Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Absolutely this and especially the bolded which was what I had addressed to lvmensch...
Had paddock has an M1 Garand with a full power rifle cartridge or hell even a bolt action rifle, more people would have been killed. For how many rounds he fired... his kill to shot fired ratio on a crowd of 22,000+ is (don't anyone take this the wrong way) pathetically low.
If 2,000 rounds were fired and 58 dead, that's a 0.029% count.
Had he used a fudd bolt action rifle in 300 win mag for example he would have had a higher kill ratio. When the Vegas thread was open and people referred to him as a "sniper", he was far from it.
Of course many will oppose this and claim it isn't true.
To those that disagree. Go to your local shooting range that has machine guns to rent. Go shoot one and see how well you can hit your target.
I will guarantee you won't get rounds on target in an effective manner. Do a few 3-5 round bursts, then run an entire magazine dry.
Unless you've been shooting for a while and participate in say 3 gun competitions where you're putting down double taps left and right, I very much doubt you'll be able to put a full magazine on target.
Then do it with a bump stock and see how much worse it gets as you have the physics of recoil and harmonics playing with the barrel along with the rifle sliding in and out combined with muzzle climb from rapid fire recoil...
Common .223/5.56 on the left, lvmensch 30-06 M1 garand cartridge he fired in the 50s on the right.
Things would have been FAR worse with a hunting rifle.
Far worse.
Well placed shots from a full power rifle cartridge would have yielded 2 kills per shot depending on angle. Say 2 people side by side in the crowd. 1 300 win mag or 30-06 through the artery in the neck or through the spinal cord instant death or within a minute, exit hit the person next to them height playing a role, exit the 1st victim and hit the 2nd either in the head or through the shoulder or ribs and hit lung heart and lung... they'd be dead too. The shot to kill count being 2 possibly 3 to 1, yeah. Far worse had he used say an M1 Garand.
When the FBI profiler gave their 2 cents and claimed that people died from bullets that had cut through others... pure nonsense. Not a single 5.56 or .223 loading has the mass nor velocity at that range to smack through multiple bodies. Not a 1. It lacks the energy to punch through 2-3.
As far as the wounds reported, how many of them were gun shot wounds, and how many were Trampling? Falling?
The full power 30-06 absolutely. 300 win mag absolutely would have been worse with aimed shots.
Vegas was the first time an AR had been used in a long range engagement upon innocent people.
If 2k rounds were fired resulting in 58 killed... that really shows how poor of a choice in weaponry if his motive was to slaughter as many as possible.
If that doesn't speak for its inability and speak for its lack in the perceived "powerful" cartridge it fires... I don't know what is...
Indeed I've been trying to impart this premise page after page as have you and been called a black liar. biased, seen the premise called "total nonsense" . That can get hard to take coming from someone who clearly has no knowledge on which to base those retorts.
Paddock was NOT a "sniper." Far from it. I haven't actually seen any information on the particular AR types he used or what cartridges they were chambered for but I don't believe bump stocks would even work with the heavier chambered models. And even if they did there would be about zero control over where the fired rounds go.
At the ranges Paddock was firing the 5.56/223 has destabilized considerably. My own AR in 5.56/223 will take out coyotes at 300 yards, but I'm using a heavier projectile with a tighter twist and handloads tailored for varmint hunting. Small caliber high velocity varmint cartridges (which is what the 5.56/223 is) do not stabilize well at extreme ranges and lose a LOT of energy pretty fast past 200 yards.
In service competitions the 5.56 is used as a medium distance cartridge. It doesn't compete in the same classes as the Garand and M1A. This perception of the 5.56 as some sort of powerhouse armor defeating round is just plain silly. Serious distance shooting ("sniping" if you will) starts with the 6mm projectile and goes up from there.
The 5.56 was developed from the 222 originally, and adopted in the M16 with the military buying off on the small caliber high velocity theory and area fire over aimed fire. The Marines never did buy off on that fully but had to conform to the standards set forth by the Pentagon. The A4 version of the M16 using a full length 20 inch barrel rather than the standard 16 inch of the M4 issued as standard by the Army is their compromise. The Marines never signed off as area fire being the superior choice to aimed fire.
The Navy also kept its stash of M14s and when hostilities broke out in the ME the Army tried to latch onto them. The Navy said no way. Many soldiers have actually spent their own money on M1As and 308 ARs.
That the AR in 5.56 is somehow some sort of supergun based on its cyclic rate and magazine capacity is a silly premise. The way it is often portrayed by the ban happy bunch makes it sound as if the rifle itself somehow enhances any ammunition put into it. A mag full of the basically anemic 55 gr ball ammunition that was standard issue for along time is transformed into tank defeating explosive plasma via some mechanism within the rifle. It won't be much longer before the 223/5.56 is placed back into its true niche as a varmint round in favor of a heavier round for military applications.
This image of the AR as some sort of scythe of the Grim Reaper is based on no more than it's modern furniture and magazine capacity. It is a capable enough rifle within its limitation in 5.56 but it's NOT even close to unbridled horsepower. I want to compete in long range service rifle matches which is why I'm building the 308/243 combo. The 5.56 doesn't make the cut for long range (500-1000 yards)
America has relatively permissive gun laws. While it makes it easier to get guns, there is something that must be considered. In the USA, murder rates vary. Baltimore and Newark are cities with strict gun laws, located in states with strict gun laws. Has not stopped those cities from being violent.
There is a subculture in this nation that believes that violence and killing are the only ways to resolve conflict. Take away guns, knives and bats will be used. Fists will be used. There are cases of people taking cars and running people over with them. We have alot of our murders taking place with guns. The part of the population where that is taking place (actually, a subculture within that population), there are alot of stabbings, beatings, and violence involving blunt force. We have a violence problem. How do we solve that? That is the question.
Consider for example what armed gang members will do even though they KNOW other gang members they attack have guns and more than willing/able to use them. Does that stop the violence or crimes? Hardly.
Additionally, this thief you are describing is highly unpredictable. Mentally unstable, drugs maybe, be careful assuming too much about what they will do or why, but allowing you that freedom, your thief is not going to know who he is robbing or whether they are carrying. If I were your thief and decided to rob you, I would take your wallet and gun too!
I mean thanks for explaining I can be robbed where I am alone. Really? But this isn't rocket science. Or was that another one of those "you don't know anything" comments? If I happen to notice you are carrying a gun and you are alone, I can perhaps be better able to simply shoot you without witnesses! And shoot you I must because you're carrying a gun and might shoot me back if I don't!
Right?!?
The usual "Iffen it ain't perfect then it ain't *****" dodge.
I didn't say that my suggestion would prevent every last crime, 100% of them. I said it would prevent some of them, and so reduce the crime rate. And it would reduce it more than any so-called "gun control" laws.
You knew that, but decided to pretend you didn't in hopes of fooling somebody into thinking my suggestions would accomplish nothing. The typical deception and disingenuousness we get from liberals who don't dare admit the truth.
Quote:
Then too, even if I decide not to mess with you because you're carrying a gun, I simply choose someone who isn't carrying, so crime is not actually deterred. It's simply committed on someone else, the little old lady!
The one who has room in her purse for a pistol? The thief is just as unlikely to attack her as attack me, or you... since he knows that EVERYONE is allowed to have a gun. Most people won't bother carrying, but a few will... and the little old lady is just as likely as I am.
America has relatively permissive gun laws. While it makes it easier to get guns, there is something that must be considered. In the USA, murder rates vary. Baltimore and Newark are cities with strict gun laws, located in states with strict gun laws. Has not stopped those cities from being violent.
There is a subculture in this nation that believes that violence and killing are the only ways to resolve conflict. Take away guns, knives and bats will be used. Fists will be used. There are cases of people taking cars and running people over with them. We have alot of our murders taking place with guns. The part of the population where that is taking place (actually, a subculture within that population), there are alot of stabbings, beatings, and violence involving blunt force. We have a violence problem. How do we solve that? That is the question.
That is exactly the question, but the anti-gun crowd don't want to address it. Solving, or even ameliorating, the violence problem would involve holding criminals accountable for their crimes. It would also involve admitting that some traditional values are still desirable. It would involve day-to-day supervision and education of the criminal class.
Too much work for the anti crowd. It's much easier to blame the inanimate object than it is to admit that their approach is a miserable failure and actually start fixing the underlying problem.
I'm unlikely to read the entire paper but if your conclusion is drawn from this image: https://imgur.com/a/u5uvf then you might want to look at it a little more diligently.
It involves building an artificial version of the state if it had not adopted by using states that were similar but did not adopt as a model. The difficulty of course was that virtually all states got better on crime over the last 20 years. So claims that tight rules or loose rules are better are not supported by better crime rates. The technique used is supposed to differentiate.
The discussion is in the contest of "America's unique gun violence"
But OK...
The reality however is that the implementation of permissive gun laws increases violent crime in the United States of America.
Care to prove it?
Gun laws have become gradually more permissive over the last 20-30 years. What's the violent crime rate done? In general (excluding mass shooting events, but even including their criminal violence)? Are we more violent now in 2017 than in 1987? What's the trend?
Gun laws have become gradually more permissive over the last 20-30 years. What's the violent crime rate done? In general (excluding mass shooting events, but even including their criminal violence)? Are we more violent now in 2017 than in 1987? What's the trend?
Wanna try again...?
Many people concur that it is the rise of state Shall Issue concealed carry permits as one of the reasons.
Gun laws have become gradually more permissive over the last 20-30 years. What's the violent crime rate done? In general (excluding mass shooting events, but even including their criminal violence)? Are we more violent now in 2017 than in 1987? What's the trend?
Gun laws have become gradually more permissive over the last 20-30 years. What's the violent crime rate done? In general (excluding mass shooting events, but even including their criminal violence)? Are we more violent now in 2017 than in 1987? What's the trend?
Wanna try again...?
Read the paper quoted. They make the case that states with more permissive gun laws have done worse than they would have with out them.
You would actually have to find some evidence that more guns and more usage would make things better. That target has proven very elusive.
Again I remain a supporter of permissive concealed carry and such. That is too give the good people a fair shake. But I would not be surprised if that does not come at the cost of more violent crime. However I would think the good guys will do better than they would if unarmed. Note however this may well be at a cost paid by the lower socioeconomic strata.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. That can get hard to take coming from someone who clearly has no knowledge on which to base those retorts. 
It won't be much longer before the 223/5.56 is placed back into its true niche as a varmint round in favor of a heavier round for military applications. 
