• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting: but don't mention guns!

LTC8K6 said:
The bullet itself is actually quite small, for a rifle round, and only weighs around 55 grains or so.

You didn't think that whole cartridge left the gun, did you?

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/4066/22lrsignum2233sj.jpg

A typical deer round, a .30-06, is much larger and weighs 150 grains at least.
Click to expand...
Not sure of your point. It wasn't the biggest round possible?

Would it or would it have not ripped out half the chest of a 30 pound kid?:mad:
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Not sure of your point. It wasn't the biggest round possible?

Would it or would it have not ripped out half the chest of a 30 pound kid?:mad:
Click to expand...

The 223 Remington typically uses a 55 or 62 grain (3.5-4 grams) bullet. A single bullet of that mass moving 2800 to 3200 fps will not rip out half of a child's chest. It is lethal at any range under 600 meters though. It is also one of the smaller cartridges that can be chambered in the AR-15.

One of the largest magazine fed cartridge for the Ar-15 is probably the 458 Socom using a 600 grain (38 gram) bullet. A single shot upper receiver attached to the AR-15 lower receiver can chamber the 5.45" 50 BMG cartridge which uses bullets that are typically 700 grains (45 gram).

Ranb
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Not sure of your point. It wasn't the biggest round possible?

Would it or would it have not ripped out half the chest of a 30 pound kid?:mad:
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it would rip out half the chest of a 30 pound kid.

People take small game with the .223.

If it blew small game apart, they wouldn't use it, as it would leave them with no meat to eat.
 
joesixpack said:
Excuse me? I answered your question to the best of my ability. Did you have a theory you wanted to posit?
Click to expand...

How can I posit a theory on Americans when I don't know any Americans and dont live in America? I was merely trying to find out a little more about America, Americans and gun attitudes, but sadly, I failed. As some on here keep going on about mental health, I would have thought this would have been a fertile area for debate.

Having said that, its not all bad, as I have learnt quite a lot about the effectivenss of certain types of guns and ammo.
 
Last edited:
RemieV said:
Again you mistake me. It isn't an evasion, as I'd think my chicken posts made clear. You are asking "Why did the chicken cross the road?" and, from the number of jokes based on that exact question, I think you'd see there can be a million answers and without more data the only response is, "I don't know."

In fact, with the stats you showed, the answer isn't even that - it's "I don't even know if a chicken DID cross the road."

The first thing people should do in response to those stats is ask if they are even accurate - because if they aren't, no amount of theorizing is going to come up with an answer.

To put it another way - Some on this board might ask, "Why do ghosts pass through walls, but not fall through the floor?"

Now, I can theorize that ghosts who appear to pass through walls are actually walking on paths that, during their time, did not have walls blocking them.

Or I could say that the afterlife's ground and the real world's ground happen to be in the same place, and that, as we catch glimpses of the afterlife, we simply don't realize that on the other side there is no house. This would additionally explain ghosts who appear to walk through mountainsides.

But the thing is - I haven't proven the existence of ghosts, and therefore speculation is pointless.

You haven't yet illustrated that people on the east coast are less likely to support protection of gun rights.
Click to expand...

Well I have now had some comments on chickens and ghosts,and tuition on skepticism which I do not need, but precious little on the mindset of Americans in different regions of the country in the context of guns. I would have thought that someone on this board would have had some knowledge or opinion that could have been aired, if only to provide some alternative statistics or other relevant information. But as I said, Ho Hum!
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Not sure of your point. It wasn't the biggest round possible?

Would it or would it have not ripped out half the chest of a 30 pound kid?:mad:
Click to expand...

I can't say if a .223 round could 'rip out half the chest' but I believe that the military equivalent (the 5.56mm round) has been known to 'tumble' on impact therefore causing serious amounts of physical trauma.

Some might argue that the 'point' might be your usage of the term 'high powered rifle' when in fact the firearm used is actually considered to be a low powered, light calibre gun. I do actually understand your anger for what might seem to be insensitive pettiness but I can explain a little further.

For the past several years now the media have been using terms such as 'sniper rifle', 'assault weapon', and 'high powered' to describe the firearms used as weapons in a criminal manner. They've been using these terms to further sensationalize tragic events when factually they're lying.

In this case alone I've seen the term 'high calibre' used in the media reports when in fact all the firearms reportedly used are small calibre guns. It has yet again stirred up a cry to ban 'assault rifles' when in fact the Bushmaster rifle used is neither high powered nor an assault rifle (not being a selective fire automatic/semi-automatic gun).

Technically, NONE of the rifles used in the Oregon mall shooting nor the Colorado theatre shooting were 'assault rifles' either, yet the media likes to push that perception.

The technical differentiation becomes an issue should the government decide to ban, restrict or prohibit 'assault weapons'. What might very well happen is that many firearms could be lumped together under a classification where they don't belong and be made unavailable, or restricted, for private ownership based on cosmetic appearance ONLY.

We know this is possible because this is EXACTLY what has been happening under Canadian laws for several years now. Prohibiting a firearm for it's cosmetic appearance only is not only an unjustified political move but it creates the facade of increased public security for those ill informed or willfully ignorant.

Consider if you will a government ban on pit bull ownership because pit bulls are considered a dangerous animal and must be removed from society. However, this ban will encompass the confiscation of all types of dogs from all of their respective owners because all of those dogs, are dogs, just like a pit bull...
 
Last edited:
Noztradamus said:
Or: "is religion important in your daily life: murders/10000: guns/100

84.5% 31.8 17.0 South Africa
72.0% 16.9 15.4 Simply Mexico
65.0% _4.2 88.8 USA
42.0% _1.6 30.2 Canada
41.5% _0.7 47.5 Switzerland
26.5% _1.2 06.2 United Kingdom
24.5% _0.3 00.6 Japan

Get the number of superstitious people below 50% and you're laughing - irrespective of the number of guns.

Yet after these events peoples call for more religion and fewer guns - Why?
Click to expand...

The point is there is no correlation let alone a cuasal link between the number of guns and crime rates internationally. So that suggests no reason to reduce the number of guns. The Swiss can manage with loads of guns and not much murder, the Americans cannot. So I think we are barking up the wrong tree wanting to reduce the number of guns. Plus the resistence to that policy means time would just be wasted trying to implement it.

The policy of reducing the number of guns in the UK only happened because the gun lobby is weak and the numbers were relatively few anyway. So people handed over their automatic weapons, or had the modified and then handed over their handguns without any great issue.
 
Weird, I could have sworn I posted a list of mass shooters from Norway, the UK, Finland and the USA and looked to see, what if any mental health issues they had. I cannot find it now, but it did show one thing in common with all the killers. It was not mental health, though that was a major theme. Arguably, you cannot go out and kill like that if you do not have amental illness.

Common to all the shootings was all of the killers had built themselves up into a rage and they had anger management issues. They had developed severe hate of others.

I would suggest since even the UK with its lack of access to guns and more detailed background checks can still have mass shootings, people with anger issues that flair up are going to impossible to predict.

The most recent UK mass shooting was Cumbria where Derrick Bird, a legal firearms holder, with no known mental health condition but with major rage and anger issues against the tax man in particular went on the rampage. He still completed a mass shooting with restrictions on type of gun and after the more thorough checks brought in after Dumblane.

I think trying to ID potential mass killers is impossible and not the solution.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I watched a little boy in the post office tonight, probably about 5, playing his video game waiting for mom to ship some boxes. I couldn't stop thinking about what would happen to such a tiny body if shot with .223 caliber bullet from a high powered rifle at close range. (In the link that would be the second one from the left.)

Jeese, a single round would have taken out half his chest or severed his head.:(
Click to expand...

I feel horrible as well.

Please though don't fall for propaganda, there is nothing "high-power" about .223/5.56.

It's a higher velocity .22, not even permitted for taking deer under most states DFG rules.
 
Nessie said:
I think trying to ID potential mass killers is impossible and not the solution.
Click to expand...
Not in all cases, certainly, but my hazy recollection is that cross-referencing psychological reports and gun purchases might have at least alerted authorities before the fact in Aurora and Virginia Tech. I could be wrong.

ETA: And, probably more importantly, I have no idea how many others might match that filter who have gone on to shoot no one.
 
Last edited:
With ammunition designed to fragment or tumble, a .223 rifle can produce absolutely horrendous damage. Remember that it killed 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary.
 
zeggman said:
Not in all cases, certainly, but my hazy recollection is that cross-referencing psychological reports and gun purchases might have at least alerted authorities before the fact in Aurora and Virginia Tech. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

At least one firearms dealer turned away the Aurora shooter because he was clearly nuts. His insanity would have been noticed if he had to take the 10 hour safety class required for a Colorado hunting license. If that class had been required before purchasing a firearm, the Aurora massacre may never have happened.
 
Kestrel said:
At least one firearms dealer turned away the Aurora shooter because he was clearly nuts. His insanity would have been noticed if he had to take the 10 hour safety class required for a Colorado hunting license. If that class had been required before purchasing a firearm, the Aurora massacre may never have happened.
Click to expand...
So, some kind of certificate from a class before purchase, and possibly restrictions on sales over the internet, unless there's some way to verify the legitimacy of that certificate. I could support legislation along those lines.
 
Nessie said:
I think trying to ID potential mass killers is impossible and not the solution.
Click to expand...

Well damn, now we'll just have to try to treat everyone with mental health problems.

Wait, that's a good idea anyway!
 
Nessie said:
Arguably, you cannot go out and kill like that if you do not have amental illness.

Common to all the shootings was all of the killers had built themselves up into a rage and they had anger management issues. They had developed severe hate of others.

I would suggest since even the UK with its lack of access to guns and more detailed background checks can still have mass shootings, people with anger issues that flair up are going to impossible to predict.

[...]

I think trying to ID potential mass killers is impossible and not the solution.
Click to expand...

You can't legislate against nuts, at least not without swathes of draconian legislation that stops anyone doing anything. It really is the cost of freedom.

I think the gun laws we have here, today, in the UK, are about right.

If you want a gun you can get one. If you want a more powerful gun and can supply a legitimate reason to own one and comply with security rules, you can get that as well. You can't have anything *really* destructive, you can't have anything that is a gun but looks like something else, you can't have anything that's easily concealed (handguns, sawn off shotguns) and self defense is not a good enough reason to own a gun in and of itself.

You're free to join the army or an armed police unit if you want more.

We still get infrequent nuts that shoot and kill people, though we still manage with an unarmed police force, and crimes like car jackings are almost unheard of.

In 2010-2011 in England and wales there were less than 400 incidents where a person was seriously or fatally injured with a gun. Including Scotland that rises to around 500.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom