Guns

[Imari]

I find the gun debate pretty wearisome tbh. You could take the left approach and outlaw firearms entirely, but in America that wouldn't stop people having guns - you can draw parallels with drug legalisation and associated arguments (the illegality does nothing to diminish use).

Yet it seems glaringly obvious that heavy assault rifles, suppressors, armor piercing rounds, etc, etc, etc ad nauseam, should not be as easy to obtain as they currently are.

So, I strongly doubt that you could ban firearms in the U.S, but I don't understand why they're not more heavily regulated; I do understand the push back though - let me explain.

Since we're on GT Planet, I'd assume we're all fairly into cars & driving? So here's a ropey analogy:
The trend (certainly in Europe) is to diminish the responsibility of the driver, trickle in ever more driver aids, limit dual carriageway & motorway speed limits to 50mph by putting up average speed cameras everywhere, and curate the popular opinion that driving/cars are dangerous.

I fear that it won't be long until driving is outlawed. Tbh, I already feel like it is, certainly in the UK. I can't drive anywhere without breaking the law. Call me a criminal if you want, but I'm a safe, competent driver.

The way I feel about driving is perhaps how a lot of responsible gun owners in the states feel about the pressure to clamp down on their firearms?

I feel like the speed limit isn't the best analogy, for reasons that others have pointed out. I feel it's more like if high powered cars were restricted. Say that consumer cars were restricted to 300hp, and you had to go through a strict licencing requirement and prove need for anything above that.

As long as it was clear that higher powered cars were being involved in major crashes with multiple fatalities, I think I could get behind that. 300hp is more than enough for pretty much any reasonable use within normal road limits, and if you're one of the few that needs more (you're a massive caravan enthusiast, or an offroader, or you do track days and need to drive your car to the track) then there's a pathway to let you do that but it's not necessarily super simple.

I feel guns are the same way. I have no problem with people owning guns. However I feel that gun culture in the US immediately shuts down any discussion of what should be easily accessible to the public and what should be restricted or banned. Full auto weapons have been heavily regulated for decades, and I dare say that even most gun enthusiasts could understand why. It'd be cool to be able to have a machine gun to take to the range and fire, but it's not necessary for many legitimate non-military purposes other than 🤬 and giggles.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

Maybe the shooter would have taken the tweet super personally and got so irritated, he stopped shooting and went on the internet to complain about it.



If you hit a vital with a 9mm or a 5.56 the end result is the same. XXXX gun vs XXXX gun doesn't matter. You are again assuming the deputy knew what the shooter was armed with. For this he'd need to have a line of site on the shooter. He claims he thought the shots were coming from off campus.

Yeah and that assume you hit vital. Also maybe he can hear the difference of pistol vs high power rifle.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Yeah and that assume you hit vital. Also maybe he can hear the difference of pistol vs high power rifle.

Hitting vitals or not, when you shoot at someone or get shot at, the natural reaction is to find cover. So again, xxxx gun vs xxxx gun does not matter. Suppression from a pistol and suppression from a rifle = the same result. On the easy to armchair quarterback after the fact front, the shooter did not commit suicide and he has plea bargained to avoid the death penalty. Both indicators that he wasn't ready to die at the time of the shooting and is not ready to die via the death penalty. This likely means he expected to not encounter any resistance in his plan. We can assume a lot of things.

 

[Imari]

What exactly you mean ridicolous? Ofcourse the size and power of the gun matter in real life scenenario, what are you talking about? The difference is clear between normal police officer pistol and Assault rifle. M16 vs AK47 the difference is not so clear so that example you make is very bad. And yes ofcourse he can go inside and try play James Bond but that another story.

Depending on the situation, the difference can be anywhere from meaningless to critical. A pistol is useless trying to shoot someone a thousand yards away, but if you're in a cramped indoor situation it could arguably be preferable over a long gun.

If you're inside a school, the type of gun is probably largely irrelevant apart from it's clip size. Accuracy is hardly an issue, and while a smaller gun is nice it's hardly crucial. I wouldn't say that there's any significant difference in lethality between a decent semi-auto pistal and a decent semi-auto rifle in a school shooting.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

Hitting vitals or not, when you shoot at someone or get shot at, the natural reaction is to find cover. So again, xxxx gun vs xxxx gun does not matter. Suppression from a pistol and suppression from a rifle = the same result. On the easy to armchair quarterback after the fact front, the shooter did not commit suicide and he has plea bargained to avoid the death penalty. Both indicators that he wasn't ready to die at the time of the shooting and is not ready to die via the death penalty. This likely means he expected to not encounter any resistance in his plan. We can assume a lot of things.

Oh my god... stop say the type of gun don't matter.... Then why SWAT team not use police pistols for go in vs school shooter? If the gun dont matter. So no = the result is not the same. Are you try play stupid?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Oh my god... stop say the type of gun don't matter.... Then why SWAT team not use police pistols for go in vs school shooter? If the gun dont matter. So no = the result is not the same. Are you try play stupid?

Not all SWAT teams carry the same weapons, nor do all members of an individual team carry the same weapon set. But I do believe you're going to find most team members carry a sidearm in addition to their rifles. They use whatever weapon, pistol, rifle, grenade etc. is appropriate to the situation and gives them the best tactical advantage. However, that's talking about heavily trained, armed and protected personnel going in en masse. That's not the same as surprising a single school shooter with a shot or two when he's not looking or engaging in suppressing fire to keep him occupied for a while until reinforcements arrive, in which case, any projectile weapon will do the trick. The body getting shot doesn't know the bullets are from a handgun or a rifle. We're not talking about a showdown at opposite ends of the hallway, mano a mano.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

Not all SWAT teams carry the same weapons, nor do all members of an individual team carry the same weapon set. But I do believe you're going to find most team members carry a sidearm in addition to their rifles. They use whatever weapon, pistol, rifle, grenade etc. is appropriate to the situation and gives them the best tactical advantage.

Yeah, that exact my point. Difference of guns MATTER.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yeah, that exact my point. Difference of guns MATTER.

Great selective editing. How about reading the rest?

However, that's talking about heavily trained, armed and protected personnel going in en masse. That's not the same as surprising a single school shooter with a shot or two when he's not looking or engaging in suppressing fire to keep him occupied for a while until reinforcements arrive, in which case, any projectile weapon will do the trick. The body getting shot doesn't know the bullets are from a handgun or a rifle. We're not talking about a showdown at opposite ends of the hallway, mano a mano.

No one is saying that there is no difference between weapons, they are saying that if you are trapped in a confined space like a school, there's little difference in lethality between a pistol and a rifle.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

Great selective editing. How about reading the rest?


No one is saying that there is no difference between weapons, they are saying that if you are trapped in a confined space like a school, there's little difference in lethality between a pistol and a rifle.

Maybe you can go read where Im respond to first? "xxxx type of gun against xxxx type of gun is utterly meaningless in real world combat scenarios". So yeah, that not the case and I'm say that all the time. Power and magazine capacity, accuracy - ALL THESE MATTER IN REAL WORLD SCENARIO. Im never say anything about if you hit a vital. So try to change what I'm respond to.

 

[TexRex]

Great selective editing. How about reading the rest?

*cough*

Individuals and organizations attempt to cheat the system because they believe they can get away with it. You, they, he, nor I can be sure that amount wasn't calculated to provide plausible deniability similar to what you proffered: "Why would I risk so much for so little?"

Glad you agree you don't know the facts behind the motivations for this sale either.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Maybe you can go read where Im respond to first? "xxxx type of gun against xxxx type of gun is utterly meaningless in real world combat scenarios". So yeah, that not the case and I'm say that all the time. Power and magazine capacity, accuracy - ALL THESE MATTER IN REAL WORLD SCENARIO. Im never say anything about if you hit a vital. So try to change what I'm respond to.

Frankly I'm not really sure what you're saying here. I'm not changing what you respond to, I'm just telling you that no one is saying that there isn't a difference between weapons, just that it doesn't make a huge difference in a scenario like this.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

Frankly I'm not really sure what you're saying here. I'm not changing what you respond to, I'm just telling you that no one is saying that there isn't a difference between weapons, just that it doesn't make a huge difference in a scenario like this.

I'm say again: Look the first post that say "xxxx type of gun against xxxx type of gun is utterly meaningless in real world combat scenarios". THAT WHAT IM RESPOND TO because is a fault statemant. And in scenario like this school shooting it can make HUGE DIFFERENCE: Example school shooter have maybe 30 round magazine vs police who have to reload maybe after 10 shots. That GONNA matter and can make HUGE difference. Stop try and downplay these difference because when he have to reload maybe will mean that he die, so the difference here can be life or death.

 

[Blood Eagle]

I'm say again: Look the first post that say "xxxx type of gun against xxxx type of gun is utterly meaningless in real world combat scenarios". THAT WHAT IM RESPOND TO because is a fault statemant. And in scenario like this school shooting it can make HUGE DIFFERENCE: Example school shooter have maybe 30 round magazine vs police who have to reload maybe after 10 shots. That GONNA matter and can make HUGE difference. Stop try and downplay these difference because when he have to reload maybe will mean that he die, so the difference here can be life or death.

It takes 1 bullet to incapicate someone be it a wound or a kill shot. What difference does the amount of ammunition a specific gun holds make? He has to reload too. There are 3 steps to reloading something like an AR which take the average person several seconds to achieve. He was not known to wear anything more than street clothes and had a duffle bag that likely contained the magazines. An officer wears a belt that has fresh magazines for a reloading situation very readily. It’s not like the movies where nobody ever runs out of ammo. 30 rounds is not infinate. It’s hard to talk to you because you are stuck on a couple factors. Overwhelming firepower does not guarantee you will win the firefight. It helps, but it’s not the deciding factor of the final outcome. We’ll never know unfortunately.

 

[LeMansAid]

@Todo Em Lixo

Granted, I think it might be down more to dumb luck than by design, but you've managed to conveniently distract and divert away from your own original point.........

LOL, this guy one of the biggest cryer Im ever see... Of course you go in to kill the shooter with one pistol vs AR-15 Rifle.. Is not about the speed of the bullet but the school shooter have a much more POWERFUL rifle. But yeah... everybody sit behind screen and act cool and blame he for not go in. Wow.

And yes ofcourse he can go inside and try play James Bond but that another story.

The question of whether or not the on duty officer should have played James Bond done his job. I suppose, in retrospect, the "that another story" was where the diversion might have begun, because really it was exactly the "story" of the point in question.

Compare power, suitability, etc. of weapons all you want, but to endorse your original point you're going to have to show that based on the knowledge the officer had, that he was wiser to leave the victims and potential victims to fend for themselves. To me it looks more that self-preservation and/or panic were the deciding factors, and not a prevailing, as yet unapparent, wisdom.

 

[Imari]

And in scenario like this school shooting it can make HUGE DIFFERENCE: Example school shooter have maybe 30 round magazine vs police who have to reload maybe after 10 shots. That GONNA matter and can make HUGE difference.

You think that's a huge difference? If you can't hit the guy in ten shots you're boned. This isn't trench warfare where you're firing thousands of rounds to keep the opponent in cover. You get half a dozen shots at each other at relatively short range in a confined environment, and if neither of you have hit the other it's a minor miracle.

If you get to the stage of having to reload, then both shooters probably have the ability to take cover as well. Having a large magazine helps when you're stalking through the school trying to take out as many targets as possible, but when you're going in after a single target a revolver or 1911 would probably be adequate as long as you're well trained and you don't go in thinking you're John Wick. A standard issue 9mm semi-auto pistol is more than adequate.

Note also that you're in a school, and ideally you're not throwing huge amounts of lead down range as there are students in the classrooms behind the shooter that may be hit by stray rounds. If you're the cop going after the shooter you're picking your shots pretty carefully. You're sure not just emptying a 30 round clip blindly in the hope that you wing the guy. This isn't the movies.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

It takes 1 bullet to incapicate someone be it a wound or a kill shot. What difference does the amount of ammunition a specific gun holds make? He has to reload too. There are 3 steps to reloading something like an AR which take the average person several seconds to achieve. He was not known to wear anything more than street clothes and had a duffle bag that likely contained the magazines. An officer wears a belt that has fresh magazines for a reloading situation very readily. It’s not like the movies where nobody ever runs out of ammo. 30 rounds is not infinate. It’s hard to talk to you because you are stuck on a couple factors. Overwhelming firepower does not guarantee you will win the firefight. It helps, but it’s not the deciding factor of the final outcome. We’ll never know unfortunately.

Good that now you say it helps to win a firefight, that not what you say before. Thanks. Good that you agree with my now.

@Todo Em Lixo

Granted, I think it might be down more to dumb luck than by design, but you've managed to conveniently distract and divert away from your own original point.........


The question of whether or not the on duty officer should have played James Bond done his job. I suppose, in retrospect, the "that another story" was where the diversion might have begun, because really it was exactly the "story" of the point in question.

Compare power, suitability, etc. of weapons all you want, but to endorse your original point you're going to have to show that based on the knowledge the officer had, that he was wiser to leave the victims and potential victims to fend for themselves. To me it looks more that self-preservation and/or panic were the deciding factors, and not a prevailing, as yet unapparent, wisdom.

It was probably mix of wisdom and panic... Probably he can hear he go up vs more powerful Assault rifle, also maybe he don't know if there is multiple shooters. My original point is still clear, people talk and blame he for that when that is a stupid thing to say.

You think that's a huge difference? If you can't hit the guy in ten shots you're boned. This isn't trench warfare where you're firing thousands of rounds to keep the opponent in cover. You get half a dozen shots at each other at relatively short range in a confined environment, and if neither of you have hit the other it's a minor miracle.

If you get to the stage of having to reload, then both shooters probably have the ability to take cover as well. Having a large magazine helps when you're stalking through the school trying to take out as many targets as possible, but when you're going in after a single target a revolver or 1911 would probably be adequate as long as you're well trained and you don't go in thinking you're John Wick. A standard issue 9mm semi-auto pistol is more than adequate.

Note also that you're in a school, and ideally you're not throwing huge amounts of lead down range as there are students in the classrooms behind the shooter that may be hit by stray rounds. If you're the cop going after the shooter you're picking your shots pretty carefully. You're sure not just emptying a 30 round clip blindly in the hope that you wing the guy. This isn't the movies.

Why Im have to repeat myself 100 times? Amount of bullets and have to reload later than opponet can be difference between life and death. Like you say... This is not movie. Look example the murder of Police officer "Kyle Dinkheller" and see what happens when he reload.

 

[Imari]

Why Im have to repeat myself 100 times? Amount of bullets and have to reload later than opponet can be difference between life and death. Like you say... This is not movie. Look example the murder of Police officer "Kyle Dinkheller" and see what happens when he reload.

Are you actually trying to use a case where both participants had to reload as an example? They both shot, and they both hit each other. I will say it again, Brannan was damn lucky he only took a gut shot at that range. He's also damn lucky that Dinkheller didn't open fire a lot sooner.

You think that the outcome would have been significantly different if Dinkheller had also been armed with an M1? I doubt it. Like I said, at those ranges it's more about luck than the firearm. Just because something can be the difference between life and death doesn't mean that it's a statistically significant difference. Driving 61mph instead of 59mph could be the difference between life and death when you're driving down the road, but it seems unlikely.

Having another dozen bullets in his gun might have made Brannan just let him bleed out instead of walking up and shooting him in the head, but Dinkheller had nine rounds in him before that. Nine. He was pretty much boned once he missed his first shots and Brannan returned fire, after that you're just fiddling with the deck chairs on the Titanic.

This is why it's not that important. By the time you've gone through a pistol clip one of the shooters will have almost certainly taken some hits unless you're both awful, awful shots. Which admittedly is a possibility, but if we're talking about a trained officer holding a firearm then that's less likely.

Brannan vs. Dinkheller seems like a perfect supporting argument to me, they both emptied their clips at which point the fight was all over bar the screaming. Fiddling with an extra bullet here or there doesn't change the outcome. The fact that they reloaded afterwards to finish the job is a distraction.

There's a reason a service pistol is the standard firearm for police, because it's sufficient for most situations that they will find themselves wanting a gun. Police could easily carry carbines or SMGs if there was a significant advantage to doing so, but there isn't for the inconvenience it would cause. For the fractional percentage of times that they might benefit from a larger magazine, they can compensate with training and marksmanship.

Personally, I subscribe to the school of thought that there are dangerous people, not dangerous weapons. I'd be much more afraid of a Marine with a 1911 than a school kid with an M4.

Tell me, what do you think is the reason or reasons that police officers don't routinely carry full auto long arms? By your logic, it would seem highly necessary should they find themselves in an armed conflict. You seem to be saying that with a pistol they're at a severe disadvantage against someone with a superior weapon. Police take their own safety and that of their fellow officers very seriously, so why walk out the door in the morning with a pistol?

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

Are you actually trying to use a case where both participants had to reload as an example? They both shot, and they both hit each other. I will say it again, Brannan was damn lucky he only took a gut shot at that range. He's also damn lucky that Dinkheller didn't open fire a lot sooner.

You think that the outcome would have been significantly different if Dinkheller had also been armed with an M1? I doubt it. Like I said, at those ranges it's more about luck than the firearm. Just because something can be the difference between life and death doesn't mean that it's a statistically significant difference. Driving 61mph instead of 59mph could be the difference between life and death when you're driving down the road, but it seems unlikely.

Having another dozen bullets in his gun might have made Brannan just let him bleed out instead of walking up and shooting him in the head, but Dinkheller had nine rounds in him before that. Nine. He was pretty much boned once he missed his first shots and Brannan returned fire, after that you're just fiddling with the deck chairs on the Titanic.

This is why it's not that important. By the time you've gone through a pistol clip one of the shooters will have almost certainly taken some hits unless you're both awful, awful shots. Which admittedly is a possibility, but if we're talking about a trained officer holding a firearm then that's less likely.

There's a reason a service pistol is the standard firearm for police, because it's sufficient for most situations that they will find themselves wanting a gun. Police could easily carry carbines or SMGs if there was a significant advantage to doing so, but there isn't for the inconvenience it would cause. For the fractional percentage of times that they might benefit from a larger magazine, they can compensate with training and marksmanship.

Personally, I subscribe to the school of thought that there are dangerous people, not dangerous weapons. I'd be much more afraid of a Marine with a 1911 than a school kid with an M4.

Tell me, what do you think is the reason or reasons that police officers don't routinely carry full auto long arms? By your logic, it would seem highly necessary should they find themselves in an armed conflict. You seem to be saying that with a pistol they're at a severe disadvantage against someone with a superior weapon. Police take their own safety and that of their fellow officers very seriously, so why walk out the door in the morning with a pistol?

Whp reload first, what happen when police officer reload... Is about suppression we talk about, he with more bullets can surpess better and have more pressure in a fight - he gain advantage. and have 3 times more bullets in magazine is huge advantage, stop try say it doesn't, this difference is alot bigger difference than "61mph vs 59mph" like you see. Police office carry pistol because it's a weapon use for self defence. And for that is a good to easy weapon for use. But is not an offensive attack weapon, not suited for a situation like go in 1v1 on a school shooters with more fire power.

 

[Imari]

Whp reload first, what happen when police officer reload...

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. I feel like you missed some important letters.

Is about suppression we talk about, he with more bullets can surpess better and have more pressure in a fight - he gain advantage. and have 3 times more bullets in magazine is huge advantage, stop try say it doesn't,

You're not making a strong argument. It seems to be "more bullets is a huge advantage, trust me". If it's such a huge advantage, why are pistols still so common? Like I said, this isn't trench warfare. Short range gunfights between two adversaries rarely turn into long drawn out battles of suppression and trying to get a clean shot. It's two guys unloading on each other while scrambling, and as we see in the Dinkheller/Brannan video by the time each of them has fired ten shots they're both seriously wounded.

Police office carry pistol because it's a weapon use for self defence. And for that is a good to easy weapon for use.

But by your logic it's actually a terrible weapon for self defence. Unless you hit with one of your limited number of rounds, it's ineffective for self-defence. Dinkheller tried to use his for self-defence and you argued above that it was ineffective because it didn't have enough rounds. But now you're arguing that a pistol a good self-defence weapon. Which is it?

Please try to be a little consistent with your arguments.

But is not an offensive attack weapon, not suited for a situation like go in 1v1 on a school shooters with more fire power.

When you say fire power are you talking purely about rounds per clip, or are you also talking about other things? Remember please that you're in a school and you don't actually want to be firing rifle rounds through every wall. You're trying to minimise casualties while neutralising the target, not create more.

I would say that a pistol used correctly in the appropriate situation can be a very good offensive weapon. At short ranges, in environments where you need a weapon that can be fired accurately one handed, or where it's important that you be less encumbered it's an ideal choice. What's more, if you're acting offensively then there's an opportunity for you to take your opponent unawares, whereas defensively you're kind of by definition working from a position known to the attacker.

I'm curious, given a single attacker armed with an AR-15 or similar in a normal school (so lots of corridors, smallish rooms, fairly short lines of sight, limited cover, thin walls, civilian targets in abundance) what is your ideal choice of weapon if you're going in alone?

A good pistol wouldn't be my first choice, but it's not far from it. Something like an MP5 or UMP in 9mm is probably ideal, although after that there are good arguments to be made for either a good pistol, a shotgun or something like an M4. But all of those last three have characteristics that make them less than perfect, and so for me I'd say that either could be a valid choice if you don't happen to have a sub-machine gun in the trunk of your car. Again, I would say that the characteristics of the user and the randomness of the situation are likely to be orders of magnitude greater than any variance in the choice of weapon.

Would you like to weigh in on what you would choose?

 

[Michael88]

I'm curious, given a single attacker armed with an AR-15 or similar in a normal school (so lots of corridors, smallish rooms, fairly short lines of sight, limited cover, thin walls, civilian targets in abundance) what is your ideal choice of weapon if you're going in alone?

A good pistol wouldn't be my first choice, but it's not far from it. Something like an MP5 or UMP in 9mm is probably ideal, although after that there are good arguments to be made for either a good pistol, a shotgun or something like an M4. But all of those last three have characteristics that make them less than perfect, and so for me I'd say that either could be a valid choice if you don't happen to have a sub-machine gun in the trunk of your car. Again, I would say that the characteristics of the user and the randomness of the situation are likely to be orders of magnitude greater than any variance in the choice of weapon.

Would you like to weigh in on what you would choose?

You did not ask me but I'd still like to answer: my choice would be a 223 AR as well, a 14.5'' barreled one with a red dot.

* .223 does penetrate less than pistol and therefore also SMG rounds, if the shots misses they cause less danger to innocent bystanders behind walls etc.
* 223 also does not over penetrate, when I hit the attacker the projectiles will not carry on and hit somebody behind him or her. Pistol rounds are more likely to overpenetrate.
* Recoil is minimal, allowing me to make fast follow up shots undistorted by recoil resulting in less dangerous misses.
* .223 goes through all but rifle rated body armor- in case the attacker is wearing body armor. (The guy at the church shooting wore armor)
* Its just a really ergonomic platform with intuitive controls and very good handling characteristics.
* Long guns are always vastly easier to shoot accurately than pistols.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. I feel like you missed some important letters.



You're not making a strong argument. It seems to be "more bullets is a huge advantage, trust me". If it's such a huge advantage, why are pistols still so common? Like I said, this isn't trench warfare. Short range gunfights between two adversaries rarely turn into long drawn out battles of suppression and trying to get a clean shot. It's two guys unloading on each other while scrambling, and as we see in the Dinkheller/Brannan video by the time each of them has fired ten shots they're both seriously wounded.



But by your logic it's actually a terrible weapon for self defence. Unless you hit with one of your limited number of rounds, it's ineffective for self-defence. Dinkheller tried to use his for self-defence and you argued above that it was ineffective because it didn't have enough rounds. But now you're arguing that a pistol a good self-defence weapon. Which is it?

Please try to be a little consistent with your arguments.



When you say fire power are you talking purely about rounds per clip, or are you also talking about other things? Remember please that you're in a school and you don't actually want to be firing rifle rounds through every wall. You're trying to minimise casualties while neutralising the target, not create more.

I would say that a pistol used correctly in the appropriate situation can be a very good offensive weapon. At short ranges, in environments where you need a weapon that can be fired accurately one handed, or where it's important that you be less encumbered it's an ideal choice. What's more, if you're acting offensively then there's an opportunity for you to take your opponent unawares, whereas defensively you're kind of by definition working from a position known to the attacker.

I'm curious, given a single attacker armed with an AR-15 or similar in a normal school (so lots of corridors, smallish rooms, fairly short lines of sight, limited cover, thin walls, civilian targets in abundance) what is your ideal choice of weapon if you're going in alone?

A good pistol wouldn't be my first choice, but it's not far from it. Something like an MP5 or UMP in 9mm is probably ideal, although after that there are good arguments to be made for either a good pistol, a shotgun or something like an M4. But all of those last three have characteristics that make them less than perfect, and so for me I'd say that either could be a valid choice if you don't happen to have a sub-machine gun in the trunk of your car. Again, I would say that the characteristics of the user and the randomness of the situation are likely to be orders of magnitude greater than any variance in the choice of weapon.

Would you like to weigh in on what you would choose?

Im ask you: WHO reload first? And you can clearly see what happen when police officer Kyle reload.
And with good defence weapon Im mean is fast to get out and easy to carry, Good for usual threat situations but not so good vs school shooter. Is a terrible defence weapon just becuase its not the best vs AR-15? That your logic? Usually not police go vs AR-15 but other "threat situations" are much more common, vs example knife its a perfect defence weapon.
Now this discussion is far away from what I say from beginning is that the police officer is at disadvantage vs the school shooter who have stronger weapon and he don't have to worry about "over penetrate" walls etc...

 

[Imari]

And with good defence weapon Im mean is fast to get out and easy to carry, Good for usual threat situations but not so good vs school shooter. Is a terrible defence weapon just becuase its not the best vs AR-15? That your logic?

No, I was pointing out that it was your logic. But I see that you've given up on logic and haven't even attempted to look at the idea of what an ideal weapon for going up against a school shooter would be. I'll leave you to your ranting. Good day to you.

 

[TetsuKobura]

In today’s episode of “What’s wrong with this picture,” we take a look at the gun control advocate group Everytown.
First one to guess what’s wrong gets their very own GT Sport livery request!

Picture

 

[Dennisch]

In today’s episode of “What’s wrong with this picture,” we take a look at the gun control advocate group Everytown.
First one to guess what’s wrong gets their very own GT Sport livery request!

Picture

He's going to shoot himself if he uses that clip.

 

[Blood Eagle]

In today’s episode of “What’s wrong with this picture,” we take a look at the gun control advocate group Everytown.
First one to guess what’s wrong gets their very own GT Sport livery request!

Picture

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

No, I was pointing out that it was your logic. But I see that you've given up on logic and haven't even attempted to look at the idea of what an ideal weapon for going up against a school shooter would be. I'll leave you to your ranting. Good day to you.

No, in my logic to go in an search for school shooter and try find him is not "defence", so you are wrong again. Also you don't adress my points Im made so go continue you rant. Bye.

 

[Grayfox]

Boy shoots sister after fight over video game controller

A teenage girl has died after allegedly being shot in the head by her brother during a dispute over a video game controller.

Monroe County Sherriff Cecil Cantrell said the girl's brother, aged just nine, appears to have accessed a gun and fired at his 13-year-old sister during the argument.

The victim was rushed to Le Bonheur's Children's Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee but died late Sunday.

The shooting took place at around 12.30pm, The Washington Post reports.

"The little boy — he managed to get a gun out of a nightstand there in the room there, and he just came over and shot her,” Monroe County Sheriff Cantrell said.

"I’ve been in law enforcement 30-some-odd years, and I’ve never dealt with anything quite like this.

"Not with children."

The children's mother was in another room feeding other children lunch at the time of the incident.

Authorities are investigating how the boy accessed the firearm.

It is not known what charges he will face.


https://honey.nine.com.au/2018/03/20/06/14/boy-shoots-sister-after-fight-over-video-game

Maybe, just maybe one of the issues with guns in America is the fact people treat them like a standard every day object and keep them within easy reach.

 

[Dennisch]

May, just maybe one of the issues with guns in America is the fact people treat them like a standard every day object and keep them within easy reach.

(I leave guns laying around like screwdrivers or plyers so..)

....

 

[Michael88]

Wow! I see everytown has managed to develop working caseless ammunition!

Also whats a speeding bullet? Bullets that go faster than the official speed limit? Any bullet that goes faster than 50 mph gets a ticket for speeding?

 

[Imari]

Maybe, just maybe one of the issues with guns in America is the fact people treat them like a standard every day object and keep them within easy reach.

Yep. I mean, if you're going to have guns and children in the same house I'd say that you teach them very early on that under absolutely no circumstances is this something that they're allowed to even think about touching. But at the same time, your responsibility as a parent has to be not to let them be easily accessible.

The boy is certainly old enough to know better, but even so I hope the parents have the book thrown at them for being dumb enough to have a gun that a child could get at. And that's on top of them just losing a daughter too. I really don't understand how people can be so cavalier with a device that they in all likelihood bought specifically for it's ability to cause injury and death.

Wow! I see everytown has managed to develop working caseless ammunition!

Naw, they just fire the case too. Presumably along with the primer and the propellant. Which means that they just got energy out of nowhere...

...I'll be right back, I've just got a quick patent to file. I'll be back when I'm a jillionnaire.