Jump to content

Shooter reported at Santa Fe, Texas school


South Austin

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

All I want is a dozen or so shotguns (mostly all O/U) and about 12-20 bolt action/double barrel/semi auto  (think BAR, not AR) rifles, and a few pistols (idgaf about handguns really) for home self defense.  I know that sounds like an arsenal, but really someone that hunts a range of animals and some shootings events, it isn’t.  If you account for the 8-10 that my grandfathers and great grandfathers passed down, some the only things they left us, it shrinks even faster. 

You aren’t going to find me advocating for 30 round magazines, bump stocks, automatic weapons etc.

None of that sounds unreasonable to me.  There may be some gray area in the semi-auto realm but I'm not going to sit here with my current level of knowledge and say "nope".

To me it seems a multi-pronged approach would likely be most effective.  A limitation on capacity, perhaps on firing rate, stronger background checks, closing some loopholes, efforts to identify potential shooters earlier, etc.  I am sure there are good counterarguments against some of those angles.  I'm all ears if anyone can make a good case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

None of that sounds unreasonable to me.  There may be some gray area in the semi-auto realm but I'm not going to sit here with my current level of knowledge and say "nope".

To me it seems a multi-pronged approach would likely be most effective.  A limitation on capacity, perhaps on firing rate, stronger background checks, closing some loopholes, efforts to identify potential shooters earlier, etc.  I am sure there are good counterarguments against some of those angles.  I'm all ears if anyone can make a good case.

And when you realize this would not have stopped Columbine or this attack or really any others, how would you respond? Would you say "eh, we did our best"?

Edited by Thetexashammer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

And when you realize this would not have stopped Columbine or this attack or really any others, how would you respond? Would you say "eh, we did our best"?

I disagree that it would have no effect, so your point is a non-starter for me.  But keep it up, because that level of "discourse" is what continues to drive the moderates to the eventual end game of just saying "fuck it, ban 'em all" . . . . and eventually that will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A guy who used an AR to kill could have used a Glock 17 with 17+1 9mm rounds which are larger and do more damage to tissue. A Glock is also better for close quarters combat as it is more maneuverable, and is quicker and easier to reload. And I never said it would "have no effect".

Treat it as a hypothetical. You made a reasonable comment. I made a reasonable response. Your reaction was to parody what I said but you are still free to answer the question. But your measure would still allow for (round numbers) approximately the same number of deaths, IMO. 99% if you prefer. You would be OK with that?

MK said it just a few posts above. You have to ban all the guns.

Edited by Thetexashammer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Texas school shooter killed girl who turned down his advances and embarrassed him in class, her mother says

Quote

 

When the shooter left the room briefly, Abel and others left the closet and tried to barricade the door. But the shooter pushed it open, spotted a student he knew, and with anger said, "Surprise!" before shooting the student in the chest.

"I'm still trying to process everything," Abel said in an interview.

 

Quote

 

One of Pagourtzis' classmates who died in the attack, Shana Fisher, "had 4 months of problems from this boy," her mother, Sadie Rodriguez, wrote in a private message to the Los Angeles Times on Facebook. "He kept making advances on her and she repeatedly told him no."

Pagourtzis continued to get more aggressive, and she finally stood up to him and embarrassed him in class, Rodriguez said. "A week later he opens fire on everyone he didn't like," she wrote. "Shana being the first one." Rodriguez didn't say how she knew her daughter was the first victim.

The gunman repeatedly taunted students during the attack, according to another harrowing account posted to Facebook by one survivor's mother.

After scrambling to escape the shooter's blasts in the art room, Isabelle Van Ness, covered in dust from rounds hitting her classroom walls, could hear the shooter in a next-door classroom yelling, "Woo hoo!" while shooting, according to her mother, Deedra Van Ness.

"The gunman then comes back into their room and they hear him saying … are you dead? Then more shots are fired," Deedra Van Ness wrote. "By this time, cell phones all over the classroom are ringing and he's taunting the kids in the closet asking them … do you think it's for you? do you want to come answer it? Then he proceeds to fire more bullets into the closet and tries to get in."

 

That made me more than a little queasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And when you realize this would not have stopped Columbine or this attack or really any others, how would you respond? Would you say "eh, we did our best"?


Brisket will come by with an analogy and say stuff like “you know, facts” and have a lot of words that say we have to do SOMETHING and argue about something that you aren’t arguing about just to please himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

A guy who used an AR to kill could have used a Glock 17 with 17+1 9mm rounds which are larger and do more damage to tissue. A Glock is also better for close quarters combat as it is more maneuverable, and is quicker and easier to reload. And I never said it would "have no effect".

Treat it as a hypothetical. You made a reasonable comment. I made a reasonable response. Your reaction was to parody what I said but you are still free to answer the question. But your measure would still allow for (round numbers) approximately the same number of deaths, IMO. 99% if you prefer. You would be OK with that?

MK said it just a few posts above. You have to ban all the guns.

yeah accept your post is wrong...  9mm handgun ammo does less damage than .223 

muzzle+energy.png

.223 or 5.56 (same thing for our purposes) has 3x the kinetic energy...  and don't give me that shoot through BS.  The glock might be quicker to reload, but the capacity and the ease of hitting targets makes the blackrifle much deadlier.

But this dirtbag had a sawed off and .38 so this is like pissing in the wind.

 

Bottom line we need MUCH more robust restrictions on gun possession and ownership.  IMHO father should be charged with 10 counts of negligent homicide.

Edited by Loco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Muzzle energy isnt always the best measure of potential damage to any given target. The fact that basic physics says that the same amount of energy must be transferred back into the shooter (unless he has the gun braces against something) should kinda tell you that it's more about how and how much of that energy is transferred into the target than the amount generated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Helobious said:

Interesting. Most of the time the shooters are emotionless and silent during the killings, this guy was going full Columbine I guess. Must have been a psychopath. 

I’d argue the opposite. This guy just sounds like a huge dick with access to guns. The others show actual signs of being a psychopath.  Not everyone who does this has a mental illness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

And when you realize this would not have stopped Columbine or this attack or really any others, how would you respond? Would you say "eh, we did our best"?

Yes.  That is all we can do.  Is try.  Doing nothing isn’t working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Muzzle energy isnt always the best measure of potential damage to any given target. The fact that basic physics says that the same amount of energy must be transferred back into the shooter (unless he has the gun braces against something) should kinda tell you that it's more about how and how much of that energy is transferred into the target than the amount generated.

I don't even know where to begin...  You might want to re-take physics. (hint muzzle velocity is measured when the bullet already left the barrel)

you know,  equal and opposite reactions and shit.

 

 

Edited by Loco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused, are you trying to argue that an equal amount of energy is not transferred back into the shooter? Because that's what I just said. The amount of energy isn't as important as the manner in which it is transferred. Muzzle energy doesn't give you any idea about how that energy is transferred and isn't always a very good indication of a bullet's destructive potential for any given target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Muzzle energy isnt always the best measure of potential damage to any given target. The fact that basic physics says that the same amount of energy must be transferred back into the shooter (unless he has the gun braces against something) should kinda tell you that it's more about how and how much of that energy is transferred into the target than the amount generated.

Username checks out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now posting actual terminal ballistic results is a valid argument. Anybody have any ballistic gel results comparing typical 9mm defense results with .223 FMJ ammo? Soft points are obviously a whole different game than FMJ ammo. Saying .223 is always better than 9mm isn't necessarily true unless you have all of the data to back it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Now posting actual terminal ballistic results is a valid argument. Anybody have any ballistic gel results comparing typical 9mm defense results with .223 FMJ ammo? Soft points are obviously a whole different game than FMJ ammo. Saying .223 is always better than 9mm isn't necessarily true unless you have all of the data to back it up.

I gave you the data, you needed pictures...  just sayin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

attachment-jpg.542022

 

Notice how the FMJ penetrates nearly six inches before it produces much of a wound cavity in this test, compared with the nearly instantaneous wound cavity of expanding rounds. You could definitely make a case that popular defensive 9mm rounds can be more deadly than typical .223 FMJ, but without tests using the same conditions and testing the two side by side you can't say anything conclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very fascinating discussion y'all are having.  Know that the rest of us are on pins and needles, hoping this is intellectually brought to an ultimate conclusion.  I'd hate to think these poor kids were killed in a less than efficient or un-optimally powerful manner....

  • Like 5
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, freyguy said:

This is a very fascinating discussion y'all are having.  Know that the rest of us are on pins and needles, hoping this is intellectually brought to an ultimate conclusion.  I'd hate to think these poor kids were killed in a less than efficient or un-optimally powerful manner....

How about this:  why burn political capital on banning “assault rifles” if it won’t do anything to the number of attacks or the mortality rate of the attacks?

lets use it on measures that actually make sense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone saying that an AR isn’t the best way available to kill a lot of people is just being dishonest.

Signed,

Guy that has been thinking about buying an AR.

If it took me 6 months to get through the process I’d be fine with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, huge said:

Anyone saying that an AR isn’t the best way available to kill a lot of people is just being dishonest.

Signed,

Guy that has been thinking about buying an AR.

If it took me 6 months to get through the process I’d be fine with that.

It’s tough to conceal and 2 hand use. If you limit rate of fire and mag cap, it’s less useful in that environment even if it’s still more deadly per round. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, huge said:

Anyone saying that an AR isn’t the best way available to kill a lot of people is just being dishonest.

Signed,

Guy that has been thinking about buying an AR.

If it took me 6 months to get through the process I’d be fine with that.

I researched and built my first AR about 2 months after getting the bug... ezpz.   Ghost guns are even easier now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

The fact that basic physics says that the same amount of energy must be transferred back into the shooter 

Well, no.  You're kind of hinting at conservation of energy but that doesn't mean that the kinetic energy transferred to the bullet must also be transferred to the shooter.  If it were, then a 180 lb man would fly backward at 6.6 m/sec after firing an AR-15.

The energy in the bullet all came from the energy of combustion.

There is an action-reaction force balance at play, but you have to account for the dynamic recoil mechanisms to determine force transmitted to the shooter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone that wants to kill a lot of people can do it.  A high cap mag makes it easier IMO.  To kill the most quickly. 

But no bullshit someone could kill 50 kids in the Friday pep rally at any Texas high school with $20 worth of gas and a Zippo

Im for some gun control ideas. But I think most can be circumvented pretty easily if kids really want to kill.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, no.  You're kind of hinting at conservation of energy but that doesn't mean that the kinetic energy transferred to the bullet must also be transferred to the shooter.  If it were, then a 180 lb man would fly backward at 6.6 m/sec after firing an AR-15.

The energy in the bullet all came from the energy of combustion.

There is an action-reaction force balance at play, but you have to account for the dynamic recoil mechanisms to determine force transmitted to the shooter.

A 180lb man flying backwards at 6.6m/sec has orders of magnitude more energy than a 55gr bullet flying forward the same speed. The man barely has to move backwards relative to the speed of the bullet to equal the same amount of energy. Recoil buffering systems slow that energy impulse down so that the energy transfer occurs over a greater period of time and make the recoil barely noticable on an AR. Which brings us back to the point that the amount of energy delivered is not the most important thing in the effectiveness of any given bullet. The way and speed that that energy is delivered to the target is just as important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, no.  You're kind of hinting at conservation of energy but that doesn't mean that the kinetic energy transferred to the bullet must also be transferred to the shooter.  If it were, then a 180 lb man would fly backward at 6.6 m/sec after firing an AR-15.

The energy in the bullet all came from the energy of combustion.

There is an action-reaction force balance at play, but you have to account for the dynamic recoil mechanisms to determine force transmitted to the shooter.

You may want to rethink think one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

A 180lb man flying backwards at 6.6m/sec has orders of magnitude more energy than a 55gr bullet flying forward the same speed. 

I didn't say that.  I said (according to the table quoted prior) that the 0.556 bullet with a muzzle energy of ~ 1.8 kJ would equal the same kinetic energy of a 180 lb man moving 6.6 m/sec.

The two velocities are drastically different, because the masses are drastically different.

I was responding to the implication that the bullet and the shooter both gain the same kinetic energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Someone that wants to kill a lot of people can do it.  A high cap mag makes it easier IMO.  To kill the most quickly. 

But no bullshit someone could kill 50 kids in the Friday pep rally at any Texas high school with $20 worth of gas and a Zippo

Im for some gun control ideas. But I think most can be circumvented pretty easily if kids really want to kill.  

If it's easier to kill with gas and fire, then why do kids choose guns instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...