Things You Might (Incorrectly) Believe About Guns

Recommended Videos

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,310
0
0
Thank you OP for being the one to come out and call people out on this. Seriously, people are so uptight about guns it's ridiculous.

If someone is attacking you and you shoot them, even if they have a tennis racket you are DEFENDING YOURSELF. That racket can be used something to kill you and they are probably fully willing to kill you, are you going to chance it and try to dance around it? No you're going to aim and fire till the target doesn't attack anymore.
 

Gilhelmi

The One Who Protects
Oct 22, 2009
1,480
0
0
captaincabbage said:
WHAT!?!?? What do you mean assault rifles don't have 300 bullets in a magazine!??
I, actually, have seen those. Better yet they are LEGAL IN KANSAS, HURRAY. They are very expensive to load. $0.75x300=$225

Not a cheap day at the range.
 

theSovietConnection

Survivor, VDNKh Station
Jan 14, 2009
2,418
0
0
Excellently worded OP, just finished my Posession and Acquisition License testing a few weeks ago, and this really is stuff people need to know, particularly given around 40% of the people outright failed the course.
 

SuccessAndBiscuts

New member
Nov 9, 2009
347
0
0
Choppaduel said:
an armed & educated society is a polite society.
But a polite and educated society does not need to be armed. My biggest problem with guns isn't with the guns as such, its the people who feel a need to carry them.

I understand the self-defence argument, I just find it hard to agree with.
 

wkrepelin

New member
Apr 28, 2010
383
0
0
maturin said:
Also, because there's more energy transferred into the body, that force goes toward stopping the target, which is our goal anyhow. If you're shooting, you aim for center mass.
The force of a bullet hitting a body can't knock you over or even slow you down. It's a tiny little object. People recoil or fall over because, hello, their internal organs have suddenly been turned into ground beef. Stopping power is a misnomer and actually refers to a variety of secondary wounding effects, some of which are medically quite iffy.

And if you could knock someone over with a bullet, then you would shoot for the legs to trip them and knock them out from under them, just like a football player making a tackle.

Being hit by a .45 caliber bullet in terms of force transfer is like having a 1 pound weight dropped on you from 12 feet up. Not that impressive.
Sorry to do this but . . . maturin has literally no idea what they're talking about. I don't mean to forum bash them or anything but people should be aware that they are completely wrong and not any kind of authority on the matter. I have a BS in physics and a grain of sand can posses enough momentum to knock a man down at the right speed (realistically it would just punch through them like a "standard round" or just explode on impact releasing the energy in that way). The formula for the force of a collision is mass times velocity divided by time. This means if the mass is low it can be compensated for by either increasing speed or decreasing time.

Oh and maturin . . . A bullet will knock you over . . . damn it dude, if you are at rest with zero momentum and then you collide with a bullet that has nonzero momentum then guess who splits up the momentum? That's right! You and the bullet and since you now have nonzero momentum you are moving and since you body forms an inverted pen . . . (go away, this is important, someone on the internet is wrong!) ahem . . . right, inverted pendulum then you just fall over.

Ba-zing-gah!
 

Vryyk

New member
Sep 27, 2010
393
0
0
Levi93 said:
Don't suppose you could back up the "You'll notice that it's always the people who have never been in a situation where they may not be going home who scream "ban guns!" the loudest." could you? I want some proof.
What's the matter? OP's post too airtight to take on for ya? Of course I can't pull cold hard numbers on something like that. If you want to count that as a small and petty victory for anti-gun activists you are of course welcome to do so.
 

mr_rubino

New member
Sep 19, 2010
721
0
0
Levi93 said:
Vryyk said:
I like this thread. I'm sick of hearing "shoot to wound" and all that rubbish about tailoring response to meet the threat (in under 10 seconds no less). You'll notice that it's always the people who have never been in a situation where they may not be going home who scream "ban guns!" the loudest. Very well said sir.
Don't suppose you could back up the "You'll notice that it's always the people who have never been in a situation where they may not be going home who scream "ban guns!" the loudest." could you? I want some proof.
They have none. Some people are ruled by their emotions. Giving them guns is probably the most dangerous thing you can do. They'll probably panic and blow away half a city street before nicking an attacker.
It's a "no atheists in the trenches" kinda statement.
 

archvile93

New member
Sep 2, 2009
2,564
0
0
SuccessAndBiscuts said:
Choppaduel said:
an armed & educated society is a polite society.
But a polite and educated society does not need to be armed. My biggest problem with guns isn't with the guns as such, its the people who feel a need to carry them.

I understand the self-defence argument, I just find it hard to agree with.
You're making the assumption that everyone in the society will be polite and educated. This is rarely if ever the case.
 

Grey_Focks

New member
Jan 12, 2010
1,969
0
0
Good stuff OP, and definitely should be read by all those guys posting in the thread you mentioned.
 

calebcom84

New member
Aug 21, 2009
7
0
0
wkrepelin said:
maturin said:
Also, because there's more energy transferred into the body, that force goes toward stopping the target, which is our goal anyhow. If you're shooting, you aim for center mass.
The force of a bullet hitting a body can't knock you over or even slow you down. It's a tiny little object. People recoil or fall over because, hello, their internal organs have suddenly been turned into ground beef. Stopping power is a misnomer and actually refers to a variety of secondary wounding effects, some of which are medically quite iffy.

And if you could knock someone over with a bullet, then you would shoot for the legs to trip them and knock them out from under them, just like a football player making a tackle.

Being hit by a .45 caliber bullet in terms of force transfer is like having a 1 pound weight dropped on you from 12 feet up. Not that impressive.
Sorry to do this but . . . maturin has literally no idea what they're talking about. I don't mean to forum bash them or anything but people should be aware that they are completely wrong and not any kind of authority on the matter. I have a BS in physics and a grain of sand can posses enough momentum to knock a man down at the right speed (realistically it would just punch through them like a "standard round" or just explode on impact releasing the energy in that way). The formula for the force of a collision is mass times velocity divided by time. This means if the mass is low it can be compensated for by either increasing speed or decreasing time.

Oh and maturin . . . A bullet will knock you over . . . damn it dude, if you are at rest with zero momentum and then you collide with a bullet that has nonzero momentum then guess who splits up the momentum? That's right! You and the bullet and since you now have nonzero momentum you are moving and since you body forms an inverted pen . . . (go away, this is important, someone on the internet is wrong!) ahem . . . right, inverted pendulum then you just fall over.

Ba-zing-gah!
Thousands of soldiers over in Iraq and Afghanistan have spoken as to shooting insurgents 5-10 times and they don't fall down. If a bullet was capable of knocking you head over heels then via physics (Equal and opposite reactions) the backwards force of the gun would throw you across a room as well.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1818862/posts

A city where they made it legally required to own a gun, crime rate dropped like a rock compared to equally sized cities right next to it.

I've had to pull a gun on another human being. I was absolutely terrified, I pulled and I fired. I didn't stop pulling that trigger till the gun was empty and kept pulling after that. I emptied a 19 round clip in about 3-4 seconds. I've fired thousands of rounds in my life. No amount of training will ever truly prepare you for the moment when someone steps out of a shadow and tries to harm you or your loved ones.

Instinct, Fight or Flight. You either turn and run or you attack in a frenzy. You don't think. It's a haze, there is no time to aim, fire a warning, disarm, pistol whip.
 

Nooners

New member
Sep 27, 2009
805
0
0
dastardly, many thanks for making this thread. Very well-written and informative read. It was a pleasure to read.
 

maturin

New member
Jul 20, 2010
702
0
0
wkrepelin said:
Sorry to do this but . . . maturin has literally no idea what they're talking about.

*snip*

Ba-zing-gah!
Are you sure you have a BS? I don't think anyone trying to tout their degree with a straight face would write like you.

The momentum of the so-called "manstopper" .45 ACP bullet is approximately that of a 1 pound (0.45 kg) mass dropped from a height of 11.4 feet (3.5 m). Such a force is simply incapable of arresting a running target's forward momentum. In addition, bullets are designed to penetrate instead of strike a blunt force blow, because, in penetrating, more severe tissue damage is done. A bullet with sufficient energy to knock down an assailant, such as a high-speed rifle bullet, would be more likely to instead pass straight through, while not transferring the full energy (in fact only a very small percentage of the full energy) of the bullet to the victim.
Source here: http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

The formula for the force of a collision is mass times velocity divided by time. This means if the mass is low it can be compensated for by either increasing speed or decreasing time.
And bullets move really effing fast though the body, so the TIME negates the otherwise great momentum of fast-moving projectile.

Additionally, human bodies are not the small dense object A on a pop quiz. They are squishy things made of flexible materials. A bullet is capable of puncturing and displacing highly ductile tissue without acting on the overall body with anything resembling its total force. If the bullet was actually the size of a cow and collided rather penetrated, you're damn right it would probably knock you over.

I don't care if you're Stephen Hawking. No matter what theory says, it's a widely-known, easily-verified objective fact that bullets do no such thing.

You and the bullet and since you now have nonzero momentum you are moving and since you body forms an inverted pen . . . (go away, this is important, someone on the internet is wrong!) ahem . . . right, inverted pendulum then you just fall over.
Wait, now I have to ask if you've been being sarcastic the whole time. I'm not an inverted pendulum. I have *legs.* When a force acts against me above my center of gravity, my whole body reacts to it and readjusts. I was talking about the real world, where people resist falling over. Specifically, I was writing about people already moving.

FYI: Energy transfer is a theoretical term used in describing ballistics trauma, not high school physics problems.

Edit:
Actually, yes, I am quite sure you were being sarcastic or else have no schooling physics.

For every action, an equal and opposite reaction. I believe some famous guy said that at some point.

The force of a bullet hitting a target must always be less than the recoil force of the weapon. Does weapon recoil knock people over? It can, but it is also easily resisted.

Isaac Newton proved this in the 17th century, and he used your precious pendulum to do it.

More data: being struck by a 9mm round is like being hit with a one pound weight dropped from only six feet. Going at 19.6 feet per second. 13.3 miles per hour. Or ten pounds dropped from a little over a foot.

Read about it on page 9 of the link.
 

Levi93

New member
Oct 26, 2009
409
0
0
Vryyk said:
Levi93 said:
Don't suppose you could back up the "You'll notice that it's always the people who have never been in a situation where they may not be going home who scream "ban guns!" the loudest." could you? I want some proof.
What's the matter? OP's post too airtight to take on for ya? Of course I can't pull cold hard numbers on something like that. If you want to count that as a small and petty victory for anti-gun activists you are of course welcome to do so.
OK so I'm admitting to being a little bit 'anti-gun' but "small and petty victory" you make it sound like they're doing a bad thing, you know... Trying to get killing machines out of civilian hands who claim they have rights to own due to a piece of paper wrote over 200 years ago? Oh and what do you mean by "OP's post too airtight." he's not making an arguement he's just pointing out some facts and missconceptions about guns, and you'll notice that he doesn't go into detain of the amount of shootings in America compared with other countries with stricter gun control.

Actually I don't even know why I'm arguing, I live in the UK where the gun controll is
strict and I can walk to the other end of my street without having to worry about getting shot, just seriously keep your stupid out dated second ammendment in America