12 Dead, 50 Injured in Shooting at "Dark Knight Rises" Premire in Colorado - Page 6

Marc v4.0 · 07-22-2012, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikose Tyris

I am entertained that people combine the video game idea that shotguns are close range only while acknowledging they are an ideal tool in duck hunting.

Clearly, Shotguns are for a special kind of hunting where you have to sneak within strangling distance of the game before you can hit it.

Sifright · 07-22-2012, 12:38 PM

in fairness, video games usually presume you and your enemies are wearing full suits of bodyarmour. Kevlar does wonders against buckshot, if you have no armour though shotguns are way deadlier than a pistol because you don't even have to aim directly at your target to fuck them up.

stefan · 07-22-2012, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sifright

in fairness, video games usually presume you and your enemies are wearing full suits of bodyarmour. Kevlar does wonders against buckshot, if you have no armour though shotguns are way deadlier than a pistol because you don't even have to aim directly at your target to fuck them up.

TDK · 07-22-2012, 01:18 PM

I didn't say they are only effective at close range, I said they are only particularly more deadly at close range, and are less accurate. They are still deadly at moderate range (although this falls off more quickly than it would with heavier shots because obviously the pellets are lighter and therefore more affected by air resistance) but shotguns are inaccurate and therefore not useful at anything but close to medium range.

Marc v4.0 · 07-22-2012, 01:50 PM

A great deal of shot inaccuracy is due more to lacking a ballistic spin that a regular round builds as it exits the gun, coupled with deformities caused by the extreme pressure and release. Wax-packed rounds made of more durable metals can increase the effective range and lethality of the shot by staggering degrees.

When we are talking in terms of range from street to sidewalk, or even from sidewalk to sidewalk, shot has tremendously more lethal potential than bullets. While it is true that shot lethality does drop off at long ranges, the distances we are talking about make this a pointless observation. Considering these people were wearing clothes and not body armor(another completely moot condition), even mid-long range shot is very dangerous.

Still really pointless because it is a Firearm designed to kill, one being more lethal than the other is a pretty derailing argument especially when comparing two completely different types of firearms and when it isn't even part of the thread topic to boot.

Meister · 07-22-2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stefan

If someone makes a bad point, make a good counterpoint, don't post a non sequitor photo.

Magus · 07-22-2012, 03:24 PM

I meant pistols are more dangerous on a societal scale (I think I said "as a whole" which I guess I meant to be in the various situations a pistol could be used in, but sorry for being vague) because even small, easily concealed ones are deadly. With a shotgun you can modify it into a sawed-off (a massive felony) but even then they are quite bulky. I was speaking in generalities about the societal implications of the two weapons, shotguns are simply not as "dangerous" on that scale because the scenarios in which they are used are much narrower. They have less implications for our society as a whole than pistols do. I wasn't even talking about fire power, range, whatever.

An emphasis on increasing mental health clinics and stuff like that would also be a good idea, I just don't think we should dismiss gun control out of hand as if there weren't entire countries built around the concept. The main problem with the U.S. isn't that gun control doesn't work, it's that the logistics on the geographical and population scale of the U.S. are a nightmare in comparison to other countries like Britain, Japan, etc. because we have ten times the population and ten times the space. But people always attack the very concept as ineffective when it has been shown to be effective, it just might not be as effective here or might be much more costly to implement and maintain.

Aerozord · 07-22-2012, 06:54 PM

sawed-off shotguns only have one advantage, they are easier to conceal, there is a reason no company on the planet manufactures them.

But as a rule all guns are equally as deadly, its just a matter of situation. If one gun was patently superior to another than no one would use the inferior one and it would cease to exist.

Azisien · 07-22-2012, 08:12 PM

What is this discussion about right now? Gun range?

Pretty sure every movie theater I've ever been in in my life has been 'close' range as far as firearms are concerned. And since it was a premiere the theater would have been packed, you probably would barely have to aim. What are we talking about?

shiney · 07-22-2012, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azisien

What is this discussion about right now? Gun range?

Pretty sure every movie theater I've ever been in in my life has been 'close' range as far as firearms are concerned. And since it was a premiere the theater would have been packed, you probably would barely have to aim. What are we talking about?

This. The entire conversation can be moved to general if we are to discuss the efficacy of various types of firearms as compared against each other. If we are going to talk about what happened in Aurora, then see to it that happens instead.

07-22-2012, 12:38 PM	#52
Sifright Fact sphere is the most handsome Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,108	in fairness, video games usually presume you and your enemies are wearing full suits of bodyarmour. Kevlar does wonders against buckshot, if you have no armour though shotguns are way deadlier than a pistol because you don't even have to aim directly at your target to fuck them up. __________________ Orgies of country consuming violence

07-22-2012, 01:50 PM	#55
Marc v4.0 Fight Me, Nerds Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 3,470	A great deal of shot inaccuracy is due more to lacking a ballistic spin that a regular round builds as it exits the gun, coupled with deformities caused by the extreme pressure and release. Wax-packed rounds made of more durable metals can increase the effective range and lethality of the shot by staggering degrees. When we are talking in terms of range from street to sidewalk, or even from sidewalk to sidewalk, shot has tremendously more lethal potential than bullets. While it is true that shot lethality does drop off at long ranges, the distances we are talking about make this a pointless observation. Considering these people were wearing clothes and not body armor(another completely moot condition), even mid-long range shot is very dangerous. Still really pointless because it is a Firearm designed to kill, one being more lethal than the other is a pretty derailing argument especially when comparing two completely different types of firearms and when it isn't even part of the thread topic to boot. __________________

07-22-2012, 03:24 PM	#57
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	I meant pistols are more dangerous on a societal scale (I think I said "as a whole" which I guess I meant to be in the various situations a pistol could be used in, but sorry for being vague) because even small, easily concealed ones are deadly. With a shotgun you can modify it into a sawed-off (a massive felony) but even then they are quite bulky. I was speaking in generalities about the societal implications of the two weapons, shotguns are simply not as "dangerous" on that scale because the scenarios in which they are used are much narrower. They have less implications for our society as a whole than pistols do. I wasn't even talking about fire power, range, whatever. An emphasis on increasing mental health clinics and stuff like that would also be a good idea, I just don't think we should dismiss gun control out of hand as if there weren't entire countries built around the concept. The main problem with the U.S. isn't that gun control doesn't work, it's that the logistics on the geographical and population scale of the U.S. are a nightmare in comparison to other countries like Britain, Japan, etc. because we have ten times the population and ten times the space. But people always attack the very concept as ineffective when it has been shown to be effective, it just might not be as effective here or might be much more costly to implement and maintain. __________________ The Valiant Review Last edited by Magus; 07-22-2012 at 03:28 PM.

07-22-2012, 06:54 PM	#58
Aerozord So we are clear Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Former murder capital of the world Posts: 13,824	sawed-off shotguns only have one advantage, they are easier to conceal, there is a reason no company on the planet manufactures them. But as a rule all guns are equally as deadly, its just a matter of situation. If one gun was patently superior to another than no one would use the inferior one and it would cease to exist. __________________ "don't hate me for being a heterosexual white guy disparaging slacktivism, hate me for all those murders I've done."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-22-2012, 01:18 PM	#54
TDK Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Reality Posts: 2,914	I didn't say they are only effective at close range, I said they are only particularly more deadly at close range, and are less accurate. They are still deadly at moderate range (although this falls off more quickly than it would with heavier shots because obviously the pellets are lighter and therefore more affected by air resistance) but shotguns are inaccurate and therefore not useful at anything but close to medium range.

07-22-2012, 08:12 PM	#59
Azisien wat Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,177	What is this discussion about right now? Gun range? Pretty sure every movie theater I've ever been in in my life has been 'close' range as far as firearms are concerned. And since it was a premiere the theater would have been packed, you probably would barely have to aim. What are we talking about?