I argued with a person on a blog recently a gun ban on AR-15 would not deter lunatics to use other rifles in a mass shooting if they couldn't get their hands on a AR-15 by chance. I told this person a killer could use a 30-30 or 30-06 and do similar damage that a AR15 would do. I said this on a basis this killer would walk down a crowded hallway or small classroom in a school. The person i was arguing with, said NO WAY a 30-30 or 30-06 could do what a ARE-15 could do. BUT I SAID, a 30-30 or ought 6 could do a lot of damage walking down a rather SHORT HALLWAY and SMALL CLASS ROOM. Would love to get some feed back from this forum that are very familar with using these other rifles i mentioned.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Can some of the real rifle experts answer this question for me?
- Thread starter Bamabuilt
- Start date
JoeSixpack
New member
JFK was killed with a bolt action, not sure type or caliber.
I think the Texas University Tower shooter used a bolt action also, Rem 700 I think.
Im not a rifle expert, But if someone had no access at all to any semi automatic rifle.
I would think a security model 12ga pump loaded with 00buck and backed up with a handgun would make for an extremely nasty loadout for a building shooter.
Anyone hit sold with a 12ga at room distance is going to be in no condition to do anything but crawl in a corner and hopefully not bleed to death.
Look at LV, crap ton of rounds, crap ton of injured, relatively few fatalities.. higher powered rifle aimed for effect.. fewer shot, more dead imo.
No doubt 223 is a powerful caliber but relative to other rifle calibers it's pretty animic..
That's what both funny and sad when the gun grabbers talk about it being a weapon of mass destruction and give a pass to your grand pappies 30-06 deer rifle.
I think the Texas University Tower shooter used a bolt action also, Rem 700 I think.
Im not a rifle expert, But if someone had no access at all to any semi automatic rifle.
I would think a security model 12ga pump loaded with 00buck and backed up with a handgun would make for an extremely nasty loadout for a building shooter.
Anyone hit sold with a 12ga at room distance is going to be in no condition to do anything but crawl in a corner and hopefully not bleed to death.
Look at LV, crap ton of rounds, crap ton of injured, relatively few fatalities.. higher powered rifle aimed for effect.. fewer shot, more dead imo.
No doubt 223 is a powerful caliber but relative to other rifle calibers it's pretty animic..
That's what both funny and sad when the gun grabbers talk about it being a weapon of mass destruction and give a pass to your grand pappies 30-06 deer rifle.
I don't believe this discussion is helping the gun owner's side of the argument. It gives more "ammunition" to the other side IMHO.
Besides, if guns of any type were not available, people with bad intentions could use other means to fulfill their goals. It's people with grudges, however misguided, who cause suffering in this world, not the means they use to cause harm to others.
Besides, if guns of any type were not available, people with bad intentions could use other means to fulfill their goals. It's people with grudges, however misguided, who cause suffering in this world, not the means they use to cause harm to others.
Whistlebritches
New member
A lunatic doesn't need a gun to kill.......keep up with the less reported news.They will use cars,buses,trucks,knives,axes,so on and so forth.That being said let's not forget bombs have killed and maimed more people in fewer incidence than any other weapon.We do not have a gun problem.......we have a lunatic problem.
Go to a CMP GSM, Vintage rifle match. Observe the Springfield Matches and the Military (other pre-1954 Vintage Military Match)
Watch those bolt gun shooters do their stuff. I smooth action such as you'll find on the Springfields, US Krags, British Enfields would put a lot of gas gun shooters to shame when it comes to speed and more important, accuracy.
The advantage is not so much with how fast the rifle shoots, but how long the person doing the shooting can act without interferance.
The locations chosen for mass shooting has more to do with the response time of interference then the speed of the rifle.
And that is why you find mass shooting occur in gun free zones.
If I remember right Charles Whitmen used a bolt gun. The numbers of his victims has more to do with the time it took to stop him then the rifle he used.
Watch those bolt gun shooters do their stuff. I smooth action such as you'll find on the Springfields, US Krags, British Enfields would put a lot of gas gun shooters to shame when it comes to speed and more important, accuracy.
The advantage is not so much with how fast the rifle shoots, but how long the person doing the shooting can act without interferance.
The locations chosen for mass shooting has more to do with the response time of interference then the speed of the rifle.
And that is why you find mass shooting occur in gun free zones.
If I remember right Charles Whitmen used a bolt gun. The numbers of his victims has more to do with the time it took to stop him then the rifle he used.
I wouldn't use the comparison of other calibers doing as much or more damage. The just spreads the agenda of banning EVERYTHING.
IMHO Using this comparison is a better retort: In an enclosure(such as students in a building) a determined and motivated killer with a bat can do more damage than any sane person would find acceptable. Given a bit of training or experience, it is quite simple to inflict massive casualties upon trapped or weaker victims with any sort of impact or cutting tool.
IMHO Using this comparison is a better retort: In an enclosure(such as students in a building) a determined and motivated killer with a bat can do more damage than any sane person would find acceptable. Given a bit of training or experience, it is quite simple to inflict massive casualties upon trapped or weaker victims with any sort of impact or cutting tool.
Such arguments are going to rage and the left loves it because anyone engaged in them is asking the wrong question. The left has one thing going for them that is outflanking the right, and that is they have the art of distraction down to a fine science.
The issue is not and has never been if firearm A is "deadlier' then firearm B.
The important question is "why don't all the good guys have firearm A? Why is that illegal?
If the "Right" wants to back the "Left" down, don't play a defensive game with them. Go on the offense!
Arm all citizens and punish those that would subvert and destroy any part of the Constitution for either Constructive Treason or in some cases High Treason.
In my opinion the NRA and all conservatives should not only stand against any anti-gun legislation, we should actively go on the offense to repeal the 1934 Anti-Machine gun act. Make the left fight defensively.
"Arms" in the 2nd amendment is specific to Military arms (so said the US Supreme Court in Miller V US) So "sporting use" would be covered in the 9th and 10th amendments. The 2nd is about Military arms and arms that can be used legitimately in open warfare!
If we are to win on the grounds of the Constitution we can't allow one part to be destroyed and say "it's OK" and that another part is "untouchable" That's a double standard, and it works for the other side and against our side.
It's been working against the "Right" for years and it's the Right (Us) that is actually giving leverage to the left because we don't stand for the Constitution as written, and are willing to compromise some of it. So the "some of the Constitution to be surrendered" becomes a point of debate. It becomes a bargaining piece for the "Left" and we push back and forth as to what part and how much we will allow to be destroyed, instead of being viewed as what it is supposed to be.
THE HIGHEST LAW OF THE LAND!
The issue is not and has never been if firearm A is "deadlier' then firearm B.
The important question is "why don't all the good guys have firearm A? Why is that illegal?
If the "Right" wants to back the "Left" down, don't play a defensive game with them. Go on the offense!
Arm all citizens and punish those that would subvert and destroy any part of the Constitution for either Constructive Treason or in some cases High Treason.
In my opinion the NRA and all conservatives should not only stand against any anti-gun legislation, we should actively go on the offense to repeal the 1934 Anti-Machine gun act. Make the left fight defensively.
"Arms" in the 2nd amendment is specific to Military arms (so said the US Supreme Court in Miller V US) So "sporting use" would be covered in the 9th and 10th amendments. The 2nd is about Military arms and arms that can be used legitimately in open warfare!
If we are to win on the grounds of the Constitution we can't allow one part to be destroyed and say "it's OK" and that another part is "untouchable" That's a double standard, and it works for the other side and against our side.
It's been working against the "Right" for years and it's the Right (Us) that is actually giving leverage to the left because we don't stand for the Constitution as written, and are willing to compromise some of it. So the "some of the Constitution to be surrendered" becomes a point of debate. It becomes a bargaining piece for the "Left" and we push back and forth as to what part and how much we will allow to be destroyed, instead of being viewed as what it is supposed to be.
THE HIGHEST LAW OF THE LAND!
Jim Watson
New member
Ammunition to the other side is not a problem. The antis are not stupid, don't gauge them by the typical TV talking head. There are knowledgeable people out there who understand guns but don't think you should have one.
The antis are planning ahead. I have seen bolt action hunting rifles referred to disparagingly as "sniper rifles." They want them all.
The antis are planning ahead. I have seen bolt action hunting rifles referred to disparagingly as "sniper rifles." They want them all.
JoeSixpack
New member
Repeal 1934, Don't I wish.. there is no political back bone for that.
I think most of us would consider it a major victory just to reopen the registry.
Even that is probably a pipe dream.
Hey the grabbers say they want a registry and extreme vetting, well you get that.. But they'd have a totally different bag of arguments if anyone tried to reopen it.
It's hard enough finding people willing to just tow the line and not collapse like a house of cards after one of these shootings.
@Picher..
Maybe you're right, But if the grabbers are coming here for ammunition maybe they'll stick around and actually catch a education.. nothing being said is ground breaking for someone who actually knows anything about guns.
I think most of us would consider it a major victory just to reopen the registry.
Even that is probably a pipe dream.
Hey the grabbers say they want a registry and extreme vetting, well you get that.. But they'd have a totally different bag of arguments if anyone tried to reopen it.
It's hard enough finding people willing to just tow the line and not collapse like a house of cards after one of these shootings.
@Picher..
Maybe you're right, But if the grabbers are coming here for ammunition maybe they'll stick around and actually catch a education.. nothing being said is ground breaking for someone who actually knows anything about guns.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Here is a good picture outlining the relative sizes and uses of various cartridges. It is simplified; but it conveys the general idea nicely.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Sze12QUWC...JF-3Fhl2X4/s1600/090204_101_bulletcaliber.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Sze12QUWC...JF-3Fhl2X4/s1600/090204_101_bulletcaliber.jpg
JoeSixpack
New member
Kinda reminds me of this video asking what needs to be banned based on visual inspection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqJ_4YhYMhE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqJ_4YhYMhE
I sure won't get in an argument as to which cartridge/rifle or other that will cause as much damage or more. That's a bad discussion we don't want to get dragged into. I do believe this is a mental health issue more than a gun issue, but people want to blame the gun rather than how we are raising our future generations.
I believe we are not giving our children a certain amount of toughness they need to survive in the world. A lot of kids today just can't cope when the real world starts to affect them, and it isn't just kids of this generation. These issues started rising up in the 80's. IMO people just aren't involved enough anymore, we're all distracted by technology, media, and other things so much we miss the signs when people are struggling. Couple that with the fact a lot of people born in the last 30-40 years don't have proper coping mechanisms in place to deal with their hurt, pain, and depression.
I believe we are not giving our children a certain amount of toughness they need to survive in the world. A lot of kids today just can't cope when the real world starts to affect them, and it isn't just kids of this generation. These issues started rising up in the 80's. IMO people just aren't involved enough anymore, we're all distracted by technology, media, and other things so much we miss the signs when people are struggling. Couple that with the fact a lot of people born in the last 30-40 years don't have proper coping mechanisms in place to deal with their hurt, pain, and depression.
Last edited:
Repeal 1934
I support you Joe...
PlatinumCore16
New member
Moebuck, I will slightly disagree with you. I saw on the news the other day (yesterday?) a story about a dutch man who was armed with knives and attempted to come onto a school zone and was refuted by students with backpacks.I wouldn't use the comparison of other calibers doing as much or more damage. The just spreads the agenda of banning EVERYTHING.
IMHO Using this comparison is a better retort: In an enclosure(such as students in a building) a determined and motivated killer with a bat can do more damage than any sane person would find acceptable. Given a bit of training or experience, it is quite simple to inflict massive casualties upon trapped or weaker victims with any sort of impact or cutting tool.
Source
I am for guns and keeping our second amendment rights, but someone with a bat comes at me and some friends, I'm pretty sure we could overwhelm them. Given the right situation, yes a person armed with a pair of knives could do significant damage. See the story about the man in the pacific northwest (Washington?) who assaulted several people on a train with a knife and there were several fatalities.
Someone just walking into a gun free zone with a gun, will not have a bunch of people coming after him with backpacks, but someone armed otherwise will be easier to stop.
One would think that if a person was motivated/dedicated, they would plan out their whatever in such a way as to use what is available to them.
I think the AR is a good choice when outnumbered and in a defensive position. When walking around in a crowded hallway shooting at people not shooting back the type of weapon is irrelevant. Adam Lanza, the kid who shot up the school in Sandy Hook. could have used a hammer once locked inside a classroom of kindergartners.
Some points to ponder:
* The AR 15 has been sold to civilians longer than the military. It was initially rejected by the military and Armalite manufactured a semi-auto only version for civilian sales before he got the contract with the Air Force. In the 50+ years since people have had the capability to shoot up schools, but chose not to. There is something different, and it ain't the rifle.
* Hunters have used other semi-auto rifles and shotguns since at least 1905. These guns are functionally exactly like an AR.
* Folks who choose to do these things choose the AR because it is the cool rifle to own now. You are right, the exact thing could be done with any number of standard hunting rifles and shotguns.
* And many of the hunting guns would be MORE effective. In a crowded hallway a 308 or 30-06 bullet could easily pass through 4-5 persons with one shot. I average less than 1 shot per second with a bolt gun.
* Remember, not all school shootings are the same. A couple of kids from Arkansas a few years pulled a fire alarm to get kids out of the building. Then fired from a distance, and IIRC they used bolt action hunting rifles.
*A 150 year old SXS hunting shotgun loaded with 2 rounds of #1 buck would send 40 projectiles down a crowded hall way each time the triggers were pulled. Allow 2-3 seconds to reload and you're throwing a lot of projectiles into a crowd of people within just a minute or 2. And this with the type of gun that is the LEAST likely to be banned.
Some points to ponder:
* The AR 15 has been sold to civilians longer than the military. It was initially rejected by the military and Armalite manufactured a semi-auto only version for civilian sales before he got the contract with the Air Force. In the 50+ years since people have had the capability to shoot up schools, but chose not to. There is something different, and it ain't the rifle.
* Hunters have used other semi-auto rifles and shotguns since at least 1905. These guns are functionally exactly like an AR.
* Folks who choose to do these things choose the AR because it is the cool rifle to own now. You are right, the exact thing could be done with any number of standard hunting rifles and shotguns.
* And many of the hunting guns would be MORE effective. In a crowded hallway a 308 or 30-06 bullet could easily pass through 4-5 persons with one shot. I average less than 1 shot per second with a bolt gun.
* Remember, not all school shootings are the same. A couple of kids from Arkansas a few years pulled a fire alarm to get kids out of the building. Then fired from a distance, and IIRC they used bolt action hunting rifles.
*A 150 year old SXS hunting shotgun loaded with 2 rounds of #1 buck would send 40 projectiles down a crowded hall way each time the triggers were pulled. Allow 2-3 seconds to reload and you're throwing a lot of projectiles into a crowd of people within just a minute or 2. And this with the type of gun that is the LEAST likely to be banned.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
If there is no serious effort to stop a shooter, the issue then becomes one of time. That is, a person with a lever gun can continue shooting while topping off the magazine. Same for a bolt-action.
As long as people are running away from a shooter, and are generally confined to hallways, a shooter has no problem in continually reloading his "slow firing" rifle and continuing to kill.
If GI Ball ammunition is used in a bolt action, there is a probability of multiple kills per shot, if into a crowded area.
As long as people are running away from a shooter, and are generally confined to hallways, a shooter has no problem in continually reloading his "slow firing" rifle and continuing to kill.
If GI Ball ammunition is used in a bolt action, there is a probability of multiple kills per shot, if into a crowded area.