"Seems like the Berkeley study is saying exactly the same thing as Muller."
You will have to read a bit further than that.
Repeat: the ONLY thing the Berkeley study has done so far is compile records of PAST temperature changes, and that for land only.
Is it consistent with claims of CO2 warming? To the extent that it helps confirm that other groups haven't fudged their historical data, maybe. That's about all.
"But this could take a generation to work through."
It will never get that far.
An awful lot of people understand that freedom of speech requires the ability to speak anonymously (precisely because others will be seeing that speech and judging it). Imagine if the United States were like some countries, in which political dissidence could get you killed or imprisoned for life? Would you dare say anything against the government, using your real name?
This employment situation is merely a small-scale version of the same kind of tyranny.
Several states have already passed laws that prevent employers from using social network content in their hiring practices, or requiring account credentials. I expect soon that will be most states, or even a Federal law.
That may be Muller's own opinion, but that is NOT what the Berkeley study says.
The only thing Berkeley has done so far is to gather their own statistics about land surface temperatures. That data does -- roughly -- tend to support other climate scientists statistics about PAST surface temperatures. But that's ALL it does. So far they have not even compiled ocean temperatures yet... much less come to any conclusions about CAUSE.
This article is nothing but more propaganda. The Berkeley study ONLY tends to confirm PAST, LAND, temperatures. That's all it does. They do not even have the data yet to even TRY to make conclusions about causes.
If you decide to shoot 5.56 as a civilian (as I do), take my advice and throw that military shit away. They were designed to shoot 55-grain rounds, and the 55-grains rounds are MUCH better performers.
That is, to be clear: I was wrong in calling the 55-grain round the NATO standard. It was the old US standard. The NATO round has indeed always been 62 grains. And it is still dumb.
And I see, having looked it up, the U.S. was indeed forced to use the 62-grain round, because the 55-grain round was considered to be too effective and therefore inhumane.
>
So... you were right about the military practices. But I was still right about the ballistics.
"Really do I have to pull out the pictures of my deployments to show you they were green tipped."
Like I wrote above: maybe you know more about what the military is doing these days, but if that's what they're doing, they're being just plain stupid.
I agree that barrel length is an issue. It has a direct impact on velocity for this type of round (unless they want to change the powder formulation to try to compensate, which means even more mechanical changes)...
But the whole point here is muzzle velocity. With a 20" barrel, I've seen an (old standard) 55-grain round go through both sides of the radiator of an old car, through the firewall, through the (steel) dashboard, through front and back seats, and exit through the trunk. That was at 100 yards, not 600 meters. But still.
I've also seen them punch through 1/4" steel boiler-plate "rocker" targets without visibly moving them.
600 yards is a long distance, but I'd be willing to bet that a 20" barrel with a 55-grain round will punch through such a helmet just fine in those conditions.. A 16" barrel M4 with a 55-grain round? Not so much. A 16" barrel with a 62-grain round? Maybe, with that steel insert. But you're going to fuck up your other ballistics so much that it ain't worth it. Making your ammo do one single thing at the expense of all the other things it does is not intelligent.
"It has nothing to do with the steel tip, it is barrel length issue. "
You lost the entire context of the conversation.
I didn't say anything about the fact that it has a steel tip meaning anything about its performance. What I stated was that BECAUSE it has a steel tip, it is NOT a "typical" FMJ round!
And if the current military is mandating 62 grain slugs rather than the old standard 55 grains, they're being STUPID, because the effectiveness of the 5.56 was questionable in the first place, and reducing its energy (and muzzle velocity) by making it heavier is just plain DUMB, and probably the CAUSE of the very problems they're bitching about.
You may know more than I do about what the military is currently doing, but I do know something about 5.56 ballistics, thank you very fucking much.
Apologies. I did write.177 and that was my mistake. What I was referring to was.17... seven thousands of an inch difference. But, admittedly, it's an important difference.
Just a brain fart.
The.17 round is what I was referring to, and it definitely weighs more than a BB or.177 pellet.
But at the same time, it's travelling a hell of a lot faster.
And in case I didn't make the point adequately: because of its higher energy, the.177 rounds penetrate most body armor like butter. It's simply a matter of physics.
Sure, some of the hard armor is proof (like the Dragon Skin) but most people don't wear that, do they?
And, just on the conceptual level, your heavier 62-grain rounds are going to lose out to anything but hard-armor-piercing weapons.
The trend is very clearly away from 55-grain.223 (or 5.56 if you prefer, and not to even mention 62-grain) toward the newer.177 antipersonnel round. It is only a few years old, but it appears to be very effective. (Note: a.177 caliber round is going to weigh even less than 55 grains, but the energy is a LOT higher due to higher velocity, and there is even less recoil).
There is very little doubt that any kind of armor piercing (other than body armor piercing) ammunition will be heavier. But as an anti-personnel weapon designed to incapacitate rather than kill (which is the main purpose of small military arms) and to penetrate any kind of soft armor, so far the.177 kicks ass over the larger guns.
And, just in case that twigs your memory, that's.177... the same caliber as the BB or pellet gun you had as a kid.
"Anything else with 5.56 mm is 855,855A1 62 grain slug."
Bullshit, dude. Maybe where your tour was, for some specific reason. But the vast majority of 5.56 NATO rounds do NOT have a steel penetrator insert, and are not 62 grains.
Just plain bullshit.
The very memo you quoted reveals that the 62-grain round lacks energy (energy being M * V^2), because it is too heavy as an anti-personnel round. (This is well-known. The STANDARD 55-grain slug has much higher energy on impact.)
The 855 has better armor penetrating properties than the "standard" 55-grain round, because of the steel insert, but it has NEVER been the "standard" issue.
Give up, man. You are trying to argue with someone who knows what she's talking about.
And, I should point out, that the 855 will NOT be "superseding" (which you mis-spelled) the M193, because of THE VERY MEMO YOU QUOTED. That memo quite clearly stated that the M855 was inadequate as an anti-personnel round.
" I would say that the lesser quality of gun (no magazine for example) would significantly reduce the number of people that are killed in such an attack"
Dude... IT'S BEEN DONE. And it hasn't made a damned bit of difference. Laws have been passed. Restrictions have been put in place. And they DIDN'T FRIGGING WORK.
Capische? It's already been done... not once, but many times... and it didn't frigging work.
There are records. Over 50 years of them. And statistics. And IT DIDN'T FRIGGING WORK.
Was I mumbling or something? This isn't a big secret. You can access the government's own statistics at the Department of Justice website, if you are smart enough to find them.
A point I was making here, but almost forgot to throw in, is that see, since the debate is about firearms restrictions, you can't just use the overall "unjustified" homicide rate as a valid number to compare to. You can only validly compare the number of homicides that were committed with legally owned firearms.
And while I don't have the exact numbers here before me right now, I can tell you that, year upon year, that number has consistently been very damned small.
"Yet pro-gun advocates sure like to mention the 0.02%..."
Sure, but you're talking about apples and oranges. Here are some basic facts about homicide rates in the United States, and these have held true for many years:
The vast majority of homicides committed with firearms are committed in the process of committing drug- or gang-related crime (and often, those are the same things). Most homicides are not criminals killing "innocent" parties or bystanders... they are criminals killing rival criminals. Just as with Prohibition in the 30s (which led to the first Federal restrictions of firearms), Prohibition in the sense of ridiculous drug laws continues to fuel firearm-related crime.
Most homicides committed with firearms are committed with firearms that are already illegally possessed. Whether they are banned in the area (such as a school zone), or stolen, or otherwise illegally obtained, or in the possession of someone who is not allowed to have firearms, usually because of a felony conviction.
While it can only be estimated, the statisticians say that guns prevent crime by their mere presence, far more often than they are actually fired in self defense.
So... just comparing the two numbers doesn't really say very much.
You may have been shooting them since you've had baby teeth, I don't really care, and I *DO* know what I'm talking about, whether you want to call it a.223 or 5.56 (they are not exactly the same, but they are generally interchangeable).
But the point is: your very own description, as you posted above, says:
"... all SS109/M855 types must be 62 gr. FMJ bullets constructed with a steel penetrator in the nose..."
While lots of other rounds are FMJ, most do not have a steel penetrator. Further, most military 5.56 uses 55 grain slugs, not 62 grains.
"How many people were injured or killed by his commerical guns?
How many people were injured or killed by his homemade explosives?"
Since these "devices" were never actually set off, we have no way of knowing what they would have done.
But I know what's possible, and it's certainly POSSIBLE, and really not too difficult, to do what I described, and it would in fact be cheaper than even 1 good gun.
"Gun ownership is linked to the number of people who get shot, whether suicidal, accidental or otherwise."
I'm not criticizing, but I do think it's interesting though that most people who state this never specifically mention self-defense. It's always "accidents, suicides, and homicides". But a homicide is not necessarily murder. A cop shooting a criminal to death is a homicide.
The Congresswoman who wrote that is NOT a "tea partier".
Further, the treaty explicitly promotes the 2001 UN "Program of Action" regarding firearms:
To ensure that comprehensive and accurate records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons under their jurisdiction. These records should be organized and maintained in such a way as to ensure that accurate information can be promptly retrieved and collated by competent national authorities.
To develop and implement, where possible, effective disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes, including the effective collection, control, storage and destruction of small arms and light weapons...
Note that it refers to "transfer" -- that is to say, sale or trade -- within the signatory's jurisdiction. That means, if the U.S. were a signatory, it would have to keep strict records, and attempt "effective disarmament" within its jurisdiction. No, I'm not just pulling meanings out of the air. That's what the Program calls for, and UN representatives have stated PUBLICLY, in speeches, that their goal is disarmament of civilian populations throughout the world. That is not "conspiracy theory", it's a matter of open and public record.
"There is an important difference between a survey and an anecdotal opinion."
There CAN be. But I dispute whether it is actually important in this case.
Take one of the survey questions, for example:
"And when you think about where you live and work, do you feel... today than you did five years ago?"
43% and 46%, respectively (NRA and non-NRA) answered "less safe". Which people tend to do... but which is not a reflection of objective reality.
Crime in the United States has been going down sharply for more than 20 years, according to Department of Justice statistics. Americans are a great deal safer, on average, than they were 5 years ago. But people FEEL less safe, because of the skewed way the news portrays violent crimes.
Another:
"Support for Second Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals."
There are several questions like this. Note that they ask about illegal guns belonging to criminals. Which makes them stupid or even irrelevant questions... in any case, this group of questions and answers don't support the article author's premise.
Another:
"Irresponsible gun dealers who break the law by knowingly selling guns to unqualified purchasers should be held accountable to the maximum extent of the law."
Haha, tell that to Obama and the rest of the Feds in this administration. Do the words "Fast and Furious" sound familiar? In fact, leaked documents show that it was a deliberate attempt to push the Obama administration's (covert) gun control agenda.
I don't know exactly who the 830 or so responders were chosen for this survey, but based on their answers, I can tell you that they are ignorant of important facts regarding crime and their own level of safety.
Slashdot Mirror
"Seems like the Berkeley study is saying exactly the same thing as Muller."
You will have to read a bit further than that.
Repeat: the ONLY thing the Berkeley study has done so far is compile records of PAST temperature changes, and that for land only.
Is it consistent with claims of CO2 warming? To the extent that it helps confirm that other groups haven't fudged their historical data, maybe. That's about all.
"The U.N. seems to have forgotten history."
See... this is the worst part of it all. They haven't forgotten a damned thing.
"But this could take a generation to work through."
It will never get that far.
An awful lot of people understand that freedom of speech requires the ability to speak anonymously (precisely because others will be seeing that speech and judging it). Imagine if the United States were like some countries, in which political dissidence could get you killed or imprisoned for life? Would you dare say anything against the government, using your real name?
This employment situation is merely a small-scale version of the same kind of tyranny.
Several states have already passed laws that prevent employers from using social network content in their hiring practices, or requiring account credentials. I expect soon that will be most states, or even a Federal law.
And if you think I'm blowing hot air (haha), first check out Berkeley's OWN description of the state of the study, and then check out Judith Curry's discussion of Muller's comments.
That may be Muller's own opinion, but that is NOT what the Berkeley study says.
The only thing Berkeley has done so far is to gather their own statistics about land surface temperatures. That data does -- roughly -- tend to support other climate scientists statistics about PAST surface temperatures. But that's ALL it does. So far they have not even compiled ocean temperatures yet... much less come to any conclusions about CAUSE.
This article is nothing but more propaganda. The Berkeley study ONLY tends to confirm PAST, LAND, temperatures. That's all it does. They do not even have the data yet to even TRY to make conclusions about causes.
If you decide to shoot 5.56 as a civilian (as I do), take my advice and throw that military shit away. They were designed to shoot 55-grain rounds, and the 55-grains rounds are MUCH better performers.
That is, to be clear: I was wrong in calling the 55-grain round the NATO standard. It was the old US standard. The NATO round has indeed always been 62 grains. And it is still dumb.
And I see, having looked it up, the U.S. was indeed forced to use the 62-grain round, because the 55-grain round was considered to be too effective and therefore inhumane.
>
So... you were right about the military practices. But I was still right about the ballistics.
"Really do I have to pull out the pictures of my deployments to show you they were green tipped."
Like I wrote above: maybe you know more about what the military is doing these days, but if that's what they're doing, they're being just plain stupid.
I agree that barrel length is an issue. It has a direct impact on velocity for this type of round (unless they want to change the powder formulation to try to compensate, which means even more mechanical changes)...
But the whole point here is muzzle velocity. With a 20" barrel, I've seen an (old standard) 55-grain round go through both sides of the radiator of an old car, through the firewall, through the (steel) dashboard, through front and back seats, and exit through the trunk. That was at 100 yards, not 600 meters. But still.
I've also seen them punch through 1/4" steel boiler-plate "rocker" targets without visibly moving them.
600 yards is a long distance, but I'd be willing to bet that a 20" barrel with a 55-grain round will punch through such a helmet just fine in those conditions.. A 16" barrel M4 with a 55-grain round? Not so much. A 16" barrel with a 62-grain round? Maybe, with that steel insert. But you're going to fuck up your other ballistics so much that it ain't worth it. Making your ammo do one single thing at the expense of all the other things it does is not intelligent.
"It has nothing to do with the steel tip, it is barrel length issue. "
You lost the entire context of the conversation.
I didn't say anything about the fact that it has a steel tip meaning anything about its performance. What I stated was that BECAUSE it has a steel tip, it is NOT a "typical" FMJ round!
And if the current military is mandating 62 grain slugs rather than the old standard 55 grains, they're being STUPID, because the effectiveness of the 5.56 was questionable in the first place, and reducing its energy (and muzzle velocity) by making it heavier is just plain DUMB, and probably the CAUSE of the very problems they're bitching about.
You may know more than I do about what the military is currently doing, but I do know something about 5.56 ballistics, thank you very fucking much.
Apologies. I did write .177 and that was my mistake. What I was referring to was .17... seven thousands of an inch difference. But, admittedly, it's an important difference.
.17 round is what I was referring to, and it definitely weighs more than a BB or .177 pellet.
Just a brain fart.
The
But at the same time, it's travelling a hell of a lot faster.
And in case I didn't make the point adequately: because of its higher energy, the .177 rounds penetrate most body armor like butter. It's simply a matter of physics.
Sure, some of the hard armor is proof (like the Dragon Skin) but most people don't wear that, do they?
And, just on the conceptual level, your heavier 62-grain rounds are going to lose out to anything but hard-armor-piercing weapons.
.223 (or 5.56 if you prefer, and not to even mention 62-grain) toward the newer .177 antipersonnel round. It is only a few years old, but it appears to be very effective. (Note: a .177 caliber round is going to weigh even less than 55 grains, but the energy is a LOT higher due to higher velocity, and there is even less recoil).
.177 kicks ass over the larger guns.
.177... the same caliber as the BB or pellet gun you had as a kid.
The trend is very clearly away from 55-grain
There is very little doubt that any kind of armor piercing (other than body armor piercing) ammunition will be heavier. But as an anti-personnel weapon designed to incapacitate rather than kill (which is the main purpose of small military arms) and to penetrate any kind of soft armor, so far the
And, just in case that twigs your memory, that's
"Anything else with 5.56 mm is 855,855A1 62 grain slug."
Bullshit, dude. Maybe where your tour was, for some specific reason. But the vast majority of 5.56 NATO rounds do NOT have a steel penetrator insert, and are not 62 grains.
Just plain bullshit.
The very memo you quoted reveals that the 62-grain round lacks energy (energy being M * V^2), because it is too heavy as an anti-personnel round. (This is well-known. The STANDARD 55-grain slug has much higher energy on impact.)
The 855 has better armor penetrating properties than the "standard" 55-grain round, because of the steel insert, but it has NEVER been the "standard" issue.
Give up, man. You are trying to argue with someone who knows what she's talking about.
And, I should point out, that the 855 will NOT be "superseding" (which you mis-spelled) the M193, because of THE VERY MEMO YOU QUOTED. That memo quite clearly stated that the M855 was inadequate as an anti-personnel round.
Jeez, dude. Do you even read your own bullshit?
" I would say that the lesser quality of gun (no magazine for example) would significantly reduce the number of people that are killed in such an attack"
Dude... IT'S BEEN DONE. And it hasn't made a damned bit of difference. Laws have been passed. Restrictions have been put in place. And they DIDN'T FRIGGING WORK.
Capische? It's already been done... not once, but many times... and it didn't frigging work.
There are records. Over 50 years of them. And statistics. And IT DIDN'T FRIGGING WORK.
Was I mumbling or something? This isn't a big secret. You can access the government's own statistics at the Department of Justice website, if you are smart enough to find them.
Haha I'd forgotten all about that old episode. Going to watch it again.
A point I was making here, but almost forgot to throw in, is that see, since the debate is about firearms restrictions, you can't just use the overall "unjustified" homicide rate as a valid number to compare to. You can only validly compare the number of homicides that were committed with legally owned firearms.
And while I don't have the exact numbers here before me right now, I can tell you that, year upon year, that number has consistently been very damned small.
"Yet pro-gun advocates sure like to mention the 0.02%..."
Sure, but you're talking about apples and oranges. Here are some basic facts about homicide rates in the United States, and these have held true for many years:
The vast majority of homicides committed with firearms are committed in the process of committing drug- or gang-related crime (and often, those are the same things). Most homicides are not criminals killing "innocent" parties or bystanders... they are criminals killing rival criminals. Just as with Prohibition in the 30s (which led to the first Federal restrictions of firearms), Prohibition in the sense of ridiculous drug laws continues to fuel firearm-related crime.
Most homicides committed with firearms are committed with firearms that are already illegally possessed. Whether they are banned in the area (such as a school zone), or stolen, or otherwise illegally obtained, or in the possession of someone who is not allowed to have firearms, usually because of a felony conviction.
While it can only be estimated, the statisticians say that guns prevent crime by their mere presence, far more often than they are actually fired in self defense.
So... just comparing the two numbers doesn't really say very much.
But the point is: your very own description, as you posted above, says:
"... all SS109/M855 types must be 62 gr. FMJ bullets constructed with a steel penetrator in the nose..."
While lots of other rounds are FMJ, most do not have a steel penetrator. Further, most military 5.56 uses 55 grain slugs, not 62 grains.
So, no, those are not "ordinary" rounds.
"How many people were injured or killed by his commerical guns? How many people were injured or killed by his homemade explosives?"
Since these "devices" were never actually set off, we have no way of knowing what they would have done.
But I know what's possible, and it's certainly POSSIBLE, and really not too difficult, to do what I described, and it would in fact be cheaper than even 1 good gun.
"Gun ownership is linked to the number of people who get shot, whether suicidal, accidental or otherwise."
I'm not criticizing, but I do think it's interesting though that most people who state this never specifically mention self-defense. It's always "accidents, suicides, and homicides". But a homicide is not necessarily murder. A cop shooting a criminal to death is a homicide.
"You don't attach anything to a barrel shroud. That's an accessory rail."
Talk about not having a clue.
That was true of the OLD STYLE barrel shrouds. Today, barrel shrouds and accessory rails are typically all one piece.
I should know. Not long ago I bought and sold a Rock River Arms AR15 with a 20" full-floating stainless barrel, with a 4-rail shroud.
Yes, I do know what I'm talking about.
Further, the treaty explicitly promotes the 2001 UN "Program of Action" regarding firearms:
To ensure that comprehensive and accurate records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons under their jurisdiction. These records should be organized and maintained in such a way as to ensure that accurate information can be promptly retrieved and collated by competent national authorities.
To develop and implement, where possible, effective disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes, including the effective collection, control, storage and destruction of small arms and light weapons...
Note that it refers to "transfer" -- that is to say, sale or trade -- within the signatory's jurisdiction. That means, if the U.S. were a signatory, it would have to keep strict records, and attempt "effective disarmament" within its jurisdiction. No, I'm not just pulling meanings out of the air. That's what the Program calls for, and UN representatives have stated PUBLICLY, in speeches, that their goal is disarmament of civilian populations throughout the world. That is not "conspiracy theory", it's a matter of open and public record.
"Conspiracy theory", my ass. I know how to read.
"There is an important difference between a survey and an anecdotal opinion."
There CAN be. But I dispute whether it is actually important in this case.
Take one of the survey questions, for example:
"And when you think about where you live and work, do you feel ... today than you did five years ago?"
43% and 46%, respectively (NRA and non-NRA) answered "less safe". Which people tend to do... but which is not a reflection of objective reality.
Crime in the United States has been going down sharply for more than 20 years, according to Department of Justice statistics. Americans are a great deal safer, on average, than they were 5 years ago. But people FEEL less safe, because of the skewed way the news portrays violent crimes.
Another:
"Support for Second Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals."
There are several questions like this. Note that they ask about illegal guns belonging to criminals. Which makes them stupid or even irrelevant questions... in any case, this group of questions and answers don't support the article author's premise.
Another:
"Irresponsible gun dealers who break the law by knowingly selling guns to unqualified purchasers should be held accountable to the maximum extent of the law."
Haha, tell that to Obama and the rest of the Feds in this administration. Do the words "Fast and Furious" sound familiar? In fact, leaked documents show that it was a deliberate attempt to push the Obama administration's (covert) gun control agenda.
I don't know exactly who the 830 or so responders were chosen for this survey, but based on their answers, I can tell you that they are ignorant of important facts regarding crime and their own level of safety.
That's not a typical .223 round. That's a slightly heavier, steel-tipped armor penetrating round.
Apples and oranges.