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%.)
As to the matter of whether or not the policy suggestion would create more dead kids, the only way to know would be through real world testing and I don't think any of us wants to do that. That said, I find it very likely that there were, in both cases cited, other factors limiting the amount of ammo that the shooters carries. In the case of the Parkland shooter, cost would likely have been a factor. I checked one of the online, bulk ammo retailers (Ammunitiontogo.com) and compared the lowest price per round that I could find for .223 vs 9mm. Today (29 Nov 22), 9mm can be had for as low as $.28/rnd. .223 was $.42/rnd. Both of these are for 1000rnd quantity. I was surprised by how low the price for the .223 was. Even so, if the prospective shooter doesn't have the $300-$400 to throw down for his date with infamy, the .223 is much more expensive per round in smaller quantities.
The Newtown shooter's situation was different. Since he killed his mother and took her gun to commit his crime, the cost of his implements was likely irrelevant to him and, as you point out, 4.2 lbs isn't that much weight. Maybe 152 rnds is all that was on hand.
In both cases (and others, before and since), the primary factor in the lethality of the attack seems to be that the shooter had a literally captive audience. (The shooter at Robb Elementary could have been using a .22lr and killed just as many)
Cost of ammo is high for people who regularly train. I went through 1000 rounds in a weekend at one course. It is low for someone who's going to do a mass shooting because you simply can't carry that much ammo. You can fill a backpack up for the cost of 8 XBox games.
True enough. Just suggesting a possibility. These days I could easily afford enough ammo to overload my truck but when I was 18, I couldn't have afforded 8 XBox games (even if such things had existed at the time).
In any event, I'm not convinced that any policy or law restricting ammo availability or capacity would significantly impact the kill numbers in these events.
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%.)
As to the matter of whether or not the policy suggestion would create more dead kids, the only way to know would be through real world testing and I don't think any of us wants to do that. That said, I find it very likely that there were, in both cases cited, other factors limiting the amount of ammo that the shooters carries. In the case of the Parkland shooter, cost would likely have been a factor. I checked one of the online, bulk ammo retailers (Ammunitiontogo.com) and compared the lowest price per round that I could find for .223 vs 9mm. Today (29 Nov 22), 9mm can be had for as low as $.28/rnd. .223 was $.42/rnd. Both of these are for 1000rnd quantity. I was surprised by how low the price for the .223 was. Even so, if the prospective shooter doesn't have the $300-$400 to throw down for his date with infamy, the .223 is much more expensive per round in smaller quantities.
The Newtown shooter's situation was different. Since he killed his mother and took her gun to commit his crime, the cost of his implements was likely irrelevant to him and, as you point out, 4.2 lbs isn't that much weight. Maybe 152 rnds is all that was on hand.
In both cases (and others, before and since), the primary factor in the lethality of the attack seems to be that the shooter had a literally captive audience. (The shooter at Robb Elementary could have been using a .22lr and killed just as many)
https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/product_info.php/pName/1000rds-9mm-blazer-115gr-fmj-ammo
https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/product_info.php/pName/1000rds-223-pmc-bronze-55gr-fmj-ammo
Cost of ammo is high for people who regularly train. I went through 1000 rounds in a weekend at one course. It is low for someone who's going to do a mass shooting because you simply can't carry that much ammo. You can fill a backpack up for the cost of 8 XBox games.
Damn, I am slow to reply.
True enough. Just suggesting a possibility. These days I could easily afford enough ammo to overload my truck but when I was 18, I couldn't have afforded 8 XBox games (even if such things had existed at the time).
In any event, I'm not convinced that any policy or law restricting ammo availability or capacity would significantly impact the kill numbers in these events.