Bullet size the next line of attack on the 2nd Amendment..

[grainbely]

A new study by anti gunners.....bigger bullets kill better..... so look for the various anti gun extremists to start calling for even more bullet bans...

New study on firearm caliber questions the notion that ‘guns don’t kill people’

Rifle rounds are designed to tumble and do maximum damage going sideways through the target. They are right to draw attention to it when the weapons and rounds are designed for military applications but are being marketed and sold to civilians.

Lol
Bullshit... They are designed to expand or not expand you dumbass ************.
So shut the **** up

Yeah, and what the Left gun grabbers fail to understand is military rounds have been designed since forever modernity to kill more humanely, not necessarily more effectively. Case in point: as a young, inexperienced hunter I once shot a whitetail with a 7.92x57mm FMJ. The first shot knocked the deer flat on its side, but exited cleanly with a small exit wound diameter. I had to finish it off point blank with a second round. Soft core, hollow point, soft nose--now they're your faster, messier quick stop, quick kill bullets whose lethality and internal organ damage potential arise from expansion of original diameter, fragmentation and large exit wound size. Smaller, hyper velocity rounds kill by playing pinball inside body cavities or exiting with such velocity, they liquefy internal organs and propel them as mist out of the body.

Indeed....

Not a single progressive in here has probably ever heard of a .17HMR. Jesus Mother of God what that little ******* varmint killer does when it enters a human body! Little ittyy bitty tiny little bullet.....the gun grabber k00ks would deem near harmless!! Yuk....yuk!

St00pid cocksukers!

It's sad you guys aren't self regulating. You'd do a much better job than people that don't own guns. Very sad. Instead you'd prefer lunatics easily get guns because of false propaganda about how the left wants to take all your guns. Very very sad.

 

[grainbely]

Its hyperbole. You should love it like you do trumps dk in your mouth. The shockwave ruins flesh farther away from the bullet hole.

If by hyperbole you mean bullshit, I totally agree.

Liberals throwing around homophobic insults after being corrected respecfully...color me surprised.

/conversations

Man. Apply the same logic to yourself. You love trump and how he lies and spew hyperbolic bs at you all day. The line is gone. The precedent has been set. You chose this. So now take it.

Also, tell me how what I said is bullshit because I'd love to see you grasp in the dark.

 

[grainbely]

Guns don't kill people. Bullet holes do. Fact. Those defensive bullets holes will get yah.

 

[Marion Morrison]

"Bullet size" and talking about .223/5.56

 

[westwall]

Ummm, yeah, they are. All part of that "well regulated" part. Can't be in good working order with no ammo.

Your AC unit is still in good working order when the power goes out.

No, its not working at all in that scenario. It might be in good condition, but it isnt "working".

Sure it’s working. Just apply power to it. Power isn’t a part of your AC unit. Just as water isn’t a part of your boat. Your boat can be in perfect working order sitting in an Iowa corn field.

Just like an unloaded gun, a boat in a cornfield won't help anyone. It becomes a big paperweight.

Whether it helps anyone is irrelevant to whether it is in working order.

"In good working order" means it WORKS! "Shall not be infringed" is pretty self explanatory as well. It is obvious to anyone with a brain, which, yet again, leaves you out, that preventing ammunition for a firearm is an infringement. So yes, the 2nd Amendment was written by people who were far more intelligent than you, and even back then they figured out the silly "arguments" you would present.

 

[westwall]

Rifle rounds are designed to tumble and do maximum damage going sideways through the target. They are right to draw attention to it when the weapons and rounds are designed for military applications but are being marketed and sold to civilians.

Myth.

They are also designed to ruin lives if they don't kill immediately. The shockwave of some bullets will near liquify organs. Not a myth.

There are some bullet designs that may be more prone to tumble than others in both handguns and rifles...but rifle rounds generally are NOT designed to tumble...that is a Vietnam Era urban legend...a myth. Debunked many times.

Liquify organs?!?! Do some actual research...don't believe everything you read on the anti-gun websites.

And don't feel like you're under attack for believing the tumbling bullet myth...I fell for it too once upon a time...that's how I learned it was a myth.

Its hyperbole. You should love it like you do trumps dk in your mouth. The shockwave ruins flesh farther away from the bullet hole.

The shockwave doesn't do anything except look good in slow motion video. The level of ignorance that you people demonstrate on this subject is amazing.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Them little bullets, boy!

One time my friend was trying to talk me into buying an SKS, they were going for about $115 then.

So I stuck a bullet in my pocket and walked down there. Yeah, now why would I want a gun that shoots them little bullets?

I already got one that shoots these. Check this out!

Maybe I shoulda got a Norinco gimmick, but I'm still not mad at myself.

This was just after I broke a Chinese socket trying to take transmission bolts off my Ford, so I'm like "Chinese steel is ass".

It still is.

 

[JoeB131]

70-80% of gun murder victims are criminals. 90% of murderers are criminals with long histories of crime and violence....you are wrong.

90% of gun violence victims are domestic violence, accidents or suicides. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

The NRA lied to you... but you wanted to be lied to.

 

[Geaux4it]

Are you dancing in the streets yet?

Naw, with all the mass shootings we have, I'd get tired of dancing pretty quickly...

Just like I'm kind of tired of mass shootings.

Acceptable risk to be American

Embrace

-Geaux

 

[2aguy]

70-80% of gun murder victims are criminals. 90% of murderers are criminals with long histories of crime and violence....you are wrong.

90% of gun violence victims are domestic violence, accidents or suicides. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

The NRA lied to you... but you wanted to be lied to.

Ahhhh..... now you change the terms... gun violence v gun murder.....

And that 43 number is a lie....

The Truth about gun death numbers....

Leading Causes of Death | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2016
Gun suicide

22,938


========================

Gun Accidental death.....
2016:
495
==================

Gun murder ( 70-80% of the victims of gun murder are actual criminals, not law abiding people)

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8


2016--

11,004

 

[2aguy]

70-80% of gun murder victims are criminals. 90% of murderers are criminals with long histories of crime and violence....you are wrong.

90% of gun violence victims are domestic violence, accidents or suicides. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

The NRA lied to you... but you wanted to be lied to.

Now the lie about 43 times more likely to die... it was such a lie Kellerman had to retract the number and he still lied with the lower number...



Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

Here is the study Kellerman did to fix his mistake...while continuing to use biased data to get even this number...

NEJM - Error

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------

 

[grainbely]

Rifle rounds are designed to tumble and do maximum damage going sideways through the target. They are right to draw attention to it when the weapons and rounds are designed for military applications but are being marketed and sold to civilians.

Myth.

They are also designed to ruin lives if they don't kill immediately. The shockwave of some bullets will near liquify organs. Not a myth.

There are some bullet designs that may be more prone to tumble than others in both handguns and rifles...but rifle rounds generally are NOT designed to tumble...that is a Vietnam Era urban legend...a myth. Debunked many times.

Liquify organs?!?! Do some actual research...don't believe everything you read on the anti-gun websites.

And don't feel like you're under attack for believing the tumbling bullet myth...I fell for it too once upon a time...that's how I learned it was a myth.

Its hyperbole. You should love it like you do trumps dk in your mouth. The shockwave ruins flesh farther away from the bullet hole.

The shockwave doesn't do anything except look good in slow motion video. The level of ignorance that you people demonstrate on this subject is amazing.

The shockwave can kill people in explosions. It's not trivial. The impact of an expanding or tumbling bullet in flesh sends similar but scaled down shockwave that's designed to do more damage. I don't have time now but I may do your part of reasonable non biased investigation since you refuse to do so, and provide some sources.

All of you..quit being such biased pos. On your own you need to look from all angles not just assume you're right and ignore all opposing perspectives. It's called being an informed and responsible adult in this country. If the NRA provides zero info outside of its agenda then you need to look for it. If you don't its like selection bias and your perspective cannot be the truth even if it contains some facts.

 

[westwall]

Myth.

They are also designed to ruin lives if they don't kill immediately. The shockwave of some bullets will near liquify organs. Not a myth.

There are some bullet designs that may be more prone to tumble than others in both handguns and rifles...but rifle rounds generally are NOT designed to tumble...that is a Vietnam Era urban legend...a myth. Debunked many times.

Liquify organs?!?! Do some actual research...don't believe everything you read on the anti-gun websites.

And don't feel like you're under attack for believing the tumbling bullet myth...I fell for it too once upon a time...that's how I learned it was a myth.

Its hyperbole. You should love it like you do trumps dk in your mouth. The shockwave ruins flesh farther away from the bullet hole.

The shockwave doesn't do anything except look good in slow motion video. The level of ignorance that you people demonstrate on this subject is amazing.

The shockwave can kill people in explosions. It's not trivial. The impact of an expanding or tumbling bullet in flesh sends similar but scaled down shockwave that's designed to do more damage. I don't have time now but I may do your part of reasonable non biased investigation since you refuse to do so, and provide some sources.

All of you..quit being such biased pos. On your own you need to look from all angles not just assume you're right and ignore all opposing perspectives. It's called being an informed and responsible adult in this country. If the NRA provides zero info outside of its agenda then you need to look for it. If you don't its like selection bias and your perspective cannot be the truth even if it contains some facts.

Bullets don't explode unless they have HIGH EXPLOSIVE in them. Like I said, you have no clue what you're babbling about. Now if you're talking about a 105mm howitzer shell, yes, they have a couple of POUNDS of explosive in them so yes, the shockwave from that explosion can indeed kill people who are a few meters away from the point of detonation. But we're not... We are talking about a solid projectile weighing less than half an ounce in the case of everything under .50 cal Browning.

A tumbling bullet does indeed cause a shockwave to propagate through the body......and they do nothing but look pretty in slo mo video. I suggest you actually do some research on the subject. The Journal of Trauma would be a good start. In their well documented research you will see that shockwaves do nothing at all. The only thing that does real damage is the "permanent wound channel" The "temporary wound channel" (that's what that shockwave creates) does nothing.

But I have actually studied the subject. And you haven't. That is my bias. Actual REAL science and scientific papers that doctors use to treat the victims of gun shot wounds.

You have hyperbole and horse poo on your side funded by bloomberg and his anti gun agenda.

 

[westwall]

70-80% of gun murder victims are criminals. 90% of murderers are criminals with long histories of crime and violence....you are wrong.

90% of gun violence victims are domestic violence, accidents or suicides. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

The NRA lied to you... but you wanted to be lied to.

A claim that was debunked years ago. Try finding some new material.

 

[skookerasbil]

A new study by anti gunners.....bigger bullets kill better..... so look for the various anti gun extremists to start calling for even more bullet bans...

New study on firearm caliber questions the notion that ‘guns don’t kill people’

Rifle rounds are designed to tumble and do maximum damage going sideways through the target. They are right to draw attention to it when the weapons and rounds are designed for military applications but are being marketed and sold to civilians.

Lol
Bullshit... They are designed to expand or not expand you dumbass ************.
So shut the **** up

Yeah, and what the Left gun grabbers fail to understand is military rounds have been designed since forever modernity to kill more humanely, not necessarily more effectively. Case in point: as a young, inexperienced hunter I once shot a whitetail with a 7.92x57mm FMJ. The first shot knocked the deer flat on its side, but exited cleanly with a small exit wound diameter. I had to finish it off point blank with a second round. Soft core, hollow point, soft nose--now they're your faster, messier quick stop, quick kill bullets whose lethality and internal organ damage potential arise from expansion of original diameter, fragmentation and large exit wound size. Smaller, hyper velocity rounds kill by playing pinball inside body cavities or exiting with such velocity, they liquefy internal organs and propel them as mist out of the body.

Indeed....

Not a single progressive in here has probably ever heard of a .17HMR. Jesus Mother of God what that little ******* varmint killer does when it enters a human body! Little ittyy bitty tiny little bullet.....the gun grabber k00ks would deem near harmless!! Yuk....yuk!

St00pid cocksukers!

It's sad you guys aren't self regulating. You'd do a much better job than people that don't own guns. Very sad. Instead you'd prefer lunatics easily get guns because of false propaganda about how the left wants to take all your guns. Very very sad.

But the false propagandists are winning huge s0n....very few Americans concur with your type....sorry but that's the way it is. The gun grabber nutters have only banners and billboards to hang their hats on. Maybe an occasional march or two that is in the news for 48 hours! Most people dont see it as a gun problem s0n..... nobody is on the phone this week with their representative demanding action!. Just gonna have to suck it up and find a new hobby!

 

[asaratis]

Government says that guns below .50 caliber are NOT weapons of war.

That would mean firearms less than .50 calibre are not suitable for militia then, no? Therefore not suitable to be borne.

No. When a weapon is capable of fully automatic fire, it is certainly suitable for combat use.

You didn't read the entire position put forth by the government.

The phrase “Military Equipment” means (1) Drums and other magazines for firearms to 50 caliber (12.7 mm) inclusive with a capacity greater than 50 rounds, regardless of the jurisdiction of the firearm, and specially designed parts and components therefor; (2) Parts and components specifically designed for conversion of a semi-automatic firearm to a fully automatic firearm; (3) Accessories or attachments specifically designed to automatically stabilize aim (other than gun rests) or for automatic targeting, and specifically designed parts and components therefor.

 

[asaratis]

Government says that guns below .50 caliber are NOT weapons of war.

Government Admits AR-15s Are Not Weapons of War | Breitbart

In its settlement with Cody Wilson’s Defense Distributed the government admitted that semi-automatic firearms below .50 caliber are not weapons of war.

In offering a definition of “military equipment” the settlement says:

The phrase “Military Equipment” means (1) Drums and other magazines for firearms to 50 caliber (12.7 mm) inclusive with a capacity greater than 50 rounds, regardless of the jurisdiction of the firearm, and specially designed parts and components therefor; (2) Parts and components specifically designed for conversion of a semi-automatic firearm to a fully automatic firearm; (3) Accessories or attachments specifically designed to automatically stabilize aim (other than gun rests) or for automatic targeting, and specifically designed parts and components therefor.

Attorneys in the case expounded on the amended regulations by pointing out that the settlement “expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50 caliber widely available in retail outlets in the United States and abroad [a scope that includes AR-15 and other assault-style rifles], are not inherently military.”

Where can I place an order for my .49 caliber semi-auto hi-cap, high muzzle velocity, self defense rifle?

You get to .50 caliber...as long as it is not fully automatic.

Here are some revolvers and pistols.
List of .50 Caliber Pistols - Revolver and Semi Auto

Here are some rifles....bolt action and semi-auto.
The Dirty Dozen: Today's Top 12 .50 BMG Rifles

Take your pick.

 

[Synthaholic]

preventing ammunition

Don’t be silly. Just heavily regulated.

 

[westwall]

preventing ammunition

Don’t be silly. Just heavily regulated.

"INFRINGEMENT"

Don't be stupid.

 

[grainbely]

They are also designed to ruin lives if they don't kill immediately. The shockwave of some bullets will near liquify organs. Not a myth.

There are some bullet designs that may be more prone to tumble than others in both handguns and rifles...but rifle rounds generally are NOT designed to tumble...that is a Vietnam Era urban legend...a myth. Debunked many times.

Liquify organs?!?! Do some actual research...don't believe everything you read on the anti-gun websites.

And don't feel like you're under attack for believing the tumbling bullet myth...I fell for it too once upon a time...that's how I learned it was a myth.

Its hyperbole. You should love it like you do trumps dk in your mouth. The shockwave ruins flesh farther away from the bullet hole.

The shockwave doesn't do anything except look good in slow motion video. The level of ignorance that you people demonstrate on this subject is amazing.

The shockwave can kill people in explosions. It's not trivial. The impact of an expanding or tumbling bullet in flesh sends similar but scaled down shockwave that's designed to do more damage. I don't have time now but I may do your part of reasonable non biased investigation since you refuse to do so, and provide some sources.

All of you..quit being such biased pos. On your own you need to look from all angles not just assume you're right and ignore all opposing perspectives. It's called being an informed and responsible adult in this country. If the NRA provides zero info outside of its agenda then you need to look for it. If you don't its like selection bias and your perspective cannot be the truth even if it contains some facts.

Bullets don't explode unless they have HIGH EXPLOSIVE in them. Like I said, you have no clue what you're babbling about. Now if you're talking about a 105mm howitzer shell, yes, they have a couple of POUNDS of explosive in them so yes, the shockwave from that explosion can indeed kill people who are a few meters away from the point of detonation. But we're not... We are talking about a solid projectile weighing less than half an ounce in the case of everything under .50 cal Browning.

A tumbling bullet does indeed cause a shockwave to propagate through the body......and they do nothing but look pretty in slo mo video. I suggest you actually do some research on the subject. The Journal of Trauma would be a good start. In their well documented research you will see that shockwaves do nothing at all. The only thing that does real damage is the "permanent wound channel" The "temporary wound channel" (that's what that shockwave creates) does nothing.

But I have actually studied the subject. And you haven't. That is my bias. Actual REAL science and scientific papers that doctors use to treat the victims of gun shot wounds.

You have hyperbole and horse poo on your side funded by bloomberg and his anti gun agenda.

The AnarchAngel : Terminal Tumbling

Here you go. Eat crow. The author doesnt admit that rotating end over end once or twice is tumbling but that's exactly what it is. A bullet moving side ways through the body leaves a bigger wound and will make it meander a bit and do other stuff like break into smaller more damaging pieces. That's what happened to Scalise at the softball shooting. He caught a round in the leg and it tumbled up through his hip bone side ways if I remember correctly. They are designed/selected for this trait just like I said and it causes more damage just like I said. Why anyone who actually shoots would try to say otherwise is pure stupidity. It takes 15 minutes of googling to find all of this out yet you think you can deny it and people are going to just believe your nonsense. Well we aren't all trumpet dolts.

The shockwave part....I used the wrong term but it's the same general concept. The transfer of energy passes through different materials causing damage. The higher velocity round the bigger the cavitation on average. When the round enters it quickly transfers force to the flesh which is much more elastic. The flesh balloons and will cause a shit ton of damage from a high powered rifle. It can only stretch so far without tearing apart. In some circumstance the cavitation causes more damage than the bullet hole.

There yah go bud. Enjoy being wrong about your stupid toys. Better yet, read and understand all perspectives first, assert conclusion last if at all.