Gotta call bullshit on this one given that hollow points reduce overpenetration mostly by expanding and wounding the hell out of whoever you hit. At the very least it should be admitted that hollow points have been around for a long time and the justifications and logic behind their use has changed many times and that they were not principally designed with controlling penetration in mind. There's a confluence of factors that go into choosing to use hollow points but the notion that they are pretty dang lethal has been one of their primary selling points since the advent of the FMJ.Sir Neil wrote: You misunderstand the purpose of hollowpoints. They are designed to reduce overpenetration.
A well regulated militia...
Moderator: Moderators
- Whipstitch
- Prince
- Posts: 3660
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm
Last edited by Whipstitch on Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- RadiantPhoenix
- Prince
- Posts: 2668
- Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
- Location: Trudging up the Hill
Don't reducing overpenetration and increasing wounding go pretty much hand in hand? The energy has to go somewhere, and if you're not overpenetrating, that means you're dissipating it on the organs of the person you shot.Whipstitch wrote:Gotta call bullshit on this one given that hollow points reduce overpenetration mostly by expanding and wounding the hell out of whoever you hit.
- Whipstitch
- Prince
- Posts: 3660
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm
Pretty much, yeah. Implying that hollow points aren't intended to cause great wounds but rather to hit high velocities and reduce penetration is rather akin to saying that brake pads are designed to create friction and that stopping cars is just a side effect. That it won't ding up your backstop too bad is largely just a bonus and wasn't really considered a design feature for most of the round's history, which is why we still have people working on things like glaser rounds and frangibles.
[EDIT]
Oh, and for the record, I'm not even a gun control advocate and hollow point rounds don't really worry me that much given that I already assume that shooting someone is a bad idea if you're concerned about their safety. So I have a degree of sympathy for the people who believe the whole hollow point ban is a bit soft-headed, but not enough to feel comfortable fudging things about the round's performance.
[EDIT]
Oh, and for the record, I'm not even a gun control advocate and hollow point rounds don't really worry me that much given that I already assume that shooting someone is a bad idea if you're concerned about their safety. So I have a degree of sympathy for the people who believe the whole hollow point ban is a bit soft-headed, but not enough to feel comfortable fudging things about the round's performance.
Last edited by Whipstitch on Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Hollowpoint rounds do go faster (the first hollowpoints were marketed as "express bullets" because of this feature). That's simple physics: if you reduce the mass and leave the cartridge the same, the bullet will go faster. And that means it will make more noise. Armor piercing and incendiary bullets also make more noise, although for different reasons.
Note: I do not think this is actually a meaningful argument for why something should be banned or not. But people saying that hollowing out a bullet doesn't make it go faster are simply factually wrong. F=MA and all that.
-Username17
Note: I do not think this is actually a meaningful argument for why something should be banned or not. But people saying that hollowing out a bullet doesn't make it go faster are simply factually wrong. F=MA and all that.
-Username17
Guns have lots of uses other than killing; it's just that killing is the easiest of functions.Count Arioch the 28th wrote:First off, when it comes to guns protection IS killing. Guns literally have no other purpose than to kill.
The British found out that the purpose of guns should be not just killing but actually stopping an enemy in his tracks. They lost a lot of good men to charge attacks who were "as good as dead" by the time they managed to whack the infantryman's head off. Stopping power is a major purpose to guns. Sometimes more so than killing.
Before antibiotics ... guns don't kill people ... gangreene kills people.
- RadiantPhoenix
- Prince
- Posts: 2668
- Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
- Location: Trudging up the Hill
If you can swing/stab at better than eight-hundred feet a second, sure.RadiantPhoenix wrote:So, should people be carrying sharpened pitchforks instead of guns? It seems rather intuitive that they would have better stopping power.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
If a bezerk person is charging at you, the odds are they are not actively using a firearm at the same time. If the case happens to be they are, then they only thing they can do to you once they reach you is to whack you on the face with the weapon. Stopping power is not necessary, stepping out of the way is.
- RadiantPhoenix
- Prince
- Posts: 2668
- Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
- Location: Trudging up the Hill
- Count Arioch the 28th
- King
- Posts: 6172
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
I always thought it was bullshit that I could buy a gun from a yard sale with no waiting period or anything and carry that around with no permits required, but there isn't really a legal way I could carry my sword around with me.RadiantPhoenix wrote:A gun needs to be fired to stop someone, but a polearm just needs to be pointed at them.Maxus wrote:If you can swing/stab at better than eight-hundred feet a second, sure.
Wouldn't everyone be so much safer if they all carried long pointy sticks?
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
-
- Duke
- Posts: 2434
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Sabot loads are still only going to be loud because they are supersonic, anythign you throw that breaks the sound barrier is damn loud. Throw the same thing slower and its much quieter. Unless you have a study showing noise level vs velocity for the same projectile using saboted rounds.FrankTrollman wrote:And that high velocity discarding sabot rounds exist and are compositionally distinct from slower velocity bullets and thus your statement that bullet composition is never relevant is demonstrably wrong.
-Username17
Best I could find is sparse but shows what looks to be an FMJ experiences a 50dB noise increase going from 1000 to 1300 fps with negligible increase after 1300 to 3100. Study here. http://www.rdsindustrie.com/images/stor ... %20tir.pdf
damn that meiji era to hell!Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I always thought it was bullshit that I could buy a gun from a yard sale with no waiting period or anything and carry that around with no permits required, but there isn't really a legal way I could carry my sword around with me.RadiantPhoenix wrote:A gun needs to be fired to stop someone, but a polearm just needs to be pointed at them.Maxus wrote:If you can swing/stab at better than eight-hundred feet a second, sure.
Wouldn't everyone be so much safer if they all carried long pointy sticks?
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
- Stahlseele
- King
- Posts: 5988
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:51 pm
- Location: Hamburg, Germany
Yah . . . It's absurd what hoops one has to jump through with blades of any kind that are not for the kitchen . .Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I always thought it was bullshit that I could buy a gun from a yard sale with no waiting period or anything and carry that around with no permits required, but there isn't really a legal way I could carry my sword around with me.RadiantPhoenix wrote:A gun needs to be fired to stop someone, but a polearm just needs to be pointed at them.Maxus wrote:If you can swing/stab at better than eight-hundred feet a second, sure.
Wouldn't everyone be so much safer if they all carried long pointy sticks?
Last edited by Stahlseele on Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Welcome, to IronHell.
Shrapnel wrote:TFwiki wrote:Soon is the name of the region in the time-domain (familiar to all marketing departments, and to the moderators and staff of Fun Publications) which sees release of all BotCon news, club exclusives, and other fan desirables. Soon is when then will become now.
Peculiar properties of spacetime ensure that the perception of the magnitude of Soon is fluid and dependent, not on an individual's time-reference, but on spatial and cultural location. A marketer generally perceives Soon as a finite, known, yet unspeakable time-interval; to a fan, the interval appears greater, and may in fact approach the infinite, becoming Never. Once the interval has passed, however, a certain time-lensing effect seems to occur, and the time-interval becomes vanishingly small. We therefore see the strange result that the same fragment of spacetime may be observed, in quick succession, as Soon, Never, and All Too Quickly.
Sheriff: Time For Citizens To Arm Themselves
SPARTANBURG COUNTY, S.C. -- The Spartanburg County Sheriff is known for speaking his mind, and at a news conference on Monday, he didn't hold back his anger and frustration after a woman was attacked in a park over the weekend.
Investigators said 46-year-old Walter Lance grabbed a woman who was walking her dog in Milliken Park on Sunday afternoon. They said Lance choked the woman, made her take off her clothing and tried to rape her.
Sheriff Chuck Wright opened his news conference by saying, "Our form of justice is not making it."
He said, "Carry a concealed weapon. That'll fix it."
Because, that woman, would totally have been able to draw her weapon from her purse, take the safety off, aim and shoot the guy, while he grabbed her and shot her.
You can't just have guns, you need combat/self defense training. Otherwise, you get maybe the gun out of the bag, and then the guy takes it from you and now he's raping you at gun point.
You can't just have guns, you need combat/self defense training. Otherwise, you get maybe the gun out of the bag, and then the guy takes it from you and now he's raping you at gun point.
- Count Arioch the 28th
- King
- Posts: 6172
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Personally I would have though a conceiled carry of some sort of incapication spray would have been easier and more effective in that situation. You might be able to get it to the point where you can wear it under your wrist. Clearly by the time you searched your purse for the gun you would already be dead.
- RobbyPants
- King
- Posts: 5201
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm
I also wonder about chambering the first round. I have no idea about stats on this, but I wonder how many people who carry semi-automatics do so with the first round in the chamber. That extra step probably adds at least a second to the draw-to-fire time, but it also makes it a lot less likely for you to accidentally discharge the thing, too.sabs wrote:Because, that woman, would totally have been able to draw her weapon from her purse, take the safety off, aim and shoot the guy, while he grabbed her and shot her.
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Power fantasies aside, the cold statistical reality is that people who carry a gun are shot and killed more than people who don't. However many situations guns save people in, there is a substantially larger number of situations where they get your ass killed. You can argue hypothetical scenarios all you want, but people without guns are safer than people with guns.
I actually have no idea what carrying mace does to your chances of getting attacked, injured, or killed. I seriously have never seen any statistics on that and can't make even a strong guess as to whether pepper spray puts you in more danger or less.
The closest thing I've seen was some studies about the use of Pepper Spray by Police Officers. But those people already have guns. So while they show a reduction in injuries and deaths after people start carrying pepper spray, I have no way to tell whether that is simply that pepper spray is less dangerous to you and the people around you than firearms and thus putting the weapon that is less bad on your belt dilutes the harm of carrying the firearm, or whether the pepper spray actually has net benefit. In short, I can't tell if it is acting as a competitive partial agonist or a competitive inhibitor.
-Username17
I actually have no idea what carrying mace does to your chances of getting attacked, injured, or killed. I seriously have never seen any statistics on that and can't make even a strong guess as to whether pepper spray puts you in more danger or less.
The closest thing I've seen was some studies about the use of Pepper Spray by Police Officers. But those people already have guns. So while they show a reduction in injuries and deaths after people start carrying pepper spray, I have no way to tell whether that is simply that pepper spray is less dangerous to you and the people around you than firearms and thus putting the weapon that is less bad on your belt dilutes the harm of carrying the firearm, or whether the pepper spray actually has net benefit. In short, I can't tell if it is acting as a competitive partial agonist or a competitive inhibitor.
-Username17
- RobbyPants
- King
- Posts: 5201
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm
Ha. #4 is spot on: Cracked: 5 logical fallacies that make you wrong more than you think.