Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (2)

[smartcooky]

Quit with the bollocks, of course a .223 is more damaging than a .22 and a 7.62 is more damaging than a .223

If you ban the .223 and larger calibres then the .22 semi-auto will be used. It isn't ******* rocket science.
A .22 can kill you just as dead as a .223.

True, but irrelevant to what Bob001 actually said, which was...

"If you're not shot in the head or the heart, you have a good chance of surviving a .22 wound. But a .223 causes so much tissue damage and blood loss that almost any wound can be fatal. "

....and he is 100% correct in what he said.

Typical .22 muzzle velocity 330 m/s
Typical .223 muzzle velocity 990 m/s

Typical .22 energy 160 Joules
Typical .223 energy 1300 Joules

The impact velocity of a .223 at close range is three times greater than that of a .22, and the impact energy is eight times higher. That is why exit wounds from a .22 almost never happen, while a .223 can blow a hole the size of a softball (or bigger) as it exits.

A head shot from a .22 is survivable
A head shot from a .223 will blown half your head away.

 

[mgidm86]

As would I. Probably offer financial help, too. Not what I am talking about.

I am talking about the highest office in the land taking notes from a guy who lived in this town when he was very little and basically no contact since ( that school didn't even exist when he lived there, btw). It's a dog and pony show. What do you think McConnaheigh has to offer the White House that they wouldn't be better served by getting from a current Uvalde town drunk?

In a state where people think it's okay to walk around with a gun with no license or training....maybe many are so stupid that they will listen to a celebrity?

How do we get a bunch of kids to listen to someone? Have Big Bird talk to them.

I doubt the White House is asking for advice, they are probably asking if he thinks these morons would listen to him, ya know since their ******* morons?

No offense to Dr. Keith and other Texans with brains.

 

[Warp12]

You agree that if it's illegal to purchase AR-15s, they won't go and acquire them illegally? That's kinda like saying gun control works.

I don't think they will need to bother, although some might. There are plenty of ways for them to kill lots of people without an AR.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Will never happen in the US (banning all handguns). And the above sentiment is exactly why some people really dig their heels in when it comes to any bans or restrictions.

They know that for many liberals, banning semi-auto's, or any measure, is just a stepping stone to their real goals.

I agree, the USA is happy with the periodic blood sacrifice of it's children to the god of guns

 

[Andy_Ross]

True, but irrelevant to what Bob001 actually said, which was...



....and he is 100% correct in what he said.

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/qfx9e4rvdg0w00p/22%20v%20223.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]

Typical .22 muzzle velocity 330 m/s
Typical .223 muzzle velocity 990 m/s

Typical .22 energy 160 Joules
Typical .223 energy 1300 Joules

The impact velocity of a .223 at close range is three times greater than that of a .22, and the impact energy is eight times higher. That is why exit wounds from a .22 almost never happen, while a .223 can blow a hole the size of a softball (or bigger) as it exits.

A head shot from a .22 is survivable
A head shot from a .223 will blown half your head away.

OK let me shoot you in the head with a .22 and see how you get on. a bullet that doesn't exit but tumbles through your brain or heart will kill you just as dead.

**** off with all the irrelevant **** about muzzle velocities and 'joules' and exit wounds. gun porn wankery at it's finest

 

[Warp12]

OK let me shoot you in the head with a .22 and see how you get on. a bullet that doesn't exit but tumbles through your brain or heart will kill you just as dead.

**** off with all the irrelevant **** about muzzle velocities and 'joules' and exit wounds. gun porn wankery at it's finest

All this talk reminds of a thread about another recent shooting. And someone was saying something along the lines that the person was "only" shot with a .45 Long Colt...and it wasn't a high power round, like modern ammo.

Ridiculous. Yes, this might be right on a technical level, for a ballistics manual. But, in real life you are likely dead or gimping it up like James Brady after even being shot in the head with a little .22 rimfire.

 

[lionking]

No doubt, if it becomes too hard to get a semi-auto rifle, these shooters will have to switch over to pistols or any of the other available options. Of course, banning the semi-auto's is just the start.

It certainly is just the start. Handguns are banned in Australia and the UK.

 

[Warp12]

It certainly is just the start. Handguns are banned in Australia and the UK.

Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ignoring all the mixed results 'studies' used to discount the benefit of an assault weapons ban, how about one decent fact-checkable study?

Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us

That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:

See the article for the results or go here for the published study:

Jnl of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery: Changes in US mass shooting deaths associated with the 1994–2004 federal assault weapons ban: Analysis of open-source data

RESULTS
Assault rifles accounted for 430 or 85.8% of the total 501 mass-shooting fatalities reported (95% confidence interval, 82.8–88.9) in 44 mass-shooting incidents. Mass shootings in the United States accounted for an increasing proportion of all firearm-related homicides (coefficient for year, 0.7; p = 0.0003), with increment in year alone capturing over a third of the overall variance in the data (adjusted R2 = 0.3). In a linear regression model controlling for yearly trend, the federal ban period was associated with a statistically significant 9 fewer mass shooting related deaths per 10,000 firearm homicides (p = 0.03). Mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the federal ban period (relative rate, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.22–0.39).

CONCLUSION
Mass-shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004.

We should start somewhere. An assault weapons ban is consistent with the 2nd Amendment's "well regulated militia".

It's also consistent to add age restrictions, waiting periods and full background checks, not just state background checks which I believe are the most common checks done.

BTW, the majority of people in the US including gun owners and Republicans approve of these measures.

Who doesn't approve are gun industry lobbyists and the NRA that pay for legislators' campaigns and have a disproportionate influence making people believe the lies that they somehow are a majority of people.


ETA: JORDAN KLEPPER SOLVES GUNS - GET INVOLVED

 

[lionking]

Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[sarge]

I'm running on the assumption that mass murderers want to look the part, and might feel stupid being the Harbinger of Death with a plinker? Kind of like the Grim Reaper showing up to harvest your soul with a BB gun? I think that accounts for the popularity of the AR in the first place.

I agree, although I’m not sure of the connection to the point I was attempting to make.

I was almost 30 years an infantryman. I get a real kick out of the idiots that run around in ‘tactical’ gear with their grossly over priced ARs.

 

[sarge]

Sure, a .22 is a potentially deadly round. So is a well-aimed brick. But a standard .22LR has a velocity of about 1300 fps and a muzzle energy of about 140 foot-pounds. A .223 has a velocity of around 3000 fps and a muzzle energy of over 1200 ft/lbs. I'm sure you appreciate the difference. We don't send soldiers into combat with .22s.
https://winchester.com/Products/Ammunition/Rimfire/Wildcat/WW22LRB
https://winchester.com/Products/Ammunition/Rifle/USA/USA223L1

.223s make bigger holes.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

And if there's a ban on anything, it should certainly include high-capacity magazines for all calibers.

ETA: The AR15 is a marketing success more than anything else.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/31/uvalde-shooting-ar-15-interview-ryan-busse/
https://www.northjersey.com/story/n...on-became-so-popular-united-states/340964002/

A .22lr and a brick? As comparisons go, that one is pretty bad.

If I have a choice of rounds for mass killing, I choose a .223 over a .22lr. If I am crafting assault weapons control legislation with the goal of reducing mass murders, I address any weapon capable of firing 100 lethal rds a minute. Any semiauto rifle with a sufficiently large magazine in cal .22lr inarguably meets this criteria. Your ballistic tables are essentially meaningless in this discussion.

 

[smartcooky]

OK let me shoot you in the head with a .22 and see how you get on. a bullet that doesn't exit but tumbles through your brain or heart will kill you just as dead.

If you actually ******* bothered to READ what Bob001 said, which you clearly have not; and I'll post it here once again so you can have a third attempt at reading and understanding it - with emphasis so that even the blindest of blind Freddies won't miss it!

If you're not shot in the head or the heart, you have a good chance of surviving a .22 wound. But a .223 causes so much tissue damage and blood loss that almost any wound can be fatal.

... then you would not say stupid things that do not address what Bob001 said!!

So, once again, you are ENTIRELY missing the point of what Bob001 said. Having had it explained to you, I can only assume that you are doing so deliberately!

**** off with all the irrelevant **** about muzzle velocities and 'joules' and exit wounds. gun porn wankery at it's finest

They are not irrelevant facts They are key to understanding the effectiveness of firearms. This is just part of Ballisitics 101!

If you think the size of the bullet is the only thing that matters, and that the velocity and energy of the bullet have no effect on its kill-effectiveness then you don't know anything near as much about firearms as you claim.

Here is some reading material for you. Its written by firearms experts and scientists who know what they are talking about!

Warning: 1MB PDF
Warning: the PDF contains graphic images
https://smhs.gwu.edu/icu/sites/icu/files/Ballistics.pdf

FFS take some time out of your day and educate yourself!!
.
.

 

[Bob001]

.....
If I have a choice of rounds for mass killing, I choose a .223 over a .22lr. If I am crafting assault weapons control legislation with the goal of reducing mass murders, I address any weapon capable of firing 100 lethal rds a minute. Any semiauto rifle with a sufficiently large magazine in cal .22lr inarguably meets this criteria. Your ballistic tables are essentially meaningless in this discussion.

Fair enough. If it were up to me the only firearms available to civilians would be revolvers, double-barrel and pump shotguns, and bolt-action or lever-action rifles with limited capacities, all registered individually to owners licensed and insured after intensive, extensive background checks. But since that will never happen, what we might hope realistically to do is make it harder to get the most dangerous weapons. And that's where ballistics comes in.

 

[Matthew Best]

If you actually ******* bothered to READ what Bob001 said, which you clearly have not; and I'll post it here once again so you can have a third attempt at reading and understanding it - with emphasis so that even the blindest of blind Freddies won't miss it!



... then you would not say stupid things that do not address what Bob001 said!!

So, once again, you are ENTIRELY missing the point of what Bob001 said. Having had it explained to you, I can only assume that you are doing so deliberately!



They are not irrelevant facts They are key to understanding the effectiveness of firearms. This is just part of Ballisitics 101!

If you think the size of the bullet is the only thing that matters, and that the velocity and energy of the bullet have no effect on its kill-effectiveness then you don't know anything near as much about firearms as you claim.

Here is some reading material for you. Its written by firearms experts and scientists who know what they are talking about!

Warning: 1MB PDF
Warning: the PDF contains graphic images
https://smhs.gwu.edu/icu/sites/icu/files/Ballistics.pdf

FFS take some time out of your day and educate yourself!!
.
.

Nobody needs to know all that stuff to know that more guns = more deaths.

 

[erlando]

A head shot from a .223 will blown half your head away.

As it did with at least two of the kids in Uvalde..

https://youtu.be/RCwwoHRTIMk?t=213

But what I did find was something that no prayer would ever relieve. Two children whose bodies had been pulverized by bullets fired at them, decapitated, whose flesh had been ripped apart that the only clue as to their identities was the blood-splattered cartoon clothes still clinging to them, clinging for life but finding none.

Dr. Roy Guerrero, pediatrician, Uvalde Memorial Hospital

And still Republicans do nothing.

Members on this board talk about hammers and cars and doors or go into excruciating technical details about what is and what is not assault rifles and why this or that exact weapon is impossible to ban. It's sickening.

 

[catsmate]

The counterargument is, if you want to shoot an AR-15/M4/M-16 at the ages of 18 to 24, then join the Army and go for an MOS where you will be handling one.

Like a "well regulated militia"?

 

[Andy_Ross]

If you actually ******* bothered to READ what Bob001 said, which you clearly have not; and I'll post it here once again so you can have a third attempt at reading and understanding it - with emphasis so that even the blindest of blind Freddies won't miss it!



... then you would not say stupid things that do not address what Bob001 said!!

So, once again, you are ENTIRELY missing the point of what Bob001 said. Having had it explained to you, I can only assume that you are doing so deliberately!



They are not irrelevant facts They are key to understanding the effectiveness of firearms. This is just part of Ballisitics 101!

If you think the size of the bullet is the only thing that matters, and that the velocity and energy of the bullet have no effect on its kill-effectiveness then you don't know anything near as much about firearms as you claim.

Here is some reading material for you. Its written by firearms experts and scientists who know what they are talking about!

Warning: 1MB PDF
Warning: the PDF contains graphic images
https://smhs.gwu.edu/icu/sites/icu/files/Ballistics.pdf

FFS take some time out of your day and educate yourself!!
.
.

Again with the bollocks.

All semi-auto weapons should be banned.

**** the ballistics I know all that stuff but it is irrelevant.

Ban only some semi-autos and the other ones will get used instead. You will still end up with a room full of dead kids as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger, does it matter if they aren't as mangled?
What need is there for any kind of semi-auto if you aren't in the military?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Fair enough. If it were up to me the only firearms available to civilians would be revolvers, double-barrel and pump shotguns, and bolt-action or lever-action rifles with limited capacities, all registered individually to owners licensed and insured after intensive, extensive background checks. But since that will never happen, what we might hope realistically to do is make it harder to get the most dangerous weapons. And that's where ballistics comes in.

Why do civilians need pistols at all?
Why exempt revolvers?

 

[smartcooky]

Again with the bollocks.

All semi-auto weapons should be banned.

**** the ballistics I know all that stuff but it is irrelevant.

Ban only some semi-autos and the other ones will get used instead. You will still end up with a room full of dead kids as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger, does it matter if they aren't as mangled?
What need is there for any kind of semi-auto if you aren't in the military?

Nice goalpost move.

I agree that semi-automatics should be banned, but that is NOT what was being discussed.

If you can't understand that your reply to Bob001 completely ******* ignored what was he actually saying, then you are beyond help, and I have no intention of holding your hand and walking you though it in baby steps.