Family members of Uvalde school shooting victims also said they're filing lawsuits against dozens of Texas Department of Public Safety officers and Uvalde's school district.
Pistols don’t beat AR15 rifles. If the opponent outguns you, you need to wait for backup and bigger guns.
Why is that? Does the AR15 generate a forcefield around the person wielding it making the shooter immune to any “lesser” weapons? Catching a bullet from a pistol will kill you just the same and this shooter was severely outnumbered. What police lacked was the guts to actually put their lives on the line to protect these children, even though they love to talk about how they put their lives on the line every day as they arrest people for weed or hand out tickets for going 5MPH over the speed limit.
The police know it is a machine gun, the police know that many bullets can be fired in a very short period of time. They know the bullets kill. Ban guns. If you want to hunt, use a bow, or don’t hunt.
Does the AR15 generate a forcefield around the person wielding it making the shooter immune to any “lesser” weapons?
Yes. Its called effective firing range.
A typical pistol (ex M1911) has an effective range of 50m and only when you’ve got very good practice. A typical AR15 has an effective range of 550 meters (11x the range).
The effective range is a measurement of the accuracy of the shot. In effect, if you have an AR15 at 100 meters, you’ve got better accuracy than a cop at 10meters. (Effective firing range is mostly about accuracy and bullet placement. Rifles are much, much, much more accurate than pistols)
Learn to tactics bro. Rifle range and accuracy is a real thing. You don’t fight enemies with rifles if you only got a pistol dude. Furthermore, you don’t spray-and-pray with inaccurate pistols when there’s lol hostages in the same room as the shooter.
This isn’t a video game. This isn’t a comic book where “the main character” holding a damn pistol has more accuracy than enemy riflemen. This is real life.
You are talking about a school. Effective range doesn’t much matter past 25 meters.
I guarantee you that an AR15 will shoot quicker, more accurately, and with more penetration even at as short at 10 meters vs a pistol. And probably with a larger magazine to boot (fewer shots on the pistols).
The fact that you’re arguing otherwise is a misunderstanding and/or ignorance of basic gun tactics. At any range, the AR15 is a superior weapon. 500 meters, 50 meters, 10 meters, 5 meters. AR15 always is better. Especially when body-armor is in play so that penetrating effect is even a bigger deal.
Speaking as a combat marksmanship coach for the Marines. I respectfully disagree with you in this instance.
Your facts while mostly true in a void do not account for training, tactics or the situation.
If i was standing next to someone that has an ar15 i would take a pistol or a knife all day. That AR can’t do jack if i grab the barrel and point it away from me.
I appreciate you sharing your experience. And yes, I’m well aware that knives (and batons even), can beat a gun in short ranges. The famous Filipino Eskrima fighters of the early 1900s (the culture my parents came from) taught that lesson. And legend holds that pistols like the M1911 were specifically designed for those close-quarters combat situations (too many US soldiers dying to the Filipino eskrima stick fighters that US paid R&D to figure out a solution back then).
But the hallway of a school can stretch many dozens of meters, far longer than the distance you can close with a knife, and even stretching the effective firing range of a pistol and knife.
And given even the presence of a door: the knowledge that the AR15 on the other side could likely penetrate the door makes breaching operations difficult. And the presence of hostages / kids in the classroom prevents many weapons / breaching techniques from being used.
You keep varying the situation we are talking about. In the instance of the school. 5 officers with pistols should be able to take a lone, cornered assailant.
Half of the problem with clearing an area/building is not knowing where the enemy is. Knowing where they are allows for tactics, numbers and training to overcome firepower/body armour. Several pistol shots to body armour will incapacitate an untrained/un accustomed person to the pain.
I don’t expect typical Police cops to be familiar with room breaching exercises. I want cops who are criminal law majors and other specialists in legal matters (knowing when to arrest someone, when it is legal and proper to escalate, etc. etc). I don’t want soldier cops or warrior cops.
Under the assumption of untrained cops, they did fine. They cornered the assailant into a single room and then called in the SWAT team. The SWAT team is who took too long to deal with a cornered assailant.
I am firmly against treating cops like soldiers. And I get it, you were a soldier. I have huge respect for what you’ve done and what soldiers represent. But I also don’t want soldiers patrolling the streets. The job of a cop is very different. I certainly don’t want cops running exercises or focusing on these exceptionally rare events as part of their regular training either. I’m fully against it.
Besides the department had the choice to make the situation pistol vs rifle (to use your paradigm) instead they left it unarmed vs rifle.
They cornered the shooter, and then waited for SWAT (the actual combat specialists of the police force). SWAT team took too long afterward, but the initial police response was quite heroic as far as I can see. The initial police did what they could with inferior weapons and less knowledge and less training.
This initial skirmish from 11:35am to 11:40am seemed to be fine. The long wait for SWAT after 11:40am is really where things get more ambiguous, but I will not support regular officers charging into these situations without training and armed with mostly pistols at that. If we do that, then we’re accepting a significant escalation of warrior-cop mentality and expecting cops to have far more deadly-arms training than I’m honestly comfortable with.
Why is that? Does the AR15 generate a forcefield around the person wielding it making the shooter immune to any “lesser” weapons? Catching a bullet from a pistol will kill you just the same and this shooter was severely outnumbered. What police lacked was the guts to actually put their lives on the line to protect these children, even though they love to talk about how they put their lives on the line every day as they arrest people for weed or hand out tickets for going 5MPH over the speed limit.
The police know it is a machine gun, the police know that many bullets can be fired in a very short period of time. They know the bullets kill. Ban guns. If you want to hunt, use a bow, or don’t hunt.
Yes. Its called effective firing range.
A typical pistol (ex M1911) has an effective range of 50m and only when you’ve got very good practice. A typical AR15 has an effective range of 550 meters (11x the range).
The effective range is a measurement of the accuracy of the shot. In effect, if you have an AR15 at 100 meters, you’ve got better accuracy than a cop at 10meters. (Effective firing range is mostly about accuracy and bullet placement. Rifles are much, much, much more accurate than pistols)
Learn to tactics bro. Rifle range and accuracy is a real thing. You don’t fight enemies with rifles if you only got a pistol dude. Furthermore, you don’t spray-and-pray with inaccurate pistols when there’s lol hostages in the same room as the shooter.
This isn’t a video game. This isn’t a comic book where “the main character” holding a damn pistol has more accuracy than enemy riflemen. This is real life.
You are talking about a school. Effective range doesn’t much matter past 25 meters. They are clearing rooms, not football stadiums.
And there is precedent for shorter range weapons being more optimal. Knife vs gun for instance https://youtu.be/Upxfo_jBrDE
I guarantee you that an AR15 will shoot quicker, more accurately, and with more penetration even at as short at 10 meters vs a pistol. And probably with a larger magazine to boot (fewer shots on the pistols).
The fact that you’re arguing otherwise is a misunderstanding and/or ignorance of basic gun tactics. At any range, the AR15 is a superior weapon. 500 meters, 50 meters, 10 meters, 5 meters. AR15 always is better. Especially when body-armor is in play so that penetrating effect is even a bigger deal.
Speaking as a combat marksmanship coach for the Marines. I respectfully disagree with you in this instance.
Your facts while mostly true in a void do not account for training, tactics or the situation.
If i was standing next to someone that has an ar15 i would take a pistol or a knife all day. That AR can’t do jack if i grab the barrel and point it away from me.
I appreciate you sharing your experience. And yes, I’m well aware that knives (and batons even), can beat a gun in short ranges. The famous Filipino Eskrima fighters of the early 1900s (the culture my parents came from) taught that lesson. And legend holds that pistols like the M1911 were specifically designed for those close-quarters combat situations (too many US soldiers dying to the Filipino eskrima stick fighters that US paid R&D to figure out a solution back then).
But the hallway of a school can stretch many dozens of meters, far longer than the distance you can close with a knife, and even stretching the effective firing range of a pistol and knife.
And given even the presence of a door: the knowledge that the AR15 on the other side could likely penetrate the door makes breaching operations difficult. And the presence of hostages / kids in the classroom prevents many weapons / breaching techniques from being used.
You keep varying the situation we are talking about. In the instance of the school. 5 officers with pistols should be able to take a lone, cornered assailant.
Half of the problem with clearing an area/building is not knowing where the enemy is. Knowing where they are allows for tactics, numbers and training to overcome firepower/body armour. Several pistol shots to body armour will incapacitate an untrained/un accustomed person to the pain.
I don’t expect typical Police cops to be familiar with room breaching exercises. I want cops who are criminal law majors and other specialists in legal matters (knowing when to arrest someone, when it is legal and proper to escalate, etc. etc). I don’t want soldier cops or warrior cops.
Under the assumption of untrained cops, they did fine. They cornered the assailant into a single room and then called in the SWAT team. The SWAT team is who took too long to deal with a cornered assailant.
I am firmly against treating cops like soldiers. And I get it, you were a soldier. I have huge respect for what you’ve done and what soldiers represent. But I also don’t want soldiers patrolling the streets. The job of a cop is very different. I certainly don’t want cops running exercises or focusing on these exceptionally rare events as part of their regular training either. I’m fully against it.
The Uvalde school shooting occurred in a school.
Not particularly long looking hallways.
Besides the department had the choice to make the situation pistol vs rifle (to use your paradigm) instead they left it unarmed vs rifle.
They cornered the shooter, and then waited for SWAT (the actual combat specialists of the police force). SWAT team took too long afterward, but the initial police response was quite heroic as far as I can see. The initial police did what they could with inferior weapons and less knowledge and less training.
This initial skirmish from 11:35am to 11:40am seemed to be fine. The long wait for SWAT after 11:40am is really where things get more ambiguous, but I will not support regular officers charging into these situations without training and armed with mostly pistols at that. If we do that, then we’re accepting a significant escalation of warrior-cop mentality and expecting cops to have far more deadly-arms training than I’m honestly comfortable with.
deleted by creator