Las Vegas Shooting

[Flagg]

Well it’s pretty fucked up that you have a better chance of catching a hollow-point round standing in our nation’s capital than in Kabul.

https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files ... port_0.pdf

This is over what 16 years old, but some basic stats stand out:

1.) Don't be a black male.

2.) Don't be on the streets at night -- "Only about 23 percent of DC homicides occur between 5 am and 3 pm."

Compared to Kabul at all hours and hollowpoint rounds?

I mean I know that “Don’t be a black male” is always #1 on your list, but it’s not relevant unless you’re a racist.

[Flagg]

Well it’s pretty fucked up that you have a better chance of catching a hollow-point round standing in our nation’s capital than in Kabul. Unless it’s a US “private security” guy shooting you. Because if a US Soldier used one to shoot a suicide bomber it would be a war crime.

Okay, two things:

1. Why are you quoting me this? You are now talking about crime and gun-related crime (I guess?). I was not.

If you are remaking on the "polarized" thing, I simply remarking that it has become a Democrat vs. Republican thing, another strict "this or that" topic where you can't really make your own opinion that didn't conform to party lines.

2. Do you have data to back that up? I am honestly curious whether you are making a hyperbole or actually stating fact.

Well I was remarking on the polarized thing in that it’s not a polarized thing. If you ask most Americans about individual “gun control” issues regarding legislation that could be put in place you get a massive amount of overlap in agreement as long as you don’t use the same terminology. So while “Gun Control” may be a polarizing term (the way Obamacare is), actual measures to keep gun and ammo away from criminals and lunatics aren’t (the way the Affordable Care Act isn’t).

Sorry I wasn’t more specific, my right hand is fucked up and posting is difficult with cutting and pasting.

Regarding posting just in general: I thought this was going to be a short term thing with my hand which is why I posted over the weekend, but it’s not looking that way so ai won’t be posting in any argumentative threads after this until this is dealt with or I can actually post without having to retype things 10 times and can cut and paste with at least a mouse.

[TheFeniX]

Yes, that happens as well. But it's far easier to implement measures against such attacks, by putting up proper barricades and minimise the damage. At least one of the attacks in Barcelona was halted by the barricades.

And multiple mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens. That doesn't make it an effective way to fight mass shootings. They can just find other areas that don't concern themselves with barricades. That's why they do "dry runs" or scope an area out before-hand.

Forcing them to change tactics is a good measure. The more difficult things become for those people, the higher the chance of them being found out. It becomes easier to track them and let them make mistakes.

You assume "changing tactics" makes something more difficult as a matter of course. Renting a truck deals with less background checks than buying a gun. Even without a background check, you can track purchases of retail items. It's much harder to track something like sheet metal purchased from Home Depot.

This is why the ban on bump stocks is a bullshit gimmie and should realistically be laughed off as such by all sides. It's also an incredibly effective delay tactic to wait for the hype to fade and just go back to business as usual. So, best case is we ban a piece of plastic and (possibly, but unlikely) spring stocks in general. Then in a few years, they just get unbanned when people forget why they were so bad.

I'm more of the mind this shit languishes in Congress and nothing happens at all. Either way, while I'm not a fan of bump stocks, I also don't feel wasting political capital to ban them is the best use of said capital.

[Dominus Atheos]

Well it’s pretty fucked up that you have a better chance of catching a hollow-point round standing in our nation’s capital than in Kabul. Unless it’s a US “private security” guy shooting you. Because if a US Soldier used one to shoot a suicide bomber it would be a war crime.

2. Do you have data to back that up? I am honestly curious whether you are making a hyperbole or actually stating fact.

He's referring to the fact that hollow point bullets are banned from military use by the Geneva Hague Convention.

[Raw Shark]

Well I was remarking on the polarized thing in that it’s not a polarized thing. If you ask most Americans about individual “gun control” issues regarding legislation that could be put in place you get a massive amount of overlap in agreement as long as you don’t use the same terminology. So while “Gun Control” may be a polarizing term (the way Obamacare is), actual measures to keep gun and ammo away from criminals and lunatics aren’t (the way the Affordable Care Act isn’t).

I'm a criminal, a lunatic, and a responsible firearm owner. What now!?

Sorry I wasn’t more specific, my right hand is fucked up and posting is difficult with cutting and pasting.

I like whacking off as much as the next guy, but there are limits, man.

[Lonestar]

He's referring to the fact that hollow point bullets are banned from military use by the Geneva Hague Convention.

No they aren't. Seriously, go look it up.

Expanding bullets are banned, but the US military uses Open-tip bullets for all manner of longer-range work.

[Formless]

Actually, Lonestar, that's a wrong and a complete red herring. Hollowpoint bullets are specifically cited in the Hague as an example of an "dum-dum" type round, as are soft points, poisonous bullets, and explosive bullets. The US is the only country to sign the Hague convention peacemeal. Specifically, the US never signed the part banning expanding bullets. We only use jacketed bullets because they are cheaper and our NATO allies can use them without violating their treaty obligations. Plus, these treaties have a way of enforcing themselves, as seen during WWII when the Soviets started issuing explosive bullets to their snipers: the Nazi's began doing the same but only on the Eastern front. They preferred if the British and American forces continued following the rules. Our government's refusal to sign that section of the Hague is the reason US snipers use hollowpoints, not because of what is or is not in the Hague conventions. Look that up before assuming our military follows the same rules of war as everyone else.

(however, I'm pretty sure DA misrepresented Flagg to begin with. It seems pretty obvious to me that his statement has nothing to do with hollowpoint bullets per-say, but was a more general comment.)

[Thanas]

If you ask any member of a civilized country if they would be surprised if a mass shooting would happen they would answer yes - except in the US.

It is way past time that the US begins to look at gun control, mass gun destruction and limiting gun ownership on a vast scale.

[SCRawl]

I'm going to stick my head in here just to point out that I don't think that you can treat these in isolation, since it is the fact that they are in opposition as a practical matter.

No, they're not. There are several separate philosophically tenable stances we can take here...

1) "The right to bear arms is absolute." I don't really consider this tenable, but I'm at least going to list it.
2) "The right to bear arms is very important; compromise is okay but it has to be limited."
3) "The right to bear arms is not very important; it can be heavily compromised and that's okay."
4) "There is no right to bear arms, whether guns are legal is purely a utilitarian question based on calculating the harm and good; rights do not exist here to act as precautions against bad, high-volatility systems.

Basically, we can occupy a stable debating position between (2) and (3), but we can't wobble back and forth between (3) and (4) readily. My concern is to settle the difference between (3) and (4), then work out whether to occupy (2) and (3).

(I was kind of out of commission for a few days, but I'm back and more or less lucid now.)

I suppose I just don't see this as a philosophical issue. To me, the issue is one of settling on the situation of least overall harm -- a completely practical issue. In one corner there's the preferences of firearms enthusiasts to continue enjoying the status quo; in the other there's the preferences of all U.S. residents to go about their lives and not suffer an unacceptable risk of being shot at. The question of whether or not it's a natural or important right is, for practical purposes, irrelevant.

Let's try it this way. Freedom of speech is protected pretty broadly, though not absolutely. If we lived in a world in which uttering the word "fuck"* caused injury or death, you'd better believe that there would be clear limitation on speech, and I think it would be well supported in law. Freedom to bear arms is similarly protected pretty broadly, but it's been judged that some classes of arms are just too dangerous for civilians to bear, so they are heavily restricted or simply banned. My position is that arms that are too dangerous are still permitted.

So I suppose my position is just to occupy point 4 in your list, but with a little more nuance: whether or not the right to bear arms exists, it still has to be weighed against the practical issues posed by those who would misuse that right.



*...my entry for the 2017 Rory award for N&P posts

[Zixinus]

If you ask any member of a civilized country if they would be surprised if a mass shooting would happen they would answer yes - except in the US.

Which is a narrative that news media plays into. Not that necessarily makes it untrue, but it is a bias.

[Raw Shark]

Hollow points are superior for several reasons that don't have to do with deadliness. #1: They don't penetrate armor very well, so you're less likely to accidentally kill a cop if they kick your door in while you're asleep. #2: They don't penetrate drywall very well, so you're less likely to kill the cute redhead next door. #3: Whatever you do legitimately hit will die faster, so it's more humane.

[Lonestar]

Actually, Lonestar, that's a wrong and a complete red herring. Hollowpoint bullets are specifically cited in the Hague as an example of an "dum-dum" type round, as are soft points, poisonous bullets, and explosive bullets.

It's an example, however, it isn't specifically banned. Expanding bullets are.

OTP bullets that snipers use are not expanding bullets. That was my point.

If you wanted an example of the US military using bullets designed to be in contravention of the Hague, that would be the Coasties using hollowpoints in their sidearms, although the argument made is that they typically act in a law enforcement role so it doesn't count.

As it is every NATO country uses rounds designed to have a similar cavitating effect without actually expanding, and the Russians went all out with that with the 5.45.

[TheFeniX]

Hollow points are superior for several reasons that don't have to do with deadliness. #1: They don't penetrate armor very well, so you're less likely to accidentally kill a cop if they kick your door in while you're asleep. #2: They don't penetrate drywall very well, so you're less likely to kill the cute redhead next door. #3: Whatever you do legitimately hit will die faster, so it's more humane.

Hollwpoints can be expected to penetrate multiple levels of drywall and still penetrate a person. While it won't go as far as an FMJ, it can go like 14 sheets without complete expansion. That's with 7 or so inlaid sets of insulation.

Drywall is not a tough material and any bullet you can expect to penetrate deep enough to reliably kill/stop a person is enough to go through drywall like it isn't there.

[Elheru Aran]

Yup, drywall is pretty pathetic. Modern drywall, anyway. I don't know what gypsum sheet was like back in the day. Concrete board like they use in bathrooms might be decently tough though.

Now if we were talking some kind of specialty low velocity home defense rounds... yeah, it might not go very far, but nonetheless, one of those Rules I heard a while ago *always* applies-- always expect to penetrate whatever you're shooting at. And that goes for whatever might be behind it unless you know you're shooting at an earth berm. So unless you live in a Hobbit hole...

[Raw Shark]

Alright, maybe I was taught wrong, but I've never accidentally killed the cute redhead.

[Formless]

Actually, Lonestar, that's a wrong and a complete red herring. Hollowpoint bullets are specifically cited in the Hague as an example of an "dum-dum" type round, as are soft points, poisonous bullets, and explosive bullets.

It's an example, however, it isn't specifically banned. Expanding bullets are.

OTP bullets that snipers use are not expanding bullets. That was my point.

If you wanted an example of the US military using bullets designed to be in contravention of the Hague, that would be the Coasties using hollowpoints in their sidearms, although the argument made is that they typically act in a law enforcement role so it doesn't count.

As it is every NATO country uses rounds designed to have a similar cavitating effect without actually expanding, and the Russians went all out with that with the 5.45.

I expected this response. You are playing a semantics game, and I only hope you aren't aware of it. I'm not as stupid as you seem to think I am, because I prepared for this. I was also prepared in case you said explosive ammo is only prohibited from antipersonnel use-- of course, but who cares? For everyone who doesn't know what he is talking about when he says "open tip bullet", read this piece. Basically, a company called Sierra makes extremely accurate ammo that superficially looks like a hollowpoint because the tip is, well, hollow. There is a small hole there. But it does not perform like a hollowpoint in ballistics gelatin, and the company never claimed it would. Far from it. The whole reason Sierra calls them "open tip" is to make a technical distinction between their design and true hollowpoints. Their hunting ammo that has a much larger opening at the tip is labeled as a hollowpoint. They understand that the term comes with expectations, and they don't want to confuse their customers (the military included)... unfortunately not everyone is aware of the intended distinction.

Even without knowing the historical context of the Hague Convention, the examples given for expanding bullets include "[...] bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions." Emphasis mine. That sounds a lot like a hollowpoint, and would definitely include the Sierra Game king ammo that is definitely designed to expand. Indeed, the Game King's cross shaped point is quite reminiscent of historical descriptions of Dum-Dum rounds! Moreover, anyone who has seen the average hollowpoint pistol round knows that they almost always have exposed lead either inside the cavity or sometimes even at the tip. So the Pentagon has always read the text as prohibiting specific kinds of ammo, which categorically expand by design. Anyone knowledgeable about bullet design would read it the same way, and if running a military would approach new ammunition designs with caution for that reason.

The historical context of the Hague clarifies things even more: everyone at the time knew that the treaty was singling out Britain, which is why everyone associates the Hague Convention's ban as a ban on "Dum-Dum" rounds. Reading old documents isn't as simple as reading the text at face value, extra historical information can clarify language that is antiquated or odd sounding to modern readers. Dum-Dum is the nickname of any ammo that came from a certain British arsenal in India, and it manufactured hollowpoints for military use. In fact, its partially because the treaty had political motivations disguised as humanitarian concerns that the US refused to sign that portion. However, the Pentagon has used the fact every other country signed the treaty as a legal precedent, and so has traditionally steered clear of hollowpoints. Because they too understand the important connection between terminology and meaning, and "hollowpoint" means "designed to expand" in the minds of pretty much anyone who isn't being a stubborn ass or a pedant.

And yes, the US military uses the Sierra OTM. However, when they tested it and found that the bullet performs pretty much like normal FMJ, they actually ignored a proposal to modify the design to make it perform more like a hollowpoint. Again, out of respect for legal precedent. However, when I said the US occasionally uses hollowpoints, I was actually thinking of their use by Special Forces under the pretext that counter-terrorism operations aren't covered by the Hague. Because what laws can't you ignore in the name of battling terrorism?

Anyway, can we just not from now on and all agree that a hollowpoint is a hollowpoint if it follows the expanding principle of a hollowpoint? I really don't want to get bogged down in stupid minutia like this. No one does.

[Lonestar]

Geez man, you wrote all that, even said something about context and then promptly ignored that that contextually using a hollowpoint that doesn't expand is not what the Hague was talking about being banned.

It's still a hollowpoint though.

[Formless]

Oh fuck off. You know what you are doing now, and its intolerable. The company does not call them hollowpoints and has not since the 50's, but they do call their hunting loads hollowpoints. Its because there is a difference between a hollowpoint and an OTM. They know it. I know it. You know it. The military knows it. Now everyone knows it, and they can also see that you are continuing to misrepresent the history and intent of the Hague convention based on a goddamn nitpick. Shut the fuck up.

[TheFeniX]

Alright, maybe I was taught wrong, but I've never accidentally killed the cute redhead.

There's a whole lot of bad info and "gut feeling" shit with guns. It's also kind of a "macho" hobby, so there's lot's of morons just coming up with bullshit. And I'm sure Hollywood isn't helping what with them treating Car doors as bullet-proof shields. "Box-o-Truth" may not be the most scientific bunch of rednecks out there, but many of their videos are a decent watch.

As I said, any round capable of reliably putting a person down is going to blow through most normal construction out there. Some people talk big about loading bird shot, but I couldn't recommend that at all. If it was a sticking point for you, there's always rubber 00 Buck rounds. Fire them out of something like this and it will ruin someone's day while also making it a pretty safe bet they'll be alive to feel it in the morning.

Yup, drywall is pretty pathetic. Modern drywall, anyway. I don't know what gypsum sheet was like back in the day. Concrete board like they use in bathrooms might be decently tough though.

Concrete has no resistance to... shearing? force, but has a ridiculous amount resistance to compression? force. I'm not a physics guy. I could stand on a thin concrete pillar all day, but I could snap it in half easily if I were to lean to either side. Concrete building blocks are not an effective way to stop anything but maybe .22LR rounds. I would assume concrete board would put up very little resistance to even pistol rounds.

[Raw Shark]

There's a whole lot of bad info and "gut feeling" shit with guns. It's also kind of a "macho" hobby, so there's lot's of morons just coming up with bullshit.

I appreciate the use of finger-quotes there. As anyone who speaks the language knows, that is not what it means. A man who has to carry to walk down the street for a bag of chips is either in bad trouble or not a man at all.

And I'm sure Hollywood isn't helping what with them treating Car doors as bullet-proof shields.

Oh Hell no.

[TheFeniX]

I appreciate the use of finger-quotes there. As anyone who speaks the language knows, that is not what it means. A man who has to carry to walk down the street for a bag of chips is either in bad trouble or not a man at all.

I could take that swing at some gun owners, but I meant it more as it's "a guy thing." Like how the Desert Eagle is used by X forces to stop trucks running through the gates into military bases because "the .50cal is the only bullet that can crack an engine block." I mean, just think about that "logic" for a second.

People just hear shit and repeat it. But it "sounds right" because Hollywood shows guns doing either magical-amazing things or being completely useless. I mean the whole "Glocks can pass through metal detectors" hilarity was started because of (IIRC) Die Hard 2. And these so-called "cop killer" bullets, was either that or some other action movie. You'd think guys who shot guns for 20 years would know better, but people are weird about shoveling bullshit as long as they can hear their own voices.

NOTE: I have been guilty of this as well.

As for the "I need a gun to feel big about myself" macho guys: IMO (mind you), those guys are actually fairly rare and most shooters don't like them. They are also generally easy to spot because they focus on "wow factor" and tend to load their guns down with the most inane shit like laser sights, optics, foregrips, etc. They're like the kid who comes to a car audio circle-jerk and starts bragging about how Best Buy hooked him up with the Punch Subs with a Sony head-unit: we don't run the guy off, but it's hard to take anything he says seriously.

Also, generally anyone who uses the phrase "on the 45." There are few exceptions, but the popularity of the phrase went bonkers after Modern Warfare 2. It's a reference (and used on certain guns in the game) to mounting optics at a 45 degree angle to your primary so you can rotate the gun for SUPER COOL SHOOTING ACTION.

[Raw Shark]

I'm a personal fan of accuracy vs Big Dickin' G's Swing Past The Knees! Gun control means hitting your target. Maybe it's a compensation thing, I don't know. I've never had a problem there.