Your Right to Bear Arms is Bullsh*t

[Pathetic]

Actually a .22 is one of the deadliest weapons, if used properly. The bullet has enough power to pierce the skull once but not twice; therefore, if you hit the target in the head the bullet goes in then bounces around like a blender. Arch Duke Ferdinand and his wife were killed with a .22. Now a .25 caliber you might as well throw at the target.

Yeah, no. Lead doesn't do perfectly elastic collisions with bone. The bullet can hit the inside of the skull at an angle and "circumnavigate" the brain. However, since bullets guaranteed to fully penetrate a human head at any angle tend to also guarantee a kill on any hit through the cranium, this hardly makes the .22 LR a particularly lethal caliber. And then there's the problems with penetrating the skull even once with certain loads at a bad angle.

The .22 LR is one of the deadliest weapons in the sense that it probably accounts for a large chunk of the murders with firearms in most 1st world countries -- though of course for reasons not directly related to terminal ballistics. For example, these two were done with .22 LR handguns.

It does depend on the rounds velocity, which is higher from a rifle than a pistol. I doubt a .22 round fired from a pistol would penetrate a kevlar vest but one fired from a rifle will.

the reason is the high velocity and low surface area at impact.

Generally, ".22" refers to the .22 Long Rifle cartridge. No matter what it's fired out of, unless loaded with some kind of freaky custom saboted tungsten carbide round, it will not penetrate any ballistic body armor.

Confusion sometimes arises because people refer to cartridges like the .223 Remington as ".22s". These rifle cartridges, which share with the .22 LR only the (rough) diameter of the bullet, can achieve muzzle velocities up to 3 times as high as those that are expected of the .22 LR with the same barrel length, even with significantly heavier bullets, resulting in pretty much guaranteed penetration of any flexible body armor.

[gryphon strike]

Yeah, no. Lead doesn't do perfectly elastic collisions with bone. The bullet can hit the inside of the skull at an angle and "circumnavigate" the brain. However, since bullets guaranteed to fully penetrate a human head at any angle tend to also guarantee a kill on any hit through the cranium, this hardly makes the .22 LR a particularly lethal caliber. And then there's the problems with penetrating the skull even once with certain loads at a bad angle.

The .22 LR is one of the deadliest weapons in the sense that it probably accounts for a large chunk of the murders with firearms in most 1st world countries -- though of course for reasons not directly related to its relative lethality. For example, these two were done with .22 LR handguns.

Generally, ".22" refers to the .22 Long Rifle cartridge. No matter what it's fired out of, unless loaded with some kind of freaky custom saboted tungsten carbide round, it will not penetrate any ballistic body armor.

Confusion sometimes arises because people refer to cartridges like the .223 Remington as ".22s". These rifle cartridges, which share with the .22 LR only the (rough) diameter of the bullet, can achieve muzzle velocities up to 3 times higher than are expected of the .22 LR with the same barrel length, even with significantly heavier bullets, resulting in pretty much guaranteed penetration of any flexible body armor.

I am off to bed at the moment but I will try to find the clip tomorrow for you, it shows a machine gun using a .22 caliber shredding kevlar with no problems. The weapon was developed for the US army by the way.

[Pathetic]

I am off to bed at the moment but I will try to find the clip tomorrow for you, it shows a machine gun using a .22 caliber shredding kevlar with no problems. The weapon was developed for the US army by the way.

I suspect it was indeed a 5.56x45mm NATO (the military version of the .223 Remington) weapon, not .22 LR. Firing 62gr bullets at 3000fps (1239ft-lbs/1680J), it penetrates armor rather better than 40gr bullets at 1150fps (117ft-lbs/159J). The US Army uses the .22 LR only for its survival weapons, not for any combat purposes. It would in any case not be a very good idea to make a belt-fed rimfire weapon -- though I know some people have.

On the other hand, the US Army has done some patently stupid shit over the years, so who knows, I could be wrong.

You could "drill" your way through body armor with a .22 LR weapon by constantly firing at the same spot. It might not take very long before you'd get penetration through a level IIIA vest, 3 or 4 shots might do it if they hit the same exact point. This is hardly a practical way of defeating body armor, however.

[potsherds]

:rolleyes: All the "ladiezz" I know are terrified of guns. Drives me insane. Mrs. Midgetsbane is convinced that they will go off by themselves if left unmonitored.

Not to destroy your generalization, as it may be true, but personally, I don't find guns terrifying at all. Plenty of gun owners scare the crap out of me though.

[Shryke]

Well, how many non-Americans do you(or others) get into this debate with? It seems every time this debate is brought up it always involves "gun-toting hillbilly Americans and their backwoods lifestyle". I don't see many non-Americans having to defend themselves in this debate.

There's been tons of debate on gun-control/gun-bans in Canada. Especially in the last like 10 years. Toronto is on and off with banning handguns all the time. The Canadian Gun Registry is talked about back and forth all the time too.

At no point has "self-defence" or "taking down the government" or any of that shit ever come up.

[CiaranAnnrach]

Comeon', Shryke. Nothing impresses the ladies like taking down governments. How are we supposed to do that without guns?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I was thinking more along the lines of a .22

I don't really see much need for a larger pistol than that.

If you are using it for recreational purposes, a .22 is a fine plinker to knock cans off a fence. For self defense purposes I would not go with anything smaller than a 9mm.

Not to destroy your generalization, as it may be true, but personally, I don't find guns terrifying at all.

Not generalizing about women, just the ones I spend time with.

ETA:

Tormund has always rocked and rocks still...

Its all an act. I'm really an alt created by EHK to piss himself off.

[ztemhead]

out of curiosity, anyone know if the NCIC background checks are less of a joke now than they were five years ago when I bought my pistol? Once upon a time there was 50 separate state systems maintaining records on violent offenders, and though a federal law mandated background checks on gun purchasers, there was no money available to funnel the info to the gun shops.

(in Arizona I don't doubt my ability to get just about any firearm I desire, either through Craigslist or a gun show.)

[Alty]

Alty,

If someone steals your loaded weapon or your ammunition?

Ah yeah good point. Although it definitly will point the invistigation in the right direction. For example. X's gun is stolen by Y to shoot Z. The authorities find a bullet in the body of Z, they find out the bullet was registered to X. They say to X did you kill this man? He says no it was stolen and he could give descriptions of the theif hopefully or at least some clues for the investigation. They would be suspicious of X until Y is caught but at least they would get clues and be pointed in the wrong direction. Legally the codes on the bullets could not count as evidence in case of what you said, but I think they would be a good way of pointing investigators in the right direction.

[Swordfish]

Ah yeah good point. Although it definitly will point the invistigation in the right direction. For example. X's gun is stolen by Y to shoot Z. The authorities find a bullet in the body of Z, they find out the bullet was registered to X. They say to X did you kill this man? He says no it was stolen and he could give descriptions of the theif hopefully or at least some clues for the investigation. They would be suspicious of X until Y is caught but at least they would get clues and be pointed in the wrong direction. Legally the codes on the bullets could not count as evidence in case of what you said, but I think they would be a good way of pointing investigators in the right direction.

I'm not really sure you fully understand how bullets are constructed or how they function.

[Fatuous]

Oh my, what a contentious debate. Am I required to take part or am I allowed to mock both sides?

My stance: I don't care, really as we all have to die from something. Oh and Americans are a vulgar, violent bunch of yahoos. I should know as I'm one of them.

It's like watching a bunch of monkeys flinging shit.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I'm not really sure you fully understand how bullets are constructed or how they function.

Or what they cost. Thanks to the current AmmObama ridiculousness, ammo for my .44 is about 50 cents per round. Do you have any idea the kind of money it would take to microstamp every single bullet with its own unique number?

[turinturambar]

There's been tons of debate on gun-control/gun-bans in Canada. Especially in the last like 10 years. Toronto is on and off with banning handguns all the time. The Canadian Gun Registry is talked about back and forth all the time too.

At no point has "self-defence" or "taking down the government" or any of that shit ever come up.

But the thing is, every time it's brought up on these boards, we're discussing the 2nd amendment. The mere nature to which the right is engrained in American culture is different than most any other country. When people are claiming that we shouldn't have the right anymore it makes the situation completely different based on the reasons for it being a right in the first place. I'm not up to date on Canada's constitution and where in it gun rights are discussed, but if you could enlighten me I'd be willing to listen.

[turinturambar]

Oh my, what a contentious debate. Am I required to take part or am I allowed to mock both sides?

My stance: I don't care, really as we all have to die from something. Oh and Americans are a vulgar, violent bunch of yahoos. I should know as I'm one of them.

It's like watching a bunch of monkeys flinging shit.

I think you're confusing Americans, with humanity in general.

[Galactus]

But the thing is, every time it's brought up on these boards, we're discussing the 2nd amendment. The mere nature to which the right is engrained in American culture is different than most any other country. When people are claiming that we shouldn't have the right anymore it makes the situation completely different based on the reasons for it being a right in the first place. I'm not up to date on Canada's constitution and where in it gun rights are discussed, but if you could enlighten me I'd be willing to listen.

Which is precisely the point. people aren't bothered so much by the US having lax gun laws, as the US refusing to discuss the issue.

Pretty much for the same reason people get angry at the saudi government for their treatment of women. Using faux-cultural relativistic arguments tends to annoy people.

[turinturambar]

Which is precisely the point. people aren't bothered so much by the US having lax gun laws, as the US refusing to discuss the issue.

Pretty much for the same reason people get angry at the saudi government for their treatment of women. Using faux-cultural relativistic arguments tends to annoy people.

The condescending and arrogant tone so many people use to "discuss" these issues with Americans gets pretty annoying. Especially coming from people who have little to no experience with cultures in which guns are common and accepted. They base their perceptions off of sh!t they know nothing about.

As for me, I don't see anything wrong with the self-defense argument. A gun is going to make some people feel safer, especially if they live in a dangerous neighborhood. The "take down the government" argument I don't understand too much and I feel people simply use it because they're trying to explain the purpose of the creation of the right in the first place, when in truth they feel like it's a right they should be allowed to have and the mere fact that people want to belittle them and/or their culture backs them into a corner where they have to grasp for straws to defend something that they really don't feel like they should have to defend.

As for myself, if you were to ask me, I'd simply say that I don't give a fuck if you think I should be allowed to 'bear' arms. I have one gun. I have no fascination for guns, and I haven't used the thing in several years. It's been sitting in my closet collecting dust for years, along with a box of ammo with only 2 shells, 2 shells of which have been collecting dust for several years. I don't feel I need it for self defense, though if the 1/1,000,000 chance happened that somebody did break into my home he would probably be leaving with blown out kneecaps(or a lack of facial features if he tried to pull a weapon on me). If I didn't have a gun it wouldn't change my life, nor do I think I need a gun, nor do I get any pleasure out of having a gun. It's simply something that was handed down to me from my father, and from his father and his father's father. It does have sentimental value in that regard and although I don't have any particular love for guns, I do have a love for things that I own(especially anything given to my by my grandfather) and if somebody wants to take it away from me they're going to have to rip it out of my hands and send me off to jail. I don't have a passion for shooting guns, but I do feel like I should be able to go to a range or hunt IF I actually had the desire to do so. And the fact that some crazy halfwit 1000 miles away decided to shoot his wife in the head rather than stab her in her sleep is no reason to keep me from being able to do hunt on my land or shoot at the range, or keep it for self-defense IF that were my reason for having a gun. Anytime the government tries to take away our rights in the name of "keeping us safe" we only lend that government more power to control our lives.

[Alty]

I'm not really sure you fully understand how bullets are constructed or how they function.

No not really I'm no expert on the subject. Can you explain to me then since you obviously seem to know...

Or what they cost. Thanks to the current AmmObama ridiculousness, ammo for my .44 is about 50 cents per round. Do you have any idea the kind of money it would take to microstamp every single bullet with its own unique number?

That's probably because from tax a bit like cigarettes and I wouldn't imagine it reflects the cost of the manufacturing process much.

I don't think it would cost all that much to code them all somehow. For example all metro tickets havea magnetic strip that stores data on it and people throw millions away a day. I can't imagine it being that hard to magnetically store data on a bullet. Obviously it would take a lot of money to put a system like this in place but I think it will be quite cheap once it's running and it would save money for the government on investigations and court cases.

[Guest Raidne]

Which is precisely the point. people aren't bothered so much by the US having lax gun laws, as the US refusing to discuss the issue.

Pretty much for the same reason people get angry at the saudi government for their treatment of women. Using faux-cultural relativistic arguments tends to annoy people.

People in the US are very willing to discuss the issue, IMO, the discussions just tend to start, for us, with the 2nd Amendment, because, well, it exists. Discussing repealing the 2nd Amendment is purely an exercise in intellectual wankery based on some fictitious idea of fiat power, as the notion doesn't carry an ounce of pragmatism.

We can't even pass an Amendment guaranteeing equal rights for women, do you really think there's a chance in hell we'd find the votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment?

Again, I think there's some confusion with the assumed positivism of the average American -when we say we have the right to bear arms, we mean that descriptively - the government has created that right. It's not a comment on any kind of prescriptive universal human rights perspective.

[Guest Raidne]

Oh my, what a contentious debate. Am I required to take part or am I allowed to mock both sides?

My stance: I don't care, really as we all have to die from something. Oh and Americans are a vulgar, violent bunch of yahoos. I should know as I'm one of them.

It's like watching a bunch of monkeys flinging shit.

A suggestion? You may want to program the proposition that humans behaving outlandishly are often expressing their capacity for humor somewhere into your AI neural network.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I don't think it would cost all that much to code them all somehow. For example all metro tickets havea magnetic strip that stores data on it and people throw millions away a day. I can't imagine it being that hard to magnetically store data on a bullet. Obviously it would take a lot of money to put a system like this in place but I think it will be quite cheap once it's running and it would save money for the government on investigations and court cases.

Do any of those magnetic strips get fired by an explosion down a steel tube at supersonic speeds and then smash into tissue/bone/whatever is behind the person you are shooting at? I think the kind of data storage you are talking about will be a little harder to manufacture. Also, you do not take into account bullets that fragement on impact. Or shotgun shells, which are plastic filled with many, smaller bits of shot. Are you going to stamp each piece of shot?