another shooting at ft hood.

[Scrody]

you missed the point where I said he injured 70. The 12 others were self injuries getting away. Not from the guns.

What?

 

[Torami]

What?

You missed the point and you should edit this, you are missing a 12.
.

Should I say just say he shot 82 of them? Would that be easier.

 

[mantronix]

you missed the point where I said he injured 70. The 12 others were self injuries getting away. Not from the guns.



Fired 2 shots into the air then the last 4 before switching to the ar.

I am going to make what you said earlier clearer, watch closely:

Misleading:

Originally Posted by Torami View Post
70 injured and killed by him, 82 total victims. The beta jammed at around 50ish rounds.

Clarity:

70 injured and 12 killed by him, 82 total victims. The beta jammed at around 50ish rounds.

 

[Torami]

I am going to make what you said earlier clearer, watch closely:

Misleading:


Clarity:

Okay lets slow it down for you and go the yellow bus route. 82 were injured total.

70 were shot and 12 of that 70 died.

The other 12 suffered injuries from trying to get away and the smoke, ie not his gunfire.

82 total..... The point is to distinguish the gun injuries.

 

[mantronix]

Maybe you could share your soure?

Here is mine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

This is what they say:

A gunman, dressed in tactical clothing, set off tear gas grenades and shot into the audience with multiple firearms, killing 12 people and injuring 70 others.

 

[oldshadow]

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

Because number 1 buck is the most effective round and you lose control of your fire even at close quarters. If you have no friendlies and don't care who you kill as long as you kill everything that is not one of yours a shotgun does great for that.

With practice a shotgun can be loaded very fast.

 

[Torami]

Maybe you could share your soure?

Here is mine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

This is what they say:

Eighty-two people were shot or otherwise wounded,[42][43] reported by mainstream news as the most victims of any mass shooting in United States history.[44][45] Four people's eyes were irritated by the tear gas grenades, and eight others injured themselves while fleeing the theater.[2]

Your source says what I said.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

But how much wood would either of these weapons chuck if they could, in fact, chuck wood?

 

[Torami]

But how much wood would either of these weapons chuck if they could, in fact, chuck wood?

Pretty confident a shotgun could chuck better.

 

[mantronix]

Eighty-two people were shot or otherwise wounded,[42][43] reported by mainstream news as the most victims of any mass shooting in United States history.[44][45] Four people's eyes were irritated by the tear gas grenades, and eight others injured themselves while fleeing the theater.[2]

Your source says what I said.

You are right, I am wrong. Advance to the next round.

 

[jlagman]

don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.

Port Arthur was semi-automatic rifles. He used an AR-15 and a FN FAL.

Fair enough, but doesn't that make the subsequent banning of pump shotguns, that much more retarded? Did knees jerk so hard that an unrelated firearm was swept up in the fear mongering bullshit that followed?

Notice another common theme? When no one has the ability to resist, death tolls will rise.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Fair enough, but doesn't that make the subsequent banning of pump shotguns, that much more retarded? Did knees jerk so hard that an unrelated firearm was swept up in the fear mongering bullshit that followed?

Notice another common theme? When no one has the ability to resist, death tolls will rise.

Yes I agree. It was a knee jerk reaction and it wasn't something I supported at the time. I don't personally own any guns but have no problem whatsoever with responsible gun ownership. The logic behind it was that it was a weapon which could be discharged quite rapidly so it was included along with semi-autos.

A lot of it is cultural though, there is not the gun culture in Australia that there appears to be in the US so there was not a great deal of opposition to the changes.

 

[KILL KILL]

Bullshit. There are literally 100s of documented cases of insurgents in AFG/IRAQ taking 5+ hits from an M4 before succumbing. A .22 caliber bullet that doesn't expand and often passes right through the body without hitting any major organs or arteries will not always be effective.



Penetration is not a pro when discussing the .223 round's lethality. It is only a pro when discussing shooting through cover, or body armor, which isn't very necessary during a shooting spree.

I'm not sure why you're still trying to argue that an AR is better at killing than a shotgun in every conceivable scenario when there are a significant number of combat vets who disagree with you. Are you really incapable of admitting that at close range there is no better man-stopper than a 12g slug?

To be fair, it was mostly due to the widespread use of adrenaline and amphetamines prior to engaging the US military. They knew they were going to die and did everything they could to continue fighting until the last breath. Crazy fuckers.

 

[WorldofWarcraft]

I seriously fucking doubt that.

Then again you're also likely one of those people that believes most mass shootings occur in gun free zones despite the numbers not backing that up.

There are literally no records of that happening and I spent a long time looking it up. And if it HAD happened, someone on the anti side would have brought it up, but NOBODY has. Someone, somewhere, on the news, on various forums, on countless debates, on THIS FUCKING FORUM after a bajillion gun control related threads, would have brought it up if it had ever happened.

Also, I don't know the numbers on mass shootings whether they take place more often than not in gun free zones, but they sure as fuck don't help. What's the point of having a gun free zone if it does absolutely NOTHING?

 

[HIMBOB]

LOL, here's a sample:

http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f54/another-tale-armed-citizen-2078511/

So HIMBOB called them "basically the same thing", how does that demonstrate that he knows the difference?

Classic HIMBOB modus operandi; make a half-assed, ill-informed statement about guns, get owned by people who actually know what they're talking about, deny ownage.

Still don't see how that gave you the idea I didn't know the difference.

First quote, I very clearly give my definition of an assualt rifle.
This was before I knew in America the term assualt rifles included semi autos (do you agree with that definition???), I do not feel this definition is correct, my presumption of what most American's think was wrong, no trouble admitting that at all.


Second one I offer an explantion for why many Americans consider semi-autos as assult rifles.
This is clearly not my opinion as I had already given my definition, ie your first quote.


3rd one I avoiding using the semi Vs auto and therefore describing in simple terms.


You may have thought I didn't know the difference between semi and full auto, but I have done so for over 20 years. I didn't know what you define as assualt rifles but my own definition has not evolved or changed at all.

I and honetsly I find it surprising how long you have held onto this idea despite having nothing to support it. And even more surprising you remember this, I honestly don't remember a fucking thing about you, and it is mainly because I argue the point not the man, but also I don't care enough.



For context,

Page of 1st quote,
http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/showthread.php?p=68679109#post68679109

Page of 2nd quote,
http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/showthread.php?p=68710689#post68710689

 

[HIMBOB]

And... that's one of the dumbest posts I've read on Sherdog.

You should feel bad for posting that.

Don't feel bad at all.,

I was unaware Americans consider semi autos as assualt rifles, it seems very fucking strange to me and yes I was wrong on that but of all the people I have talked with assualt rifle means full auto.

What was so stupid, why should I feel bad?

 

[Byron Carter]

HIMBOB, you are digging that hole so deep for yourself... Just stop.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Also, I don't know the numbers on mass shootings whether they take place more often than not in gun free zones, but they sure as fuck don't help. What's the point of having a gun free zone if it does absolutely NOTHING?

At least at the time of the Navy Yard shooting, fewer than a third of "mass shootings" occurred in gun free zones. Importantly, a lot of gun free zones would be attractive targets to psychos. There are a lot of people and shooting them up will make a splash.

As for the existence of such zones, I've no problem with private companies adopting such a policy. I also think there are very good reasons for various public properties to be subject to security and restriction of guns (many federal buildings and courthouses, for example). Frankly though, I don't really care that much. Gun free zones could conceivably reduce spur of the moment choices to shot somewhere up (e.g. college campuses) but they're not going to do shit for premeditated sprees. The occurrence of either of those things is also rare enough that I don't think they're sound basis for forming policy. Both pro-gun and anti-gun people focus too heavily on this sort of event when they're really irrelevant to gun crime. Such events neither invalidate gun-free zones nor justify increased gun restrictions.

 

[HIMBOB]

HIMBOB, you are digging that hole so deep for yourself... Just stop.

Sorry but your authority is not recognised here.

You are going to have to say something more and maybe offer some explanation less I write you off as an immature dick who can't form a rational argument.

 

[KrazyKanadian]

A shooting in the good ole US of A? No fucking way, you don't say!