Gun Control

I'm not talking about bans. All the same weapons are available. Don't get it mixed up with assault bans.

What I said is redirection through penalties.

I want to encourage people to use one thing and avoid the other. This is not a weapon ban.

Quote:

Yeah, I get pedantic when I talk guns. But when it comes down to it, a shot to the chest with a .357, .38, .40, .45, .454, .50, .500....

You're not figuring other factors, like distance and shooting through objects, and even slight deflection due to less power to punch through something.

Quote: rxwine

I'm not talking about bans. All the same weapons are available. Don't get it mixed up with assault bans.

What I said is redirection through penalties.

I want to encourage people to use one thing and avoid the other. This is not a weapon ban.

I guess I got lost and assumed we were talking guns. Now it seems you're talking using less-than-lethal stuff as opposed to guns? Like bats, OC spray, tasers and such?

I'd still say we already have. Whack someone with a wiffle ball bat and you're gonna get hit with assault. Hit someone with a baseball bat and you catch assault with a deadly weapon. Shoot someone with a gun and you get assault with a deadly weapon PLUS myriad gun specific laws. Criminal possession, unlawful use, unlawful discharge, etc and so forth. I'm not sure if I'm not understanding you or you're not understanding law, but it appears what you want is already here. The "more dangerous" a weapon, the more laws hovering over you ready to strike.

If I still missed the mark, I'm gonna have to ask you to clarify =p

Quote: rxwine

You're not figuring other factors, like distance and shooting through objects, and even slight deflection due to less power to punch through something.

I'm still lost lol. I don't see where this stuff comes into play. SD shooting is very, very limited. The majority take place within 10' of the assailant, and 10' ain't much different from 2' which ain't much different than 10yds when talking energy. Nobody is engaging in SD from 100yds+ unless you're wearing a badge or sponsored by .gov. I don't see where distance plays.

Shooting through objects? Again, I'm lost, unless you're talking about reducing a powder load to increase the chance that a wall will stop a wayward round. A not unreasonable thought, until you learn ballistics. Walls and flesh are far too dissimilar. Three pumps from a Red Rider will lodge a BB into a wall, whereas it won't even break your skin. You'd be talking reducing the energy to sub compact bow levels, and that just won't do. Some are experimenting with frangible rounds that are supposed to break up upon impact. The idea is that if you miss and hit a wall, the round will disintegrate into not-lethal shards. They haven't perfected it yet, but it's a possibility. Of course, then you have Geneva-type concerns as instead of one round pulled and one hole patched, you're in 12 hours of surgery to remove 57 different bullet fragments =/

Quote: Face

I guess I got lost and assumed we were talking guns. Now it seems you're talking using less-than-lethal stuff as opposed to guns? Like bats, OC spray, tasers and such?

Nope still talking guns. But my definition of "less lethal" is broader, as in the aggregate result over many uses.

I can only theorize that if we armed everyone with low caliber, six shot guns, the aggregate effect is less than high caliber larger payloads semi-automatic even though any gun is surely capable of killing you just as dead.

I've read up some on the controversy of stopping power. People will point out that even pellet guns have killed someone and other people have not stopped even when hit multiple times with large caliber guns.

But just based on logic (if you will), if we could run millions and millions of simulations, I think we could easily determine a significant statistical difference in results. You don't have to believe it though, even though I do.

There's this below (though I cannot verify the veracity)

Quote:

The concept of stopping power appeared in the 19th Century when colonial troops (e.g. American in the Philippines during the 1889-1913 Moro Rebellion, British in New Zealand during the 1845-72 Land Wars) at close quarters found that their pistols were not able to stop charging native tribesmen. This led to the introduction or reintroduction of larger caliber weapons (such as the older .45 Colt and the newly developed .45 ACP) capable of stopping opponents with a single round.

During the Seymour Expedition in China, at one of the battles at Langfang, Chinese Boxers, armed with swords and spears, charged the British and Americans, who were armed with guns. At point-blank range, one British soldier had to fire four .303 Lee-Metford bullets into a Boxer before he ceased to be a threat. The American Captain Bowman McCalla reported that single rifle shots were not enough: multiple rifle shots were needed to halt a Boxer. Only machine guns were effective in immediately stopping the Boxers.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_power

So there you some possible close quarters results and non-lethal, you might say.

Quote:

I'm still lost lol. I don't see where this stuff comes into play. SD shooting is very, very limited. The majority take place within 10' of the assailant, and 10' ain't much different from 2' which ain't much different than 10yds when talking energy. Nobody is engaging in SD from 100yds+ unless you're wearing a badge or sponsored by .gov. I don't see where distance plays.

But you're also not considering that any bullet fired is potentially lethal to ANYONE in the area whether it hits its intended target. The more powerful gun, again over the aggregate is going to kill more unintended victims because of it's ability to deliver more energy.

Google "bystander shot." if you like.

So as possibly to facilitate what I am talking about. I'll give an example in the extreme.

Tomorrow you go buy a bb gun and a Uzi legally. Yup, not a gun ban,

Instead of the sign, automatic penalty 5 years imprisonment for committing a crime with a gun, my law takes into consideration what ammo, and capabilities of your gun when you commit a crime. But it doesn't affect legal users who don't commit crimes.

Law enforcement or FBI, or someone would have to classify guns into classes of potential lethal effectiveness, if they haven't already.

Quote: rxwine

I can only theorize that if we armed everyone with low caliber, six shot guns, the aggregate effect is less than high caliber larger payloads semi-automatic even though any gun is surely capable of killing you just as dead.

I've read up some on the controversy of stopping power. People will point out that even pellet guns have killed someone and other people have not stopped even when hit multiple times with large caliper guns.

But just based on logic (if you will), if we could run millions and millions of simulations, I think we could easily determine a significant statistical difference in results. You don't have to believe it though, even though I do.

OK, I'm back on your page. Thanks for that =)

And your logic is sound. Remember, guns work (in the majority) by causing blood loss. You lose more blood from a .45" hole than a .22" hole. That goes without saying, and I'm right there with ya. I'll even hop on board your theorizing for a moment. Say my takeover is successful and my first order of business is ridding the world of all monkeys, with the caveat that I only get one round per monster. I mean, monkey. Yes, I'm am walking right past the .22 and the .17 and the 9mm and using something that takes two hands. Why? Because they make more splatter.

But your thinking is not done here. I dunno if you've hunted, but I have, and perhaps OG will hop in here with his $0.02. In some hunting you don't shoot to kill, but rather to maim. Pretty much all small game taken by shotgun is done in this fashion. Though you could be using a 12g, the round is little more than a wad of individual BB's. Small caliber. In a very large small game load, said caliber equates to about .12, half the size of the lowly .22. In typical small game loads, it's more like .08. For the right price, I'd take a load to the chest from 20yds, it's that minute. Now, when I hunt big game, I'm using at least a .30cal. In reality, all my kills came with a .70. And here's where you notice the difference.

OG hunts small game to eat, so maybe he'll be of no help here. But I hunted small game as a mercenary. My only objective - kill it. Chipmunks, squirrels, pigeons, all pretty frail. And here I am with my 20g shotgun. Yet when you happen upon one, you shoot it. Rack it. Shoot at it. Rack it. Shoot at it again. Even though these creatures were tiny, you had to whack them a couple times unless you wanted to walk over and snuff it with your boot. OG recanted a few goose stories and his are the same. The shot knocks it out of the air. The business is completed, usually by hand, after that. Yet when I hunt deer, it's the total opposite. Deer are a hardy bunch. Every hunter has a story where he got both lungs and still had to give up the track for the following morning as it went 3+ miles and they still ain't found it. But when you shoot something with big iron, the job is done.

That's the type of SD shooting I want as a carrier and as an innocent citizen. This is what I know based on experience, and I feel the change when I'm in the city and carrying the .22mag instead of my .40. Carrying the .40 I have the same mentality as I do hunting - one good shot, make it count. When I carry the .22, guarantee once on that trip I think "Is 10rds enough?" Perhaps that's a weakness of mine borne from my merc days, perhaps I should work on that. But the vast majority of gunners killed a lot of quadrupeds and likely have that same experience and mentality. While use of smaller calibers might make the instances of fatalities lesser, would this new mentality that you need more to do the job result in more overall casualties?

Dunno, but I enjoy the chat =)

Quote: rxwine

But you're also not considering that any bullet fired is potentially lethal to ANYONE in the area whether it hits its intended target. The more powerful gun, again over the aggregate is going to kill more unintended victims because of it's ability to deliver more energy.

I rather think it's just that I have a different understanding of things. Or perhaps I've lost the thread again =p

Again, your concept that bigger is more dangerous does hold weight (on it's own). But I fail to see where your idea could be implemented.

I group handguns into three categories - small caliber, large caliber, and hand cannon. Small is the .22. If I've had a lot of red meat that day, I might put the .38 in there with it. Large caliber moves you into the .357 / 9mm, .40, and maybe the .45 on a big meat day. Cannons put you into .44mag, .454, .460 and up. Right away, we're dumping the cannons from conversation. No one SD carries a Taurus. No gangbanger is toting a .460 wheel gun. It's not practical, controllable, or concealable, so they're all out. So basically, we're only talking about the guns in the stats, and there's not many. The .22, the 9mm, and the .40.

I'm trying to find the power argument and I can't. Surely we can't penalize someone for carrying a 9mm instead of a .22, just as we can't penalize for hollow points. I find +P or "hot" rounds to be a bit silly; in short, they cram more powder into a standard round to make it more powerful. You could try penalizing these, but all you're going to do is piss off the serious SD carrier. Ignorant carriers and crims aren't spending 150% more on ammo for +P. I bet a majority of them haven't ever heard of them before, so that's a dead end.

I agree that wayward rounds are a problem. I just, as always, don't see the solution being found in the equipment.

Quote: rxwine

So as possibly to facilitate what I am talking about. I'll give an example in the extreme.

Tomorrow you go buy a bb gun and a Uzi legally. Yup, not a gun ban,

Instead of the sign, automatic penalty 5 years imprisonment for committing a crime with a gun, my law takes into consideration what ammo, and capabilities of your gun when you commit a crime. But it doesn't affect legal users who don't commit crimes.

Law enforcement or FBI, or someone would have to classify guns into classes of potential lethal effectiveness, if they haven't already.

Ah, finally. A specific argument. Wish I saw it before the novel I just posted =p

The FBI has classified somewhat. You may recall me mentioning the FBI penetration criteria when talking SD in my gun thread. They have tested rounds in ballistics gel to get a bead on how fatal different rounds are or can be, with the obvious intent to not go in the field under powered. I don't recall the .22 info as I had no interest in one, but every single other handgun, and almost every single other gun period, meets or exceeds their needs. Not until you go under #1 shot (.160cal) in a shotgun do you drop out of their list, though obviously you can still be killed by it.

But let me ask and specifically hone in on "legal owners will not be affected". This boils down to simple mistrust of the law (especially lawyers and the process). I consider myself mostly responsible when it comes to guns. Yeah, I have absurd calibers and full autos in defiance of the law, but other than that, I'm pretty serious. That includes not getting buzzed up with the guys and blasting off, but I will totally have a beer at Pop's when it's just me and him shooting around. That is a crime. I carry most places, so I often had it on my boat. And I get pretty drunk when I'm fishing. Gun is there, I'm there, the gun is mine, I'm hammered. That's a crime. I might and often do disassemble it before hand if I know I'm gonna get hammered, just to hopefully show intent and to prevent any possibility of entering a stats page, but it's still a crime. So I carry legally, go fishing legally, stash it and get drunk responsibly but illegally, and a DEC check for fishing licenses winds up being the last time I see my kid for years, all because I brought the .40 instead of the .22?

You would need a serious law that is very specific indeed, so that BS like my absurd post doesn't happen, because you know it would otherwise.

And then there's the whole options argument. Crims especially aren't the primary possessors of the hyper powered stuff. Cheap and easy to obtain is their target, and the big stuff is neither. Uzis? Sure, there's a bit of the auto pistol movement thanks to rap. Uzis, MAC10's, whatever. Those I suppose would fall into your "more powerful" category, if for no other reason than they're fully automatic (they're just regular old 9mm otherwise). But see, they're autos. They already have extra penalties associated with them. You wanna double dip, hey, that's fine by me. But if a handful of felonies for their simple possession hasn't effected a change, and the years behind bars for using one violently hasn't effected change, and the threat of life in prison or loss of life for killing someone hasn't effected change, what is one more charge and 5 more years gonna do?

Oh, okay then specifically, not just for crime, commission of violent crime.

More later.

EDIT - and threats of violent crime which would cover armed robbery I think.

Quote: rxwine

More later.

EDIT - and threats of violent crime which would cover armed robbery I think.

I'll be here. But while you're pondering, remember what a violent crime is. The vast majority of violent crimes are Simple Assault, which can be no more than causing someone to fear harm. I've personally committed assault weekly since I was about 10 years old.

I get where you're going, and I dig it. But in America's courts...

Quote: rxwine

I've decided I'm in favor of gun control laws which actually reduce penalties when criminals use less effective ammunition and weapons.

Let me tell a little story pole.

A friend lived in a treed area near Mt. St. Helens, in a trailer park, and the road thru the park was gravel and nearly an "S", with an in an out to the hwy.

What he saw was some dirtbag going to fast thru the park and made a turn, hit a garbage can which went flying and in his mind also was convinced because he saw his step daughter go flying backwards, that they had hit her as well. They were trying to make a getaway and turned back toward him. He grabbed the closet firearm he had [which was underneath the truck seat] and unloaded on the driver of the the pick up. He fired [8] rounds and IIRC he hit the driver in the face 5 or 6 times, from around 40-50 ft.

As it turned out, the daughter had only leapt back to stop from being hit. Thankfully what he had gotten hold of first was his .22, and it was loaded with bird shot. It peppered the pirps face nicely, but didn't do any serious harm. The guy is still a dirt bag, but we are all glad my friend hadn't grabbed something larger or it would have turned out differently.

My friend went to court, and the judge gave him something like two years of phone supervision. I think he had to call in every other month and tell the cops he hadn't shot anyone in the last month. They didn't even take his guns. Cool. That was the old days though, around '86.

Quote: Face

....I often had it on my boat. And I get pretty drunk when I'm fishing..... I'm hammered. That's a crime.... I might and often do disassemble it before hand if I know I'm gonna get hammered,....and get drunk responsibly....<snippets out of context>.

I didn't think you had even read the "rules of the road" as regards being a captain carrying passengers? Do you know how to determine who has the right of way? Are you aware of what 5 blasts of a horn means? If you don't even know what the rules are, there is no way you can be a responsible, drunk, armed, boat captain. : ) Liable maybe, responsible... impossible. Sounds like Capt. Joe Hazelwood [ Exxon Valdez] to me.

Last I seen you were out in open water, heading out without even all cylinders firing or I'm thinking, several other infractions of maritime rules.