[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38887754]he was using handguns, the bushmaster carbine never entered the building[/QUOTE]
No, I mean the guy in the video I just posted of FMJ Vs HP
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38887645]Heyhey czech this out
[video=youtube;1aU-CZ2WSGQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aU-CZ2WSGQ[/video]
the point is that the size of the exit wound is only significantly bigger if you're using hollowpoint. With FMJ I would guess that there would be a slight difference but not enough to matter.
Also of note is that he was using a carbine that had pistol grip, stock etc. but only fired 9mm. does that make it an assault weapon?
EDIT:[del]Goddamnit video tag isn't working[/del] fix'd[/QUOTE]
You shouldn't have exit wounds with hollow points.
An exit wound means wasted force and ultimately less damage to the target.
Hence the design of things like .45 ACP. A slower larger bullet that doesn't generally have an exit wound, even when used with FMJ rounds.
Also the guy in the video is an idiot. You leave a larger hole, yes the other person is going to die faster. The primary mechanism by which handgun cartridges kill is through blood loss. Granted that blood loss tends to take a while, regardless of the round used. The only way they kill quickly is by striking something vital (brain, spine, heart.), which is again a task better suited to a larger object which can fragment better.
He goes on and on about hydrostatic pressure too. Handguns don't have enough force for the hydrostatic pressure to do shit. Even in a rifle round that pressure wave still needs to hit some very specific areas to do jack shit. The body is extremely resistant to pressure waves. A good punch to the stomach will make a rather significant wave of pressure, but is unlikely to kill or even seriously injure you.
The funniest part is that an M1A Scout with 10 round removable mags is far more dangerous than an AR-15 with 20 or 30 round mags, because 5.56 is rather notorious for not fragmenting when hitting flesh for anything that isn't M193 type ammo, and the M1A is pretty much guaranteed to end up being a one shot incapacitation. Combine that with the fact that both are semi-auto and that at close ranges recoil almost doesn't matter, and if anything, we should be banning everything but small caliber high velocity rounds.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;38887799]The funniest part is that an M1A Scout with 10 round removable mags is far more dangerous than an AR-15 with 20 or 30 round mags, because 5.56 is rather notorious for not fragmenting when hitting flesh for anything that isn't M193 type ammo, and the M1A is pretty much guaranteed to end up being a one shot incapacitation. Combine that with the fact that both are semi-auto and that at close ranges recoil almost doesn't matter, and if anything, we should be banning everything but small caliber high velocity rounds.[/QUOTE]
I'm always surprised that shotguns don't get used more.
A simple Remington 870 would obliterate anyone outside of body armor. A Saiga 12 would do the same with the benefit of magazines.
I'm not complaining, mind you, just surprised. Shotguns are devastating against humans.
Guys. They're right. We don't need guns. While we're at it we should get rid of everything we don't absolutely NEED. Ban electricity, running water, cars, stores, industrial production, etc. we should go back to our hunter/gathering roots so we're not living beyond our very basic needs.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38887776]No, I mean the guy in the video I just posted of FMJ Vs HP[/QUOTE]
caliber doesn't matter, it's still classified as a rifle by the ATF
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=felix the cat;38887836]Guys. They're right. We don't need guns. While we're at it we should get rid of everything we don't absolutely NEED. Ban electricity, running water, cars, stores, industrial production, etc. we should go back to our hunter/gathering roots so we're not living beyond our very basic needs.[/QUOTE]
but if we're going back to hunter/gatherer roots then it'll suck without guns
[QUOTE=felix the cat;38887836]Guys. They're right. We don't need guns. While we're at it we should get rid of everything we don't absolutely NEED. Ban electricity, running water, cars, stores, industrial production, etc. we should go back to our hunter/gathering roots so we're not living beyond our very basic needs.[/QUOTE]
They aren't banning all guns.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38887843]caliber doesn't matter, it's still classified as a rifle by the ATF
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
but if we're going back to hunter/gatherer roots then it'll suck without guns[/QUOTE]
Nope we have to hunt with sticks
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38887857]They aren't banning all guns.[/QUOTE]
The joke---->
your head----->
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38887857]They aren't banning all guns.[/QUOTE]
missing the point 101
I don't get this idea where the government is going to ban all guns is coming. If anything they have just slightly dented things.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38887888]I don't get this idea where the government is going to ban all guns is coming. If anything they have just slightly dented things.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38887869]missing the point 101[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;38887944]It's not that the government plans to ban all guns, it's just that it's going to ban a whole lot of guns with only misplaced fear conveniently provided by the fear mongering media as a justification.[/QUOTE]
Even then it's still not touching most other guns in existence. Just the vaguely defined "assault weapon".
[QUOTE=GunFox;38887782]You shouldn't have exit wounds with hollow points.
An exit wound means wasted force and ultimately less damage to the target.
Hence the design of things like .45 ACP. A slower larger bullet that doesn't generally have an exit wound, even when used with FMJ rounds.
Also the guy in the video is an idiot. You leave a larger hole, yes the other person is going to die faster. The primary mechanism by which handgun cartridges kill is through blood loss. Granted that blood loss tends to take a while, regardless of the round used. The only way they kill quickly is by striking something vital (brain, spine, heart.), which is again a task better suited to a larger object which can fragment better.
He goes on and on about hydrostatic pressure too. Handguns don't have enough force for the hydrostatic pressure to do shit. Even in a rifle round that pressure wave still needs to hit some very specific areas to do jack shit. The body is extremely resistant to pressure waves. A good punch to the stomach will make a rather significant wave of pressure, but is unlikely to kill or even seriously injure you.[/QUOTE]
Well I mainly posted that video because he shoots up a few bottles with FMJ and HP and you can quite clearly see that HP did a lot more damage
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38887970] Just the [B]vaguely defined[/B] "assault weapon".[/QUOTE]
And there's the problem right there. Right now "assault weapons" means ARs and AKs, next thing we know all we'll be left with is bb guns.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38887970]Even then it's still not touching most other guns in existence. Just the vaguely defined "assault weapon".[/QUOTE]
Which is defined using entirely arbitrary criteria.
If "assault" weapons are so dangerous, then there should be a clear component which makes them dangerous. What is it?
[QUOTE=felix the cat;38887997]And there's the problem right there. Right now "assault weapons" means ARs and AKs, next thing we know all we'll be left with is bb guns.[/QUOTE]
Except I very much doubt this happening anytime soon.
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;38888002]Which is defined using entirely arbitrary criteria.
If "assault" weapons are so dangerous, then there should be a clear component which makes them dangerous. What is it?[/QUOTE]
Well I assume it to be similar in scope as the old law is.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38888016]Except I very much doubt this happening anytime soon.
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
Well I assume it to be similar in scope as the old law is.[/QUOTE]
rumor has it that it'll be much stricter and that the grandfather clause will be eliminated, which would make me and millions of other Americans felons overnight
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38888031]rumor has it that it'll be much stricter and that the grandfather clause will be eliminated, which would make me and millions of other Americans felons overnight[/QUOTE]
And do you have an official source for this policy, rather than "rumour"?
Tomahawks are meant to kill people but throwing tomahawks is a fairly popular sport and I have never heard a single person go on about banning them. I have never encountered anyone who is for banning swords, yet swords were created with the sole purpose of killing in mind. A baseball bat is little more than a refined club. Where do you draw the line?
All I own are historic firearms, are they somehow any less deadly because they don't have pistol grips and are wood stocked instead of plastic?
It's not a matter of "they're not banning all guns" it's a matter of our constitutional rights. If they can just chip away at them all they want then what's the bill of rights worth? The question is where do you draw the line, and as far as firearms are concerned we got to that point with the NFA laws
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
To me anyways, things like this are much less about gun regulation and more about upholding the integrity of our constitution. Like I said, if they can just chip away at our rights, where do they stop? Our right to protest is already essentially gone, free speech? Be careful what you say or you might be taken in and interrogated by the CIA for being a terrorist sympathizer; what's next?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38888016]
Well I assume it to be similar in scope as the old law is.[/QUOTE]
[quote]Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).[/quote]
Okay so which one of these makes a gun more dangerous?
Keeping in mind that rifle grenade launchers were used in WWII and virtually no functional grenades even exist, and that to obtain a single one you have to go through a mound of federal paperwork and pay whatever ridiculous price tag it may have. Functionally speaking nobody will EVER use a rifle grenade in a crime.
[QUOTE=GunFox;38888073]Okay so which one of these makes a gun more dangerous?
Keeping in mind that rifle grenade launchers were used in WWII and virtually no functional grenades even exist, and that to obtain a single one you have to go through a mound of federal paperwork and pay whatever ridiculous price tag it may have. Functionally speaking nobody will EVER use a rifle grenade in a crime.[/QUOTE]
I'm not in favour of the AWB though. I don't know what the hell kind of point you are trying to make here.
I just find banning assault weapons to be silly. They're no more deadly than any other type of weapon that can be legally purchased. A Glock 22 can be easily concealed and in close proximity such as in this incident it doesn't matter if you have that rifle support, you essentially can just point and shoot.
It's not like this guy was out positioned on a field with a bipod and a telescopic sight sniping kids during recess. The accuracy and range of long barrel rifles is almost null in close quarter mass shootings like this. In fact, long barreled guns are not used by police during such engagements, they use carbines, shotguns, or pistols.
So banning assault rifles is a pointless knee jerk reaction that just shows something is being done; it's not going to solve the problem though.
So tell me, which one of these is more deadly? One was illegal under the past AWB, one wasn't
[img]http://m1family.com/uploads/forums.m1/m1fa/m1family/images/1297817677.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38888092]I'm not in favour of the AWB though. I don't know what the hell kind of point you are trying to make here.[/QUOTE]
So you are only in favor of a complete ban?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38888092]I'm not in favour of the AWB though. I don't know what the hell kind of point you are trying to make here.[/QUOTE]
No, instead you'd rather ban all guns because all us gun owners are future pedophiles, rapists, and babykillers
[QUOTE=GunFox;38888114]So you are only in favor of a complete ban?[/QUOTE]
Sobotnik is in favor of an entire weapons ban because he's English and doesn't understand American culture. Just as I don't make assumptions about football and tea drinking, he shouldn't make assumptions about American gun ownership, and our Constitution.
This issue really is something only Americans can have any real input on because it affects Americans, whether in support or against such a ban.
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;38888126]Sobotnik is in favor of an entire weapons ban because he's English and doesn't understand American culture. Just as I don't make assumptions about football and tea drinking, he shouldn't make assumptions about American gun ownership, and our Constitution.
This issue really is something only Americans can have any real input on because it affects Americans, whether in support or against such a ban.[/QUOTE]
Are you saying that people from other countries should be uninvolved in American politics?
[QUOTE=Mike42012;38888146]Are you saying that people from other countries should be uninvolved in American politics?[/QUOTE]
No, I'm saying by default their opinion on domestic issues is redundant and just white noise. Unless the matter is upon the world stage another country's citizen has no real input on the matter. Especially when it deals with our culture.
It would be the same if Americans started outwardly criticizing your lack of guns, or the amount of CCTV coverage. Obviously you'd prolly tell us to jog on because it doesn't personally affect us.
Get it?
[QUOTE=Mike42012;38888146]Are you saying that people from other countries should be uninvolved in American politics?[/QUOTE]
Most Brits won't understand American gun culture just as most Americans won't understand the point of the English monarchy.
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;38888126]Sobotnik is in favor of an entire weapons ban because he's English and doesn't understand American culture. Just as I don't make assumptions about football and tea drinking, he shouldn't make assumptions about American gun ownership, and our Constitution.
This issue really is something only Americans can have any real input on because it affects Americans, whether in support or against such a ban.[/QUOTE]
I think you're making assumptions on what he actually wants.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.