The Outrage Thread

1bigfan13

Your favorite player's favorite player
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
27,212
Ok just asked my brother who was career Army and he said some carriers came with a plastic/polymer plate but they threw that away and said he would laugh at my grave if I was dumb enough to think it would protect me
Did he serve anytime after 2007? I ask because the Army went to a standard issue of vests that were called Improved Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV). Those things came with soft ballistics inserts that would protect against small caliber rounds.
 

jsmith6919

Honored Member - RIP
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
28,407
Did he serve anytime after 2007? I ask because the Army went to a standard issue of vests that were called Improved Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV). Those things came with soft ballistics inserts that would protect against small caliber rounds.
Yeah he did 22yrs got out around 2018
 

jsmith6919

Honored Member - RIP
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
28,407
Just asked him he retired in 2016 guess my memory is going too :unsure
 

jsmith6919

Honored Member - RIP
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
28,407
Same year I retired. About the same amount of time as well. 23 years for me.
He was at Hood for quite a bit of that yall might have ran into each other before.
 

Angrymesscan

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
3,796
You have made the personal decision that you don't need a rifle. You can't speak for others. You should probably stick to objective things instead of subjective ones.



There is no evidence of this assertion. You can suspect it's because it's "ease to obtain," combined with it's "effectiveness," but that is purely speculative on your part. I personally think it's a coolness factor at play with these lunatics.

Shotguns and handguns are both far cheaper and easier to obtain. And as we've seen, a ban on assault weapons does not stop school shootings from occurring.

Effectiveness? Let's break that down.

What makes the AR more effective than a handgun? It fires at the same rate. It's bullets are generally a similar size/caliber and cause the same amount of damage. A handgun is far easier to manipulate and aim as it's smaller, lighter, and more portable. A handgun is far easier to get closer to a target because it is concealable.

The AR's advantage is it has an edge in aiming due to it's stock and barrel/sights. But this is primarily an edge in intermediate and long range scenarios, not necessarily in close-quarter combat.

Is it magazine size? I don't know if I've seen a handgun with a 30 round magazine, but 17 is very common.

At the end of the day, we are talking about 13 extra rounds in a magazine and a long sighted barrel. Is this the difference in these mass shootings? I'm not buying it. Mass shootings aren't gonna happen if AR magazines are limited to 17 rounds? Doubtful.

And you can't ban barrels. They are on every hunting rifle in existence.

I am unconvinced that the reason the AR is the weapon of choice for these shootings is their excessive deadliness. Instead, they are part of the fantasy that mentally ill, delusional individuals have of being part of a paramilitary organization and so they obtain weapons that MOCK and MIMIC military weapons but instead share the characteristics of your basic handgun and hunting rifle and are not superior in function to either of those things.

Ban them and while the innocent are punished, the criminally insane will still use handguns and shotguns to carry out their murder fantasies, as those two sickos did at Columbine.

Ending the rash of school shooting terror is going to require solutions that (a) actually will prevent school shootings, and (b) do not punish law abiders with constitutional rights.
As I understand it, there's a large difference in the damage each (Rifle vs Handgun) can inflict.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
23,337
What side of post were you on? I was in 4th ID back then before they moved to Ft Carson.
I was a couple blocks past the main gate, near Post HQ. Off Battalion Ave. 57th Sig Bn. I ran with a couple guys from 4th ID out of Carson during PLDC. And one of them was still in Carson when I PCS'd there in '06. Dude would scare you with how much whiskey he could/would drink. He was a turret gunner on a Bradley crew. When I learned that, it explained the whiskey...

I always said the 4ID guys were the grit, 1CAV was the glam. CAV did their job, but God damn, did they love to tell you about it. Over, and over, and over...
 

jsmith6919

Honored Member - RIP
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
28,407
We might have crossed paths.

I did six years total at Hood. 2001-2004 and 2011-2014.
He was there in 01-02 for sure and then he got moved to Sill in Oklahoma for a few years. He was back at Hood sometime around 2012 I think
 

jsmith6919

Honored Member - RIP
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
28,407
I was a couple blocks past the main gate, near Post HQ. Off Battalion Ave. 57th Sig Bn. I ran with a couple guys from 4th ID out of Carson during PLDC. And one of them was still in Carson when I PCS'd there in '06. Dude would scare you with how much whiskey he could/would drink. He was a turret gunner on a Bradley crew. When I learned that, it explained the whiskey...

I always said the 4ID guys were the grit, 1CAV was the glam. CAV did their job, but God damn, did they love to tell you about it. Over, and over, and over...
Iirc my brother was 1CAV :unsure
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,592
As I understand it, there's a large difference in the damage each (Rifle vs Handgun) can inflict.
There are differences but ironically the AR has been described as not the best home defense weapon because of it's relative lack of stopping power and that the bullet will pass right through the target without a critical hit, necessarily.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
123,541
Just curious if anyone has every suggested something like this. It took me all of 2 minutes to think of this possible compromise that would seemingly have some support from both sides.

Keep the current gun laws the same for handguns, shotguns, & hunting rifles.....if you want one today you can go to the store, buy one, and walk out with your gun that same day. But if you want to buy something like an AR-15 style rifle or higher, you'd be required to undergo some type of enhanced background check & you'd have have to wait 90-120 days before taking ownership of those guns.

That way the people who want those types of weapons can still get them but can no longer walk into stores and gun shows and walk out with them that same day.

I know. I know. "But the bad guys won't abide by these laws. You're only making it harder on law abiding citizens. And what about private sales?"

Yep. Got it. Check.

There is no 100% solution that'll make everyone happy. But IMO, doing something is better than nothing. Every little bit helps.
So true.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
23,337
There are differences but ironically the AR has been described as not the best home defense weapon because of it's relative lack of stopping power and that the bullet will pass right through the target without a critical hit, necessarily.
The .223/5.56 is not a good stopping power round. It was actually adopted by the military with the changeover to the M16 due to that fact. Sure, it will kill. Any round can and will. But often times, it will only wound. With the idea that a wounded soldier hinders the enemy even more than a dead one. Each wounded soldier requires other soldiers to help get them out of the battle, and requires people and resources to care for them.

And his claim that a rifle round does more damage than a pistol round is complete BS. The biggest reason a rifle is more deadly than a pistol, is range and accuracy. But if we're going strictly on damage caused, hell... I'd rather be shot with an AR15 than say a Kimber .45 any day.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,592
The .223/5.56 is not a good stopping power round. It was actually adopted by the military with the changeover to the M16 due to that fact. Sure, it will kill. Any round can and will. But often times, it will only wound. With the idea that a wounded soldier hinders the enemy even more than a dead one. Each wounded soldier requires other soldiers to help get them out of the battle, and requires people and resources to care for them.

And his claim that a rifle round does more damage than a pistol round is complete BS. The biggest reason a rifle is more deadly than a pistol, is range and accuracy. But if we're going strictly on damage caused, hell... I'd rather be shot with an AR15 than say a Kimber .45 any day.
There is a popular article from the doctor who treated the Parkland victims that claims that because the AR-15 round leaves the rifle with three times the velocity as a round from a handgun that it causes more damage when inside the human body (ie, it has more energy so it creates a bigger wave of force that damages internal organs). But this is ignoring that other hunting rifles have far, far more velocity and thus more energy imparted.

I guess the argument is that the higher force should only be combined with the slower firing rifle, versus the faster firing handgun having less force due to less velocity? And that because the AR has the better aspects of both it is too deadly.
 
Top Bottom