Guns

[Danoff]

I guess I'd rather make my death more personal. If someone is stabbing me, then we are close, I would think it would weigh on a person more. Shootings can be far more anonymous. Not to be so macabre, but you don't have to hear the groans, their breath, you don't have to feel the bullet parting flesh. If someone kills me, I want it to stand out to them. Not just be another random gunned down. That, and I am a fairly confident fighter and feel I have a better chance of surviving, or at least subduing an attacker with a knife than with one who has a gun.

We're assuming you're killed. That's kindof important here. Since we're talking homicide statistics, the person was killed. I'd rather be killed quickly and without getting to know the lowlife that did it.

 

[Formula1269]

Bewildering that 121 knuckleheads appose control. Of course that 18% would support gun control if there actually was no gun control. I support strict control with an all out ban on anything other than handguns. No need for anyone, other than law enforcement, to own anything else.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Bewildering that 121 knuckleheads appose control. Of course that 18% would support gun control if there actually was no gun control. I support strict control with an all out ban on anything other than handguns. No need for anyone, other than law enforcement, to own anything else.

Ironic considering that the gun you don't oppose is the one gun that does the most killing...so about who is the knucklehead

 

[Exorcet]

Bewildering that 121 knuckleheads appose control. Of course that 18% would support gun control if there actually was no gun control.

What do you think would happen without control?

I support strict control with an all out ban on anything other than handguns. No need for anyone, other than law enforcement, to own anything else.

That is quite possibly the worst reason to propose a ban for anything. I'm sure you enjoy things you don't need.

 

[Rallywagon]

For that matter, handgun rounds cause far more damage than rifle rounds, can be concealed easier and typically hold more rounds...

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

For that matter, handgun rounds cause far more damage than rifle rounds, can be concealed easier and typically hold more rounds...

what?

 

[Rallywagon]

Handgun rounds cause more damage than rifle rounds. They have less velocity and are more likely to bounce and spin once inside the body, where a rifle round is more likely to enter and exit the body. Hand guns are easier to conceal than a shotgun or rifle, and most rifle mags are 5 round, and most handgun magazines are 10 round. This further deflates Formulas stance on only allowing handguns.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Rifle rounds are more devistating. This is why side arms are secondary weapons and the rifle is the primary. This is also why handguns are not used by hunters except for a backup aka secondary. C'mon veteran dude.

 

[Parker]

I guess I'd rather make my death more personal. If someone is stabbing me, then we are close, I would think it would weigh on a person more. Shootings can be far more anonymous. Not to be so macabre, but you don't have to hear the groans, their breath, you don't have to feel the bullet parting flesh. If someone kills me, I want it to stand out to them. Not just be another random gunned down. That, and I am a fairly confident fighter and feel I have a better chance of surviving, or at least subduing an attacker with a knife than with one who has a gun.

If I'm fighting someone with a weapon, I'd much rather them have a gun over a knife. Most people think the same way you do and fail to realize how dangerous a knife is up close. In the edged weapon defense portion of our academy we had to fight fellow recruits and instructors who were either holding a "marker knife" (so we could see after the fight how many times and where we'd been stabbed or slashed) or a Glock with sim rounds so we could actually pull the trigger and try to "kill" each other.

In the vast majority of fights I was killed quicker and more often when struggling with a knife, it was far easier to control someone with a pistol and in the end the vast majority of recruits were far better off when fighting someone with a gun.

 

[Danoff]

Handgun rounds cause more damage than rifle rounds. They have less velocity and are more likely to bounce and spin once inside the body, where a rifle round is more likely to enter and exit the body.

There's a great video which I'm struggling to find where mythbusters demonstrates their safety glass by firing various caliber bullets at it. Rifles manage a higher caliber and the entry/exit damage created by higher caliber rounds is quite astonishing. Rifles are far more deadly, and deadly at a longer range, than handguns. If you ever have a choice of which one to get shot with, choose handgun every time (unless the rifle is a lower caliber or something). Handguns may kill more people, but handgun rounds do not cause more damage than rifle rounds.

High capacity magazines are also generally a rifle thing.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Handgun rounds cause more damage than rifle rounds. They have less velocity and are more likely to bounce and spin once inside the body, where a rifle round is more likely to enter and exit the body. Hand guns are easier to conceal than a shotgun or rifle, and most rifle mags are 5 round, and most handgun magazines are 10 round. This further deflates Formulas stance on only allowing handguns.

Where the heck are you getting this from...

The only bit of info you put out that is closely correct is how easy it is to conceal, but that just takes common sense.

 

[Swagger897]

Handgun rounds cause more damage than rifle rounds. They have less velocity and are more likely to bounce and spin once inside the body, where a rifle round is more likely to enter and exit the body. Hand guns are easier to conceal than a shotgun or rifle, and most rifle mags are 5 round, and most handgun magazines are 10 round. This further deflates Formulas stance on only allowing handguns.

Spend a few minutes on youtube with people shooting 8mm through a clay block, and tell me what does "more damage."

 

[Rallywagon]

There's a great video which I'm struggling to find where mythbusters demonstrates their safety glass by firing various caliber bullets at it. Rifles manage a higher caliber and the entry/exit damage created by higher caliber rounds is quite astonishing. Rifles are far more deadly, and deadly at a longer range, than handguns. If you ever have a choice of which one to get shot with, choose handgun every time (unless the rifle is a lower caliber or something). Handguns may kill more people, but handgun rounds do not cause more damage than rifle rounds.

High capacity magazines are also generally a rifle thing.

High capacity mags just started coming back around after being banned. Most magazines sold are still just 5 round mags.
For the first point, a human body is not a car door or bullet proof glass. When a rifle round hits the body, it will be cleaner than a pistol round. Generally rifle rounds are thinner, longer and have more powder behind them. This allows them to more easily pierce the body, in and out. A pistol round is generally fatter, shorter and has less powder. With a lower velocity and a fatter round there is less pierce and more blunt force hitting the body, thus transferring more of its energy. Further, rifle rounds are typically pointed where pistol rounds are generally soft tipped or even hallow pointed and expand upon impact. If we are to use an example, thing of driving a nail into a board. A sharp nail will pierce and have only a small hole and cause far less trama to the wood, where as a blunted nail will cause more trama, a bigger hole and likely bust out some wood when driven through.
As for fighting a guy with a knife or a gun. When in point blank range, I will concede it will likely be easier to subdue a combatant vs. one with a knife. So long as you move faster than they can pull the trigger. But you have to be within 20 feet or less for that sort of effectiveness. A person with a knife can't stab you from a distance. I find surviving a knife attack more probable than a gun attack. Having gone through 3 levels of combative training, being my units combative trainer and having many years of BJJ and kick boxing training, I'll take my chances with a guy weilding a knife over a gun any day. Sure, that's all anecdotal, but that's how, if I had the bad luck to be in such a situation, I would prefer it.

 

[Danoff]

High capacity mags just started coming back around after being banned. Most magazines sold are still just 5 round mags.
For the first point, a human body is not a car door or bullet proof glass. When a rifle round hits the body, it will be cleaner than a pistol round. Generally rifle rounds are thinner, longer and have more powder behind them. This allows them to more easily pierce the body, in and out. A pistol round is generally fatter, shorter and has less powder. With a lower velocity and a fatter round there is less pierce and more blunt force hitting the body, thus transferring more of its energy. Further, rifle rounds are typically pointed where pistol rounds are generally soft tipped or even hallow pointed and expand upon impact. If we are to use an example, thing of driving a nail into a board. A sharp nail will pierce and have only a small hole and cause far less trama to the wood, where as a blunted nail will cause more trama, a bigger hole and likely bust out some wood when driven through.

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2012/08/26/doctor-talks-about-gunshot-wounds/

I haven't watched the video (because I don't like seeing gory stuff) but apparently the summary is the handguns do less damage, have less penetration depth, and sometimes have no exit wounds. The exit wound is the big one, and I think the exit wound is largely a function of caliber/velocity.

As for fighting a guy with a knife or a gun. When in point blank range, I will concede it will likely be easier to subdue a combatant vs. one with a knife. So long as you move faster than they can pull the trigger. But you have to be within 20 feet or less for that sort of effectiveness. A person with a knife can't stab you from a distance. I find surviving a knife attack more probable than a gun attack. Having gone through 3 levels of combative training, being my units combative trainer and having many years of BJJ and kick boxing training, I'll take my chances with a guy weilding a knife over a gun any day. Sure, that's all anecdotal, but that's how, if I had the bad luck to be in such a situation, I would prefer it.

I think this is for @peobryant

 

[Rallywagon]

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2012/08/26/doctor-talks-about-gunshot-wounds/

I haven't watched the video (because I don't like seeing gory stuff) but apparently the summary is the handguns do less damage, have less penetration depth, and sometimes have no exit wounds. The exit wound is the big one, and I think the exit wound is largely a function of caliber/velocity.



I think this is for @peobryant

I've certainly been wrong before, but I've certainly heard different from people far more experienced with guns than I. And yes, that was in response to peobryant.

 

[Tornado]

Handgun rounds cause more damage than rifle rounds. They have less velocity and are more likely to bounce and spin once inside the body, where a rifle round is more likely to enter and exit the body...

...And leave humongous, gaping exit wounds.

 

[Swagger897]

High capacity mags just started coming back around after being banned. Most magazines sold are still just 5 round mags.
For the first point, a human body is not a car door or bullet proof glass. When a rifle round hits the body, it will be cleaner than a pistol round. Generally rifle rounds are thinner, longer and have more powder behind them. This allows them to more easily pierce the body, in and out. A pistol round is generally fatter, shorter and has less powder. With a lower velocity and a fatter round there is less pierce and more blunt force hitting the body, thus transferring more of its energy. Further, rifle rounds are typically pointed where pistol rounds are generally soft tipped or even hallow pointed and expand upon impact. If we are to use an example, thing of driving a nail into a board.

This is entirely hypothetical thinking, of which is incorrect, and proven so by others.

Im not going to spew out words right now until back home, but ill share with you all my ballistic data from my reloading of 8mm mauser and 9mm handgun, along with videos proving the matter.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Rifle pass through. Extreme wound channel. Pass throughs are irrelevant.

 

[Rallywagon]

Fellas, I do believe I have conceded the point...

 

[GBO Possum]

Just heard an interview on WBUR with Jim Wallace who is the Executive Director of GOAL, the Massachusetts branch of the NRA.

The interviewer was highlighting the "no fly, no buy" argument and Mr Wallace pushed back on the grounds of infringement of civil rights. The interviewer mentioned that there are only 5,000 on the "no fly" list which was when Mr Wallace reached deep into his obfuscation pockets and came out with a statement that he had heard numbers as high as 5 million.

Technically, he's correct, however he could have mentioned that over 99.9% of those on the list of five million live outside the US.

He didn't, because 5 million sounds so much better than 5 thousand. Yes, let's inflate the number by three orders of magnitude! I could go on about his other misleading diversions, but I'm too sickened.

 

[stonesfan129]

At least with a knife I have a fighting chance, it's a lot harder to disarm a person who can shoot you from across the room.

I'd also rather be armed with a gun than a knife for self defense.

Just heard an interview on WBUR with Jim Wallace who is the Executive Director of GOAL, the Massachusetts branch of the NRA.

The interviewer was highlighting the "no fly, no buy" argument and Mr Wallace pushed back on the grounds of infringement of civil rights. The interviewer mentioned that there are only 5,000 on the "no fly" list which was when Mr Wallace reached deep into his obfuscation pockets and came out with a statement that he had heard numbers as high as 5 million.

Technically, he's correct, however he could have mentioned that over 99.9% of those on the list of five million live outside the US.

He didn't, because 5 million sounds so much better than 5 thousand. Yes, let's inflate the number by three orders of magnitude! I could go on about his other misleading diversions, but I'm too sickened.

Putting people on a secret list to deny them the sale of a firearm and denying them any reasonable appeal process is a violation of a person's fifth amendment rights. I could see the courts ruling this legal though sadly. And I don't think our leaders care one bit about the constitution as shown by all these sit-ins.

 

[Dotini]

Just heard an interview on WBUR with Jim Wallace who is the Executive Director of GOAL, the Massachusetts branch of the NRA.

The interviewer was highlighting the "no fly, no buy" argument and Mr Wallace pushed back on the grounds of infringement of civil rights. The interviewer mentioned that there are only 5,000 on the "no fly" list which was when Mr Wallace reached deep into his obfuscation pockets and came out with a statement that he had heard numbers as high as 5 million.

Technically, he's correct, however he could have mentioned that over 99.9% of those on the list of five million live outside the US.

He didn't, because 5 million sounds so much better than 5 thousand. Yes, let's inflate the number by three orders of magnitude! I could go on about his other misleading diversions, but I'm too sickened.

A criminal prosecution and conviction represents something substantial. Getting on somebody's list through some unknown process is not substantial enough to deny them their rights. Getting off one of these lists is also a very unknown process. It's simply not democratic, not just, and not right that an unknown bureaucrat can take away your constitutional rights without a fair trial.

 

[stonesfan129]

A criminal prosecution and conviction represents something substantial. Getting on somebody's list through some unknown process is not substantial enough to deny them their rights. Getting off one of these lists is also a very unknown process. It's simply not democratic, not just, and not right that an unknown bureaucrat can take away your constitutional rights without a fair trial.

Not only is it not right, it is illegal.

 

[Rallywagon]

I'd also rather be armed with a gun than a knife for self defense.

Well, yeah, sure, but that wasn't part of the hypothetical situation Danoff start us down.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I've certainly been wrong before, but I've certainly heard different from people far more experienced with guns than I. And yes, that was in response to peobryant.

Like some of the people commenting here to you on this forum? I've owned several weapons, hunted, competition shot for a short time, helped with competition events when my Dad did them more seriously. Seen what various rounds do, and have learned in general many ins and outs of weapons. The trauma created by 7.62x39 will always be greater than a 9mm or even .45. Higher velocity doesn't mean more damage. If that were so the military would easily save money converting all their guns to .22 and basically get boxes of the stuff for a bag full of dimes.

There are many aspects to what causes such damage to an object and the primary one is caliber size. The reason you can take a .50 call round and shoot it through and engine block with no trouble

 

[Danoff]

Well, yeah, sure, but that wasn't part of the hypothetical situation Danoff start us down.

Getting back to that point actually, does anyone prefer to be stabbed to death over being shot to death? I guess Rallywagon has said so, anyone else? This is the only reason I can think of to care about gun homicide vs. regular homicide. People compare gun crime in the US to other countries where guns are less prevalent and say "see, country X has fewer gun deaths, gun control works". But what matters is violent crime, not the instrument used to carry it out. The only reason I can think of to compare gun statistics specifically is if you think you'd rather be a victim of other kinds of homicide than by a gun... and personally a gun would be one of my top choices.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Getting back to that point actually, does anyone prefer to be stabbed to death over being shot to death? I guess Rallywagon has said so, anyone else? This is the only reason I can think of to care about gun homicide vs. regular homicide.

The main issue is the facility offered by a gun for killing larger numbers of people, unopposed, more quickly. @Famine quite rightly pointed out that mass knife killings do happen but I feel that he fell short of demonstrating that such killings are anywhere near as prevalent in modern societies as mass gun killings.

You could find that in tribal wars in 2nd and 3rd world countries that mass knife slayings are much more common than in Westernised society but, sadly, it's likely that there's a logistical element to that as much as anything.

 

[stonesfan129]

 

[Swagger897]

This was a mentally unstable person...

This is a "statistic" (quotation marks as this was posted on facebook once before (and we all know everything on the Internet/facebook is true)) which has some hefty bias to it.

For starters, you're talking about a failure city, nearly as bad as Detroit when it comes to finance, on how to deal with the black-market of firearms.[/QUOTE]

 

[Biggles]

This discussion has veered in an odd direction. Would I rather be killed with a knife or a gun, with a handgun or a rifle? I'd rather not be killed by any of them.

Viewed from the perspective of every other developed country in the world, as well as most of the undeveloped ones, the US obsession with firearms is a bizarre outlier. It's true that the vast majority of gun owners in the US never shoot anyone. There is a specific criminal element in the US that abuses guns & is responsible for a significant percentage of the homicides in the US. The criminal element in many other countries does not have easy access to firearms & so are much less likely to use guns. Even though this criminal element might use other means to kill, the frequency with which they do so is much less because killing in other ways is generally more difficult & requires more effort & deliberation.

However, aside from criminal gun violence, the prevalence of guns in the US leads to higher rates of successful suicide, more accidental shootings & a greater incidence of mass shootings. The American public seems to be conditioned to accept this as part of the cost of "freedom" - the freedom to own guns. The Constitution is constantly invoked & even the importance of protecting citizens from "government tyranny". This strikes me as ironic in the extreme as the citizens of the US are continually hoodwinked by their political overseers, who successfully convince them to support them as they embark in an endless succession of foreign wars. It's sort of an elaborate bait & switch - distract them by giving them the freedom to buy endless guns while leading them by the nose in the name of "patriotism".