Things You Might (Incorrectly) Believe About Guns

[calebcom84]

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

I'm quite happy with my 2nd Amendment thank you. If I lived in london I would be dead currently.

Edit: Gotta love the UK, where someone can break into your house while you're home KNOWING that there's a 99% likelihood that no one in there has a gun.

I come from alaska, break into any house around while someone's home and you've got a 50/50 chance of getting your brains blown out.

Hence why robbery is lower in the US than the UK.

 

[droid]

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.

Have you ever taken Physics? If so you would know a .45 is pretty damn stopping. The Formula for Kinetic Energy is KE=.5M(V squared), where M is mass and V is velocity. Going at say...just 300 miles an hour, that bullet's got energy. And a 1 pound plate is a little more annoying than you think. One, that plate as you said is turning your insides to jam- now imagine 4 of those. I think that would at least slow people down.

That is the correct form for KE, which relates to the damage dealt, but this is more of a momentum problem. Momentum p is given by p = mv. Assume that a bullet weighs 5 grams and moves at 1000 meters/sec (both of these values are very high for a handgun). After collision with an 80 kg (about 180 pounds) person, assuming the bullet is embedded in the person, the person will be moving 0.07 meters/sec faster or slower than they were before impact. For comparison, walking speed is about 1.3 meters/sec.

Edit: The mass of a bullet may be off by a factor of 4? I am not sure, but it isn't likely off by more than 10.

True, bullets slow people down, but it is because of the damage, not momentum.

 

[s0m3th1ng]

Sweet post...and I got one bit of info you can add:
Most gun-related incidents occur within 18 feet of the shooter.

 

[wkrepelin]

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.

{large Snip}

You are absolutely correct about the Newton's third law thing and that's where recoil comes from. The amount of momentum imparted on a target can be no greater than (but opposite to) the momentum imparted on the shooter by the guns recoil (really the recoil of the bullet on the gun but that's splitting hairs). Now would be a good time to note that people are knocked over by the recoil of a gun all the time and that's, in part, why proper training is required to fire one. Obviously it's going to be different for different types of guns but the point still stands as tall as ever - it is completely within the threshold of normal physics for a person to be knocked over by a small projectile at high speeds (or a huge projectile at low speeds for that matter, try to stop a train going one-tenth of a mile an hour - you will be knocked over). If you don't know the math then you don't know (this is not a statement about intelligence but just one about being informed).

 

[emeraldrafael]

Its good of you to teach this.

Its too bad I cant carry my guns around. They're all Pre 1900 (3 1862 colt navys and 2 1863 colt Armies, as well as two 1887 1884 Winchesters) with authentic rounds and I would seriously hurt someone and mess them up if I shot them. Mainly cause I aim for the shoulders/knees or the head, cause if they're attacking me and dont stop and I have to use a gun, they're going to be stopped.

But thank you, for clearing up rumors about guns. though I think you should announce it you have a gun, simply for self defense trials later. It helps you a bit more then just saying "oh yeah, the guy was charging me, so I shot him. Didnt Know I had a gun, the dick. hahaha".

 

[Orwellian37]

Thanks for the information. I shoot handguns for sport, and I knew some of these things, but not all of them. Again, thanks.

 

[wkrepelin]

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.

You must not know many people with degrees (academics are backstabbing, elitist, assholes). . . you work your ass off for years to lord stuff over happier people who made better decisions with their lives . . . I thought that was common knowledge.

Oh and Dr Gregory Anderson PhD. who was one of the early proponents of the "quintessence" theory of universal expansion has a higher degree than me, is smarter than me, loves Big Bang Theory on ABC and says Bah-zing-gah because he likes Sheldon. I know this because I know him personally. You're experience is too limited to judge academics accurately.

You are right about your implication (indirect) that I am something of a tool . . . gotta play to my talents.

Anyway good chatting with you. - Just so you remember this was about your misrepresentation of physics not your point. I agree that even if it was the bullet that knocked the person down the reason they don't get up is the damage caused by the impact not the change in momentum but it could still knock them down and you shouldn't represent yourself as having a knowledge of physics when you don't even sound like you took it in high school. Just say that you're not a specialist but it makes sense to you that etc. etc. That way you get to have your opinion heard but in the context it deserves not in the context of being an authority on the subject.

 

[CyanideSandwich]

Very informative. Thank you.

 

[rutger5000]

Not all of your arguments sound that convincing to me. Shooting a bullet in the air seems like a perfect warning shot to me. The bullet will have lost an immense amount of speed due to air resistance. It should be a lot slower when it reaches the ground. Maybe even slow enough not to pose a threat.
Also I get why aiming for the leg is the same as aiming for his guts. But what about his feet. I think you can safely immobilize a person like that.

 

[JezebelinHell]

2. ...and the attacker has a knife, they are not a threat.

Myth. We think it's true because you have to be close to stab someone, but not to shoot them--distance is the advantage, right?

A little test called the Tueller Drill has repeatedly proven that an attacker with a knife can close a distance of 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. That means you must be able to draw, aim, fire, and hit your target in a way that stops his motion in under 1.5 seconds, or you're getting stabbed. Even trained police officers have trouble doing that, which is why they are authorized to use firearms against knives anywhere under 30 feet, usually.

Someone pulled a gun on my cousin and my cousin went to prison because he killed him with a knife. Just because you are the better armed person doesn't mean that you will win. You better be ready to use it if you are going to pull it. And yea if it had been reversed I would have thought that my cousin got what he deserved. He has been scum his whole life and isn't going to change... Oh he was out of prison for a while, found God even... but he is back in prison again. Surprise! I avoid that part of my dad's family like the plague.

Very true, and very well said.
But I was always taught that if they ask for your money, you just give it to them.
Would I be better off just resisting in that situation?

(Sorry if this is a repeat but I haven't read all the replies to see if this response has been made.) I have always heard that you throw what they want one way and run the other. But I am not willing to try it out and to see if it works. Just something to keep in mind if you have no other option.
OT
Thanks for the post! *applause*
My dad is a gun collector so my brother and I both learned gun safety very young. They are not toys, they were not hidden from us and made to seem like something untouchable like most kids are taught. At our house it was always if you want to go shoot ask and we will go. Eliminate the curiosity about them, make it an educational experience. That made us safer not only in our house but in any house that may have had a gun in it.
Now if only more criminals were taught that they will probably be shot when they commit crimes...

 

[maturin]

Just so you remember this was about your misrepresentation of physics not your point.

I never argued in terms of physics until you brought them up. I simply referred to the generalities of practical experience and wasn't interested in discussing the underlying mechanics.

I only recall citing one solitary statistic, described in markedly plebeian terms.
And your post was certainly worded as if you were contradicting the entire point, not the nuts and bolts justifying it. Even so, we were splitting some very insignificant hairs, running quite counter to the spirit of the topic. When the OP talks about the danger of warning shots ricocheting off the ground, it is incredibly likely that the round will simply penetrate the dirt harmlessly, but that doesn't call for a ballistics seminar. And your language and tone, actual intent aside, was that of an internet flamewar argument.

The absolute only thing you had to say was "Actually, a ten pound weight dropped from two feet high could knock a person over under the proper conditions." Or some such. I'll concede that if I wasn't expecting it and didn't have the proper stance and reaction, I could fall down before such a force. But other than that I don't see how I was too terribly wrong in my description of the phenomenon and I don't see any part of your post that educated me, especially the rather useless inclusion of the inverted pendulum.

 

[crudus]

Thank you. Very good thread. Very rational. Clears up some good misconceptions.

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.

My favorite thing is people don't really think about the "shoot to wound" thing. For example, how do you shoot to wound? There are few places where someone will survive getting shot every time. Those are pretty small places that nobody can hit every time in a calm environment. Also if you do shoot to wound, won't that just piss off the person attacking you?

 

[Canid117]

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/new_rules_on_stun_guns_will_lo.html

Jersey law only recently allowed the use of stun guns in more situations than the original, and ludicrous, situations. And many officers still haven't been trained, and they aren't widely available to the force yet, either.

Wow... thats kind of odd. In my hometown every single squad car had a taser gun in its trunk. This was a fairly large city too.

 

[Sparcrypt]

yes... the biggest one people have issues with I find is understanding that knives are just as, if not more, dangerous then guns.

A friend of mine in the police had a partner of his cut badly in the face and very nearly died after deciding to use his OC spray on a rushing attacker with a knife instead of his gun. The guy went down but cut him up pretty badly in the process.

Simple test if you think knives are easy to handle - give someone with zero training a marker pen and then put on some white clothes. Have the person with the pen stand 10 metres away and then charge you like a madman, using the marker as a knife (slashing only - if they do any 'stabbing' they can seriously hurt you so be careful). When done, have a look at your white cloths and see where the marker is.. then imagine how crippling a deep cut on those areas would leave you.

Now have that person attack in a different manner - close in slowly, back you to a corner and slash continuously at the edge of your reach. You'll now be covered in the marker all over your hands - and keep in mind that after ONE of those slashes the pain would likely cause your to instantly draw your hands to your body for protection, completely opening you up for serious damage.

Even if you are trained to take a knife off someone, even the SLIGHTEST mistake is going to get you cut, maybe badly.

Basically, if you have a gun and they attack with a knife, shoot them.

 

[EOD Tech]

OP: unexpectedly great post. Way to dispel many gun myths.

Unfortunately a lot of toolbags will ignore you, but hey, you've done what you can.

 

[archvile93]

Not all of your arguments sound that convincing to me. Shooting a bullet in the air seems like a perfect warning shot to me. The bullet will have lost an immense amount of speed due to air resistance. It should be a lot slower when it reaches the ground. Maybe even slow enough not to pose a threat.
Also I get why aiming for the leg is the same as aiming for his guts. But what about his feet. I think you can safely immobilize a person like that.

Well there's also the issue that it may very well not discourage your attacker. If he's that close to be a serious threat he may very well just rush you or, if he has a gun, start shooting, and you just wasted valuable time putting a shot in the air. Also, shooting a foot? Good luck hitting a fast moving target that small in a very short timeframe; you probably won't even have time to line up the sights. You're really going to need it.

 

[AK47Marine]

Nice to see other firearms owners who know what their talking about.

This thread certainly lowered my blood pressure =]