another shooting at ft hood.

[Torami]

Sure but, at least compared to when I was a kid, it is a lot harder for people that don't belong there to get on bases now. Both this guy and the last Ft. Hood shooter weren't going to be kept off base because they were supposed to be on base.

Depends on the base, not all of them actually scan the cac. Yokosuka does, Norfolk Naval doesnt, and the majority of my training bases didnt. Quick flip and carry on.

 

[UpaLoompa]

More damage at close range obv, but the ar allows you to reach out and touch someone safely. The AR will end up with more wounded/killed due to ease of reload and capacity.

Personally I'm of the opinion that the rarity with which such mass killings occur makes them invalid for any sort of argument about banning assault weapons. At the same time it is absolutely mind-blowing that so many people are so willing to disingenuously argue opposite of what you posted.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Depends on the base, not all of them actually scan the cac.

My experience is pretty limited as of late so I'll happily defer. When I was a kid, my dad was a retired col., we'd go on lots of bases with barely a glance. A couple of years back I had a bit of a pain getting onto Ft. Campbell with my brother even though he was a major stationed there. My mom and her husband did lot's of RV'ing back and forth across the country around 2007-2010 and they had a lot more problems (both with the RV, which makes sense, and in just a car) getting to PX's.

While limited I don't find it too likely a busload of heavily armed ne'er-do-wells are going to stroll unnoticed onto most bases.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

Sure but, at least compared to when I was a kid, it is a lot harder for people that don't belong there to get on bases now. Both this guy and the last Ft. Hood shooter weren't going to be kept off base because they were supposed to be on base.

Right, that's a concern in and of itself. People who are supposed to be there.

Seperately:

It's not that difficult to get right up in those places. It wouldn't take that much casing of the joint.

Terroristically speaking, it would make for a nice big blackeye in the press.

From a military perspective:
Someone has to ask, if bullets are flying inside a military installation, how do we respond, and is that currently sufficient, and what could make it worse?

You know, disaster recovery and business continuation sort've stuff.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

We're talking about mass shootings and going back over historical records the death tolls increase over time. It isn't ridiculous to attribute part of that to technology and frankly it is ridiculously dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Think about the V. Tech massacre. Do you think as many people would have been wounded and killed if he was using a revolver?

Have you found any good reliable source for such listings?

I think one may have to look at such stuff case by case, shotguns, to long guns, to pistols, than make another column for fire and bombs and the like.

And any other factors that influence the probabilities.

But no it's not ridiculous to attribute technology into the numbers.

More lead in the air has to play on the probabilities.

 

[jlagman]

You're being more pedantic than I am in a science thread. Fact of the matter is you knew what I was referring to and my usage is hardly uncommon. Everyone knew what I was referring to.



We're talking about mass shootings and going back over historical records the death tolls increase over time. It isn't ridiculous to attribute part of that to technology and frankly it is ridiculously dishonest to suggest otherwise. I recall that one of the earlier historical records of a school shooting I came across was with just one double barrel shotgun. Both the death toll and the number of people injured was pretty low. You're making a really disingenuous argument, which I suspect you know.

Then again, it isn't the worst argument I've seen. There was one guy trying to argue that the .223 round was damn near harmless since it was basically like a .22lr

Think about the V. Tech massacre. Do you think as many people would have been wounded and killed if he was using a revolver?

Wasn't the shooter at Virginia Tech using compliant magazines? Anyways, the shooter in Montreal was using a Mini 14 with a botched full-auto conversion and basically had a straight pull bolt action. I think having a lack of return fire has more to do with it that what gun they were using.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Have you found any good reliable source for such listings?

I think one may have to look at such stuff case by case, shotguns, to long guns, to pistols, than make another column for fire and bombs and the like.

And any other factors that influence the probabilities.

But no it's not ridiculous to attribute technology into the numbers.

More lead in the air has to play on the probabilities.

Not particularly. In the wake of Newtown someone mentioned how school shootings were getting more and more frequent every decade. I found some table with occurrences and victim counts and there didn't seem to be any real change in occurrence over time but there was a change in the number of people injured or killed. There are other possible explanations for that but it is ridiculous to pretend that technology doesn't contribute.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Wasn't the shooter at Virginia Tech using compliant magazines?

Compare even that to a pair of revolvers.

Anyways, the shooter in Montreal was using a Mini 14 with a botched full-auto conversion and basically had a straight pull bolt action. I think having a lack of return fire has more to do with it that what gun they were using.

I've no idea, had never even heard about that incident. Doesn't particularly matter, does it.

 

[oldshadow]

Depends on the base, not all of them actually scan the cac. Yokosuka does, Norfolk Naval doesnt, and the majority of my training bases didnt. Quick flip and carry on.

They have started to tighten up here lately and doing a lot of scanning of the CAC

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Not particularly. In the wake of Newtown someone mentioned how school shootings were getting more and more frequent every decade. I found some table with occurrences and victim counts and there didn't seem to be any real change in occurrence over time but there was a change in the number of people injured or killed. There are other possible explanations for that but it is ridiculous to pretend that technology doesn't contribute.

Technology like the media that provides lots of coverage and high murder scores to shoot for?

 

[jlagman]

Compare even that to a pair of revolvers.

I've no idea, had never even heard about that incident. Doesn't particularly matter, does it.

"Not mattering" is kind of my point; when no one is shooting back and people are forced to be victims, rate of fire and capacity have little effect on the outcome; especially considering mag changes can be measured in single digit seconds and response times are measured in double digit minutes (best case scenario). When someone else with a gun shows up, the shooter usually eats their own gun or surrenders.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Technology like the media that provides lots of coverage and high murder scores to shoot for?

I think that plays a role too. So? Would you argue that technology doesn't matter? Would you argue there's only one factor that matters?

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

While limited I don't find it too likely a busload of heavily armed ne'er-do-wells are going to stroll unnoticed onto most bases.

Probly not too likely at all, (lets hope). Security can seem pretty tight when you approach it from the proper direction.

It's hard for normal people to see it like maniacs and those inclined to do terror, though.

Who would have thought you could turn an airplane into a bomb using box cutters?

It's not in our normal way of thinking.

I read about some go'vt guys who tested base security back in the 90s:

They'd walk in with construction workers, drive in from the back of the base, (wooded back gates), they'd bring in weapons a few at a time and stash them here and there, they'd steal civilian IDs, they'd case the base and do little stupid stuff, (set fire to a trash can) to see how the MPs responded; within a week, they have a full plan of attack to mess it all up..

They made a great case for showing how laughably easy it might be done.

 

[45ACP]

You're being more pedantic than I am in a science thread. Fact of the matter is you knew what I was referring to and my usage is hardly uncommon. Everyone knew what I was referring to.

We're talking about mass shootings and going back over historical records the death tolls increase over time. It isn't ridiculous to attribute part of that to technology and frankly it is ridiculously dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Never even hinted at such a suggestion. In fact, modern improvements to ammunition ensure that firearms in general are better at incapacitating/killing than ever before.

I recall that one of the earlier historical records of a school shooting I came across was with just one double barrel shotgun. Both the death toll and the number of people injured was pretty low. You're making a really disingenuous argument, which I suspect you know.

Then again, it isn't the worst argument I've seen. There was one guy trying to argue that the .223 round was damn near harmless since it was basically like a .22lr

Think about the V. Tech massacre. Do you think as many people would have been wounded and killed if he was using a revolver?

I doubt it, but we're not talking about revolvers. We were discussing an AR15 vs a shotgun, in which case my point still stands. But to better answer your question, if Cho had been packing dual .357 magnums instead of the 9mm and .22 he used it's quite possible there would have been an even higher body count.

Here is my argument: in a typical close-range, door-to-door mass shooting scenario the only advantage an AR has over a shotgun is ease of reloading, and penetration through hard cover. Every other advantage goes to the shotgun. That's not a disingenuous argument at all. In fact I personally know combat vets who whole-heartedly admit they prefer a 12 gauge for room-to-room clearing. The stopping power of a 12g loaded with slugs is second to none when it comes to personal defense weapons.

You claimed it as fact that it's easier to kill people with an AR15 than with a shotgun which is simply not true.

...and just for the record, I didn't call you out on your misuse of the word "clip", it's not really a big deal to me. I was simply responding to someone defending you by saying that since some types of firearms do use clips, your misuse of the term was OK.

 

[Torami]

Here is my argument: in a typical close-range, door-to-door mass shooting scenario the only advantage an AR has over a shotgun is ease of reloading, and penetration through hard cover. Every other advantage goes to the shotgun. That's not a disingenuous argument at all. In fact I personally know combat vets who whole-heartedly admit they prefer a 12 gauge for room-to-room clearing. The stopping power of a 12g loaded with slugs is second to none when it comes to personal defense weapons.

You claimed it as fact that it's easier to kill people with an AR15 than with a shotgun which is simply not true.
OK.

And your argument is incorrect. More rounds out more people hit. A shotgun has to be reloaded after 5-9 shells which is slow to do. The Shotgun starts out strong, but finishes quickly.

 

[Byron Carter]

And your argument is incorrect. More rounds out more people hit. A shotgun has to be reloaded after 5-9 shells which is slow to do. The Shotgun starts out strong, but finishes quickly.

Not every shotgun holds 5-9 slugs. Both weapons have their advantages and disadvantages.. but for CQC, I'd take a 12-gauge over an AR-15 - but we're splitting hairs, they're both amazing killing machines indoors.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

And your argument is incorrect. More rounds out more people hit. A shotgun has to be reloaded after 5-9 shells which is slow to do. The Shotgun starts out strong, but finishes quickly.

More rounds out doesn't equal more hits necessarily, it's just more rounds out.


Hey, what if we all played the, what we can agree upon game for once?


Wouldn't that be fun too, maybe?

 

[45ACP]

And your argument is incorrect. More rounds out more people hit. A shotgun has to be reloaded after 5-9 rds which is slow to do. Easy enough time to rush the guy if we are only talking a shottie.

Prove my argument wrong then. I claimed ease of reload is the only actual advantage the AR has. Which is exactly what you just wrote.

If I have to shoot my targets 5 times with an AR to kill/incapacitate them but only once with a shotgun, I have the potential to do at least as much damage as the AR in a similar time frame.

I'm not trying to say a shotgun is BETTER at killing people than an AR, just that it's not necessarily or substantially WORSE. In a war zone, with hard cover, accuracy, and distance to take into consideration of course the AR is superior, but when discussing mass shooting scenarios it's simply not true that an AR will always be better at killing people than other types of weapons. There are just too many variables.

 

[45ACP]

but for CQC, I'd take a 12-gauge over an AR-15

If you don't mind, could you explain why, exactly?

Because there are people here basically arguing that you'd be stupid for doing so, because it's a fact that it's easier to kill people with an AR. Then when I say that's not necessarily true I get called disingenuous.

 

[SMEAC]

It might be a clue that the military only uses shotguns for breaching