Many developed countries have solved this conundrum. The United States just can't get over its gun fetish long enough to get its crap together.While that's a big part of it, its not the only thing.
1) Legislatively its difficult because of the second amendment. You need 2/3s of government acting together over a few years to change it.
2) The US has local representation only (cept the president): every senator and congressperson represents their own district or state, NOT the united states as a whole. This gives rural areas where gun violence is rare and gun fun is common a lot more influence than their population would suggest.
3) The US's winner take all system leads to 2 parties, which makes it incredibly difficult to compromise on the issue.
4) The US is freaking huge... i really, really don't think Europeans get just how big and diverse the US is. There are some areas where you have legitimate need to protect yourself with a firearm either because you're out in the boonies where there's a 2 day response time or you live in a part of detroit that the cops don't enter without a full swat team.
5) Guns beget guns: You can't ask people to deal with armed criminals running around while they're unarmed. Which results in people buying guns, which results in armed criminals running around. Its a tough cycle to crack.
Wolf, those are five very good points which are very true and many people just can't seem to grasp.
Option 1:
BANG!
"Hey Clyde, is that a target round in your leg?
"Indubitably Floyde, this Bludger may as well be using marshmellows.
"Well then, lets proceed with a Jolly good round of killing and robbing him shall we?
Option 2:
BANG!
"Hell.. he's got a gun. Lets go
"AHhhhhhh my leeg! moooomy!!!!
Right. Sure you did.Scott, have you ever hunted elk? Or anything else?
Go ahead and explain to us how a 20-round magazine is required for you to enjoy your elk-hunting expedition, and how having to reload after every five elk you kill would just ruin the ambiance.Good lord, no.
Or do you just like to pretend you know what hunters actually do?I'm not pretending anything. I asked you, oh mighty long-distance-slayer-of-helpless-woodland-creatures, to explain to us why a 20-round AK magazine is indispensable for hunters.
I literally did.
Go ahead and explain it to us. I'll wait.
Scott, there is obviously no point to trying to discuss with you the finer points of gun and ammunition design, because you clearly aren't interested in understanding, only demonizing.
No, I've just heard everything you're saying before a hundred times from other people - people who, by the way, didn't stoop to trying to convince us that guns aren't designed to kill and that actually ammunition is what it's all about but by the way we shouldn't heavily regulate that either so I don't really have a point, just a senseless redirect of the argument.
So go ahead and discuss the finer points of why hunting without a 20-round magazine is just unbearable.
Wolf, the selection of ammunition for home defense is pretty important and is actually cited in legal home defense cases on a regular basis.
One of the main things you need for home defense ammunition is a bullet that tends not to penetrate walls well. Because sometimes you miss, and you don't want your bullet going into a neighbor's house.
Target ammunition is typically just a solid chunk of lead, and is precisely the kind of ammunition that penetrates walls pretty easily. So using target ammunition for home defense is exactly the sort of thing that puts your neighbors at risk, and will get you in a world of hurt in a lawsuit.
You know, gun owners actually care about these things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if i shoot a guy with a hunting round in the eye he'll live? Good to know. Also any kind of ammunition has a good chance of outright killing or incapacitating whomever it hits. Especially if it hits something lethal.
Also hunting is abhorrent and should be illegal.
So I see you are taking an objective and unbiased view Hama.
The level of ignorance about shooting guns and the effect bullets have on people, animals and objects on display in this thread is quite frankly staggering.
So, if i shoot a guy with a hunting round in the eye he'll live? Good to know. Also any kind of ammunition has a good chance of outright killing or incapacitating whomever it hits. Especially if it hits something lethal.
Also hunting is abhorrent and should be illegal.
There is good reason to think that unregulated companion animal ownership is responsible for vastly more suffering among animals than Hunting.
So, if i shoot a guy with a hunting round in the eye he'll live? Good to know. Also any kind of ammunition has a good chance of outright killing or incapacitating whomever it hits. Especially if it hits something lethal.
Also hunting is abhorrent and should be illegal.
There is good reason to think that unregulated companion animal ownership is responsible for vastly more suffering among animals than Hunting.
Unregulated? My dog has more legally mandated medical treatment than I do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wolf, the selection of ammunition for home defense is pretty important and is actually cited in legal home defense cases on a regular basis.
Having more information about guns than the non gun crowd doesn't make you right. The information needs to be relevant to the points being made.
To the OP:
If you are looking for newer or more interesting survey data than what normally appears you may want to approach how people feel about the criminalization of themselves, their friends, or their neighbors and about how many law enforcement officers are unwilling to enfore more stringent gun control laws.
Effectively, ask if they are ok with the police having firefights with 70+ year old retirees who aren't willing to give up their weapons. Ask if they think that it's ok for SWAT officers to tear gas and/or assassinate their friends and relatives that aren't willing to give up their 2nd Amendment rights.
Another "fun" one is the "mental health issue" - which I have a particular beef with given that I'm in the mental health field and know first hand how screwed up it is. Especially given that there are currently several initiatives in place designed to remove the ability of veterans to be able to continue to enjoy the freedoms of the Constitution that they risked their lives to protect. To the best of my knowledge, there is no clause or way to regain the rights that the advocates for gun control are proposing to remove from our veterans.
AD,
I'm actually surprised about what led you to leave the NRA. I personally dislike their religious mania, so can't give them money despite the fact that I share some of their beliefs in our Constitution, but teflon bullets? That surprises me. Were you one of the people that thought that they functioned as armor piercing rounds?
-TimD
So, if i shoot a guy with a hunting round in the eye he'll live? Good to know. Also any kind of ammunition has a good chance of outright killing or incapacitating whomever it hits. Especially if it hits something lethal.
Also hunting is abhorrent and should be illegal.
There is good reason to think that unregulated companion animal ownership is responsible for vastly more suffering among animals than Hunting.
Unregulated? My dog has more legally mandated medical treatment than I do.
Not sure how you do it in the land of XXXX, so I can't comment on that ;)
AD,
I'm actually surprised about what led you to leave the NRA. I personally dislike their religious mania, so can't give them money despite the fact that I share some of their beliefs in our Constitution, but teflon bullets? That surprises me. Were you one of the people that thought that they functioned as armor piercing rounds?-TimD
Tim, in retrospect at the time I quit the NRA over their stance on teflon bullets, I will admit that I had let the media frenzy over the debate affect me too much.
But also, I was dirt poor at the time too. :)
In the years since I have come to the conclusion that I probably over-reacted, but I never re-instated my membership. I probably should, I am a pretty solid second amendment supporter. I'm also cheap though....
Having more information about guns than the non gun crowd doesn't make you right. The information needs to be relevant to the points being made.Wolf, the selection of ammunition for home defense is pretty important and is actually cited in legal home defense cases on a regular basis.
Well, I suppose you and I must disagree on what is relevant Wolf. Not the first time, probably not the last.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I suppose you and I must disagree on what is relevant Wolf. Not the first time, probably not the last.
Here, specifically, the fact that ammunition is designed to kill people does not negate the idea that the gun was designed to kill people (with a high rate of fire and large magazine capacity). Its not as though both can't be true.
Nor does having a specific purpose prevent something from being used slightly outside of that purpose: if its good for shooting elk it will work just fine on people- kinda like there's a specific tool for opening paint cans but everyone uses a screwdriver.
|
So, if i shoot a guy with a hunting round in the eye he'll live? Good to know. Also any kind of ammunition has a good chance of outright killing or incapacitating whomever it hits. Especially if it hits something lethal.
Also hunting is abhorrent and should be illegal.
So I see you are taking an objective and unbiased view Hama.
The level of ignorance about shooting guns and the effect bullets have on people, animals and objects on display in this thread is quite frankly staggering.
Oh i know firearms. I have a friend who is a hunter and he took me to the shooting range several times. I may not know as much as you, but there is a very good reason why people shouldn't aim even unloaded weapons at other people. And please tell me, aside from blanks, what kind of ammunition would not kill a person, whatever it's primary use?
I still think hunting is abhorrent and should be illegal.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I support a total ban on the private ownership of firearms. I used to be much more permissive on it, but repeated interactions with gun owners and advocates, online and in person, have given me more than sufficient reason to dismiss their good judgment.
But if we must preserve the evil of private firearm ownership, then I consider this a worryingly permissive system:
1) Anybody seeking to possess a functional firearm, or one that could easily be made functional, must not just complete a safety course but also a rigorous mental health examination. Anything less than perfection on either and you can't get a gun. Ever. The state picks the shrinks and is free to set as ludicrously exacting standards for the safety course and mental health exam as it likes. Failure of either results in a lifetime ban on possession and ownership.
2) A thorough background check must be completed and any past infractions, criminal or civil, result in rejection of the application and a lifetime ban on possession and ownership. If you can't drive the speed limit, why should we trust you with a machine designed only to kill?
3) The permit would have to be consented to by all local, state, and national law enforcement authorities. This consent may be revoked at any time for any reason.
4) The applicant would have to demonstrate a bona fide need for the specific firearm sought. If self-defense is claimed, the applicant must first demonstrate a present, credible threat to his or her life which cannot be remedied by ordinary police protection. If the permit is sought for hunting, the applicant must demonstrate that he or she cannot afford meat from the grocery store. Recreational shooting and collecting are expressly not sufficient cause.
5) No permits will be issued for handguns or other easily concealed weapons, or weapons that can fire more than once without being manually reloaded, whatsoever.
6) All permits are subject to regular renewal at least once a year which works the same as applying for the permit originally did.
7) If a permit renewal is denied or revoked, any and all associated firearms and ammunition must be surrendered immediately.
8) In the event of any criminal or civil charges against the holder, the permit is automatically revoked. If you are tried and acquitted, you can reapply afterwards.
9) Firearms and ammunition may only be purchased from state-operated dealers and may not be resold. A dealer may not be located in any jurisdiction which elects to forbid it and firearms may not be transported across jurisdiction lines by private individuals.
10) Every discharge of a firearm must be reported to at least the standard currently required of police officers who discharge their weapons.
11) State officials issued a firearm in the course of their duties must surrender it immediately on the conclusion of those duties. Police must turn them in at the end of their shift, for example.
12) No firearms may be permitted in public places, permit or otherwise, or at any gathering of more than five people except at the state dealerships and, if all the jurisdictions concerned choose to permit such a thing, state-operated shooting ranges.
13) By accepting a permit, one accepts the maximum possible penalty and liability for any crime or infraction involving the firearm covered in the permit for as long as the firearm is possessed. (So if you shoot someone with it, it's always premeditated murder and you're going away for the maximum sentence, etc.) If the firearm is stolen, it must be reported immediately and a substantial (say not less than a hundred thousand dollars) fine paid. If someone stole your gun, you obviously did not have it safely and securely stored. Thus a stolen firearm would result in an immediate lifetime revocation of all firearms permits and the consequent surrender of all firearms.
14) All firearm permits are for one and only one firearm. Under no circumstances may multiple permits be issued to the same person or to multiple people living in the same household.
15) All firearm permits and their holders must be registered in a national database. A searchable index of this database must be kept available to the public on the internet at all times.
16) No firearm permit may be issued to any person living within one mile of any school, playground, or other place where minors regularly congregate.
17) By accepting the firearm permit, one also consents to regular inspections of one's firearm storage and safety to ensure that one is being a responsible gun owner. Some of these inspections will come on a regular schedule and others as surprises. They can take place at any time of the day or night.
I'd gladly hear if there are any loopholes I left open so I can close them.
|
|
I love what you just wrote. But it could only work well in urban areas. A small addition:
If a person lives in or near the wilderness, there is present danger for him and his family from wild animals. That kind of person is perfectly justified in owning at least 1 pistol, 1 shotgun and 1 bolt action rifle. But only for personal protection. Also, those guns are subject to all the above mentioned rules except for the rule of a single firearm per household etc.
At the very least guns need liscensing equivilant to or in excess of a car. Hell, I'd even say mandatory insurance for guns might be a good idea too. Both involve deadly lumps of metal moving at high velocity, after all, and if some idiot not taking enough care with his car hit me I'd expect his insurance to cover it - I don't see why someone messing around with a gun shouldn't have the same.
Regular checks and inspections should also be carried out, to be sure guns are kept safe and maintained. Again, a car needs an MOT to make sure the breaks aren't going to go and run you into a school bus - a gun needs to be kept locked away from those who aren't safe with it, and should be maintained to make sure it's safe to fire.
I'd also ban handguns for home defence. You don't need a easily concealable weapon for home defence. Shotguns, rifles and co work just as well - and can't be hidden nearly as easily. And no one ever needs an automatic weapon outside of a warzone.
Thanks to the mis-quoting of the whole 'right to bear arms' thing too many people consider them a right. I never got that. No one believes they should be allowed there own private SAM Battery, or nuclear weapon - therefore you don't have unrestricted access to weapons. That access needs to be made more difficult. Money from registration fees and insurance could help negate the loss of income the NRA truly fears (they don't give a crap about people, that much is obvious) and help make sure weapons are kept safe.
But then, America is a scary, screwed up place I'm really glad I'm not in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if i shoot a guy with a hunting round in the eye he'll live? Good to know. Also any kind of ammunition has a good chance of outright killing or incapacitating whomever it hits. Especially if it hits something lethal.
Also hunting is abhorrent and should be illegal.
So I see you are taking an objective and unbiased view Hama.
The level of ignorance about shooting guns and the effect bullets have on people, animals and objects on display in this thread is quite frankly staggering.
Oh i know firearms. I have a friend who is a hunter and he took me to the shooting range several times. I may not know as much as you, but there is a very good reason why people shouldn't aim even unloaded weapons at other people. And please tell me, aside from blanks, what kind of ammunition would not kill a person, whatever it's primary use?
I still think hunting is abhorrent and should be illegal.
Blanks can kill you within a very short range, "rubber" bullets can kill as well.
As for hunting, in Australia it is required for many reasons, (invasive non native species, over populating native species, commercial and food, tradional indigenous and so) although I personally dont like the idea of hunting for sport, as long as it is done in a sustainable and ecologically sound manner then I can accept it.
Sorry but I can't abide by the banning of firearms, there are not enough good reasons to do so, and the bad judgment of a few is never a good reason to punish the masses. People who want to hurt others will always find a way, and the more likely it is that someone may be armed, the less likely a criminal is to attempt to victimize them. Overall the areas in the US with the highest gun control, do not have less gun related violence/crimes, and in some of those locations, they actually have higher rates.
In my experience most of the people I know who are for stricter gun control know little about firearms, these are the same people who think and AR-15 is more lethal than any other semi-automatic rifle.
Thankfully so far most of what I've see on here from the "anti-gun" advocates denotes a better understanding of fire-arms than the previously mentioned people.
|
|
So, if i shoot a guy with a hunting round in the eye he'll live? Good to know. Also any kind of ammunition has a good chance of outright killing or incapacitating whomever it hits. Especially if it hits something lethal.
Also hunting is abhorrent and should be illegal.
So I see you are taking an objective and unbiased view Hama.
The level of ignorance about shooting guns and the effect bullets have on people, animals and objects on display in this thread is quite frankly staggering.
Oh i know firearms. I have a friend who is a hunter and he took me to the shooting range several times. I may not know as much as you, but there is a very good reason why people shouldn't aim even unloaded weapons at other people. And please tell me, aside from blanks, what kind of ammunition would not kill a person, whatever it's primary use?
I still think hunting is abhorrent and should be illegal.Blanks can kill you within a very short range, "rubber" bullets can kill as well.
As for hunting, in Australia it is required for many reasons, (invasive non native species, over populating native species, commercial and food, tradional indigenous and so) although I personally dont like the idea of hunting for sport, as long as it is done in a sustainable and ecologically sound manner then I can accept it.
Oh no, i completely understand killing animals because they are a danger, or hunting them for food. But killing animals for sport? I would send people to hunt those hunters. I would also let bullfights always end in favor of the bull.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In France there is a kind of bullfighting common in the Provence and Languedoc areas, and is known alternately as "course libre" or "course camarguaise". This is a bloodless spectacle (for the bulls) in which the objective is to snatch a rosette from the head of a young bull. The participants, or raseteurs, begin training in their early teens against young bulls from the Camargue region of Provence before graduating to regular contests held principally in Arles and Nîmes but also in other Provençal and Languedoc towns and villages. Before the course, an encierro—a "running" of the bulls in the streets—takes place, in which young men compete to outrun the charging bulls
So, if i shoot a guy with a hunting round in the eye he'll live? Good to know. Also any kind of ammunition has a good chance of outright killing or incapacitating whomever it hits. Especially if it hits something lethal.
Also hunting is abhorrent and should be illegal.
So I see you are taking an objective and unbiased view Hama.
The level of ignorance about shooting guns and the effect bullets have on people, animals and objects on display in this thread is quite frankly staggering.
so you're saying there is a type of bullet out there that isn't going to harm me when fired into my tender flesh? Cuz I'm pretty sure getting shot hurts no matter what. And I'm not going to be able to see what kind of bullet you're using just by looking at your gun.
so you're saying there is a type of bullet out there that isn't going to harm me when fired into my tender flesh? Cuz I'm pretty sure getting shot hurts no matter what. And I'm not going to be able to see what kind of bullet you're using just by looking at your gun.So, if i shoot a guy with a hunting round in the eye he'll live? Good to know. Also any kind of ammunition has a good chance of outright killing or incapacitating whomever it hits. Especially if it hits something lethal.
Also hunting is abhorrent and should be illegal.
So I see you are taking an objective and unbiased view Hama.
The level of ignorance about shooting guns and the effect bullets have on people, animals and objects on display in this thread is quite frankly staggering.
... and continues to amaze me.
I support a total ban on the private ownership of firearms. I used to be much more permissive on it, but repeated interactions with gun owners and advocates, online and in person, have given me more than sufficient reason to dismiss their good judgment.
:(
Nice job with the Ad Hominem straw man arguments. You're especially good at illustrating a position that pratically no one in the gun control movement has advocated, the stripping away of gun ownership rights. That's a product of NRA FUD, little more, and nothing less.
Interestingly, I think you may be misconstruing my own opinion. I find even current bans on fully automatic weapons distasteful and feel that "shall not be infringed upon" is pretty clear. Any law that infringes in any manner on my rights to own a weapon I consider the stripping of my rights. You may disagree with my opinion on the matter, but it is legitimately my opinion. Also, as mentioned earlier, I am not now, nor have ever been a member of the NRA.
Either that, or you haven't been paying attention to the folks that are saying "give them a mental health exam and if they 'fail' they can't own guns!". Those folks I do define as "in the gun control movement", though you are free to disagree with that assessment.I most definitely aren't willing to give any particular credence on vague statements on the order of "I work in the mental health field" So what?, of what relevance does that have
To be more specific, I am very familiar with the fact that if any four mental health professionals discuss clinical, you can generally expect at least five varying opinions of the proper course of treatment. Most especially if it involves someone getting paid.
I was specifically addressing all of the "have them be examined by a mental health professional" proposals that pop up all the time. None of which seem to offer an option for any sort of defense or rebuttal should the "mental health professional" in question just basically be a rubber stamp for removing rights from veterans or others. Even if someone is accused of actually having murdered someone they are allowed their own professionals and an appeal as recourse - I oppose any measure which would not allow at least the same recourse when you are talking about removing someone's 2nd Amendment Rights. Doubly so if it is a veteran.Hopefully that's a bit more clear, even if you disagree.
-TimD
... and continues to amaze me.so you're saying there is a type of bullet out there that isn't going to harm me when fired into my tender flesh? Cuz I'm pretty sure getting shot hurts no matter what. And I'm not going to be able to see what kind of bullet you're using just by looking at your gun.So, if i shoot a guy with a hunting round in the eye he'll live? Good to know. Also any kind of ammunition has a good chance of outright killing or incapacitating whomever it hits. Especially if it hits something lethal.
Also hunting is abhorrent and should be illegal.
So I see you are taking an objective and unbiased view Hama.
The level of ignorance about shooting guns and the effect bullets have on people, animals and objects on display in this thread is quite frankly staggering.
ad, you seem to have a problem with people who aren't gun people. Not everyone here uses guns. Hell, not everyone here is from America. Your assumptions are probably a greater cause of your confusion and frustration moreso than the people on this thread.
ad, you seem to have a problem with people who aren't gun people. Not everyone here uses guns. Hell, not everyone here is from America. Your assumptions are probably a greater cause of your confusion and frustration moreso than the people on this thread.
Not at all freehold, in this conversation, like many others, I have a problem with people who deliberately mischaracterize my words, then claim I said what they created and continue to disingenuously repeat the point as if they are being clever or something.
I've got no problem with people who discuss things rationally.
... and continues to amaze me.so you're saying there is a type of bullet out there that isn't going to harm me when fired into my tender flesh? Cuz I'm pretty sure getting shot hurts no matter what. And I'm not going to be able to see what kind of bullet you're using just by looking at your gun.So, if i shoot a guy with a hunting round in the eye he'll live? Good to know. Also any kind of ammunition has a good chance of outright killing or incapacitating whomever it hits. Especially if it hits something lethal.
Also hunting is abhorrent and should be illegal.
So I see you are taking an objective and unbiased view Hama.
The level of ignorance about shooting guns and the effect bullets have on people, animals and objects on display in this thread is quite frankly staggering.
ad, you seem to have a problem with people who aren't gun people. Not everyone here uses guns. Doesn't mean they are against them or need to go out and buy a million guns tomorrow. Hell, not everyone here is from America-they may not even have a second amendment frame of reference. Your assumptions are probably a greater cause of your confusion and frustration moreso than the people on this thread.
In fact, I find it is the ivory tower attitude gun owners have towards non gun owners that causes problems on this subject. And vice versa. Until we so putting words in each other's mouths and start answering questions, this "problem" is going to remain.
... and continues to amaze me.
AMMUNITION is designed to kill. Or not. What AMMUNITION you buy is what generally determines what you intend to use the gun FOR. Killing people generally requires (emphasis mine) different ammunition than target shooting or hunting other animals.
This is, I think the difference between what you mean and what you're saying (and what everyone is hearing). Its not required. Its recommended. Its how you do it if you do it right. Its how you yourself (knowing what you're doing) do it... but thats not really the same thing.
If you have a bunch of range bullets in your gun and shoot at a burglar you'll achieve your primary objective. If you take your hunting rounds out to the back 40 and shoot at a bullseye you'll have some fun (at a higher price than you might otherwise). If you take the rounds for elk hunting into downtown they work just fine on people.
"Close enough for state work" will get the job done, and its how a lot of people do it.
I think you're really underplaying the role of the gun here.. especially since its the biggest determining factor in what ammo you get.
Nice job with the Ad Hominem straw man arguments.
Also, while I won't deny my opinions are very far towards preserving the 2nd Amendment and what I believe both its intent and it's need are, I was actually addressing the fact that the OP did state it was for a survey.
I've seen more "gun control: yes/no" surveys and arguements than I can count, but I've seen very few surveys which address how far people think their government should go and how they feel about Ruby Ridge happening to THEIR friends and relatives or how much they want to be around when the ATF goes shooting up their neighborhood because the guy down the street isn't willing to give up the guns he's been collecting for 30+ years.Personally, I think it would be interesting to see how far people think it should go. Especially with the very good odds in some states of seeing the federal government and local governments at odds, possibly violently.
-TimD
... and continues to amaze me.AMMUNITION is designed to kill. Or not. What AMMUNITION you buy is what generally determines what you intend to use the gun FOR. Killing people generally requires (emphasis mine) different ammunition than target shooting or hunting other animals.
This is, I think the difference between what you mean and what you're saying (and what everyone is hearing). Its not required. Its recommended. Its how you do it if you do it right. Its how you yourself (knowing what you're doing) do it... but thats not really the same thing.
If you have a bunch of range bullets in your gun and shoot at a burglar you'll achieve your primary objective. If you take your hunting rounds out to the back 40 and shoot at a bullseye you'll have some fun (at a higher price than you might otherwise). If you take the rounds for elk hunting into downtown they work just fine on people.
"Close enough for state work" will get the job done, and its how a lot of people do it.
I think you're really underplaying the role of the gun here.. especially since its the biggest determining factor in what ammo you get.
Wolf, my use of the word "requires" may have caused some to become pedantically silly, but the reality is that "requires" is correct. Talk to a policemen or anyone who has been trained in using guns for self defense. Sure, you CAN kill someone with a blank cartridge if you stick the gun to their temple and pull the trigger. But if you want to own a gun for self defense, and you don't use the right bullets, you are not only putting yourself at increased risk of injury and death, but your family and neighbors as well.
To me that meets the criteria of "required".
For example, someone up thread snickered about someone getting hit in the leg with a target round and not feeling it. The reality is that people are hit with simple lead bullets without realizing it ALL THE TIME. But if you get hit in the leg with a hollow point fragmenting round, you're going to know it for sure because it will blow a hole the size of an orange in your thigh, while the target round will put a hole the size of a pencil. That actually does make a difference.
I love what you just wrote. But it could only work well in urban areas. A small addition:
If a person lives in or near the wilderness, there is present danger for him and his family from wild animals. That kind of person is perfectly justified in owning at least 1 pistol, 1 shotgun and 1 bolt action rifle. But only for personal protection. Also, those guns are subject to all the above mentioned rules except for the rule of a single firearm per household etc.
That's a substantial arsenal to authorize for what amounts to a recreational choice. I don't see why we should subsidize people living in the wilderness, let alone arm them for it. If they can accept the greater distance from emergency medical help, police, and so forth then why not the same delay for dealing with the occasional wild animal?
Most wild animals don't, after all, seek out and murder humans for fun or whatever. It's not like living in a war zone.
But if you just had to, for whatever reason, live near a polar bear migration route (polar bears are one of the more aggressive animals that can threaten a person) then that's a reason you can put down in your application.
OTOH, if you've got the deadliest ammunition and no gun, you're not really going to do all that well either. :)
Seriously, we're down to arguing "Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people"? And only certain bullets at that?
No Jeff, we most certainly are not down to arguing that. Sure some people are creating ridiculous arguments because they think they are clever, but they aren't clever, they are just silly.
You're free to join the silliness though, if you want to.
... and continues to amaze me.AMMUNITION is designed to kill. Or not. What AMMUNITION you buy is what generally determines what you intend to use the gun FOR. Killing people generally requires (emphasis mine) different ammunition than target shooting or hunting other animals.
This is, I think the difference between what you mean and what you're saying (and what everyone is hearing). Its not required. Its recommended. Its how you do it if you do it right. Its how you yourself (knowing what you're doing) do it... but thats not really the same thing.
If you have a bunch of range bullets in your gun and shoot at a burglar you'll achieve your primary objective. If you take your hunting rounds out to the back 40 and shoot at a bullseye you'll have some fun (at a higher price than you might otherwise). If you take the rounds for elk hunting into downtown they work just fine on people.
"Close enough for state work" will get the job done, and its how a lot of people do it.
I think you're really underplaying the role of the gun here.. especially since its the biggest determining factor in what ammo you get.
Wolf, my use of the word "requires" may have caused some to become pedantically silly, but the reality is that "requires" is correct. Talk to a policemen or anyone who has been trained in using guns for self defense. Sure, you CAN kill someone with a blank cartridge if you stick the gun to their temple and pull the trigger. But if you want to own a gun for self defense, and you don't use the right bullets, you are not only putting yourself at increased risk of injury and death, but your family and neighbors as well.
To me that meets the criteria of "required".
For example, someone up thread snickered about someone getting hit in the leg with a target round and not feeling it. The reality is that people are hit with simple lead bullets without realizing it ALL THE TIME. But if you get hit in the leg with a hollow...
interesting.
interesting
Indeed. In fact, President Reagan and his entire security detail did not realize he had been SHOT IN THE CHEST until they got to the hospital.
Ammunition matters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I support a total ban on the private ownership of firearms. I used to be much more permissive on it, but repeated interactions with gun owners and advocates, online and in person, have given me more than sufficient reason to dismiss their good judgment.
:(
When you hear from enough people who expect to use their personal arsenals to overthrow the government, you eventually realize that they're living in a fantasy world, are dangerously paranoid, or both. I take them at their word: they really believe this stuff.
Ok, keep on believing it. But people who really do believe this stuff clearly aren't in possession of the kind of judgment I'd want to see in anybody with a firearms permit.
Full disclosure: I, obviously, don't think my hypothetical gun would or should be used to overthrow the government or that I have any realistic hope of doing so. Any such attempt would just be an especially reckless attempt at suicide by cop, at best. But even with that said, I don't think that I possess the kind of judgment I'd want to see in anybody with a firearms permit. I'm not sure any human being has it. Thus I don't own a gun, even though I live in a fairly gun-heavy area and have, if not in the recent past, been a victim of violence.
Of course the whole pacifism thing is an obstacle too, but I don't think pacifism is required to know the limits of human judgment.
I asked what kind of ammunition aside from blanks wouldn't kill someone shot in the eye.
I suppose you could ask Aaron Hernandez's buddy who was reportedly shot in the eye by Aaron and survived if you want.
But nobody on this thread said any such thing, as has been clarified already.
interestingIndeed. In fact, President Reagan and his entire security detail did not realize he had been SHOT IN THE CHEST until they got to the hospital.
Ammunition matters.
I have no love for reagan, but I hope someone was fired for that.
I asked what kind of ammunition aside from blanks wouldn't kill someone shot in the eye.I suppose you could ask Aaron Hernandez's buddy who was reportedly shot in the eye by Aaron and survived if you want.
But nobody on this thread said any such thing, as has been clarified already.
its a valid question. People supposedly survive getting shot multiple times, what kind of ammo is used in this kind of shooting?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
its a valid question. People supposedly survive getting shot multiple times, what kind of ammo is used in this kind of shooting?I asked what kind of ammunition aside from blanks wouldn't kill someone shot in the eye.I suppose you could ask Aaron Hernandez's buddy who was reportedly shot in the eye by Aaron and survived if you want.
But nobody on this thread said any such thing, as has been clarified already.
the insufficiently explosive kind!
Freehold, there are a lot of different kinds of ammunition. In most cases I know of people who have survived multiple gunshots usually have been shot with simple lead bullets that tend to stay in one piece as they enter the body and travel through tissue.
A simple lead bullet can pass through your tissue so fast that it transfers very little momentum to the body, and leaves a very small hole. The bullet can also push aside organs as it moves through the body, which sometimes (rarely, but it does happen) means the bullet does negligible damage to the person.
If you really want to hurt someone you use hollow point rounds, and if you want your bullet to not survive passing through a wall of sheetrock, you use fragmenting rounds. These are bullets that are designed to expand and/or break up on impact. The end result is massively larger tissue damage and usually full momentum transfer to the body (or wall).
Translation: You feel it. It hurts. It doesn't push your liver aside, it sends a shock wave and lead fragments through your liver. On the other hand, it also tends to fragment into tiny pieces that lose momentum when it hits a wall, so it doesn't go through your walls and kill your child in their bedroom.
Also, why would anyone be fired for not knowing Reagan was shot? There was no visible blood. Reagan did not feel it, his adrenaline was too high. They only took him to the hospital because he was complaining about not being able to breathe properly. The examination there found a tiny, almost bloodless hole under his armpit, and a bullet lodged about an inch from his heart.
By the way, the reason people tend to get shot with simple lead bullets in burglaries or robberies is that guns are usually used as a means to intimidate or scare off the victims. And simple lead bullets are much, much cheaper than bullets designed to expand and fragment on impact.
Some bullets magnify the expansion/impact using mercury or other liquids to increase the expansion on impact.
Ammunition design is quite sophisticated. To the point that many hunters tend to use different ammo out of the same gun depending on what prey they are hunting.
Also hunting is abhorrent and should be illegal.
The environmental costs of banning hunting would be catastrophic. The problem is that we, like geniuses, went and shot almost all the wolves and most of the cougars. Without these predators, the deer population is not being regulated the way it should, which is very, very bad for the ecosystem. Ideally we'd reintroduce the predators, but it's politically difficult because the ranchers are adamant about not wanting to have to protect their livestock. The other solution is to sell humans licenses and let them shoot the animals. Of course, this needs to be closely regulated to keep the population from dropping too low or endangered animals from being targeted, but currently hunting is necessary to keep the ecosystem balanced.