TX elementary school mass shooting

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

'cause i'm a big fat dummy

Besides that....you won't answer because you're too scared to admit that you're against ownership of those types of weapons, and you do agree that a limit should be put on the amount of firepower a citizen should be able to legally obtain.

It's cool, I understand.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by myohmyjustify

This, and more. Way more.

Nibble on the below article. PA Mike mentioned about it in one of the earlier posts in this thread. No one added to it, to no surprise. Then the above thanks to Inner Dirt. Debating the merits of assault rifles, policing schools, yada yada yada ... is an exercise in futility.

This all began plus-30 years ago when every young boy who twitches, get a dose of ritilin and other drugs, creating a generation of (today's) killers.

We shouldn't be suing Remington and the gun makers, we should sue Pfizer, Merck, etc., etc. This is a great article. Says it all, to me anyway.


https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...300618265.html

I knew a couple medicated brothers, a good friend's nephews. Seems the Navy managed to cure their need for pills. Both of them are fine young men today, both said they did not need the pills, discipline is what they needed.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

There is a lot more to it than this...

I agree the .223/5.56 is not some wunderwaffen round and that's its relatively mild but comparing it to .22LR in any situation is a pretty big stretch.

Explain then in that situation how the .223 is a lot more deadly than a .22LR.
I believe all the shooting was at close range and the victims were out in the open.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

Besides that....you won't answer because you're too scared to admit that you're against ownership of those types of weapons, and you do agree that a limit should be put on the amount of firepower a citizen should be able to legally obtain.

It's cool, I understand.

What next, are you going to ask him if he thinks civilians should be able to
own shoulder fired missiles? The line has to be drawn somewhere. The so called assault rifle isn't any more deadly that a lot of other weapons the left doesn't demonize.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

Besides that....you won't answer because you're too scared to admit that you're against ownership of those types of weapons, and you do agree that a limit should be put on the amount of firepower a citizen should be able to legally obtain.

It's cool, I understand.

You're kinda deranged...but that's cool.

I take many anti-traditional-Republican stances.

I've said many times on this board I am not anti-abortion and don't think it should be banned.

Fully automatic weapons are banned from sale to the general public.

No reason to change that.

Thus, I am against them being for sale.

You can cream your pants now.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Look man....

Both sides have issues but only one repeatedly stonewalls even the barest of precautions.

Universal background checks can't even get passed...

I disagree with what every liberal/democrat/whatever has mostly said in this thread but I get their frustration when even the simplest most common sense stuff can't even get to a vote.

I agree with background checks.

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

What next, are you going to ask him if he thinks civilians should be able to
own shoulder fired missiles? The line has to be drawn somewhere. The so called assault rifle isn't any more deadly that a lot of other weapons the left doesn't demonize.

But, but...I thought people killed people, not shoulder fired missiles (which I think ARE legal to own, by the way). Isn't that the argument people always make? Such as..."I guess we have to ban knives and pens because someone used one to kill somebody."

Thank you guys for making my point. It wasn't so hard, was it?
We all agree that a limit should be placed on the amount of firepower a citizen should be able to have.

Good night

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Explain then in that situation how the .223 is a lot more deadly than a .22LR.
I believe all the shooting was at close range and the victims were out in the open.

A .22LR leaves the barrel with around 125lb/ft of energy.

A .223 with 1250.

In the world of centerline thats not a lot of but it's waaaay more potent than a .22LR.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

But, but...I thought people killed people, not shoulder fired missiles (which I think ARE legal to own, by the way). Isn't that the argument people always make? Such as..."I guess we have to ban knives and pens because someone used one to kill somebody."

Thank you guys for making my point. It wasn't so hard, was it?
We all agree that a limit should be placed on the amount of firepower a citizen should be able to have.

Good night

Since you apparently agree with the knife and pen analogy, then I guess we also need to limit the number of knives and and pens a citizen should have, right?

P.S. It is hard for meathead liberals to think straight.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

A .22LR leaves the barrel with around 125lb/ft of energy.

A .223 with 1250.

In the world of centerline thats not a lot of but it's waaaay more potent than a .22LR.

Why is it more potent at close range at an unprotected target? Those targets being small children? The only difference I could see is if the .223 struck a bone. A rib could probably stop a 22LR. If the kids were sheltered the .223 would be a lot more lethal. I always wonder why the so called assault rifle is the weapon of shooting in a confined area. Why not a 9mm pistol with a 50 round drum full of hollow points?

[xtb]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Why is it more potent at close range at an unprotected target? Those targets being small children? The only difference I could see is if the .223 struck a bone. A rib could probably stop a 22LR. If the kids were sheltered the .223 would be a lot more lethal. I always wonder why the so called assault rifle is the weapon of shooting in a confined area. Why not a 9mm pistol with a 50 round drum full of hollow points?

It's the shockwave. If you've ever seen rounds fired into ballistic gelatin, you can see the difference.

[green80]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Why is it more potent at close range at an unprotected target? Those targets being small children? The only difference I could see is if the .223 struck a bone. A rib could probably stop a 22LR. If the kids were sheltered the .223 would be a lot more lethal. I always wonder why the so called assault rifle is the weapon of shooting in a confined area. Why not a 9mm pistol with a 50 round drum full of hollow points?

Or a shotgun with 00 buckshot, you have 12 approx.9mm pellets in one shot. 3 fast shots and you have 36 9mm pellets covering the area, not much aiming required.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

But, but...I thought people killed people, not shoulder fired missiles (which I think ARE legal to own, by the way). Isn't that the argument people always make? Such as..."I guess we have to ban knives and pens because someone used one to kill somebody."

Thank you guys for making my point. It wasn't so hard, was it?
We all agree that a limit should be placed on the amount of firepower a citizen should be able to have.

Good night

I'm all for people walking away feeling better about themselves then before they arrived.

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Since you apparently agree with the knife and pen analogy, then I guess we also need to limit the number of knives and and pens a citizen should have, right?

P.S. It is hard for meathead liberals to think straight.

Since you're apparently too stupid to realize that I was mocking the argument of the gun nuts (not supporting it), I'm just going to laugh at you like I usually do.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Why is it more potent at close range at an unprotected target? Those targets being small children? The only difference I could see is if the .223 struck a bone. A rib could probably stop a 22LR. If the kids were sheltered the .223 would be a lot more lethal. I always wonder why the so called assault rifle is the weapon of shooting in a confined area. Why not a 9mm pistol with a 50 round drum full of hollow points?

A arm or even hand is going to take a lot of juice out of a .22LR.

Sure it can still kill you but it's not in the same neighborhood.

As far as why its the go to... handguns are harder to get than ARs.

When we talk gun violence we are talking handguns. When it comes to mass shooters we talk ARs.