Rubber bullets

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
555
Location
Peoples Republic of Massachusetts
I've been having an ongoing argument with an anti friend who is hell bent on the banning of metal bullets ("except for hunters"), and only allowing rubber bullets to be used for SD, HD, and target shooting/plinking.

He figures for the first 2, a rubber bullet will be a less than lethal alternative and still stop someone, and for the latter, that if someone has a ND at a range, a rubber bullet won't kill someone.

I don't really have anything to say other than "a rubber bullet wont stop a determined attacker", and that range accidents dont happen often enough to ban lead bullets.

Anyone have any other reasons for NOT banning metal bullets? Or any scientific proof or stats to back anything up?




Thanks
 
After he or a loved one is mugged/raped/murdered, I'm sure his views will change.

"A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged."
 
what about for cops? rubber bullets for them? or are they going to be judge, jury and executioner?

if the criminals know the cops only have rubber bullets, will that modify their behavior? (try running away rather than surrender, more likely to get in a gunfight with a cop?)


same thing when an armed criminal confronts an armed citizen, the criminal has to be willing to risk severe injury or death, if he just risks minor injury, won't he be more likely to keep on trying to do whatever he is doing (like say raping that person, stabbing that person) because at worst, he gets minor injury.

also, if your life is in danger, do you want a projectile that is 12% likely to make him stop IMMEDIATELY or one that is 86% likely to make him stop IMMEDIATELY, death or level of injury at cescation of hostility irrelevant....I'd go 86%, or whatever is hightest, irrelevant of what type. It just happenes that right now, that is semi-jacketed lead hollowpioints
 
Anyone have any other reasons for NOT banning metal bullets? Or any scientific proof or stats to back anything up?

Sure. If you take the angle the 2A exists to keep the government in check, rubber bullets wouldn't be too effective for that.
 
After he or a loved one is mugged/raped/murdered, I'm sure his views will change.

"A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged."

Sometimes they blame the government for not protecting them, or properly nurturing the poor individual who has been oppressed since birth. :rolleyes:
 
Never wrestle with a pig, the pig enjoys it and you will only end up covered in mud.

Never argue with an anti, they cannot be reasoned with and you will only increase your risk of hypertension
 
what about wooden bullets? Some net site that sells ammo had 2 cases of wooden bullets for 300$. I have no clue what their ballistics or like or what they'd do inside of a body, but that's pretty cheap for the amount of ammo you'd get as per today.
 
what about wooden bullets? Some net site that sells ammo had 2 cases of wooden bullets for 300$. I have no clue what their ballistics or like or what they'd do inside of a body, but that's pretty cheap for the amount of ammo you'd get as per today.

Even for cheap recreational fun not designed to use as practice for when you will be using metalic projectiles it would be a bad idea. The reason being that the wood can expand and swell from moisture, increasing the diameter of the round and even causing a kaboom. Now if the round was properly laquered, or otherwise coated to make it waterproof that would be less of a problem, as long as the small wierd company making wooden bullets didn't make mistakes and miss a spot.

The light weight and density of such a round would leave you with very poor results at range, and wind and distance would be much larger factors. Basicly for anything but a specific purpose or very close range shooting they would be pointless, and would still subject you to increased dangers from swollen rounds causing explosions in your firearm.
 
You Can Have My Metal Bullets . . .

. . . right after I've perfected my teflon-coated super-heavy ceramic rounds.

Porcelain isn't a metal. Quartz isn't a metal.

I wasn't the most radically competent chemist in my class, but it seems to me that a class of super-heavy ceramics is possible. Heck, it's probably already out there and I just don't pay attention.

How about Barium Titanate Ceramic? That's fairly dense.

Make bullets out of that stuff, coat it with teflon so it doesn't tear up the rifling, and we should be good to go.
 
"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Enforcing that we use rubber bullets only seems like it's kind of infringing upon that right. That's as good a reason as you need. We have the right to bear arms and use whatever bullets we please.
 
For the same reason we don't all drive Nerf cars. Soft rubber bullets are about as practical for most lawful uses of firearms (defensive purposes, target shooting, etc.) as Nerf cars would be for driving.

Also, show me a rubber bullet that can withstand 65,000 psi and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit without deformation, has enough shear strength to be spun to 300,000 rpm in a few milliseconds by shallow grooves, has enough rigidity to withstand centrifugal force and Mach 3+ aerodynamic pressures, and has enough sectional density to hold velocity well, and I'll show you a rubber bullet that will act just like a metal bullet if it hits a person.

Finally, even SOFT rubber bullets will kill at close range. They're only less-lethal at longer ranges, but would still be plenty useful for murder and suicide, for those so inclined. So your friend's proposal gains nothing and costs everything.
 
So here are my problems,

1. As far as Ranges go all the range infrastructure is already set up for metal ballistics it may actually be more dangerous to change materials.

2. For SD/HD I WILL have metal rounds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top