Are people misrepresenting gun facts?


PDA






Stargazer65
January 2, 2013, 02:43 PM
The following was from an opinion piece in NJ Times:

http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2013/01/opinions_civilians_have_no_rig.html

“Emergency room doctors and nurses can immediately tell whether a gun victim was shot by a handgun or semi-automatic: A handgun will make a bullet hole; a wound from a semi-automatic looks like a bomb exploded inside the person. A bullet from an assault weapon travels three times faster than a handgun bullet and is designed to shatter upon impact. This is because they are military weapons intended to do maximum damage to a human body. They are not designed for hunting or self-defense. “

Two questions about the statement above:
1. Couldn't it be said that any rifle bullets in general are more damaging than handgun bullets. (for example: isn't a .30-06 bullet more damaging than a 9mm bullet) The writer seems to attribute special military characterstics to "assault weapon" bullets over and above a normal rifle bullet.
2. Wouldn't the ability to do maximum damage to a human body be a good thing when used for self defense? The writer seems to imply that this makes it bad for self defense.

It seems like this writer is misrepresenting issues about semiautomatic rifles either on purpose or due to ignorance.

There are other issues in the article as well.
"Machine guns, while capable of spraying bullets very quickly, are not very accurate. An assault rifle, however, can hit a target with deadly accuracy."
Again, this seems like a plus for self defense (as well as hunting). But still, couldn't the same be said (or even more so) for a high powered scoped hunting rifle?

If you enjoyed reading about "Are people misrepresenting gun facts?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
M-Cameron
January 2, 2013, 02:49 PM
“Emergency room doctors and nurses can immediately tell whether a gun victim was shot by a handgun or semi-automatic: A handgun will make a bullet hole; a wound from a semi-automatic looks like a bomb exploded inside the person. A bullet from an assault weapon travels three times faster than a handgun bullet and is designed to shatter upon impact. This is because they are military weapons intended to do maximum damage to a human body. They are not designed for hunting or self-defense. “


actually,due to the hage convention, military weapons are designed to create wounds which are more easily treatable.....hence why the military isnt allowed to use hollow point and "exploding" ammo on enemy personnel.

"Machine guns, while capable of spraying bullets very quickly, are not very accurate. An assault rifle, however, can hit a target with deadly accuracy."

umm....an assault rifle IS a machine gun....or at least has full auto capabilities.



it sounds to me as though Mr. Ziegler comprised his research mostly from movies and videogames......

HoosierQ
January 2, 2013, 02:56 PM
Well I think you may have your facts a little goofed up...at least in terms of this article.

They are innapropriately differentiating between handguns and "semi-automatic" weapons when they intend to differentiate between handguns and rifles/carbines which do indeed propel a projectile very much faster...and often nearly as large depending.

These people are not pro-gun in any way. So increased lethality is equated by them to...well...increased lethality...which is the only thing they know or understand.

From the standpoint of people who are comfortable and understand firearms, there is a long standing debate as to what constitutes an appropriate SD weapon and under what conditions...close quarters with neighbors is close proximity, rural areas, etc. There are debates over whether or not SD .223/5.56 rounds are good or bad in close quarters. I don't think anybody is going to come down on the side of M2 Ball (WWII Military 30-06 ammo) as a good round for close quarters due to high penetration.

So you post is just about as confusing as the article. But yes, the article is publishing misconceptions about guns but we'd better just get used to that because a) it has been ever thus, and b) it's not going to change in the media. Guns are like everything else, there is a lot to them, a lot of technology specific terminology, and a subset of the population that will understand these things. We also have to realize that while way better than the general population, there are quite a few gun owners that know very little about them in general. I have a co-worker who owns a .22 rifle and he cannot tell me anything about it...bolt, lever, semi, maker...none. It astonishes me...but he can't. But the man flew 20,000 hours of aviation missions for the US Navy during the Cold War and he could certainly tell me a lot about anti-submarine warfare.

Cesiumsponge
January 2, 2013, 03:38 PM
So is he proposing putting semi-autos on the NFA and taking machine guns off the NFA? I'll happily trade in my AR for a select-fire M4 if Mr. Journalist is making an open offer.

btg3
January 2, 2013, 03:53 PM
Can anyone confirm or refute that 223 caliber was designed to maim rather than kill because.... It consumes more enemy resources to recover and treat wounded soldiers than dead soldiers. In other words it is a strategic munition.

Stargazer65
January 2, 2013, 04:04 PM
So you post is just about as confusing as the article.

Sorry about that.:o There just seems to be so many things that are wrong in the opinion piece, that it's hard to write a focused argument to refute it. It's almost like it's written in another language.


Here is what I think are some issues with the piece (thanks for the help HoosierQ):
1. They seem to throw around certain terms interchangeably (semi-auto, assault weapon, miltary weapon).
2. Claiming a comparison of handguns to semi-autos in terms of lethality when in reality they are comparing handguns to rifles.
3. They ascribe unique more lethal properties to the guns they are trying to get banned. (Accuracy, high powered bullets) Properties that are actually commonly found in other guns that they don't seem to care about.
4. M-Cameron said: "military weapons are designed to create wounds which are more easily treatable" - if so, that is also misrepresented in the article.
5. Lethality is automatically assumed to be bad by the writer, when in fact it depends on the situation. This is a decision that should be better left to the gun buyer and not to the politician.
6. There also seems to be some general attempt by the writer to weaken the 2nd ammendment (for example he calls it "awkwardly written" and "ambiguous" at one point).

Anything else?

HoosierQ
January 2, 2013, 04:54 PM
Well that business about military weapon wounds and "more easily treated" needs to be scratched. The various conventions tried to set forth humane rules for the ultimate in the inhumane...war. Probably did some good with regard to the treatment of prisoners (for those countries that choose to follow the rules). Has done nothing with regard to the lethality of battlefield weapons beyond, perhaps, rendering handguns pretty inadequate on the battlefield...if they were ever adequate in the first place. The last effective "handgun" on any battlefield was probably the Colt Dragoon .44 or maybe a New Action Army as a one-handed weapon for a mounted cavalryman for extremely close combat...most often employed to shoot the enemy's horse rather than the man.

holdencm9
January 2, 2013, 05:03 PM
I just think it is funny that in one paragraph he says that the slippery slope argument is not valid. Then in the very next paragraph discusses how automatic weapons are already heavily restricted, and seems to imply the next thing to do naturally is restrict semi-automatic "assault" weapons too, because of some weird conclusion he has drawn that they are somehow more deadly.

So he basically disproves his own point.

If they ban AR's and semi-automatics, in 20 years when someone commits an atrocity with a revolver, people will use this same "logic."

"It isn't a slippery slope! We can ban revolvers and won't touch anything else....."

ETA: They might even try to argue that revolvers are more dangerous than semi-automatics because they can more accurately fire large-caliber rounds like the EVIL .44 magnum, etc. :rolleyes:

M-Cameron
January 2, 2013, 05:07 PM
Well that business about military weapon wounds and "more easily treated" needs to be scratched. The various conventions tried to set forth humane rules for the ultimate in the inhumane...war. Probably did some good with regard to the treatment of prisoners (for those countries that choose to follow the rules). Has done nothing with regard to the lethality of battlefield weapons beyond, perhaps, rendering handguns pretty inadequate on the battlefield...

in regards to what i said in relation to the article, i still stand by my initial statement.

military weapons are not " intended to do maximum damage to a human body".....they are designed to create a wound that can easily be treated......it has nothing to do with lethality.

hell, a shot from a standard military issue .308 round is likely going to be fatal....however, the military cannot use "hollowpoint" ammo because that would create a wound which is harder to repair.

i dont think many people here would argue that all things being equal, a hollow point round will do more damage than a traditional solid point bullet

Skribs
January 2, 2013, 05:09 PM
The writer obviously doesn't know what semi-auto means. For example, most of my handguns are semi-auto, so how does that compare? Not to mention that semi-automatic firearms are generally weaker (compare 9mm pistol vs. 357 magnum revolver, compare a semi-automatic vs. a bolt-action). The sentiment in this thread is right - it is sensationalism with no basis in fact.

The author also fails to understand that rounds that do maximum damage ARE good for self defense, and that there are different rounds available in that caliber for hunting.

M-Cameron, fragmenting rounds have gotten around the Hague convention...which leads to rifles being further better in military weapons than pistols.

Shawn Dodson
January 2, 2013, 05:23 PM
Can anyone confirm or refute that 223 caliber was designed to maim rather than kill because.... It consumes more enemy resources to recover and treat wounded soldiers than dead soldiers. In other words it is a strategic munition.

The whole "wound vs. kill" is nonsense. Wounded enemy remain a deadly danger. Just because an adversary is wounded doesn't mean he immediately gives up and stops fighting. If you're a soldier who's clearing a building do you want to "wound" someone who's trying to kill you or do you want to permanently take him out of the fight and drive-on?

See: "Wounding Effects of the U.S. Military M193 (M16A1) and M855 (M16A2) Bullet Cartridges" at - http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs13.htm

JN01
January 2, 2013, 07:08 PM
"Machine guns, while capable of spraying bullets very quickly, are not very accurate. An assault rifle, however, can hit a target with deadly accuracy."

Gee, I think he may be right. Lets put all the semi-autos on the NFA list and take all the machine guns off it, it will save lives. Well, as long as they aren't equipped with a thumbhole stock or a shoulder thing that goes up, that is. :D

Moron.

Skribs
January 2, 2013, 07:15 PM
Wow, JN, I didn't even read that line. Was too busy responding to the idiocy in the first quote.

The funny thing is most people who want to ban high capacity want to do so because they spew bullets like a machine gun. Assault rifles would have the same problem (because assault rifles, by definition, are select-fire). Semi-auto rifles are less accurate than bolt guns. Should we ban bolt guns, too?

MachIVshooter
January 2, 2013, 07:21 PM
Just another media moron. Nothing to see here, move along...

michaelbsc
January 2, 2013, 11:46 PM
Gee, I think he may be right. Lets put all the semi-autos on the NFA list and take all the machine guns off it, it will save lives. Well, as long as they aren't equipped with a thumbhole stock or a shoulder thing that goes up, that is. :D

Moron.

Don't forget the evil barrel shroud. That makes it a lot more accurate.

Now, when am I going to be able to buy a Tommy Gun at the local hardware store like 1933?

You know, has anyone really looked at the stats for pre-NFA vs post-NFA?

MB

gym
January 3, 2013, 12:35 AM
More nonsense. Many doctors never saw a gunshot wound. Unless they were in an ER in an active high crime area. And they sure as hell can't tell what caliber it was by looking at the hole. As we all know hollowpoints expand so trying to tell the difference between a 9mm and a 40 cal is almost impossible without the round.
More jibberish

RockyMtnTactical
January 3, 2013, 12:55 AM
Can anyone confirm or refute that 223 caliber was designed to maim rather than kill because.... It consumes more enemy resources to recover and treat wounded soldiers than dead soldiers. In other words it is a strategic munition.

This is a myth. The .223 is an effective round, but it is still a lightweight compared to many other rifle rounds. It is an intermediate cartridge. More effective than pistol rounds, but less effective than something like a .308.

BlueBronco
January 3, 2013, 01:01 AM
What about a .44 mag revolver with a 7/5" barrel and 240 jhp or sp at 20 yards? or 15 Yards? Maybe this needs compared to M.A.S.H. data. That said, when some thug kicks my door in at 3 am, and endanger my family or m, I intend to inflict as much damage as needed to stop them, however many of them there are. Does it matter if it is with a 10mm or .30-30?

lumanaughty
January 3, 2013, 03:35 AM
I keep hearing anti-gunners saying that 223 is not good for self-defence. Then why do police now use 223/m4s? Why has swat moved from 9mm/mp5s to 223/m4s then when entering homes at close range?

Are the police trying to kill civilians with "high power" military weapons with deadly hollow point rounds? (Being sarcastic)

Deanimator
January 3, 2013, 06:33 AM
The whole "wound vs. kill" is nonsense. Wounded enemy remain a deadly danger.
Indeed. If you read the CMoH citation for Roger Young (a real WWII soldier after whom the troop ship in the book and movie "Starship Troopers" was named) you'll see that the Japanese wounded him numerous times. In response, he KILLED a lot of them.

"Meant to wound" is idiocy, and you won't find ANY official document which states that as policy.

Stargazer65
January 3, 2013, 09:06 AM
I just think it is funny that in one paragraph he says that the slippery slope argument is not valid. Then in the very next paragraph discusses how automatic weapons are already heavily restricted, and seems to imply the next thing to do naturally is restrict semi-automatic "assault" weapons too, because of some weird conclusion he has drawn that they are somehow more deadly.

So he basically disproves his own point.

LOL, good observation, that is funny!

Coyote3855
January 3, 2013, 10:39 AM
Are people misrepresenting gun facts?

Do bears defecate in the woods?

Lots of people on both sides of the current debate have their facts wrong. As someone said, "You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts."

Ehtereon11B
January 3, 2013, 10:41 AM
This wouldn't be the first time the media either got something intentionally wrong to incite fear or have no idea what they are talking about. Either way I am not surprised that the facts were all wrong.

BB93YJ
January 3, 2013, 10:51 AM
To answer your question, Yes.:evil:

Tirod
January 3, 2013, 11:05 AM
Unfortunately, a lot of people misrepresent the facts about why the Army went to a smaller caliber round.

It started in the .30's, and was based on the 6mm experience many other nations could document in war - regardless of the size of the bullet, it's lethality wasn't guaranteed. What could be counted on was that more bullets flying toward the enemy would strike more of them, and since a wounded soldier is hampered in his ability to fight back, you gain a tactical advantage in that situation. You can maneuver and move with less lethal fire being returned, increasing your ability to overcome.

Since there is a lot more studies and documentation in the Army on it, Command finally listened to what they were being shown, and realized the limited firepower and close range of combat didn't need .30 high powered rifles. Downsizing the cartridge meant lighter weapons, and more specifically, much more ammo could be carried. More ammo meant more bullets flying, more enemy struck, wounded or killed, and superior firepower would allow our troops to carry the day.

It's been proven quite a few times over the last 45 years, although the move to the M4 was the pendulum swinging a bit too far. We lost effectiveness in power downrange, and it's been addressed in various ways - to reintroduce an accurized rifle with 20" barrel, having more snipers on the battlefield, improving the ammunition, and closer coordination with the other organic weapons available. While troops may carry a rifle, a lot are part of a crew served weapon, and they haven't lost the ability to be useful.

Another effort was the 6.8SPC, which is now becoming much more common in the Middle East as an issue caliber. All this to the American hunters benefit.

When you look at hunting trends, the same thing is going on - major calibers based on last centuries military use are being downsized, and the .270, 6 and 7 mm's, etc are becoming the standard. Why? Same reason the military changed - reduced recoil. A soldier who isn't going to be kicked by a high powered rifle shooting at the enemy less than 200 yards away is going to shoot a lot more often, also documented in the Army studies.

A 600-800 meter bolt action might be nice to have, the MG Bubba has been humping can answer that. More rounds downrange . . .

Where the "wounds, won't kill" myth started was back in the 1950's, a civilian sportswriters take on explaining something they weren't educated or trained to understand. They were columnists and desk jockeys who took their handloaded wildcats out to the range and shot paper - not live targets shooting back. Seems the myths keep getting repeated by all and sundry without any research or military service to back it up.

Study ALL the Army studies - many are online and available as historical documents - and you get the sense of what was really being considered. Most nations have followed suit, very few use .30 high powered rounds, and what few still do use .30 are quickly falling by the wayside. Even the 7.62X39 is considered obsolete for issue. It's a third world hand me down.

If you enjoyed reading about "Are people misrepresenting gun facts?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!