NationStates Jolt Archive

Damage to a target is a function of the ammo design, and has almost nothing to do with the weapon. Any bullet will punch nice clean holes in paper: AP, HP, FMJ, tracer, etc. HP doesn't deform until it encounters a "target", and a piece of paper would not likely cause any change. The size of the 'tear' in a paper target will have more to do with range, barrel twist, and velocity.
The wad cutter bullet cuts clean holes with no tear. No other type of bullet does that.
The Smith and Wessen Model 52 was designed to only shoot wad cutters. This particular pistol was designed for league target shooting.

# of deaths is unimportant, only rate is important when discussing statistics, unless sample is small.

Okay, given that theses graphs show all homicides of varying weapons, it takes little intelligence to extrapolate from them the rate of homicides.

Given that the population is increasing and that the number of homicides stays the same for handguns and decreases for the rest, we can extrapolate that the rate of all homicides has been decreasing.

Given that the total numbers of homicides with handguns is the *only* number that has stayed the same for 30 years, while the rest have dropped, we can conclude that the rate of handgun related homicides is not decreasing as quickly as the rate of other homicides.

The question then comes, why is this? Would a restriction of handguns lead to a sharp jump in the number of homicides committed with other weapons until the rates equalized? Or (the theory I feel far more likely) would the total rate of homicides decrease were handguns tightly legislated?

Okay, given that theses graphs show all homicides of varying weapons, it takes little intelligence to extrapolate from them the rate of homicides.

Given that the population is increasing and that the number of homicides stays the same for handguns and decreases for the rest, we can extrapolate that the rate of all homicides has been decreasing.

Given that the total numbers of homicides with handguns is the *only* number that has stayed the same for 30 years, while the rest have dropped, we can conclude that the rate of handgun related homicides is not decreasing as quickly as the rate of other homicides.

The question then comes, why is this? Would a restriction of handguns lead to a sharp jump in the number of homicides committed with other weapons until the rates equalized? Or (the theory I feel far more likely) would the total rate of homicides decrease were handguns tightly legislated?


And yet that hasn't happened in the places tried. Chicago tried it. Handgun crime increased for years. DC tried it. Their trend actually reversed from dropping crime to rising crime and became the murder capitol for years w/ 90 - 100% being committed w/ handguns.

The UK did not see a decrease nor did Canada after more legislation was passed.

Okay, given that theses graphs show all homicides of varying weapons, it takes little intelligence to extrapolate from them the rate of homicides.

Given that the population is increasing and that the number of homicides stays the same for handguns and decreases for the rest, we can extrapolate that the rate of all homicides has been decreasing.

Given that the total numbers of homicides with handguns is the *only* number that has stayed the same for 30 years, while the rest have dropped, we can conclude that the rate of handgun related homicides is not decreasing as quickly as the rate of other homicides.

The question then comes, why is this? Would a restriction of handguns lead to a sharp jump in the number of homicides committed with other weapons until the rates equalized? Or (the theory I feel far more likely) would the total rate of homicides decrease were handguns tightly legislated?


Something else you need to take into account.

Currently, various studies indicate that defensive use of firearms stops a certain number of crimes per year.

This is because 94 percent of criminals are not armed, and may run into an armed civilian.

Depending on the study you pick, it's either around 50,000 defensive uses of firearms or up to 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms (most studies tend to the larger number).

Either way, it's a positive number.

You could assume that if there were major firearms restrictions, those crimes would not have been stopped, and would have occurred. Including rape, robbery, and murder.

You can also see that there is no evidence that with the arming of more civilians, that criminals have adapted. They aren't using guns more, despite the ridiculous assertion that "if civilians arm themselves, then more criminals will arm themselves".

A lot of this is due to the common knowledge in the US that there's a major penalty difference between strongarm robbery and armed robbery. And a major difference between burglary and armed robbery.

Most rapists (89 percent) commit their crime unarmed because they pick victims who are weaker and smaller than they are.

And yet that hasn't happened in the places tried. Chicago tried it. Handgun crime increased for years. DC tried it. Their trend actually reversed from dropping crime to rising crime and became the murder capitol for years w/ 90 - 100% being committed w/ handguns.

The UK did not see a decrease nor did Canada after more legislation was passed.And actually, we (Canada) have seen decreases in crime, however that's an overall trend. Whether those translate to larger decreases in gun related crime I don't have the statistics for. What I do know is that our increasing registration of firearms has made the jobs of our police safer. Our gun-registry may be horribly more expensive than we were lead to believe, but it is being used, and the police do say that it is making them more effective in their jobs.

Now, considering that you're the one who said that the homicide rate by handgun decreased more than the general crime decrease, yet any statistics I've actually seen support the other position, I'm afraid I simply can't believe you unless you bring forward the statistics that you're supposedly quoting.

And actually, we (Canada) have seen decreases in crime, however that's an overall trend. Whether those translate to larger decreases in gun related crime I don't have the statistics for. What I do know is that our increasing registration of firearms has made the jobs of our police safer. Our gun-registry may be horribly more expensive than we were lead to believe, but it is being used, and the police do say that it is making them more effective in their jobs.

Now, considering that you're the one who said that the homicide rate by handgun decreased more than the general crime decrease, yet any statistics I've actually seen support the other position, I'm afraid I simply can't believe you unless you bring forward the statistics that you're supposedly quoting.

I haven't said that the handgun homicide rate decreased more than the overall violent crime decrease.

I said that firearm crimes have dropped by around 65 percent over 10 years. The same ten years where we had an increase in firearm ownership to the tune of 100 million more guns.

So I don't buy "more guns, more crime". It just isn't true.

And actually, we (Canada) have seen decreases in crime, however that's an overall trend. Whether those translate to larger decreases in gun related crime I don't have the statistics for. What I do know is that our increasing registration of firearms has made the jobs of our police safer. Our gun-registry may be horribly more expensive than we were lead to believe, but it is being used, and the police do say that it is making them more effective in their jobs.

Horribly more expensive (in the area of over $2Billion) w/ no determined effect on crime and numerous reports of possible breaches of it for personal data.

How has it "made the police safer"? Do the criminals register their firearms? They are the ones most likely to use them? If crime was already dropping, why did the Gov't see the need to register more firearms that weren't being used in crime and ban various handguns that had been previously promised as secure?

Now, considering that you're the one who said that the homicide rate by handgun decreased more than the general crime decrease, yet any statistics I've actually seen support the other position, I'm afraid I simply can't believe you unless you bring forward the statistics that you're supposedly quoting.

I said nothing about homicide rate by handguns decreasing more than the general crime decrease. What I said was the level of firearm murders decreased along w/ crime in general.

Something else you need to take into account.

Currently, various studies indicate that defensive use of firearms stops a certain number of crimes per year.

This is because 94 percent of criminals are not armed, and may run into an armed civilian.

Depending on the study you pick, it's either around 50,000 defensive uses of firearms or up to 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms (most studies tend to the larger number).

Either way, it's a positive number.

You could assume that if there were major firearms restrictions, those crimes would not have been stopped, and would have occurred. Including rape, robbery, and murder.

You can also see that there is no evidence that with the arming of more civilians, that criminals have adapted. They aren't using guns more, despite the ridiculous assertion that "if civilians arm themselves, then more criminals will arm themselves".

A lot of this is due to the common knowledge in the US that there's a major penalty difference between strongarm robbery and armed robbery. And a major difference between burglary and armed robbery.

Most rapists (89 percent) commit their crime unarmed because they pick victims who are weaker and smaller than they are.

I'm not arguing that point at all. I am willing to believe that tight gun legislation may even increase the incident of crime.

My point is that tight gun legislation may reduce the lethality of those incidents.

Guns are not needed for self defense. There are other, non-lethal, devices such as tasers that can work for the same purpose, and may even be more effective as they have no "killing remose" associated with them that may hamper their use when it's truly needed.

I have no problem with people who want non-lethal weaponry, and in fact encourage it. The Canadian stance of restricting this type of weaponry seems foolish to me.

However, I fail to see the need to allow lethal weaponry to the general population.

I'm not arguing that point at all. I am willing to believe that tight gun legislation may even increase the incident of crime.

My point is that tight gun legislation may reduce the lethality of those incidents.

Guns are not needed for self defense. There are other, non-lethal, devices such as tasers that can work for the same purpose, and may even be more effective as they have no "killing remose" associated with them that may hamper their use when it's truly needed.

I have no problem with people who want non-lethal weaponry, and in fact encourage it. The Canadian stance of restricting this type of weaponry seems foolish to me.

However, I fail to see the need to allow lethal weaponry to the general population.

The vast majority of firearm uses to stop crime involve no shots fired.

How is that more lethal?

Horribly more expensive (in the area of over $2Billion) w/ no determined effect on crime and numerous reports of possible breaches of it for personal data.

How has it "made the police safer"? Do the criminals register their firearms? They are the ones most likely to use them? If crime was already dropping, why did the Gov't see the need to register more firearms that weren't being used in crime and ban various handguns that had been previously promised as secure?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060516.REGISTRY16/TPStory/National
edit: It seems the link only takes you to a please register page. Strange. Go to google and enter "federal gun registry is working" as the search and just hit the "I'm feeling Lucky" button to take you to the full story.

I said nothing about homicide rate by handguns decreasing more than the general crime decrease. What I said was the level of firearm murders decreased along w/ crime in general.
So then you admit that this exchange:

And yet the murder rates have gone down.
[/quote]
was actually not about you answering the question posed, but simply hoping that a properly applied red-herring would make it seem as if you had answered the question along the lines you hope to be true?

fav quote:

"guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060516.REGISTRY16/TPStory/National
edit: It seems the link only takes you to a please register page. Strange. Go to google and enter "federal gun registry is working" as the search and just hit the "I'm feeling Lucky" button to take you to the full story.

And from one of your own MP's:

http://www.gunowners.org/op0507.htm


So then you admit that this exchange:


was actually not about you answering the question posed, but simply hoping that a properly applied red-herring would make it seem as if you had answered the question along the lines you hope to be true?


So now the fact that you've gone from "gun ownership" to specific types of firearms used in crimes that aren't owned legally in the majority of cases is a red herring on my part? When you made the claim that I said that handgun crime decreased more than the overall crime rate?

When the evidence has shown in the US that strict registry didn't decrease crime rates and has led to bans and confiscations.

The vast majority of firearm uses to stop crime involve no shots fired.

How is that more lethal?
You are not answering his point there.

He meant to say that the more restrictive the access to gun is, the less gun are used in a crime and the less chance a criminal will fire on someone.

Make sure you knock down all the buildings taller than 14ft while you guys are at it - no jumping or throwing. Swimming pools deeper than 2 inches will be filled in. Line all roadways with Nerf bumpers and retaining walls. You should start making inroads into that whole "poison" situation while you're at it.

You are not answering his point there.

He meant to say that the more restrictive the access to gun is, the less gun are used in a crime and the less chance a criminal will fire on someone.

Which has been shown over and over to be false.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/squorn/gunskill.jpg

Which has been shown over and over to be false.
Well, tell that to him. He's the one making the point.

If someone argues that the US violated the rights of homosexual by stopping them to marry, how is saying "some church see homosexual as a sin" answering the question?

He says that tighter restriction lead to less violent crime. DK answer with "People using guns defensively don't fire, usually". He didn't answer the question.

If you can't be arsed to answer the question, just link to what you feel has debunked his argument.

Well, tell that to him. He's the one making the point.

If someone argues that the US violated the rights of homosexual by stopping them to marry, how is saying "some church see homosexual as a sin" answering the question?

He says that tighter restriction lead to less violent crime. DK answer with "People using guns defensively don't fire, usually". He didn't answer the question.

If you can't be arsed to answer the question, just link to what you feel has debunked his argument.


To answer:
He says that tighter restriction lead to less violent crime. DK answer with "People using guns defensively don't fire, usually". He didn't answer the question.

Which I've answered several times in this thread and others.

I linked to the Department of Justice site which shows data over a 10 year period, showing a 65 percent reduction in violent crime involving firearms.

Over that same time period, the majority of US states have liberalized concealed carry (that means millions more people roaming the streets carrying guns), and bought an ADDITIONAL 100 million guns (on top of the 200 million in use at the start).

That's more guns, less restriction, and LESS violent crime involving firearms. Including LESS firearm murder.

Of course, YOU can't be arsed to read it.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

To answer:


Which I've answered several times in this thread and others.

I linked to the Department of Justice site which shows data over a 10 year period, showing a 65 percent reduction in violent crime involving firearms.

Over that same time period, the majority of US states have liberalized concealed carry (that means millions more people roaming the streets carrying guns), and bought an ADDITIONAL 100 million guns (on top of the 200 million in use at the start).

That's more guns, less restriction, and LESS violent crime involving firearms. Including LESS firearm murder.

Of course, YOU can't be arsed to read it.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt


And for those who can't be arsed to read it:

Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS)indicate that between 1993 and 2001 approximately
26% of the average annual 8.9 million violent victimizations
were committed by offenders armed with a weapon. About 10%,
or 846,950 victimizations each year, involved a firearm.

From 1993 through 2001 violent crime declined 54%; weapon
violence went down 59%; and firearm violence, 63%.

Hmm. Violent crime down by 54 percent, overall weapon violence down 59 percent (that's guns, knives, bats, etc), and 63 percent down for fierarm violence.

What?! Firearm violence down by more than overall violent crime or overall weapon violence?

Wow! And all the while, handing out permits for concealed carry in more and more states, and selling 100 million more guns.

I live near Phila. PA and they are almost on pace to have a murder per day.
I think this is as good a reason for gun control as any. If we can't control the guns then lets stop making ammo.

I live near Phila. PA and they are almost on pace to have a murder per day.
I think this is as good a reason for gun control as any. If we can't control the guns then lets stop making ammo.

Now what are you defining as "gun control"?

All hand guns and all automatic weapons whos only purpose for being made is for murdering people.

All hand guns and all automatic weapons whos only purpose for being made is for murdering people.
I've trained several hundred women how to defend themselves with firearms.

So far, they haven't shot anyone. But the abuse they were subjected to has stopped completely.

Police and protective orders aren't worth the time or trouble. Take the protective order route, and your chances of being a dead woman have just doubled.

These weapons can save lives as well as take them.

Firearms are instruments of power - as such, they are totall y dependent on the bearer for their moral stature. They have no inherent goodness or badness of their own. And while a bad person may use a firearm, we can be sure that they can be corrected by good people with firearms.

All hand guns and all automatic weapons whos only purpose for being made is for murdering people.

Ah, so we're getting into the emotional arguements and the vague definitions.

What about the fact that these weapons make up the majority of defensive firearm uses each year?

For "automatic weapons", do you mean all semi-autos, fully-auto's or anything other than a single shot or bolt action?

Do you think the the hundreds of millions of these weapons in civilian hands are all being used for "murder"?

To quote Eddie Izzard: "Guns don't kill people. It's just, er ... that certain noise they make."

So lets just arm everyone and that will solve everthing.

So lets just arm everyone and that will solve everthing.
Nope. Not that either.

But arming abused women certainly cuts their death rate.

guns are made for one reason, to kill

if you outlaw them then hey guess what the criminals wont have them either

wheres the justice in a man hitting you and then you shooting him in the face

now im no christian, but the bible says and eye for an eye ,not an eye for a head.

how about instead of pulling a gun out, you learn to fight with your fists.

kung fu in fact, now that would be so cool if guys held up a bank using kungfu.

guns are made for one reason, to kill

False, read the thread.

if you outlaw them then hey guess what the criminals wont have them either

in what fantasy land has this happened?

wheres the justice in a man hitting you and then you shooting him in the face

if he's trying to rape you/beat you to death, etc

now im no christian, but the bible says and eye for an eye ,not an eye for a head.

and that means what?

how about instead of pulling a gun out, you learn to fight with your fists.

So everyone is physically equal? Do you advocate getting close to violent criminals?

kung fu in fact, now that would be so cool if guys held up a bank using kungfu.

Especially when an armed customer would stop the robbery.

And for those who can't be arsed to read it:

Hmm. Violent crime down by 54 percent, overall weapon violence down 59 percent (that's guns, knives, bats, etc), and 63 percent down for fierarm violence.

What?! Firearm violence down by more than overall violent crime or overall weapon violence?

Wow! And all the while, handing out permits for concealed carry in more and more states, and selling 100 million more guns.
For the last 10 years, yes.
Of course, in the previous 10 years, they spiked. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm) So perhaps what you're showing is that under republican administrations, gun crime increases (which may coincide with a greater availability of firearms) and that during a democractic administration (which may coincide with tighter restrictions on firearms) gun crime decreases.

Now, I don't know what the details of the legislation was for those periods, so it's difficult to say.

Of course, this also ignores the other statistics on that site:

The mix of circumstances surrounding homicides has changed over the last two decades
The number of homicides --

in which the circumstances were unknown has tripled since 1976
resulting from arguments has declined but remains the most frequently cited circumstance of the known circumstances
that occurred during the commission of another felony like a robbery or burglary has declined since 1991
involving adult or juvenile gang violence has increased more than 8 fold since 1976

The proportion of homicides involving guns differs by circumstance
Gun involvement --

in gang related homicides increased after 1980
in homicides that occurred during the commission of a felony increased dramatically after 1985
in homicides resulting from arguments declined to the lowest levels recorded recently
in homicides resulting from other circumstances remained relatively constant


So here we have the number of homicides in felonies decreasing, but the rate of those being gun related "increased dramatically"

While the crime rate goes down, gun lethality goes up.

All hand guns and all automatic weapons whos only purpose for being made is for murdering people.

I know I provided a link earlier in this thread, but here it is again: http://www.google.com/search?q=handgun+hunting&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

That shows that handguns are for more than just "murdering people". As for full auto firearms, some people collect them (like the person who owns an MP-40 that his grandfather brought back from WWII, or the AK-47 that was brought back from Vietnam). These may have a collectable, sentimental, and/or historic value to the people that own them.

As far as your comment about stopping the manufacture of ammo, people can make their own, if the supplies stop.

For the last 10 years, yes.
Of course, in the previous 10 years, they spiked. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm) So perhaps what you're showing is that under republican administrations, gun crime increases (which may coincide with a greater availability of firearms) and that during a democractic administration (which may coincide with tighter restrictions on firearms) gun crime decreases.

Now, I don't know what the details of the legislation was for those periods, so it's difficult to say.

Of course, this also ignores the other statistics on that site:

So here we have the number of homicides in felonies decreasing, but the rate of those being gun related "increased dramatically"

While the crime rate goes down, gun lethality goes up.


And the two that increased involved criminal uses of firearms by felons and gang members. Nothing to do w/ private ownership or restrictions of said.

Arguement:in homicides resulting from arguments declined to the lowest levels recorded recently

Did we mention just felonies? No. You're selectively choosing your data after making previous broad statements.

You may also want to go back and look at what's been cited.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm

More drops. Not more lethality.

guns are made for one reason, to kill

if you outlaw them then hey guess what the criminals wont have them either

wheres the justice in a man hitting you and then you shooting him in the face

now im no christian, but the bible says and eye for an eye ,not an eye for a head.

how about instead of pulling a gun out, you learn to fight with your fists.

kung fu in fact, now that would be so cool if guys held up a bank using kungfu.

I think Kecibukia addressed your statements pretty well, but I want to bring up the point that if guns are outlawed, what makes you think that the criminals will turn them in? They are, after all, criminals. If you go door to door and confiscate all the firearms (and by some miracle, get ALL the firearms), people can make more. Do a google search for Philip Luty some time, if you don't believe me that some people make/made their own firearms.

For the last 10 years, yes.
Of course, in the previous 10 years, they spiked. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm) So perhaps what you're showing is that under republican administrations, gun crime increases (which may coincide with a greater availability of firearms) and that during a democractic administration (which may coincide with tighter restrictions on firearms) gun crime decreases.



Actually, the spike occurred in 1993-1995, during the Clinton Adminstration.

how about instead of pulling a gun out, you learn to fight with your fists.

kung fu in fact, now that would be so cool if guys held up a bank using kungfu.


Yeah- let me sign up all the 90 lb women that have been beaten senseless by men two and a half times their size.

Say I know King Fu too- you dont stand a chance.

guns are made for one reason, to kill

if you outlaw them then hey guess what the criminals wont have them either

wheres the justice in a man hitting you and then you shooting him in the face

now im no christian, but the bible says and eye for an eye ,not an eye for a head.

how about instead of pulling a gun out, you learn to fight with your fists.

kung fu in fact, now that would be so cool if guys held up a bank using kungfu.

Criminals will get their guns imported in from Mexico, just like the Coke, heroin, weed, and other illegal things. Not to mention they can MAKE THEM themselves! Howabout that? I'm building a few myself too. Perfectly legal unpapered firearm.

I don't want to fistfight with a robber. Because if they are trying to rob me they are willing to commit violence, and I want EVERY advantage on my side-A loaded glock in the hand with one in the pipe and 17 in the mag is BETTER than a cop on the phone. EVERY advantage that puts the perp down for the count is good and lets the GOOD guy walk away.

All hand guns and all automatic weapons whos only purpose for being made is for murdering people.

Funny, all mine are for preserving life.

Mine, and my family. Now if you are a goblin breaking into my house, you will not like my suprise.

Yeah- let me sign up all the 90 lb women that have been beaten senseless by men two and a half times their size.

Say I know King Fu too- you dont stand a chance.

Modern arts>Martial arts

If I am with my lady and I'm unarmed against several punks, I'd go balls to the wall to protect her. I am not huge but I'm not skinny...but a handgun would make one side MORE equal than the other.

I'm interested, is it commonplace in the US for gun crimes to be thwarted because the intended victim was also armed? Or is it the sort've thing that happens very infrequently but still ends up getting touted by the NRA as "proof" that the current laws are good ones?

I imagine it would be the latter.

I'm interested, is it commonplace in the US for gun crimes to be thwarted because the intended victim was also armed? Or is it the sort've thing that happens very infrequently but still ends up getting touted by the NRA as "proof" that the current laws are good ones?

I imagine it would be the latter.
The various studies have the number ranging from 800,000 to 2.5 million times each year. Depending on which side of the discussion you are on.

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people"

While guns don't levitate and randomly discharge, guns facilitate violence and allow it to be escalated; guns merely make the action of murder easier, safer, and, less personal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Yeah, and when speech is outlawed, only outlaws will speak!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Guns are necessary so that law-abiding citizens can defend themselves. ... Don't punish all gun owners for the actions of a few."

You're right! Why should I, a legitimate nuclear weapons collector, be punished because terrorists misuse them? Remember: nuclear weapons don't kill people; people kill people.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting little slogans that I found while researching for my debate case :p (Explanations are my little musings.)

well...i guess you can say they are stupid,it is your opinion.

but unfortunately for you..mostly they are true.

care to argue this silly quote?

ted kennedys car has killed more people then my guns have!

i have had guns(many) for 25+ years,yet i have never shot anyone..ever.
i have used a gun to protect my family once,and myself twice.but thankfully i did not have to shoot,they had...a bat once,and 2 times with knives.
the gun stopped the escalation of violence in it's tracks....but yeah..thats a fairy tail,but ask my wife who was terrorized.

bugger off chum,who the hell are you to tell me i cant defend myself?and with what,the cops writing tickets 20miles away generating revenue aint gonna protect me.

while we are at it..to my quote...should we then ban cars,seeing as teddys has killed more then the 20 guns in my collection,or that more people die from cars in amonth then all year with guns,or maybe alchohol,since drunk drivers kill more then guns...yada yada yada...or maybe we should just ban ted kennedy,seeing how he reps the state that manufactures most of the guns made here?

banning inanimate items makes lots of sense..lol...might as well ban people!
aint they the ones killing,cause if you want to ban inanimate objects liie guns..may as well ban cars/knives/bats/gasoline(molotovs)iron pipes...ad nauseam...

get a grip.

The wad cutter bullet cuts clean holes with no tear. No other type of bullet does that.


I don't know what alternate reality you visit to target shoot, but here on Earth all my holes are pretty clean regardless of ammo type.

I don't know what alternate reality you visit to target shoot, but here on Earth all my holes are pretty clean regardless of ammo type.

Semi-wadcutters in 45 ACP do cut sharper, cleaner holes than ball or hollowpoint ammunition (in paper).

They look less like something pushed through the paper (which is what ball 45 ACP leaves with its holes), and more like something cut the hole cleanly.

Just speaking as someone who fires over 20,000 rounds of rifle ammunition, and over 10,000 rounds of pistol ammunition per year.

I'm interested, is it commonplace in the US for gun crimes to be thwarted because the intended victim was also armed? Or is it the sort've thing that happens very infrequently but still ends up getting touted by the NRA as "proof" that the current laws are good ones?

I imagine it would be the latter.

No, it's fairly common. Most studies (not done by the NRA) have over 1 million defensive uses of firearms per year.

Semi-wadcutters in 45 ACP do cut sharper, cleaner holes than ball or hollowpoint ammunition (in paper).


I'm not disputing that. ES makes it seem that ONLY wad cutters will cut clean holes in paper and all else just makes a ragged tear. I'm just saying that ALL bullets will create a "clean" round hole in paper. Wad cutter is designed specifically for target shooting so the idea is to get as sharp of a hole as possible for measurement purposes... like competitions, so of course it will be cleaner.

The only way that democracy is posible is if the populace is armed. I mean, Hitler was all for gun control, because that let the government have more power. If the people cannot arms themselves to oppose the government when it comes to take away their freedoms, then what prevents that same government from taking away their freedoms just like that?
In the end, I have to say that I am surprised - I didn't know that there were so many fascists on NS, but it seems that there are. I guess that's OK, though - you want a world where people are orderly and controled, and I can agree with some of that - a more orderly society would be nice - but, I can't agree with you anti-gun people when you effectively say that all those political freedoms are worth giving away just for a more orderly society...

Still, I can see where you're coming from... I just don't like it that much, because I believe in democracy, even if it isn't as orderly as the fascist state you want to create.

you know, if you are so set against the nra and firearms, please post a sign in your front yard that this is a "gun free zone"

then rely on only the police to save you from the home invasions that follow

i suspect that IF you live you might decide that firearms are useful for the intended purpose

i too believe that firearms are used properly to prevent mayhem, and i too believe t kennedy killed more people with his car than any law abiding citizen in the us

:gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :headbang:

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people"

While guns don't levitate and randomly discharge, guns facilitate violence and allow it to be escalated; guns merely make the action of murder easier, safer, and, less personal.

So are you suggesting that we allow mass-murder up close and personal Rawandan style with machetes? Or maybe that cars, which have been used as murder weapons and kill many more than firearms, be outlawed?

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Yeah, and when speech is outlawed, only outlaws will speak!

And when abortion/religion/computers/art/booze/canabis/etc. are outlawed...

"Guns are necessary so that law-abiding citizens can defend themselves. ... Don't punish all gun owners for the actions of a few."

You're right! Why should I, a legitimate nuclear weapons collector, be punished because terrorists misuse them? Remember: nuclear weapons don't kill people; people kill people.

Are you honestly suggesting that an individual needs nuclear weapons? That seems to be at odds with your other statements.

Ahhhhh! Run For The Hills!!! Zombie Thread!!!!!

Seriously, what's a "Zombie Thread"?

Seriously, what's a "Zombie Thread"?

Slang for a thread that has been out of service for some time and brought back to life (aka gravedigging).

Gravedigging: Posting a reply on a long disused thread; bumping threads that aren't used anymore.