How is it that the gunman at Virginia Tech managed to kill 33, making it the school largest massacre ever when he only had two hand guns: A Walther 22-caliber pistol and a Glock 19, yet the killer at Omaha had an AK-47 and only managed to kill nine. One would think that the assault rifle would have the capability to inflict more damage than two handguns would. Is it for reasons that a mall is a wider open space for people to run away, whereas a school building is enclosed with people boxed in? Or is it that a rifle is sloppier and the gunman wasn't required to take such careful aim? I do not know much about firearms or physics. Could somebody with experience offer a theory?
2007-12-09 10:08:02 · 12 answers · asked by jhandler_2000 1 in Sports ➔ Outdoor Recreation ➔ Hunting
The classrooms at VT were small with only one exit. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. No way to escape. the mall is a much more open area, with multiple exits from which to flee.
2007-12-09 11:18:16 · answer #1 · answered by whotoblame 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The media has made you believe in a fictitious thing. First of all, assault rifles are not anything different than a semi-auto hunting rifle. The media portrays them as an evil device, when really they are simply different looking, typically because they don't have a wooden stock, but often a plastic one.
Also, the rifle used was a cheap Russian SKS rifle with a traditional wooden stock, although the media lies and says "AK-47", to better grasp a more fearful response in the readers.
The truth is, in a close-quarters environment, a rifle is no more deadly than a pistol. Sure, the rifle is more powerful energy wise shot-for-shot, but that's only if the shots hit their intended target, and you typically have less. The pistol can be handled more easily, and many more extra magazines can be carried on the user more easily with more ammo. This may have been some reasoning behind this, not to mention the shooters intents. The simple fact is that the Nebraska shooter stopped and committed suicide. If he had brought more ammo and continued shooting, he easily would have killed more as well.
If the public would have been allowed to concealed-carry weapons in the mall, it is quite possible lives could have been saved. Instead, no one was able to fight the criminal back, they were simply slaughtered by him.
I think that you might agree, having a concealed pistol on you at all times would make you feel safer about these environments, as well as feel safer about the possibility of these wackos being out there to harm you in this way.
2007-12-09 10:34:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are definitely differences between the 2 shootings. Here's some of them:
-You're right about the different settings. With malls it's very open with a lot of places to hide or get out of the line of fire from the gunman. With the residence halls where the VT shooter was the kids could have been in dorm rooms, lounge areas, studies or really a lot of places where people would've been crowded in and in most cases there aren't many places to hide in residence halls (I've been on many college tours and I know that for an absolute fact).
-The weapons do play into this also. It's not so much the firepower of the weapons but actually their maneuverability that affected each situation. With a handgun a shooter can discharge the weapon, move the gun quickly even in a confined area and discharge the weapon again. Firing rate can also play into this but I'm not familiar with those numbers regarding the 2 incidents.
-As said before the mindstate of the person will affect the outcome. The highly aggravated state of the VT shooter just made him shoot non-stop until police arrived (how much ammo he had I don't know) whereas the Omaha shooter was a kid who just wanted to do something that would get attention so even if he just killed one person it would've made the incident pretty publicated but to turn it into an international story he killed even more people.
2007-12-09 10:22:48 · answer #3 · answered by I want my *old* MTV 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The gun doesn't do anything without someone taking it and committing the act. The handguns did not kill 33 people. The rifle did not kill 9. The 2 crazed whacko's killed 42 innocent people.
It has nothing to do with firearms and physics, just the crazy criminal. The jerk in Omaha stole the rifle, loaded it and went out to commit his crime.
Thats my theory - its called common sense. Your question has no point and no basis in reason. You probably get all these ideas from Hollywood, politicians, and big-box media outlets...they're all wrong.
You can't buy an assault rifle according to the ATF - unless you pay a $200 transfer tax and purchase a class III firearm but thats not what we're talking about. Any off-the-shelf semi-auto gun sold in the US anywhere today, is NOT an assault rifle.
The rifle used in Omaha was not an assault rifle. It was not even an AK47. It was a Russian SKS - a semi-auto only, full sized rifle, built with a fixed 10-rnd magazine.
2007-12-09 10:57:40 · answer #4 · answered by DT89ACE 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The American semi-auto variants of the AK-47 are NOT assault rifles. An assault rifle by military definition is capable of at least burst mode operation or full automatic.
If it only shoots 1 bullet for each pull of the trigger - its not an assault rifle. Stop promoting anti-gun unthruths by using the term "assault rifle".
2007-12-10 01:33:17 · answer #5 · answered by charlie31700 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The VT killer practiced in front of a mirror like Taxi Driver. One pistol held 17 rounds(the Glock) and he had spare magazines with 17 rounds. I think the rifle that Mr. Omaha had only held 10 rounds in the picture they show I don't see the trademark banana clip hanging out of it.
It's all about commitment. Why does one basketball player score 30 points in a game and another only scores 10 practice and a willingness to succeed.
2007-12-09 10:24:52 · answer #6 · answered by Mr. P 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is all in the shooter and their intent. The VT killer had a pathological disorder and was in lay-terms, "pissed at the world." He had a mission to kill. The Omaha killer was a depressed kid. He wanted some much-needed attention, not to kill as many people because he had a disorder making him angry. Also, there could have been a difference in experience using the firearms.
2007-12-09 10:14:49 · answer #7 · answered by ryan_scott_thomas 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He had an SKS, not an AK. It is not even an assault rifle. But good luck convincing the media of that. I would say the difference has to do with the time they each had, the amount of people in the area, the layout of the respective places, the distance from their victims, and the amount of ammo expended.
2007-12-09 10:37:26 · answer #8 · answered by The GMC 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You're assuming that all of the other variables were equal... but they weren't. The gunman at Virginia Tech was running around campus for hours. That's why he killed so many people. It had nothing to do with the power of the weapon.
2007-12-09 10:17:06 · answer #9 · answered by Mike G 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The means of escape was chained closed at VT, marksmanship, mindset, range and duration of the attacks all played a role.
2007-12-09 10:22:46 · answer #10 · answered by Steel Rain 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋