[news.yahoo.com]

nary a mention of the firearms themselves as being the cause.

Much of what they are saying mirrors what I have gleaned from my reading and posited causes over the past few years. Crimo's disconnection from his kid in the last one is classic.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Guns don't make mass violence happen, but they make them a hell of a lot easier.

Take away one domino you've cut off the cascade. No climax.

We can't magic away human trauma. But we can remove that tool that lets so many pass it on to the rest of the nation. And we don't need magic to do that. Just the will of the people and honest reps in our government.

---

Good article. Every parent should have that information.

Good to see them point out that the large majority of mass shooters are not experiencing psychosis when they commit their crimes.

Also the vast majority of young guys experiencing emotional distress never become violent, but deserve help.

There is a course called Mental Health First Aid . Every parent and teacher should take it. We fix scrapes and sprains and prevent drownings, we learn CPR.
We also need to know what to do if someone is suffering emotionally.

No the gun is not the cause, it is the means. Only a very sick and cold society like ours makes these weapons so easily available.

Quote
Lemon Drop
No the gun is not the cause, it is the means. Only a very sick and cold society like ours makes these weapons so easily available.

And an extremely deadly means at that.

easily available is very relative, you know that. I have a CWP, and I still need to wait 10 days for a squirrel assault 22 rimfiire Ruger 10/22. And any pistol waits for the local PD to sign off on no local ERPOs or Mental Health warnings.

ANY purchase or transfer outside of immediate family requires these checks in Washington, on top of the Federal 4473 if purchased from a dealer. I don't count that as easily accessible.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Sounds like Washington state has better gun laws than most. In many states, it’s instant background check (or none at all), here’s your gun; don’t forget ammo.

Quote

Currently, there is no federal waiting period to buy a gun. Private sellers aren’t required by any federal laws to conduct background checks on people who purchase guns from them. That means that a person who purchases a gun from a private seller can take immediate possession of the gun. The only exception is if there are state or local laws that say otherwise.

… There are currently ten states with gun waiting periods [out of, y’know, 50]. In addition, Washington DC also has regulations that apply a waiting period to certain types of firearms purchases.

… All purchases through the Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) require background checks. This includes online sellers, retailers such as Dick’s Sporting Goods, and small businesses. A background check is not required for private sellers.

In order to complete a background check, you must fill out a 4473 Form, which is also known as a Firearms Transaction Record. Once the form has been filled out, the seller will run your information through NICS, maintained by the FBI. It takes about 30 seconds to run a background check through the NICS.

If there is nothing on your record that prohibits you from the purchase, you can buy the firearm.

Yep - pretty grueling.

The US and state's governments do not want to solve problems that will affect cash flow.

Outlaw tobacco, More than 480,000 deaths annually, and that includes 41,000 innocent deaths from second hand smoke. More than twice that of firearm homicide. [www.cdc.gov]

Outlaw alcohol, More than 140,000 people die from excessive alcohol use in the U.S. each year. In addition, In 2016, 10,497 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for 28% of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. "Every day, 29 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This is one death every 50 minutes" The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $44 billion. [www.cdc.gov]

No politician is going to step up and torpedo their career to save any significant number of lives if it costs them money. Lost jobs and lost tax revenue. Isn't going to happen.

Tobacco and alcohol are NOT a guaranteed Right, nor are they a vital industry to the US. But they would be VERY unpopular targets.

Think of all the crops they could grow on former tobacco land? And the food that could be made with all those grapes and grains not used to make alcohol?

Politicians waving their arms and blaming each other about anything related to firearms is just good theater. The media loves it.

The article I posted up top indicates it is a human issue, not a hardware issue.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2022 10:31PM by Racer X.

We’re getting a bit into hand-waving diversion here, Racer. Why not make the deaths from car crashes arguments too, like Mr645?

because vehicles have legit uses, as do firearms. Alcohol and tobacco aren't necessary, or protected.

620K deaths a year from alcohol and tobacco. 20k a year is pretty small in comparison. But it gets clicks, sympathy, and votes.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2022 12:18AM by Racer X.

Tell that to Abe Shinzo.

The alcohol and tobacco argument is specious. You are pretending that people seek to "outlaw guns" and that's NRA propaganda.

---

no, they, I assume, want to save lives. There would be a far greater impact if they focused their efforts on something that would yield greater benefit to our society. Second hand smoke alone kills more people than firearm murders.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2022 05:48AM by Racer X.

Quote
Steve G.
Tell that to Abe Shinzo.

You just proved my point. 73 people die every hour in the US from alcohol and tobacco. Over 1 a minute. They don't get clicks. They don't hit the news. Not worth spending political capitol on.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Racer X

Quote
Steve G.
Tell that to Abe Shinzo.

You just proved my point. 73 people die every hour in the US from alcohol and tobacco. Over 1 a minute. They don't get clicks. They don't hit the news. Not worth spending political capitol on.

You have to be 21 to purchase alcohol or tobacco products. Which most people consume with no issue. And there are big penalties for providing alcohol to minors. These products though potentially unhealthy are not designed to kill.

18 to get a deadly assault weapon designed only to kill many humans quickly, no other purpose. Tobacco companies have been held liable for the sickness they caused. Gun manufacturers are protected from liability by statute, which is absurd.

It is not correct to say politicians won't regulate alcohol and tobacco. Republicans fear their gun loving base of voters. It's not even the NRA anymore, it's a small number of crazy, irresponsible, hateful, selfish Americans holding the majority hostage.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2022 07:47AM by Lemon Drop.

We heavily regulate tobacco and alcohol without outlawing them. Let's do the same for firearms.

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
Racer X

Quote
Steve G.
Tell that to Abe Shinzo.

You just proved my point. 73 people die every hour in the US from alcohol and tobacco. Over 1 a minute. They don't get clicks. They don't hit the news. Not worth spending political capitol on.

You have to be 21 to purchase alcohol or tobacco products. Which most people consume with no issue. And there are big penalties for providing alcohol to minors. These products though potentially unhealthy are not designed to kill.

18 to get a deadly assault weapon designed only to kill many humans quickly, no other purpose. Tobacco companies have been held liable for the sickness they caused. Gun manufacturers are protected from liability by statute, which is absurd.

It is not correct to say politicians won't regulate alcohol and tobacco. Republicans fear their gun loving base of voters. It's not even the NRA anymore, it's a small number of crazy, irresponsible, hateful, selfish Americans holding the majority hostage.

but alcohol and tobacco are killing 640,000 a year. There are @20,000 firearm homicides a year.

And I have proven multiple times that people use MSR platform rifles for hunting and competitive shooting. So, there are other purposes than killing humans. You, and others refuse to acknowledge that because it doesn't fit your world view and agenda.

And with supposedly 400,000,000 firearms in the US, 20,000 murders a year means that if each murder was committed with a different firearm, that's only .005% firearms used to kill a person a year. That is generously assuming that multiple people aren't murdered with the same firearm. Which we know isn't true.

The media and quite a few politicians make it sound like it is a massive number.

In the time I typed this, 4 people died from alcohol or tobacco related causes. And statistically, no one was murdered with a firearm here in the US in that same time.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2022 08:07AM by Racer X.

Quote
Racer X

Quote
Steve G.
Tell that to Abe Shinzo.

You just proved my point. 73 people die every hour in the US from alcohol and tobacco. Over 1 a minute. They don't get clicks. They don't hit the news. Not worth spending political capitol on.

Yeah, let's keep those weapons on the street.

Quote
Steve G.

Quote
Racer X

Quote
Steve G.
Tell that to Abe Shinzo.

You just proved my point. 73 people die every hour in the US from alcohol and tobacco. Over 1 a minute. They don't get clicks. They don't hit the news. Not worth spending political capitol on.

Yeah, let's keep those weapons on the street.

that's where the clicks and votes come from.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Acer
We heavily regulate tobacco and alcohol without outlawing them. Let's do the same for firearms.

How are they heavily regulated? As the end user you just prove you are either 18 or 21 and off you go. I can buy a gallon of Bacardi 151 and kill myself in an evening and all I need is an ID that says I'm 21.

And all those "heavy regulations" still allow 640,000 a year to die.

But back to the original subject. I'm glad that there is beginning to be a public acknowledgement that emotional issues HEAVILY fueled by social media and isolation/disconnection from positive friends and family are fueling it. Note I said emotional, and not mental.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Well, we tried banning alcohol, and it didn’t work.

We’ve made it much more expensive and difficult to smoke, and that has worked. So these things are possible.

But ultimately, individuals do this to themselves (yes, second-hand smoke, but that’s an order of magnitude less dangerous). Guns kill others, and not over 40 years, where the possibility of reversal is possible.

Guns are also used in suicide, but those numbers would drop from their elimination or a marked reduction in availability because they are one of the most effective methods of suicide, which is often an impetuous decision.

So, I would again argue (and agree with the poster above) that this (smoking/alcohol) is a specious argument. FWIW, I also think You can too hunt with an assault rifle is another specious argument. Hunters somehow managed successfully for a very long time with lower-capacity firearms that are far less prone to abuse. As I’ve said before, dynamite can be a very effective method of fishing, but that doesn’t make it a legitimate use for the sporting fisherman.

I remember when that guy went into that building with one lit cigarette and killed 8 people with it. It was awful!

And when that other guy opened up a can of beer at the stadium and 4 people were killed and 20 wounded.

Oh the humanity!

But when Lemon Drop insists every time that MSR have NO OTHER PURPOSE than to kill people, despite the fact they are a very flexible platform for hunting and competitive shooting, and this proof isc ompletely and utterly dismissed, it's hard to have a rational conversation here.

DeuxsMac completely walked away when I refuted his assertion about them not being used for hunting. I posted the hunting regs for Washington with the specific prohibitions, and NOTHING was said at all about them, or magazine limits. Dead silence after he defended himself by referencing his erroneous source. I proved it at least partially wrong in minutes. Nothing after that. [forums.macresource.com]

Well, I'll correct myself. He also claimed people didn't hunt to feed themselves, it is done solely for entertainment "DeusxMac

"You don't NEED to shoot your own food. You're killing for entertainment only."

[www.pewtrusts.org] "

And he tossed out a red herring and stomped off.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2022 09:25AM by Racer X.

Quote
DeusxMac
I remember when that guy went into that building with one lit cigarette and killed 8 people with it. It was awful!

And when that other guy opened up a can of beer at the stadium and 4 people were killed and 20 wounded.

Oh the humanity!

making fun of 640,000 deaths a year? Says a lot about your character.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Guns are made with one purpose: to kill things

(You may notice that the West is not sending billions of dollars worth of tobacco and alcohol to Ukraine)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2022 08:57AM by Steve G..

Quote
Racer X
But when Lemon Drop insists every time that MSR have NO OTHER PURPOSE than to kill people, despite the fact they are a very flexible platform for hunting and competitive shooting, and this proof isc ompletely and utterly dismissed, it's hard to have a rational conversation here..

Doesn't "MSR" stand for modern sporting RIFLE? Doesn't this euphemism exclude hand guns? Doesn't that then ignore more than half the guns in the U.S.?

For that subset of rifles-only, what percentage are regularly, and exclusively used for "hunting and competitive shooting"?

Quote
Racer X
DeuxsMac completely walked away when I refuted his assertion about them being banned from use for hunting. I posted the hunting regs for Washington with the specific prohibitions, and NOTHING was said at all about them, or magazine limits. Dead silence after he defended himself by referencing his erroneous source. I proved it at least partially wrong in minutes. Nothing after that.

Please point to the post where I "asserted" that guns were "being banned from use for hunting". I can't find it.

Quote
Steve G.
Guns are made with one purpose: to kill things

(You may notice that the West is not sending billions of dollars worth of tobacco and alcohol to Ukraine)

In every argument about guns, replace the beloved word “gun,” with all the love and affection that comes with that word, with the term “suitcase dirty bomb.” The absurdity of many pro-gun arguments becomes obvious.

Take easy access away. Any argument against this is illogical.

There is no mechanism in place where firearm make/model is recorded for your hunting licenses (at least not in Washington), so no way of accurately knowing the breakdown. But you do need separate licenses for different seasons, like bow hunting, muzzleloader season, birding, and regular hunting. Then specific tags that go on the harvested game animal (except fish and birds)

DeuxsMac, you referenced a website and said that MSRs weren't allowed for hunting. I can picture the site in my mind, but I don't recall the site's title. I think it was either a hunting outfitter's site, or maybe an on-line magazine. They made some very definitive statements and you took one and ran with it. I proved it at least partially wrong with the first state I researched, mine. I'm almost positive you know the site I am referring to.

Lemon Drop is silent BTW.

And PDQ, second hand smoke still kills twice as many as people who are murdered by firearms. But that isn't newsworthy. No clicks, no votes, no money in it.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2022 10:15AM by Racer X.

We can all support this, tho, right?

[www.cbsnews.com]

Lawmaker introduces bill to impose 1,000% tax on semi-automatic weapons

The new bill, introduced by Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia on Tuesday, comes as a group of 20 senators announced Sunday that they had reached a consensus on the key priorities of a deal to reform the nation's gun laws. The 1,000% tax on semi-automatic weapons would "give the Senate an option for further action to address the epidemic of gun violence" beyond the reform already in the works, Beyer said in a statement.

Called the "Assault Weapons Excise Act," the proposal would add the hefty tax to "large-capacity ammunition feeding devices and semi-automatic assault weapons, according to the text of the bill. If enacted, the semi-automatic rifle allegedly used by the Uvalde shooter would cost $18,700, instead of its current retail price of $1,870...

---

Would never stand up to the Supreme Court, as it would prevent the financially disadvantaged from exercising their right to self defense with a firearm.

Just more politicians grabbing attention, knowing it will never pass, much less survive legal scrutiny.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2022 10:18AM by Racer X.

What? Second-hand smoke was all over the news for years, and now you pretty much can't smoke inside any public building by law. It had plenty of clicks (or the equivalent at the time), votes, and money. Not eliminated, by any means, but clearly the culture has shifted away from smoking anywhere, anytime.

Quote
Acer
What? Second-hand smoke was all over the news for years, and now you pretty much can't smoke inside any public building by law. It had plenty of clicks (or the equivalent at the time), votes, and money. Not eliminated, by any means, but clearly the culture has shifted away from smoking anywhere, anytime.

Yet, the CDC still says 40,000 a year are dying from second-hand smoke. I posted the link earlier. The seeds were planted, and the reaping still goes on.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Racer X

And PDQ, second hand smoke still kills twice as many as people who are murdered by firearms. But that isn't newsworthy. No clicks, no votes, no money in it.

…but fewer than total gun deaths in the US. (41,000, which by is its nature is an estimate, vs 45,000 - no need to estimate with a hole in the victim)

That’s pretty remarkable. And I disagree that secondhand smoking (and smoking) is ignored. The CDC is all over it and smoking in general, which has resulted in decreasing death rates from lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases.

Finally, some contrary views on hunting with modern semi-automatic weapons:

What some lifelong gun owners say about AR-15s

Quote

… Gun rights advocates often tout the AR-15-style rifle as a hunting tool but the gun owners who spoke with ABC News, most of whom hunt, refute that for most hunting scenarios.

"Hunting and self-preservation have no need for high-capacity cartridges, no need for semi-automatic and automatic phases of fire," Labbé [a gun owner] said.

…Kemp [co-founder and president of Gun Owners for Responsible Ownership, lifelong gun owner and hunter] also said he wouldn't use an assault rifle to hunt because of what it does to flesh.

"The way an AR-15 round enters the body … it's designed to tumble and create a lot of tissue damage," he said.

There…umm…seems to be some disagreement over this.

Quote

Kemp expressed his frustration at what he called, "gun advocate extremists." "They don't like having to do the background check. They don't like not being able to carry weapons wherever they want. They don't like the process of having to get a concealed carry permit," he said.

"[They] don't believe there should be any restrictions on the types of ammunition you can buy, or … armor piercing … [they] feel like there shouldn't be any restrictions since the Second Amendment is how we founded the country. It's my God-given right. Well, God didn't write the Constitution, nor amendments," he added.

There also seems to be some disagreement over this…

Suicide is a choice. You do it to yourself. Doing it with a firearm is just one of many mechanisms. My brother chose to hang himself. I've mentioned it MANY times here.

So the murder number, where one human does it to another, should be the number to use.

and what in the hell is a high capacity cartridge? a tank round with a pound of propellant? "Hunting and self-preservation have no need for high-capacity cartridges" "
"The way an AR-15 round enters the body … it's designed to tumble and create a lot of tissue damage," he said." plain ignorance on the speakers part, and no mention of a correction from ABC. [www.youtube.com] Right at the 2.50 ish mark they talk about how back in Viet Nam, the original Colts, tumbled on impact from a bullet profile/twist mismatch. It was corrected with the M16a1 revision. These two gun smiths were both military armorers. The older one in Viet Nam.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2022 10:43AM by Racer X.

Smoking and drinking is a choice. Yet you have been flogging these numbers trying to compare them to gun deaths.

Also, the youtube video you linked appears to talk about tumbling in flight; the life-long hunter and co-founder of Gun Owners for Responsible Ownership (above) talks about “the way [a round from these guns] enters the body, it’s designed to tumble and cause a lot of tissue damage”.

Which it does.

From a gun site:

Why the 223 Tumbles in a Target

Quote

The .223 doesn’t tumble in the air, but it often does in a target, why? Well, it’s simple. The .223 fires a light weight bullet at high speed. It remains stable until it has expended too much energy and doesn’t have enough spin to keep nose forward.

When a bullet begins to lose its stability, its smooth spin turns into a spinning wobble. This is referred to as yawing in ballistics. A yawing bullet will soon lose all stability and tumble aimlessly. Now, in a medium of greater resistance than air, it happens much more quickly.

When a bullet enters a medium of greater resistance, such as a body or a block of ballistic gel, it loses its stability a whole lot faster. Not only that, but the density of a higher resistance material causes a great deal higher stress on the bullet.

A good preforming 223 round will begin to tumble almost immediately in a firm target. Right now, everyone has seen the picture of the guy who got shot in the arm during a riot in Wisconsin. The bullet entered his bicep, immediately tumbled, and blew off his bicep. It’s a bit gory, but a good illustration.

A “good performing [tumbling] round” should be able to blow off someone’s bicep. Okay. Handy to know.

…and then there’s fragmentation:

Quote

At high velocity and in a hard target, no lead core bullet can withstand that. The jacket of the bullet will fail and the bullet will break up violently in bits of lead and copper like a mini hand grenade.

That breaking up, or fragmenting as it is called in the industry, is what causes the .223 to be extremely effective in battle.

… The faster the bullet is going, the more fragmentation will take place, and the more violent the action will be. So, there are two primary functions of bullet fragmentation, wider holes and shallower holes. Can you think of any time when either of those would be beneficial?

For use against mid-sized targets like people, you don’t usually need a lot of penetration. For the most part, people aren’t that thick. The average adult’s chest is only about 9-10 inches thick. By fragmenting the bullet, you still get about 8 inches of penetration, and a wound that’s 10-15 times wider.

That sounds like a lot of tumbling, fragmentation and tissue damage when these AR style rounds enter the body. Almost as if they’re designed to do so.

It’s worth understanding why people shoot guns to harm humans. But that’s less important than stopping them from directly doing so. Make the favored tool of choice all but unobtainable.

Quote
Racer X
DeuxsMac, you referenced a website and said that MSRs weren't allowed for hunting. I can picture the site in my mind, but I don't recall the site's title. I think it was either a hunting outfitter's site, or maybe an on-line magazine. They made some very definitive statements and you took one and ran with it. I proved it at least partially wrong with the first state I researched, mine. I'm almost positive you know the site I am referring to.

"I don't recall...", "I think...", "or maybe...", "I'm almost positive..."

As with Nelson DeMille equals Stephen Hunter, you need to look harder.

second hand smoke isn't a choice. It is still killing 40,000 a year according to the CDC.

ANY tail heavy round will tumble if it doesn't have enough velocity on impact. Basic physics. There are some sabot shotgun slugs kind of like a squat mushroom that you absolutely can't get to tumble, just like a front weighted badminton shuttlecock.

"At high velocity and in a hard target, no lead core bullet can withstand that. " wrong. Bonded bullets have their lead core bonded to the jacket. [www.rifleshootermag.com] Bonded pistol bullets routinely retain well over 90% of their initial mass when recovered. Remington bonded Golden Sabers spring to mind. Originally to punch through a glancing hit to a windshield and still do the job for law enforcement. Winchester explains it well for the uneducated. [winchester.com]

And did you specifically listen in right after 2:50? With the original full auto versions before the M16a1, with the SLOW TWIST, they would tumble on impact. They fixed it in '67. There are literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of calibrated 10% ballistic gel test videos on-line showing rounds NOT TUMBLING when they have enough velocity. The gel is a straw transparent analog for human tissue. Very easy to see the results with even a modest high speed video. Even a GoPro at 240 pps will do,.

Here is a GREAT one, right at 1:30 using military issue ammo, and a 1:9 twist. [www.youtube.com] military rounds are not bonded, good hunting ones usually are.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2022 11:52AM by Racer X.

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Racer X
DeuxsMac, you referenced a website and said that MSRs weren't allowed for hunting. I can picture the site in my mind, but I don't recall the site's title. I think it was either a hunting outfitter's site, or maybe an on-line magazine. They made some very definitive statements and you took one and ran with it. I proved it at least partially wrong with the first state I researched, mine. I'm almost positive you know the site I am referring to.

"I don't recall...", "I think...", "or maybe...", "I'm almost positive..."

As with Nelson DeMille equals Stephen Hunter, you need to look harder.

Pretty sure you remember the site.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

“ There were a total of 45,222 firearm deaths in the US in 2020 “

[usafacts.org]

More last year.


“ the murder number, where one human does it to another, should be the number to use “

Sure, when you only count the number of people ‘murdered’ with cigarettes.

What a stupid concept.


You’re turning into a troll.

It’s not too late to stop.

Quote
Racer X

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Racer X
DeuxsMac, you referenced a website and said that MSRs weren't allowed for hunting. I can picture the site in my mind, but I don't recall the site's title. I think it was either a hunting outfitter's site, or maybe an on-line magazine. They made some very definitive statements and you took one and ran with it. I proved it at least partially wrong with the first state I researched, mine. I'm almost positive you know the site I am referring to.

"I don't recall...", "I think...", "or maybe...", "I'm almost positive..."

As with Nelson DeMille equals Stephen Hunter, you need to look harder.

Pretty sure you remember the site.

Sorry, your reputation precedes you. YOU back up YOUR claim.

Quote
btfc
“ There were a total of 45,222 firearm deaths in the US in 2020 “

[usafacts.org]

More last year.


“ the murder number, where one human does it to another, should be the number to use “

Sure, when you only count the number of people ‘murdered’ with cigarettes.

What a stupid concept.


You’re turning into a troll.

It’s not too late to stop.

I'm purely talking about preventable deaths that aren't being prevented. Someone committing suicide is making a choice. Someone being murdered isn't. People aren't choosing to die from someone else smoking. Unless you are asserting that they are. Are you?

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

How many people were murdered with cigarettes in 2020?

What was the impetus for smoking?

Inquiring minds want to know.


Your argument is nonsensical.

Seems to be a trend.

I'm all behind restricting gun the same way we do alcohol and tobacco IF YOU COULD ONLY SHOOT YOURSELF.

---

Quote
Racer X
second hand smoke isn't a choice. It is still killing 40,000 a year according to the CDC...

Cool!

Let's ban cigarettes AND guns.

---

The issue is the ease with which high power semi-automatic rifles are available to Americans. I don't see a ten day waiting period as a huge detriment to the buyer who is intent on mass murder. I would also argue that tobacco and alcohol have uses, one of which is having a civilized drink in the evening and the other being lighting up a pipe while solving a murder mystery.

There is a simple difference, in that smoking and drinking are things you do to yourself. With the widespread prohibition of smoking inside of public places, we have largely gotten rid of the problem of second hand smoke affecting the rest of us. (I was shocked to discover how effectively indoor smoking went away in Italy after the new law was passed.)

There is an obvious and fundamental difference between somebody dying of lung cancer at the age of 75 and random strangers being murdered by a high power semi-automatic rifle. And yes, I would agree that the AR-15 type weapon can be adapted for hunting and target shooting and other sporting events, but I also view this as a specious argument in that the loss of the use of the AR-15 and its relatives to such sporting purposes serves another, more compelling purpose, namely to save the lives and health of the victims of these mass shootings.

The idea that people die from other causes is simply not a counter argument to the above argument in favor of banning high power semi-automatic rifles or at least strenuously regulating them. People die from car crashes, yet we have done something about it. People die from breast cancer, yet we have done something about it. I'm not aware of a lot of people who are opposed to research on breast cancer or car crashes, yet the Republican Party passed a law forbidding such research into gun violence. Please stop insulting our collective intelligences with such nonsensical positions. The AR-15 may be a fun toy to play with, but you can get to work without it, you can take a drink without it, and you could inhale a cigarette without it, and none of these activities would result in the rapid death and maiming of a dozen strangers.

There is a strange mix of arguments from the pro-gun side where, in one case, the relative dangers of some other device or activity is supposed to render mass shootings insignificant, and the other argument seems to be that rational law-making would be overturned by the current radical Supreme Court. Neither argument is convincing in terms of saving a few tens of thousands of people every now and then.

Quote
Racer X
Would never stand up to the Supreme Court, as it would prevent the financially disadvantaged from exercising their right to self defense with a firearm.

Just more politicians grabbing attention, knowing it will never pass, much less survive legal scrutiny.

Bull***t!

They could still buy revolvers and Saturday Night Specials just like now. “Right” exercised.

---

Aloha, Ken


“I have developed significant attachments to several members even though I wouldn't recognize them if I sat next to one on a park bench. I'm often tempted when in an airport to walk around, hollering "The Løpe", to see if anyone other than the Homeland Security people will acknowledge me. ” - The Løpe

I'm not going to argue the main point, but since two people have said alcohol only affects the person choosing to drink, I have to remind people drunk driving, domestic abuse, etc. etc. affects a ton of people who aren't "the drinker". I just can't stand to see that even said.

yup. My partner divorced her husband because he would go after the kids when he had a bad day at work and had been drinking on the way home. Decent guy sober, just don't trust him around alcohol.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]