Home› Main Category› Second Amendment/Politics
Nomadac
Senior MemberPosts: 902 Senior Member
Full Auto vs Semi-auto
Nomadac
Senior MemberPosts: 902 Senior Member
Full Auto vs Semi-auto, which is more effective? Would the shooter have killed more people if he fired semi-auto?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2PFY8MNVuY
I saw a similar video years ago that demonstrated the same thing.
What about is he used a this:
Death toll rises to 85 in Bastille Day attack in Nice.
Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, 31, plowed a 20-ton truck into crowds on the Promenade des Anglais seafront in Nice during a fireworks celebration on Bastille Day, France's key national holiday.
Eighty-six people were killed, all but three of them at the time of the attack. A total of 303 people were taken to hospital for medical treatment.
Ten children were among the victims. More than 200 people were injured.
How easy would it have been to steal a large truck and crash into the crowd?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2PFY8MNVuY
I saw a similar video years ago that demonstrated the same thing.
What about is he used a this:
Death toll rises to 85 in Bastille Day attack in Nice.
Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, 31, plowed a 20-ton truck into crowds on the Promenade des Anglais seafront in Nice during a fireworks celebration on Bastille Day, France's key national holiday.
Eighty-six people were killed, all but three of them at the time of the attack. A total of 303 people were taken to hospital for medical treatment.
Ten children were among the victims. More than 200 people were injured.
How easy would it have been to steal a large truck and crash into the crowd?
Replies
Emptying magazines (30 and 50 round) quickly by spraying them into the crowds probably gave him a higher probability of hits than aimed fire. It was about 400 yards to to the concert from his position, and he was around close to 100 yards high on the 32nd floor. That is going to make the bullet trajectory higher than on level ground. He went for quantity of rounds downrange rather than quality of aimed fire, and the higher probability of hits due to the amount of bullets fired into the given area.
― Douglas Adams
Honestly though I am not much on FA anyway ... waste of perfectly good ammo 95% of the time and that 5% is under circumstances I don’t see myself in now. I’ll take a good bolt gun in a good caliber and distance is my friend.
- George Orwell
It was 300 yards to his front side targets and maybe 100 yds across. You dont even need to dope wind well and it is a 2 MOA come up on a 223. Which you wouldnt even need to add on a torso sized target.
edit: trying to hit targets would have been a lot more effective. I'm sorry, but to say otherwise is a ignorant statement. You really need to get to any range where you can back up and try it out.
We are not talking long range here, this is just a bit beyond point blank range. A bolt rifle from wal mart is half competent hands would have more "effective", and if he would have been competent with a autoloader, it would have been a heck of a lot worse.
To the OP:
Full auto is best for keeping heads down and to make jiggly bikini videos. It isnt more or less effective (except in the jiggly vids) it is different, not better or worse, just two different things. Accuracy by volume, or accuracy by design.
Charlottesville attack was not meant to kill a bunch of people. Street was not anywhere near packed with people. And he was blocked by cars in the street.
If you're gonna talk vehicle attack on a large crowd packing the streets, then let's spec out the vehicle. Ford F-450 with a flatbed instead a box bed(more on that bed choice later). Truck will be diesel powered, auto transmission, and 4WD for obvious reasons. Vehicle has high ground clearance and plenty of rolling weight. Cowcatcher bumper guard on front. High ground clearance is for not getting stuck on bodies building up under truck, and bumper guard for protecting radiator.
Now about that truck bed choice. Bed will have tube steel box frame with wooden bed. 1/4" thick by 24" long by 2" wide pieces of cold rolled steel spaced 18" apart and welded horizontal to the ground to the tube steel side rails after being sharpened for 18" of their length.
Target would be typical protest march with a few hundred thousand participants packed from sidewalk to sidewalk screaming so loud that they occasionally cough up a lung. Lots of noise.
Running that vehicle into a crowd of thousands, from the rear of the crowd, at high speed would result in thousands of casualties, dead and wounded, before it could be stopped. Striking from the rear is important for a couple of reasons. They don't see it coming, and there's plenty of crowd noise to cover the approach. With any luck the attacker could reach the front of the protest and meet an end when the police shoot the truck cab to doll rags. No explosives needed to cause HUGE mass casualties in a crowd, just a little planning, and something between ones ears besides wet sawdust.
And I came up with that without any prior thought on the matter. Just read your post and started typing, and thinking.
― Douglas Adams
On the bald assumption his motive was a terror attack, he was successful in wounding most of his victims. The
rest of the crowd was mixed in with wounded, bleeding, screaming people. How many of those concert goers, or their
families or friends will be attending concerts any time soon, if ever? IMO, he successfully intimidated the whole concert.
And all the king's horses, and all the king's men will never make those people feel safe, ever again.
Some liberals may want to ban guns right now, but I bet most of those concert goers will be sleeping with guns under their pillows
for the rest of their lives.
Trying that scenario in DC would be a fool's errand. I've been there, and the streets are too confined and traffic too congested. And WAY too many choke points for a vehicle. Now San Francisco or any large California city would be a prime target rich environment. The cops don't really do much in the big marches out there except sort of keep the parade participants and parade protesters from doing too much damage to one another.
Your estimated dead and wounded from that truck attack are highly optimistic in the low range. A truck that size traveling 60+ mph would be slowed down some, but not much at initial impact. And it has enough torque to keep speed up and plow through a crowd. A few vehicles could stop it if they were 6 deep in front of it, but not soft squishy bodies. Transmission might downshift one gear, and find a 'sweet spot' of momentum and maintain it until it until it hit something immovable or the driver was killed.
― Douglas Adams
Look at the recent incident in Vegas. It's possible that death and direct wounding by gunshots was secondary to what the Vegas shooter wanted. If he's looking for a high death toll, he'd have used something more effective. I would speculate that for some reason he wanted a lot of people hurt, and whether it came from direct action (gunshots) or indirect action (getting run over, self-injury in avoiding the gunfire, etc.) it didn't really matter to him.
I ask myself that question quite often.
After the OKC bombing, prilled ammoniom nitrate was coated with a substance that made it inferior for making explosives; it won't absorb the fuel oil, and urea was added to it for the same reason. You can't buy a 50# bag of ammonium nitrate at the big box store and use it for Tannerite for this reason. It is coated, and loaded with urea. Separating the urea from a 50# bag is a big pain in the rear; doing that to a couple tons of it would be a work intensive nightmare. And you still have to crush it into a coarse powder, like white cornmeal to negate the coating.
Explosives like dynamite, and the caps, are more tightly controlled since then, too. Robbing banks would be a lot safer than trying to break into a powder magazine, even one on a remote blasting site. You can make your own explosives to set it off, but it would be safer to just play Russian Roulette with a semiauto with a round in the chamber. They're all extremely volatile and extremely sensitive to shock and static electricity. And the fumes from their manufacture will eat brain cells faster than meth.
― Douglas Adams
A M-80 will detonate ammonia nitrate. When was the last time you saw one of those. It's certainly is not rocket science.
Hardly, I get them every 4th of July and New years eve. The good ones where you can feel the concussion when they go off.
These M-80s are the same ones I played with when I was a snot nosed kid. As to being illegal maybe but as long as you know someone they are available during the holidays as with mortars and all the other cool stuff. Kinda like illegal drugs they are hard to find also, but if you look.
https://www.skylighter.com/
I'm not sayin'. Just sayin'. Roll your own. :tooth:
― Douglas Adams
Just drop about 40grains of Pyrodex down your smoke poll and cover with plenty of wadding and let 'er rip!
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Vickers makes some good points: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cosc-RO_oMg
Also reference the British Mad Minute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute the record for which was 36 hits on a 48" target at 300 yards WITH A WWI-ERA BOLT ACTION FED WITH STRIPPER CLIPS.
Given he was basically shooting into a can of sardines, Paddock probably could have done just as much damage with aimed fire from a single shot Martini from the 1870's, to say nothing of the options of trucks, explosives, and airplanes.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
The mad minute challenge. No i didn't watch on 20 minutes.
Winston Churchill
http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-somalia-shabab-bombs-20171016-story.html
― Douglas Adams
This is about the only logical argument I have heard liberals try to make about terrorism. It fails because it does not recognize that global terrorism will be a hundred times worse if western nations do not continue to defeat most of it before it happens here. But it does at least sound logical, when taken out of context from everything else that is going on in the rest of the world.
My question is why do liberals not accept this same basic logic about why we should not make stricter gun laws? If they don't want the government to do things to make us safer from worldwide Islamic terrorism, why do they want the government to make gun laws that they pretend will make us safer from domestic terrorism? They don't want to 'restrict liberty,' when it comes to Syrian refugees or illegal immigrants, but they don't mind it at all when it only restricts the liberty of legitimate citizens, who have been living under the same laws for 200 plus years without noticeably impacting the safety of others.
Not sure what your so upset about. Every time I fly I go through the same thing as everyone else, sometimes more because of last name is the same as a known criminal.
When I purchase a firearm, again even with my concealed carry permit and proper ID every single purchase comes back with a conditional approval because of my last name and ssn being close to again a well known criminal. I need a UPIN issued by the FBI to purchase a firearm without issue
I used to hold a TS/SCI clearance while in the Military and again as a Civilian, now a TS and still get the same issues. Being a white guy in South Florida, in many neighborhoods I am the guy that gets the weird look from local as well as the Police. The Government infringes on everybody, only certain people make the headlines about it.
And the reason that YOU are groped at the airport and other places of public transportation is that YOU and people like you are against profiling, so everyone gets put in the pot of random gropees. You can't be getting all PMS about getting groped when you are against profiling. It's an either/or thing. Sitting on the fence just gets you a buttload of splinters. :tooth:
― Douglas Adams
For some reason you want to call foul because of security that attempts to help keep you alive, so, if no profiling, no searches, you would rather another plane hijacked? Not use a tool to catch terrorists before they strike? Guess we just ignore all dangers, give everyone 100% freedom to do whatever they please and since everyone is free and not mad there will never be another 9-11 or building blown up in OKC. The unicorns will protect us
You cant have it both ways in the world today
You do not have a right to fly.
You do not have a right not to be profiled.
No one of this or any other country has the right to pass the boarder of any country without first being cleared by the govt of that country. That power is not only in our constitution, the Supremes ruled that it lies solely in the executive branch, until now.
Govt spending on the military is a basic duty of the govt. Transferring wealth to lazy people (see other post soon) is not.
As to torture, as a enemy combatant w/o a uniform, the US and any other country is perfectly within its right to shoot them on sight as well as treat them how they need to. Rules of war. They have a right to stand up and shoot, then they get to deal with the consequences. (FYI same argument about people re coloring the 1st amendment to suit their childish behavior)
None of your complaints listed, unless one assumes the direct transfer of a citizens wealth to another, violates any of the rights listed in the constitution or basic human rights.
Just pass national reciprocity, allow firearms on airplanes and other modes of public transit, and the terrorists will be outnumbered and outgunned...............and dead if they try that crap.
― Douglas Adams