Shooter reported at Santa Fe, Texas school

[Lurch 5,931]

This fucking country

 

[jimmyjazz 46,134]

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.

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

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 May 20, 2018 by Thetexashammer

[austingirl 2,192]

1 hour ago, Michael Knight said:

Guns don't kill people, entrances and exits kill people

Fucking Dan Patrick.

[jimmyjazz 46,134]

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.

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

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 May 20, 2018 by Thetexashammer

[freyguy 4,289]

1 hour ago, Lurch said:

This fucking country

 

 

High fives all around folks!  It worked!  We did it!  Yay!!!

[cactusflinthead 27,603]

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.

[Helobious 9,464]

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. 

[Homesickhorn 2,208]

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. 

Do ya think?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[freyguy 4,289]

10 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

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

That made me more than a little queasy.

Damn, this shit is just like Columbine.

[Hate 20,145]

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.

[Loco 3,754]

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 

.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 May 20, 2018 by Loco

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,977]

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.

[Dr. Teeth 5,845]

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. 

[Sbbruin 21,888]

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.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Loco 3,754]

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 May 20, 2018 by Loco

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,977]

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.

[Helobious 9,464]

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. 

[Loco 3,754]

.223 

 

 

9mm +P hollow point!

 

Or just read what a MSD trauma surgeon wrote....https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

Edited May 20, 2018 by Loco

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,977]

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.

[Loco 3,754]

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

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,977]

 

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.

[freyguy 4,289]

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....

[Loco 3,754]

yup, you're right. 

Read an account from the parents of kids caught in the shooter's room.  Fucking chilling stuff.  

The police say they went right in and I sure hope they did.

[South Austin 52,606]

16 hours ago, austingirl said:

Fucking Dan Patrick.

Are we surprised this tragedy would present the perfect opportunity for him to say something moronic?

[David Dennison 18,946]

13 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. 

It will be interesting to see if he really is a psychopath.

[Huckleberry 33,098]

Exactly.  People shoot the guns.  The guns don't shoot themselves.  

Nuclear missiles don't fire themselves.

 

Anthrax doesn't mail itself.

 

Your logic holds that no weapons should be illegal. That's why it's terrible logic.

 

 

 

[Pato del Muerto 52,601]

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.  

[Anastasis 23,483]

Deranged kid uses a sawed off shotgun and a 38.  Yeah, lets post photos of 556 going through balistics gel. 

 

Question on the sawed off.  Did he do that or did his dad and the kid just got access to it?

[austingirl 2,192]

2 hours ago, South Austin said:

Are we surprised this tragedy would present the perfect opportunity for him to say something moronic?

Surprised? No. Were my hopes dashed yet again that he could use this opportunity to say something not moronic? Yes.

[huge 3,795]

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.

[Pato del Muerto 52,601]

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. 

[huge 3,795]

I can’t hit shit past about 15 feet with my 9.

AR with a red dot? Good to 25 yards while standing.

That’s my point. Real world accuracy.

[Poolflood 845]

All I know is Kevlar will be with my kids on 1st day of school next year.

[Loco 3,754]

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.

[jimmyjazz 46,134]

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.

[Dark Horse 2,291]

You guys are looking for conversation of momentum not energy.


The energy of the closed system is the chemical energy of the black power = muzzle energy + recoil energy.

[Pato del Muerto 52,601]

P=mv and E=mcc so p/v=E/cc

so p=Ev/cc

which means nothing relevant to kids shooting other kids in school. 

[jimmyjazz 46,134]

2 hours ago, Dark Horse said:

You guys are looking for conversation of momentum not energy.


The energy of the closed system is the chemical energy of the black power = muzzle energy + recoil energy.

+ losses

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

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.  

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,977]

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.

[Dahobbs 17,682]

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. 

[jimmyjazz 46,134]

Excuse me?

[jimmyjazz 46,134]

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.

[Hank Kingsley 21,054]

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?

[Pato del Muerto 52,601]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

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

Because they abide by the Geneva convention?

[WastingTime 0]

On May 18, 2018 at 4:18 PM, MoJames said:

Because of the impending Chinese invasion.

 

[HoustonHorn 1,062]

Interesting to see the discussion here.