Active shooters are twice as deadly when a semiautomatic weapon is used (Iraq, soldier)
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.
It sounds dumb if you don't understand what the word "lethality" means and how its used. Which clearly you don't. Unsurprisingly.
You shoot someone with a handgun, statistically they have a 25% chance of dying.
You shoot someone with a shotgun, statistically they have a 75% chance of dying.
While both guns can kill you. One is more likely to kill you if used.
That's what lethality means. A measure of how lethal an object is when used for killing.
...now run along.
Nope, it's a stupid statement, it's the person who is pulling the trigger who determines the lethality of the weapon. I can kill you with a .22 just as I can kill you with a .50 cal.....
I can put a .22 and a .50cal, right next to each other and they will never hurt you or anyone, not surprisingly, you have no clue that a gun is an inanimate object.
Quote:
While both guns can kill you. One is more likely to kill you if used.
^^^^^LOL...I guess, if you say so, but I'd be embarrassed if I made a statement like this, but keep up the good work....
Take one of the school shootings, for example. Assume a typical high school shooting where some pissed off dude wants to mow down a bunch of his classmates because they've been bullying him. Let's also assume this is in a state where they allow c&c in schools. So, it's possible some of the teachers and administrators might be armed. Unlikely any of the students would be doing the same depending on the specifics of the law ... but let's say, just for the heck of it, even *they* are allowed to carry, perhaps with certain restrictions.
First of all, our potential shooter, knowing this, is likely to figure out first who might be likely to be carrying a gun. Probably some of the teachers or administrators. So all he has to do is pick a classroom he wants to shoot up, and shoot the teacher first. He probably even has an idea which teachers are more or less likely to be carrying. But in any case the strategy would be to shoot the teacher first, regardless. Next, the goal would be to shoot as many of the students as possible, and possibly, focus on the ones he thinks might be mostly likely to be carrying a gun (likely none of them, but you never know). This can happen all so fast he can shoot a large number of people before anybody has any time to react. If there are any students who happen to be carrying, they will likely be ducking beneath a desk scared out of their wits before they can gather up enough guts to pull out their gun and start shooting back ... if they haven't been shot already. At some point, when the shooter thinks he's gotten everybody he can get, he needs to be ready for the possible cops, administrators or whatever, possibly storming through the door to try to get him. So what he can do here is simply have his gun ready and pointed at the door (or maybe some windows) to blow down anybody who tries to open that door.
Remember that in the Florida shooting, there were cops - ARMED - who were still so afraid to go in and hunt the guy down that they stood outside the school just standing there, waiting. If armed and trained cops are so afraid of a shooter that they're just standing outside waiting for things to calm down, how can we realistically expect your average Joe who happens to have a gun to do any better?
I think the gun nuts here have been watching too many Westerns and think things work out that way. Sorry, people don't react like they do in the movies.
Or the kid is so scared and he misses the teacher, the teacher pulls his gun and shoots the kid....see how easy that was to "make things up."
Or, there are some very "situational aware" students who are carrying and notice a kid walking in sweating, extremely nervous, keeps an eye on him, then when that kid pulls his gun to start shooting, the aware kids pulls his pistol and shoots the kid....saving many lives....
Are you really saying that if someone starts shooting people, they are just going to sit around, in a class room, before they understand what's going on? Yes, yes you are saying that.....
Your scenario, is the anti gunner wet dream....lookie lookie lookie...see what could happen....
The mortality rate (survival rate) is different for people shot with different types of guns. People shot with shotguns have a 75% mortality rate, while people shot with handguns have a 25% mortality rate. Hence the lethality of various weapons is different. While yes, both types of weapons can kill you, one is more likely to kill if successfully used. There are other metrics aside from bullet wounds that can assess the lethality of a gun, but you get my point.
There are lots of variables that determine how efficient at 1SK (one shot kill) any firearm is. Rifles will almost always produce higher muzzle velocities than pistols simply as a function of barrel length and the amount of gunpowder in the cartridge. Velocity is one of the two primary determining factors of ballistic energy at the point of impact, so yes, on that particular variable, a rifle would normally beat a pistol. That said, there are plenty of other factors that are independent of the firing platform and are specific to ammunition. Jacketed hollow points have larger, more destructive wound channels that full metal jacket. Heavier (in grains) bullets deliver more ballistic energy than lighter bullets, even in the same. Shape of the bullet itself matters. Material of the bullet (leads flattens out, copper retains its shape better), etc.
The other reason that statistically, rifles are more lethal than pistols on a "deaths per round fired" basis is that most people are terrible shots regardless of platform. But even a terrible shot can still be decently accurate with a rifle. And rifles aren't a popular gang banger weapon, and gang bangers like to go HAM and rapid fire pistols, guaranteeing that very few bullets ever come near their target, much less properly at center of mass. Plenty of poorly trained police firing hundreds of rounds and not hitting anything doesn't help much either. On a "deaths per round" basis, idiots with handguns really drag down pistol stats. Operator skill will always be the major factor in how efficient any shot is at scoring a kill.
All that said, for pure 1SK goodness by archetype, the standard, long barrel, bolt action rifle is king. Generally, nobody bothers to hunt anything but varmints with less than .300mag (minus learning rifle shooting with a 22LR), but .300mag/.308Win and up out of a proper hunting rifle is about as likely as 1SK against a human sized target gets. Longer barrel delivers more velocity and terminal ballistic energy, shots are generally more accurate, and the weapon and ammunition are all designed for maximum single shot killing power. That's why such rifles are the tools of hunters and snipers (hunters who have licenses to shoot humans) all over the world.
Nobody ever talks about the "lethality" of standard bolt action rifles, I guess because they aren't scary looking? Or is it the detachable magazine and whole semiautomatic thing? They kill more stuff per year than all other platforms combined, but apparently, they aren't considered lethal?
There are lots of variables that determine how efficient at 1SK (one shot kill) any firearm is. Rifles will almost always produce higher muzzle velocities than pistols simply as a function of barrel length and the amount of gunpowder in the cartridge. Velocity is one of the two primary determining factors of ballistic energy at the point of impact, so yes, on that particular variable, a rifle would normally beat a pistol. That said, there are plenty of other factors that are independent of the firing platform and are specific to ammunition. Jacketed hollow points have larger, more destructive wound channels that full metal jacket. Heavier (in grains) bullets deliver more ballistic energy than lighter bullets, even in the same. Shape of the bullet itself matters. Material of the bullet (leads flattens out, copper retains its shape better), etc.
You are correct there are many different variables that can determine the lethality of any specific firearm. My point of highlighting the mortality rate concerning people shot with different guns was to establish that not all guns are equally lethal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
The other reason that statistically, rifles are more lethal than pistols on a "deaths per round fired" basis is that most people are terrible shots regardless of platform. But even a terrible shot can still be decently accurate with a rifle. And rifles aren't a popular gang banger weapon, and gang bangers like to go HAM and rapid fire pistols, guaranteeing that very few bullets ever come near their target, much less properly at center of mass. Plenty of poorly trained police firing hundreds of rounds and not hitting anything doesn't help much either. On a "deaths per round" basis, idiots with handguns really drag down pistol stats. Operator skill will always be the major factor in how efficient any shot is at scoring a kill.
Pistols have another factor that increases its lethality vs other platforms. Commonality. Semi-Auto pistols are one of the more common guns found in America. The more common a weapon is the more likely it is going to be used for criminal purposes. The inverse is also true. Automatic weapons are extremely uncommon and thus rarely ever used in crime.
Speaking of volume of fire. I looked at the 2017 Las Vegas massacre that killed 58 people and injured another 422 (injuries only from gunshots). If we combine the number killed with the number injured we arrive with a total 480 people shot in a 10 minute span. The 58 killed out of 422 comes out to 12% mortality for all those struck by bullets. A rather low figure. The lethality comes through when you assess the sheer volume of people shot. This is where the true lethality of semi-auto rifles comes through. While a larger caliber bolt action rifle would be far deadlier if struck, there would be no way such a large volume of people could have been hit with a bolt action rifle. Thus bullet volume is the most important metric when assessing the lethality of a firearm in the context of a spree shooting.
Its interesting to note that during WW2 all of the major players in the war came to understand this very notion. More bullet volume = more death. Hence the massive shift during the war and after the war to smaller caliber, larger firer rate and mag sized weapons.
Whats frighting is if we access the growing number of AR-15's being owned we essentially have the worst of both worlds. A weapon capable of immense carnage along with a far greater commonality. It should be of little surprise then that the recent string of deadly shootings have been far deadlier then those in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
All that said, for pure 1SK goodness by archetype, the standard, long barrel, bolt action rifle is king. Generally, nobody bothers to hunt anything but varmints with less than .300mag (minus learning rifle shooting with a 22LR), but .300mag/.308Win and up out of a proper hunting rifle is about as likely as 1SK against a human sized target gets. Longer barrel delivers more velocity and terminal ballistic energy, shots are generally more accurate, and the weapon and ammunition are all designed for maximum single shot killing power. That's why such rifles are the tools of hunters and snipers (hunters who have licenses to shoot humans) all over the world.
Nobody ever talks about the "lethality" of standard bolt action rifles, I guess because they aren't scary looking? Or is it the detachable magazine and whole semiautomatic thing? They kill more stuff per year than all other platforms combined, but apparently, they aren't considered lethal?
You are correct, a hit from a high powered rifle like .308Win for example does extrodinary amounts of tissue damage and if struck has a high mortality rate. Yet people are not really concerned with bolt action rifles due to the fact that they are hardly ever used for crime. They are not practical in short range situations (where most shootings occur), are hard to conceal, and are not able to produce a high volume of firepower. Not to mention they are not nearly as common amongst the general firearm owning public as other weapons.
It shows that in the United States, shootings that involved a semiautomatic rifle resulted in nearly twice as many deaths compared with shootings carried out with only regular handguns, shotguns or rifles. I don't see mention of semiautomatic handguns in the study.
9/11 caused more death due to the size of the airliners that were used...if they had used a Heil then less people would have died.
Thoughts? Should semi-automatic firearms be regulated as tightly as fully automatic firearms?
If the car is faster or the driver drinks more alcohol, they become more dangerous and more stupid.
If a knife is bigger the chances of stabbing someone and injuring a person are higher.
Or the kid is so scared and he misses the teacher, the teacher pulls his gun and shoots the kid....see how easy that was to "make things up."
A shooter can shoot at a person many times and keep going until they get them. Especially in an enclosed classroom, the teacher won't have many places to go and the shooter can keep shooting until he gets him or her. If his objective is get a certain person first, it's not like he's going to shoot just once, miss, and then say 'oh well I missed' and then go on to somebody else. In the meantime the teacher is so busy ducking away from the bullets he/she won't have much time to pull out a gun, unless he/she gets really lucky and finds a good place to hide. The shooter has the element of surprise and people are going to be so shocked they'll be too busy getting out of the way to worry about anything else for at least a few minutes.
Quote:
Or, there are some very "situational aware" students who are carrying and notice a kid walking in sweating, extremely nervous, keeps an eye on him, then when that kid pulls his gun to start shooting, the aware kids pulls his pistol and shoots the kid....saving many lives....
So you're counting on an extraordinary person ... and you're also counting on the shooter sitting down FIRST, waiting a bit, and THEN starting to shoot. Chances are the shooter will come through the door and before anybody barely notices him he starts shooting.
Quote:
Are you really saying that if someone starts shooting people, they are just going to sit around, in a class room, before they understand what's going on? Yes, yes you are saying that.....
Where did I say that? Nowhere, nor did I even infer it. Nobody's going to 'just sit around,' they're immediately going to start ducking, trying to hide, and otherwise panicking. Again, the shooter has the element of surprise which puts him at an advantage.
Quote:
Your scenario, is the anti gunner wet dream....lookie lookie lookie...see what could happen....
Funny you say that because the exact same thing applies to you: Your scenario is the pro gunner's wet dream, and what's more it's an extremely unlikely scenario. It's straight out of some Western, with Rambo-style macho guys fearlessly pulling out their guns while somebody is shooting at them, as if they aren't scared out of their wits dodging bullets trying to save their own lives. It's 100% pure fantasy.
A shooter can shoot at a person many times and keep going until they get them. Especially in an enclosed classroom, the teacher won't have many places to go and the shooter can keep shooting until he gets him or her. If his objective is get a certain person first, it's not like he's going to shoot just once, miss, and then say 'oh well I missed' and then go on to somebody else. In the meantime the teacher is so busy ducking away from the bullets he/she won't have much time to pull out a gun, unless he/she gets really lucky and finds a good place to hide. The shooter has the element of surprise and people are going to be so shocked they'll be too busy getting out of the way to worry about anything else for at least a few minutes.
Yes, another wet dream from the left.....he cannot just keep going, they are limited to magazine size...but continue, yes they may have other magazines, but now they have to reload, and I guess the other armed people will not figure this out and stay hidden....
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
So you're counting on an extraordinary person ... and you're also counting on the shooter sitting down FIRST, waiting a bit, and THEN starting to shoot. Chances are the shooter will come through the door and before anybody barely notices him he starts shooting.
Now you are changing your EXTRAORDINARY story...why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
Where did I say that? Nowhere, nor did I even infer it. Nobody's going to 'just sit around,' they're immediately going to start ducking, trying to hide, and otherwise panicking. Again, the shooter has the element of surprise which puts him at an advantage.
Right here:
Quote:
"Next, the goal would be to shoot as many of the students as possible, and possibly, focus on the ones he thinks might be mostly likely to be carrying a gun (likely none of them, but you never know). This can happen all so fast he can shoot a large number of people before anybody has any time to react."
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
Funny you say that because the exact same thing applies to you: Your scenario is the pro gunner's wet dream, and what's more it's an extremely unlikely scenario.
No, not really, thousands of people are saved yearly because they carry and or save themselves because they have a gun. Your statement is the usual leftist stupid statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
It's straight out of some Western, with Rambo-style macho guys fearlessly pulling out their guns while somebody is shooting at them, as if they aren't scared out of their wits dodging bullets trying to save their own lives. It's 100% pure fantasy.
Here you go folks, it's rambo, the wild west, macho, big tired truck....yet we are talking about in class room.....
But since, you're going there, here are THOUSANDS of people who saved their lives or other, because they were scared out of their wits...
Thoughts? Should semi-automatic firearms be regulated as tightly as fully automatic firearms?
No, it's an absurd suggestion.
Liberals and other anti gun nuts will NEVER solve or reduce "gun violence" because they never focus on the actual problems, always the tool.
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.
...now run along.
