Today's mass shooting in the US

Rroff said:
I don't really want to elaborate too much but if you are trying to kill a lot of civilians in what is usually a relatively enclosed space that is a different scenario to your typical battlefield environment. But the point wasn't that these weapons are ineffective.
Click to expand...

Maybe you could tell us what the point was rather than what the point wasn't
 
Rroff said:
I don't really want to elaborate too much but if you are trying to kill a lot of civilians in what is usually a relatively enclosed space that is a different scenario to your typical battlefield environment. But the point wasn't that these weapons are ineffective.
Click to expand...

fair enough, i have a suspicion i might know where you're coming from, and if i'm right then yes i agree with you on that point.
 
Roar87 said:
Maybe you could tell us what the point was rather than what the point wasn't
Click to expand...

I was talking about people using hysterical/sensational rhetoric with abandon i.e. talking about AR-15s as high power because it sells their agenda better than being more accurate. Then you end up with situations like that department store in the US that was under pressure to remove all their military looking firearms because of the whole assault weapons things but aside from 1-2 AR-15 lines much of what they sold military looking was of the likes of the Crickett precision rifle - .22LR for pleasure shooting, etc. (as they mostly sold sports goods) meanwhile they are still selling the likes of the Mini-14 to much less drama about that.

StriderX said:
To be honest i dont get why they dont just make bombs. (well i do i guess, the difficulty is in procurement)
Click to expand...

Depends a bit on what kind of suspect you are talking about but with these kind of perpetrators like the last few shootings (and Oregon mall, Aurora, etc.) they don't seem the type really given to original thought, etc. and of the mindset really required for working with explosives especially if they have to improvise. I suspect they took quite a bit of instruction either directly or indirectly from what was posted on some of the more dubious message boards and/or even encouraged towards the ends of these kind of shootings there. They also seem to fancy themselves to some degree as some kind of operator or operative ( https://rainbow6.ubisoft.com/siege/en-gb/game-info/operators.aspx probably an influence especially the likes of Vigil ) and see themselves shooting it out in that style rather than blowing stuff up indiscriminately.

EDIT: Though the Aurora shooter did actually rig his home with explosives.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
Maybe you could tell us what the point was rather than what the point wasn't
Click to expand...

Well perhaps his point was that given any shots that hit, a larger caliber rifle would be more likely to kill the target, not to mention more likely to penetrate any available cover they might have... and old school SLR firing 7.62 is only semi automatic but would be absolutely fine for a killing spree not to mention posing a bit more of an issue for any regular police responding and hiding behind their car doors etc..

Modern assault rifles or semi auto civilian variants firing 5.56 would perhaps allow for more ammunition to be carried but also perhaps a greater chance of wounding rather than killing... which is of course sometimes useful in war as the enemy can be tied up dealing with casualties too. At least that is the idea. Though the army did reintroduce 7.62 rifles into infantry sections in Afghanistan.
 
Gornall said:
Thought standard NATO round is 5.56 or 7.62? The L85A2 the british forces used were definitely 5.56..

Isn't it only really America using the .223 in the M16?

Could be way wrong here to be fair, but that is what I can remember from back in the days :p
Click to expand...

Just texted my my kids, the eldest was stationed in Germany in the late eighties, he said his rounds were 7.62, not quite the metric version of the old 303, the younger one, Germany and Northern Ireland, around 91-92, (I think), has still to reply, but probably the same I guess.
 
dowie said:
Well perhaps his point was that given any shots that hit, a larger caliber rifle would be more likely to kill the target, not to mention more likely to penetrate any available cover they might have... and old school SLR firing 7.62 is only semi automatic but would be absolutely fine for a killing spree not to mention posing a bit more of an issue for any regular police responding and hiding behind their car doors etc..

Modern assault rifles or semi auto civilian variants firing 5.56 would perhaps allow for more ammunition to be carried but also perhaps a greater chance of wounding rather than killing... which is of course sometimes useful in war as the enemy can be tied up dealing with casualties too. At least that is the idea. Though the army did reintroduce 7.62 rifles into infantry sections in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

My point more specifically in response to Roar87 though still meant in a more general sense than being critical of him/her was that banding around things like high power in respect to AR-15s is a distortion of the more technical details and is more about the emotional appeal using sensational terms, etc. with little care for understanding - which actually isn't very helpful in terms of effective firearms control because people end up pushing for things that don't necessarily match up with reality - like with "assault weapons" where the pressure on one sporting goods store mostly ended up with the removal of military looking but low power sports rifles and a small number of AR-15 lines and then they lost interest having accomplished that while the store still sells a variety of mini 14 type firearms, etc.
 
Jean-F said:
Just texted my my kids, the eldest was stationed in Germany in the late eighties, he said his rounds were 7.62, not quite the metric version of the old 303, the younger one, Germany and Northern Ireland, around 91-92, (I think), has still to reply, but probably the same I guess.
Click to expand...

They started replacing the SLR in the mid 80s so unless his unit was way down the list in terms of getting new equipment then I’d assume he was using 5.56 by the early 90s.
 
dowie said:
Well perhaps his point was that given any shots that hit, a larger caliber rifle would be more likely to kill the target, not to mention more likely to penetrate any available cover they might have... and old school SLR firing 7.62 is only semi automatic but would be absolutely fine for a killing spree not to mention posing a bit more of an issue for any regular police responding and hiding behind their car doors etc..

Modern assault rifles or semi auto civilian variants firing 5.56 would perhaps allow for more ammunition to be carried but also perhaps a greater chance of wounding rather than killing... which is of course sometimes useful in war as the enemy can be tied up dealing with casualties too. At least that is the idea. Though the army did reintroduce 7.62 rifles into infantry sections in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

I completely agree that if I'm shooting at taliban at 800 yards or engaging someone in body armour I'd take a 7.62. In terms of civilian arms though a .223 semi automatic rifle shooting at 3500 ft/s with a 20-30 round mag is what I'd considered high powered. It's all relative of course, what's a 7.62 compared to an 18.1 inch naval gun? :p
 
dowie said:
They started replacing the SLR in the mid 80s so unless his unit was way down the list in terms of getting new equipment then I’d assume he was using 5.56 by the early 90s.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of camping once somewhere around 2000 and this bunch of reservist type turned up to camp nearby - not quite sure what they were because they had (not with them) issued weapons - not TA but not regular army and were having a good bitch because they'd recently had their SLRs replaced.
 
They had SLRs up to around 2000??? Even cadet forces had the cadet version (L98)by then. Probably some old timers moaning years later, I doubt it was a recent thing at that time.
 
dowie said:
They had SLRs up to around 2000??? Even cadet forces had the cadet version (L98)by then. Probably some old timers moaning years later, I doubt it was a recent thing at that time.
Click to expand...

No idea on details - just remembering they were having a good moan. Whole thing seemed quite irregular if it wasn't for they were being picked up by a military plated 3 ton truck I wouldn't even be sure they weren't just playing soldier.

EDIT: Can't remember where now but they were off to some training thing near the Elan valley.
 
Last edited:
wolfie138 said:
makes you wonder why they chose it as a standard NATO round, eh?
Click to expand...

More ammo and it was supposed to tumble inside the body instead of going straight through.

You can’t hunt with 5.56 in the US as I understand it as the round is not powerful enough to not leave wounded animals.
 
Newbie007 said:
You still have people that dont understand the difference between semi automatic and automatic. But better mental health assessment, more sensible control of guns, a media that doesnt whip people into a frenzy of extremism (both left and right), more civility in discourse... all of these are likely part of a solution.

Sums it up quite nicely I think:
Click to expand...

Why are any of these deaths acceptable? We have numbed ourselves to these, 200 deaths a day by cars? On what planet is that OK?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom