Mass shootings at New Zealand mosques...

[rogue06]

Bacon!

Speaking of which next week I'm going to be participating in a bacon tasting survey or test put on by Smithfield and get paid somewhere between $25 and $35 to do it.


Life is good.

[mossrose]

Speaking of which next week I'm going to be participating in a bacon tasting survey or test put on by Smithfield and get paid somewhere between $25 and $35 to do it.


Life is good.

Why the disparity in the payment?

[rogue06]

Why the disparity in the payment?

I can't remember if it was $25 or $35.

But the point is that I'm gonna be paid to eat bacon.

[mossrose]

I can't remember if it was $25 or $35.

I see.

As long as it doesn't mean that the more bacon you eat, the more money you get..........

[Mountain Man]

I see you have been googling again.

A hollow point .45 will shred everything in its path too and it is designed to create a shockwave. Dead is dead.

And here are some videos comparing 9mm with an AR15

Shooting through wood a 9mm does more damage and an AR15 just passes right through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P79pZCByKVs

Shooting at water jugs which probably closer represents a body, the 9MM and Ar15 both do about the same damage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxg8sLIm8SE

Shooting at a pig's head, the 9MM does more damage on the inside and on the way out, the AR 15 does more damage on the impact but doesn't do much on the inside. Leaves a small diameter hole where the 9MM blasted out a large chunk of meat an bone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qFSzuUm9-Y

Does it really matter? Any gun has the potential to kill, even a tiny Derringer that you can conceal in a shirt sleeve. This whole notion that the Founding Fathers never intended to protect one's right to keep and carry really "dangerous" guns is simply absurd.

[oxmixmudd]

I see you have been googling again.

As have you ... what I wrote was from my own knowledge. However, in the interest of full disclosure, Google was used to make sure I was not miss-remembering the data.

A hollow point .45 will shred everything in its path too and it is designed to create a shockwave. Dead is dead.

And here are some videos comparing 9mm with an AR15

Shooting through wood a 9mm does more damage and an AR15 just passes right through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P79pZCByKVs

Shooting at water jugs which probably closer represents a body, the 9MM and Ar15 both do about the same damage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxg8sLIm8SE

A big pistol is very effective at short range ... if you have the strength and skill to handle it.
I have no doubt a hollowpoint 9mm can do a lot of damage at close range. Shooting one accurately requires practice. One of the typical bits of advice given to newbies purchasing hand guns is get to a range. I knew one woman beaten to nearly an inch of her life by an ex she had bought a 9mm to defend herself against. Every round missed him.

Again, you are playing a game of mirrors. The AR15 or similar gun is far more powerful in terms of its effectiveness in a non-close quarters mass shooting. It is more accurate, more destructive, easier to aim and keep aimed when firing quickly and has a large magazine capacity.

Shooting at a pig's head, the 9MM does more damage on the inside and on the way out, the AR 15 does more damage on the impact but doesn't do much on the inside. Leaves a small diameter hole where the 9MM blasted out a large chunk of meat an bone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qFSzuUm9-Y

That is interesting. But not very scientific. You'd need 3 pig heads undamaged with one round from each type of gun shot to precisely the same area of the skull to make a fair comparison. It looked to me like the shotgun was best - as I suggested in an earlier post. The ar15 rounds never even went through the center of the skull. The inconsistencies don't really allow for a good comparison. By the time he shot the shotgun, the head was pretty chewed up which would have exaggerated it's effectiveness.

The vegas shooter did not use a 9mm semi. It would not have done - not firing from his vantage point 500 to 600 yards away. He did not use a shotgun - again no way to do anything useful over a distance of 500 to 600* yards. He used ar15's and an ak47 with fragmenting rounds and tracers along with sites suitable to use with bump stocks and rapid fire. Why? Because that was the best choice for killing a lot of people quickly and in a truly horrific way.


Jim

*oops, so much for lobbing arrows ...

[oxmixmudd]

Does it really matter? Any gun has the potential to kill, even a tiny Derringer that you can conceal in a shirt sleeve. This whole notion that the Founding Fathers never intended to protect one's right to keep and carry really "dangerous" guns is simply absurd.

No it isn't. These guns where out of the realm of possibility for the technology of the day. Again, a single crazed mad man with a rifle could not kill nearly 60 people and injure over 500 more in a few minutes from a distance of 500 to 600 yards in the day the 2nd amendment was penned. Further, to assume the founding fathers where nearly infinitely wise visionaries capable of foreseeing weapons technology 250 years hence is nothing more than fantasy. And they were wise enough to recognize they could not see that far, so we have the capacity to amend the constitution.

If it still makes sense for an armed public to be a true deterrent to potential governmental oppression, or an invading force, then we must adapt that 2nd amendment provision to accommodate for a larger potential population of nutcases willing to use the weapons to slaughter crowds of innocent civilians and for the order of magnitude more power and lethality available to a single crazed shooter with minimal resources in this day and age.


Jim

[Terraceth]

Unless an army wants to wipe out the civilian population, they will have to fight in person, just look at how well the civilian armies have kept our armies in check in the middle east for 2 decades. And as I told you before, it is perfectly legal to own tanks and armored vehicles. You can buy them at government auctions. And again the supreme court has said that self-defense is a valid reason to own guns.

The fact is Jim, the 2nd amendment means I don't have to justify to you what weapons I want to use for self-defense. IF I could get a full auto rifle, I would. I want the BEST weapon I can handle for self defense. I want to stack the deck. And you have no right to tell me I can't. Especially since you obviously have no idea about how guns work in the first place. You are not talking out of both sides of your mouth, you are talking out of your rear end.

I'm not sure why you keep banging on about this. Oxmixmudd's argument is concerning the wisdom of policies, not whether the policy exists. So continually insisting "this is what the Second Amendment means!" is sort of irrelevant on the subject, as it's addressing an argument that wasn't made, or at least I never saw him make it. He certainly didn't in the message you responded to.

Also, it's worth remembering that District of Columbia v. Heller had this rather critical excerpt:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

[Mountain Man]

These guns where out of the realm of possibility for the technology of the day.

So were radio, television, and the internet. So what? That doesn't nullify the First Amendment.

And as has been pointed out multiple times, weapons capable of discharging a high volume of ammunition in a short period did exist at the time even if they weren't in common use, and yet our Founding Fathers chose not to place any restrictions on the citizens' right to keep and bear arms.

[oxmixmudd]

So were radio, television, and the internet. So what? That doesn't nullify the First Amendment.

And as has been pointed out multiple times, weapons capable of discharging a high volume of ammunition in a short period did exist at the time even if they weren't in common use, and yet our Founding Fathers chose not to place any restrictions on the citizens' right to keep and bear arms.

I will not entertain the idiocy that there is some analogue argument as it relates to the 1st amendment and modern communications technology.

As for your attempt to pretend there was any sort of capacity to anticipate both the current societal issues and the raw power of modern firearms like an AR15 and that somehow we can say they allowed them anyway given that clairvoyance, i regard that as nothing more than fantasy.

While i understand that there where some primative attempts at multishot weapons in the late 1700s, these were hardly weapons the average colonist could afford or would find even remotely practical.

Even the gattling guns of the civil war would not be considered a personal firearm. And the first true machine gun was not invented till 100 years after the constitution was written. The possibility of such a weapon being light enough for a child to use, having virtually no recoil. And affordable even by the relatively poor among us would not have been even remotely in their conscious minds.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

I will not entertain the idiocy that there is some analogue argument as it relates to the 1st amendment and modern communications technology.

As for your attempt to pretend there was any sort of capacity to anticipate both the current societal issues and the raw power of modern firearms like an AR15 and that somehow we can say they allowed them anyway given that clairvoyance, i regard that as nothing more than fantasy.

While i understand that there where some primative attempts at multishot weapons in the late 1700s, these were hardly weapons the average colonist could afford or would find even remotely practical.

Even the gattling guns of the civil war would not be considered a personal firearm. And the first true machine gun was not invented till 100 years after the constitution was written. The possibility of such a weapon being light enough for a child to use, having virtually no recoil. And affordable even by the relatively poor among us would not have been even remotely in their conscious minds.

Jim

So you invented a time machine, went back in time, showed the founding fathers an AR-15, and got them to agree with you about restrictions or did you just make a bald assertion and call it good? There’s no way you know how people 250 years ago would react because they could react totally differently than you expect them too. I could easily point out that we are living in the safest time in human history despite the existence of such weapons. Do you have any evidence, beyond an assertion, that they would agree with you vs agreeing that we live in relative safety and comfort and therefore restrictions seem to mostly work just fine?

[oxmixmudd]

So you invented a time machine, went back in time, showed the founding fathers an AR-15, and got them to agree with you about restrictions or did you just make a bald assertion and call it good? There’s no way you know how people 250 years ago would react because they could react totally differently than you expect them too. I could easily point out that we are living in the safest time in human history despite the existence of such weapons. Do you have any evidence, beyond an assertion, that they would agree with you vs agreeing that we live in relative safety and comfort and therefore restrictions seem to mostly work just fine?

I dont know. I predicted your response to this post with perfect precision.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

I dont know. I predicted your response to this post with perfect precision.

Jim

What? That you have no evidence for your bald assertions, but don’t care and will keep pounding your fist on the desk again and again, hoping others will overlook your total and complete lack of evidence? So your evidence that the founding fathers would agree with you is what? I’m waiting because I say they would disagree with you. Prove me wrong.

[oxmixmudd]

What? That you have no evidence for your bald assertions, but don’t care and will keep pounding your fist on the desk again and again, hoping others will overlook your total and complete lack of evidence? So your evidence that the founding fathers would agree with you is what? I’m waiting because I say they would disagree with you. Prove me wrong.

Jim

[Tassman]

You are drifting away from the point that words have killed more people than guns. And that even when guns kill people, it is most likely that words incited them to do it.

No doubt, but the question is what one does about it. NZ has taken decisive action as did Australia 20 years ago. The same cannot be said of the US, where gun violence results in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually.