Have we become used to or immune to mass shootings?

[xoxoxoBruce]

ut, which NATO round, the 5.56mm NATO round fired from the same rifle as the .223?

I agree, terribly dangerous, civilians should stick to the old safe 30:06, or maybe 45:70.

[sexobon]

Trying to demonize the use of NATO spec. ammo is a fools errand, sensationalism used by whacko leftist extremists to delude an uneducated audience.

Military ammo is not designed to be more lethal than its civilian counterparts. NATO ammo actually makes compromises in lethality to effect a reduction in maiming (less fragmentation), make for greater portability (lighter weight) and easier marksmanship training of soldiers (less recoil). It's loaded to higher pressures to increase reliability in cycling firearm mechanisms under adverse conditions, not to be more lethal. Many civilian hunting rounds are potentially more lethal (all else being equal) than NATO rounds which can actually be more humane.

There are specialty rounds like armor piercing bullets designed to defeat body armor (bullet proof vests). Soldiers may find that their enemy is wearing body armor. Civilian criminals have also worn body armor during the commission of crimes. Hunters may find that those bullets better negotiate intermediate obstacles like leaves on branches with less deviation from their target. These are not; however, magic bullets and can be less lethal in their target because they don't expand on impact. They just give the bullet a better chance of reaching the target. Marksmanship is more important. This has all been well documented for decades. Only a neophyte wouldn't know this.

NATO ammunition and the firearms chambered for it could be the more humane choice for those who achieve the necessary skill in marksmanship and that skill is transferable between military, police, and civilian walks of life.

[sexobon]

That's a lie evidenced by the fact that you can't get 2/3 of the eligible vote to change the Constitution to accommodate your delusion. You still believe the right to own these things requires further justification. It doesn't. All you've succeeded in doing is demonstrating that you're incapable of understanding their place in society and how changes in American society works. You're still that same old developmentally impaired misfit.

[BigV]

Subscibed.

Also, good luck.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I don't think there's much chance of reasoning with this guy.

[sexobon]

Irrelevant, the Constitution doesn't limit the right to bear arms to hunting purposes; or, to self defense for that matter. Nor does it restrict arms to use for a singular purpose. Many have done Close Quarters Battle with carbines. A wide variety of ammunition is available that makes rifles and especially carbines acceptable in many different self protection situations. This has been demonstrated by the US Army issuing the M4 carbine as a standard personal weapon which is used in CQB. Even a carbine converted pistol is treated as a standard rifle under Title I of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).

The developmentally impaired tw still chooses to remain ignorant by refusing to get facts. He's not well grounded in reality and it seems he suffers from barrel length envy.

Tw is so ignorant that in a discussion about 223 Remington/5.56mm NATO ammunition he says "Those large caliber rounds" when that ammunition is small caliber. It's just lie after lie ... ad infinitum with tw.

Pathetic are those debarred from owning firearms who try to take them away from everyone else because they can't be trusted with firearms themselves.

[xoxoxoBruce]

There is too many people who would be shocked at this picture of a mere lad with an arsenal of killing machines.
The boy has poor trigger discipline however.

[sexobon]

That's Timmy. Lassie had gotten old and he was getting ready to put her down; but, he knew she wouldn't go easily.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yeah, he told that bitch to go get help and she went to a psychiatrist.

[BigV]

Trump administration says to make schools safe, more guns are needed.

But to keep Vice President Pence safe, guns are prohibited.

Which position is more plausible?

[sexobon]

They're both plausible. Security specialists do a front end analysis looking at how many principals (people to be protected) there are, the threat level against them, and the efficiency of the screening process for armed personnel at the venue. Some situations may benefit from more armed personnel, others less. The nature of the threat against controversial individual celebrities at a large venue is generally better served with less since the security they bring with them is sufficient and too many cooks spoil the pot. OTOH, when are many principals to be protected, who don't bring their own security, in a small venue where the screening process can be more efficient, more armed personnel may be of benefit. A front end analysis needs to be done for each situation. There's no one size fits all.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Some have more compact frames...

[Griff]

welp

[monster]

School superintendent Dr Leigh Wall said in a statement: "We experienced an unthinkable tragedy at our high school this morning."

.... But it's not UNTHINKABLE because IT KEEPS FUCKING HAPPENING

(from BBC article)

[monster]

Ya know, maybe we should control the ammo not the guns?

Seems like this is another thing that is everywhere but everyone thinks won't happen to them. Like teenage pregnancy. But controlling the ammo (via condoms and the pill) has been proven effective there whereas trying to stop them having sex was not, so.... ???