Slashdot Mirror

I read the Gary Kleck piece and he seems to be pretty biased and actually narcissistic in his presentation.

Hmm, then I apologize for choosing a poor link to use. What I got out of that is "for two decades I have been hearing the same criticisms and none of them are invalid" and I guess what you got from it is "narcissistic".

Better then would be to read his actual book. http://www.amazon.com/Point-Blank-Guns-Violence-America/dp/020230762X The American Society of Criminology awarded Professor Kleck the Hindelang award for this book.

And the other URLs you gave are obviously from pro-gun sites so I didn't go there.

Perhaps you didn't realize it, but the Kellerman study was published in an obviously anti-gun publication.

Also, Arthur Kellerman has been a member of at least one anti-gun organization. (The latter link is to an obviously pro-gun web site, but it reproduces a letter to the editor published in a medical journal by a doctor. The doctor is an obviously pro-gun doctor, but he is providing evidence that Kellerman is an obviously anti-gun doctor, and I don't know how I would go about finding a completely unbiased source you would accept who has taken the trouble to research Kellerman and report on his membership in anti-gun organizations.)

Finally, here is a book I recommend: it thoroughly covers the statistics around violence and gun ownership. It concludes that cultural factors are much more important in violence than the number of available firearms. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy

It's scientists trying to deal with an illness and its causes, rather than folks who started with a point and then used Polya's tactics to justify it.

Oh, really? I have provided multiple links to you showing that Kellerman's study was structurally unsound. We cannot put error bars on its conclusions, it had a small sample size, and it only counted defensive uses of a firearm if they resulted in a dead body (which drastically under-counts defensive uses). Even if you believe that it was intended as an unbiased study, its flaws render its results useless.

Also, its predictions have not been borne out in the following two decades. I have provided evidence for you that the number of guns in the USA rose dramatically since the publication of the Kellerman study, while shootings of all kinds (accidental and intentional) declined dramatically. I am not going to claim that the drastic increase in guns caused the decline in shootings; but pretty clearly if a gun is 43 times more likely to hurt you than to be a benefit, the drastic increase in guns should have been correlated with a drastic increase in harm.

Here's a reference that presents these facts. This Economist article has graphs that show firearms deaths declining drastically since the early 1990s at the same time that the number of firearms in the USA dramatically increased. (By the way, the article ends with a sentence saying that the link between guns and violence "is obvious" despite the clear evidence to the contrary presented in the article. I doubt they cherry-picked any data to try to make firearms look less dangerous.)

Finally, if it is unbiased research you want, I recommend you read the Wright/Rossi/Daly book. The Carter administration funded research into gun control, and Wright and Rossi engaged in the research expecting to prove that gun control prevents violence. Their research showed the opposite, and changed their minds on the subject.

The mistake you make is thinking that such an intelligent idea would be used by a group of people who think that holding a handgun sideways is a good thing.

Hah!

You clearly haven't seen the Homeboy Sights from Birdman Weapons Systems (Your friend in tha Ghetto®)
http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/glock-gag.html

HTH, HAND.

-RG.

One is trying to kill and injure/maim the enemy when shooting at them, or employing AP mines, or any number of other activities. Wounding an enemy is acceptable, provided the wound doesn't cause _unnecessary_ suffering. There is plenty of _necessary_ suffering inherent in combat.

Fun read debunking popular bullet myths:

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

"Where the U.S. did sign on, however, was with the Hague Convention IV of 1907, Article 23(e) of which Annex states:

        "...it is especially forbidden -

                        To employ arms, projectiles, or material{sic} calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"

The bullets were never intended to fragment, such round are prohibited, that's why we use jacketed slugs.

I don't know your level of experience in the matter--however, not to be blunt... You're wrong, on a few counts.

The reason .223 / 5.56 NATO was ever an attractive solution was fragmentation. Without it, this ammo couldn't be satisfactory under any circumstance. I've read analysis after analysis, written by people with letters after their names, a few of whom were graduates of a war college. They all agree, 100%.

As to this fragmenting feature being prohibited, this is also a myth. The relevant section of the Hauge convention: "The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions." We're not really a party to it, but we stupidly go along with it anyway, for NATO commonality purposes.

evidence: Even for 7.62mm OTM (open tip match) bullets, which go one step further, and actually do have an opening in the tip of the jacket, was approved by the Army JAG for combat use.

Your green tip ammo, however, fits the above description to a T, but the fact is: at short range and high velocity, it will often yaw (tumble) and proceed to fragment in soft tissue, creating a much larger wound than otherwise possible for the caliber. I've shot pigs with M193 (55gr copper tip), and the destruction can be pretty surprising, and the bits of bullet can be tough to track down. Without fragmentation as a primary wounding mechanism, 5.56 NATO would be next to useless... The Russian version of this design philosophy (5.45x39) even has a void at the tip which helps the bullet to yaw, making it fragment more readily.

Thirdly, the penetrator in your issued green tip ammo (M855) is steel, not tungsten. If you don't believe me, take a magnet to it. Every other NATO member calls it SS109, and yeah it's everywhere. It was designed for future wars (with real armies), where the brass assumed the enemy would be wearing armor. The problem is, it sacrifices a lot of fragmenting ability to be an armor penetrator.

That's the reason for Mk 262, 77gr OTM ammo. Even though it actually shoots a bit slower, it extends the fragmentation envelope considerably, especially compared to M855 from M4 length rifles. It really should be in greater circulation. It's a better bullet for the war we're in, and it's crazy accurate. I understand the special forces guys love it.

Third with proper shot selection, the M4 is just as accurate as the M-16, some would say even more so as it's stock length can be adjusted to the user

You won't find me argue against this point. You're right. I shoot long distance matches, and barrel length alone really doesn't have much to do with accuracy. Actually, short barrels are intrinsically stiffer, and can actually have better physical repeatability, all else being the same. If a rifleman can anticipate the greater bullet drop caused by reduced velocity, he should shoot just as well.

He was propagating a popular myth. :)

John Browning's .50 BMG "Ma Deuce" has been lawfully composting enemy troops for nearly a century. It certainly doesn't cause "unnecessary suffering" as it is much more likely to be immediately fatal.

Some general background on similar myths:

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

More info. The ICRC, being anti-US, objects to API variants on a technicality:

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/522209

"However, the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's office has issued a legal opinion that the .50 BMG and even the Raufoss Mk 211 round are legal for use against enemy personnel."

"Like China, authoritarianism works on a population accustomed to it and enjoying a rapidly rising standard of living.">

This is surely incorrect. The USSR functioned for almost seven decades. The people of the Ukraine clearly had a falling standard of living as Stalin starved them but failed to successfully revolt or change the system. Likewise in China, the cultural revolution was not something associated with a huge rise in living standards but Communism survived.

Many people attribute Stalin's success in starving the 10 million + Ukrainians to death in the 1930's to gun control laws enacted earlier when the Communists came to power, and the success of the Chinese Cultural Revolution to the previous government's gun control laws enacted over ten years earlier. If you have guns and the population doesn't, then it doesn't matter whether their standard of living is rising or falling.

FOR gun control; Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin

"For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!"

-- Adolf Hitler, 1935

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

Adolf Hitler, 1941

AGAINST gun control; Mahatma Gandhi

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

-- Mahatma Gandhi (he was against violence, but appreciated the ability of the gun to deter violence - the British did not treat the Indians well at all)

something to be said for keeping guns off planes in general; a belligerent idiot with a gun in an enclosed space like a plane is pretty bad even if they're not a terrorist.

checkout http://www.thegunzone.com/fam-lawman/fam-qual.html So 1) a single gunshot wouldn't cause much harm even if it did penetrate the hull http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2004/01/mythbusters_explosive_decompre.html 2) the bullets used by marshals can't penetrate the hull 3) required training ensures marshals won't miss. 4) why bother with a gun on a plane, when guns have the advantage in larger areas, a knife would be way more affective if victim count is the goal (noiseless, less traces, easier to hide, etc) and when you can get closer to your target (Marshals don't have the element of surprise to get close to the targets, so they may need the reach of a gun)
Guns are good when you have specific targets, but for mass killing and terrorism they can be used, but with a little imagination many other options are more efficient, cheaper, easier to hide, etc. So I disagree a guy trained with a knife would be much more devastating than a small gun in a plane, I agree neither could take control anymore. (although a lunatic is more likely to get lucky, once, with a gun)

Link http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html/

From 2001
http://www.thegunzone.com/fam-lawman/fam-qual.html
Probably Pay band G salary. Higher grades do investigation and other duties.

Call it 75K after benefits.

that works out to about 30 an hour. Air flight that take for hours would be an addition of 120 + overhead So if you ahve 60 seats, two bucks or so a ticket.

I think even an 10% cost hike would be well worth it.

Plus you will need to pay fewer people for gate security.

Erm, I'd like to see a source on that. Even if you blew somebody's hand off, I still doubt that you'd have 95% chance of killing them. You don't need to be a brain surgeon to put on a tourniquet.

That said, Glaser Safety Slugs are pretty good ammo, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them for home defense if you want to use a handgun (my first recommendation would be a shotgun for most people, though).

But this whole argument is a bit silly -- the idea that firing a handgun into an airplane window will cause the entire thing to explode out and decompress the cabin is pure Hollywood. You could punch several bullet-sized holes in a modern airliner without a catastrophic pressure decrease, certainly without any sort of structural failure because of the air movement. According to one pilot, you could blow out several whole windows and still maintain pressure.

You are correct.

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

The statement regarding the 50 BMG is an urban legend, and that round is not more prone to "collateral damage" than other rounds.
Once fired, it does not lie in wait like a mine or CBU bomblet. The projectile, if it misses the target, is just more battlefield debris.

Hate on the US all ya like, but please bring facts to the table.

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

I defy anyone to demonstrate a logical reason to not use large caliber weapons on the same people one is prepared to shoot with smaller caliber weapons. The object is to take them out of action before they take YOU out, and a .50 BMG does that.

That said, the Geneva Convention ban you mention is an urban legend. A fifty-cal clearly does not fall under any "unnecessary suffering clause". Get hit with one of those and it will likely put you OUT of any misery pronto.

Enjoy:

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

The thing that makes it most offensive to me is not the redundancy, because it's not redundant. It's the inaccuracy. It's not redundant because a magazine and a clip are different things. Magazines have springs, and clips do not.

Well, I like Dubya, it's about time we had a President that didn't change his position to match the current polls. I'm not surprised that Europeans have a low opinion of us, we now have a President that will do something other than make nice sound bites.

Besides, if Europe was really all that, and a bag of chips, there would not be an America. Liberalism is the core of all of America's problems; from oil dependancy, terrorism, welfare, etc. And now, we have them screaming about giving terrorists constitutional rights, rights that only apply to US citizens. Very odd that the Left Wing Democraps would want to give terrorists such access to our courts as the terrorists are not US citizens and are specifically not protected by even the Geneva Conventions nor the Hague Convention (Hague convention which the US is not a signatory to provides for protection of uniformed military forces and use of soft-point, NOT HOLLOW POINT, ammunition. http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html )

We need the Republicans to stay in power and continue hunting the terrorists down and delivering some good ole fashioned Cowboy Justice!

The first two quotes you use both reference the Kellerman study, which has been widely debunked for numerous errors in its methodology. By other doctors no less.

http://www.building-tux.com/dsmjd/rkba/kellerman.h tm

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit/ benefits.html#43times

http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-43.html

As for the third quote, I could list several other causes of death that greatly outnumber gun-related deaths. You're not really making any sort of point there.

Where the U.S. did sign on, however, was with the Hague Convention IV of 1907, Article 23(e) of which Annex states:
"...it is especially forbidden -

                To employ arms, projectiles, or material {sic} calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"

God, +5 informative for this crap?

Crap item 1:
The modern M16 fires a 5.56x45mm NATO round, while the previous generation (original AR15 platform) used a .223 caliber Remington round. The NATO round is a very standard round used in quite a few weapons. The newest weapon in wide use is actually the M4, which is also based on the AR15 platform.
A simple Google of "5.56mm" returns the 5.56mm FAQ as the third hit. This gives some detailed history on the evolution of the 5.56mm round, and shows that the above quote is not accurate.
I also found an interesting advisory on using 5.56mm ammunition in a rifle chambered for .223 Remington.

Crap item 2:
The older 7.62mm NATO round was used in a lot of weapons, including the M14, M60, Kar-98k, and the Winchester model 70. It was very popular, as well.
If by "Kar-98k" you mean the Mauser 98K, its actually chambered for the 8mm Mauser round, which is *not* 7.62mm.

Crap item 3:
The M16 isn't designed to maim, but they are easy to do this with. They are rather accurate, have a good range, and don't do full auto.
The last statement is accurate only for the M16A1E1, M16A2 and M16A4. The M16, M16A1, and M16A3 all have fully automatic capability. See this for more detail.

Yeah, my karma is bad, so its unlikely this post will get modded up, but at least I'm not providing ass-data.

uhmm kinda sorta,

What happend was...

The ammo was steel cored. It was legal to import, but then some idiot decided to make a handgun that took 7.62x36mm (AK round). Even though all the prototypes were recovered and the gun was never really put out there for the public to buy, the BATF decided it was "armor piercing handgun ammo" and forbade the importation or further sale of it.

It was cheap plinking ammo while it lasted. People wonder why I have thousands of rounds of varius kinds of ammo in storage. I tell 'em it's not gonna go bad, and it's never gonna get any cheaper.

http://www.thegunzone.com/762x39.html

wow, over a decade ago!

Wait just a minute! If you don't have a good view of the target (deer/sheep/tin can/whatever) then you have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS TAKING THE SHOT!

That's how hunting accidents happen.

If I can't clearly see it, it ain't getting shot at. Otherwise I could shoot cousin Earl or some dumbass wandering around in our woods. Also, if you can't see it, you may shoot a doe with a fawn, which is a no-no, least 'round here.

Damn, people, think about this shit! Hopefully you were just spouting off, but anytime you pick up a firearm you have got to be careful.

Let's recap the rules for safe gun handling, shall we?

1) All guns are always loaded!
2) Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy!
3) Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target!
4) Always be sure of your target!

(Sometimes they're phrased differently, but the content is essentially the same)

-gandalf23@work

Kerry gets an F from the, he sponsored and voted for many pieces of legislation that I consider illegal and on the road to totalitarianism. He voted yes on legislation to ban ALL CENTERFIRE.

Several bolt guns (centerfire) and pistols (centerfire). Don't you ever call yourself a real gun owner. You know nothing in the fight against the erosion of rights. The plan of attack by Totalitarians is to eat away at rights, registration here, pistol grip there, here there everywhere until everything is black powder, shotguns and bolts. Then they ALL get banned. I would be happy to let them have machine guns, EDs, and other things that are perceived by the public as menacing (however rarely they are used in crime doesn't seem to matter.)

Now that gun grabbing totalitarians are controlling Washington, I plant to get as much NFA/Class III gear as I can possibly amass. I would buy an M@-HB if I could, just to piss you off.

John Kerry gets an F in Civil rights because the NRA give him an F on his voting record. PERIOD. END.

John Kerry is not a sportsman or a gun lover. He is going duck hunting to gets idoits like you to actually believe he didn't vote against guns owners TIME and TIME again (whenever he actually bothered to show up and vote).

John Kerry Wants to Ban Guns in America

John Kerry's Voting Record on Second Amendment and Hunting Issues

John Kerry on Gun Control

Just for balance, the National Rifle Association, based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2002, Senator Kerry was assigned a grade of F based on a scale of A+ to a low of F. Not to be outdone, Gun Owners of America grade him F- (yes, that's a "minus" sign!).

If you can't see Kerry's lame hunting trip as a ruse, you are a complete idiot.

I'm furious with Arnold banning .50BMG guns in California, let alone with the stuns Kerry, Feinstein, Schumer and Kennedy have pulled against gun owners. They are the 4 most ANTI GUN senators today. This FACT supported by GOA, NRA, Voting Records, JPFO, etc. FACTS DONT LIE.

You are a horribly uniformed voter and you will lead to totalitarianism in the USA. You could never be a Libertarian with your communist views on Gestapo like agencies like the Treasury, BATF, FBI and totalitarian LEOs crushing the American people with superior force.

Get this straight, buddy, the Federalist Papers put the framers intent in perspective. READ THEM before you bleat about what the framer's intent was. YOU DO NOT KNOW.

Think of it this way, when the US was born, the weapons what people owned were identical to what the military owned. As time passed, totalitarians and federalists made it so the government can easily crush the people.

You support totalitarianism and your position is indefensible. Maybe when you are being shoved into a crematorium by an Islamo-fascist alive you'll finally realize what an ass you are.

Join the Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership!