More gun violence, Connecticut School Shooting

[JD Barleycorn]

This is what is really fustrating. Two or three people are going round and round (complete with insults) arguing something that is not open to discussion. The 1903 .45 automatic was developed specifically about problems putting down drug affected attackers (Moro tribesmen). The later 1911 model is the model we know today. The .38 was the standard side arm and they paid attention the Colt .45s ability to stop someone. When you have to go to a handgun the danger is close. You don't want to fire several shots.

There is an equation that results in the Taylor number. Putting aside different types of bullets (wadcutters, hollow points, frangible, full metal jacket, etc) the Taylor number gives an idea of the energy deposited into a target. Take the mass of the projectile in grains, multiply by the diameter in inches, multiply by the velocity in feet per second and divide the result by 7000. Your typical 230 grain, .45 bullet moving at 800-900 fps delivers a 12 to 13.3 shock. A typical 115 grain, 9 mm (.355 inches) moving at 1200 to 1600 fps delivers a 7 to 9.3. I repeat that this equation has nothing to do with penetration or special bullets. This is just about kinetic energy and how the human body reacts to it. So you can put away your dicks and move on. Just in case anyone likes math http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_KO_Factor

[Yssup Rider]

What the FUCK are you babbling about?

[threepeckeredbillygoat]

I think I just figured out how to solve this problem and violate the least amount of peoples rights.

Can we all agree that a person has to be a nut job to commit these mass murders?
VA tech, the movie theater, and now this one in Newtown, Ct. They all had mental problems, and people knew about it. They didn't just wake up batshit crazy that day. Right?

Ok, now can we all agree that guns don't just get up and run down the road and jump up and blow somebodys head off on their own? And a normal person won't use guns in this manner? It takes a crazy son of a bitch to make it happen, right?

Since there are so many more normal, responsible gun owners than there are dim witted nut cases, let's just lock up all the people with mental problems. And WHALAHHH, no more mass murders with guns.

Sure, you are going to violate 99% of the whackos who wouldn't commit mass murders constitutional rights by doing this. But I don't see where the problem is with that since its not a big deal to violate 99% of gun owners who wouldn't commit mass murders constitutional rights by going after their guns. And there are far more responsible gun owners than there are retards who are nuttier than squirrel shit.

There ya go. I fixed it. No more mass murders because we have locked up the 1% of whackos who do these things when we locked up all of them.

It is the very same thing proposed by going after the guns, you just change the scapegoat.

[JD Barleycorn]

The problem is that it won't stop at 1%. Once you start locking people up because they might shoot someone, then you lock people up because they might protest your policies (they are crazy after all)

[threepeckeredbillygoat]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The problem is that it won't stop at 1%. Once you start locking people up because they might shoot someone, then you lock people up because they might protest your policies (they are crazy after all)

That is the exact same thing the gun owners are saying. They know it won't stop with the 1% of guns: hi capacity, assult rifles, ect. They know once it starts it won't stop. They are going to go after all of them.

You are starting to sound like a gun guy now. You know how that kind of shit works, you just explained it to a T, just with a different scapegoat.

Instead of screaming "get the guns, get the guns". Let's start screaming "get the guy with the personality disorder, get the guy with the personality disorder".

Let's just change the scapegoat. If we can broad brush guns and gun owners why is it so hard to broad brush people with mental disorders?

[Guest032516]

IB Hankerwrong - When an argument isn't going your away, you repeatedly try to put words into your opponents mouth in order to make yourself look better.

My argument from the start has been that we can get rid of larger calibers such as the 45 - OR - failing that, we can at least get rid of the big magazine automatics. If someone has to have a 45, let them get a revolver. It takes more time to reload. I noticed you haven't addressed what I've said about magazine size at all.

I have also NEVER said that the weapons of the cops or the military should be limited - just the civilian populace.

So stop trying to tell me what my arguments are. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Now, turning to your last set of distortions.

IBH - "Mătăsăreanu and Phillips – while wearing body armor – were still wounded – physically injured – by a combined 31 shots before they were subdued. So "yes" you are deflecting."

No, I'm not. I never said they weren't shot a bunch of time. I made the point that they survived because they were wearing body armor, not becuase they were hopped up on drugs. You got caught in a lie of omission when you left out the detail about body armor. You clearly read the Wiki article or another article so you knew they were wearing body armor - yet you never mentioned it. Instead, you tried to imply that the cops 9mm weapons were to weak to stop two drugged up crazies. The 9 mm rounds didn't stop them right away because of the body armor - NO OTHER REASON.

And having a 45 instead of a 9mm would NOT have changed that.An AR-15 and a shotgun are BOTH more powerful than a 45. Matas and Philips were both shot with higher caliber weapons and the body armor stopped that too.

It appears that Philips had only superficial wounds on his hands and forearm - the parts of his body NOT covered by armor. We don't know what caliber caused those wounds. For all we know, it was an AR-15 or the shotgun. Then he shot himself in the head. The remaining shots of the 11 shots that hit him came AFTER he was already dead, including one in the neck that would have killed him instantly if he was still alive.

Matas finally got stopped when one cop with an AR-15 shot him 20 times in the legs from under a car. His legs were the only unprotected part of his body. Apparently the cop just emptied the magazine into his legs. It doesn't appear that Matas was shot at all before being hit in the legs - at least not seriously. And, CONTRARY to what you say, the leg shots DID stop Matas right away. Once he was finally hit in a spot NOT protected by the armor, he went down. He dropped his weapon and raised his hands. But he bled to death in minutes.

The AR-15, shotgun, and 9mm rounds either did not penetrate the body armor, or if some rounds did, they did not have enough power left to do serious damage to the internal organs of either man. So, the body armor was what made the difference. We don't actually know how many total bullets hit both of them because of the body armor. It was probably a LOT more than 31.

IBH - "You're argument is that .38s should suffice in lieu of 9mm's, ExNYer."

Bullshit. First, you don't get to put words in my mouth or tell me what my arguments are. Especially because you lie. Second, see my arguments above. I never said anything about what cops and the military should have. Although, frankly, if a 12 gauge shotgun and an AR-15 couldn't get through the body armor, neither would the 45. Nonetheless, I never advocated downsizing police calibers.

IBH - "The point you are defecting from is that Mătăsăreanu and Phillips were still wounded -- physically injured -- by a combined 31 shots before they were subdued."

Again, bullshit. See above. I did not deflect anything. Your assertions that they kept going after being hit 31 times by 9mm isn't supported by the reports. I don't know why you count both sets of bullets as if they all hit the same man. Bullets that hit Philips did nothing to Matas and vice versa. The only relevant shot counts are 11 and 20.

Philips had only a few minor wounds on his hands before he shot himself in the head. The other shots came after he was dead. We don't know how many of his 11 hits were 9mm or shotgun or AR-15. But he wasn't hit in any vital spot until his own head shot. The other shots came after he was dead.

Mata took all 20 in the legs right at the very end. he doesn't appear to have been hit seriously before that. And he stopped fighting immediately and died in a few minutes.

So nothing about the North Hollywood shootout supports your arguments that the supposedweakness of the 9mm was to blame. There is NOTHING in that story that indicates that a 45 would have stopped Philips or Mata sooner.

IBH - The point your ignoring is that the FBI agents in Miami used .38s and they didn't stop their killers.

Again, bullshit. I never said anything about the Miami cops or their 38s. I never said they shouldn't have 45s.

IBH - It's not your prerogative to decide for millions of other law abiding citizens, ExNYer.

It's not YOUR prerogative either. It is up to the voters to decide and I am advocating a position.

IBH - If and when you stop insisting that a .38 can provide the same degree of "knock down" power as a .45, ExNYer.

Again, you lie. Go back up in the thread and POINT OUT WHERE I said that about the 38. Cite the post number and the paragraph.

I have EXPLICITY stated that opposite - that the 45 is more powerful. But I also pointed out that the 45 is also NOT 100% effective. So what then? Do you go up even higher in caliber? 50 cal machine guns? Sawed-off 12 gauge shotguns? Where does it end?

You keep holding up perfection or 100% effectiveness as the goal to attain, despite the fact that the 45 is not 100% effective either.

The only relevant inquiry is what is GOOD ENOUGH for the average citizen to have. Are you really telling me that a 38 isn't worth shit? That we MUST have 45s? Or if we have 45s, they MUST be automatics, because a 45 revolver with 6 shots isn't good enough?

IBH - You're ignoring the Wiki article, ExNYer. The FBI figured it out 25 years ago: .38s do not create enough injury or pain to stop a determined perpetrator. The October article from Massachusetts underscores that point.

No, I didn't ignore it. I just don't have a disagreement with it. I'm all in faovr of the FBI having .40s instead of .38s, if that is what they want.

What you are ignoring is that the FBI was only making recommendations for what the FBI should carry. They did NOT advocate allowing the general population to get bigger guns. Quite the opposite. I think you will find that the FBI and most police departments are very much in favor of increased gun control for the general population. So, what exactly is your point?

IBH - Once again you misinterpret the obvious! There are hundreds of articles where attackers – drugged crazed or not – are not stopped by 9mm bullets let alone smaller, less effective, .38 caliber bullets. Each such article underscores how ridiculous your assertion that smaller caliber weapons should “equivalently suffice” in lieu of larger caliber weapons.

And there are plenty of articles where 45s, AR-15s and shotguns did not stop the bad guy either. So where do we stop? Give everybody a bazooka?

And you consistently ignore the upside - less victims dying from powerful calibers. It is a TRADEOFF, remember? Yes, some crooks will not be stopped by the first shot from a .38 or a 9mm. But some .38 gunshot victims will live because the crook could not get his hands on a 45. Who's too say that's not a better outcome that letting everybody have a 15 round 45 automatic?

IBH - "It's your argument that smaller caliber hand guns should "equivalently suffice" when even you concede that larger caliber hand guns have more stopping power -- which, BTW, is the primary purpose of self-defense: stop the attacker"..

Wow, is that the purpose of self defense? I thought it was to play Parcheesi. Thanks for clearing that up.

IBH - So "no", it's not a "straw man argument", and it's you who cannot back up your assertions with factual documentation to support your goofy premise.

My assertion was that getting rid of big calibers and/or big magazines should be tried. Cops and the military can keep the big calibers. And you can STILL have a shotgun or rifle in your home that is MUCH more powerful than a 45. The only people affected will be people carrying weapons outside the home. They will be limited to smaller calibers and/or smaller magazines.

I said that a .38 revolver (or .45 revolver for that matter) was good enough for the average civilian for self defense purposes and the TRADEOFF would work in favor of victims. Less mass killings for starters. More victims surviving 38 wounds instead or dying from 45 wounds. Those are pretty general statements. The TRADEOFF will be that from time to time a bad guy will survive a shot from a 38 and go on to harm or kill someone else, whereas a shot from a 45 MIGHT have stopped him immediately.

Instead, you made the assertion that .38s weren't good enough and the 45 was needed. And as proof, you posted ANECDOTES about Moros and bath salt crazies and shootouts that involved body armor. Anecdotes aren't proof.

That doesn't address the fundamental point about tradeoffs.If you think the tradeoff won't work tell us why.

The truth is we don't know how the tradeoff will work because it has never been tried. So we can't gather statistics on it for either sides of the argument.

What is true is that there are TOO many easily available automatics with big magazines that hold some kind of strange appeal to gangster types. All the tough guys want to strut around with a big Glock or a 45 automatic with a 15 round magazine. I guess a 6-shot 38 revolver isn't good enough as a substitute penis for some guys.

So we end up with too many big caliber, big magazine guns on the street. And they are too easy to get. Do you honestly believe that if the average citizen could not get anything bigger than a 6-shot 38 revolver we would have this many killings? Especially mass murders?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The 1903 .45 automatic was developed specifically about problems putting down drug affected attackers (Moro tribesmen). The later 1911 model is the model we know today. The .38 was the standard side arm and they paid attention the Colt .45s ability to stop someone. When you have to go to a handgun the danger is close. You don't want to fire several shots.

There is an equation that results in the Taylor number. Putting aside different types of bullets (wadcutters, hollow points, frangible, full metal jacket, etc) the Taylor number gives an idea of the energy deposited into a target. Take the mass of the projectile in grains, multiply by the diameter in inches, multiply by the velocity in feet per second and divide the result by 7000. Your typical 230 grain, .45 bullet moving at 800-900 fps delivers a 12 to 13.3 shock. A typical 115 grain, 9 mm (.355 inches) moving at 1200 to 1600 fps delivers a 7 to 9.3. I repeat that this equation has nothing to do with penetration or special bullets. This is just about kinetic energy and how the human body reacts to it. So you can put away your dicks and move on. Just in case anyone likes math http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_KO_Factor

All true. But what does it tell us?

I'm sure you get even higher Taylor numbers for a .50 caliber machine gun, or an AR-15, or an AK-47. Or a 12 gauge, sawed-off shotgun.

But, where do you stop? What is good enough for personal sidearms for the average citizen? Obviously, it cannot be NO limit on the Taylor number. That is a two way street, since weapons are used against innocent people as well as against criminals.

And regardless of the Taylor number, how big does the magazine have to be?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by threepeckeredbillygoat

I think I just figured out how to solve this problem and violate the least amount of peoples rights.

Can we all agree that a person has to be a nut job to commit these mass murders?
VA tech, the movie theater, and now this one in Newtown, Ct. They all had mental problems, and people knew about it. They didn't just wake up batshit crazy that day. Right?

Ok, now can we all agree that guns don't just get up and run down the road and jump up and blow somebodys head off on their own? And a normal person won't use guns in this manner? It takes a crazy son of a bitch to make it happen, right?

Since there are so many more normal, responsible gun owners than there are dim witted nut cases, let's just lock up all the people with mental problems. And WHALAHHH, no more mass murders with guns.

Sure, you are going to violate 99% of the whackos who wouldn't commit mass murders constitutional rights by doing this. But I don't see where the problem is with that since its not a big deal to violate 99% of gun owners who wouldn't commit mass murders constitutional rights by going after their guns. And there are far more responsible gun owners than there are retards who are nuttier than squirrel shit.

There ya go. I fixed it. No more mass murders because we have locked up the 1% of whackos who do these things when we locked up all of them.

It is the very same thing proposed by going after the guns, you just change the scapegoat.

Uh, yeah. Just one problem.

When you look up a mental disturbed person, you take away his liberty. He is imprisoned.

A handgun owner is still free to walk the streets. He's just carrying a smaller weapon with a smaller clip - or maybe no weapon. But he is NOT imprisoned.

I think that kind of makes a difference in the degree of harm, don't you? You're comparing apples and oranges.

[Slappy Balls]

Only criminals should be allowed to have guns. And tyrannical government employees. Then we will be safe.

I also really think the best people who can tell us that guns are bad are celebrities who are protected by armed bodyguards in gated communities.

[JD Barleycorn]

A mistake was made earlier, IB did not have a piss in the contest I alluded to earlier. He did post what the pisser X NYR said. So X NYR can put his dick away. I brought you facts to end the discussion.

As far as the Taylor number; once you reach a certain point it becomes a moot point. Kind of like do you prefer to be hit by a Town Car at 60 mph or a train at 60 mph? At 60 mph it doesn't matter anymore.

[JD Barleycorn]

This is the thought that I had when I saw a snippet of the news show a few minutes ago. All of these damned politicians including the great and mightly Barack are saying do something. I don't hear anyone saying what they want. They are all afraid to take a stand. Here is your chance to outshine the politicians.

What do you specifically want to do? Do you want to focus on the people or the guns? So tell us all what exactly you want and how it would work?

[threepeckeredbillygoat]

If a loon is coming to rob, rape or harm anyone in my family I want as many bullets as I can get in my gun. I don't want to be limited to .22 , .32 , or a .38. I want to pack as big a punch as I can on that fucker. And I don't want to have to stop and reload after 6 rounds, what if its a home invasion and 5 or 6 guys are coming in at once? Do you think the bad guys are going to follow these laws of limitation that you suggest? Since when do the crimanals follow the laws?

[threepeckeredbillygoat]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Uh, yeah. Just one problem.

When you look up a mental disturbed person, you take away his liberty. He is imprisoned.

A handgun owner is still free to walk the streets. He's just carrying a smaller weapon with a smaller clip - or maybe no weapon. But he is NOT imprisoned.

I think that kind of makes a difference in the degree of harm, don't you? You're comparing apples and oranges.

Well do you want to stop the mass murders or not? If you lock up the people who commit mass murders, than there won't be anymore mass murders. That will be the only way to stop it. Anything else and you are just pissing up a rope.

And why is a person with mental disorders libertys more important than a responsible gun owners?

[i'va biggen]

If you really want to stop a home invasion a good shorter barreled 12 gauge is your best stopper.The only law I want to see is the gun shows where anyone can buy a gun without a background check.Of course assault rifles should be kept for the military and law enforcement.

[JD Barleycorn]

Pecker, did you notice what you wrote. Lock up all the people who commit mass murders and there won't be anymore mass murders. Most people who commit mass murders DIE with their victims and that won't stop anything. Don't you really mean to lock up anyone who might commit a mass murder?


Biggen, don't go to many gunshows do you? "anyone" can buy a gun??? That is not true. Someone is going to ask for ID and if you're underage or out of state then you don't get to buy a handgun. Private individuals can buy or sell to anyone they want and it doesn't require a gun show. The dealers with a table will run a background check. Don't believe everything you read in the paper.