Guns

[Lizard]

According to the compass I am a lefty Australian, so what you are doesn't determine all of your political opinions.

I don't really like that. You could come out left wing and support the Conservatives here or come out right and support Labour. Trust me I have seen it happen. Part of how people vote is gut feeling and how the government is doing at the time rather than their political leaning.

I also find it overkill. I mean all stuff like hollow point does is makes it harder for surgeons to help whoever was hit. A clean solid bullet hit will still take a man down if needed yet it may be the difference between him living and dying.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

View attachment 643120

If Only They Had Invested The Money In A Grammar Programme.

 

[stonesfan129]

Hollow-point ammunition is what you want for self defense because it has a low tendency to overpenetrate, low tendency to travel through walls and other objects.

 

[Lizard]

Hollow-point ammunition is what you want for self defense because it has a low tendency to overpenetrate, low tendency to travel through walls and other objects.

But they causes unneeded wounds and that is the reason they are banned in war.

 

[UKMikey]

But they causes unneeded wounds and that is the reason they are banned in war.

I found this article.

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2015/...numental-shift-hollowpoint-pistol-ammunition/

It doesn't sound like hollow point is banned in war and it seems to be widely used by cops and private armed citizens.

 

[polysmut]

I'm surprised no one has proposed car control since Wisconsin leads the country in drunk driving fatalities. But my point is still valid. We don't have strong gun control laws in Wisconsin. Our crime rate isn't out of control compared to other states with very tough gun laws, such as California or New York. I don't think guns or access to them is really the problem.

There must be car control laws in Wisconsin? I would guess you can only operate a car on the roads if you pass proficiency & theory tests first & obtain a special license. The manner in which you drive will most likely be governed by laws too? I imagine the drivers who are drunk are in breach of those laws.

 

[BobK]

But they causes unneeded wounds and that is the reason they are banned in war.

If somebody bashes down my door and comes after me, minimizing the extent of the wound I'm trying to inflict on my attacker is the least of my concerns.

Besides, if the bullet mushrooms inside the attacker's body it's less likely to cause an exit wound, thereby lessening the amount of blood getting on my carpet.

 

[stonesfan129]

There must be car control laws in Wisconsin? I would guess you can only operate a car on the roads if you pass proficiency & theory tests first & obtain a special license. The manner in which you drive will most likely be governed by laws too? I imagine the drivers who are drunk are in breach of those laws.

Is driving a car protected by a constitutional amendment?

 

[polysmut]

Is driving a car protected by a constitutional amendment?

I believe not.

 

[Michael88]

But they causes unneeded wounds and that is the reason they are banned in war.

Modern ammunition is designed in a way that even full metal jacket bullets jaw and break apart when hitting soft tissue creating devastating wounds.

Not that such law makes any sense in a world where people get torn to pieces by a stream of 25mm and 30mm high explosive incendiary rounds out of an automatic cannon from a vehicle.


Service full metal jacket NATO standard round:

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

But they causes unneeded wounds and that is the reason they are banned in war.

They're not banned, please provide info that shows such. Second hollow points ensure a kill, in many cases over that of an FMJ. In war it's usually beneficial to incapacitate the enemy so you can capture them and then interrogate if need be.

Also hollow points are very effective especially for police, in taken down a perpetrator who many be on a substance. If a 200 pound individual wielding a knife or any other weapons even a gun, comes at officers while said person is high on meth, you want something that will put him down in one or two shots. Many times it's been reported that people on drugs aren't even phased by that of .45 acp rounds until the fourth or fifth or more.

In a life or death situation you don't want to have to worry about the bad guy getting up and inflicting damage on you or those you may be protecting. So why should there be some mind set that the defending/victim of a crime should worry about the well being of the attacker? What warped ideal is this?

 

[ExigeEvan]

But they causes unneeded wounds and that is the reason they are banned in war.

Hollow points are designed not to over-penetrate.

If a bullet enters and exits a target that means it has failed to transfer all it's kinetic energy to a target. Kinetic energy transfer is vital if you intend to stop a target. So a bullet that over-penetrates will cause damage but will fail to "impact" the target in an effective manner.

The reason you don't see hollow points in general combat is because penetration is usually favourable to KE transfer when you're faced with protected soldiers, buildings and light vehicles.

 

[stonesfan129]

Hollow points are designed not to over-penetrate.

If a bullet enters and exits a target that means it has failed to transfer all it's kinetic energy to a target. Kinetic energy transfer is vital if you intend to stop a target. So a bullet that over-penetrates will cause damage but will fail to "impact" the target in an effective manner.

The reason you don't see hollow points in general combat is because penetration is usually favourable to KE transfer when you're faced with protected soldiers, buildings and light vehicles.

I think the military's rules say they cannot use hollow points, only ball rounds.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I think the military's rules say they cannot use hollow points, only ball rounds.

Not quite, considering the Army wants to use Hollow points. However there is a ban, the 1899 Hauge Conventions and are still looked at today for many international warfare allowance and not. They are never the less agreed to be quite outdated. Simply due to the fact that its context was never something that seemed to think of the evolution of war and rather made a broad simplification of the matter.

Also the U.S. has respected it but never ratified it's agreement to them, thus in reality it's seem much like gentleman rules in that sense. The U.S. doesn't have to actually abide by something in never agreed or signed to, but doing so wouldn't be looked at very kindly at all. So the only other step would be to reverse this ban.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The U.S. doesn't have to actually abide by something in never agreed or signed to, but doing so wouldn't be looked at very kindly at all.

That hasn't stopped their use of cluster munitions in recent times.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

That hasn't stopped their use of cluster munitions in recent times.

No it hasn't, which is a good point.

Plus there is an argument to be made between using hollow points in a side arm compared to a rifle.

 

[BobK]

Something wrong with cluster bombs/shotguns/MIRVs?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Something wrong with cluster bombs/shotguns/MIRVs?

In the case of cluster bombs they can leave a considerable unexploded hazard for civilians, that's why many countries have signed up to a non-use agreement.

 

[BobK]

In the case of cluster bombs they can leave a considerable unexploded hazard for civilians, that's why many countries have signed up to a non-use agreement.

That's just as true of "non-clustered" munitions.

Here's a thought: Why not just ban all bombs and not just CBUs?

 

[TenEightyOne]

That's just as true of "non-clustered" munitions.

No, it's far less true. Modern single-unit munitions have a very high rate of explosion-per-deployment meaning that the cited rate of "explosive remnants of war" is far far lower. Cluster bombs have a remnant (or "dud") rate of up to 14%, maybe more. The link contained some pretty robust sources, certainly ones that were accepted by many countries.

 

[BobK]

No, it's far less true. Modern single-unit munitions have a very high rate of explosion-per-deployment meaning that the cited rate of "explosive remnants of war" is far far lower. Cluster bombs have a remnant (or "dud") rate of up to 14%, maybe more. The link contained some pretty robust sources, certainly ones that were accepted by many countries.

Okay then. How about we ban all weapons that have a less than 100% success rate?

Then we can ban them because they have a 100% success rate.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Okay then. How about we ban all weapons that have a less than 100% success rate?

Then we can ban them because they have a 100% success rate.

That doesn't follow at all. Cluster bombs leave large numbers (compared to single unit bombs) of unexploded munitions over a wide area. These have a lethal effect on civilian non-combatants long after "legitimate" armed conflicts have ended. Comparing the quantities of unexploded-and-unknown bomblets with the quantity of unexploded-and-unknown single body ordnances is to compare lots of apples with a few oranges.

 

[huskeR32]

Okay then. How about we ban all weapons that have a less than 100% success rate?

This is an absurd exaggeration of what he's saying.

 

[BobK]

This is an absurd exaggeration of what he's saying.

Of course it is.

 

[stonesfan129]

.

 

[LeMansAid]

.

No, no, no. If you were after a gun pun, a bullet point looks like this...... •


Edit - Didn't know about the Manchester bombing at the time of posting. Sorry if it seems disrespectful to be posting such silliness at such a time. It would have to me.

 

[Johnnypenso]

This is a very exciting development for the good guys:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/02/air-force-cadet-creates-bulletproof-breakthrough.html

Air Force cadet Hayley Weir had an idea that turned out to be a game changer. "It was just the concept of going out there and stopping a bullet with something that we had made in a chemistry lab." The 21-year-old Weir approached Air Force Academy Assistant Professor Ryan Burke with the idea. He was skeptical. "I said, 'I'm not really sure this is going to work, the body armor industry is a billion-plus-dollar industry," he noted. Weir's idea was to combine anti-ballistic fabric with what's known as a shear thickening fluid to create a less heavy material to use in body armor. She demonstrated the principle to Burke by combining water and cornstarch in a container and asking the professor to jam his finger into the paste-like goo.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This is a very exciting development for the good guys:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/02/air-force-cadet-creates-bulletproof-breakthrough.html

I really don't get it how this will work. Starch normally "strengthens" for some distance behind an instrusion implying a required level of thickness, given the shape and speed of a bullet it would be interesting to see how much resistance could be garnered along its axis of travel (much resistance will be at an oblique angle to the "shoulders" of the projectile). When we all did the swimming-pool-trick at school we'll have seen that the experiment doesn't work if the water's below a certain depth - that's a function of that distance effect.

Cornstarch solution has a density of around 1.35 compared to Kevlar's 1.44... could you really get away with such thin bags of starch water, even if you could stop them degrading?

This smells a bit iffy to me.

 

[Johnnypenso]

A little softcore gun porn designed to appeal to all ages:

 

[Danoff]

A little softcore gun porn designed to appeal to all ages:

Pretty sure that's taylor swift. Didn't realize she was left handed. Swift should be fine with the revolver (should be wearing "eyes and ears" of course), but whoever that is (I'm sure I should know who that is. She looks kinda like Paula Abdul) with the 9mm? is about to get some hot metal down her shirt.

Note how she manages to keep the gun pointed down and away the entire time.