Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Were killed by a gun that's only purpose is to spray small caliber rounds at close range, which is exactly what it was used for, in a kindergarten.

The fact that there are other ways to kill people is irrelevant.

t's no good talking sense or common humanity to them, IRFrank, they lack the facility or the inclination to understand it.

And yet with all these bright people intent to commit mass murder, none of them take the way you suggest bright people should. I still find it humorous.

Yet the top mass murders events in this country have nothing to do with firearms and I assume you know that including the killings of school children at school.

But it would be so much cheaper to just ban guns Bill

Except that's not really true.

Unlike the serbs of the UK and EU we have a written constitution and beside a court system to enforce it 150 millions arm citizens as backup.

Unlike the serbs of the UK and EU we have a written constitution and beside a court system to enforce it 150 millions arm citizens as backup.

The courts would buckle if a 2/3 majority of House and Senate plus the President's signature said ban guns. Which they could do. Perhaps they would if a proper scientific appraisal of the economic cost was undertaken.

oralloy wrote:

spendius wrote:

We know that the gun industry has saturated its customer base because guns don't become unserviceable very quickly and so it is encouraging a high murder rate in order to expand that base.

No they aren't.

That's no answer in an adult conversation.

You rely on such blurts far too often.

oralloy wrote:

Most people carry guns because they choose to be prepared, not because they are frightened.

That's incoherent.

oralloy wrote:

Not sure. But in any case, it would depend on what sort of gun they were rounds for.

That's an evasion. You must have some idea of the weight of propellant in an average shell.

oralloy wrote:

I have no idea, but I doubt it. Would the air resistance on the rough part be all that great?

It is so great that even the very slight surface differences of a polished all round bullet are what make the rifling necessary.

oralloy wrote:

spendius wrote:

Could you shoot round corners with a bullet polished on one side and rough on the other out of a barrel with no rifling? Like a fast bowler does in cricket.

I have no idea, but I doubt it. Would the air resistance on the rough part be all that great?

Bullets usually rotate like little gyroscopes, and given their momentum, that corner would have to have a really large radius. On the other hand, one barrel of a little derringer seems to defy physics and seems to shoot around corners. I just can't remember which barrel shoots more or less straight ahead.

Quote:

When an officer fires his weapon, he fires to kill.

Quote:

Police officers are trained to aim for "center of mass".

The important difference between the two escapes me.

the thing I find most interesting is that the A2K liberals present the notion that less guns is the one and only solution to gun violence, but it is not at all clear that their peers, the American people, even considerate it the best let alone only solution. Many do believe that more guns is a better solution.

Liberals need to back up and deal with this argument.

condescending sneering is not dealing with the argument, which is all that I have seen on this anywhere but on fox.

BillRM wrote:

An there are one hell of a lot of new guns owners thanks to the best weapon sale person in history Obama.

I wonder if that teenager, who killed the three children, a woman and a men in Albuquerque yesterday, bought the "numerous guns" and the "military style rifle" recently or got them earlier ....

I face ridiculously false assertions far too often.

It's an ideal response for a ridiculously false assertion.

Looks pretty straightforward to me.

There are a variety of shells that could be characterized as an average shell, and many of them have wide differences in the amount of powder they hold.