maybe you can google some logic and comprehensive research skills so that you don't continue to make overly simplistic conclusions about complex causal relationships.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
Printable View
maybe you can google some logic and comprehensive research skills so that you don't continue to make overly simplistic conclusions about complex causal relationships.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
No, that's your interpretation. The implementation of anti-gun laws may, or may not, increase the number of victims (can it get any worse than 12,000 homicides a year ?).Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
But cherry picking domestic statistics where guns are prevalent, an estimated 192 million of them, doesn't paint the picture of what happens after the anti-gun laws have gained traction. To do that you have to look at statistics where anti-gun laws have been in place for a period of time or where guns have never been prevalent. Pick your country. Canada ? US has 4 times the rate of firearm homicides. UK, referenced above ? US has 30 times the rate of firearm homicides.
Now I'm not going to convince you of the errors in your assumptions, nor you of mine. Because you're driving to a desired conclusion (I'm driving towards recognition of facts but that's another discussion).
Meanwhile I suggest the various threads on these forums on this topic implicitly agree that gun control should have been implemented. In at least one, very obvious, case.
Meanwhile UK is targetting fake guns and air rifles. Methinks you may have skipped over some relevant articles in your haste to 'prove' your point ...
Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in the UK is very low – less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police.
Facts & figures
In the year ending 31 March 2005 provisional figures show a:
16% reduction in the use of handguns
9% reduction in robberies involving firearms
6% reduction in serious injuries from firearms offences
Despite these figures, the number of overall offences involving firearms has been increasing each year since 1997/98. And crime involving imitation weapons was up 55% in 2004-05 compared to the previous year. (Source: Crime in England and Wales 2004/2005)
Also of concern is a rise in the number of young people carrying real or imitation firearms in an attempt to boost their image or from a mistaken idea about self-protection.
What we’re doing about gun crime
Strengthening the law
We have:
introduced a minimum five-year sentence for people convicted of possessing an illegal firearm
made it an offence to possess an air weapon or imitation firearm in public without legal authority or reasonable excuse
increased the age limit for possession of air rifles to 17
prohibited certain air weapons that are easily converted to fire live ammunition
In June 2005 we announced the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. If the bill is passed it will:
target imitation firearms – by making it illegal to manufacture or sell imitation firearms that could be mistaken for real firearms, strengthening sentences for carrying imitation firearms, and creating tougher manufacturing standards so imitations can’t be converted to fire real ammunition
reduce illegal use of air weapons – by increasing the age limit for buying or firing air weapons without supervision
Targeting illegal firearm supplies
We’re cutting off the supply of firearms into the country by tightening security on import routes and international mail, and monitoring online firearm suppliers.
Tackling the rise in gun culture
We established the Connected (new window) programme to support local community groups in their fight against gun crime.
We also held a highly successful gun amnesty in 2003 which resulted in the handing in of 43,908 guns and 1,039,358 rounds of ammunition.
Can I take the liberty of highlighting something from the above report ? OK, thanks ... young people carrying real or imitation firearms in an attempt to boost their image or from a mistaken idea about self-protection. How's your image - you've got access to real guns ?
Come up with a better explanation and we'll talk about it. Stroking your little professor beard and saying "I think it's more complicated than that, but I can't explain why" only proves that you haven't done your research yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by spook
i see you haven't googled any logic yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
it IS more complicated than that, i DIDN'T say i couldn't explain why (even in some rudimentary manner) and even if i HAD said what you said i did (which i didn't) it doesn't come CLOSE to proving what you said it does.
how about you come up with an idea that can't be torn down by unconsidered factors in less than a minute and then maybe i'll worry about taking the time to write a thesis for somebody who already has his mind made up.
by the way, i'm utterly hairless.
Screw hanging out. Wanna slog up snow covered peaks, ski phat lines take pics and vid and post the stoke on the premier SKIING/BOARDING Internet forum ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
Dude, I think you've seen wayyyy too many movies.Quote:
Originally Posted by DougW
Your plan is to rush the guy, armed with school books as a "shield"?
Have you ever owned a .22, or a gun for that matter?
A .22 is as deadly as any other firearm.
In real life scenario, I think you'd see gunman, shit your pants and jump out nearest window as fast as possible.
========================================
And for the rest of you gun control freaks, if there were never any guns in this country and they were outlawed, that would be one thing, but you outlaw them now and they'd be like drugs. Illegal for responsible users, and still plentiful for the criminals who will be using them to fuck up unarmed, defenseless law abiding citizens.
An armed society is a polite society.
Sorry, but I think I can do a better job of protecting myself being that I have a vested interest. Having "armed personnel" is like the police. By the time they show up, it's too late.Quote:
Originally Posted by hemas
After reading page 7 first I see there is really no purpose in reading 1-6. The summers keep getting longer and longer around here. :confused:
Even on our own home turfs here I'll be gunned down now by invading aliens?:pQuote:
Originally Posted by TruckeeLocal
It was, in hindsight, a rather pathetic attempt to introduce skiing related concepts here. Silly me :nonono2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hicks
no hand guns, no semi and automatics only hunting rifles and cops with guns.
Make it super expensive and super hard to get hunting license.
Any one with a gun who is not supposed to have one cut off their hands.:the_finge
This would cut down a lot on violent crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenroom
Yeah, well I suppose that is true if one is "pistol-whipping" somebody to the point of death.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlurredElevens
As far as the ammo goes, and given the choice, would you rather get shot in the shoulder with a .22 cal, or a .50 cal?
And now, the trick question. Which of the following is more likely to cause death, a .22, or a .50?
Hint:
http://nikon.astropax.com/temp/rounds.jpg
I'm think PETA would agree with you on that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer
This would cut down a lot on violent crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenroom
you have a point but yes have shot a .22 and yes I had to qualify on a 9mm pistol to become an officer , and yes had to carry around a FNC1 for 3 months ,can't remember size but way bigger than M-16 shot, and yes have shot a 9mm sub machine gun and yes roommates in basic went special forces.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlurredElevens
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroPax
I really get tired of this argument. A well placed bullet of any kind is deadly.
I won't be charging you unarmed whether you're using a .22 or a .50 cal.
that's one of the funniest responses ever. "I had to learn how to ride bareback to become a mountie. Yes i own a full set of throwing stars and yes i know karate because yes my roomates at basic became black-belts in taikwando." hahaha that is some funny shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by DougW
he asked a question as to my background infering it was non existant and I replied well yes I have some background. maybe not a lot but some. maybe he has a point. But I remember the discussion by the army types shitting on the M-16 as the shot was so small it took many shots to bring someone down.Quote:
Originally Posted by stihletto
ok truce.Quote:
Originally Posted by DougW
How to stop a gunman?
You stop a gunman with extreme violence and prejudice.
Or, just allow him to execute people until he runs out of bullets
Eastside
very true I don't think anyone is saying anything different than that. But it would depend on the situation if it was well aimed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlurredElevens
If I was walking along and heard shots and then saw people running toward me. Very clear I would do a 180 and run as fast as I could. I would not go Rambo style and climb into a locker or behind a potted plant armed with a pointed stick or a banana. I was only thinking of the situation in the Montreal shooting. There maybe and only if I came to the conclusion in a very short period that those girls were going to be shot.
FKNA! There's a new sheriff in town!Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastside
.22Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroPax
more people own .22's/there are more .22's in circulation
twit.
I'm guessing the answer is that the .22 is more likely to cause death.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroPax
Most people are terrible shots. A .50 shot at the body will go through very easily. It's like the guys that were written about in Black Hawk Down, they were using .50 and other high powered ammo and they would shoot the enemy and the bullets would go right through them, knocking them down temporarily, but not killing them.
A .22 round shot at the body will enter the body, bounce off bones and maybe then bounce off muscle, causing a lot more damage due to the bullet being ricocheted around the body.
A head shot with a .50 will be more deadly, but because most peeps on the street are not good shots, the .22 is more likely to cause death.
Is that right?
but doesn't a .50 leave a big GD hole?? Interesting point. But why do armies use the higher cal. killing range?? I thought the switch to whatever is in the M-16 from the 7.6 mm was so more bullets could be carried and shot. The power of quantity over quality. I have no idea but interesting point.Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneCold
IIRC the bullets that weren't stopping people unless they hit the spine or head mentioned in BHD were some sort of smaller caliber armor-piercing thing, not .50 cal, and not the normal standard-issue anti-personnel (?) round that mushrooms and causes more damage on impact. I haven't read the book in a while but again, I seem to remember that the soldiers in question were pissed that their targets weren't going down instantly when hit, which made them unsure if they had killed that particular target or not.
I do also recall reading time and time again that a .50 cal bullet will pretty much destroy a human.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneCold
Actually, the blackhawk down thing was more about the type of ammo than the size. The problem was that they were issued armor piercing ammo, and also that the last mission, the one that went wrong, tookplace in the afternoon when all the somalis were high as shit on some local drug, so they wouldn't go down.
Besides, that was about the 223s the soldiers were carrying, NOT the fucking 50 cals. A 50cal will take your ass down, end of story. It hits with enough force that even the impact of it, not the penetration, is enough to break lots of bones. A 22 might kill you, if you get hit in the head, heart, or an artery, but even if you get hit in the head with a 22, its not definitly going to kill you. You get hit in the head with a 50, and I don't think you really have a fuckign head any more.
And don't give me that shit about how a 22 will bounce around inside your body, thats a load of shit. A 22, even a 22 rifle round, is underpowered. A 223 (basically a super magnumed 22) WILL frgment and bounce around inside you, but still, a 22 just isn't enough metal to do much damage unless you get hit somewhere very specific.
EDIT: You fucker hop. Look at the big fancy rant I had all prepared. Thanks for stealing my thunder.
Actually, your responses are the funniest ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by stihletto
It's Earth Day today - shouldn't you put on your little "friends of whatever" t - shirt and go run around with the other freaks?
hahahah that is some funny shit.
hehehe. As for the local drug, it's Khat or Mira (in Kenya). Fun stuff... I posted a story about chewing it with the local police in Nanyuki at some point. It's an upper. Whee! Edit: maybe they should have sat on them and tazed them instead of shooting them? [/not funny]Quote:
Originally Posted by leroy jenkins
Here's some background on it. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/bulletin/...html?print=yes
Comparison of rounds in .223 from some gun site. Covers some of the crap you guys are trying to say but not getting it.
M193 – The old US Military 5.56 standard. A 55gr bullet of lead with a copper jacket.
M855 – The new US Military standard, also a NATO standard. M855 is a 62gr projectile, lead with a steel core and a copper jacket.
Despite what the media, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger may suggest, the only certain way to incapacitate an attacker is to cause significant damage to the Central Nervous System, or cause enough loss of blood to shut down the attacker's higher (and potentially lower) brain functions. There are certainly psychological factors that might stop an attacker ("I've been shot!"), but depending on these is probably not a good idea, and discounts the possibility that the attacker's state of mind is altered chemically or emotionally to a point where being shot won't seem like that interesting a distraction. That means you want to:
*
Penetrate deep enough to get to major organs or blood vessels.
*
Disrupt the tissue of those structures.
*
Encourage profuse bleeding and/or CNS damage.
After a great deal of study, and the conclusion that their then-current 9mm duty loads were a failure for their purposes, the FBI set up a comprehensive set of ballistics testing protocols. These represent a very good model to judge a rounds performance by. The FBI protocols use 12 inches as a penetration minimum in calibrated ballistic gelatin and looked for consistent 12"-18" penetration as an ideal. As a general matter, major vessels and organs can be reliably damaged with 6 inches of penetration. Ideally, then, you want a wound profile that penetrates at least 12" and does most of its damage between 4" and 12" of penetration. Of course, its always more effective to leave entry and exit holes to encourage bleeding. Shot placement is always important as well. No round will do you any good in the wall next to the attacker.
Unlike most FMJ rounds, M193 and M855's primary wounding mechanism is fragmentation. This is a good thing because without fragmentation these rounds otherwise would act like a ice pick and cause very little damage because of their small size. At the proper velocity, both M855 and M193 strike flesh and immediately begin to yaw (tumble). Contrary to rumor and popular media belief, this is not unique to these rounds. All FMJ bullets with tapered noses will tumble in flesh with enough velocity, because their center of gravity is aft of their length center--causing them to want to travel "tail first" in denser mediums (like water and tissue).
If the rounds are moving fast enough when they yaw to about 90 degrees of their original trajectory the stress on the bullet from traveling sideways through a dense medium (tissue) will overcome the structural integrity of the bullet and it will start to break up.
If the velocity is high enough this breaking up is pretty dramatic and causes equally dramatic wounds. This is because the fragments travel rapidly through the temporarily crushed tissue and tear it. Most tissue is very elastic and will stretch quite far before returning to its normal shape (this is called the temporary crush cavity) but the addition of quickly moving fragments makes permanent the cavity that might otherwise have returned after the impact and therefore creates a much larger wound.
This is a worthless argument. None of you were there, none of you have ever experienced anything remotely close to this, and unless you have been in real combat with real bullets flying passed your head; you have no clue what you are talking aboot. You can say all you want aboot what you would do if you were in that situation, but if you were there you would probably be dead too. And so would I. End of story.
HEY! Fuck you man! I've watched Rambo and Predator and Diehard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caucasian Asian
I can kill a man driving a TANK with a fucking sharpie!!!!!!!!!!!
FKNA :fm: :fm: :fm: :fm: :fm: :fm: :confused: :yourock: :the_finge :nonono2: :nonono2: :the_finge
I'm glad you find humour in this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Free Range Lobster
douchnozzle
Hey moron - you have no clue about any of the people posting here or what they may have experienced so actually it is you who has no idea what he's talking aboot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caucasian Asian
Even though lobster and I are polar opposites with regard to gun control I agree with him that our reality for dealing with these situations is provided by our media outlets. TV, movies, games. Games are especially helpfull 'cause we can replay the scenario (when's the VT game coming out anyone ?) and refine our tactical responses like secreting a gun behind the radiator and finding out it's too hot to handle (it's cold outside) so we have to get gloves. But ski gloves don't work because we can't get our finger on the trigger so we need thin leather gloves. But students don't have thin leather gloves so we need to get them from the professor. And so on. It's a game remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caucasian Asian
Dude, he's Canadian. Don't hate on his accent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer
I'm with Roo on this, except from a Southern Hemispherical perspective. FWIW, the Australian general public perspective is obviously very different to the American. Our worst mass murder in recent history prompted gun law reform in the opposite direction to that advocated by the majority here.
for once i actually agree with jer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer
except for the name calling and accent ridicule, of course.
Unfortunately that politeness isn't bred out of any notion of civil duty or personal responsibility. It stems from fear. An entire nation of people so terrified they have to arm themselves due to fear of their fellows is just tragic.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlurredElevens
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roo
I understand what you are saying, but I think you are being a bit dramatic. You don't wear your seatbelt because you are terrified of being injured in an auto accident. You wear it because it is the prudent thing to do. The same thing is true for 99.9% of the people I know who own/carry a firearm.
FWIW, I'm 35. I have never carried a gun in public, nor have I ever felt the need for one. In fact, I don't even own a gun and haven't had a firearm in my place of residence since I left my parents house to go to college when I was 19.
The media can give the impression of America as a killing field. It simply isn't.