You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 12:40:36 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)  (Read 14971 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #375 on: December 07, 2015, 11:06:58 AM »
Hey, don't feel bad.  I think your ideas have merit.  And while Tairis makes some interesting points, they aren't indisputable.

For example, the point about "assault rifles" is subject to dispute in at least two ways.  First, the whole "don't use the term assault rifles" argument was invented by the NRA.  I note this a while back.  So it's propaganda, not fact.  Second, the law uses not-wholly-defined terms all the time.  What is pornography?  A law can be written to ban assault weapons based on general characteristics and leave it up to the courts to decide in each specific case what is and isn't illegal.  Gun manufacturers who are concerned if their next hot item will pass muster can always seeks legal advice before designing a weapon to sell.

Similarly, Tairis seems to agree with you on the "no guns for no fly list people" point.  Really, why wouldn't someone agree with that?  Because it is taking away a right without due process?  Yeah.  That doesn't work.  There is something call the Right to Freedom of Movement.  It is in the Constitution.  And guess what you lose when you are put on a no fly list?  The government can infringe on an individual rights in appropriate situations.

My point is, I think your post is good, Lustful Bride.  :-)

Online Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #376 on: December 07, 2015, 11:12:01 AM »
Hey, don't feel bad.  I think your ideas have merit.  And while Tairis makes some interesting points, they aren't indisputable.

For example, the point about "assault rifles" is subject to dispute in at least two ways.  First, the whole "don't use the term assault rifles" argument was invented by the NRA.  I note this a while back.  So it's propaganda, not fact.  Second, the law uses not-wholly-defined terms all the time.  What is pornography?  A law can be written to ban assault weapons based on general characteristics and leave it up to the courts to decide in each specific case what is and isn't illegal.  Gun manufacturers who are concerned if their next hot item will pass muster can always seeks legal advice before designing a weapon to sell.

Similarly, Tairis seems to agree with you on the "no guns for no fly list people" point.  Really, why wouldn't someone agree with that?  Because it is taking away a right without due process?  Yeah.  That doesn't work.  There is something call the Right to Freedom of Movement.  It is in the Constitution.  And guess what you lose when you are put on a no fly list?  The government can infringe on an individual rights in appropriate situations.

My point is, I think your post is good, Lustful Bride.  :-)

Thank you, I just feel like I'm trapped in a weird place, I want a gun for my own protection (seriously, rape statistics are horrifying) and at the same time I think we need a measure of control, our own gun laws were used against us. We need to be smart on this, while preserving the freedoms entrusted to us. Banning outright doesn't work, just look at prohibition and the drug trade.

But like I always say, that would require intelligent conversation and compromise from the people on capitol hill, which is impossible.

No joke, while working there my dad full on saw two congressmen giving each other the finger and one telling the other to go and die.

I can feel the founders spinning in their graves @_@
« Last Edit: December 07, 2015, 11:14:04 AM by Lustful Bride »

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #377 on: December 07, 2015, 11:31:49 AM »
Thank you, I just feel like I'm trapped in a weird place, I want a gun for my own protection (seriously, rape statistics are horrifying) and at the same time I think we need a measure of control, our own gun laws were used against us.

*nods* 

Honestly, I'm not seeing any current, urgent calls to ban pistols or shotguns or hunting rifles.  The proposals being tossed around in Congress seem to deal with gun show sales, terrorist watch/no fly lists, and guns like the AR-15.  I don't see any of these proposals impairing my or your right to buy and own a .38 or Remington shotgun, for example.  And either of those will do a darn fine job of self/home defense.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #378 on: December 07, 2015, 12:02:52 PM »
I don't see any of these proposals impairing my or your right to buy and own a .38 or Remington shotgun, for example.  And either of those will do a darn fine job of self/home defense.

In some cases, without even bringing the weapon to bear.  There's something - visceral - about the sound of a double-barrel getting racked.  ;D

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #379 on: December 07, 2015, 12:35:38 PM »
Lustful: There's nothing wrong with proposing ideas. My point is more that this is where the problem arises: people that don't KNOW about guns deciding what should and should not be legal. The Assault Weapons ban was a joke for this exact reason. If you want to get a gun, I fully support you doing so. My recommendation is, however, to find someone that is already a practicing shooter to walk you through it and let you try it out.

You also need to examine your personal beliefs and stances, and determine that if it came down to it that you are willing to use the gun. Too many people buy them to feel safe but with no intention of actually firing them. They think a gun will 'scare people off' if they pull it out. ANd thats a recipe for disaster.

Also the 'assault rifle' designation was not an argument invented by the NRA. It was invented by people logically pointing out that there is no such thing as 'assault rifles'. You can't just make up a classification that has no actual definitions and then use it to ban things. That's where you get nonsensical loop holes like one gun by the same manufacturer being banned while the same gun with a different package of options (say a foregrip) is illegal.

I was actually hoping for a serious answer.  How do we keep the guns out of the hands of spree killers?  Every method of screening currently in place doesn't seem to be doing it.  Any suggestions for improving/focusing those screening methods gets nipped in the bud by some group or other.  I'm not a gun owner, but I don't think banning is necessary either.  I believe in the concept of safe and sane gun ownership, and many of the gun-owners I've spoken to here on E seem to fall into that category.

Most it means you need a real, comprehensive background check system at a federal level. No more 'state X doesn't check state Ys records' or 'mental health facility doesn't report to state Z'. This means you also need some very explicit laws on the side of the mental health industry that forces them to both report that information and to make it a major issue if that information is NOT provided because how many times have we heard 'well the shrink thought his journals were worrying but that didn't appear on a  background check etc'.

Everything needs to pass through the same source, the same requirements, with the same info. I also have no issue with requiring a basic competency course just like getting your motorcycle certification or drivers license. You wouldn't need to do it per gun, but you'd need to get it to own them at all and have it be renewed every X years. Much like your drivers license and the motor cycle endorsement you could then add on additional certifications like concealed carry, armed security, etc.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2015, 12:40:47 PM by Tairis »

Offline Caehlim

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #380 on: December 07, 2015, 11:14:10 PM »
No hollow points? Once again I have to ask: why? What is the actual, logical reasoning behind banning hollow point rounds other than 'housewives hear about them on dateline and they sound scary'?

You don't want cops and civilians using full metal jacket rounds. See the view below for an example, but there's a very good reason all cops use hollow points. It does more damage to your target, but more importantly it stops you from killing bystandards when your full metal jacket round over penetrates and hits someone or something behind what you're shooting. Unlike Hollywood even FMJ pistol rounds are fully capable of punching through a human body and leaving with enough force to kill someone on the other side.

I agree with the FBI's assessment of this. If you're worried about over penetration, you're too confident in your accuracy.

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #381 on: December 08, 2015, 09:34:31 PM »
I agree with the FBI's assessment of this. If you're worried about over penetration, you're too confident in your accuracy.

Huh? The FBI uses hollow point rounds themselves. For the same reasons. And even assuming you missed, why would you want a round that could hit multiple bystanders?

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #382 on: December 08, 2015, 09:42:13 PM »
For that matter, if you're worried about hitting bystanders, even more reason to use hollow points - they deform/shatter on impact, so the chances of a dangerous ricochet are much lower than FMJ.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #383 on: December 08, 2015, 11:55:33 PM »
Yeah, better to use a bullet that'll just properly mangle the bystander.   ::)

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #384 on: December 09, 2015, 12:00:32 AM »
It's not like an FMJ round punching through their guts would be any less lethal. ::) I was referring to the habit of a hollow-point to break up on impact, so any richochets would be, at best, small low-velocity shards instead of big nasty bullets. Also less likely to go through walls/windows, your target...really, the cops have the right idea by using hollow-points, regardless of accuracy (which was the counter-argument). In an urban or interior environment, shooting lines are typically going to be restricted, so the odds of your shot missing the original target and continuing on a direct line to 'mangle' a bystander are very low unless you are actively firing into a crowd or crowded situation (in which case you are an idiot for shooting at all if you're not a skilled marksman).
« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 12:04:40 AM by TheGlyphstone »

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #385 on: December 09, 2015, 12:06:03 AM »
It's not like an FMJ round punching through their guts would be any less lethal.

there's a very good reason all cops use hollow points. It does more damage to your target

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #386 on: December 09, 2015, 12:17:58 AM »
That doesn't make my statement untrue. A solid bullet through the guts and a hollow point in the gut are both lethal, but the latter deals more damage up-front, incapacitating the target faster. That is the cop's primary priority when firing their weapon, to put their target down, and the hollow-point is superior in that regard. The fact that if they miss, they are much less likely to harm a civilian - not impossible, but less likely - is a very valuable bonus.

I'm not sure what you believe you are arguing against...do you think cops should switch to using FMJ rounds?
« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 12:20:17 AM by TheGlyphstone »

Online Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #387 on: December 09, 2015, 06:14:30 AM »
Here's an idea about ammunition: Don't ban certain types - unless it is something clearly intended for military use. Let people have it if they want it so much. But restrict where and when they can use it. If you think you need exploding hollow-point kryptonite bullets to defend your home against intruders you can have them - as long as they stay in your home that you are intrested in defending. You want them to turn targets at a shooting range into toothpicks? You can have them - provided you store them either at the range or at your home, and in the latter case you carry them straight from your home to the range and back again. No detours, and you carry them separately, not already loaded into your gun.

Maybe that's the way to go about the whole topic: Identifying what should be legitimate uses for guns and then trying to find ways to ensure that those are the only uses people make of their guns. You won't get guns out of America. They are there to stay, be it for home defence, sports, or hunting. So maybe the law should focus on what people really need to go about those things and make sure they get what they need, neither less, but also not more.

Offline Caehlim

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #388 on: December 09, 2015, 07:50:08 AM »
Huh? The FBI uses hollow point rounds themselves. For the same reasons. And even assuming you missed, why would you want a round that could hit multiple bystanders?

Sorry I should have included my source there, I just didn't want to go looking for it but that was a bit lazy of me. Tracked it down. I'm referring to the Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness report from the Firearms Training Unit at Quantico. Specifically this quote on page 11: "Choosing a bullet because of relatively shallow penetration will seriously compromise weapon effectiveness, and needlessly endanger the lives of the law enforcement officers using it. No law enforcement officer has lost his life because a bullet over penetrated his adversary, and virtually none have ever been sued for hitting an innocent bystander through an adversary. On the other hand, tragically large numbers of officers have been killed because their bullets did not penetrate deeply enough."

To which I would personally also add that if your line of fire is so unclear that you could hit a bystander on an over penetration you shouldn't be taking the shot to begin with. Not because it might over penetrate (although it might) but because of the much more likely tragedy of you just simply missing and hitting the bystander anyway. With the statistic of how many rounds shot by police hit their target I think worrying about the over penetration is like shooting at someone and worrying you might scare them into a heart attack. It could happen, but you should really be worried about the much more likely cause of danger.

I apologize if it sounded like I was saying that hollow-points should be banned, I don't think that they should. I was being a bit over pedantic over an obscure firearms argument and unclear. Sorry.

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #389 on: December 09, 2015, 09:40:06 AM »
I apologize if it sounded like I was saying that hollow-points should be banned, I don't think that they should. I was being a bit over pedantic over an obscure firearms argument and unclear. Sorry.

Yea, no worries. Think you kind of misinterpreted the study tho :D

That report is about the argument that law enforcement should use lower caliber rounds or only use frangible rounds, etc. Basically the conclusion is that you shouldn't use a round that has low stopping power and lethality just because you're worried about over penetration because while you MIGHT hit someone, you are DEFINITELY already dealing with a lethal situation if you're having to use the gun in the first place.

Which is why the standard side arm of the FBI are Glock 22/23s chambered in .40 cal and they're all issued jacketed hollow points (unless taking the weapon on a plane in which case they switch to frangible).

Here's an idea about ammunition: Don't ban certain types - unless it is something clearly intended for military use. Let people have it if they want it so much. But restrict where and when they can use it. If you think you need exploding hollow-point kryptonite bullets to defend your home against intruders you can have them - as long as they stay in your home that you are intrested in defending. You want them to turn targets at a shooting range into toothpicks? You can have them - provided you store them either at the range or at your home, and in the latter case you carry them straight from your home to the range and back again. No detours, and you carry them separately, not already loaded into your gun.

Maybe that's the way to go about the whole topic: Identifying what should be legitimate uses for guns and then trying to find ways to ensure that those are the only uses people make of their guns. You won't get guns out of America. They are there to stay, be it for home defence, sports, or hunting. So maybe the law should focus on what people really need to go about those things and make sure they get what they need, neither less, but also not more.

This is my point though: it's irrelevant. What are you going to ban? Who gets to decide if its a legitimate use? No matter what they're still going to be out there.

Because in the end lets assume you managed to somehow remove every magazine in the US over 10 rounds. That's not going to stop spree killers. The ones that plan these kind of dedicated attacks (not the 'crime of passion' types, but from what we've seen those are pretty rare by comparison) are going to buy whats available and they're going to learn how to use them. It takes literally less than a second for someone practiced to reload a standard semi-automatic handgun.

Depending on the style of rifle, basically anything with a box magazine, you can be just as fast. Most of these spree killings do not involve people with massive 100 round magazines and none of them involve guys with machine guns movie style. But when they occasionally do it becomes a media firestorm as the blood sucking parasites on Fox, CNN, etc harp on minor details because they NEED outrage and fear.

The other thing is you're never going to get anything other than vitriolic backlash with bans. No matter how you try to pitch it, you're still telling a massive chunk of the population that are completely innocent, law abiding citizens: this thing that you own, that you've had for years, is too dangerous and the government has decided you're not allowed to have it. And that is never going to go well.

The restriction has to take place at the individual level. You have to make it an obtainable but not 'drive through at McDonalds' level goal to acquire firearms. A certain level of effort will stymie the ones that are just unstable but not dedicated and making the process touch enough people and go through some basic hoops you vastly increase the chance of someone along the way going 'wait a minute, I'm not sure about this guy.'
« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 09:52:26 AM by Tairis »

Offline Caehlim

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #390 on: December 09, 2015, 10:06:03 AM »
Yea, no worries. Think you kind of misinterpreted the study tho :D

That report is about the argument that law enforcement should use lower caliber rounds or only use frangible rounds, etc. Basically the conclusion is that you shouldn't use a round that has low stopping power and lethality just because you're worried about over penetration because while you MIGHT hit someone, you are DEFINITELY already dealing with a lethal situation if you're having to use the gun in the first place.

Yes, I think you're right there. It was something I read a long time ago and I think I mixed in some of my own ideas in with what I remembered it saying. Honestly they're just police procedural minutia that I shouldn't have brought up in a gun control discussion anyway because it's so completely off topic. Sorry for the distraction.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #391 on: December 09, 2015, 10:06:43 AM »
I'm not sure what you believe you are arguing against...do you think cops should switch to using FMJ rounds?

No, I'm not.

The discussion I was responding to was the risk posed by the bullets to a bystander.  Tairis pointed out that FMJs can penetrate a person better, and hence may hit a bystander.  You pointed out that FMJs ricochet more, and hence may hit a bystander.  I was trying to show that one can hit bystander in ways other than penetrating the target or with a ricochet:  one can simply miss and the bullet proceeds to directly hit the bystander.  In that case, the increased lethality of a hollow point (and such bullets are more lethal than FMJs) isn't a benefit.  In other words, the risk to bystanders issue isn't so clear cut.


Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #392 on: December 09, 2015, 10:18:20 AM »
No, I'm not.

The discussion I was responding to was the risk posed by the bullets to a bystander.  Tairis pointed out that FMJs can penetrate a person better, and hence may hit a bystander.  You pointed out that FMJs ricochet more, and hence may hit a bystander.  I was trying to show that one can hit bystander in ways other than penetrating the target or with a ricochet:  one can simply miss and the bullet proceeds to directly hit the bystander.  In that case, the increased lethality of a hollow point (and such bullets are more lethal than FMJs) isn't a benefit.  In other words, the risk to bystanders issue isn't so clear cut.

In the end, it is, though. That's part of what the study that Caehlim linked is talking about: the danger to innocents in the event of a shoot out. The basic conclusion is that the individual that you are shooting is a 100% guaranteed danger and thus you need to deal with that danger rather than try to 'hedge your bets' against the possibility of a secondary danger.

Hollowpoints impart more of their force on the target, basically yes, they are going to do more damage to tissue... but they're not going through people, they're not going through walls (or when they do they've lost much more velocity). And if you hit a bystander center of mass with a FMJ their chances are not that much better to justify using FMJ instead to add risk to additional people. A hit to a major organ with either type of bullet is going to be extremely bad.

The simple fact of the matter is that it is very clear cut. It's why virtually every law enforcement agency in the world uses hollow point rounds. Because they've done the research and shown that its the superior type of round to use in the dangerous situations they encounter.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 10:19:37 AM by Tairis »

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #393 on: December 09, 2015, 11:11:58 AM »
The basic conclusion is that the individual that you are shooting is a 100% guaranteed danger and thus you need to deal with that danger rather than try to 'hedge your bets' against the possibility of a secondary danger.

The basic conclusion is unrealistic.  We can't assume everyone who fires a weapon knows what they are doing, or are doing so in a dangerous-to-them situation.  For example.

Second, we can't assume everyone who fires a weapon knows gun-kata.  Many people miss.  And when they miss, they hollow point poses a greater risk than the FMJ if it connects with an innocent bystander because, as you've noted, they are more lethal.

Third, the fact police and the FBI have access to something doesn't mean the civilians should get the same access.  Police officers and FBI agents have far better training than the average gun owner.  Again, see the Home Depot example above.


Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #394 on: December 09, 2015, 05:06:58 PM »
The basic conclusion is unrealistic.  We can't assume everyone who fires a weapon knows what they are doing, or are doing so in a dangerous-to-them situation.  For example.

Second, we can't assume everyone who fires a weapon knows gun-kata.  Many people miss.  And when they miss, they hollow point poses a greater risk than the FMJ if it connects with an innocent bystander because, as you've noted, they are more lethal.

Third, the fact police and the FBI have access to something doesn't mean the civilians should get the same access.  Police officers and FBI agents have far better training than the average gun owner.  Again, see the Home Depot example above.

Except for the fact that police officers miss too. Often, actually, and that is factored into the studies and decisions to use that kind of ammunition. Which is the basic conclusion you're saying is unrealistic. Even though that's the conclusion of the actual government agency that does this for a living.

Do you know what happens when you miss with a hollow point?

If you hit someone first, it's bad. They are going to be severely wounded. Of course if you hit someone with a FMJ round they're also going to be severely wounded. If a vital organ is struck the type of bullet isn't going to matter that much. The biggest difference is going to be when someone is hit in a non-immediately fatal area because yes, the hollow point is going to do more tissue damage.

But if you hit a car door first? The bullet deforms and dumps its kinetic energy. Still might hit someone inside but it's already going to have lost a significant portion of its force.

If you hit a wall? The bullet deforms and dumps its kinetic energy.

If you hit pavement or sidewalk on a low shot? The bullet will generally simply fall apart. Any ricochets are small chunks with vastly lower potential for fatal injury because so much mass has been lost.

Try the same with a FMJ .40 caliber round. On average an FMJ round will punch through three or more layers of drywall carrying enough of its initial velocity to be fatal the entire way. Except the bystanders you can see are at the least risk. You know where they are.

It's a far different story for the unfortunate person living in the apartment next door that gets killed because a round punched through a thin apartment wall or the person sitting in the car across the street, or even the person that was not even in your line of fire but, because you shot at close range that FMJ round was still traveling at 500 feet per second or more and ricocheted off the concrete wall behind them or off the pavement.

You're getting hung up on a single variable while ignoring all the others. As I said before, there is a very good reason that law enforcement uses the rounds they do.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #395 on: December 09, 2015, 05:40:02 PM »
You're getting hung up on a single variable while ignoring all the others. As I said before, there is a very good reason that law enforcement uses the rounds they do.

No, I don't think so.  Let's be clear here.  What I disagree with is the claim that hollow point bullets are safer than FMJs, as an absolute.  And I disagree with this not because of "one variable," but because of several.

We seem to agree that from the point a bullet leaves the muzzle until it strikes something, a hollow point is more dangerous than a FMJ bullet.  That's, after all, why police want to use hollow points, as you've noted and I agree with.

Now, I also agree that once a hollow point strikes something, it is less dangerous than the FMJ.

So a hollow point is safer in the sense it reduced ricochet and penetration damage--i.e., after it hits something.  It is not safer in the sense of directly striking a bystander directly--i.e., before it hits something.  This is why I won't accept the argument that a hollow point is safer as an absolute.  It is safer in some contexts, and not others. 

Another context is who's firing the bullet. 

You say the study assumes bullet will be fired only against an attacker, a legitimate threat.  But this is not how things really work in the world. 

Bullets are fired in circumstances other than against an attacker, a legitimate threat.  Idiots fire guns.  Criminals fire guns.  Well-intentioned people with bad aim fire guns.  Police fire guns.  Well-trained responsible gun owners fire guns.  Kids messing around fire guns.  Angry spouses and ex-lovers fire guns.  Terrorists fire guns.  Doped up morons fire guns.

In some of these cases, the fact the shooter is using hollow points does not increase the risk to bystanders.  But in others, it must assuredly does.  Thus, again, I cannot accept the argument that a hollow point is safer as an absolute.

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #396 on: December 09, 2015, 06:36:04 PM »

Bullets are fired in circumstances other than against an attacker, a legitimate threat.  Idiots fire guns.  Criminals fire guns.  Well-intentioned people with bad aim fire guns.  Police fire guns.  Well-trained responsible gun owners fire guns.  Kids messing around fire guns.  Angry spouses and ex-lovers fire guns.  Terrorists fire guns.  Doped up morons fire guns.

In some of these cases, the fact the shooter is using hollow points does not increase the risk to bystanders.  But in others, it must assuredly does.  Thus, again, I cannot accept the argument that a hollow point is safer as an absolute.

So in your world you'd rather have the 'kid messing around with a gun' or the 'doped up moron' (who is probably spraying bullets wildly) firing rounds that are capable of going through an apartment building and killing someone on the other side?

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #397 on: December 09, 2015, 06:46:22 PM »
No, I wouldn't.

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #398 on: December 09, 2015, 07:10:23 PM »
No, I wouldn't.

Hence my point.

A hollow point is only more dangerous to the person it hits, in all other scenarios its the safer round. And regardless of whether it hits a bystander or the actual target, those people have to be in the same room. If you say 'civilians can't have hollow points' you're creating a scenario where someone is now not only a danger to the people in the immediate area of the shooting, but a danger to those that aren't even aware that is a shooting taking place because they're literally in another building.


Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #399 on: December 09, 2015, 07:31:18 PM »
Hence my point.

A hollow point is only more dangerous to the person it hits, in all other scenarios its the safer round. And regardless of whether it hits a bystander or the actual target, those people have to be in the same room. If you say 'civilians can't have hollow points' you're creating a scenario where someone is now not only a danger to the people in the immediate area of the shooting, but a danger to those that aren't even aware that is a shooting taking place because they're literally in another building.

No, not really.  I knew what you were trying to do.  You asked in my world if I wanted a specific thing.  You asked for a binary response.  I gave you one.  But you can't draw a broader conclusion from that binary response because it wasn't an exclusive question. 

I don't what them shooting bullets through walls.

And I don't want them shooting bullets that will blow craters through people's tissue either.


Look, you've basically said we're in agreement  "A hollow point is only more dangerous to the person it hits, in all other scenarios its the safer round."  In other words, a hollow point bullet is not always safer. 

If something can be more dangerous in a situation, then it can't always be safer.

I think we're starting to repeat what we're saying to each other.  So, how about it, Tairis.  Agree to disagree?