XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics
XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama
XPost: alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.politics.socialism.mao,
lt.politics.trump
XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy, alt.apocolypse
XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.infowars
XPost: alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,
alt.politics.guns
From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov
On 6/15/22 12:53 PM, -hh wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 12:27:58 PM UTC-4, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 6/14/22 7:46 PM, -hh wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 4:18:24 PM UTC-4, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 6/14/22 3:20 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 3:02:46 PM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/14/22 12:51, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <7fa43c91-7c4a-4e29...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>> Jane Playne wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You keep using the terms "AR15" and "non-AR15".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More whining just to say you're right even though you can't
>>>>>>> refute doctors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While you are unable to explain how a shot fired from an AR-15 causes
>>>>>> more damage than a shot fired from any other high-powered rifle, no
>>>>>> matter the caliber.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey David, remember this?
>>>>>
>>>>> -hh>>> Which is more injurious: one .308, or three .223's?
>>>>>>
>>>>> DH > >Would not a better comparison be one .308 vs one .223?
>>>>>>
>>>>> -hh> Not really, because of stowed kills: 5.56mm is much smaller/lighter,
>>>>> -hh> so one can carry ~2.5 more 5.56mm than 7.62mm. As such, the
>>>>> -hh> performance comparison is done as a 2:1 to 3:1 ratio, both in terms
>>>>> -hh> of P(h), but also for P(I|h).
>>>>>
>>>>> So then, which is likely to be more injurious: one .308 to the chest, or
>>>>> two .223's to the chest, plus one more .223 to the head?
>>>>>
>>>>> -hh
>>>>
>>>> But then you have to say that it's better to injure as many as possible
>>>> without killing them so that the enemy is using more energy and time
>>>> collecting and treating the injured, because they might let the dead lay
>>>> there but someone attacking you will likely pick up their injured and
>>>> expend a lot of energy in saving their lives.
>>>
>>> Nope. First, that’s an old myth about 5.56mm. Second, your “less”
doesn’t apply
>>> to 5.56mm when one compares its 2-3 shots’ tract wounds for each 7.62mm
one.
>>>
>>>> Dead means no one is going to be in a hurry to try to deal with them....
>>>> the actual "battle tactic sweet spot" is to injure as many as possible
>>>> without actually killing anyone. The police proved it in Texas where they
>>>> waited an Hour because they say they believed the kids were all dead.
>>>
>>> Nope. Because they’ve changed stories and lawyered up, they’re just
not credible.
>>>
>>>
>>>> … The people making the policy don't understand the tactics and risks.
>>>
>>> But if that were true, then the TX boys wouldn’t have lawyered up: the
reality
>>> is they know that the TTP policy is correct and they fucked up big time.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The .223 wasn't designed to be the most lethal, so in the real world you
>>>> should be more worried about the .308 round than the .223 round .
>>>
>>> Incorrect, because the point is that it isn’t a simple 1:1 ratio: the
risk
>>> calculus is several (2-3) .223 for each one 7.62mm.
>>>
>> Having to take 2-3 shots to kill means that time is lost and efficiency
>> is lost and you have to hump more ammunition to your location and it
>> means more reloading and more chance of a bullet jamming or barrel
>> heating and the gas powered action wearing and heating or failing.
>>
>> So you increase time and action and barrel wear by using a .223 and they
>> are all trade-off's for a "single bullet single kill" strategy and
>> piling up bodies in a war scenario...
>
> Yet despite all of the "its bad" things you claim, the US Army decided to
> trade in its old M1903 bolt actions for semi-auto actions: first the M1,
> then the M14, then M16, then M4 ...
>
You still didn't understand... I'm speaking more about ballistics and
the plan for the battlefield, the military also has snipers that use
50cal bolt and semi-auto 50cal for one shot one kill... but they use
the .223 for "pacifying the enemy" so they're too busy cleaning up the
mess from the spray of bullets and all the injured people to attack in
mass numbers. and when it turns to single bombers and the like the
Sniper with a 50cal takes the lead from a distance to instantly stop the
threat by instant death regardless of body armor or walls or anything
they can see a thermal image through. They are very different guns with
very different uses and purposes.
>> Arguably the .223 isn't the most deadly but is the most efficient way to
>> neutralize or pacify an enemy group... but as a single shot single kill
>> it's a piss-poor choice.
>
> Moving the goalposts back to single shot is away from the context of these
> mass shootings which employ weapons which aren't slow-to-cycle bolt actions.
They tend to shoot at targets NOT crowds... but the asshole in Vegas
was shooting into a crowd.... and I hear that his guns were having
problems where they jammed or other things caused him to switch to
another gun. SO NO my goal posts didn't change. How many guns can you
carry? This guy set up in a hotel room, NOT your typical shooting spree
to barricade in a room alone.... where you hauled in mass amounts of
guns and ammo. And the proof I'm right is that he used .223 in Vegas
which isn't what someone sniping would do and what he did was to injure
people and spray the area with bullets NOT kill, because using a .223
where he couldn't aim at each target at that distance accurately with a
BUMP STOCK means he was going to just hope he hit people and create
chaos and panic and fear...
>> What the .223 is good for is creating chaos and injuries...
>> Had the police moved on the Texas school it's likely there would have
>> been more injuries and fewer deaths as a ratio.
>
> Probably. Likewise, more police injured and more kids who live.
>
>
And how is that a bad thing? the kids had no defensive capabilities they
trusted you and the police to keep them safe... because you and the
police don't have armed security people in the schools who could
confront the killer. Shouldn't you be there just as you're there
protecting the Congressional gun confiscation cowards like AOC?
Your plan is to let the mentally ill people carry guns into the school,
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
