Some things I've seen are simply not in my possession and not my property.
you could still post the references even if you can't upload the file. Some of us might be able to get at them via libraries.
My only stake in the caliber argument is for the new people.
I suppose mine is in deciding what to go with now that I'm looking to buy a firearm instead of just having what was passed down.
Researching these matters has been interesting but frustrating. However from the perspecting of having an array of options, I'd like to make a superior choice, even if it's only an incremental improvement, hence the discussion.
I've seen similar instances with others. Some quit shooting out of being discouraged, and some ended up regretting their purchase. Some couldn't afford the higher ammo cost and don't practice. I've had 3 friends buy .40s and .45s as first guns, and when they couldn't shoot them, I let them try my 9mms. They sold their guns and bought the same ones in 9mm.
I think this bunch is actually pretty much in agreement that training and the ability to shoot your weapon accurrately and quickly are of utmost importance. I might be getting my forums crossed, but I think when people come on asking for advice there is a strong "try before you buy" message, because some people can't handle higher recoil or fat/long grips, and they mention cost differences a lot.
I have a few cell phones that I shot with a .22 LR pistol at 8 feet...yes feet. In both cases, the bullet could not get through the flip screen. One is a thin Motorola Razr. Do I trust that to be able to make it to a vital organ through tough muscle or bone? No way.
Interesting. I'd actually have expected them to do better.
However in relation to this thread I take it you just jumped in with your first post right?
One of the things linked earlier was on anecdotal evedence related to 9mm and .380 bullets fragmenting after hitting a bone (and then failing to penetrate deeply as a result) or deflecting so as to miss the vitals after striking bone. I also linked another thing regarding bullet deflection.
While other issues may be of secondary importance, the high probability of striking a bone in the chest, and the high probability of striking a limb if you're firing at center of mass means that this could have a significant impact on the primarily important job of the bullet to reach and damage a vital when fired at one.
If you're interested, liturature seems to indicate that pressure wave effects on the brain certainly exist for rifle rounds, that handgun rounds are also capable, but that in any case this is unreliable.
For example one study of ...hmmm I think it was water buffalo during a culling, found that sometimes the animals dropped right away and sometimes it took a while. Upon autopsy the ones that fell immediately showed damage in their brains despite being shot in the heart. The ones that didn't fall right away didn't show that damage. However they had all been shot in nearly the same place.
Seperate research, in part related to growing studies on how explosions harm soldiers, indicates that the effect requires a pressure wave to travel up the major blood vessels to the brain in order to cause damage, because generally the bodies structures aren't good at transmitting a pressure wave to the brain. It's a fluky thing then for a pressure wave to do that, even if the pressure wave generated by the bullet is of sufficient magnetude.
However, from the perspective of a gunfight, such an effect would be important because it offers the possibility of immediately ending the fight as opposed to ending it after the other person has emptied their gun. The only other thing similarly rapid when firing center of mass is a hit on the spine, and that's also fluky. And if you're firing center of mass and they're body is bladed towards you, than you aren't even aiming at their spine.
As for trolling, I was simply making a statement of people in general, not singling out anyone in particular. Just making an unpopular statement does not make someone a troll. We all know the statement is true in nearly every aspect of life, not just guns and bullets. People don't like being wrong, and often can't admit it. Quite often, they get their pride hurt, and act like asses. Some folks can take it like a man and say they learned something.
*sigh* all right. Let me walk you through this, please don't take this poorly. It seems like you really aren't meaning to troll as such.
What you did was a specific sort of ad hominim attack. Sometimes refered to as poisoning the well or as an argument from intimidation.
The basic structure is something like:
I'm right. Anybody who disagrees on this point is demonstrating that they are (fill in the blank depending on the discussion , deciving you, heartless, just arguing because their pride makes them, uninformed, an idiot, etc etc etc. )
This is an especially popular construct for trolls. The objective of trolling is to get a rise out of someone, ideally getting them banned instead of yourself.
Since a statement like that is insulting and an attack on anyone who doesn't agree with you, but is not attacking a specific poster, it skates under many forum's rules, wheras the flames it provokes can get the troll's victims in trouble, and leads them wide open for the troll to come at them by saying they're making ad hominim attacks and ignoring "the facts."
How things played out after you posted that is pretty much what one would expect. So if you were a troll, you'd have been a fairly successful one.
Outside of the internet, this construct is actually very popular from teenage cliques, to sales and marketing, to really any discussion in any circumstance, and can be executed using tone and body language. In person, many people will actually back down under the threat that the speaker will label them a (whatever) if they argue and will back down, pretend to agree, mumble something, buy your product, whatever. But they will not think of you fondly down the road.
