Culture Handgun Bullets Are Ineffective In Stopping School Shooters Because They're Too Slow

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...n-stopping-school-shooters-because-t-n2453904

UPDATE: Folks, I’ll just leave this here. It’s from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) linking to a Rolling Stone article, so you already know where this is going.

“A handgun wound is simply a stabbing with a bullet.”

What is this?

Sen Dianne Feinstein

✔@SenFeinstein

"A handgun [wound] is simply a stabbing with a bullet. It goes in like a nail." With the high-velocity rounds of the AR-15, "it’s as if you shot somebody with a Coke can." http://rol.st/2Esd8Hp #BanAssaultWeapons

4:54 PM - Feb 26, 2018

• 
  4,669
• 
  7,134 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy


***

Talk about a facepalm moment. Is it the media’s stupidity or stacking sandbags because they know this National Rifle Association initiative could gain traction? You decide. The NRA wants more armed guards in schools. Teachers should be allowed to carry as well. After the tragic Sandy Hook shooting, the school board voted to approve this proposal. This is not an alien concept. A lot of schools have resource officers; Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the site of the most recent school shooting on February 14, had such officers. They failed to engage the shooter, Nikolas Cruz. Scores of teachers in Ohio are signing up for gun training courses to obtain their concealed carry permits. So, since the NRA is akin to ISIS in the minds of the liberal media, what do you do? Well, if you’re MSNBC, apparently it’s to make the argument that handguns aren’t effective in stopping shooters, who are armed with rifles, because the bullets from pistols are too slow. I will repeat that: handgun ammunition travels so slow that its ineffective at stopping someone armed with a rifle (via Daily Caller):

MSNBC anchors are claiming that teachers armed with handguns would be unable to stop a school shooter because rifles shoot “three times faster.”

Anchor Lawrence O’Donnell said on his show Thursday night that “a bullet fired from an AR-15 travels 3x faster than one from a handgun…and yet the president and the NRA think giving teachers guns will stop a school shooter.”

MSNBC

✔@MSNBC

Lawrence: A bullet fired from an AR-15 travels 3x faster than one from a handgun.

And yet the president and the NRA think giving teachers guns will stop a school shooter http://on.msnbc.com/2EMqOkz

7:30 AM - Feb 23, 2018

Lawrence: The president lives in a fantasy world
After President Donald Trump proposed arming teachers and hiring former soldiers and Marines to patrol American schools, Lawrence O'Donnell argues the president's ideas are fantasy and his staff is...

msnbc.com

• 
  1,869
• 
  6,073 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy


Yeah, there is a difference, but we’re talking tenths of a second here. Also, veteran J.R. Salzman seemed confused with this narrative: didn’t two Capitol Police officers stop a shooter from assassinating scores of Republicans in Alexandria as they were practicing for the annual congressional baseball game? Uh, yeah—they did. They confronted the shooter, they engaged him; he turned out to be a Bernie Sanders supporter, and they neutralized the threat. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) was almost killed in the attack.

J.R. Salzman@jrsalzman

Where did this BS narrative come from that you can’t stop a rifle with a handgun? When has that ever been a thing? Are people’s memories really so short they don’t remember Capital Police stopping a Bernie bro with an SKS shooting at congressman on a baseball field?

8:43 PM - Feb 24, 2018

• 
  5,943
• 
  2,737 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy


This is the reason why the media will always lose the Second Amendment fight. Millions of Americans own firearms. They know the caliber, they know its capabilities, and they also know what the proper terminology is (i.e. automatic vs. semiautomatic). I’m not talking super technical gunsmith jargon, just basic details about the gun. They know what they have and the media’s pervasive failure to learn what they’re talking about will never allow them to win over Americans they need to change the nature of gun politics. That’s because the alternative floated by the Left is straight up gun confiscation, evisceration of the Second Amendment, and the stripping of American civil rights. That’s also another reason why they’ll never win. We know their game. It’s this type of trash peddled by MSNBC that makes for great entertainment.

 

[ulsterscotsman]

Bullshit! What would that dumb old cunt know about guns anyway, Handguns have been proven time and time again to be more than effective.

 

[thismanlies]

The only thing more retarded than Feinstein are the people voting her ass into office.

 

[ES 148]

pistols have less shots in the clip so they shoot bigger more powerful bullets, but at the same time they shoot slower than the assault rifle, which has 30 bullets at a time
it's a trade-off

 

[ulsterscotsman]

If she thinks that Pistol ammunition is "too slow" then I'd like to see her try and dodge one.

Also she's obviously never heard of the FN 5-7.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Five-seven

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Fun fact, slower moving bullets are actually more deadly because more travel time from entry wound to exit wound = higher chance of the bullet fracturing to shrapnel spread like buckshot through your intestines. If anything, we should ban slower bullets because faster bullets are less deadly.

 

[Varg Did Nothing Wrong]

I'm rating anyone who tries to be serious on this thread Autistic.

 

[Red Hood]

Don't let Diane know about Chain Shot in Alpha Protocol

 

[autism420]

5.56 is actually going to have about 3 times the muzzle velocity of a 9mm, that’s true. However considering most 9mm are going to be loaded with hollow points and most ARs are going to have ball ammo that doesn’t expand, the coke can thing makes no fucking sense.

 

[Tranhuviya]

Who could be behind this?

 

[Red Hood]

:powerlevel: I was born in California. Diane Feinstein has been in office longer than I've been alive, and I'm old enough to have seen Star Trek: The Next Generation in its original televised run.

VOTE FOR A DIFFERENT CANDIDATE

 

[:thinking:]

And that senator's name?
Albert Feinstein.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

You're daily reminder that Steve Scalise was shot at with an AR-15 and was put down with a cop using a hand pistol.

 

[The Great Chandler]

You're daily reminder that Steve Scalise was shot at with an AR-15 and was put down with a cop using a hand pistol.

Don't you dare gunsplain me!

 

[autism420]

You're daily reminder that Steve Scalise was shot at with an AR-15 and was put down with a cop using a hand pistol.

No, he was shot with an SKS.

 

[Mason Verger]

You guys don't know anything about ballistics. If you run forward while shooting, you increase the velocity of the bullet leaving the gun exponentially. AND if you've received the kind of training I have, you can swing the gun down in a rapid chopping motion, firing at the perfect decline of the arch, thus increasing the speed even further!

Take it from me:
Be a cool shooter, not a school shooter.

 

[Azazel]

I heard you can dodge most handgun bullets by just running in a serpentine pattern

 

[XYZpdq]

I heard you can dodge most handgun bullets by just running in a serpentine pattern

mashing on the jump button helps a lot too

 

[Real_Liberian]

I admit that I am unsure of how these things work, but aren't pistol bullets generally wider and softer than rifle bullets, and therefore cause more damage? I imagine it is like the difference between hitting something quickly with, say, a dart; versus smashing something with a sledgehammer.

Which is to say that a 5mm rifle bullet could conceivably zip right through you, and unless it hits a bone, a major artery or a vital organ you have a decent chance of survival. Whereas a .45-inch pistol bullet will inevitably tear a fist-sized hole in you and you will die.

So if you're fighting in a war or hunting, and need to engage targets at considerable distance, it makes sense to pick the rifle; who's smaller bullets fly further, faster and flatter.

But if you straight-up need to ice a bitch, you pack a pistol.

Or am I totally off base here? I've never handled a gun in my life, save for a clay pigeon experience we attended back in secondary school.

 

[Varg Did Nothing Wrong]

I admit that I am unsure of how these things work, but aren't pistol bullets generally wider and softer than rifle bullets, and therefore cause more damage? I imagine it is like the difference between hitting something quickly with, say, a dart; versus smashing something with a sledgehammer.

Which is to say that a 5mm rifle bullet could conceivably zip right through you, and unless it hits a bone, a major artery or a vital organ you have a decent chance of survival. Whereas a .45-inch pistol bullet will inevitably tear a fist-sized hole in you and you will die.

So if you're fighting in a war or hunting, and need to engage targets at considerable distance, it makes sense to pick the rifle; who's smaller bullets fly further, faster and flatter.

But if you straight-up need to ice a bitch, you pack a pistol.

Or am I totally off base here? I've never handled a gun in my life, save for a clay pigeon experience we attended back in secondary school.

Modern military rifles typically use smaller caliber ammo because it's lightweight and easy to carry. They make up for the smaller diameter and inability to use expanding ammo (Geneva Convention) by designing ammo and guns that, when used together, lessen the need for expanding bullets because the high speed of the bullet hitting soft tissue causes cavitation in the flesh (you could call this an "exploding bubble" in the body) and tumbling or fragmentation of the round itself.

Pistol ammo doesn't go fast enough and carries less muzzle energy in general, and in most cases isn't as beholden to a lack of expanding ammo (though civilians can absolutely still get commercial expanding ammo for their rifles).

In short, if we assume effective ammo is chosen equally between a rifle and a pistol, the rifle will always be more powerful and useful than the pistol, and that's not even taking into account stability, recoil mitigation, mag capacity, etc

 

[Real_Liberian]

*snip*

In short, if we assume effective ammo is chosen equally between a rifle and a pistol, the rifle will always be more powerful and useful than the pistol, and that's not even taking into account stability, recoil mitigation, mag capacity, etc

I stand corrected. Thank you for taking the time to inform me of this!

It would seem, then, that pistols have little practical function besides conceal-ability and ease of transportation. As well as, I suppose, the psychological impact of seeing a person packing a deadly weapon (though rifles obviously posses this "fear factor" too).

Still, I guess it doesn't matter whether you're shot with a pistol or a rifle. Either way, it's still a very bad day. And having trained personnel in possession of firearms - even if those firearms happened to be pistols - would sufficiently change the dynamics of an active shooter scenario to allow for greater preservation of life.

The situation starts as a massacre - the gunman picking off helpless targets at will. It seems that turning the situation from a massacre into a gunfight, where the shooter has to act to preserve his own life in the face of "targets" that are shooting back, is a good course of action if you want to save the lives of as many students as possible.