are new gun laws really what the people of CA want? (high school, night club)

[neutrino78x]

Here you go CaliRestoration. This guy's table is similar to something I had to study in the Navy.

Projectiles, Kinetic/Muzzle Energy and Stopping Power | Stop Wasting Money

As you can see, an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle (or M16A3 in semiautomatic mode) imparts 1854 J to the bullet, as opposed to an M9 (9 mm pistol) which imparts 467 J.

Hopefully that helps.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

It isn't, in many cases. It is deadly force, and if the person doesn't have medical attention, they will probably still die. But a rifle imparts more kinetic energy and is therefore more lethal at the same range.

But Seung Hui Cho committed the 2nd deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States using a handgun.

So does it matter when the energy is enough to kill regardless?

Also by your logic, handguns are not as effective at killing people.

So if 100 pound housewife attempts to defend herself with a handgun against a 300 pound criminal, and the handgun doesn't stop the criminal before he can disarm the housewife and choke her to death, then wouldn't a rifle have been better?

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Here you go CaliRestoration. This guy's table is similar to something I had to study in the Navy.

Projectiles, Kinetic/Muzzle Energy and Stopping Power | Stop Wasting Money

As you can see, an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle (or M16A3 in semiautomatic mode) imparts 1854 J to the bullet, as opposed to an M9 (9 mm pistol) which imparts 467 J.

Hopefully that helps.

So 467j of energy is not enough to commit mass killings? Didn't Seung Hui Cho commit the 2nd deadliest mass shooting in US history using a handgun that fired bullets that only imparted 467j of energy?

So whether it's 467j or 20,000j, what does it matter?

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

But Seung Hui Cho committed the 2nd deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States using a handgun.

So does it matter when the energy is enough to kill regardless?

Also by your logic, handguns are not as effective at killing people.

So if 100 pound housewife attempts to defend herself with a handgun against a 300 pound criminal, and the handgun doesn't stop the criminal before he can disarm the housewife and choke her to death, then wouldn't a rifle have been better?

The house wife should have learned martial arts with the seniors.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

So whether it's 467j or 20,000j, what does it matter?

You don't know? Who is more likely to be able to be saved by EMTs, the rifle victim or the pistol victim? Again, just common sense.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Semiautomatic rifle is the most common weapon for mass shootings. A rifle imparts more kinetic energy to the projectile than a pistol and a semiauto rifle can fire as quickly as a pistol. Civilians don't need a semiautomatic rifle for self defense or hunting.

All firearms are designed to kill. A pistol has a valid self defense application for civilians.

Despite your stupid misreading of my argument, here it is for 20th time: I support civilians being able to kill in self-defense.

Being a military veteran with training in firearms, I know that a firearm is designed to do exactly that: kill someone. It is not a harmless tool. It is not a toy. It is a weapon. It is designed to kill.

Yes you have the right to self defense. That right is limited by the right others have to not be killed by you through negligence or intent, and the government's responsibility to protect public safety.

This is where YOUR reading of my statements is very, very stupid. You are concentrating on what I consider to be a less important issue instead of reading my posts and realizing that we agree on what I consider to be more important: controlling who has access to ANY firearm. Well, that and the fact that you think anyone who is familiar with firearms MUST be a gun nut or otherwise they are not familiar with firearms. That's pretty stupid on your part too.

Banning semiautomatic rifles, assuming it is an effective ban, would make mass shootings less deadly, especially in the long term as they slowly disappear from the streets.

But we still have to make sure that people who should not have access to ANY firearm do not in fact get access to a firearm. Both are important but the access issue is more important.

Semi automatic rifles are used in less than 25% of mass shootings
Crime study: Handguns, not 'assault rifles,' used in most mass shootings | Washington Examiner

You keep stating things as fact when they are not.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

You don't know? Who is more likely to be able to be saved by EMTs, the rifle victim or the pistol victim? Again, just common sense.

So you think knives are more dangerious than assault rifles because someone being stabbed is more likely to die than someone being shot.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

The house wife should have learned martial arts with the seniors.

Yes, she should have. Martial arts is superior. I am a small man. So a 300 pound man is over twice my size. But I sparred with larger people all the time when I was learning martial arts, because my bullies were a lot bigger. The trick is to attack from an oblique angle.

No one can take your martial arts knowledge away. You can't forget it at home. You don't have to reload it. It is applicable in all self defense scenarios.

At less than 21 feet, there is an EXCELLENT chance of ANY attacker being able to close range and kill you before you can shoot them.

So really there is no reason to use a firearm for self defense unless you have a physical disability etc. But I do support the right to use one. Just not a semiautomatic rifle or fully automatic rifle.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

You don't know? Who is more likely to be able to be saved by EMTs, the rifle victim or the pistol victim? Again, just common sense.

But Seung Hui Cho shot 33 people dead using handguns. EMT's described that some victims couldn't be identified because the bullet had deformed their faces so they had to be identified by dental records.

So if 467j is capable of deforming someone's skull, whether it's 467j or 20,000j, will an EMT be able to save someone whose skull was deformed?

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

So you think knives are more dangerious than assault rifles because someone being stabbed is more likely to die than someone being shot.

Yes and no. One on one, I would be more concerned about the knife. I can close range on a guy with a gun and defeat him. With a knife, it becomes more deadly the closer I get.

If a psycho is going into a night club trying to kill people, the knife is safer. It is a lot easier for the crowd to overwhelm him and defeat him with the knife than with the semiautomatic rifle.