The US constitution and the right to "Bear Arms"

Capt'n Midnight

bananayoghurt wrote:

that wouldn't be too hard actually, any weapons /ammunition which generate more than x ft-lbs are illegal

I've heard that a .22 rifle is a favoured tool of some contract killers. The bullet is small enough to penetrate the skull, but not to exit the far side, so it bounces around inside turning your brain to mush..

Sparks

Load of garbage Capt'n. Someone's been reading hollywood and spouting it to you I'm afraid.

bonkey

The only way that would work is to put the .22 to the soft-spot at the temple, fire at point-black and hope it managed to get through, and didn't get deflected too much in the process.

Having said that, the Bushmaster that the Beltway sniper used was often (mis)reported as a .22-calibre. Its .223 Remington (which isn't quite the same thing) and was most definitely capable of killing ppl at 100M range, so its easy to see why there's an awful lot of ppl who will be skeptical when told that a .22 wouldn't ever kill anything...

jc

civdef

As far as I know, the 22lr cartridge is still the most commonly used round by criminals in the US. The reason for this is not that the 22lr is some sort of uber-killer, just that it's cheap.

A .22lr can kill, which is why shooters need to be so conscious of safety. It's unlikely though that a single shot would do the job.

Speaking of assasins, apparently a popular method used by mob hitmen was to walk up behind someone, then empty a magazine full of .22lr into the target's lower back. The 22 doesn't make as much noise as other rounds, and this made the getaway easier.

Sparks

Civ, the 9mm cartridge is the most commonly used one for criminals in the US, with the .45 and .40 cartridges not far behind.

And JC, the .223 Remington is very different from the .22lr! One is nearly identical to the 5.56mm round used in the M-16 (the differences are to do with the propellant and so on - to the naked eye they're the same round); the other is the size of your thumbnail and much less powerful, with a muzzle energy of 190 Joules as compared to 1,786 Joules for the .223 Remington.

civdef

Sparks wrote:

Civ, the 9mm cartridge is the most commonly used one for criminals in the US, with the .45 and .40 cartridges not far behind.

Any sources on that?

bonkey

Sparks wrote:

And JC, the .223 Remington is very different from the .22lr!

Yes, I'm aware of that. Maybe I didn't make my sarcasm evident enough

The point I'm making is that this rifle was (to my memory) often referred to as being ".22 calibre" on the news. My initial reaction was to think "WTF" and go check what it really was, which is why I remember.

The difference (if you know nothing about ammunition) appears to be 3 thousands of whatever-measurement-its-using. Therefore, its reasonable (if you know nothing about ammunition) to assume that .22 and .223 are identical, or virtually identical.

This level of confusion if often what leads to the misconceptions. Consider another example... the M-16 uses 5.56 mm. 9mm, on the other hand is one of the most common rounds for a hangun. So <sarcasm>obviously</sarcasm> a single round from the handgun is more deadly then that of the M-16!

I still don't know half enough about this stuff, other than to know that I shouldn't make assumptions based on the apparently significant numbers. But thats part of the problem....you can tell whoever you like that your .22 is safe as houses, and they'll still read about .223 Remington (possibly misreported as .22 Remington) and think that you must be trying to pull a fast one, cause if the Beltway sniper could kill people with it, it can't be as harmless as you say.

Its the age-old problem. Most of those who know enough to be able to make an informed judgement have too much of a vested interest in whatever-aspect-of-shooting-they-enjoy for their opinion to be considered objective. Everyone else doesn't know enough to have an objective opinion (a group I rank myself in).

Ultimately, both groups will choose the wrong answer for the other.....as we've seen over the past N pages.

jc

Sparks

Civ,
Rechecking, I may have been incorrect about the specific calibres, but the large calibre pistols are still the most used in crime according to the US Bureau of Justice :
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/guic.htm

JC,
Yup, sarcastic hand was not held high enough there But you can find one or two figures that are critical ones when judging lethality of a firearm - the muzzle energy of the projectile is often used, for example. (Which is why I've been quoting it so often).

Capt'n Midnight

many guns are sold on "stopping power"
http://www.chuckhawks.com/beginners_stopping_power.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_156_26/ai_82533213

A formerly unknown ammo company, American Ammunition, Inc., recently announced that it has been a provisional patent for a bullet that will not penetrate an airline fuselage, but will poke through human tissue. The patent was applied for 15 days after Sept. 11.

"ordinance gelatin" - scary stuff when you realise it's main use

xm15e3

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

I've heard that a .22 rifle is a favoured tool of some contract killers. The bullet is small enough to penetrate the skull, but not to exit the far side, so it bounces around inside turning your brain to mush..

I've heard this also. IIRC, the Mossad used .22lr frequently. The point being, that even though they have low KE at the muzzle, the still penetrate well. As mentioned above, they are much easier to silence then other calibers.

omnicorp

civdef wrote:

Omnicorp, you've clearly demonstrated you know very little about firearms. This renders you ill-equipped to start pontificating on the subject. Worrying about a subject you know little or nothing about only makes you look stupid.

a guns a gun.
But.... I am talking about guns designed with the capacity/purpose to kill animal or human.

monument

A tool's capacity and purpose can change from user to user.

A computer program can be used by an army to teach how to fight on the ground or in the sky, the same programs could be used for fun, could be called a computer game. I say ban computer games.

omnicorp

damn moralities... well... what about restrictions on guns? (in America)
instead of the walk down to Wal-Mart and pick up a couple of cartridges.

omnicorp

right, what does this have to do with the topic?
Why doesn't Sparks start a gun forum?
actually....

LegacyUser

monument wrote:

A tool's capacity and purpose can change from user to user.

A computer program can be used by an army to teach how to fight on the ground or in the sky, the same programs could be used for fun, could be called a computer game. I say ban computer games.

I shall meet you in battle, I shall bring my firearm, you bring your programs, then we shall see what a stupid stupid statement that was

Sparks

bananayoghurt wrote:

I shall meet you in battle, I shall bring my firearm, you bring your programs, then we shall see what a stupid stupid statement that was

Methinks that if you're going to call someone's statement stupid, you'd best do it in a sober and reasoned manner; both out of respect for the charter and in order to not look daft yourself!

omnicorp

um... he has a point, what good is a computer program, if, for instance, someone decides to go ona shooting rampage in a school because he finds a gun in his house?

Sparks

omnicorp wrote:

um... he has a point, what good is a computer program, if, for instance, someone decides to go ona shooting rampage in a school because he finds a gun in his house?

I've never actually heard of a shooting rampage which was caused by someone finding a gun in their house you know - most of these tragedies have some pretty serious psychological causes which take years to develop - it's not a case of Joe Random, honours student, who finds a gun and immediately turns into Joe Random, gun-wielding murdering sociopath...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

no, they have to listen to marilyn manson first.

Sparks

uh-oh.
So I have an air rifle and think that Manson's cover of Tainted Love was actually pretty okay - does this mean I'm going to be picking out a crowded place and practising my baseball bat swinging technique now?

monkey tennis

You must also play Grand Theft Auto for ten hours straight to work up the blood lust.

Sparks

Ah, well, we're safe enough for now so. Unless, of course, Starcraft can have the same effect!

monument

omnicorp wrote:

um... he has a point, what good is a computer program, if, for instance, someone decides to go ona shooting rampage in a school because he finds a gun in his house?

You have a point, lets arm everyone - once a shooter starts his school mates could take him out... :rolleyes:

And, bananayoghurt, could you please stop taking what I say out of context?

At the moment my family’s dogs is going a bit nuts here from all the (banned) bangers going off, I'm just thinking here... has there been any ban of any thing that has had the result wanted?... Drugs, drink, bangers...?

Sparks wrote:

uh-oh.
So I have an air rifle and think that Manson's cover of Tainted Love was actually pretty okay - does this mean I'm going to be picking out a crowded place and practising my baseball bat swinging technique now?

Everyone, watch out for that gun nut!

Sparks

monument wrote:

You have a point, lets arm everyone - once a shooter starts his school mates could take him out... :rolleyes:

Has actually happened, except that it was a teacher and he didn't have to shoot the kid.

At the moment my family’s dogs is going a bit nuts here from all the (banned) bangers going off, I'm just thinking here... has there been any ban of any thing that has had the result wanted?... Drugs, drink, bangers...?

Well, think about it. You ban something because it has been abused and (unless you're just a control freak) has subsequently hurt someone. But it's illegal to deliberately hurt someone (it's assault), so by banning it, you're just ensuring that the people who obey the law will stop using it - the ones who were causing the problem in the first place don't care about the law and so will continue to offend.

In other words, you need to ban the intent and enforce it (ie. enforce assault laws), not the means.

bonkey

omnicorp wrote:

right, what does this have to do with the topic?
Why doesn't Sparks start a gun forum?
actually....

I'm amazed that someone is asking what guns have to do with the right to bear arms....especially when its the thread-starter.

<shrug>

I think this discussion has reached as much of a conclusion as its going to...

Thread closed.