Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Denver Channel)   Homeowner shoots intruder with .410 shotgun. Intruder fires back with .30-.30. Homeowner then remembered his .30-06   (thedenverchannel.com) divider line 555
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

41706 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2006 at 4:40 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



555 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-03-28 02:08:24 AM  
Necrosprite : Didn't notice, did anyone spot that this guy was a 60 year old with a 9 year old son?

BZZZZZ. The 60 year old was the intruder breaking in. He is now know as "the deceased."

The homeowner who killed him was 33. The homeowners son was 9.

Those of you who are screaming about how the homeowner did something wrong can go jump off a cliff. He defended himself and his son from a lunatic, and the world is a bettr place for it.
 
2006-03-28 02:08:38 AM  
I'm a weird duck, I believe in gun control for the simple fact that there are a damn fair lot of people out there who shouldn't have guns. Ever. However for people who can deal with the responsiblity and won't go randomly disrupting the community by blowing their neighbors away in a drunken rage I think fire arms are a wise move.

I don't trust the police to save my ass, I trust them to at least make an attempt to investigate a crime, come to a conclusion and try to arrest a perp. However if I'm dead, or a loved one is dead it does me little good.

Don't trust cops, not because their inherently untrustworthy, but because they are inherently human. Just like you. Just like me.
 
2006-03-28 02:09:16 AM  
fark the intruder, he got what he deserved.
anyone ever breaks into my home and i'm there, there getting the same treatment.
well, maybe worse, i can be a bit of a bastard sometimes

/heated calipers on the genitals would also have served him well
 
2006-03-28 02:12:46 AM  
mrexcess

That formula is the key to the reason why a rifle bullet like the 270Win can have such devastating effect.

I use that same argument with the people that claim the 45ACP is 'powerful' because it uses heavy bullets.

A 270Win uses a bullet that is 130grains...yet it will produce well over 2,000ft/lbs of energy. Why? Because the bullet is going about 2800ft/sec.

A FASTER bullet will ALWAYS have more energy than a heavier, slower bullet. It is basic physicis.

It is also the reason why a 115grain 9mm going 1400ft/sec will drop you very quickly, while a 230grain 45ACP going 800ft/sec probably won't.

YOu will have to take my word on that last part...but I've seen it in person...multiple times.
 
2006-03-28 02:17:07 AM  
LA270Hunter

I have been under the impression that the reason the .45 was favored was also because it's impact consisted of a larger amount of surface area, therefor allowing a more "efficent" transfer of energy from the bullet to the target. I have no math formula to back this up.
 
2006-03-28 02:26:56 AM  
Seriously, why the need to brag about your guns?

I don't see it as bragging, any more than a stamp-collector would be bragging by telling fellow stamp-collectors that he found a relatively rare stamp. It's more of a "Hey, this is kinda neat!" thing. Plus, you can tell a lot about a person by what kind of guns they have...show me a pepperbox or lemon-squeezer pistol, and I can tell you a fair bit about what else the person will probably like.
 
2006-03-28 02:27:58 AM  
LocalCynic

Very, vry refreshing to see a Christian who subscribes to (I assume) the consistent life ethic. The God, Guts & Guns crowd was running Christianity's reputation into the ground (along with a few other crowds).
 
2006-03-28 02:29:22 AM  
LA270Hunter: Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but higher muzzle velocity, past a certain point, isn't always desirable either*, correct? An in-and-out bullet is going to cause a cleaner wound and retain more of its energy as it passes through the target, while a slower round might be stopped completely inside the target, delivering all the force of the round, as I understand it.

I'd call you a lucky bastard for having had the chance to own and operate an MP5, but it sounds like it got far too much use to qualify. ;(

* assuming an unarmored target, for the sake of simplicity
 
2006-03-28 02:33:51 AM  
For the record, I have NEVER seen anyone literally 'knocked off their feet' by ANYTHING that can be picked up and shot by a single person.

Then you don't get out much. ;) I'm a big guy, and a buddy of mine has a WWII Russian PTRD that he rechambered to 20mm Vulcan (what the Navy uses for the CIWS). When fired prone, that sucker pushes me and the gun back over a foot per shot fired. Perceived recoil isn't too bad, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to get hit by even a practice round fired out of it.
 
2006-03-28 02:37:36 AM  
Poo_Fight: So you're saying the federal government has the right to prevent Homosexuals (collectively) from marrying and adopting if the federal government feels threatened by it?

you dont protect somebodies right if you feel threatened by something that is not threatening. thats like saying, well cars kill people, take away cars! another strawman argument, Id expect nothing less

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Ummm, not so much. When discussing rights in the BOR, "collective" means a right that adheres to society as a whole, NOT to individual members of society.

missed the point much? collectively, Americans enjoy free speech, freedom of the press, etc. but individually, there are cases that take it away from certain people

That's a misapplication of the idea of "collective rights". Using your definition, as long as some people were allowed to have free speech, others could be routinely prevented from speaking, and this is not the case. Now certain kinds of speech are not PROTECTED by the First Amendment, like fraud, et cetera. And the ONLY way somebody can lose their rights is through application of "due process of law".

yes it is the case. Rights have been taken away from countless citizens and deemed Constitutional, but take away your guns, and every hillbilly and wanna-be overexaggerated egotistical cowboy gets all uptight. And Fraud is not speech, by the way

Actually, the ENTIRE Bill of Rights was directed at the Federal government originally. State governments could pass laws setting up State religions, or laws that involved cruel and unusual punishments, and the Bill of Rights stood mute on it. It wasn't until the development of the doctrine of Incorporation that the Bill of Rights was applied to the states, and that happened in the late 19th/early 20th century.

Sorry thats a little sidestep, the "bill of rights" did not stand mute, the enforcers (ie law makers and justices) stood mute on it.

Lawrence Tribe, by far the most eminent Constitutional scholar, who authored the casebook used in the majority of Conlaw classes nation-wide, and the guy who represented Al Gore in 2000, states that the Second Amendment does enumerate an individual right. Which category of NRA stooge does he fall into?

ironic, though, that Mr Tribe reminds all you folk about the whole "well regulated militia" part

The Second Amendment uses the words "right" and "people". Saying that it's not a right and that it doesn't belong to the people is facially preposterous. And that's EXACTLY what you're doing.

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

Did you fail English class too? Do you not understand the first part of the sentence is the subject?

but you're right, a well regulated militia needs to have rights to justify it, and people to be apart of it. Anybody else who wants a gun, for recreational purposes, is NOT using the 2nd amendment for what it was intended for, bottom line. Anyone who argues differently is ignoring the writing.
 
2006-03-28 02:38:40 AM  
Secret Master of All Flatulence: any more than a stamp-collector would be bragging by telling fellow stamp-collectors that he found a relatively rare stamp.

OK Ive heard it all. now you're pretending that collecting stamps and guns is similar? One is an instrument of death that should be hated by the population that "claims" it is peaceful and kind, and the other is an instrument of commerce. You guess which one is which
 
2006-03-28 02:39:15 AM  
LA270Hunter: Two things:

1) Do you suggest arming 4-year-olds, then??

I have a legal weapon that I carry with me at all times. I would feel LESS safe with a gun as it can be taken and used against me. For example, someone can break into my apartment while I'm away, find the gun, lie in wait for me, etc.

2) How is saying that guns are penis extensions the same as making fun of someone's penis? Nowhere in this thread did I poke fun at anyone's weewee.

Men are sooo sensitive about their peeners...I wouldn't be surprised if you did shoot someone who made fun of yours.

mrexcess: The gun/penis connection has been mentioned numerous times on Fark...I'm surprised you don't know about it. Google "guns" and "masculinity" for starters.
 
2006-03-28 02:40:06 AM  
EXACTLY. The problem is, guns are so easily accessible, any nutjob can get one; that's how you end up with so many Columbines, Denny's shootings, Seattle party massacres, etc.

Cocaine is damned near completely illegal to buy or possess in the US. So is Marijuana. How hard is it to find pot or cocaine? You cite a number of cases where people broke the law and killed other people. Those crimes you mentioned are the ones most likely to carry a death penalty. What makes you think the criminals who are facing a death sentence for mass murder would be even remotely deterred from breaking a law that carries a five or even 10 year prison term?

Prohibition is not the answer.
 
2006-03-28 02:42:06 AM  
I have a legal weapon that I carry with me at all times.

It isn't, by any chance, a chemical agent like mace or OC spray, is it? Around here, the criminals call such sprays "Foreplay".
 
2006-03-28 02:49:26 AM  
Big Al
Did you fail English class too? Do you not understand the first part of the sentence is the subject?

You're taking the "well regulated militia" bit out of context. The phrase is, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The citizenry of the united states, taken as a whole, is intended to be a militia of last resort in defense of the Constitution. If the founders had merely intended to recognize the right of regular military forces to keep and bear arms, they would not have listed it in the Bill of Rights, which applies to all citizens. Nor would they have said "the people", instead they would have said "the army" or something similar.
 
2006-03-28 02:51:25 AM  
Lorelle
The gun/penis connection has been mentioned numerous times on Fark...I'm surprised you don't know about it. Google "guns" and "masculinity" for starters.

I've *seen* it with some frequency. But I've never heard anyone explain in a logical fashion what the connection is. That said, I don't really feel like sifting through all the results I'd get for "guns" and "masculinity" to find the answer. Since you make the comparison, I assume you know what the connection is, so why be reluctant to explain it?
 
2006-03-28 02:52:50 AM  
mrexcess: You're taking the "well regulated militia" bit out of context. The phrase is, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

not quite. I know what the phrase is, and I know what the subject is. it isn't difficult

The citizenry of the united states, taken as a whole, is intended to be a militia of last resort in defense of the Constitution. If the founders had merely intended to recognize the right of regular military forces to keep and bear arms, they would not have listed it in the Bill of Rights, which applies to all citizens. Nor would they have said "the people", instead they would have said "the army" or something similar.

the "citizenry" of the US is the militia of last resort. But only if you fall inline with the definition of militia, every able bodied man ages 17-49.

And they wouldn't have said "the army" or something similar because they did not have what we have today, a police force, standing army, and national guard. The national guard is the correct term for well regulated militia.
 
2006-03-28 02:53:38 AM  
Big Al
OK Ive heard it all. now you're pretending that collecting stamps and guns is similar? One is an instrument of death that should be hated by the population that "claims" it is peaceful and kind, and the other is an instrument of commerce. You guess which one is which

Why should we hate instruments of death? Death is an exceedingly useful tool in certain circumstances, whether you'd like to admit it or not. I'll chance a guess that, without instruments of death, you'd have no food on your table.
 
2006-03-28 02:53:51 AM  
mrexcess: I've *seen* it with some frequency. But I've never heard anyone explain in a logical fashion what the connection is.

its the same thing with cars. people with small egos and penii need to use things like big guns fast cars etc to attract women and attention because they are lacking in certain categories mentally and/or physically.
 
2006-03-28 02:54:58 AM  
mrexcess: Why should we hate instruments of death?

those that glorify war will always continue to support every unjust war, and will always to be scared of their fellow citizens and run to the protection of their sacred gun instead of trying to fix the real problems that cause violence, poverty poverty and poverty
 
2006-03-28 02:55:57 AM  
missed the point much? collectively, Americans enjoy free speech, freedom of the press, etc. but individually, there are cases that take it away from certain people

Study the law much? Didn't think so. Certain kinds of speech are prohibited to everybody. Please tell me of a case where some individual had otherwise protected speech taken away from them, while other people retained the right to the same speech.

Rights have been taken away from countless citizens and deemed Constitutional,

Cite, please.

And Fraud is not speech, by the way

It's kind of hard to make a material misrepresentation without some form of speech.

Sorry thats a little sidestep, the "bill of rights" did not stand mute, the enforcers (ie law makers and justices) stood mute on it.

Given that early-on the "enforcers" were largely the same people who wrote and passed the Bill of Rights, I think you've got a minor factual inaccuracy in your argument.

Did you fail English class too? Do you not understand the first part of the sentence is the subject?

Then why doesn't the Second Amendment speak of the "Right of the Militias" or the "Right of the States", but instead speaks of the "Right of the People"? And "a well regulated militia" is not the subject of the sentence, it's part of an introductory clause. The first thing mentioned in a sentence does NOT have to be the subject.
 
2006-03-28 02:57:22 AM  
Secret Master of All Flatulence: You're trying to get me to brag about my weapon, aren't you??

Big Al: As a longtime philatelist, I've learned to steer clear of guys who invite me to see their inverted Jennies :)
 
2006-03-28 02:57:23 AM  
Big Al
not quite. I know what the phrase is, and I know what the subject is. it isn't difficult

Obviously it is for you, since your interpretation of the law differs with that of the Supreme Court and pretty much every constitutional scholar ever.

And they wouldn't have said "the army" or something similar because they did not have what we have today, a police force, standing army, and national guard. The national guard is the correct term for well regulated militia.

You seem intent upon ignoring that whole "the right of the people" bit. It doesn't say "the right of the militia", nor "the right of the army". Think about it, what good would a government militia be if the citizens needed to protect themselves against a tyrannical government? Regardless of what you think citizens' chances are against a tyrannical military force these days, that was fresh on the mind of the framers.
 
2006-03-28 03:00:03 AM  
And they wouldn't have said "the army" or something similar because they did not have what we have today, a police force, standing army, and national guard. The national guard is the correct term for well regulated militia.

Really? That's fascinating. Would you care to explain how an organization that began early in the 20th century was the organization that the Founding Fathers referred to in the late 18th century? Did they have a time machine or what?

I suggest you read Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution before you start spouting off such nonsense.
 
2006-03-28 03:00:49 AM  
Big Al
its the same thing with cars. people with small egos and penii need to use things like big guns fast cars etc to attract women and attention because they are lacking in certain categories mentally and/or physically.

OK, so it isn't a statement about gun owners at all. It's a statement about flashy attention whores. Fine with me, but quit lumping all gun owners into that category. I have never used my firearms to attract attention or women. Hell, women are more apt to be turned off completely by gun owners than they are to give it up to us, thanks to all the touchy feely scaremongering.
 
2006-03-28 03:02:47 AM  
Big Al
those that glorify war

Uhhhh, bait 'n switch much? Who said anything about glorifying war!?!
 
2006-03-28 03:05:32 AM  
people with small egos and penii need to use things like big guns fast cars etc to attract women and attention because they are lacking in certain categories mentally and/or physically.

Is that like the Naderites who follow him because they don't like to bathe, and that's the one place such personal hygiene is socially acceptable?
 
2006-03-28 03:08:23 AM  
You're trying to get me to brag about my weapon, aren't you??

Umm, no.

/shudder
 
2006-03-28 03:10:47 AM  
BTW, if the National Guard is really the militia, then the State Governors get to appoint it's Officers, and who the Federal Government wants as it's officers is irrelevant, yes?
 
2006-03-28 03:58:04 AM  
mrexcess

Glorify war? I loved what I was doing...and i was at war. Is that glorifying it?

Yes, I enjoyed putting multiple 9mm slugs into the enemy. I enjoyed the 7.62's even more. I guess that makes me sick in some way, but hell...having someone do their dead level best to kill you tends to change the way one thinks about having to shoot someone doesnt it?
 
2006-03-28 04:09:24 AM  
Lorelle

you post about someone taking your gun away is truly pathetic..in a pacifictic kind of way.

First of all, if you carried the gun on you, you wouldnt have to worrry about someone stealing it from your apt. Second, if they are able to take it out your HANDS and shoot you with it, then you were too stupid to shoot sooner.

Guns are no less safe than ANY ordinary can opener. I've been around guns my ENTIRE life. I have NEVER seen a gun shoot itself. someone has to pull the trigger. If you keep your finger off the trigger, then the gun will not shoot. Simple as that.

By your posts, I am going to assume from now on that you are a Democrat, a lesbian, and a pacifist. I think that pretty much sums you up, and gives everyone wasting their time responding to you a good picture of why people like you will ALWAYS be victims. Hell, you already WERE a victim..TWICE.

The difinition of stupid is knowing better, but doing it anyway. You are WELL beyond stupid. After you get raped the 5th time, you may reconsider your stance on firearms. I've seen it personally happen to 4 women that I know.

Carry you 'legal weapon" aka pepper spray. When someone high on crack ignores its effects and after you crap your pants because you have no method to protect your life, I'll be willing to bet you will be trying to conjure a gun out of thin air.

Pussies like you keep people like ME and MY wife safer. Criminals would much rather attack someone that ISN'T armed, therefore, you actually are serving a purpose to society by being a criminal-magnet for the rest of us that choose not to be pussies.
 
2006-03-28 04:30:52 AM  
LA270Hunter
Glorify war? I loved what I was doing...and i was at war. Is that glorifying it?

I dunno, honestly, I don't know you personally. But being a soldier, doing that job, no I don't think that means you glorify war. I do think it means we all owe ya bigtime for putting your neck on the line for us, so: thanks.

Not a 5.56 fan, I take it, incidentally? Hehehe.
 
2006-03-28 04:35:48 AM  
mrexcess

90% of the time during operations, I carried an HK MP5 in 9mm loaded with JHP ammunition. On a few occsions, a few of us were issued a G3A3.

Fun Fact: We had a choice of personal primary weapons. The UMP45 or the MP5. After 2 missions, 95% of us were using the MP5 because the 45ACP round often took 7-8 hits to drop an attacker.

/check profile for a pic of my pals :)
 
2006-03-28 04:43:49 AM  
Oh, and incidentally, the 5.56mm is a decent round. You just have to be able to hit what you shoot at with it.

Its not as effective as say, the 7.62mm is, but then again, the .308 has a HELL of a lot more recoil, and the AP bullets for the 7.62 can actually penetrate light armor, whereas the 5.56 cannot.

Overall though, the 5.56mm is a decent round for stopping PEOPLE, has low recoil, and is relatively reliable.
 
2006-03-28 04:44:37 AM  
I tried to read thru all 536 posts and I did not find any evidence that this is clear to everyone... or even anyone. So, please, feel the love, and if you didn't RTFA, I have tried to clarify it:

the homeowner is 33-year-old Josh Jackson, and his 9-year-old son

The dead guy is the home invader, Mario Vigil: Vigil was involved in a domestic violence case with Jackson's mother. Vigil had fired one round at the girlfriend and made threats to hurt her family, including killing her son Josh Jackson and her 9-year-old grandson the 9 yo boy.

So it sounds like Jackson knew Vigil was a dangerous scumbag who would eventually come after Jackson and his kid. Maybe Jackson already knew about the shot Vigil took at Jackson's mom.

So Jackson was ready for him, tried to use non-lethal force, gave verbal warnings, and only then used lethal force. This is the system working.

We don't have to agree on guns in the home, etc. Just remember, those of us who don't believe in it, may someday live to thank those of us who do believe in it.

Now, back to our debate in progress!
 
2006-03-28 05:28:55 AM  
LA270Hunter ,

Also from Corbon's website - Glaser blue-tip safety slug data:

9 MM +P 80 GR. 1650FPS/484FTLBS

45 ACP +P 145 GR. 1350FPS/587FTLBS

From Black Hills' website:

.45 ACP
230 Gr. Jacketed Hollow Point+P
Velocity 950 FPS
Energy 460 Ft. Lbs.

9mm Luger
115 Gr. EXP (Extra Power) JHP
Velocity 1250 FPS
Energy 400 Ft. Lbs.

Might want to also check out the Taylor Index, which is commonly used by big game hunters as a measure of "stopping power":

Taylor Index = (Mass of bullet (grains) / 7000 )x Velocity (feet/second) x diameter (inches)

Let's take your fastest, nastiest 9mm load, 'kay?

(115 gr/7000) * 1350 fps * .354 in = 7.85

Now, let's compare those 230 gr JHPs:

(230 gr/7000) * 950 fps * .452 in = 14.11

Energy in foot-lbs is not the be-all, end-all measurement of how effective a cartridge is. Size of the wound channel is a big deal. For that matter, the 1.1% to 1.5% improvement in kinetic energy that you're citing is so small as to be essentially irrelevant in claiming that the 9mm is so superior to the .45 ACP. Citing where you're getting your statics on improved penetration by 9mm would be handy, too, in backing up your claims.

Does this mean that .45 ACP is superior overall to 9mm Luger? No, of course not. Again, it depends on the load. If I'm looking for a safety slug, obviously that .45 ACP is notably better. Some of the new 9mm loads handily outperform your average .45 ACP defensive load, simply because the thin cartridge walls on a .45 can't take as much powder.

I chose to go with .45 ACP, in a double-stacked 1911, because I liked the 1911-pattern pistols, because my choice defensive ammunition means that the .45 ACP equals or outperforms comparable 9mm loads, and because, either way I go, I'm limited to 10 rounds, since I live in California. There will be no high-cap magazines for me, so the fact that you can put 18+1 rounds into your 9mm semi-auto where you live, or when you're in the field, doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

Of course, .40 S&W makes both of us look like we're shooting .22 LR. ^_^

/would prefer to be using my Mosin-Nagant 91/30 Dragoon for defense
//only have one direction with sufficient backstop - the canyon wall 50 yards to my north.
 
2006-03-28 06:28:04 AM  
I'm glad I don't live near to any of you nuts, guns are bad news, always have been, in this situation you all seem to think that the intruder dying is good, so why don't you execute robbers? And why do you condemn Arab states for chopping the hand from someone that steals ? If there was no guns (or significantly less) like the UK, then noone would have been shooting everyone would be alive and the insurance would replace anything that was stolen. Imagine the shootout killed a kid or pregnant mother... not worth the risk if you ask me.
 
2006-03-28 06:45:55 AM  
Here in Maryland "The Free State", you are actually obliged to Retreat from an Intruder in your own home!

Holy crap. Many states not only say it's "okay" to shoot someone who is in your home, they are also introducing (or have passed) "stand your ground" legislation (pops) where you can use deadly force if your life is threatened in a public place.

And whoever said that a 9mm round had to be twice as fast to have the same energy as a .45 round because it's half the weight, YOU don't know wft you're talking about.

Energy = 1/2 m v^2

v has a MUCH LARGER effect on energy than m
 
2006-03-28 07:17:49 AM  
StevieWonder_DrivingInstructor: That may be a misapplication of that formula, because if its designed for big game hunters it is likely they're calculating for ball ammunition, not JHP. Since the diameter of the bullet is a major part of the equation, that would throw your numbers off significantly. If you caclulate for both *expanded JHP* 9mm and .45, things come out a little differently (although it still :

[i ran this one even though 115gr is pretty light for 9mm - expansion is estimated from FBI performance data for high quality 9mm 115gr JHP]
(115gr/7000) * 1350fps * .60" = 13.3

[this is my preferred defense load, winchester ranger sxt +p+, also known as the black talon, in 127gr. which is the most common and seemingly preferred by shooters, data comes from Winchester's 2005 Law Enforcement Catalog, pp.19]
(127gr/7000) * 1250fps * .68" = 15.4

[your figures for .45, along with expansion data gathered from FBI statistics for high quality .45ACP 230gr JHP]
(230gr/7000) * 950fps * .68" = 21.2

So...there's significant variance possible depending on your preferred load, as you mentioned. But how reliable is this formula? According to the table listed on the link you posted, anything scoring under a "17" is unsuitable for white tail deer. However, white tail deer are widely considered to be very similar to humans in terms of required stopping power, and I don't think anyone here is arguing that Ranger SXT +P+ isn't a decent manstopper.

So what gives? As you say, this formula is for the big game hunter, and just from looking at the calculations above, its clear that heavy emphasis is placed on bullet mass. Perhaps too much emphasis for pistol calibers? As you say, isn't permanent wound channel the real measure of a round's effectiveness provided that it successfully penetrates in the first place?

My sincere condolences on being a gun enthusiast living in california, btw. ;)

/just friendly discussion
//not calling anyone dumb
///cuz the antis are gone now ;)
 
2006-03-28 07:23:45 AM  
megram
I'm glad I don't live near to any of you nuts, guns are bad news, always have been, in this situation you all seem to think that the intruder dying is good, so why don't you execute robbers?

Lemme freak you out a little bit more: I'm against the death penalty altogether. I do not see this as contradictory at all to my resolve to defend my life (or that of my family) with lethal force if necessary. A robber, or a murder, in the custody of law enforcement is no risk to me. It isn't kill or be killed, then. In the situation discussed in the article, however, it most certainly was. The assailant was armed and pursued the family members even when they fled and locked themselves in another room, clearly he was there for more than just a television set.

Are you telling me that if you had your 9 year old huddled in the corner next to you, and an armed nutcase banging at your door intent upon doing you both bodily harm, you would...what, let them? Because the only other option available to you in that situation is to employ lethal force yourself.

And yes, if there were no guns in the world, it would be a safer place. Until the first criminal figured out how to make or obtain a gun. Then it wouldn't be very safe at all.
 
2006-03-28 07:48:10 AM  
2006-03-28 07:17:49 AM mrexcess

So what gives? As you say, this formula is for the big game hunter, and just from looking at the calculations above, its clear that heavy emphasis is placed on bullet mass. Perhaps too much emphasis for pistol calibers?


Quite possibly.


As you say, isn't permanent wound channel the real measure of a round's effectiveness provided that it successfully penetrates in the first place?


Pretty much, yeah. However, it's pretty much the only formula I'd seen that factored in bullet mass, diameter and kinetic energy. Most often, when I hear people talk about ballistics, without talking about their performance in ballistic gel, I hear kinetic energy cited as the be-all and end-all, as if nothing else matters, yet we all know expansion and the size of the wound channel is important - after all, nobody would use JHPs if it wasn't, right?


My sincere condolences on being a gun enthusiast living in california, btw. ;)


Dude, you have no idea. I'm just glad I'm in San Diego, rather than, say, San Francisco. It's nowhere near as hostile to gun ownership down here, whether we're talking about the populace, the politicians, or the police.
 
2006-03-28 08:06:58 AM  
StevieWonder_DrivingInstructor: True...I lived in the Sacto area for a short time, and spent my share in the bay area too, but I got out before the reality fully sunk in. Beautiful land, plenty of cool people, and a government as close to fascism as I ever wanna get...
 
2006-03-28 08:36:40 AM  
LA270Hunter:

Lorelle
You just need to stfu. You can whine and pull your hair out..and screan, and cry all you want. You and your ilk will NEVER succeed in removing firearms from the hands of law-abiding citizens. All the arguements you make are pointless because it will simply NEVER happen.


Good. that's what I like to hear.
Maybe I'm not alone.

Frankly I think you are going to use your superior knowledge and skills to kill me and everyone like me when you get the order.

LOL! And what leads you to THIS conclusion?

I think I remember you posting some military squad style pics of you. in Yugoslavia, "our" military did not hesitate to disarm and kill the Christians there, and they did not hesitate to disarm and make helpless the AMERICANS in New Orleans after the flood.

So I no longer trust or love "our" military, it would be nice if some few of them do still love my freedom, if you do I salute you, and I'll stand beside you if/when the time comes.
 
2006-03-28 08:46:31 AM  
Big Al: The national guard is the correct term for well regulated militia.

What an imbecile.

National Guard are the guys who were stealing the guns from the actual people in New Orleans.

The actual people are supposed to be the militia.

The National Guard are the redcoats, the ones activated by the National government, commanded by the government, and the ones to be feared as tyrants. (or whatever you want to call the people who come and break into your house, randomly steal your stuff with impunity, and disarm you with superior force and violence under orders of the tyrant.

No need to wonder whose side you are on.

As for me i will stand with the people, gladly against you, anybody you can order and bring agaisnt me. Your stupidity and your lies are the weakest of your weapons
 
2006-03-28 09:44:24 AM  
LocalCynic
I may be posting a bit too late for you to see this, but I'm saying it anyway. Sorry if somebody else said it first.

*ahem*

You are not merely espousing your views, you are a troll. The guy was breaking into a house where a man and his 9-year old son were, and he had a gun. The homeowner had a gun, and due to the types of guns he used, they were probably for hunting purposes. The homeowner kills the intruder, and the farkers in here are glad that the homeowner and his son are safe, and the bad guy (who, due to the nature of his beef with them was probably going to kill them, not just scare or rob them) got killed. Sure, there are some farkers here who are probably glad that someone got killed, but enjoying guns and enjoying the fact that someone is now safe as a result of owning a gun does not make the majority of people in here either a)idolters, or b)homocidial maniacs.

You make the rest of us Christians look bad. STHU.
 
2006-03-28 10:58:29 AM  
2006-03-28 04:35:48 AM LA270Hunter


90% of the time during operations, I carried an HK MP5 in 9mm loaded with JHP ammunition. On a few occsions, a few of us were issued a G3A3.

Fun Fact: We had a choice of personal primary weapons. The UMP45 or the MP5. After 2 missions, 95% of us were using the MP5 because the 45ACP round often took 7-8 hits to drop an attacker.


Didn't you say in another thread that none of you were allowed to carry a .45?? That you had never heard of it? And now you're saying that you had a choice of weapons, and attackers walked after being shot 7 or 8 times with a .45?? That's something I've never heard of before. Hmmm....I smell cheetos in the basement.
 
2006-03-28 12:29:58 PM  
The only .410 I want is the Taurus .410/.45 revolver. If the moron doesn't get the point after the .410, the follow-up .45 will drive the point home for sure!

Taurus 4410TrackerB pops
 
2006-03-28 03:55:36 PM  
And yes, if there were no guns in the world, it would be a safer place. Until the first criminal figured out how to make or obtain a gun. Then it wouldn't be very safe at all.

Or until somebody came along who was physically stronger than you are, and decided to beat the crap out of you or rape you and keep you as a slave or whatever. Guns are the great equalizer. that's why an 80 year old granny with a pistol (who knows how to shoot) generally beats a 30 year old biker without a gun.
 
2006-03-28 04:00:25 PM  
and attackers walked after being shot 7 or 8 times with a .45?? That's something I've never heard of before.

I concur. Every time I ever shot somebody with a .45, they went down quite quickly, and I never used more than three rounds on them. I suppose that if you shot somebody in the same foot 7-8 times with a .45 it wouldn't kill them, but who would do that?
 
2006-03-28 04:34:52 PM  
LA270Hunter wrote: First of all, if you carried the gun on you, you wouldnt have to worrry about someone stealing it from your apt. Second, if they are able to take it out your HANDS and shoot you with it, then you were too stupid to shoot sooner.

If someone grabs me around the neck from behind and shoves a gun in my back, how would I be able to shoot him?

How does one defend oneself from a freeway sniper who's firing at them from behind or from the other side of the freeway?

I'm not one of those who erroneously believes that owning a gun somehow makes one immune to criminal attacks. The homeowner in this situation was attacked despite owning a gun, correct? And what about the kid who last year killed 9 people, including his grandfather, several schoolmates, and himself? The grandfather owned several guns; none of them protected him from his murderous grandson.

Guns are no less safe than ANY ordinary can opener.

Are you serious?!? How many can openers are capable of firing bullets? How often are can openers used to commit crimes and kill people?

No wonder the rest of the world views Americans as a bunch of ignorant, gun totin' yahoos.

By your posts, I am going to assume from now on that you are a Democrat, a lesbian, and a pacifist.

I knew that one of you would eventually resort to personal attacks. Typical.

For the record: 1) No. Never have been, and never will be. 2) No. BTW, all of the lesbians I know own guns. 3) Depends on the situation.

I think that pretty much sums you up, and gives everyone wasting their time responding to you a good picture of why people like you will ALWAYS be victims. Hell, you already WERE a victim..TWICE.

Thoughts come from not knowing. BTW, why are you "wasting your time" with me? Shouldn't you be outside frolicking with your guns??

As for being a rape victim twice, as I stated earlier, I was 4 the first time, and 19 the second. The first time was my fault because I didn't insist that Daddy buy me a pink gun as well as a teddy bear so I could defend myself against a neighbor. The second time was a case of date rape, which of course was my fault again, since I had the nerve to go out on a date without carrying a gun. Riiight.

According to the comments posted by the gun nuts here, women who carry guns with them on dates are psycho, and women who don't carry guns are stupid. Hmmm.

Did your wife carry a gun with her the whole time you were dating? Does your wife sleep with her gun? If she doesn't, she's incredibly stupid, because all men, including her husband, are capable of raping women.

Just using your logic, dude.

The difinition of stupid is knowing better, but doing it anyway. You are WELL beyond stupid.

LOL! The guy who can't spell "definition" nor define the word "stupid" correctly is calling ME stupid!

Pussies like you keep people like ME and MY wife safer.

*Yawn* The old "you-don't-own-guns-like-I-do-so-you're-nothing-but-a-vagina" argument. It's not very convincing when you use that against a woman. Let me know when you're able to come up with something more original.

You're not much different from CanSomeonePleaseKilltheChristmasShoes, who thinks it's funny when unarmed people get shot.

And you wonder why those of us who aren't obsessed with guns view you gun-worshipping people as being nuts?? Your posts merely serve to prove my point. Thanks for playing.
 
Displayed 50 of 555 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report