Gun control questions (not election related)

1) that depends on how you define more deadly...

they expand transferring greater energy to the target.......but they also penetrate less leading to less potential collateral damage, so one could argue they are actually safer.

2) the saiga rifles are a good example

HUNTING



"DANGEROUS"

See Leroy Pyle and his video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30 then look him up on the web.

1. Are hollow-points more deadly? There seems to be a lot of people who think so, and I'm not exactly sure if it's true, but I lean towards no.

As said, they transfer more energy to the target. Part of that, as I understand it, is because it does not penetrate, it dumps all of it's kinetic energy into the target. An FMJ round will penetrate right through and keep on going (in some cases, not all).

2. Does anyone have a picture of a "normal" looking hunting rifle, with a picture of the same rifle made to look more like an ar-15, or something covered under the AWB?

I don't have pics on hand, but the Ruger 10/22 is one that comes to mind. Take your standard 10/22, then drop it in an ArchAngel stock.


3. Also, have privately owned firearms ever successfully stopped a genocide anywhere in the world?

You can use the current situation in Syria as an example. The military is having difficulty with squashing a rebellion that was started with privately owned firearms. Now since then, the rebels have been assisted with weapons from outside sources, but it started with privately held firearms. Same can be said of Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded.

1. If you mean to the person being shot, they do much more damage and are thus more deadly, but anybody shot with anything probably will reconsider what they were doing.

2. A Saiga is a good example but an SKS will work too.

3. I don't know of them stopping a genocide in direct conflict, but on my signature there is a George Washington quote which I think fits this situation. Basically the threat of an armed conflict is enough to deter people from trying it.

1hollowpoints can be both more deadly and safer at the same time
2google a pic of a mini 14 blued with wood stock and 5 rd mag and one with normal mag and all the goodies
3look back to our revolution
4pro gun people put out just as much propaganda to forward there goal as antis but there is a nice middle ground if your welling to look with a fresh pair of eyes

But my thought with hollowpoints was that while they cause more tissue damage, most gunshot victims die of shock and blood loss. A hollowpoint that gets lodged somewhere could be holding in blood. So it saves lives on both sides. The life of the criminal, the life of the intended victim, because of the stopping power, and also the potential people down range because they have less chance of over penetrating or ricocheting. It seems win-win

Click to expand...

the fact is, most gunshot victims DO NOT die.......estimates are that only 1 in 7 gun shot victims die of their wounds.


the whole issue of hollow points being more deadly is kind of silly, as a handgun is inefficient at killing in the first place.......its kind of like arguing whether a lawnmower will mow your lawn faster if you put a turbo charger on it, i mean are you really going to notice the extra 4 HP the turbo would add.

heres a good video talking about handgun wounds

Have privately owned firearms ever prevented a genocide?
Yes. Why do you think no one has ever invaded Switzerland or USA.

monotonous_iterancy said:

For class I'm doing a powerpoint on gun control. I will try to be even-handed and present both sides fairly, because I believe that the facts speak for themselves. I do have a few questions though.

1. Are hollow-points more deadly? There seems to be a lot of people who think so, and I'm not exactly sure if it's true, but I lean towards no.

2. Does anyone have a picture of a "normal" looking hunting rifle, with a picture of the same rifle made to look more like an ar-15, or something covered under the AWB?

3. Also, have privately owned firearms ever successfully stopped a genocide anywhere in the world?

4. Are there any false pro-gun claims I can throw in there to balance it out?

My goal will be to portray gun owners as responsible, law-abiding citizens whom for most guns are simply a hobby (such as myself), or people such as store owners in need of protection from robberies and the like. Which is generally true.

Click to expand...

1. Short answer, I say yes.

2. The below image is NOT an assault weapon. It is even legal for sale, right now, in New Jersey, which has an assault weapons ban.



This is another picture of a non-assault weapon. It isn't even semi auto, it's a lever action!



3. Tough one. Nothing I know of comes to mind. I would consider looking for: 1) A genocide that happened where the public had a high rate of firearms ownership, see if such a thing exists, 2) Look at countries that have had high rates of firearms ownership by the pubic, see if any ever had a genocide

4. I don't know. Some people over state the reduction in violent crime due to armed citizens, but it certainly doesn't increase crime. In my experience 99% of false or misleading information is from the antis

Find pics of the older Daisy .22's
the AWB killed them, they had too many points....

point out the fact that GUN CONTROL has NEVER prevented a genocide
show pics of the Rwandan genocide, machete's were the preferred weapon, NOT guns

you need to shift the argument to what forcing those defending it to defend their points, from the stance of NOT power, instead make the anti's defend their points and prove them, that's how you win, facts and numbers, they aint got them, just emotional appeals.

Although it's a very minor example, a young lady kept herself alive in the forest of either the Ukraine, or Belarus after the German invasion, having only a hunting rifle.
Checking "Jews For The Protection Of Firearms Ownership" (JPFO?) might reveal other documented stories, not just on an individual basis.

You might mention that so many Israelis are issued rifles, not just in the reserves, and sometimes use them against terrorists trying to attack civilians at home.
The class should be able to comprehend the much larger situation of preventing mass murders.

Would it help to show stats from both Australia and the UK about the sharp increase in violent crimes After their guns were confiscated?
Back in WW2 the US supposedly requested donations of hunting rifles for the English people during the Blitz of 1940, because the population did not have a large number of rifles.

Ignition override, correct, gun crime went up 30% in the first year of the UK handgun ban.
Gun crime figures are apparently levelling out but there has been an increase in firearms from the eastern bloc countries, Romania / Poland, being found over the last couple of years.

check out the mega mosin nagant thread. There are some good pics there of stock mn and heavily modified ones.

1. Are hollow-points more deadly? There seems to be a lot of people who think so, and I'm not exactly sure if it's true, but I lean towards no.

Click to expand...

JHP rounds create shallower, wider wounds. They cause more trauma until they stop, but they stop far shorter. They generally are a little better at putting down a target with less collateral damage. However, most people shot with handguns survive.

2. Does anyone have a picture of a "normal" looking hunting rifle, with a picture of the same rifle made to look more like an ar-15, or something covered under the AWB?

Click to expand...

Look at a traditional M14/M1A and then a EBR version. Also, someone on here had a picture of their target AR-15 and their garand, and mentioned which one was used for punching paper and which one had actually killed Germans in the 40s. The "killer" was not the "dangerous" rifle.

3. Also, have privately owned firearms ever successfully stopped a genocide anywhere in the world?

Click to expand...

3. Currently, many people in the Middle East are rebelling against genocidal regimes using privately owned weapons. Although many places in history have had the rebels go genocidal once they win, but I'm not going to get into the midst of it.

There is also our revolution, and there was a story this century of a city that actually had a miniature civil war to uproot a corrupt government within the city. I'm terrible with history though, so I don't remember the year or city, but someone can elaborate.

4. Are there any false pro-gun claims I can throw in there to balance it out?

Click to expand...

Plenty.
*Many of the reports of how lethal certain types of guns are come from the gun manufacturers, not the antis. Look at the commercial for the Judge using birdshot on a shoot-n-see to show how "lethal" it is, which birdshot out of a 2" barrel will be about as lethal as swiss cheese.
*The theory that places where people can/do carry will never be the target of a mass murder attempt have also been proven false.
*Many people believe that if you have a gun locked in the safe in the basement, you are protected from crime everywhere you go. It requires preparation, training, awareness, and mindset to defend yourself.

Shadow 7D said:

you need to shift the argument to what forcing those defending it to defend their points

Click to expand...

Yes. This exactly.

Here's the thing...if you want to use law, which is the force of government, which is using armed men (with guns) to stop people from doing something (and that's what making something illegal really comes down to)...you ought to have a good reason to force people not to do something.

The argument shouldn't be "this is why X should be illegal". The argument should be "you want X to be illegal...why?".

The burden of proof is one those who wish to make something illegal. Always.

This: http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm could be a god resource for you.

Hollowpoints is less deadly to those that are NOT targets...that is because, IF they do exit the intended target, they do not have very much energy left and even if they do hit something/someone else, the odds are the secondary target would not be damaged/hurt.

Read about the NYPD officers that killed 2 and shot 9 bystanders http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/24/justice/new-york-empire-state/index.html

Assault Rifles are fully automatic...has nothing to do with cosmetics...The so called Assault weapons have purely cosmetic "dangers"

If I were to do a comparison, find a photo (Wiki probably has one) of a BAR (a full auto weapon) and a fully dressed AR 15. Then ask the viewer to identify the full auto from the pictures....no one but a gun guy/gal will get that one correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle (photoshop the bipod out. or use one of the other photos)

hermannr said:

The so called Assault weapons have purely cosmetic "dangers"

Click to expand...

Don't be so sure/be careful with this.

Removable magazines are more than cosmetic, for example.

Pistol grips are also more than cosmetic.

4. Are there any false pro-gun claims I can throw in there to balance it out?

Click to expand...

Let's be fair here. None of the statistical claims that either side makes are patently false, they just use wording that is misleading.
You ARE 64 times more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder.
However, that is a very faulty statistic. That it uses the word "shoot" and not "kill" is very telling. It doesn't count the conflicts resolved where no one gets shot like when a gun is presented and/or announced, nor does it mention that incursions of that nature are extremely rare and, thus, 64 time more likely than almost never is still pretty much almost never.

Make sure you pay attention to the evaluation of evidence.
There's hard data like Harvard's study that shows increases in crime in EVERY instance in EVERY country when stricter gun control is put in place and the opposite effect when gun control is relaxed. Then there's data that's been reworded without proper context to give an impression like the aforementioned "64 times more likely" argument.

50% of the first graduating class at West Point was Jewish.
50% of two people.

HDCamel said:

Let's be fair here. None of the statistical claims that either side makes are patently false, they just use wording that is misleading.
You ARE 64 times more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder.

Click to expand...

No, you aren't.

That isn't even what was claimed.

And if it was claimed, it was patently false.

I'm pretty sure you are getting the wording of it quite incorrect.

What I recall (would have to Google to verify, but I don't want to give the 'hit' to the source of that crap) is that the "statistic" you are thinking of said you were X times more likely to "use" a gun against a "family member or aquaintence" (or somebody you know) than you are to "kill" an intruder.



But this brings up an EXCELLENT topic. When you hear a statistic or "fact" from an anti gunner, or that is anti gun, pay careful attention to the words used, and ask for the definitions for those words.

Popular example: To use the term child or children all the way up to the age of 19, 20, or 21. Often the "children statistics" count 17 year old violent felon gang bangers who are shot while committing violent crimes.

But, Warp, that's even worse than what I (mis)quoted.
Still, it's not "false". None of it is a flat out lie, but it gives a false impression. It seeks to imply something that, given proper context, is patently untrue.

Regardless, my point is best illustrated by my last two lines. If I make a vague statement and you jump to conclusions, I didn't lie to you.

HDCamel said:

But, Warp, that's even worse than what I (mis)quoted.
Still, it's not "false". None of it is a flat out lie, but it gives a false impression. It seeks to imply something that, given proper context, is patently untrue.

Regardless, my point is best illustrated by my last two lines. If I make a vague statement and you jump to conclusions, I didn't lie to you.

Click to expand...

But, HDCamel, what you misquoted WAS patently false. That would be a flat out lie.

But yes, that is what they do. You must pay attention to the terms they use. Ask what those terms mean. Ask for the definitions. Probably they won't give them, probably they'll get all huffy and blow up, but if you play it right any 'fence sitters' who come across it (over hear in real life, read it later on boards, whatever) will realize the anti is full of crap. Probably.

The actual statistic, regardless of any errors I made in my recollection of it, is not a patently false claim. It's stupid and doesn't prove anything, but false it is not.

Saying that crime dropped after the Brady Bill passed isn't wrong either, but it leaves out that it had already been dropping for several years prior to its passing. Like the late Mitch Hedberg said, "I used to do drugs... I still do, but I used to, too."

There is actual data to support their statistics, but their statistics don't support their conclusions.

Check out the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising private weapons did not stop that genocide, but the made it MUCH more expensive for the Germans to kill set of Jews.

My apologies if someone else pointed out this example.