Okay, but if you have them carrying 10 pounds of ammo, you get the same ratio, carrying more pistol ammo.
What other factors might be limiting ammo? Price? Were the shooters limited by how much finances they had to purchase ammo? 223 ammo is more expensive, but in both cases the value of the gun many times higher than the value of ammo consumed.
It's easier to hit with an assault rifle than a pistol - yes, but not really relevant when switching between wildly firing down hallways to firing at people just a few feet away and back
> In fact, there’s a good argument that either of these shooters could have done far more damage with a pistol, since pistol rounds are lighter, and they could have fit more rounds in a backpack.
>
> Both shooters brought about 4.2 pounds worth of bullets on their spree, around 150 rounds. AR-15 ammunition is usually .223 Winchester, or 5.56 NATO, which is effectively the same thing. A thousand rounds of .223 weighs about 28 pounds, or 0.028 lb/round. 9mm Parabellum, a very common handgun round, weighs 0.262 ounces per round, or 0.0164 lb/round, so you can carry more rounds at the same weight.
>
> If the Parkland shooter abided by the Parkland students policy suggestion, (presuming they came up with the suggestion) then the Parkland shooter would have had an extra 106 rounds in his backpack. And he would have been using a concealable weapon.
>
> The policy suggestion most probably creates more dead kids.
I am not fully convinced by this argument, for the following reasons.
1. 4.2 pounds is… not very much? Most people can easily carry much more. Might the amount of ammunition be limited by things other than weight?
2. It is easier to hit your target with an assault rifle than with a pistol. So even if a pistol shooter carries more rounds than a rifle shooter, I would expect the rifle shooter to do more damage.
This is a very empirical discussion and I lack knowledge of the data, so I don’t have any strong opinions. I just don’t think the evidence you present backs up the claim that the policy suggestion “most probably creates more dead kids”. (In my head, I translate “most probably” to 80%.)
Real Talk about School Shootings
4.2 pounds isn't very much?
Okay, but if you have them carrying 10 pounds of ammo, you get the same ratio, carrying more pistol ammo.
What other factors might be limiting ammo? Price? Were the shooters limited by how much finances they had to purchase ammo? 223 ammo is more expensive, but in both cases the value of the gun many times higher than the value of ammo consumed.
It's easier to hit with an assault rifle than a pistol - yes, but not really relevant when switching between wildly firing down hallways to firing at people just a few feet away and back
> In fact, there’s a good argument that either of these shooters could have done far more damage with a pistol, since pistol rounds are lighter, and they could have fit more rounds in a backpack.
>
> Both shooters brought about 4.2 pounds worth of bullets on their spree, around 150 rounds. AR-15 ammunition is usually .223 Winchester, or 5.56 NATO, which is effectively the same thing. A thousand rounds of .223 weighs about 28 pounds, or 0.028 lb/round. 9mm Parabellum, a very common handgun round, weighs 0.262 ounces per round, or 0.0164 lb/round, so you can carry more rounds at the same weight.
>
> If the Parkland shooter abided by the Parkland students policy suggestion, (presuming they came up with the suggestion) then the Parkland shooter would have had an extra 106 rounds in his backpack. And he would have been using a concealable weapon.
>
> The policy suggestion most probably creates more dead kids.
I am not fully convinced by this argument, for the following reasons.
1. 4.2 pounds is… not very much? Most people can easily carry much more. Might the amount of ammunition be limited by things other than weight?
2. It is easier to hit your target with an assault rifle than with a pistol. So even if a pistol shooter carries more rounds than a rifle shooter, I would expect the rifle shooter to do more damage.
This is a very empirical discussion and I lack knowledge of the data, so I don’t have any strong opinions. I just don’t think the evidence you present backs up the claim that the policy suggestion “most probably creates more dead kids”. (In my head, I translate “most probably” to 80%.)