Parkland School Shooting - Officer's Softness Confirmed via Video; 3/24 #MarchForOurLives

TheDarceKnight

Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
30,548
Reputation
13,786
Daps
95,903
Reppin
Jiu Jitsu
I'm interested to know if the Vegas shooter really would have been more effective at killing had he not used a bump stock. I mean, someone substantiating the claim other than your co-workers & friends.
I sort of feel like it's too soon to even talk about gross details like this.

I mean, I can get some sources together, but honestly I would rather be wrong. Even if semi and full-auto are in the same ballpark, it's bad news.

Semi-auto stuff is not being talked about as being nearly as big of a problem as it is, either way.

Full auto stuff is thankfully more rare either way, but my overall point is that we need to be addressing semi-auto in a major way.

Most gunshot wounds are survived. As far as gunshot wounds that are survived, with a pistol you're looking at 70-80% With a rifle you're looking at about 25%. Most people that are shot do not die if they can get to a hospital in 10-15 minutes.

Ballistics are fukking weird and crazy. People can get shot once and die or 20 times and live. people get shot in the lungs and live or in the foot and die. A lot of it is pure luck. On full-auto, a lot of rounds are going to hit a lot of people, but the weapon is harder to control even if you're aiming. There's no rhyme or reason to shot placement. And again I can't stress enough how disgusting it is to speak about this in these terms. Maybe it's too soon. But when someone can aim and make sure they put the bullets in places that are more likely to be kill shots, that's a scarier scenario in my experience.

Listen to the gunfire in those Vegas videos. 59 people died. Think about how many more bullets you heard fired. There were like 1200 rounds fired. Think about if that guy had aimed and placed each shot with those high-powered scoped exactly where he wanted to place them. AR-15s are incredibly accurate. I really think we could be looking at a death toll in the hundreds if he had been using semi-auto. And untrained person with a semi-auto AR-15 can place 4 shots in one second accurately more or less on top of each other, rather than spraying in the general direction.

I will get you some sources, because I don't expect you to just believe a stranger online, and I want you to have some solid information. I'm tired right now, but I will post some sources tomorrow and tag you.

But I want to stress that I think both are incredibly dangerous and we need to fix this problem, and Better gun control is going to help regardless of these myopic details. I don't want this to get into the weeds too much and lose to forest through the trees.
 

TheDarceKnight

Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
30,548
Reputation
13,786
Daps
95,903
Reppin
Jiu Jitsu
How is the answer arming teachers?

"Student steals teachers gun kills multiple students"

"Student steals teachers gun and accidentally shoots himself/someone else"

"Teacher accidentally discharges weapon and kills a student"

etc etc
Arming teacher sis a terrible idea.

Not to mention that owning a gun is a terrible idea unless you can actually train with the weapon.

Teachers don't need that extra responsibility.

This is too much.

Arming teachers is one of the worst ideas I've heard so far. It's their job to educate, and not be armed security professionals.

Those are each full time jobs, and a teacher cannot do both, nor should they be expected to.

Not to mention all the great reasons you mentioned.
 
Top