152 Fuckin' Bullets !!!

[flying-skeleton]

[onehandle]

1. Overheard (Probably) at an NRA gun show: '152? Shit, I could have done better than that.' nt

[Hoyt]

5. That's what is sad, the gun cultists just joke and run out to buy more guns.

[ManiacJoe]

2. Does that represent a large amount, or a small amount?

[atreides1]

3. Depends on magazine capacity!

20 rounds=8 magazines

30 rounds=5 magazines

[ManiacJoe]

4. And assuming reloads only when empty.

Which was not the case in CT.

[Squinch]

6. Consider that amount being shot at a 6-year-old. That should clear things up.

[99Forever]

8. Hmmm..

... if they were aimed at you, your wife, your children, your mother, your father, your brothers and sisters, what would you say? Does that represent a large amount, or a small amount?

[pinboy3niner]

9. American civilians have higher-capacity magazines than I had as a soldier in combat

I have a hard time getting my head around that.

[ManiacJoe]

10. The military prefers reliable mags.

The commonly available extended mags are not reliable, neither for rifles nor for handguns.

[99Forever]

12. Which has what to do with what?

How's about you answer my question? Or are just like most of the other Delicate Flowers?

[ManiacJoe]

16. You seem to have problems following the thread.

Post 10 is in response to post 9.

[ljm2002]

13. It was reliable enough to kill 26 people n/t

[ManiacJoe]

15. Exactly. He used normal-capacity mags, not extended ones.

[ljm2002]

33. Please see this...

...from http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns

The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance. The rifle is a Bushmaster version of a widely made AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military. The original M-16 patent ran out years ago, and now the AR-15 is manufactured by several gunmakers. Unlike the military version, the AR-15 is a semiautomatic, firing one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. But like the M-16, ammunition is loaded through a magazine. In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.

and then get back to me about your statement that he used "normal-capacity mags".

Thanks.

[X_Digger]

40. 30 round magazines are the standard size for AR-15's. n/t

[Hoyt]

70. Yeah, but believe it or not -- we are not in a war zone.

[ManiacJoe]

41. 20 and 30 rounds are the normal capacity magazines for AR-15 type rifles.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

You might be thinking of handguns. Normal capacity handgun magazines are in the 10-17 range. 30-round mags would be the extended ones here.

[ljm2002]

45. Well congratulations...

...on your attempt to derail the thread topic.

But I don't suppose you have decided, yet. whether 152 bullets in 5 minutes was a large amount, or a small amount?

Actually I'm not worried about being caught out on a technicality. Because the one who has really been caught out here is you, on a point of morality.

[ManiacJoe]

50. Since you have not read the whole thread yet,

I will not hold your uninformed conclusions against you.

[pinboy3niner]

56. Yes, we already know from you that the 152/5 that blew away those kids was underperforming

We apologize for our ignorant, misinformed concern.

[pinboy3niner]

14. Which misses the point COMPLETELY. nt

[ManiacJoe]

21. That would depend on what you thought the point was.

If you are looking to maximize your rate of fire, you need to not use items that will slow you down. Extended-capacity magazines tend to jam and thus slow you down. Normal-capacity mags do not have these problems, thus you are better off doing a few more mag changes when your goal is to maximize your rate of fire.

[pinboy3niner]

24. You're talking about maximizing rate of fire in the context of an elem. school massacre?

That may be a new low in 'dispassionate.'

[ManiacJoe]

27. No, that is NOT the topic we are discussing in this subthread.

However, the context of the shooting environment has no relevance to the rate of fire.
Either the shooting is legal or it is not. Since in this case it is not legal, the rate of fire does not matter.

The topic of this subthread: Why mag capacity choices matter.

[pinboy3niner]

62. Total fucking BS. You referenced CT above, yourself (#4).

Especially ludicrous is, after dwelling on rate of fire, you suddenly decide that rate of fire does not matter. What's clear is that you are pursuing an agenda here--and you're mucking it up, badly. Please proceed...

[ManiacJoe]

63. Different subthread. This one is rooted at #8.

Sorry if you misinterpreted my posts. My intent from the beginning was to show that minor changes to the rate of fire would not matter to the outcome.

Not sorry that the facts do not help your point of view.

[pinboy3niner]

64. I didn't "misinterpret" shit. Your meaning and your intent are very clear.

And you're not helping your case with your picky-picky-picky about where subthreads start and what you said there doesn't count here.



The facts are that a lot of people, mostly a lot of little kids, were blown away by guns. Some are looking for ways to prevent that from happening again. And some are just looking for ways to block any restrictions on guns, no matter what.

I'll take the side of the kids.

[ManiacJoe]

65. Congratulations. Welcome to our side.

[pinboy3niner]

66. Your side? No, thanks.

I may be biased. I've been shot, and barely survived. But that was in war. That should not be happening here. And instead of protecting guns we should be looking for public policy solutions to prevent and mitigate the carnage.

[malaise]

51. Well said

[ManiacJoe]

18. Any number of illegally fired rounds is too many, even one round.

if they were aimed at you, your wife, your children, your mother, your father, your brothers and sisters, what would you say? Does that represent a large amount, or a small amount?

However, in the grand scheme of things 150 rounds in 5 minutes is not a large amount of fire.

[99Forever]

20. Ahhh yes...

... the non-answer, answer. Seems Teabagger/Republican tactics aren't below your standards, are they?

[ManiacJoe]

23. Feel free to reduce your confusion by asking questions.

You asked: What do you think of the size when aimed at me/mine?
I answered: Anything over zero is too big.

Which part of your question do you believe went unanswered?

[99Forever]

28. My misunderstanding then.

So what's your position? It's large when aimed at you/yours, but not when it's aimed at someone else/theirs? I don't get what you were driving at. These were babies they were not just aimed at, but in fact ripped their flesh into shreds so terribly that their parents could only identify them by the clothes they had on. So, IMO, they weren't just killed, but over-killed by a HUGE amount of bullets in a very short amount of time. I question the sanity of anyone who says differently.

[ManiacJoe]

32. It is as simple as disagreeing on the relative size of the rate of fire.

150 rounds in five minutes is not that big. It averages out to 1 round every 2 seconds. Quite slow for someone looking to cause lots of damage/injuries/deaths.

Minor changes the tool and its accessories would not have made any noticeable differences in the outcome. The problem is, and always has been, the user and his actions. Until the police release the info on how the guns were stored, we will not know what kind of changes where needed there.

[99Forever]

34. Nonsense.

You keep saying stuff without a shred of evidence to back it, as if it were incontrovertible fact. This isn't rocket science. What "changes where needed there" isn't some kind of mystery. Weapons of war shouldn't be available to the general public, because quite clearly, as is evidenced by the piles of blood soaked, mutilated bodies left by guns purchased by you "responsible, law abiding" gun owners, what's being done now, isn't working. You fine, upstanding, "responsible, law abiding" gun owners have had literally many decades to police yourselves and not only have you done nothing to make things better, it has gotten steadily worse all the time. So, since you can't seem to play nice, the adults are going to have to do something about it.

[ManiacJoe]

42. The error in your thinking is that you believe there is something special

about AR-15 style rifles that made the outcome of this tragedy different than if a "normal" rifle had been used.

I agree that this is not rocket science. Unfortunately many folks at DU and elsewhere seem to have no desire educate themselves on the topic of firearms and the laws that govern them.

>Weapons of war

None were used. Had there been any used, the carnage would probably have been worse.

> What "changes where needed there" isn't some kind of mystery.

Not to the cops. But until they release the info, we have no idea what the levels of storage were in relation to what they should have been.

> So, since you can't seem to play nice, the adults are going to have to do something about it.

Unfortunately, your "adults" helped create the mess. Sometimes no new law is better than a bad new law. This is especially the case with firearms. The previous AWB is a prime example. Trying to repeat it with the currently proposed AWB is just stupid.

If folks are truly interested is solving the problem, they first need to accurately define the problem then propose solutions that will actually solve the problem. So far, neither the AWB nor magazine capacity limits do either of those.

[99Forever]

43. The error in your thinking is that you believe...

... you know what I'm thinking. If you just want to debate yourself, you damn sure don't need me. Go ahead and conjure up your strawmen and beat the crap out of them. Don't mean shit to me. It's all you've got.

[ManiacJoe]

44. If I have misinterpreted your posts please correct me.

[beevul]

67. For the nth time, an ar-15 is NOT a weapon of war.

An M-16 IS a weapon of war. It fires fully automatically(some sub-models), or three round burst, in addition to firing semi-automatically if that mode is selected.

That design is not lawful for people to own, with the exception of a tiny handful of NFA weapons.


The ar-15 on the other hand, is designed NOT to operate that way, and is in fact designed to be civilian legal.


And not a single army in the entire world issues them to their troops.

Not.A.Single.One.

[99Forever]

69. The war is on our streets...

... in our places of business, in our schools and homes and the weapons of war are issued by by the NRA and it's minions.

The blood of those babies is on the hands of each and every one of them.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

53. 150 rounds in 5 minutes is a high damned rate of fire

I'd say its damn-near record-breaking within the confines of an elementary school. You're verging on the ghoulish.

[ManiacJoe]

55. Ghoulish is you suggesting that there is an desirably high...

rate of fire for killing children. Hopefully that is not what you intended to write.

> 150 rounds in 5 minutes is a high damned rate of fire

OK, now you have been corrected in your misbelief. The question is, what will you do with your new-found knowledge?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

59. I'm not playing games with an NRA acolyte

I wish this forum afforded me an opportunity to tell you what I think of you, but it does not, so I'll only say that I believe you're a very base person.

[pinboy3niner]

60. Your username says it perfectly. nt

[pinboy3niner]

22. "150 rounds in 5 minutes is not a large amount of fire"

Obviously, those ungrateful 6-year-old kids and their families should count their blessings.

[ManiacJoe]

25. I am hoping you meant that as sarcasm...

since no one should be happy about them getting killed.

Do you really think any minor changes is the speed at which they were killed would have changed the outcome?

[SammyWinstonJack]

57. ...

[Crepuscular]

7. Ban

Clearly, the assault weapon ban in Connecticut was not effective, as the weapon used in Sandy Hook was legal under that law.

[mwrguy]

36. The Connecticut AWB definitely didn't go far enough

Not even close.

We need a real ban.

[Crepuscular]

46. Connecticut AWB

What is there in any of the proposed or enacted Federal AWB's, that is more restrictive than the CT ban? Nothing that I'm aware of. DiFi's ban does nothing to address existing weapons or magazines and has exemptions for dozens of weapons that are functionally identical to the weapons used in many of the mass shootings, yet the political will does not even exist to get that passed and you thing that there is a hope in hell of getting a "real" ban passed? I'd like some of whatever you're smoking!

[xchrom]

11. Du rec. Nt

[Logical]

17. Guns are out of control. But not sure there is a way to fix it at this point. n-t

[Recursion]

19. Write a bill banning guns that can fire that quickly

You'd have my support, most likely.

[Lizzie Poppet]

26. Which would be pretty much every gun that's not a single-shot.

Just sayin'...

[AtheistCrusader]

38. 152 rounds in 5 minutes with a break-action single-shot?

I bet I could do it. Not while chasing through a simulated urban environment, shooting at moving targets, not by a mile, but in a controlled, static environment like a range, I could do that. You bring the five gallon bucket full of shotgun shells, and I could do it with a break action. No problem.

So if rate of fire is the only criteria, and that is an arbitrary limit, it would prevent pretty much everything but muzzle-loaders.

[Recursion]

49. Just saying. Hell, convince manufacturers to put a 5-second delay on the cycle somewhere

It's a thought.

[Peter cotton]

29. Would that include lever actions?

[Recursion]

48. Probably, at least ones with detachable magazines (nt)

[spin]

61. Even a revolver can fire quickly and be reloaded quickly. ...

Your bill would have to require that all firearms were single shot weapons.

How much chance would an honest homeowner have if two or three individuals invaded his home and were armed with guns or knives?

[Tx4obama]

30. Below a link to Rachael Maddow's segment VIDEO regarding the 152 bullets, Sandy Hook, Ted Cruz

VIDEO here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/rachel-maddow-ted-cruz-gun-control_n_2883141.html

[krispos42]

31. And this was not the problem.

The problem was that he was in a closed environment full of helpless victims, with the nearest help minutes away. He was in a mental state reminiscent of "The Terminator", a merciless killing machine, and unable to be swayed by basic considerations of humanity and empathy.

I imagine he was like Kurt Russel's character in "Soldier".

But run the math any way you want to. Recalculate assuming he had an assortment of 10-round magazines. Would he have fired as many rounds?

Maybe not. I'll even give you a "probably not". But with the caveat that the body count would probably not have been lower.

He was profligate with his ammunition. He shot many children many times, because he was a sociopath. Would have have put as many as 11 rounds in a 7-year-old if he had 10-rounders? Probably not; but the children would be just as dead.

Changing magazine capacities would have changed, at least somewhat, how he did the shooting, but it would not have changed the outcome. Would the outrage and horror be less if "only" 18 children and "only" 5 adults were killed? No, of course not!


End result would still have been the same: lots of dead kids and adults.


Trying to change the hardware is a feeble attempt to prevent future tragedies. Everybody hates that his happened. Everybody. There are no exceptions to that statement. But it forces us to realize that there are millions of places in this country where a madman with a weapon can commit mass murder. There are 133,000 K-12 schools in America. Hundreds of thousands of churches and arcades and arenas and concerts and theaters and such. We are hideously vulnerable to such attacks and remain so probably forever. What is hard to accept, even though we must, is that even though the possibilities are everywhere, only a tiny fraction of the population is capable of doing such evil acts. And this is what enables us to go about our daily lives without thinking what a trap your local 7-Eleven is.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Thanks.

You said it much better than I can.

It has been reported that Adam Lanza didn't even fully use all of the mags, reloading arbitrarily.

Horrible outcome, bizarre scenario. Difficult to choose a reasonable, workable, effective brake on future events using any single data point from this massacre.

[Crepuscular]

52. +1000

Best post in this thread!

[apocalypsehow]

35. Our "RKBA enthusiasts" simply don't give one hot-diggety-damn how many kids die if

it means even the slightest and mildest of restrictions on their "right" ( ) to strut about town with a pistol perched in their pants, or an military-style machine gun slung over their shoulders, spare ammo magazines at the ready, looking for a "showdown" a' la the movie Red Dawn.

They. Just. Don't. Care.

Good OP; Kick, Rec.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. That weapon is capable of firing 650 per minute.

Difficult to approach the theoretical maximum, and requires extreme skill but it is physically possible to do so.

152 in five minutes is WELL within the cyclic rate of a bolt action rifle. So legislating controls on ROF is problematic to accomplish in an effective manner, while still allowing even revolvers, etc.

[kudzu22]

47. Someone show me any law that would have saved any of those kids and we can talk

Magazine limits? Nope, sorry. 100 million in existence and even small mags would have had the same result. (See Bloomberg theory of small containers).

Universal background check? Strike two. Stole the gun from his mom.

Complete Semi auto ban? Maybe. Still can do a lot of damage with a revolver and a bunch of speed loaders.



P.S. Cue the "you're a RW nutjob and NRA shill" in 3.....2.....1.....

[DisgustipatedinCA]

54. Ban all guns. Life in prison if you're caught with one.

That might have stopped it, no one can say for sure. That law won't be passed, but it does answer your question.

[kudzu22]

58. That's true

Probably would have stopped it.

[ZOB]

68. No, it wouldn't have.

Is somebody who shoots 20 kids and then shoots himself as he hears police arrive concerned about receiving a life sentence? I doubt it.

The whole RKBA issue aside, there are NO gun control laws that can prevent events like this. With 200 million+ guns in this country (the vast majority in the hands of people who will never commit a crime with them) we really need to start a discussion about the real elements of shootings like this and work together to minimize the chances of them happening rather than taking knee-jerk defensive positions (on both sides).

NOBODY likes to see kids killed. NOBODY "doesn't care".

[kudzu22]

72. Actually it probably would

because his mother wouldn't have had a gun for him to steal. Almost nobody would own one. That's not to say that I favor such a law -- just having a thought experiment about what laws could have prevented such a tragedy.

[cantbeserious]

71. Yes - I Agree - Let's Ban The Damned Weapons Of Mass Destruction And The Ammunition To

eom