are you aware of with an innocent past?  Because by this logic all of North and South America is "murderous"..  I don't know where you're from, but I will bet money it has probably committed some version of genocide in the past.

And America does not thrive on the gun market.  If it did, all these crazy liberals wouldn't be suggesting that we abolish gun rights.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Lushen

[Shoblongoo]

 

20 minutes ago, Lushen said:

 

@ShoblongooIt's not that it "didn't work", it's that it had the exact opposite effect and made things WORSE.

  Hide contents

...no it didn't. It didn't do anything, because the policy was rendered without force-and-effect by the availability of guns from a neighboring state.

Chicago's violent crime trends in this time period were driven by superseding variables not illustrated in the above graph. There's like 10 different statistically signifigant independent variables (poverty rates, education rates, addiction rates, racial homogeneity, population density, % urbanization, strength of gun control laws in current state, strength of gun control laws in neighboring states, prevalence of police action...)  that a proper study has to put on the right-hand side of an equation where [prevalence of violent crime] sits as the dependent variable on the left. Before you get something even vaguely resembling a complete mathematical model of why violent crime occurs and how it can be reduced.

I wrote my senior thesis in undergrad on this subject. You're not going to sneak these numbers past me.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Time the Crestfallen]

25 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

It worked in Australia but didn't work in Chicago because Chicago is right next to Indiana, which is a Republican controlled no-gun-control red state, and guns from Indiana come flooding into Illinois. Whereas gun control in Australia is national law, and is not subject to the problem of guns from unregulated provinces popping up in nearby population centers. This was already explained to him. He ignored it.

I was responding to his question for why the graph he posted had male death so much higher than women. Since women are around 1.0 per 100,000 while men were almost as high as 7.0 at 1991-ish, I would assume it includes all deaths by guns i.e. homicides, suicides, and accidents.

23 minutes ago, Lushen said:

But I still can't find a graph that shows a trend where Australia's homicide rate went down after Arthur Gun reforms.  Yes, there's the second graph you posted but that was about the cause of death being assault rifles which to me sounds like the same propaganda that was posted to me earlier.

No, the second graph counts 'death by firearms'. Unless I missed something, Rifles aren't singled out at all.

23 minutes ago, Lushen said:

The idea that making guns illegal will make less people use guns to kill people is obviously true, but the data I posted seems to suggest that the overall homicide rate goes up substantially.  I can't find any graphs for the overall homicide rate.

Which is odd, because going to the gunpolicy.org section for Australia shows a clear decrease in the number of homicides after the Port-Arthur reforms went into effect.

Furthermore, simply looking at homicide rates is only providing part of the picture. Total deaths? Changes in the weapon usage rates? What the ban constituted? Other changes in policy? I know the British government banned katanas around 2008.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Magus of Flowers

[Res]

What's really fucked up is that amidst all the arguing about the right to bear arms is the fact that the same people so hot on maintaining gun rights typically view access to healthcare as a privilege. 

We usually talk about gun crime in terms of death but gun injuries are serious and often have life-long consequences. Some of the living victims are going to be bankrupted by the cost of their medical care. That's what really disturbs me in all this debating. 

25 minutes ago, Lushen said:

 And America does not thrive on the gun market.  If it did, all these crazy liberals wouldn't be suggesting that we abolish gun rights.

Hahahaha people are so crazy for wanting to decrease mass shootings, right?

No one is calling for the abolition of gun rights in the U.S. People are asking for discussion and for tighter restrictions, and that's across the political spectrum.

[Time the Crestfallen]

6 minutes ago, Res said:

No one is calling for the abolition of gun rights in the U.S. People are asking for discussion and for tighter restrictions, and that's across the political spectrum.

It's all for naught though. It was decided when the Sandy Hook shooting occurred that owning guns was more important than the lives lost to them. If all the other shootings that happened didn't change a thing, I don't see much happening now.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Magus of Flowers

[Sias]

2 hours ago, Lushen said:

Yep!  Which is why I find some liberal spokespersons that say "Well we don't need assault rifles" as a means to creep into abolishing the right to bear arms by asking a baby step hysterical because very few homicides even use rifles compared to guns.

 

Yea it probably would.  But self defense shooting save American lives too.  We know that self defense is fairly rare when it comes to gun use but how do we know that homicide prevention by guns will prevent more homicides than self defense will save?  I tend to believe that murderers are bad people who are going to do a bad thing because that's what they do.

For what exact purpose would someone need to buy assault rifles though?

Also, you know whether homicide prevention saves more lives than self-defense by looking at some statistics. This here for example shows that in 2012 there were only 259 justifiable gun-homicides in self-defense. At the same time however, we had 1.2 million violent crimes in the Us where use of weapons would have been allowed to defend yourself. You therefore should recognize that it's not exactly something that commonly happens. At all.
To sum it up:

Quote

So what conclusions can we draw from this? The notion that a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun is a romanticized vision of the nature of violent crime. And that the sea of guns in which we live causes exponentially more danger and harm than good. It's long past time to start emphasizing the "well-regulated" phrase in the 2nd Amendment.

 

32 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Let me explain with  graph I previously posted.

[...]

So it's clear that within two years of the Handgun ban in Birtain, we saw a GIANT spike in homicide.  Yes, I'm sure you could find a graph that shows that homicides related to gun violence has gone down...but as I said I care more about the overall number of homicides more than how homicides are distributed.  Now you may say "well look it got better in 2008-2010.  Yea...it took 10ish years of extra high homicide rates to return to normal.  Great job gun ban.  Also keep in mind that America is probably (not entirely sure) a lot more passionate about gun rights than Britain probably was which, if true, means we could expect a significantly larger spike and a longer period of time to "go back to normal".  Finally, "going back to normal" for the other graphs did not mean staying constant but rather going back to a steady increase in homicides from a substantial increase in homicides. 

[...]

@ShoblongooIt's not that it "didn't work", it's that it had the exact opposite effect and made things WORSE.  Look at the graph. 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The gun ban almost certainly didn't make things worse in Chicago. Look at your own damn graph. The ban took "effect" in 1983 and then a whole lot of nothing changed during the next seven years. The big spike you talk about is somwhere near 1990 and a whole lot of things happened in the time inbetween.

The homicide spike in Britain wasn't connected to their gun ban either, which you could see if you had actually looked at a larger timeframe. In fact it was just the peak of a larger trend that had been going on since the 1960s (and started to invert in 2003). Furthermore some guy named Harold Shipman apparently murdered 172 people with morphine during 2002/2003, which attributes for more than a tenth of this spike alone.

http://www.blog.murdermap.co.uk/statistics/homicide-in-england-and-wales-1898-to-2012/

[Lushen]

51 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

 

...no it didn't. It didn't do anything, because the policy was rendered without force-and-effect by the availability of guns from a neighboring state.

Chicago's violent crime trends in this time period were driven by superseding variables not illustrated in the above graph. There's like 10 different statistically signifigant independent variables (poverty rates, education rates, addiction rates, racial homogeneity, population density, % urbanization, strength of gun control laws in current state, strength of gun control laws in neighboring states, prevalence of police action...)  that a proper study has to put on the right-hand side of an equation where [prevalence of violent crime] sits as the dependent variable on the left. Before you get something even vaguely resembling a complete mathematical model of why violent crime occurs and how it can be reduced.

I wrote my senior thesis in undergrad on this subject. You're not going to sneak these numbers past me.

Where is this proper study?  And what are the odds of Chicago and all three of the other graphs I posted having the EXACT same effect.  Even if you managed to prove that the spikes seen in all four graphs were a coincidence, you still have a long ways to go in explaining to me how abolishing guns will cause homicides IN GENERAL to decrease.  Because if it won't than destroying one of our basic rights is all for nothing.  I honestly don't care if someone kills someone with a knife or fists Instead of a gun - in fact, the gun is more humane.  

And whatever you have done is irrelevant.  This is the same thing as when someone with a PHD says "I have a PHD I know better, your statistics are irrelevant".  You can't discredit an argument by saying that you're better than the person making the argument.  If you wrote your thesis on this, it should be easy.

40 minutes ago, Res said:

Hahahaha people are so crazy for wanting to decrease mass shootings, right?

No one is calling for the abolition of gun rights in the U.S. People are asking for discussion and for tighter restrictions, and that's across the political spectrum.

The word 'crazy' was more of a gentle jab than a rational insult :p

And that's fine, I'm very open minded to a democrat saying we should have more regulations as long as it does not mean the eventual destruction of the right to bear arms.  And some people in this thread seem to be siding towards this idea, although you are not.

@SiasAll the other graphs I posted had the same delay.  While I am unsure to the exact cause, I would imagine the delay is caused either from a delay of belief or escalation of anger towards the ban.  This, or it is because the ban took longer to fully go in effect than the start date indicated.  I tend to believe this delay is just how it is, rather than believing that all four cases had a coincidence at the same time given that the spike is MASSIVE.  I mean what are the odds?

 

Also, the overall statistics point towards the fact that America has been in steady decline when it comes to overall homicides.  All this talk of gun control like things are getting out of hand is utterly ridiculous.  Not only does America NOT actually have a high homicide rate, but homicide has been in steady decline despite a lack of gun control since 2000.  Why are dems trying to ruin a good thing?  Why is a decline in homicide that puts us at an all time low since the 1920s and a brief portion of the 1950s a bad thing? 

http://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/assets/Murders 1.bmp

Edited October 3, 2017 by Lushen

[Res]

1 hour ago, Magus of Flowers said:

It's all for naught though. It was decided when the Sandy Hook shooting occurred that owning guns was more important than the lives lost to them. If all the other shootings that happened didn't change a thing, I don't see much happening now.

Oh, I agree, but I still feel the need to at least discuss it.

It's also worth pointing out (especially in the light of yesterday's political discussions) that we're really talking about the rights of white people to bear arms, because a non-white person bearing arms should be expected to run the risk of being shot by police, and the NRA is certainly not going to back them up.

McSweeney's is also on point today with their list of things more tightly regulated than buying a gun. 

And to follow up on my above post, here's one example (I'm sure there are many more): Ron Johnson, who opposes gun restrictions and has received over $7,000 in campaign money from the NRA, considers even food and shelter privileges, not rights.

The U.S. homicide (general, not just gun homicide) rate may be lower than, say, Mexico, but it's still 3 x higher than most of Europe's. 

Finally, here's some of the known victims so far. Better to learn their names than the perpetrator's. It also has links to their fundraisers. 

3 hours ago, Tryhard said:

These are actually a thing? Holy shit.

There's a reason (actually, multiple reasons) that I doubt I will ever really want to visit America, to be honest.

They're a thing!

And if I'd been engaged in these kind of discussions aged 25 I'd have definitely not moved to the U.S., which is shaping up to be my life's biggest regret so far. C'est la vie. 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Res

[Lushen]

5 minutes ago, Res said:

It's also worth pointing out (especially in the light of yesterday's political discussions) that we're really talking about the rights of white people to bear arms, because a non-white person bearing arms should be expected to run the risk of being shot by police, and the NRA is certainly not going to back them up.

Is there like an instinctual need to turn every issue in America into a form of racial injustice?  

[Tetragrammaton]

5 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Is there like an instinctual need to turn every issue in America into a form of racial injustice?  

But it is, ignoring them means you're ignoring the truth.

[Captain Karnage]

I know you guys probably won't like the guy Im linking to but I haven't seen this interview anywhere else

Apparently someone tried to warn everyone at the concert. maybe not warn but somebody was trying to say something

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Captain Karnage

[Lushen]

6 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

I know you guys probably won't like the guy Im linking to but I haven't seen this interview anywhere else

Apparently someone tried to warn everyone at the concert

 

Yea I've seen it.  I think it would be no more than wild speculation to consider this serious at this point.  First off, there's no way to know if this young girl is telling the truth.  Second and more likely, it's a concert and people are drunk in vegas.  I would be surprised if some crazy person didn't claim everyone was about to die.   Third, why would someone scream about how everyone is going to die rather than notifying law enforcement.  Unless she wanted it to happen, at which point she probably wouldn't have wanted to be anywhere near the stage.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Lushen

[Captain Karnage]

3 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Yea I've seen it.  I think it would be no more than wild speculation to consider this serious at this point.  First off, there's no way to know if this young girl is telling the truth.  Second and more likely, it's a concert and people are drunk in vegas.  I would be surprised if some crazy person didn't claim everyone was about to die.   Third, why would someone scream about how everyone is going to die rather than notifying law enforcement.  Unless she wanted it to happen, at which point she probably wouldn't have wanted to be anywhere near the stage.

well, if it's that girl that was in the picture with the shooter, we need to find her. Regardless we need to find her, she could have so much information we need to know

[Lushen]

8 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

well, if it's that girl that was in the picture with the shooter, we need to find her. Regardless we need to find her, she could have so much information we need to know

The girlfriend of the shooter was out of the country and they're trying to get ahold of her

Edited October 3, 2017 by Lushen

[blah the Prussian]

So one thing no one seems to be mentioning about Lushen's top countries for homicides is that the top countries on that list are almost uniformly in Latin America and the Carribean, which also happen to be at the forefront of the Drug War. There MIGHT be an alternate explanation for the amounts of homicides(and, hell, what about Ireland, which was until relatively recently in the Troubles?)

[Lushen]

1 minute ago, blah the Prussian said:

So one thing no one seems to be mentioning about Lushen's top countries for homicides is that the top countries on that list are almost uniformly in Latin America and the Carribean, which also happen to be at the forefront of the Drug War. There MIGHT be an alternate explanation for the amounts of homicides(and, hell, what about Ireland, which was until relatively recently in the Troubles?)

It's not that America is not in the top countries for homicide.  It's that they're in the middle.  Yes European countries have lower rates of homicide but it's entirely possible that they have lower rates of motive for homicide.  The point was more to discredit the belief that how many of our homicides are because of guns is the relevant issue here.  If guns related to homicides were the issue than a country with the most privately owned guns in which 1/3 of the country owns a gun would have significantly higher rates of homicide than most other countries which is untrue.  

The point here, and I'm glad you brought it up, is the underlying cause of high/low homicide rates is NOT guns.  It's motive.  The Drug War, for example, is able to escalate homicide in these countries despite gun regulation.  The only way to prevent murder is to kill motive.  The only effect I can see from the abolishment of the 2nd amendment is more motive because 1/3 of the country will just get pissed off.

[The Geek]

I think the big point is that you wouldn't see one guy killing over 50 people and injuring single handed if all he had was a knife.  This shit happens here because apparently we need our guns to keep the government from turning totalitarian (because you know that is totally the only thing preventing such a thing and that shotgun on your wall will definitely allow you to defeat a tank)