Assuming the guy in Uvalde had a glock for example with standard clip size, carrying multiple clips. Would this have gone down the same way? I'm thinking yes, but I'm not an AR expert.

JB99 said:

---

Assuming the guy in Uvalde had a glock for example with standard clip magazine size, carrying multiple clips magazines. Would this have gone down the same way? I'm thinking yes, but I'm not an AR expert.

---

Yes, we can tell.....

Prob not - Glocks don't use clips so a "standard capacity" clip wouldn't do any good.

Sarcasm aside, yes, it would have gone the same. Full size Glocks come with standard 17rd magazine. That just means more reloading. In a barricaded room with no resistance, your reload times don't make any difference. You can also easily get 33rd magazines for $10-15 or even drum magazines

Wtf is a clip.

Pipe down quit asking stupid questions

Sorry that was harsh.

9 mm bullet can kill at close range.

So yes it is possible

Yes.

The cops gave him an hour and a half. He could have killed the same number with almost any gun or even just a club. You can't leave a murderer in a school full of children and unarmed teachers for an hour and a half even if he was only armed with a box cutter.

The delay in the officers response seems inexcusable to me.

Does the op even own a firearm?

A Glock for example

Yes.

See the Va Tech shooting that killed 30+. Shooter used two handguns.

For those that need reminding.

The VA tech shooter used a couple glocks no?

The media and the government hate the AR 15 particularly because its an effective weapon at combat range. It would be a lot more difficult to engage a tyrannical government with pistols and bolt action rifles and they know this. Far more people each year are killed with hammers, knives, fists, etc. than they are with long rifles.

9mm pistol would be more lethal in regards to the Uvalde shooting, imo. In close quarters I'd rather have a pistol since medium to long range accuracy isn't important and it also gives you a free hand. That being said, I'd much rather have an AR15 to fight the cops once they FINALLY decide to engage.

Edit- This is a purely tactical argument. I don't want to shoot anybody, ever.

I own 2 glocks. I'm not a gun enthusiast, but thanks anyways for the sarcasm. At least we all agree that any kind assault rifle ban would have made no difference

SMM48 said:

---

Wtf is a clip.

Pipe down quit asking stupid questions

Sorry that was harsh.

9 mm bullet can kill at close range.

So yes it is possible

---

And if it doesn't kill you, it'll blow out a lung from your body.

JB99 said:

---

I own 2 glocks. I'm not a gun enthusiast, but thanks anyways for the sarcasm. At least we all agree that any kind assault rifle ban would have made no difference

---

A pump action shotgun with 00 buck would probably be more lethal than an AR 15 at those ranges. Banning AR15s has always been about removing our ability to defend ourselves against the government.

SMM48 said:

---

Wtf is a clip.

Pipe down quit asking stupid questions

Sorry that was harsh.

9 mm bullet can kill at close range.

So yes it is possible

---

WTF is a 9 mm bullet? 9x19mm cartridge or 9mm Luger perhaps?

JB99 said:

---

Assuming the guy in Uvalde had a glock for example with standard clip size, carrying multiple clips. Would this have gone down the same way? I'm thinking yes, but I'm not an AR expert.

---

Get educated and don't be this guy.

https://utahccwcarry.com/anti-gun-senator-mocked-relentlessly-embarrassing-video/

In that situation, I'm guessing it didn't really matter if he had an AR-15 or a small revolver.

At close range in a classroom, it wouldn't have mattered what he used. Would have been the same or close to the same outcome.

You have to be ****ed up in the head to kill kids.
Once you've got to that point, the weapon means little.

If it' in a classroom, you could shut the door and slit their throats with a knife, or bash their heads with a baseball bat.

And liberals will still talk about AR15s because they don't care about kids dying. They care about disarming those who oppose their rule.

Pookers said:

---

The VA tech shooter used a couple glocks no?

The media and the government hate the AR 15 particularly because its an effective weapon at combat range. It would be a lot more difficult to engage a tyrannical government with pistols and bolt action rifles and they know this. Far more people each year are killed with hammers, knives, fists, etc. than they are with long rifles.

---

VA Tech shooter used a 9 mm Glock 19 and a .22 caliber Walther P22.

To be fair and honest unlike the left wing arguments. A 5.56 rifle round is going to have more devastating terminal ballistics than the 9mm. The 9mm will have a larger permanent wound cavity that will be slightly more likely to hit vitals, but the much higher velocity of the 5.56 round will cause a Shockwave in the tissue resulting in a temporary wound cavity much larger than the permanent wound cavity likely resulting in more blood loss.

Projectile choice is also going to make a big difference in either round.

The Virginia Tech psycho killed 32 people and injured 17 others with these two guns:





The top one is a Walther p22 chambered in .22lr
The bottom one is a Glock19 chambered in 9mm

Had the Uvalde psycho had either of these guns, and enough time and ammo, result is exactly the same.

Hell, he could have done the same damage with a Ruger 10/22 rifle (also uses .22lr and has magazines available in 25 round capacities).

Horn_in_Aggieland said:

---

SMM48 said:

---

Wtf is a clip.

Pipe down quit asking stupid questions

Sorry that was harsh.

9 mm bullet can kill at close range.

So yes it is possible

---

And if it doesn't kill you, it'll blow out a lung from your body.

---

A doctor told me the same thing.

JB99 said:

---

Assuming the guy in Uvalde had a glock for example with standard clip size, carrying multiple clips. Would this have gone down the same way? I'm thinking yes, but I'm not an AR expert.

---

With the time he had in that room unchallenged he could've done this w a single shot 410

Psycho Bunny said:

---

For those that need reminding.

---

You know it's getting real in F16 when the visual aids come out.

Loaded up with hollow points, absolutely.

BusterAg said:

---

The Virginia Tech psycho killed 32 people and injured 17 others with these two guns:





The top one is a Walther p22 chambered in .22lr
The bottom one is a Glock19 chambered in 9mm

Had the Uvalde psycho had either of these guns, and enough time and ammo, result is exactly the same.

Hell, he could have done the same damage with a Ruger 10/22 rifle (also uses .22lr and has magazines available in 25 round capacities).

---

Good example, re: VT.

I think the dude who killed people in the movie theater also used a 9mm.

Eta, the movie shooter fired three different guns and not clear on what guns killed how many.

Actually. The round is called a bullet.

You know the things that actually does the damage.

You must not reload your own.

Ummmm.

I forgive you.

The fact that two starred your post doesn't give me much confidence up in here.

SMM48 said:

---

Actually. The round is called a bullet. [This is confusing language to me]

You know the things that actually does the damage.

You must not reload your own.

---

Bullet: The projectile. They are shaped or composed differently for a variety of purposes.

"round-nose" - The end of the bullet is blunted.
"hollow-point" - There is a hole in the bullet that creates expansion when a target is struck, creating more damage.
"jacketed" - The soft lead is surrounded by another metal, usually copper, that allows the bullet to penetrate a target more easily.

Cartridge: A unit of ammunition, made up of a cartridge case, primer, powder, and bullet. Also called a "round", or "load". Sometimes incorrectly called a "bullet".

Round: A military term for a cartridge.

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/docs/firearmshandout_1.pdf

OP, I've put a lot of rounds through both handguns and ARs, and there are three main advantages to an AR in my mind:
1) targeting speed. Your typical non-modded firearm (rifle or handgun) has a sight on the tip of the barrel and another at the "back" of the gun. To fire accurately, you put your head behind the back sight + look down the barrel, line up the back sight site with the front one, and put your front sight on the target. With a rifle, once you put the gun on your shoulder and position your head correctly with your sights lined up, you can swing around and acquire a new target fairly quickly: all you have to do is put the front sight on the target. Since the rifle won't bend and your head won't move much, the sights remain aligned.

With a handgun, which is resting in your hands at the end of your outstretched arms, you'll have to realign your sights since your arms wobble and knock them out of alignment. However, you can reduce the wobble effect with a very limited amount of practice (nearly straighten your arms, do a simultaneous push and pull), and minor front-back sight misalignment isn't that material at close range anyway. Also, a simple red dot or holographic sight completely eliminates this issue on a handgun.

2) Range. Rifles are a lot more accurate since they have a longer barrel and don't wobble like your arms do.

3) Mag size. However, swapping magazines is not hard or time consuming. I am nothing special (somebody showed me how to speed swap and I practiced the technique for 5-10 minutes) and I can swap a mag + chamber a new round in < 5 seconds, which would barely even register as a pause in a fire fight.

On the negative side, a two foot barrel is a lot less "maneuverable" inside.


So, the biggest advantages of an AR versus a handgun are its flexibility (it's effective at short, medium, and long range) and accuracy. Neither of these are that big a deal at short range, and you could argue that the AR's accuracy is overshadowed indoors by the long, "clunkier" barrel.

In short, this wouldn't have gone differently if the shooter had been packing a few handguns. A decent handgun is PLENTY lethal.

Correct