To all the gun nuts out there. - Page 3

theweatherman · #21 10-03-2005, 07:05 PM

Yo do realize that responding with deadly force to a non deadly threat is illegal. Hence even if everyone owned a gun and crimials used only bludgons there would be very few circumstances where you could shoot them for simply threatening you with their weapon.

HDPM · #22 10-03-2005, 07:14 PM

"Arn't AK 47 style weapons designed to go right through people?"

OK, you are disqualified from posting anti-gun opinions unless and until you learn something about guns. Clearly the anti-gun people have been successful with their propaganda since you believe stuff like this.

The AK-47 fires a regular rifle cartridge. Less powerful than many hunting calibers. Any rifle cartridge will shoot a bullet that penetrates a human. A 7.62X39 cartridge is different than a nuclear weapon to say the least.

theweatherman · #23 10-03-2005, 07:27 PM

Yes, all rifle rounds will probably go through a person, but these militarially designed weapons are designed to go through a person (maximum penetration of armour etc.) While other rounds ahave the ability to go through a person certain weapons/ rounds are meant to, this makes them far more dangerous.

Im reminded of a story my dad told me. When he was a kid on his farm his neighbor was shot by an errant .308 round from a 1908 (i think, the WWI infantry rifle) springfield rifle. Turns out that the hunter was almost 1 mile away but missed the target. The bullet didnt do much more than knock the guy off his feet, but the possibilities are obvious.

#24 10-03-2005, 07:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, all rifle rounds will probably go through a person, but these militarially designed weapons are designed to go through a person (maximum penetration of armour etc.) While other rounds ahave the ability to go through a person certain weapons/ rounds are meant to, this makes them far more dangerous.

Im reminded of a story my dad told me. When he was a kid on his farm his neighbor was shot by an errant .308 round from a 1908 (i think, the WWI infantry rifle) springfield rifle. Turns out that the hunter was almost 1 mile away but missed the target. The bullet didnt do much more than knock the guy off his feet, but the possibilities are obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think it against the Geneva Conventions for the military to use the frangible/hollowpoint rounds that police forces routinely use.

theweatherman · #25 10-03-2005, 07:35 PM

umm, yeah

police rounds dont go through people beacuse of this, whereas military rounds penetrat far more and go right through targets.

#26 10-03-2005, 07:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yo do realize that responding with deadly force to a non deadly threat is illegal. Hence even if everyone owned a gun and crimials used only bludgons there would be very few circumstances where you could shoot them for simply threatening you with their weapon.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you do realize that the probability of someone attacking with bludgeons greatly decreases when your pointing a gun at them?

theweatherman · #27 10-03-2005, 08:01 PM

Now this could be because I am pretty damn smart, but when Im attacking someone they are not even going to see me. Hit em from behind and thats that. As a bonus to your wallet/purse now I also have a sweet pocket glock in order to kill you with next time. Lot of good your handgun did you.

#28 10-03-2005, 08:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
umm, yeah

police rounds dont go through people beacuse of this, whereas military rounds penetrat far more and go right through targets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so are you saying the line should be drawn at military-style weapons because of the possibility of over penetration of a round hitting an unintended target? Do you think this is more likely than an errant hollowpoint missing it's target and hitting someone else? I'm not trolling, just asking.

benfranklin · #29 10-03-2005, 08:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yo do realize that responding with deadly force to a non deadly threat is illegal. Hence even if everyone owned a gun and crimials used only bludgons there would be very few circumstances where you could shoot them for simply threatening you with their weapon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. You can be killed with a baseball bat, a tire iron, etc. If you are afraid for your life of a threat by someone wielding a baseball bat, you can respond with lethal force.

theweatherman · #30 10-03-2005, 08:14 PM

fear for your life does not create the legal means for responding with deadly force. Your life has to actually be in danger, threatening a person does not count. If you were acutally being hit (with a leathal intent) or stabbed then you probably can shoot to kill. Otherwise you get arrested for manslaughter or murder two.