NRA Publicity Fiasco

[madmax]

Originally Posted by bpjimmy

My post had meat on it. Please show me what "scary words" I employed. However this post of yours has some inaccuracies:



Again, magazine changes are fast. In this case if we assume your shot count is correct (I have no idea) then he did at least 3 mag changes with the AR and at least that number with the handgun. So if he had to do triple the number of mag changes do you think it matters? Have you ever handled an AR15 and do you know how mag changes are done?

You are making the wrong assumptions on my statement. Lanza fired well over 100 rounds - that is from a CT State Police statement. How the magazine is changed doesn't mean anything. He DID change them, he DID discharge them. As a result he emptied 3 magazines, this means 2 changes, not 3. When the final report comes out we will know more. Either way, the AR-15 allowed Lanza 90 shots in addition to the ones from his handguns. If he had just the two handguns with a replacement clip for each he would have been limited to about 60 rounds.

Originally Posted by bpjimmy

No. A 1911 handgun fires a .45 ACP round. The AR15 fires a .223 round. Both are lethal hitting a vital spot but the AR round has a higher likelihood of passing through or missing vital spots as it is a much smaller bullet. If you knew anything about weapons you would know that many in the Army consider the .223 round as inadequate. It isn't inadequate but it is hardly more lethal than a .45 ACP.

Your assessment is very different from Franco's (a firearms expert). See his previous post on this. I was going by what he posted. I am not an expert on the AR-15, only shot one once that belonged to a co-worker - this was over 10 years ago.

Originally Posted by bpjimmy

You want to argue how a specific gun game Lanza some "assurance". Please, let's just discuss what we can find some data on not the mind of a crazy.

It's a valid point: What gives you the belief that you will be successful in your plan. The more firepower the more effective in a desire to unleash carnage. That's simple basic logic. "Crazy" obviously did not inhibit his thinking of how to kill and do as much damage as possible.

Originally Posted by bpjimmy

But you MISS THE POINT. I'm beginning to think it is intentional. But for any lurkers - he could have fired the same number of rounds from an AR15 with 10 round mags and it would have added only about 30 seconds total to the process.

And as I have pointed out AND YOU IGNORE there could have been just as many casualties using lesser technology.

No, I get the point completely. To take your logic to the extreme he could have caused just as much carnage with single shot flintlocks... had he been able to drag about 200 of them into the school.

More than likely Nancy Lanza had an extra clip for each handgun. That would have been about 60 rounds (probably 56 since he unloaded 4 into her head before heading to the school). That is less than half of what he ended up firing.

Capice yet?

Originally Posted by bpjimmy

Let's go back to the beginning.

WHAT LAW WOULD YOU PASS.

I'm not sure yet. I would like to see less of these weapons in irresponsible hands. I'm not sure that can be done effectively.

Originally Posted by bpjimmy

WHAT PROBLEM ARE YOU ADDRESSING.

Problem? Pretty basic: dead kids and teachers for no reason. Why are they dead? Why are so many families grieving? What can we do to reduce the likelyhood of more Sandy hooks, more Auroras?

Originally Posted by bpjimmy

You continue to repeat errors in the face of being corrected.

My "errors" are minor technical nuances of things like magazine changes and whatnot. And your "corrections" are in contrast to other so-called experts. None of these "errors" changes the basic premise of the discussion.

Originally Posted by bpjimmy

You try to guess the mind of a killer.

Not just me... any criminal investigation will look into all the factors that led to this incident, including motivation, state of mind, preceding conflicts, etc...
This is looking at the big picture.

Originally Posted by bpjimmy

This isn't rational debate.

I agree. You haven't attempted to see any opposing viewpoints. And I am not even in opposition to your viewpoint. I am still in the gathering data mode and not making any conclusions yet. But in any event, my analysis still holds water: without that AR-15, and with only Nancy Lanza's handguns and a change in clips we would have many more kids still alive...simply by cutting his shot count down more than 50%. Even if you take away the premise that he might well have had a less grandious plan without the AR-15.

Originally Posted by bpjimmy

In any event, a magazine ban will accomplish little.

Some will think "little" is a lot better than nothing. Especially if you are a parent.

Originally Posted by bpjimmy

And the last assault weapon ban did nothing. Why do you think it will change NOW.

You don't know that. How can you say that because of the ban other shootings were not prevented?

[Francoitalianarmy]

Originally Posted by madmax

Your assessment is very different from Franco's (a firearms expert). See his previous post on this. I was going by what he posted. I am not an expert on the AR-15, only shot one once that belonged to a co-worker - this was over 10 years ago

The .223 is commonly used in Remington's version of the AR15, while standard NATO ammo is 5.56mm. The main diffence is the "brass" and powder used between the two and many folks do not understand how to reload them properly. The military/NATO uses a thicker jacket which is intended to carry the powder disribution correctly when fired. Conversly, if someone wishes to reload and uses NATO specs on powder, it could damage the weapon severely. You can shoot commercial .223ammo, but not 5.56 unless it is loaded properly.

The AK47 and other NATO weapons use a 7.62 standard load/munition which carrys more "punch" making it much more lethal. The AR15 (M16) is designed to shoot flat and more accurate at distance since the bullet won't drop as much when fired over 100 yards, but because it shoots so fast, the bullet tends to "tumble" and flare out tremendously causing alot of damage, but not necessary as lethal.

In the battlefield, a wounded warrior takes out 3 people as 2 are necessary to carry him, rather than a dead soldier...which requires no one as he will be staged and await pick up per protocol.

The basic service weapons use 5.56mm ammo while the standard machine guns use the 7.62mm ammo (M60). Most modern military weapons use one or the other type making it compatible and standard teaching practice to identify ammo for use when picked up on the battlefield.

The handguns in question here are VERY powerful as a .45 round does a ton of damage and will pass through much more easily than the .223 round. In most instances, when shooting an AR15, it is necessary to fire multiple times at the target if you want it completely incapacitate it.

[madmax]

Franco, this is your assessment I was referring to:
"The damage from the AR doesn’t come from the power, but more from the tumbling bullet. The jacket and 5.56 cal. Round are designed to tumble, jacket peel not shatter or shock as in a conventional big game rifle. The AR is designed to maim and although you are taught to aim center mass, wounding is much more efficient for obvious reasons."

And these attributes make it leathal:
Small caliber, accurate, light weight, high velocity round (.223/5.56x45mm)

The rifles are favored for target shooting, hunting, and personal protection

Today the AR-15 and its variations are manufactured by many companies and are popular among civilian shooters and law enforcement forces around the world due to their accuracy and modularity.

Even a novice knows to be lethal you have to hit the target. The AR-15 is noted as an accurate weapon. Handguns are close range, just by their nature.

I tried to find some info on the "tumbling" - didn't find anything. Did find in a discussion about rounds "fragmenting" beyond 150 yards - that's a long shooting distance and well beyond the scope of what happened at Sandy Hook.

But really, these are fairly trivial points: anybody can be killed with one bullet from either the handgun or an AR-15. The accuracy makes it "lethal". As I found on one of these discussions on the AR-15: "The three most important things in lethality and real estate are location, location and location. .. the number one factor inlethality was marksmanship (accuracy)".

I'll say it again - an assault weapon ban won't be a cure all. It won't do much.
But it seems like it would have made a difference in this case.

[evileye]

Originally Posted by madmax

Franco, this is your assessment I was referring to:
"The damage from the AR doesn’t come from the power, but more from the tumbling bullet. The jacket and 5.56 cal. Round are designed to tumble, jacket peel not shatter or shock as in a conventional big game rifle. The AR is designed to maim and although you are taught to aim center mass, wounding is much more efficient for obvious reasons."

And these attributes make it leathal:
Small caliber, accurate, light weight, high velocity round (.223/5.56x45mm)

The rifles are favored for target shooting, hunting, and personal protection

Today the AR-15 and its variations are manufactured by many companies and are popular among civilian shooters and law enforcement forces around the world due to their accuracy and modularity.

Even a novice knows to be lethal you have to hit the target. The AR-15 is noted as an accurate weapon. Handguns are close range, just by their nature.

I tried to find some info on the "tumbling" - didn't find anything. Did find in a discussion about rounds "fragmenting" beyond 150 yards - that's a long shooting distance and well beyond the scope of what happened at Sandy Hook.

But really, these are fairly trivial points: anybody can be killed with one bullet from either the handgun or an AR-15. The accuracy makes it "lethal". As I found on one of these discussions on the AR-15: "The three most important things in lethality and real estate are location, location and location. .. the number one factor inlethality was marksmanship (accuracy)".

I'll say it again - an assault weapon ban won't be a cure all. It won't do much.
But it seems like it would have made a difference in this case.

I think a big part of this argument is not having a clear understanding and consensus on what an asault weapon is.

We should clarify what we are talking about. Personaly I do not see a Carbine or semiautomatic rifle as an asault weapon. I have a 30.06 semiautomatic rifle for hunting.

I see any firearm that is fully automatic as an asualt weapon regardless of the round it fires. What do you classify as an asault weapon?

[OneArm]

Originally Posted by evileye

I see any firearm that is fully automatic as an assault weapon regardless of the round it fires. What do you classify as an assault weapon?

most times, when the phrase "assault weapon" is used, the term fully automatic precedes it.

I think any weapon that can hold more than 15 bullets and fire them with out the user having to "prime" the weapon, is an assault weapon. Not just the fully automatic weapons.

I'm fine with a hunting rifle. Those may hold a 5 to 10 round magazines, but you have to cock and load after each shot.

[evileye]

Originally Posted by OneArm

most times, when the phrase "assault weapon" is used, the term fully automatic precedes it.

I think any weapon that can hold more than 15 bullets and fire them with out the user having to "prime" the weapon, is an assault weapon. Not just the fully automatic weapons.

I'm fine with a hunting rifle. Those may hold a 5 to 10 round magazines, but you have to cock and load after each shot.

A large portion of hunting rifles are semiautomatic, so under your veiw only lever or bolt action rifles would be used for hunting?

I do agree with 10 round being plenty for a hunting rifle.

[Wouldhe]

How many more children are going to die in Spain before the Spaniards come to their senses. Throwing candy in front of floats is killing the children. Come on Spain! It's time to outlaw and ban floats. They are killing your children.
http://news.yahoo.com/boy-killed-hol...204926481.html

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by Wouldhe

How many more children are going to die in Spain before the Spaniards come to their senses. Throwing candy in front of floats is killing the children. Come on Spain! It's time to outlaw and ban floats. They are killing your children.
http://news.yahoo.com/boy-killed-hol...204926481.html

Plonker!

[Wouldhe]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Plonker!

Shhhh-boom! LoL

[hrdguera]

I've been wondering about the President's initiative concerning gun control.
1. Placing bungling groper Biden in charge gives Obama a scapegoat when the effort fails; and it will.
2. Going for broke and trying to extend the reach to handguns just broadens the effort and moves the compromise point further towards the left to ban more guns.
3. Like I said before, there are many in the President's support group (95% that automatically voted for him) that would never give up their guns and would be stupid if they did.
4. This issue is a red herring being used to move the attention away from the President's economic plans to hamstring the country and move the attention away his other failures.

Either way, it is a win-win for the President.
He is a conniving snake. But while all this goes on during the next few years he will get in a lot of golf and vacation time. And the country will remain divided letting him do more damage to our way of life.