RE: The US and guns

RE: The US and guns (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

TahoeSadist -> RE: The US and guns (10/20/2006 5:35:24 PM)
Exactly correct about the Miller outcome, as the shotgun has been used in every war the US has fought at least as far as Vietnam, and I'd assume still today. It was quite a shoddy defense of the poor guy. Eric

Dtesmoac -> RE: The US and guns (10/21/2006 6:16:33 AM)
Amaros - This is the usual bullshit argument, what I said was, that if you don't have it within your physical control it needs to be locked up - i.e., when your in the house, and you fear attack, by all means, carry it on you, or leave the safe unlocked if you're in the same room, whatever, it's just common sense. I was referring to a meal with probably 12 US citizens most of whom owned hunting fire arems, none had a permit to carry a concealed weapon but some were thinking of getting one not because of criminals but because of other people who are legally carrying.

Amaros -> RE: The US and guns (10/21/2006 8:48:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Military bullets do not spall, that would be a direct violation of the geneva conventions, while they can deform, they cannot spall. The Russian 5.45 has an interior hollow cavity which allows the base lead plug to shift forward upon impact and destabilize the projectile which causes it to tumble violently. Spalling is when one object strikes another and causes the object to break on the interior and the kinetic energy is transfered to those pieces. This effect is called spalling, it is demonstrated by those little desktop toys with the balls suspended in a row. Sorry, tumbling.

Amaros -> RE: The US and guns (10/21/2006 9:05:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom .44 mag is usually loaded faster and with vastly heavier bullets than 9mm. Its muzzle energy is twice that of a 9mm. It takes a better vest to stop .44 than 9mm. This link is a BIG file but has a chart on page 4 that shows what vest stops what round. http://media.msanet.com/NA/USA/GSALaw/5555-108-GSA-Law.pdf A 9mm is about the same as a 38, I was comparing the .44 magnum, to the .357 magnum - still, a standard 9mm load has only slightly less muzzle velocity and muzzle energy as the .44 magnum. Your chart shows them as being about the same, and both in same range of needed protection. I'm talking handguns here, a rifle will have roughly twice the muzzle velocity as a handgun, and the .30 caliber rifle rounds require the greatest level of protection. I know very little about penetration of body armour, I've never researched it, and never said anything about it, I really don't care - if I'm up against guys in body armour, I've fucked up somewhere way down the line. Everything I've written was about hunting - With a high velocity rifle cartridge, you need a clear shot, with large caliber pistol, you just need to be at close range.

Amaros -> RE: The US and guns (10/21/2006 9:18:25 AM)
The point I was trying to make I guess, w/respect to Shreveports post, is that a lrger bullet will shed velocity much faster than a smaller round with the same initial muzzle velocity, i.e., a .44 will usually stop if it hits anything substantial, even at close range, while a 9mm will punch through and keep on going, especially at close range. There's a story I read years ago about a woman killed by a .22 round that was fired like 5 miles away - a total fluke - the bullet had skipped across some water apparently and was barely moving when it hit her, but it was going fast enough to penetrate her temple.

TahoeSadist -> RE: The US and guns (10/21/2006 9:51:55 PM)
"A 9mm is about the same as a 38, I was comparing the .44 magnum, to the .357 magnum - still, a standard 9mm load has only slightly less muzzle velocity and muzzle energy as the .44 magnum." Well, you would have been ok if you had stopped with the chart showing similar velocity. However, simple physics tells us that the 9mm in question has approx 567ft/lbs at the muzzle, while the .44 in the example would have 1095ft/lbs. Oh, and another interesting note: doing a search of available 9mm doesn't turn up a load with a 124gr bullet traveling at 1430fps (even the +P loads are slower) so it doesn't seem that this is a "standard 9mm load" "Your chart shows them as being about the same, and both in same range of needed protection." Next problem: To make this statement accurate, both rounds would have to be shooting the same type of bullet, however, the chart compares penetration of a 9mm hardball round (Full Metal Jacket, Roundnose) which has always been well known for overpenetration, with a 44 mag Semi Jacketed Hollowpoint ( a bullet designed to expand immediatly upon impact, with the resultant change in penetration ability and maximum transfer of energy to target, as well as the larger hole in flesh being more damaging) "Everything I've written was about hunting - With a high velocity rifle cartridge, you need a clear shot, with large caliber pistol, you just need to be at close range." All things are relative here: "high velocity rifle cartridge" means little unless you define such. The classic .30-30 was considered high velocity in it's day, but some of todays handgun cartridges will outperform it in power, and equal it in effective hunting range. Also, now that you have changed it to writing about "hunting" you may wish to take the 9mm out of the equation entirely as it has never been considered a hunting handgun round, mainly because it is too weak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9_mm_Luger_Parabellum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.44_Magnum Eric

Amaros -> RE: The US and guns (10/22/2006 9:42:18 AM)
WEll this is clearly a hobby of yours, I've never really sat down and done the physics on paper, or memorized ballistics charts, I just get a gun, shoot it, and see what happens. I've had guys argue all day long about penetration tests in ballistic gel, but .22 will kill a deer just as dead, the difference being that the .22 will deflect if it hits bone, the .44 will plow through straight to the heart. Similarly, the argument of hydrostatic shock - whatever it is, a bigger rock will drop 'em faster than a smaller one, whatever the physics says, or how many tests you do in ballistic gel - penetration over shock, etc. I don't like to chase 'em around, if you want 'em to drop where they stand, use .44. At the same time, the overpentration argument applied to home defense, i.e., which round is going to end up going through the neighbors wall? I've never shot much 9mm, but I know from experience that a .357 magnum has way more penetration than a .44, using the same ammo: in car bodies, brick walls, deer carcasses, what have you - you're gonna get far more through and throughs with a .357, the .44 will stop almost every time. The chart crappydom linked to showed them as having exactly the same ballistic characteristics. This is the page I got my info on 9mm's from: http://www.chuckhawks.com/9x19.htm - showing muzzle velocity slightly lower than the standard .44 load. Not sure there is a metric to describe what I'm referring to, which is how quickly velocity is shed, not even sure what muzzle energy has to do with it, other than being the amount of energy required to push a given round to a particular speed. Naturally it's going to take more energy to push a 240 grain round to the same speed as a 124 grain one. Ball ammo, to be sure, is going to retain more of it's intial momentum after hitting something, less friction, and velocity = pentration. You wanna argue over the details of the physics here, I'm just going by what I've seen with my own eyes.

mnottertail -> RE: The US and guns (10/22/2006 9:54:22 AM)
Having done my share of loading, the good ol' army .45 with wadcutters (slowest velocity) will do the best trick for home defense. You have to have the presence of mind to cock the fuckin' thing, not something kids can easily do, there are 7 safetys on it, 2 on the handgrips, so if there is a struggle for it, it is hard to fire. And the WHOMP power of the low velocity, and the splatter of the wadcutters....... well, it throws alotta lead in the air, that old pumpkin slinger. Ron

Amaros -> RE: The US and guns (10/22/2006 10:14:25 AM)
A .45 is a handfull, I like 'em OK, but most people can't even get their hands around the grips. A shotgun would have the least potential for collatoral damage, but unwieldy in close quarters - although a shot shell to the face will probobly slow most people down. It makes a good supressive fire round, make it hard for the other guy to aim, and you don't need to take as much time to aim yourself - I used to load three and three when I lived in Florida.

ZenrageTheKeeper -> RE: The US and guns (10/22/2006 11:24:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen NG - have you ever owned a gun? I take it you havent, otherwise you wouldnt be asking the question! This is the biggest pile of horsesquat response I've ever witnessed to gun control questions - or any other activity of questionable status - and its one that gun owners love to use because they usually can't come up with anything better. As if people need to experience something first hand in order to have an understanding of it. That is 100% pure grade-A bullsquat. Can you imagine if NAMBLA ever used an arguement like that to justify their perversions? This was once thrown at me by a college student who couldn't understand why I related Napster to theft. What is there to understand about guns? You hold the tool in your hands, you load it, you point it at what you want to die, you squeeze the trigger, and if either your aim is true or you're lucky enough the thing on the other end stops, drops and dies. Afterwards you're either congratulated for your aim or you're arrested and sent to prison for the rest of your life. End of story. The gun is a tool whose sole purpose is to kill. It has no other purpose. There is nothing to understand about it afterwards. Some emotionally insecure individuals will hold a gun in their hands and worship it as a icon of extreme social power. After all, who needs intelligent discourse when you can level the opposition with a bullet to the head. Its these kind of people, among others, who spread the kind of bullsquat like the statement above (i.e. you can't say its bad to own a gun until you own one and worship it as I do). However, guns are necessary instruments of protection and hunting in those areas where, as Aileen68 mentioned, there are limited police resources and dangerous animals and criminals about. In these cases, the gun is a needed tool. To eliminate the gun from the American culture, the people must first eliminate the threats that require people to own this tool, that is, the crime and the dangerous animals. The former I will explore now. The latter I will save for another day. Criminal behavior is based solely on the inability of the individual to compete in economic, social, spritual or political climates by socially accepted regulations. As such, these criminals take to guns much as those emotionally insecure individuals I mentioned previously do and use their guns as tools of social inequality in their irrational actions. Then the cops must match these social assailants and bring out bigger guns to combat them. Then the real problem begins: escalation. Cops bring out guns, the criminals use larger guns. The cops bring out bullet-proof vests, the criminals use armor-peircing rounds. The cops use teamwork, the criminals form underground gangs and networks. On a side note, it is interesting to point out that gun manufacturers only sit back and collect profits from both sides as this escalation of gun violence continues. To eliminate the crime however, we must strike at the source. The social/economic competition that started it. To eliminate economic crime (robbery, theft, dealing drugs), America must place a salary cap on its citizens (for example $100,000 annually) and institute a minimum wage of no less than 30% of the highest paid individual in the corporation(s). With annual salaries locked in a reasonable amount of control, the prices for consumer goods will drop and become more affordable for everyone. Limit the competitve nature of the economy (without squashing it entirely, as Communists do) and you take away the reasons for people to feel economically incompetant and thus turn to violent criminal behavior. Will this eliminate all violent gun crime? Absolutely not. Beyond the economic crimes, there are also social, and sexually based crime as well as violent bahavior based on invalid religious philosophies (yes, I am saying all theistic religions are invalid). But those economic measures as mentioned will limit those economically based crimes to the extent that, as a civilization, we will be able to begin to limit our dependency on owning guns. The alternative? Cheer on the escalation and pray the "good guys" have better aim.

mnottertail -> RE: The US and guns (10/22/2006 11:26:50 AM)
Not entirely the point, NG. For some of us............. Happiness is a warm gun. (John Lennon)

topcat -> RE: The US and guns (10/22/2006 11:34:21 AM)
quote: shotgun has been used in every war the US has fought at least as far as Vietnam, and I'd assume still today. Actually, the shot gun is considered an 'illegal' weapon (when used in an antipersonal capacity) by the Geneva Convention. The ones I have seen in combat were designated as 'breaching' weapons, used to damage entry points...

CrappyDom -> RE: The US and guns (10/22/2006 10:20:43 PM)
Topcat, The US used Shotguns all through Vietnam and we were not doing much breeching. The Germans objected to them in WWI but I have never heard they were outlawed.

NorthernGent -> RE: The US and guns (10/23/2006 1:26:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger No...You're right; the Redcoats won't be coming anytime soon. But they did re-create ''Keyser Soze'' with a 2 foot beard and prayer rug.....so we actually do need our guns, because the Muslim extremist's are coming here to kill us. - R On a brighter note for US citizens R, our Secret Services have deemed us to be the number one target for Al-Quaeda. You've been relegated to secondary importance. It looks like you're off the hook!

NorthernGent -> RE: The US and guns (10/23/2006 1:36:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ZenrageTheKeeper To eliminate the crime however, we must strike at the source. The social/economic competition that started it. To eliminate economic crime (robbery, theft, dealing drugs), America must place a salary cap on its citizens (for example $100,000 annually) and institute a minimum wage of no less than 30% of the highest paid individual in the corporation(s). Add in 1) Align a portion of bonuses with employee turnover/retention rather than profitability and shareholder growth. 2) Reduce the number of shares available to shareholders (to reduce the potential for shareholder growth and disincentivise corporate greed). 3) Make socially resonsible reporting mandatory and impose significant fines where reporting highlights that a business is making employees and the environment subservient to shareholder growth. 4) Make Corporate Governance mandatory rather than strong advice. And you are definitely on to something. As you say, we need enterprise and the aim is not to stifle economic growth. It's simply to ensure the spoils of growth are distributed in a fair manner. It is a cast-iron fact that the majority of crime is committed by the poorest socio-economic groups in society. Eliminate poverty and you will eliminate 80% of crime.

meatcleaver -> RE: The US and guns (10/23/2006 2:03:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent It is a cast-iron fact that the majority of crime is committed by the poorest socio-economic groups in society. Eliminate poverty and you will eliminate 80% of crime. Crime is culturally defined. You can eliminate crime without eliminating poverty. You could even increase the crime rate of the rich by creating crimes that fit in with the patern of behaviour of the rich. The poorest socio-econimic groups don't necessarily commit the most crime in society, they are the ones most heavily policed and even here, most western poverty is secondary so absolute poverty is not the cause of crime but sub-cultural are the main reasons for crime rather than primarily economic reasons.

NorthernGent -> RE: The US and guns (10/23/2006 2:14:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent It is a cast-iron fact that the majority of crime is committed by the poorest socio-economic groups in society. Eliminate poverty and you will eliminate 80% of crime. Crime is culturally defined. You can eliminate crime without eliminating poverty. You could even increase the crime rate of the rich by creating crimes that fit in with the patern of behaviour of the rich. The poorest socio-econimic groups don't necessarily commit the most crime in society, they are the ones most heavily policed and even here, most western poverty is secondary so absolute poverty is not the cause of crime but sub-cultural are the main reasons for crime rather than primarily economic reasons. The sub-culture of the poorest sections of society is driven by their economic and social status.

meatcleaver -> RE: The US and guns (10/23/2006 2:29:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent The sub-culture of the poorest sections of society is driven by their economic and social status. All levels of society are driven by economic and social status and committing a crime as defined by law is not down to poverty but choice. It is estimated that only 5% of all crime reaches the courts, most of that is committed by a small minority of anti-social poor people stealing from other poor people. The majority of crime reaching court is committed by these anti-social poor because that section of society is policed more than any other section of society because the anti-social behaviour of the criminals (most being petty crime) has a greater social impact than middleclass crime.

NorthernGent -> RE: The US and guns (10/23/2006 2:39:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent The sub-culture of the poorest sections of society is driven by their economic and social status. All levels of society are driven by economic and social status and committing a crime as defined by law is not down to poverty but choice. It is estimated that only 5% of all crime reaches the courts, most of that is committed by a small minority of anti-social poor people stealing from other poor people. The majority of crime reaching court is committed by these anti-social poor because that section of society is policed more than any other section of society because the anti-social behaviour of the criminals (most being petty crime) has a greater social impact than middleclass crime. Ok, I'm open to ideas on this one, MC: 1) You agree that recorded crime is largely committed by the poorest socio-ecomic groups in society and you also agree that society is driven by economic and social status. Fine. 2) It would be interesting to see some examples/stats/links for your non-recorded crime committed by the middle-classes.

meatcleaver -> RE: The US and guns (10/23/2006 3:09:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent 2) It would be interesting to see some examples/stats/links for your non-recorded crime committed by the middle-classes. Only 5% of all crime being recorded and reaching courts was a government estimate, written in a report that circulated the criminal justice system in the 90s. Being an estimate it is unsupported by statistics but I'm sure you have socially circulated in middleclass spheres and come across many crimes that are committed that those middleclass people don't consider crimes. (Actually I think the report was the same report written by Birmingham University that estimated one in ten prisoners in British jails were innocent or pleaded guilty to crimes they didn't commit in a deal with police to strike off crimes they had committed.) Without remembering the actual name to the report it is like looking for a needle in a haystack. This whole field is a mess and this Labour government has done nothing to sort it out. However, figures were routinely changed to percentages or the other way round by organisations such as the Probation Service in a fight to prevent cuts so all fgures in this area are dodgey. One other thing to add here such as the difference between crimes rates between one country and another. Britain has more criminal laws than other western European country and by consequence Britain has more criminals. One of the reasons Britain has more prisoners than any other western European country. Culture has a lot to do with crime and statistics.

Page: << < prev 12 13 14 [15] 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625