Newspaper publishes list of gun owners

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, I think guns should be as regulated as cars. You should need to pass a test to get your license and the thing should be registered and insured.
I would be okay with this if some sheriffs weren't already routinely denying concealed carry permits to anyone in some counties/cities in the US, if for no other reason than they don't want people to have them or would face consequences politically if they granted them. Giving them or the city the power to deny ownership licenses outright would simply create a work around for the 2nd amendment in policy, if not law.

Seriously, let's just put a change to the 2nd Amendment on the ballots in 1-2 years time and just solve this issue. Making it a public decision absolves Congress of the potential political problems associated with it and will demonstratively prove which side has more support. Then everyone can shut up about this.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Seriously, let's just put a change to the 2nd Amendment on the ballots in 1-2 years time and just solve this issue. Making it a public decision absolves Congress of the potential political problems associated with it and will demonstratively prove which side has more support. Then everyone can shut up about this.
There's a reason constitutional amendments go through congress and are not subject to direct democracy. This is a republic. Democracy is 3 wolves and 2 sheep voting on what's for dinner.
 
Well, according to the argument of needing guns to protect yourselves from a tyrannic government, wouldn't it be much better that congress were banned to change the second amendment by themselves?
 
Our last President wanted to change the country's name. In a non-republic democracy it would have happened, too.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Yeah, as stienman points out, it may start in the congress, but that's not where it ends. There have been amendments that failed ratification, such as the 1926 child labor amendment that passed congress but only got ratified by 28 states.
 
Seriously, let's just put a change to the 2nd Amendment on the ballots in 1-2 years time and just solve this issue. Making it a public decision absolves Congress of the potential political problems associated with it and will demonstratively prove which side has more support. Then everyone can shut up about this.
I think part of the problem is that the jurisdictions on the issue are so weird.

I think anyone 18+ in America should be able to own a shotgun w/ birdshot that they keep on their property without a license that they got through a registered sale (barring the whole mental health, felons, waiting periods discussion). However, it's not too hard to imagine jurisdiction-specific restrictions that are perfectly reasonable for things beyond that. For example, I don't think it's unreasonable for urban areas to be stricter in how they dole out CCLs or to restrict/ban sales of ammo designed to penetrate, whereas for rural areas that's a very different kind of conversation.

But then you have the problem of people bringing their legally-bought weapons/ammo into places where they are otherwise restricted....
 

GasBandit

Staff member
But then you have the problem of people bringing their legally-bought weapons/ammo into places where they are otherwise restricted....
And of course, the ever present fact that criminals do not obey laws, so by definition, such laws only disarm the law-abiding.
 
Like I said in another thread, guns are REALLY difficult to get down here, the only legal mean to do so is buying it from the army, after extensive background checks.

That of course means gun violence in Mexico is nonexistent, it's all puppies and tacos up there in the northern part of the country.
 
And of course, the ever present fact that criminals do not obey laws, so by definition, such laws only disarm the law-abiding.
I'm really not sure how having a rifle capable of shooting through the two apartments next to yours is going to make you any safer than a shotgun with birdshot when a guy tries to bust down your door and take your TV.
 
I'm really not sure how having a rifle capable of shooting through the two apartments next to yours is going to make you any safer than a shotgun with birdshot when a guy tries to bust down your door and take your TV.
If you're only talking about inside home defense, then a rifle is a poor choice. A turkey gun (short barrel shotgun) or a handgun will be your best bet.

Nice thing about the shotgun is that it won't go far beyond your target, such as into adjoining units and rooms where innocent people may be.

A rifle is useful when you can see the attacker coming and they are still not inside your residence, or if, for instance, you do retreat to a location elsewhere on your property (shed, garage, etc) and the attacker is intent on harming you, rather than simply grabbing stuff and leaving.
 
If you're only talking about home defense, then a rifle is a poor choice. A turkey gun (short barrel shotgun) or a handgun will be your best bet.

Nice thing about the shotgun is that it won't go far beyond your target, such as into adjoining units and rooms where innocent people may be.
That is my thought. Is why I'm fully in favor of making shotguns relatively easy to own.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I'm really not sure how having a rifle capable of shooting through the two apartments next to yours is going to make you any safer than a shotgun with birdshot when a guy tries to bust down your door and take your TV.
Granted, I've chosen a shotgun for my own home defense purposes as well. But what I meant was, the law abiding one is not the problem.
 
Granted, I've chosen a shotgun for my own home defense purposes as well. But what I meant was, the law abiding one is not the problem.
What if our law-abider sells his guns and ammo to someone who isn't so-inclined? The exact legality of private sales vary by state. It's not quite as simple as saying that "only the criminals commit crime".

People who are law-abiding can still lack common sense or personal responsibility. Going by many of your previous rants, I'm sure you agree.
 
It's not the seller's responsibility to ensure the product will be used safely, and the seller cannot possibly be expected to make sure that the customer takes the same care in selling it a second time.
 
It's not the seller's responsibility to ensure the product will be used safely, and the seller cannot possibly be expected to make sure that the customer takes the same care in selling it a second time.
Then "it's okay, the owner is law-abiding" really doesn't work as an argument, does it?
 
Then "it's okay, the owner is law-abiding" really doesn't work as an argument, does it?
I'm sure it's all above board so long as he leaves all the, "WARNING: Misuse of this product can cause serious injury and/or death" labels attached to the packaging.

--Patrick
 
DO NOT operate trigger with thumb.
DO NOT open beverages with this product.
NOT INTENDED for children under 3 years old.
DO NOT cover vents with fleshy parts of your hand.
 

Necronic

Staff member
I'm really not sure how having a rifle capable of shooting through the two apartments next to yours is going to make you any safer than a shotgun with birdshot when a guy tries to bust down your door and take your TV.
One of the things that you hear "gun nuts" talk a lot about is so-called "stopping power". What this really is talking about is a weapon's ability to generate "Hydrostatic Shock". This is an event that occurs if a large enough volume of the body is displaced with high enough force that it will create a shockwave through the circulatory system or wherever which can damage organs or even stop the heart.

This is why a lot of gun nuts prefer something like a 45 or 50 cal pistol, which can hold 8 rounds and weighs 10 pounds, the something like an FN 57, which can hold 10-20 rounds and weighs 3 pounds. It's also the reason that a high calibre rifle could potentially be more effective than a shotgun with birdshot.

This is also a big part of why most gun nuts are incredibly stupid.
 
One of the things that you hear "gun nuts" talk a lot about is so-called "stopping power". What this really is talking about is a weapon's ability to generate "Hydrostatic Shock". This is an event that occurs if a large enough volume of the body is displaced with high enough force that it will create a shockwave through the circulatory system or wherever which can damage organs or even stop the heart.

This is why a lot of gun nuts prefer something like a 45 or 50 cal pistol, which can hold 8 rounds and weighs 10 pounds, the something like an FN 57, which can hold 10-20 rounds and weighs 3 pounds. It's also the reason that a high calibre rifle could potentially be more effective than a shotgun with birdshot.

This is also a big part of why most gun nuts are incredibly stupid.
I don't follow - what is stupid about their reasoning?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I don't follow - what is stupid about their reasoning?
Because stopping power/"Hydrostatic shock" is mostly a figment of the imagination. Physics tells us the impact force of the bullet can't be any more forceful than the recoil of the shot (abarring extenuating influences such as shock absorption from a semi auto mechanism). People/animals flying back after getting shot is more an effect of muscles than bullets, as you might note when shooting the carcass of a deer that flipped through the air the first time you shot it barely nudges it postmortem with the same weapon/cartridge.
 
Because stopping power/"Hydrostatic shock" is mostly a figment of the imagination. Physics tells us the impact force of the bullet can't be any more forceful than the recoil of the shot (abarring extenuating influences such as shock absorption from a semi auto mechanism). People/animals flying back after getting shot is more an effect of muscles than bullets, as you might note when shooting the carcass of a deer that flipped through the air the first time you shot it barely nudges it postmortem with the same weapon/cartridge.
That being said, there HAVE been studies finding brain hemorrhaging caused by shots to the chest, so it's EXAGGERATED but not entirely without merit. Shockwaves through what's mostly a bag filled with fluid are real, just not as big a factor as lots of fans of the theory make it to be.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
That being said, there HAVE been studies finding brain hemorrhaging caused by shots to the chest, so it's EXAGGERATED but not entirely without merit. Shockwaves through what's mostly a bag filled with fluid are real, just not as big a factor as lots of fans of the theory make it to be.
To an extent, but no bullet will really throw somebody back 10 feet/through a window, and the best way to kill quickly is shot placement - perforate major organs where blood vessels are densest to cause a sudden drop in blood pressure which precipitates a speedy lapse into unconsciousness.
 
I'm sure some people without an understanding of physics will exagerate the effects of the shock wave that a bullet makes, especially when they see the cavities formed in clay dummies used at the target range.

However the idea that the shockwave the bullet creates can be more deadly than the mechanical damage the bullet itself makes as it tumbles through the person is reasonable. A bullet can miss major organs and arteries, but still cause ruptures in nearby organs and arteries due to the shockwave.

But I'm no ballistics expert, and personally I'd prefer a bullet through the heart to a bullet that might produce a shockwave capable of possibly killing someone.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I'm sure some people without an understanding of physics will exagerate the effects of the shock wave that a bullet makes, especially when they see the cavities formed in clay dummies used at the target range.

However the idea that the shockwave the bullet creates can be more deadly than the mechanical damage the bullet itself makes as it tumbles through the person is reasonable. A bullet can miss major organs and arteries, but still cause ruptures in nearby organs and arteries due to the shockwave.

But I'm no ballistics expert, and personally I'd prefer a bullet through the heart to a bullet that might produce a shockwave capable of possibly killing someone.
The reason the shotgun is such a good home defense weapon - multiple chances in one trigger-pull to get multiple organs.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I dunno, I'm a Sniper in Mass Effect with a shotty as secondary and I swear I miss with the shotgun way more.
Heh, well, I can tell you from trap shooting in real life that sometimes trying to hit a moving target at a 90 degree angle of attack feels less like shooting a gun and more like... wielding a flail.
 
Physics tells us the impact force of the bullet can't be any more forceful than the recoil of the shot (abarring extenuating influences such as shock absorption from a semi auto mechanism).
The object of this "designed for personal defense" ammo has to do with the transfer of kinetic energy. The idea is to transfer 100% of the energy of the projectile into the body of the attacker. This is what "over penetration" is all about, and why it is so bad. If the projectile exits the other side of the attacker then by definition it did not leave all the energy within the attacker's body, which is useful deterrence left on the table, so to speak, and a hazard to anything behind your target. The hard part to balance is that the projectile has to have enough penetration to go through clothing and skin while losing as little energy as possible BUT fragment as much as possible once into the wet interior of the subject to really do some damage. Highly frangible loads will leave more kinetic energy (and lots of shrapnel) behind but may not penetrate heavy clothing (or light armor). Heavy loads will punch through outerwear but may go through your opponent, the wall behind, and possibly one or more of your neighbors.

I'm not entirely convinced of the whole "stops your heart" thing. Any pressure wave strong enough to stop your heart would probably burst the blood vessels and dissipate long before reaching your heart. Hydrostatic shock is real, though, as evidenced by the following picture:

Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg


Note that each wound channel shows a small entry point followed by a ballooned portion where the bullet mushroomed and generated lateral force. The more lateral force generated by the expansion/fragmentation, the shorter the penetration, and the more damage/energy transferred to the target. The idea is to damage as much meat as possible in the hopes that something important will be broken in the process WITHOUT causing hazard to anything beyond your target.

Hunting bullets (the ones for hunting the seriously dangerous game) are somewhat of an exception, because they are designed to stay in one piece and penetrate through 8 feet of Cape Buffalo while "key holing" or tumbling so as to create as wide a tunnel as possible all the way through.

--Patrick
 
As the owner of a pit bull, who has been through much obedience training and is the nicest dog I've ever had, I grow tired of people assuming that all dogs are evil/dangerous/engines of destruction.
Just read the story of Patrick in NJ. I can completely see your point of view.
Anyone who wants to Google it up can go right ahead, but I'm warning you now...you will invariably feel a desire to do a great deal of malice upon another human being*.

--Patrick
*if she can be thought of as such.
 
I'm a bit more ticked that anyone can go online and find out how much money I made last year (2011, not 2012).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top