Gun control

I'm definitely left leaning, and the Patriot Act is an abhorrent law put into place and the 2A is a slippery slope that I can't really ever afford to give the pro-control people an inch of room on.

Couldnt find the original paper i was looking for but i did come accross this video that was shown at a few training classes a few years ago. It does a good job of describing wound characteristics between common rifle and handgun rounds. It is very graphic, be warned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tku8Y...ature=youtu.be

Great video Thorne. I find it interesting that he kinda poopoos hollowpoints, showing that the expansion many times leads to inadequate penetration in handguns.

Well, its true quite often. Especially when you get to the lower end of the spectrum. Something like a .380 acp doesnt have enough "oomph" to penetrate well with JHP's. Especially in winter months when heavy clothing is a factor FMJ .380acp can be more effective overall than JHP's.

I would think the idea of a hollow point is delivering that energy over a larger area as opposed to going straight through.

Then again, I'm pretty sure you can make your point across with just about any ammo. Some are just more akin to typing in all caps then others.

splorge_sl said:

Yes, it does. There is a reason you don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Because guns kill more efficiently.

Click to expand...

I can't say I've been in a gun or knife fight, but I've been trained to shoot and conceal carry.

The rule I've been taught isknife attacker within 20 feet beats handgun. At that close range or closer, there is not enough time to get off the shots required to stop the attacker; you will get slashed even if you can get off some rounds. In that situation, you create space to shoot, bring out your own knife, or get the hell away.

Conceal carry teaches you to shoot to stop the threat, which means three shots on center mass (if you've got the rounds, if not, 2 shots), break tunnel vision, and survey.

Guns don't kill more efficiently at all. People don't drop dead immediately or get knocked back by handgun fire. Every hit on target is a crapshoot as to what it's actually done to the target.

Guns let you have a chance at range if you can see your threat coming. They also help equalize size and numbers advantage.

khalid_sl said:

Great video Thorne. I find it interesting that he kinda poopoos hollowpoints, showing that the expansion many times leads to inadequate penetration in handguns.

Click to expand...

I like that video too. What I take from it is that rifle fire is far more devastating than handgun fire, and saving gunshot victims is all about stopping blood loss.

Hollow points are more about causing more damage to the surrounding tissue and creating more blood loss than penetration. I can't say with certainty that HP is more or less effective than FMJ, but look at the back of a target stand sometime. If you've had any errant shots hit the wood frame, you can easily tell the HPs from the FMJs by the bigger HP exits.

IIRC, a lot of people make a big deal about penetration because, after a devastating shootout, the FBI once proclaimed its agents' handgun rounds should penetrate at least a foot or so through body tissue in order to be effective. FBI also has access to armor, confronts people in armor, and shoots to unzip. I don't know that FBI needs really match a civilian's.

koljec_sl said:

I can't say I've been in a gun or knife fight, but I've been trained to shoot and conceal carry.

The rule I've been taught isknife attacker within 20 feet beats handgun. At that close range or closer, there is not enough time to get off the shots required to stop the attacker; you will get slashed even if you can get off some rounds. In that situation, you create space to shoot, bring out your own knife, or get the hell away.

Conceal carry teaches you to shoot to stop the threat, which means three shots on center mass (if you've got the rounds, if not, 2 shots), break tunnel vision, and survey.

Guns don't kill more efficiently at all. People don't drop dead immediately or get knocked back by handgun fire. Every hit on target is a crapshoot as to what it's actually done to the target.

Guns let you have a chance at range if you can see your threat coming. They also help equalize size and numbers advantage.

Click to expand...

I think you're being dishonest if you are really making the argument that guns aren't a more efficient killing apparatus than a knife. The situation you described really isn't the one we are concerned about. We aren't talking about a man with a gun being confronted with a man with a knife. The more likely situation is a gun or a knife versus an unarmed person. While it is rare, a mass shooting can kill dozens. Mass knifings aren't as lethal.

Soysauceonrice_sl said:

I think you're being dishonest if you are really making the argument that guns aren't a more efficient killing apparatus than a knife. The situation you described really isn't the one we are concerned about. We aren't talking about a man with a gun being confronted with a man with a knife. The more likely situation is a gun or a knife versus an unarmed person. While it is rare, a mass shooting can kill dozens. Mass knifings aren't as lethal.

Click to expand...

Thanks for calling me dishonest! I couldn't tell from the point in the thread that the topic was so exclusive!

Your point is a simple one. Of course you can't knife 50 people as easily as you can shoot 50 people. Nor does a knifer keep EMS at bay like a gunman does.

Like I posted, guns let you have a chance at range...and they also help equalize size and numbers advantage. That cuts both ways. Attackers and mass attackers benefit from those gun advantages too.

B_Mizzle_sl said:

Well to be fair Bush wasn't running around the world helping/assissting themuslim brotherhoodand Al'Quaeda linked organizations take over nations (Libya, Egypt...), quite the opposite in fact.

Click to expand...

Not allowing people in other countries to vote for who they want to vote for when starting up thier own democracies is the American way!

Ha ha! But seriously folks, I agree that we should oppose other nations Republican-analogues wherever they are found.

When this gets mass produced we will wish for the days when assault weapons were considered dangerous.

aychamo_aycono_sl said:

Would you rather a gunshot to the foot, or a knife to the carotid?

Click to expand...

How is that the immediate comparison you go to?

Blazin_sl said:

Don't believe I have ever spoke to someone of either party who supported the Patriot Act. I don't recall anyone on this board ever supporting the Patriot Act, but my memory could be fussy. The argument against the Republicans when it was first passed would have been more of ignoring the fact "their team" was passing legislation that they disliked, and then yelling Go Bush! anyway. Kind of like when I would still cheer for the Yankees even when Carl Pavano was pitching.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we definitely people on these boards who supported the Patriot Act and probably still do. Maybe they're just Republitrolling but you never can tell these days.

Who blamed Bush? There's plenty of blame to go around for the whole government.

chaos_sl said:

Yeah, we definitely people on these boards who supported the Patriot Act and probably still do. Maybe they're just Republitrolling but you never can tell these days.

Click to expand...

chaos_sl said:

Who blamed Bush? There's plenty of blame to go around for the whole government.

Click to expand...

Well, you kinda did (at least put it on republicans) by acting like only a Republitroll would support it.


Anyway, it is shocking to me that there has been no real attempt to get rid of some of its provisions by Obama.