Democrat buys semiautomatic rifle at Va. gun show in under 10 minutes - Polidicks

I replied to the section of your post in response to mine. You didn't make an argument except 300m of kill is bad. If you're on about the part to the other poster you quoted then yeah, I've been very vocal on gun threads in the past that the NICS needs to be automated, modernized, and opened freely for the public. Not inefficient and locked behind a paywall, yet people seem to want to punish gun owners for that. Other than that I'm not sure what more I can say. Please ask maturely without childish call outs and I'll be happy to go into more depth. Though, it'll likely be a repetition of previous posts.

Source immediately, please. I want a joule comparison that substantiates this claim.

I dont see Guns anywhere on this list...

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls I mispoke on 1%. Less than 3% is the correct figure. When I mention lethality, I mean in the sense of actually killing people. You have better chances of dying to a fist or hammer than you do a rifle. Obviously a rifle has more "potential" than either, but somehow it doesn't manage to outnumber either.

I'm sure you've done the stat work to prove that, but let's check that for you anyway. A fist delivered by a master of the martial arts at full force might deliver 100-450 Joules of force. Hereafter, this unit (taken at the peak of its range) will be called '1 SHORYUKEN'. A 22LR delivers 113 Joules. A 9mm Parabellum (which is pretty common) delivers 494 Joules. A 5.56x45 (M4, M16, etc; the 'typical assault rifle') delivers 1767 Joules. A 7.62mm (AK-47, M14) delivers 3,304 Joules. So, let's compare lethality. We can all agree that a rifle generates lethal force once it gets above 300 Joules. An M4 might be fired on semi-auto at 45-60 rounds per minute. That's up to 1 shot/second. Each of those shots delivers 1767 Joules of force. That's 3.92 SHORYUKENs per second. That's three martial arts masters hitting you with heavyweight-levels of force 4 times per second. Imagine 4 Bruce Lees punching you in the face at exactly the same time. That's the amount of energy being delivered per shot by the average M4/M16 etc. on semi-auto. Let's use a new unit of measurement: TYSONs. One TYSON is equal to 1600 Joules of force. For reasonable comparison, this is the equivalent force of 13 men shooting you at the same time with 22LR pistols or being hit by a 221 lb dumb-bell that was dropped 5 feet before it struck you. That's absolutely lethal force. Every single pull of an M4's trigger is the equivalent of delivering nearly one TYSON, assuming you're not far away. The rifle is definitely more lethal than someone's average punch. It is only a lesser concern when your opponent is Mike the Ear-Devourer Tyson, whose punches are enough to instantly knockout nearly anyone by the sheer amount of force delivered. But Mike Tyson didn't kill near-anybody, right? Why is that? Because his 1700 Joules is being delivered over a large area (his fist) where the rifle is delivering it over a very narrow area. You can think of it this way: Putting the energy of Mike Tyson's punch into a hammer might shatter your skull or rupture an organ. Putting the energy of Mike Tyson's punch into a knife is liable to cleave your damn head from its shoulders. Putting the energy of Mike Tyson's punch into a marble is liable to rupture multiple organs, break multiple bones, and cause lots of hemorrhaging as the marble breaks up on impact.

All this physics talk is cool and all, and it makes some really cool numbers and we can make up fun names for units and stuff, but I already said, I recognize that a round out of a rifle has more damage potential than a fist or hammer. It's the later half of that statement I made that needed to be addressed.

I addressed it. That you think it wasn't addressed only shows you didn't comprehend my post. I gave exactly the reason why the hammers and fists have less killing force than a rifle shot.

Define "Killing Force".

> "...but somehow it doesn't manage to outnumber either." This would be the later half of that statement. Your response post deals only with Joules and physics. What is with you guys and all the failed attempts at zingers towards me? Just hold a normal debate without the hacky attempts at cutting someone down.

who guys Also what zingers designed to cut you down.

And my demonstration of why you have a misconception regarding 'why rifles are less lethal' was plainly laid out. A rifle in the right spot will almost always have just as much if not more lethal force than by any other means. It causes far more damage; it's simply a fact. You can survive a knife wound pretty handily; if a hammer strikes you in the right spot, you might get little more from it than a bruise and a broken or bruised bone/organ - unless it's delivered to a critical part of the body such as the head. But if we're comparing skull strikes, a hammer might crack the skull and get skull fragments to lacerate the brain and brainblood barrier; a rifle shot is liable to blow through the brain. Even if you survive the shot, it's liable to cause lasting damage for the rest of your life -- because we can fix broken blood vessels but we can't replace grey matter. With a rifle, you're lucky to get away with not taking a lethal strike depending on where you're shot. With a hammer, you're only going to be taking a lethal strike if it hits at the correct angle in the right spots, of which there are a limited series and a small comparative area for lethal force to be delivered. Define "Killing Force". The amount of force needed to puncture skin, pass through the average layer of fat and muscle tissue, and cause damage (not bruise; lacerate) to internal organs. A 'lethal force' would definitely include enough force to cause the severing of arteries and puncturing of vital organs. Effectively, the amount of force needed to cause such injury that even being rushed to a hospital only gives you fair odds of survival at best.

Really? You want specific callbacks over the last few posts?

That's not a zinger. I stated that your conclusion was wrong and provided the evidence to demonstrate that. That's not a zing. That's literally just me demonstrating that your premise was flawed and built on an incorrect perception of the data you're using.

All I see people's frusturations at your apparent inability or unwillingness to actually read their posts and address their arguments. Do you think people criticizing you is them trying to cut you down? Maybe they're trying to communicate a fault.

Dude, come on... I already said, in two different posts, that rifles have more damage potential than fists or hammers. The point I was, and apparently still am, trying to illustrate is that despite the fact that rifles are physically more lethal, they are somehow used less than any other weapon, hands, fists, and hammers included. Ergo, they are statistically less lethal than those weapons. This was all clarified 8 posts ago. I can forgive the rant on Joules we had because I edited that in while you were replying. But everything since then has been covered already. Again, I recognize that rifles and some handguns have more physical force, and thus physical lethality, than other weapons. Despite this, rifles are still the least used weapon.

Let's be real here if you're shot in the head by a 7.62 your brain's going to fucking pop like a melon.

That's pretty low considering a scalpel or sharp edge could do that pretty easily. I'm sure hammers and hands could definitely provide that much force.

Am I going crazy or is it everyone else, I don't know where to go from here. I've literally addressed every point that was made at least twice.

Not really.

Calling rifles 'weapons of mass destruction' is incredibly stupid. Rifles can't make a 5 kilometer wide crater. Saying rifles are less dangerous than fists is incredibly stupid. Rifles are expressly made to deliver stopping power at a distance. Fists are hands. Except you're ignoring the "firearms, type not stated", which is a wild card. Also, if we were to regulate private sales of firearms, I assume pistols, shotguns, etc. would be included. I do actually think that rifles are some of the least dangerous guns, simply because pistols are so much easier to conceal and faster to use. There is a little bit of fearmongering around them. On the other hand, they're still guns. Expressly a weapon, the only reasons they exist are use of force practice of force threat of force Hammers are tools first and foremost. And you can't exactly regulate fists. Firgof Umbra already stated why using joules alone is a bad measure of deadliness (ignores size of the object). Even so, why are you calculating the energy of a hammer swing by putting in the speed you throw a baseball? Baseballs weigh much less than hammers, you're basically overstating the speed of a hammer swing/throw by a factor of 6.

If I hit you in the liver with a hammer, you're probably going to be fucked up for a while. If I shoot you in the liver with a M14, you are dead on arrival. We're not considering the sort of ammunition here, which would normally be part of the discussion too. Rifle shot can cause far more difficult to fix and sew injuries due to the twisting and fragmentary nature of some rounds. By the same weight, a titanium hammer with a spiked edge could also cause damage that would be difficult to repair. On balance, therefore, I'm just talking about plain jane rounds that don't do anything special like tumble through the air or fragment and spin on impact - or embed radioactive material. Speaking of 'beating your brains in', if we're talking multiple strikes then a rifle's just going to be more lethal, sorry. If I hit you in the head 3 times with a hammer, you're going to likely be less in a mess than if I shot you three times in the head. The reason being that I've already ruined a great deal of structural integrity throughout a large portion of both the internal and external parts of your skull before I follow it up with round two and three. Again, unless I am Mike Tyson holding a hammer in which case, yeah, you're pretty fucked. Also, a sledge hammer is well outside the parameters of 'a hammer'. Most people think of a carpenter's hammer when someone says 'a hammer' much like if we're talking about rifles I don't pull out my first comparison with an anti-material rifle. If you want to class heavy-weight melee weapons with heavy-weight rifle weapons, you'll still lose the battle of lethal force. My 17,500 Joules is going to blow half your back off on exit and send you spinning through the air, possibly having an arm or leg ripped off in the meantime while you hit me with that sledge hammer's 450 Joules.

The point is it's a semi-automatic rifle he bought with no background check in ten minutes. What does it matter if it's ~a rifle with a pistol grip painted black~ instead of fitting the technical definition of an assault rifle? It's semi automatic. It's relatively long range and accurate. It's extremely deadly. In terms of how dangerous it is to let randos on the street buy them without background checks or waiting periods, it really doesn't matter what is or isn't an assault rifle.

I assume rifles are used least because they're the least powerful type of gun you need to use with two hands. Kind of like what I said before: pistols, on the other hand, are weaker, but they're much easier to hide, easier to carry, faster to use, cheaper?, etc.

Them being used less doesn't make them 'statistically less lethal' what. I'm sorry, is Fat Boy now considered 'less lethal' than a Glock? Glock must be fucking impressed with themselves.

You have an extremely exaggerated image of what bullets do to people. I'm not aware of any man portable rifle that is capable of shearing limbs off and sending people airborne.

A 50 caliber rifle striking the right spot at the right time isn't going to send someone airborne - but it will send them spinning - and it could cause their limbs to be ripped off. You only need about 22000 Joules of instantaneous force to rip a limb off.

Please see literally the entire conversation on this page above your post. Add 152 to the rifle count then, if we are to assume that the same ratio of unstated weapons is the same as the stated weapons. That makes 526 for rifles, 472 for blunt objects, and 656 for hands/fists. I think that still keeps my point intact fairly well. All of them would be subject to the same rules, presumably. I would hope, at least. This is kind of the point of this thread, that people want to bite on the "ban the rifles/assault weapons/WMDs/whatever", when really, the only support for that argument is sensationalized news headlines. The numbers don't back it at all. This is silly because I have somehow managed to use all of my weapons from the age of 7 to 25 without any of the things you mentioned, except directed at either an animal or a piece of paper. As I said, rough calculation because I don't have the means to calculate the speed I can swing a hammer. I would imagine that my arm speed is in a ballpark range similar to that my ball speed is. It was really just a fun calculation to do for the sake of the argument. The argument itself is silly with or without the hammer tidbit.

Maybe in your book, but I don't think many people would share that opinion. I think most people would give you a quizzical expression and go 'what do you mean my kitchen knife is more deadly than this sniper rifle built to blow through tank armor'?

.50 BMG does ~17500J. So I think your limbs will stay relatively attached?

Most of that force is wasted, though. Unless the bullet comes to a complete stop in the body it's only imparting as much energy as it needs to move the next bit of flesh out of the way. A .50 cal generally passes straight through. It leaves very large (obviously) wound channels that are typically fatal but it doesn't dump 22,000 joules into the body. It's irrelevant anyway because I'm not aware of any murders committed with 50 cals at all ever in the US.