theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Battle rifle is not synonymous with assault rifle.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Pro-gun posters: What regulations do you want?
- Thread starter NWO Sentryman
- Start date
Thermal
August Member
Oh. If you theoretically then theorize a self-defense situation where a gang or zombie horde or whatever is storming your house, would any other theoretical measures have to reasonably be taken before resorting to killing? Living in an armored personnel carrier, for example? Or does your theory rely on killing as pretty much the first option?
You are absolutely correct. Any counter such as combat ignores the fact that in military style combat someone is usually shooting back. In these spree type mass shootings the victims are usually defenseless.. That needs to change.
The very next day after an AR-15 ban a proposal to ban semi-auto pistols will be forthcoming. This line of thinking has no end until all firearms are gone. That is the end game...
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,212
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
I don't understand you.
If we take the AR-15 out of Cruz's hand, and put a Glock 19 in it, nothing changes at all. He kills just as many people just as quickly.
Why would it be any different?
Thermal
August Member
Re: hilited. Are you saying the change that has to be made is to have more people shooting? In the case of the LV, would that have helped?
If you genuinely think this, then you are deluded. I suspect you are just saying it because this is really really what you want to argue against....it makes things so much easier for you. It's always easier to argue against straw men than to deal with reality.
Would the wounds from the 9mm round be more survivable than those from the AR-15? The 9mm round has about 1/4 as much energy ( about 500-600j for the 9mm compared to 1700 to 1900j for the 5.56 NATO), the 5.56 has more than double the velocity (350-400m/s compared to 850-900m/s).
Last edited:
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,212
You've just made the same claim. I asked for evidence.
My thinking is this:
Given that a rifle fires a larger projectile farther and with more accuracy than a pistol.
And:
Given that, I think, every armed service int the world arms their combat forces with rifles, not pistols:
And:
Given the massive logistical advantage of reducing the weight of a combat weapon and its ammunition
Then, absent other evidence,, a rifle is evidently more effective at killing high numbers of people in a short time than is a pistol. It falls to you, as the one having made the claim, to provide evidence to that effect, not to simply re-state your position.
EDIT: And what crescent said.
Last edited:
You can likely find the answer yourself. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/massacre-at-virginia-tech-leaves-32-dead
Just to highlight the weapons used they were a 9mm Glock and a .22 handgun of some sort. Exactly what LTC8K6 is saying...
Bit of a nitpick, the 9mm round has more mass than the 5.56 round (about 8 grams for the 9mm, 4 grams for the 5.56). That's why I went with energy and velocity.
It is not me who is denying reality. Retired Supreme Court Justice just verbalized it yesterday.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html
As I said that is the end game.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,212
Thank you. My technical knowledge is limited and I'm working on some - I think fairly reasonable - assumptions.
Thermal
August Member
In Virginia. A State with very lax gun laws. Handguns easy-peasy to buy, and abuse.
You have a limited understanding of terminal ballistics. The mass shootings have not been combat situations (i.e. military style). Except for the LV massacre, they have been shootings at close range and not impeded by the victim shooting back.
Of course, the rifle round is more efficient and has greater tissue and organ damage, BUT that is overkill in these close range unimpeded massacres, (again with LV being the exception). In addition, both at VA Tech and at Parkland the shooter hit many victims multiple times.
LTK8K6 is right. You're simply arguing apples and oranges comparing these massacres to military style combat...
You would have to show a ratio of how many were shot vs how many survived. No one doubts that a 9mm can kill people. That does not mean that a 9mm round is equally deadly to a 5.56.
I can balance your article with this one: WHAT AN AR-15 CAN DO TO THE HUMAN BODY
I understand that the hydrostatic shock concept in controversial, but it clearly has a lot of buy-in from medical professionals who actually treat these sorts of wounds.
People died at Virginia tech, the Columbine shooters also used (mostly) handgun caliber rounds (they had a shotgun, too). But again, that doesn't tell us anything about the relative damage of one round vs another.
(Columbine may not be a good example for survivability comparison, because some of the deaths were from wounds would that would have been fairly survivable with quicker medical attention.)
Technically, you are correct, but you don't understand terminal ballistics of a projectile hitting a human body at close range. It truly doesn't take that much if the hit is in a critical location or with multiple hits.
The difference is significant at longer ranges or with resistance all of which were absent in these mass shootings. Again, LV is an exception...
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Not really sure if the velocity and/or energy of a particular round would make that much difference to survivability once hit. After all, once the body is hit and the skin pierced, the round only needs enough energy to tear through various organs. (Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if a slower round caused MORE injury, since there would be more chance of the bullet tumbling or getting redirected in the body, thus causing more damage. This is an uninformed opinion though... take it for what its worth.)
The faster round WOULD mean you could kill from further distances, and/or shoot through barriers, but in some sort of close quarter spree killing that probably isn't much of an advantage.
That has nothing to do with the current discussion. Please keep up.
Now that violent crime has moved from the streets to the schools, more specifically, to predominantly white suburban schools, now we are upset and want to do something about it.
Are we saying that the present gun laws, that are meant to protect our streets and neighborhoods, are not protecting our schools? If so, do we really think passing more strict gun laws will do any good to protect the schools, if it hasn't had a positive effect on gun crime in the streets?
Six or seven states already have strict gun laws, especially on the AR-15 type of semiauto rifles. If this is working, for these states, then what's the problem? If it's not, do we really think a federal ban on Ar-15 semiauto rifles will work?
To answer OP, we already have laws for dealing with gun crime.
Last edited: