guyfromohio
Member
If it was an AR pistol and it was shouldered, look forward to a redefinition of all such from the ATF. They will now be SBRs and subject to the NFA rules.
Didn’t see this one before I posted.
If it was an AR pistol and it was shouldered, look forward to a redefinition of all such from the ATF. They will now be SBRs and subject to the NFA rules.
You mean Ohio, or El Passo?
I hadn't heard this. Do you have a link?
Handguns are very much under rated, especially with modern ammo. The old adage of using my handgun to fight my way to my rifle doesn't apply anymore. The rifles advantage is better accuracy at longer ranges. But at ranges close enough to get hits a 9mm is every bit as effective as a 308.
I'm a bit stumped to see that in the latest batch of mass shootings, nearby LEOs have successfully neutralized the threat within seconds of arriving on scene. And as far as I can tell, these were regular patrol officers (not SWAT) with sidearms. And in the El Passo incident, the BG even had body armor.
This seems to defy the conventional wisdom that one opponent armed with a rifle will easily dominate another with a side arm and I thought it might make for an interesting discussion (so please don't go postal and get it shut down in 2 minutes).
As an "opening salvo" I submit the following explanations:
>A well trained officer with a side are trumps a video game trained opponent with a carbine.
>They are responding in numbers.
>Mass shooters run out of steam at the first sign of armed opposition .... either due to cowardice, a death wish or they just lose their stomach in the face of what they've done.
>The responding officers are "motivated and focused" where the BG is a troubled nut job wandering around looking for easy random targets.
I have profound respect for the responding officers who run toward the sound of gunfire (knowing the difference between the sound of a rifle and a hand gun) armed only with a side arm. And to think that they do it for complete strangers and despite the fact that their profession is disparaged and disrespected (and it's not even a very good paying job) makes me dumbstruck.
Any insight or thoughts on how these responding officers are so successful when they are apparently outgunned.
I think everyone missing the key, you don't have to defeat the armor to defeat the individual. 9mm, 40, 45 to a vest usually knocks you down. A plate hit racks you around pretty well. Couple of connections and your down, bounce the bullets into you and your done.
You've watched too many movies dude. It only works that way in Hollywood.I think everyone missing the key, you don't have to defeat the armor to defeat the individual. 9mm, 40, 45 to a vest usually knocks you down.
You've watched too many movies dude. It only works that way in Hollywood.
Knock them down from a hit to body armor? No. That part is bull.Failed physics did ya? If that bullet has enough power to knock you down when it hits you it has enough power to knock you down when you fire it. That while equal and opposite thing.
While interesting, I see nothing in that video that leads me to believe that he was "knocked down" or "dropped" from a hit or hits to the vest. Do you?Also in case, you wanted to see him on the receiving end.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=a3C25_1564985205
A 124 gr 9mm at 1200 fps has about half the momentum of a fastball at 90 mph. Not near enough to knock someone over. Yes people frequently fall over when shot, even with body armor, but it's almost exclusively psychological rather than physical.
I'm a bit stumped to see that in the latest batch of mass shootings, nearby LEOs have successfully neutralized the threat within seconds of arriving on scene. And as far as I can tell, these were regular patrol officers (not SWAT) with sidearms. And in the El Passo incident, the BG even had body armor.
This seems to defy the conventional wisdom that one opponent armed with a rifle will easily dominate another with a side arm and I thought it might make for an interesting discussion (so please don't go postal and get it shut down in 2 minutes).
As an "opening salvo" I submit the following explanations:
>A well trained officer with a side are trumps a video game trained opponent with a carbine.
>They are responding in numbers.
>Mass shooters run out of steam at the first sign of armed opposition .... either due to cowardice, a death wish or they just lose their stomach in the face of what they've done.
>The responding officers are "motivated and focused" where the BG is a troubled nut job wandering around looking for easy random targets.
I have profound respect for the responding officers who run toward the sound of gunfire (knowing the difference between the sound of a rifle and a hand gun) armed only with a side arm. And to think that they do it for complete strangers and despite the fact that their profession is disparaged and disrespected (and it's not even a very good paying job) makes me dumbstruck.
Any insight or thoughts on how these responding officers are so successful when they are apparently outgunned.