Export thread

... and is surprised at the public backlash.

Responding to a national backlash over their decision to publish an interactive map with the names and addresses of registered gun owners, the editorial staff at Gannett’s Journal News has hired armed guards to watch over their building.

...


No word yet on whether Journal News plans to release the names and addresses of its armed guards.

Click to expand...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new...s-addresses-of-gun-owners-hires-armed-guards/

Were there any actual death threats (not just "scary emails")?

I just, ugh. Such a stupid move by the paper. People are rightly pissed.

wow, she was trolling right?

Grunk-a-lunk-a-dumpity-darmedguards...

SpecialKO said:

Were there any actual death threats (not just "scary emails")?

Click to expand...

According to the article, no. The police investigated the two worst "threats" and found they had no merit. For example, one email included something to the effect of "I would hate to see what you get in your email from now on." The owner of the paper decided that was a threat and reported it to the police, who (rightly) decided it didn't contain an actual threat.

So yeah, this is a hilarious case of a newspaper publishing people's info, then getting paranoid when they get hate mail in response.

Tress said:

So yeah, this is a hilarious case of a newspaper publishing people's info, then getting paranoid when they get hate mail in response.

Click to expand...

And then hiring private sector citizens with guns to protect them from the scary private sector citizens with guns.

GasBandit said:

And then hiring private sector citizens with guns to protect them from the scary private sector citizens with guns.

Click to expand...

Which is priceless.

GasBandit said:

Grunk-a-lunk-a-dumpity-darmedguards...

Click to expand...

we've got a case of journalist tards

nice link to "the blaze", Glenn Beck's media empire, lmao

The Blaze? The Fiery Blaze?

Charlie Don't Surf said:

nice link to "the blaze", Glenn Beck's media empire, lmao

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the newspaper did not publish the addresses, or did not hire armed guards?

no, I'm just ridiculing Steinman for reading "The Blaze"

I'm sure you can find similar reporting about it in other news sources you might prefer:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Gannett’s+Journal+News+gun+owner+map

I don't regularly read any news site. The only sites I hit regularly are halforums, those contained in the following link lists:

http://www.delicious.com/stienman/comic (daily)
http://www.delicious.com/stienman/comic3 (3x week)

As well as
notalwaysright (and related/romantic/working)
regretsy (and related sites)
batoto (foreign comics)

I used to go to BBC.co.uk and news.google.com for news, but I can spend hours a day reading that stuff, and I had to cut them. I already waste too much time with the above stuff I visit...

I found the above linked article in the sidebar of some other article that I found probably linked from here.

stienman said:

I'm sure you can find similar reporting about it in other news sources you might prefer:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Gannett’s Journal News gun owner map

I don't regularly read any news site. The only sites I hit regularly are halforums, those contained in the following link lists:

http://www.delicious.com/stienman/comic (daily)
http://www.delicious.com/stienman/comic3 (3x week)

As well as
notalwaysright (and related/romantic/working)
regretsy (and related sites)
batoto (foreign comics)

I used to go to BBC.co.uk and news.google.com for news, but I can spend hours a day reading that stuff, and I had to cut them. I already waste too much time with the above stuff I visit...

I found the above linked article in the sidebar of some other article that I found probably linked from here.

Click to expand...

okay

You're welcome. I know how much you've desired to emulate me, and this will get you just that much closer.

I just want your balloon.

Krisken said:

I just want your balloon.

Click to expand...

stienman said:

I'm sure you can find similar reporting about it in other news sources you might prefer:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Gannett’s+Journal+News+gun+owner+map

I don't regularly read any news site. The only sites I hit regularly are halforums, those contained in the following link lists:

http://www.delicious.com/stienman/comic (daily)
http://www.delicious.com/stienman/comic3 (3x week)

As well as
notalwaysright (and related/romantic/working)
regretsy (and related sites)
batoto (foreign comics)

I used to go to BBC.co.uk and news.google.com for news, but I can spend hours a day reading that stuff, and I had to cut them. I already waste too much time with the above stuff I visit...

I found the above linked article in the sidebar of some other article that I found probably linked from here.

Click to expand...

I quoted all of that just to say I love not always right!

CrimsonSoul said:

I quoted all of that just to say I love not always right!

Click to expand...

It's surprisingly well curated.

This has been getting a lot of media attention of late, and I'm sure that the paper people felt some sort of responsibility, some need to act in response to tragedy, but I don't believe they thought it all the way through, thereby Goldblooming* themselves in the process. For one thing, this makes about as much sense as publishing the names/addresses of people who make more than $1,000,000/yr. It just means the thieves don't have to do their research and comb through Facebook posts and pics to decide who to rob next, the newspaper has done all the work for them. Many (if not most) of us have played FPS/RPG videogames where the whole reason you went after X enemy first was so that you could get the best equipment...well, the newspaper has essentially handed the thieves a list saying, "If you want to be well-supplied for your future endeavors, here are the places you should rob first." Or, for that matter, any house which is not on that list could be seen as "easier pickings" instead of having that moment of uncertainty in the thief's mind about whether or not they might die.

--Patrick
*This really needs to be a verb.

What are they afraid of if they own guns? I mean, it's almost like a "Do Not Mess With" list, isn't it?

Calleja said:

What are they afraid of if they own guns? I mean, it's almost like a "Do Not Mess With" list, isn't it?

Click to expand...

Nobody is home to safeguard their possessions all the time, Calleja .

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

Nobody is home to safeguard their possessions all the time, Calleja .

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Right.. but put yourself on a robber's shoes, would you rob a house you KNOW has gun-toting people living in it, or the ones you know DON'T?

Calleja said:

What are they afraid of if they own guns? I mean, it's almost like a "Do Not Mess With" list, isn't it?

Click to expand...

Guns are not "instant get out of trouble free" cards. Even when properly handled and stored there are many situations where they cannot or should not be used. When you aren't at home, for instance, guns do nothing but sit there waiting to be stolen.[DOUBLEPOST=1357674359][/DOUBLEPOST]

Calleja said:

Right.. but put yourself on a robber's shoes, would you rob a house you KNOW has gun-toting people living in it, or the ones you know DON'T?

Click to expand...

Depends. Do I need a gun, or am I looking for other random valuables?

If I'm specifically looking for a gun, I probably have a different set of priorities than other robbers, and am probably much more dangerous a robber as a result.

stienman said:

Depends. Do I need a gun, or am I looking for other random valuables?

If I'm specifically looking for a gun, I probably have a different set of priorities than other robbers, and am probably much more dangerous a robber as a result.

Click to expand...

That's a good point, yeah.

I think the main point here is that the paper thought that doing this would be a public service, warning all the non-owners about the potential threats living among their respective neighborhoods. However, guns are not like dogs. If you have a dozen guns, they will not break out of your house when not supervised and go running up and down the streets, threatening people and messing up lawns. Also, I am less likely to worry about someone who has complied with Federal, State, and Local regulations regarding the buying and keeping of firearms. If the paper really wanted to make a statement, then they should have published a list of the whereabouts of all the UNregistered gun owners. Now that would have been useful.

--Patrick

As a dog lover and owner, I resent that comparison. A lot.

Tress said:

As a dog lover and owner, I resent that comparison. A lot.

Click to expand...

BUMPUSES!

Tress said:

As a dog lover and owner, I resent that comparison. A lot.

Click to expand...

You may substitute horses, seagulls, or even doomweasels if you prefer. As a long-time owner of multiple guns, I resent the idiotic notion some people have that my guns will get up and terrorize the populace entirely of their own accord simply because they exist, or that they serve as nothing more than a predictive yardstick of how many people I will kill once I realize someone has switched my coffee for Folgers crystals*. I chose dogs because they are often trotted out as a "safe" alternative to gun ownership ("You don't need a gun. What you need is a good Doberman/Alsatian/Akita in your house.") and yet somehow dogs also kill a number of people every year**, scare and annoy the neighbors (I guarantee if you have a dozen dogs in your yard all the time, people will talk about the noise/smell, etc), and require a lot of upkeep and handling to keep in check.

For the life of me, I can't see why you would resent the comparison. I don't own any dogs, but I have no hate for them. (rereads comment) Ah, perhaps I see it. I did not mean to imply that all dogs, when released into a quiet, suburban neighborhood, are looking for an excuse to bay and rampage willy-nilly, growling and baring their teeth at residents and ripping unsupervised children to shreds. That's unrealistic, and more reminiscent of post-apocalyptic movie dog stereotypes. However, if you own a dozen dogs ("toy" breeds possibly excepted), and they decide to get curious enough about the land beyond their fence to go exploring through an open gate for an hour or so, then no matter how well-behaved they are nor how much restraint they show, I'm willing to bet the local newspaper's headline the next day will still be WILD DOGS ROAM THE STREETS. Not because your dogs were mean, but because your neighbors felt threatened, and because people tend to be easily scared. Likewise, if I went for a casual evening stroll minding my own business but with a dozen guns strapped to my person, people would be nervous.

Obliquely like guns, the attitude of the dog(s) will be a direct reflection of the attitude of the owner. A gun owned by a responsible and well-adjusted individual is less likely to harm someone the same way that a dog which is cared for by a loving owner is unlikely to go hunting prey in the neighborhood, and the only people who need fear the bark of either are those who wish harm to the owner. And those people...probably deserve what they get.

--Patrick
*side note. I don't drink coffee. Don't like the taste.
**granted, a much smaller number. About one reported death in the USA every two weeks, if Wikipedia is to believed.

(Edited after reading Calleja 's following post)

25 Dogs in a park in Mexico City have apparently killed 4 people. They found the corpses of a 26 year old woman, her 1 year old baby, and a couple of 15 and 16, half eaten.

Not that I'm saying dogs are like guns, but it's all everyone's talking about here today so I thought it relevant.

Eliminating the gun show loophole would go a long way to placating the gun control people, to be honest.

Krisken said:

Eliminating the gun show loophole would go a long way to placating the gun control people, to be honest.

Click to expand...

There is no "gun show loophole." Just the demonization of free commerce between private citizens. Cracking down on that would be scarier than anything ripped from the headlines of the last 4 years.

Krisken said:

Eliminating the gun show loophole would go a long way to placating the gun control people, to be honest.

Click to expand...

The law requiring dealers to do a background check is implemented in a roundabout way already to avoid problems with the freedom to buy/sell/trade. I haven't looked into it recently, but like many things the ATF does it probably has to do with tax code. It's funny the way the US regulates "undesirable" things using taxes, but there you have it.

I don't think they can legally close the gun show loophole without either limiting commerce or changing the second amendment (or simply interpreting it differently and hoping it passes the supreme court).

Heh, and there is a fat chance of either of those happening. Lately my thoughts on combating the gun problem is for me to move somewhere with less stupid, entitled people who feel the need to carry the thing into the local restaurant.

I said it before, I'll say it again.

Poisoned.

Zeitgeist.

There's a lot of controversy these days about how First Sale doctrine is being whittled away, but I agree with stienman that this habit of making things "technically not illegal just unreasonably onerous" is getting eye-rollingly ridiculous.

--Patrick

I just want to point out I never supported that.

Calleja said:

I said it before, I'll say it again.

Poisoned.

Zeitgeist.

Click to expand...

Did you just alert your elite commando unit to start the operation in northern canuckistan?

stienman said:

Did you just alert your elite commando unit to start the operation in northern canuckistan?

Click to expand...

Let's just say some forum members' houses will soon be swarmed by elite Mariachi op teams.

Calleja said:

Let's just say some forum members' houses will soon be swarmed by elite Mariachi op teams.

Click to expand...

Let us pray they survive the night...

IT HAS BEGUN



--Patrick

They fucked the lyrics up.

Es "se las cantamos asi", no "aqui". morons. I'm gonna have to discipline those pendejos.

This could be a useful tool for parents to make sure their children never play at a house where someone owns a gun.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

This could be a useful tool for parents to make sure their children never play at a house where someone owns a gun.

Click to expand...

Cause all guns are registered, of course.

Wouldn't it be easier to just... teach kids not to play with guns? It's the whole alcohol thing again, if you demonize it when they're kids, they'll be all over it as soon as you turn your back.

Calleja said:

Cause all guns are registered, of course.

Wouldn't it be easier to just... teach kids not to play with guns? It's the whole alcohol thing again, if you demonize it when they're kids, they'll be all over it as soon as you turn your back.

Click to expand...

Guns are more likely to kill a family member or accidentally shoot someone than ever to kill someone threatening the house/family.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Guns are more likely to kill a family member or accidentally shoot someone than ever to kill someone threatening the house/family.

Click to expand...

Umm... ok? What the fuck does that have to do with the post you quoted, which was answering your quip about "not letting your children play in houses with guns"?

You said in your own post that telling kids not to do something makes them want to do it even more.

Yes. Don't tell people not to be Charlie. It leads to Charlieism.

PatrThom said:

*long post*

Click to expand...

You already covered the reason I objected to what you said. I see you didn't mean that all dogs were a menace, so I retract my statement.

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. I know some can be dangerous, like almost any other living thing, but it's a constant battle out here to keep cities from banning certain breeds or sizes outright. And then there's the panicked look people give me when I'm walking my dog on a leash. It's just a sore spot.

And just to be clear, I'm not really in favor increased gun control. I would actually favor loosening some of the restrictions here in California. Just make background checks mandatory (even private sales) for all would-be gun owners to make sure they aren't felons or otherwise dangerous.

Tress said:

And just to be clear, I'm not really in favor increased gun control. I would actually favor loosening some of the restrictions here in California. Just make background checks mandatory (even private sales) for all would-be gun owners to make sure they aren't felons or otherwise dangerous.

Click to expand...

Literally every setence here contradicts itself! Mandatory background checks for private sales would be a HUGE tightening of restrictions and increased gun control in EVERY definition of the word!

Nope. It's because I'm in California. What I proposed would be loose compared to the laws we have in place now.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

You said in your own post that telling kids not to do something makes them want to do it even more.

Click to expand...

No I certainly didn't. I said DEMONIZING it does. Putting a full ban "NO NO GUNS NO!" is what makes them do it even more. If you sit down and talk to them and maybe even let them handle one in a shooting range, or buy them a BB or something, they won't go all crazy about it and handle it like they do everything they're familiar with.

Nice try to prevaricate my words, though.

Guns absolutely need to be demonized, it's completely sick to me to have them be some normal part of life, they fucking kill people

Guns don't need to be demonized. What we need is for society to not accept behavior which trivializes guns and their role in our society. Guns aren't the problem, our attitude toward them is. Our society does not properly respect the power of firearms because they are too busy arguing about the stupid shit like who gun control favors or how the NRA will react to some tragedy.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Guns absolutely need to be demonized, it's completely sick to me to have them be some normal part of life, they fucking kill people

Click to expand...

Cars kill more people.

Should cars be demonized? Or maybe just properly trained and educated on?

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Guns absolutely need to be demonized, it's completely sick to me to have them be some normal part of life, they fucking kill people

Click to expand...

Beleive it or not, there are a lot of people in this world that want to go to the US and take everything you take for granted.

I'm not asking you to be afraid of the world, just don't be a naive tool.

The_Khan said:

Beleive it or not, there are a lot of people in this world that want to go to the US and take everything you take for granted.

I'm not asking you to be afraid of the world, just don't be a naive tool.

Click to expand...

that's why the military and police should have guns

also I hope everyone knows how much it kills me to think the only people having guns are the fucking police

Charlie Don't Surf said:

that's why the military and police should have guns

also I hope everyone knows how much it kills me to think the only people having guns are the fucking police

Click to expand...

It must give you a bit of cognitive dissonance.

You completely understand why people fear the police being the only ones with guns (Police corruption isn't just a possibility, it happens. Power corrupts, there are many people in this world that would love an opportunity to be a noble of the past and rule over the lower class with impunity.)

Guns are just tools, and have more uses than killing humans.

Opening beverage containers, for instance.

Guns are tools, but so are a lot of people with guns.

stienman said:

Guns are just tools, and have more uses than killing .

Click to expand...

citation needed

I use a gun to propel chickens at inanimate objects.

Tress said:

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.

Click to expand...

I thought something like this must've been at work. Your reaction seemed too knee-jerk to not be personal.
Hey, it took us until the very end of 1994 before my home State finally legalized doomweasels, but even though they're legal now, the State is still pretty anal about them. Also, what with recent events, the general sympathy level around here is likely to be somewhat lower than usual, even though as a whole this area is traditionally more tolerant of the breed.[DOUBLEPOST=1357697476][/DOUBLEPOST]

The_Khan said:

I use a gun to propel chickens at inanimate objects.

Click to expand...

I didn't realize you worked in the aerospace industry.

--Patrick

Calleja said:

Cars kill more people.

Should cars be demonized? Or maybe just properly trained and educated on?

Click to expand...

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.

Frank said:

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.

Click to expand...

This seems reasonable. I concur.

CARS KILL MORE PEOPLE LETS BAN CARS

is officially the worst argument of 2013

You don't have to register or insure your car if you never take it off your property (farm truck, for example). The only justification for it being registered is so it can be taxed because you use it on "public roads."

It'd be difficult to find a comparison more apples and oranges than cars and guns.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

CARS KILL MORE PEOPLE LETS BAN CARS

is officially the worst argument of 2013

Click to expand...

It's also a bit of a logical fallacy. Neither guns nor cars kill people, but the usage of either one can. Cars are likely used far more often than guns in our country, even on a percentage basis. Bare minimum, for the "cars kill more people" argument to work, you'd have to establish comparable time units of usage under which fatalities were achievable, determine how many of those units actually resulted in fatalities, and compare them as percentages.

Frank said:

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.

Click to expand...

You only have to license, register, and insure your vehicle if you use it on public roads. If you use it on private land, or you transport it using a trailer then it doesn't have to have any of that.

To make the same situation work for guns, you'd have to define simply carrying a gun in public as "using" it, which doesn't exactly translate. You'd also have to determine whether a loaded gun is usable or not - so could one carry an unloaded gun if it's not registered or licensed? States grapple with this a little bit for the open carry and concealed carry laws, if you transport guns without a concealed carry license there are rules for how it can be transported and whether it's loaded or not.

If you only plan on keeping it at home, and using it only on your property, and never taking it on public lands, usable or not, you can't legally be forced to register it - again without changing the second amendment, or its interpretation.

If you only hunt with it, and store the gun and ammo in separate locked containers or disassembled between home and private land where you have permission to shoot you again can't force licensing and registration.

But the real problem with licensing and registration is that you completely defeat the "tyranny" part of the second amendment. If the gov't has a list of gun owners and users, they can quickly reduce the gun ownership to near zero. Even if you somehow grappled with the issues above regarding public vs personal property and use, you'd still have to modify the second amendment. Either eliminate the word "infringe" or the whole "free state" bit.

Please keep in mind that this is also complicated by the fact that states have a desire to prevent federal tyranny, and so it's important for, say, texas to make sure its citizens are armed in such a way that the federal government can't dissolve the state of texas and replace all its leadership with federal leadership. This is important because the constitution forbids the states have their own standing army. Note that each state has a national guard - but it's a federal military, only employed by the state, and the federal government holds the reins.

Regarding the "well regulated militia" part, one can read the supreme court's interpretation of that passage here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

It does not mean that people have to be part of a militia in order to legally obtain guns, nor can the law restrict them in that manner.

We've done about all we can for gun control without changing the second amendment. The next step would actually be to redefine gun ownership nationwide by rewriting the second amendment. At that point all these, and many more, options are on the table. Until then, though, nothing else can be done.

Frank said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

AshburnerX said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

tegid said:

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?

Click to expand...

An amendment to the United States Constitution must be ratified by three-quarters of the states before it can come into effect.

Our last President wanted to change the country's name. In a non-republic democracy it would have happened, too.

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.

AshburnerX said:

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.

Click to expand...

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....

SpecialKO said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

GasBandit said:

And of course, the ever present fact that criminals do not obey laws, so by definition, such laws only disarm the law-abiding.

Click to expand...

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.

SpecialKO said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

stienman said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is my thought. Is why I'm fully in favor of making shotguns relatively easy to own.

SpecialKO said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

GasBandit said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

stienman said:

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.

Click to expand...

Then "it's okay, the owner is law-abiding" really doesn't work as an argument, does it?

SpecialKO said:

Then "it's okay, the owner is law-abiding" really doesn't work as an argument, does it?

Click to expand...

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.

SpecialKO said:

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.

Click to expand...

Standard ar-15 rifles have less penitration that shotguns http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot14.htm

SpecialKO said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Necronic said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't follow - what is stupid about their reasoning?

stienman said:

I don't follow - what is stupid about their reasoning?

Click to expand...

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.

GasBandit said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Calleja said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

stienman said:

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.

Click to expand...

The reason the shotgun is such a good home defense weapon - multiple chances in one trigger-pull to get multiple organs.

Also, aim barely matters.

Calleja said:

Also, aim barely matters.

Click to expand...

Well, obviously. Though, it matters more than many video games would have you believe.

Also, the sound of cocking a shotgun is a proven deterrent, thanks to years of Hollywood movies and TV shows.

GasBandit said:

Well, obviously. Though, it matters more than many video games would have you believe.

Click to expand...

I dunno, I'm a Sniper in Mass Effect with a shotty as secondary and I swear I miss with the shotgun way more.

Calleja said:

I dunno, I'm a Sniper in Mass Effect with a shotty as secondary and I swear I miss with the shotgun way more.

Click to expand...

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.

GasBandit said:

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.

Click to expand...

Lol so true

GasBandit said:

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).

Click to expand...

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:



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

Tress said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

jwhouk said:

I'm a bit more ticked that anyone can go online and find out how much money I made last year (2011, not 2012).

Click to expand...

The same is true of me.

Yeah, but you're in a right-to-work state, I'm in...

Oh, right, I keep forgetting.