Another School Shooting

[SunsetBengal]

(05-23-2018, 08:01 PM)Nately120 Wrote: And all this time I pictured myself arguing with that woman guzzling that bottle of booze.

Nah, bfine is an actual American hero.  Y'all should pay him a bit more respect around here. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-23-2018, 07:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I know military uses all types of weapons from pistols to flamethrowers, but it was my understanding that the standard combat weapon was an semi auto/auto assault rifle because they were much more efficient at killing people.

Flame throwers have not been in use for decades.  Heavy, dangerous to the user and limited in range.  Not a weapon in use by any modern military.  "Efficient" is contingent on many factors, something a person who understands the purpose of the myriad of different weapon systems actually understands.  You sure you don't want to compare Bfine to an ISIS fighter while you're at it?

[Bengalzona]

Some comments have been made in this thread which were found out of line. The responsible party has been called out and disciplined.

Some posts have been removed due to references to the offending thread. If your post was deleted, it does not necessarily mean that you wrote anything wrong. Rather, it is more likely that you referenced an offence post, either directly or indirectly.

We feel this is a worthwhile thread. Therefore, we won't shut it down at this point. But I encourage you all to carry on with the more meaningful discussion in this thread.

Thank you.

[fredtoast]

(05-24-2018, 12:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  "Efficient" is contingent on many factors, something a person who understands the purpose of the myriad of different weapon systems actually understands.

I admit I am no weapons expert.  So why don't you help me out.

If you want to go into a school and kill as many people as possible what type of weapon do you use?  A revolver or a semi auto rifle with a high capacity magazine?

[Bengalzona]

(05-23-2018, 07:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Depends on this situation; WTS, the AR-15 does not have an auto (burst) setting. I preferred the shotgun for close quarters (and plus when you pumped it folks took notice) and many preferred the pistol for the same situation. The M4 was preferred for killing enemies at a distance. 

I left service in 1997 and know next to nothing about AR-15's or M-4's. We had M-16's (technically M-16A2). From what little I know, I guess the M-4 is military issue and the AR-15 was designed for civilian sale.

I do recall seeing one AR-15 back in the early '90's. A special ops guy had one down at the range and showed it to me. He told me it was his private weapon and called it a Stoner.

[fredtoast]

While I am explaining why people want to ban "assault rifles" I also want to point out that when you look at all "gun violence" hand guns are used in an overwhelming majority of the cases.

Mass shootings get the most publicity, but they are only a very small part of the gun violence problem.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-24-2018, 08:35 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I admit I am no weapons expert.  So why don't you help me out.

If you want to go into a school and kill as many people as possible what type of weapon do you use?  A revolver or a semi auto rifle with a high capacity magazine?

That's a rather odious question to ask, don't you think?  If I was in a situation in which I was forced by an external power to engage in such an act I would use a shotgun with 00 buck, and I'd carry some slug rounds as well.  00 buck at the type of range you'd find indoors is far more lethal than a .223 round.  Plus, an advantage of a shotgun is you can "top off" the magazine.  

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2018, 09:28 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I left service in 1997 and know next to nothing about AR-15's or M-4's. We had M-16's (technically M-16A2). From what little I know, I guess the M-4 is military issue and the AR-15 was designed for civilian sale.

I do recall seeing one AR-15 back in the early '90's. A special ops guy had one down at the range and showed it to me. He told me it was his private weapon and called it a Stoner.

AR-15 is exactly the same as the M16, except it can only fire semi-automatic. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2018, 10:01 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's a rather odious question to ask, don't you think?  If I was in a situation in which I was forced by an external power to engage in such an act I would use a shotgun with 00 buck, and I'd carry some slug rounds as well.  00 buck at the type of range you'd find indoors is far more lethal than a .223 round.  Plus, an advantage of a shotgun is you can "top off" the magazine.  

Slugs are also very good for breaching closed/locked doors. And if you notice the model I was carrying had a pistol grip as opposed to a fixed stock. 

[fredtoast]

(05-24-2018, 10:01 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's a rather odious question to ask, don't you think?  If I was in a situation in which I was forced by an external power to engage in such an act I would use a shotgun with 00 buck, and I'd carry some slug rounds as well.  00 buck at the type of range you'd find indoors is far more lethal than a .223 round.  Plus, an advantage of a shotgun is you can "top off" the magazine.  

What is the max capacity of shells a shotgun will hold.

How do you "top off" a magazine?

I am familiar with what 00 buckshot can do.  You don't have to be as accurate to hit your target, but you would have to be shooting into a crowd to get maximum efficiency.

[fredtoast]

I am no expert on guns but I own a .38 pistol and I have shot all types of guns that my father and my friends own.  I even had one friend who would bring his AR-15 to my house to shoot before he joined a shooting range.  The back of my property was uphill and there was just a huge open field behind it.  I assumed it was plenty safe to shoot there, but one time he showed up with some tracer shells he wanted to shoot after dark.  One of them skipped off the ground and went spinning up the hill.  I still feel it was safe, but after that I said we could not shoot any long guns.  Just pistols.  He had a .45 auto.

Growing up my dad had a Winchester 12 gauge shotgun, a Marlin .30-.30 rifle, a Smith & Wesson .38 pistol, a .22 rifle and a .22 pistol.  Back then .22 shells were cheap as dirt and I'd go through boxes of them shooting cans.

[Bengalzona]

(05-24-2018, 06:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: AR-15 is exactly the same as the M16, except it can only fire semi-automatic. 

Yeah. That's the impression I got from looking at it. The stock was different too, but otherwise...

We didn't see or hear about these a lot back in the early 90's.

[Belsnickel]

(05-24-2018, 06:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: AR-15 is exactly the same as the M16, except it can only fire semi-automatic. 

It is my understanding that there is a variance in the chambering between 5.56 NATO and .223. There is some slight difference and that is also different between the AR-15 and the M16/M4. I want to say the neck on the case is slightly longer on the .223, meaning it can't be chambers in the military variant, but the civilian variant can chamber a 5.56.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-24-2018, 06:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Slugs are also very good for breaching closed/locked doors. And if you notice the model I was carrying had a pistol grip as opposed to a fixed stock. 

To be sure.  They also give you a more lethal round for an "at range" encounter.  Not to mention a slug hits any part of the target's body and that target is out of commission.  I have a Benelli M4, and I have both a pistol and rifle stock for it.  Also own two Remington 870's.  Nothing beats a good 12 guage.

(05-24-2018, 07:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What is the max capacity of shells a shotgun will hold.

7 in the tube and one in the chamber.  There are magazine fed shotguns as well, either Remington or Mossberg just came out with a box magazine fed pump gun.  There's also Saiga that make a 10 round box magazine fed shotgun based on the AK platform.

Quote:How do you "top off" a magazine?

The fact that you asked this question when you claim to have fired a shotgun is odd.  Say I have a fully loaded shotgun.  I fire off three rounds.  I can then "top off" the tube by feeding three more rounds into the tube, making it fully loaded.  Unlike a box magazine fed gun, in which replacing a magazine before it is empty means you cannot use the remaining rounds.  Unless you replace the old magazine that is.  This also allows you to mix your ammunition type, if needed, to, as I said, a slug round.

Quote:I am familiar with what 00 buckshot can do.  You don't have to be as accurate to hit your target, but you would have to be shooting into a crowd to get maximum efficiency.

Not even a little.  You have an unrealistic expectation of the spread of the shot once it exits the gun.  Of course different chokes give you a different spread, but a modified choke will put all nine pellets in around a 12" radius at about fifteen to twenty yards.  If you're trying to hit more than one target at a time with a shotgun then you're doing it wrong.  At close range, e.g. indoors, a shotgun is decidedly more lethal than an .223 firing AR.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I don't know if anyone answered Fred's question or not, so here's an answer to it if I'm remembering correctly.

A standard Remmington 870 shotgun, the best shotgun on the market in my opinion, can hold three shotgun shells in the magazine and one in the chamber and they are very easy to load. You just open the chamber and slide the shell into the magazine. It can be done while running, that's how easy they are to load.

You can also buy a combat shotgun that has a bigger magazine and can hold I think nine shells plus have one in the chamber.

I myself don't own a firearm but I used to until my baby was born and I got rid of them. I had a big Colt .45 1911 that was so heavy it felt like firing a 9mm, there was hardly any kick to it. I also had a single shot Turkey Gun for Turkey Shoots, a Remmington 870 Pump Action shotgun with interchanging shot and slug barrels and a Remmington 1100 for Trap. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-24-2018, 10:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It is my understanding that there is a variance in the chambering between 5.56 NATO and .223. There is some slight difference and that is also different between the AR-15 and the M16/M4. I want to say the neck on the case is slightly longer on the .223, meaning it can't be chambers in the military variant, but the civilian variant can chamber a 5.56.

Other way around, my friend.  The 5.56mm round has a slightly longer "neck"  Also the chamber pressure is a bit higher.  A .223 chambered firearm cannot always fire a 5.56, a 5.56 chambered firearm can always fire a .223.  It's the exact opposite of the 7.62x51mm and .308 winchester rounds.

[Beaker]

To me, its not a gun issue at all...its a mental health issue. If we banned all guns today, some whackjob would go into a school tossing homemade pipe bombs into the fleeing crowd and still kill a sizable number of people. The method of kill is simple the tool. The mental health of the killer is the cause.

The other thing we should be pushing for is the media not to show pics or name the assailant. No fame or mention of names quickly reduces the number of copycats.

[fredtoast]

(05-24-2018, 10:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The fact that you asked this question when you claim to have fired a shotgun is odd. 

I know you can reload before empty.  I just never used the term "topping off".

(05-24-2018, 10:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  At close range, e.g. indoors, a shotgun is decidedly more lethal than an .223 firing AR.

No doubt more lethal.  OO buckshot is like getting shot 8-10 times with a .38.  But I was talking about more efficient numbers wise.  No matter how fast you can reload a shotgun it takes a lot more time than firing a semi auto with a 60 round magazine.

[*PhilHos*]

(05-25-2018, 01:13 PM)Beaker Wrote: To me, its not a gun issue at all...its a mental health issue. If we banned all guns today, some whackjob would go into a school tossing homemade pipe bombs into the fleeing crowd and still kill a sizable number of people. The method of kill is simple the tool. The mental health of the killer is the cause.

The other thing we should be pushing for is the media not to show pics or name the assailant. No fame or mention of names quickly reduces the number of copycats.

This. This. This. This all day every day. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-25-2018, 01:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I know you can reload before empty.  I just never used the term "topping off".

I would have thought the term was descriptive enough to easily reach a conclusion as to its meaning.  Oh well, we'll move on.

Quote:No doubt more lethal.  OO buckshot is like getting shot 8-10 times with a .38.  But I was talking about more efficient numbers wise.  No matter how fast you can reload a shotgun it takes a lot more time than firing a semi auto with a 60 round magazine.

First, no one would use a sixty round magazine.  They're heavy, impractical and unreliable.  I wouldn't use more than 30 and no serious shooter would use anything above 40.  Back to the main point, lethality is the crux of the argument for an "assault weapons" ban.  I realize you are not directly advocating for such a ban, but many are and the reason given is the weapons lethality.  The Parkland shooter killed 17 as opposed to the current shooter who killed 10.  Cruz was given an inordinate amount of time due to the cowardly actions of Deputy "About to Retire".  The Texas shooter was almost immediately engaged by law enforcement, who kept him pinned down.  If the current shooter had been given the time to act that Cruz had he would have easily exceeded the numbers killed in Parkland.

Honestly, it makes me sick that I'm even having to point such noxious details out, but given the arguments of the gun control side they need to be.  Any firearm is lethal, banning a type is going to have zero effect on any further shootings.  Which is why we didn't hear anything about banning shotguns and revolvers after this latest shooting, because even David Hogg knows what a complete idiot he would sound like trying to make that argument.