Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Understanding a little bit of the history of firearms over the last 200 years will provide a better notion of pistol ammo comparisons.

Revolver cartridges are typically leftover from the age of black powder cartridge arms and are bigger, since black powder is much less efficient than modern smokeless powder. Load some of those cartridges with smokeless powder, and you have a weapon suitable for killing large and dangerous game.

The smaller cartridges used in semiautos were developed after the advent of smokeless powder and depend on it; the reduction in size is deliberate and necessary for a semiauto pistol to operate properly. They're made generally for stopping human adversaries and even the smallest of them is generally adequate for that.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

WHAT handgun ammunition
has the best stopping power
for anti-personnel purposes ?

Available just about everywhere right off the shelf... I like a hollow point .45 ACP

Yeah; we have similar tastes,
tho I prefer hollowpointed .44 special from a revolver,
since I 've had too much jamming with automatics.

I take it that u prefer the 1911 ?

David

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Understanding a little bit of the history of firearms over the last 200 years will provide a better notion of pistol ammo comparisons.

Revolver cartridges are typically leftover from the age of black powder cartridge arms and are bigger, since black powder is much less efficient than modern smokeless powder. Load some of those cartridges with smokeless powder, and you have a weapon suitable for killing large and dangerous game.

The smaller cartridges used in semiautos were developed after the advent of smokeless powder and depend on it; the reduction in size is deliberate and necessary for a semiauto pistol to operate properly. They're made generally for stopping human adversaries and even the smallest of them is generally adequate for that.

All of my revolvers have been loaded with commercial smokeless powder cartridges. I don t fire blackpowder.

Your calibration of choice ?

.45 ACP from a 1911 ?

David

1 Reply

I don't care for the 1911, but I do love the Glock 21.
Thousands of rounds fired and not a single jam...

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Of choice??

If I had to buy a pistol starting from scratch right now it would likely be that new Beretta revolving barrel pistol in 40SW.

http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=126608473

http://pics.gunbroker.com/GB/126679000/126679260/pix573780093.jpg

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Nice pic on the bottom. I guess that is an unconcealed weapon.

BTW, why Heller put to bed any support for the DC gun ban, it did leave open, in my view very clearly, the right of the govt. to ban assault weapons.

I think the O administration is going to take a shot at accomplishing this.

3 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Nice pic on the bottom. I guess that is an unconcealed weapon.

She's not concealing much is she?

I agree that O boy's administration is going to take a few shots at another ban.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

He'll find that the horses are all out of the barn when he goes to close that door...

0 Replies

@dlowan,

Hi dlowan -- sorry I didn't get around to working on the scatter graph until now. What I did was to take your data from this post and find the countries that have data for both murders with firearms and guns per capita. (I'm assuming it's guns per 1000 people -- 90 guns per capita is a bit much even for the US.) Then I plotted the data against each other. Here is the result:

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll88/guthobla/stats/murders_v_guns.gif

Three points of caution about interpreting this graph:

Your list contained only 13 countries that have data for both gun murders and gun ownership. For comparison, a popular rule of thumb in statistical analysis holds that serious statistics begins with 20 data points. So we don't have enough data for serious statistics.
Correlation does not imply causation. In particular, just because higher rates of gun ownership correlate with lower or higher murder rates, that doesn't mean they are causing lower or higher murder rates.
Because of these limitations, your data can provide nothing more than a crude smell test.

That said, the smell test is more consistent with the statements of the pro-gun posters than with the position of the pro-gun-control posters. For what your data is worth, high gun murder rates correlate with low rates of gun ownership, not with hih rates of gun ownership.

5 Replies

@Thomas,

You have a much higher chance of death by motor vehicle in the US than you have of death by fire arm.

Pro-Freedom posters support the US Constitution.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Your graph more or less indicates that one out of every ten Americans is killed by firearms every year. At that rate it should only take ten or eleven years to empty the United States of human population.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

........
Might be a good time to turn off the updates for this thread, as I really have lost interest. Glad to have found High Seas' post & responded to it, though.

Thank you very much, Ms Olga, I really had missed your original continuation of your title. I only know you from your thread in support of dolphins and whales - a cause I strongly support - and always appreciated your courteous follow-up on that thread. Having now read your clarification I'd encourage you to drop such appeals in future - you've seen for yourself that all persons posting from the US support the 2nd Amendment. As you appear unfamiliar with the origins of the US Constitution, kindly note it was Jefferson (one of the authors) who observed that if the people are uneducated, then it is the duty of the educated persons to teach the others; that may also address the statistic posted by Thomas about Switzerland, where gun ownership per household, mandated by law, is much higher than in the US, while deaths by gunshot are almost zero. Education and training is needed, not gun bans.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Tks Thomas for drawing the correct conclusion from the statistics, even though your axes (did you mean to make them logarithmic?) are open to Gunga's interpretation.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Your graph more or less indicates that one out of every ten Americans is killed by firearms every year.

High Seas wrote:

LOL Thomas - even allowing for exponential decay, according to the y-axis on your chart our chances of getting killed by gunshot are worse than those of frontline troops during heavy combat <G>

Only because you didn't bother to read the graph. Read it again, please, and direct your attention to its very top. You will find that it says, in big fat letters, per 1000 people. So it's not one in ten, it's one in ten thousand.

Sheesh

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

..........................

High Seas wrote:
.................
Sheesh

Thomas - have you mistaken for Gunga? I didn't write this - so don't you dare "sheesh" what I really did write!!

1 Reply

@High Seas,

I know the quote is a copy and paste from this page, and apparently whoever wrote it edited it while or after I responded. I was pretty certain this was you, but I'll take your word that it wasn't.

But my response doesn't change even if I direct it to what your post currently says: No, my graph is not open to gunga's interpretation -- because gunga misread the graph by a factor of 1000, and his absurd interpretation depends on this misreading.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Ah, that explains it - I started writing a post to Gunga, then edited to address it to you after I had checked the international statistics of death by gunshot. Some intermediate draft must have appeared for a bried second, and you cut-and-pasted it thinking it was an actual post. Anyway, your conclusion from the numbers is the correct one, and it's a mystery to me how otherwise educated people can be so innumerate as not to see it.

PS while on the matter of numeracy and literacy, do you think you could edit your signature line to delete the superfluous "of"? E.g. you can "live off the land", but you only live "off of" the land if you're literarily, syntactically, or grammatically challenged.

3 Replies

@High Seas,

Holy Moley Helen, when you are quoting someone else is it usually appropriate to amend the quote?

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Ah, that explains it - I started writing a post to Gunga, then edited to address it to you after I had checked the international statistics of death by gunshot.

You can't really think anyone is going to buy that do you? Why not just admit a mistake instead of digging a deeper hole?

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Okay -- "reply" and "edit" can be confused with "preview" and editing a draft. It has happened to me, too.

About my signature -- no, I'm not going to edit it. First, it's a verbatim quote. I don't correct quotes except for egregious errors. Second, I looked up the off of construction in Bryan Garner's Modern American Usage (Oxford University Press 2003). Although it labels off of as "much inferior to off", it doesn't say that off of is incorrect. This doesn't rise to the level of an egregious error, which I would correct in a quote.

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know