Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Happens at a Firearms Training for Teachers

bostonreview.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: What Happens at a Firearms Training for Teachers

#41

Post by Casseres »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #33
Casseres wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has there ever been a case where a teacher successfully shot a school shooter before any innocents could be harmed? I don't think there ever will be. I would probably not shoot a kid that I only suspect would shoot someone. I doubt a teacher would either. (Also, is the kid a "school shooter" if he/she did not harm anyone?) There has been a case where a principal got a gun from his car and stopped a school shooter t…

Could you link me the case? I'm pretty curious about it. The cases I've seen have been when the school shooter was already largely finished killing people.

I had to do an internet search. It was Pearl High School, and it looks like the principal only stopped the subject from leaving the school grounds. Who knows if the subject would have killed more elsewhere, the subject had already killed that day even before going to the school.

That's the thing, we'll never know how many shooting deaths were prevented by "a good guy with a gun", because we don't know if more people would have been shot and died if the shooter wasn't stopped.

Re: What Happens at a Firearms Training for Teachers

#42

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #40
Casseres wrote: post #3

"hollow points, rounds designed to swell upon impact to ensure maximum harm." My understanding is that hollow points were designed to prevent over-penetration rather than to harm more. How does the author know it was designed to "ensure maximum harm"? I can't help but think it was intentional. Edit: Of course now that I read the rest of the article after initially writing this comment, I see that quote is also highli…

> My understanding is that hollow points were designed to prevent over-penetration rather than to harm more The reasons they were designed to prevent overpenetration is because: (1) overpenetration means energy which could go into damaging the target is instead wasted doing something else, and, (2) that “something else” is sometimes harming things that one doesn't mean to harm.

[deleted]

Re: What Happens at a Firearms Training for Teachers

#43

Post by Casseres »

dragonwriter wrote: post #40
Casseres wrote: post #3

"hollow points, rounds designed to swell upon impact to ensure maximum harm." My understanding is that hollow points were designed to prevent over-penetration rather than to harm more. How does the author know it was designed to "ensure maximum harm"? I can't help but think it was intentional. Edit: Of course now that I read the rest of the article after initially writing this comment, I see that quote is also highli…

> My understanding is that hollow points were designed to prevent over-penetration rather than to harm more The reasons they were designed to prevent overpenetration is because: (1) overpenetration means energy which could go into damaging the target is instead wasted doing something else, and, (2) that “something else” is sometimes harming things that one doesn't mean to harm.

Is (1) a by-product of (2), or is (2) a by-product of (1)?

Some people are arguing that hollow points were designed for (1), causing the most damage, and that (2), stopping in the target, is just a side-effect of its true purpose.

Re: What Happens at a Firearms Training for Teachers

#44

Post by dragonwriter »

Casseres wrote: post #43
dragonwriter wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My understanding is that hollow points were designed to prevent over-penetration rather than to harm more The reasons they were designed to prevent overpenetration is because: (1) overpenetration means energy which could go into damaging the target is instead wasted doing something else, and, (2) that “something else” is sometimes harming things that one doesn't mean to harm.

Is (1) a by-product of (2), or is (2) a by-product of (1)? Some people are arguing that hollow points were designed for (1), causing the most damage, and that (2), stopping in the target, is just a side-effect of its true purpose.

> Is (1) a by-product of (2), or is (2) a by-product of (1)?

No, both are essential and important factors in what motivated the development of hollowpoints. The idea is both to maximize effectiveness against the intended target and minimize collateral damage; almost any time you have any justification to use a firearm the first is of central importance, and while the second may be less consistently important it is frequently important and overwhelmingly so when it is.

Re: What Happens at a Firearms Training for Teachers

#45

Post by MrMember »

potta_coffee wrote: post #37
gotocake wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually federal law enforcement has had a long preference for 10mm auto, and its shortened successor the .40 S&W. In particular the FBI HRT and SWAT still use it despite a history of over penetration.

I don't have a link, but I read a long article about the development process for the 10mm. Apparently, penetration was the reason they switched to 10 (and later 40). They were having difficulties with 9mm not penetrating windshields and other barriers.

Yes, in the late 80s/early 90s 10mm was chosen by the FBI because 9mm ammo at the time had a tendency to under-penetrate (not an issue in the present day, 9mm today performs significantly better than 9mm 25 years ago).

The story of the FBI's switch from revolvers to semi autos is pretty interesting. They decided on 10mm but some agents found it to be too "hot" and had trouble controlling it. So they put out a request for a modified 10mm round and Smith and Wesson came up with the .40S&W. They developed the round before they had a production gun to shoot it, though. Glock had "acquired" some of S&W's new ammunition at a trade show to study it and found that by making minor modifications to their existing Glock 17 they could fire S&W's new ammo. They submitted the new gun to the FBI who chose it as the standard issue firearm for all of their agents.

Re: What Happens at a Firearms Training for Teachers

#46

Post by LyndsySimon »

lwhalen wrote: post #34

The hand-wringing by the author in this piece is off the charts. If they're this conflicted about carrying, they shouldn't do it. Carrying is a strictly voluntary practice, and I'm glad to see Ohio is enacting (IMHO sensible) legislation allowing it for teachers _who want to participate_.

Based on my experience, this sounds like someone who takes it seriously, but isn’t happy about feeling the need to carry. That doesn’t make them less effective or safe, it’s an internal struggle.

I carry every day, and have for over a decade now. It changes your mindset (for the better), and makes you confront your own feelings ahead of time.

Re: What Happens at a Firearms Training for Teachers

#47

Post by pochamago »

smileysteve wrote: post #27
mijowi wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, no it’s not. You think they happen less often in Russia? Syria? Venezuela?

> You think they happen less often in Russia? Syria? Venezuela? "Mass Shootings", yes. "Shoot outs", no. Venezuela, most shooting homicides are to cover up a crime, such as petty theft. These are inherently not "mass". Syria is in active civil war, these are not "mass shootings" as much as battles. They're also more shootings to achieve a political end (not to create terror towards a political end) or for the persona…

Mass is simply defined as three or more people getting shot.

Re: What Happens at a Firearms Training for Teachers

#48

Post by CompanionCuuube »

minikites wrote: post #21
DiffEq wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well in many other countries the mass shootings are done by the government, make these shootings pale in comparison and don't get reported in these kinds of anti-gun articles. Also...this list is nothing compared to the bombings worldwide that kill boatloads of people. It also only attempts to show one side of the coin; the other side being how many people in the world are saved by the responsible use of guns.

>the other side being how many people in the world are saved by the responsible use of guns This is thoroughly refuted by the evidence: https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death >Guns can kill you in three ways: homicide, suicide, and by accident. Owning a gun or having one readily accessible makes all three more likely. One meta-analysis ”found strong evidence for increased odds of suicide among persons…

> This is thoroughly refuted by the evidence:

You're answering a different question than the one that was asked, which was how many people in the world are saved by the responsible use of guns.

Re: What Happens at a Firearms Training for Teachers

#49

Post by jvergeldedios »

potta_coffee wrote: post #39
jvergeldedios wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're designed to prevent going straight through by expanding inside of soft tissues. One of the effects of that is increased tissue damage. So they maybe they weren't "designed to cause maximum harm" but that's certainly one of the effects over a full metal jacket round.

Yes but ammunition manufacturers often advertise the enhanced lethality of their hollowpoints. It's pretty clear that it's seen as a benefit.

I should have been more clear. That was the point I was trying to make. Anyone I've talked to about using firearms for home defense likes hollow points because of the damage they do to a home invader, not how much safer the rounds are because they stop.

Re: What Happens at a Firearms Training for Teachers

#50

Post by potta_coffee »

jvergeldedios wrote: post #49
potta_coffee wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but ammunition manufacturers often advertise the enhanced lethality of their hollowpoints. It's pretty clear that it's seen as a benefit.

I should have been more clear. That was the point I was trying to make. Anyone I've talked to about using firearms for home defense likes hollow points because of the damage they do to a home invader, not how much safer the rounds are because they stop.

Well, over-penetration is definitely an important concern in a home defense situation. I remember reading a case about a man that shot an intruder with a .44 Mag, the round went through the robber, through his house, across the street to another house where it hit his neighbor.
Post reply on HN