Carrying guns leads to confrontations....

[Gallstones]

Seth keeps thumping his chest at me.

Why is it difficult to see that if 47% of the country are entitlement sucking low IQ folk, then 47% of gun owners are as well. You are not protecting some noble savages.

Really?
I feel deprived.


I could use some chest thumping right now.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think FBM was just taking it all the way to the other end, "Let's push the bullet in with our finger so it doesn't fragment.)

[FBM]

I think FBM was just taking it all the way to the other end, "Let's push the bullet in with our finger so it doesn't fragment.)

Yeah, that's what I meant. I should have clarified that.

[Seth]

Hollow point rounds, point blank, don't have enough distance to mushroom--yes or no?

Incorrect. Once the bullet leaves the muzzle deformation depends only on velocity and the density of the media it's in contact with, regardless of distance from the muzzle.

A hollow point round fired with the muzzle against the skin will mushroom exactly as it would 50 feet from the muzzle, except more so because of the higher impact velocity.

[Seth]

Seth keeps thumping his chest at me.

Why is it difficult to see that if 47% of the country are entitlement sucking low IQ folk, then 47% of gun owners are as well. You are not protecting some noble savages.

Doesn't mean that they are any more or less likely to misuse a firearm.

And even if true, we don't engage in prior restraint when it comes to fundamental rights, so unless you're an adjudicated mental defective, you get your chance to own guns and you don't lose it unless you do something wrong. Allowing the government to determine who is "qualified" to have a gun is a very dangerous thing for liberty, because as King George proved in 1776, his criteria for who was "qualified" to possess a gun and who should not was not based on competence but on politics, and indeed the inverse of incompetence. The more competent you were with your firearm, the less he wanted you to have it.

And that's WHY the 2nd Amendment exists as a protection of a fundamental, natural right, precisely so that government NEVER has the authority to simply declare everyone "unqualified" to possess arms for political or social reasons, which is EXACTLY what happened in the UK starting in 1924 and continuing through today with the continuing disarmament of the citizenry as a method of political and social control.

The Founders knew exactly what happens when you give government the power to license the exercise of a fundamental natural right...because the power to license is the power to destroy.

[Tero]

But because the gun slingers out there are so average and normal, I still do not see any benefit for me to have them out there with their concealed weapons. When the criminals and good (dumb) guys are out there with their concealed weapons, I don't see the weapon till they have their inevitable confrontation. And I want to be two blocks away at that time.

The crook is not going to come after me either, since I do not look rich but not look like a loser (grandma, grandpa, easy pickings) either.

You can throw more statistics at me. But it's like global warming to some people. I do not see cause and effect.

[Seth]

But because the gun slingers out there are so average and normal, I still do not see any benefit for me to have them out there with their concealed weapons.

It doesn't matter whether you see an advantage or not, it's not your life, safety and property at risk from criminality. THEY see an advantage, which is all that matters. Their right to provide for their personal safety outweighs by a rather enormous margin your hoplophobic fears, so you just have to suck it up, buttercup.

When the criminals and good (dumb) guys are out there with their concealed weapons, I don't see the weapon till they have their inevitable confrontation. And I want to be two blocks away at that time.

Sucks to be you I guess. You don't get to pick and choose who carries a gun and who doesn't, criminal or law-abiding, and at any time there's probably a 50/50 chance that someone within gunshot of you is carrying a pistol.

The crook is not going to come after me either, since I do not look rich but not look like a loser (grandma, grandpa, easy pickings) either.

Camouflage is always a good tactical plan, but hardly the best one.

You can throw more statistics at me. But it's like global warming to some people. I do not see cause and effect.

What cause and effect? That carrying guns "leads to confrontations?" You're right there because there is no cause and effect, and not even any valid correlation.

[Tero]

What cause and effect? That carrying guns "leads to confrontations?"

No, this is off topic. Your statistics and claims of the benefits of people carrying concealed weapons. That cause and effect.

[Gallstones]

Brady Denial

...a person goes in and has the background check done which is required under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act before they buy a gun

When a person goes to buy a firearm from a federally licensed gun dealer in the United States, he or she has to fill out a form called an ATF 4473 at the counter of the gun shop. That form provides information such as name, address, social security number, what kind of gun is being purchased, and so on. The form also includes questions about whether you have criminal convictions and are a U.S. citizen. The person trying to buy the gun has to swear that all the answers on the form are true, and if the answers aren't true, he or she can be charged with the crime of perjury, which is lying under oath. Then the gun dealer makes a phone call, depending on the state that'll be to either a state agency number or the FBI's National Instant Check system, and the info from the form will be run through millions of records in state and federal databases to see if the person trying to buy the gun meets one of nine different categories of reasons for which federal law would prohibit thm from being in possession of a firearm.

...nine categories of reasons why a person can't have a gun under federal law aren't new, they are part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, though some of them have been added more recently.

ATF 4473
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/04 ... f-4473.pdf

[Gallstones]

I think FBM was just taking it all the way to the other end, "Let's push the bullet in with our finger so it doesn't fragment.)

If I'm going to do that I'm going to need my knife.

[Gallstones]

But because the gun slingers out there are so average and normal, I still do not see any benefit for me to have them out there with their concealed weapons. When the criminals and good (dumb) guys are out there with their concealed weapons, I don't see the weapon till they have their inevitable confrontation. And I want to be two blocks away at that time.

The crook is not going to come after me either, since I do not look rich but not look like a loser (grandma, grandpa, easy pickings) either.

You can throw more statistics at me. But it's like global warming to some people. I do not see cause and effect.

First define "gun slinger".

[Gallstones]

Hollow point rounds, point blank, don't have enough distance to mushroom--yes or no?

Incorrect. Once the bullet leaves the muzzle deformation depends only on velocity and the density of the media it's in contact with, regardless of distance from the muzzle.

A hollow point round fired with the muzzle against the skin will mushroom exactly as it would 50 feet from the muzzle, except more so because of the higher impact velocity.

Seth
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 4#p1335064

If you wouldn't mind.
Might be moot now.

[Gallstones]

Seth keeps thumping his chest at me.

Why is it difficult to see that if 47% of the country are entitlement sucking low IQ folk, then 47% of gun owners are as well. You are not protecting some noble savages.

Doesn't mean that they are any more or less likely to misuse a firearm.

And even if true, we don't engage in prior restraint when it comes to fundamental rights, so unless you're an adjudicated mental defective, you get your chance to own guns and you don't lose it unless you do something wrong. Allowing the government to determine who is "qualified" to have a gun is a very dangerous thing for liberty, because as King George proved in 1776, his criteria for who was "qualified" to possess a gun and who should not was not based on competence but on politics, and indeed the inverse of incompetence. The more competent you were with your firearm, the less he wanted you to have it.

And that's WHY the 2nd Amendment exists as a protection of a fundamental, natural right, precisely so that government NEVER has the authority to simply declare everyone "unqualified" to possess arms for political or social reasons, which is EXACTLY what happened in the UK starting in 1924 and continuing through today with the continuing disarmament of the citizenry as a method of political and social control.

The Founders knew exactly what happens when you give government the power to license the exercise of a fundamental natural right...because the power to license is the power to destroy.

Tero sounds discriminitory towards persons of "low" IQ.

[Gallstones]

I love this video.
This kind of thing turns me on.

[Seth]

So, point blank is max velocity and expansion occurs when entering the target, then there should be max potential expansion from point blank.

Yes?

Yes. The only possible downside is overpenetration as some bullets are designed for controlled expansion at range, but that applies mostly to rifle rounds and non-expanding pistol bullets like full metal jacket rounds used by the military. By law (Geneva Accords and US military rule) rounds used in combat MUST be solid-core non-expanding bullets. This is specifically intended to REDUCE the lethal potential of military arms, since in "civilized" warfare it's assumed that any bullet injury is sufficient to take the soldier out of the fight, and therefore using expanding rounds that are intentionally designed to maximize lethality are "barbaric" under the laws of war. Of course these days, enemies like Al Quaida don't abide by the Geneva accords while we still do, so they use hollow-point rifle bullets to maximize damage while we still use FMJ rounds.

Civilian defensive pistol rounds are designed to reliably expand (if they are designed to expand at all) at all reasonable velocities and ranges. Get too far out with a pistol round and it might lose enough energy so that it won't expand reliably, but that's in the hundreds of yards category.

There is actually some legal risk to using expanding defensive ammunition because in some cases the crook's lawyer (or his family's lawyer) will accuse you of intentionally "murdering" the suspect by using highly-lethal hollow-point rounds, and they will claim that using this sort of ammunition proves that you went out armed "looking for a confrontation."

That's why many police departments (and almost all of them until fairly recently) mandated the use of solid lead or full metal copper jacketed non-expanding bullets. That's changed quite a bit as the police finally realized what civilians knew for a long time: If you're legally authorized to shoot someone, it's because you are authorized to use deadly force, and since ipso facto the situation must be serious enough that you MAY use deadly force, it's in your best interests to use ammunition that will stop the threat as quickly and reliably as possible, which means hollow-points. And that's the rebuttal argument your lawyer makes when it's brought up by the plaintiff in a civil suit.

The ban on "Black Talon" pistol ammunition came about precisely because there was an outcry that it was "too lethal" because of it's astounding expansion performance. It was also falsely characterized as "Teflon" armor-piercing ammunition simply because it had a black Teflon coating to help prevent bore fouling with copper (and to look cool and menacing to consumers), which it was not.

Today there are many expansion rounds on the market that work as well or better than Black Talon, they just don't coat them with Teflon anymore.

As an aside, the actual "Teflon armor piercing ammunition" that COULD penetrate police officer's vests was called "KTM" and it was actually a solid bronze projectile that was coated with Teflon to prevent excessive bore wear (bronze is much harder than copper or lead). It was intended for sale by the manufacturer ONLY to law enforcement and the military, but enough seeped out into the hands of civilians that the anti-gun hoplophobes in Congress were able to insert the ban in Clinton's "assault weapons" ban (as I recall) out of pure misplaced panic and evil intentions. KTM was, as far as I know, never used to shoot a single police officer by a criminal.

I have a small stash of KTM socked away for the zombie apocalypse that I bought up right before the ban was enacted (while I was still a cop).

The shame is that the police NEED good armor-piercing ammunition, but have a hard time getting it now. They have to get it through the military because no commercial sources can make it.

BTW, the BATFE knows the difference between "Teflon coated" and "armor piercing" and it's illegal to manufacture for civilian sale any non-expanding bronze (or depleted uranium or steel...essentially any non-expanding "armor piercing" ammo) pistol or rifle bullets. This is why ultra long-range shooters shooting calibers like the .416 Barrett use turned brass high-accuracy projectiles.

This is why "pulled" armor-piercing steel or carbide core bullets manufactured for military use (against material targets) that have been pulled from old surplus ammo are popular at gun shows for people who reload their own ammo. The bullets are not newly manufactured, and it's not illegal to load them for personal use, you just can't sell a complete armor-piercing round on the open market.