Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Grinning Serpent]

-just as deadly as center fire cartridges

Remember what I said about you needing to slow your roll and actually read before trying to play keyboard warrior?

I never *once* said that rimfire is just as lethal as center fire. I said the literal, exact opposite. I also explained how a rimfire caliber can be the most deadly caliber, but also simultaneously less deadly (lethal would probably be the more accurate term) than a center fire caliber. Please go back and actually read the posts you're replying to, I *twice* explained to you why that is and how that works.

You're apparently reading a post and then making up your own mind about what was *actually* written and then arguing against that. I didn't suggest .22 was somehow incapable of killing people, just that it's going to be a lot less effective at killing people than larger calibers... which is completely true.

- - - Updated - - -

You're right about .22lr and its lethality, statistically even. Anything that isn't causing substantial hydrostatic shock is just poking holes in people, which obviously can still be lethal, even firing .22lr out of a handgun. Small but fast projectiles like 5.56x45mm out of a sufficiently long barrel at a given distance has a hydrostatic effect when entering fluid which creates a large permanent wound cavity in comparison.

Personally either 5.7x28mm out of a +5" barrel, 5.56x45mm out of my 14.5" build, or my M1014 clone with #4 buckshot (which is practically 27 shots of .22lr at the same time) would do the job. Luckily I don't have to worry about grizzlies where I live otherwise that M1014 would have 1oz slugs.

Plenty of people on both sides don't properly learn the legal and mechanical/chemical parts of firearms, it is genuinely a lot of information to sort through, especially given how complex and nuanced US firearms laws are and the amount of engineering knowledge required for the latter.

Even as someone who owns several .22lr firearms, one of which that can go nearly a whole 500rd box without a malfunction, I still wouldn't rely on it for any reason. Something like 5.7x28mm can do far better at with more energy, reliability, and ballistics. Its still like +$0.50/round in the US but that's better than when I first got into it at $1.50/round.

Lucky Gunner did a video on the fuddlore of "stopping power" and arguments about caliber size a while back, took me a bit to dig through old videos to find it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6kUvi72s0Y

You summarized it pretty well. Below a certain amount of energy, you're just poking holes in things. The flesh of the body expands (like water, because our soft tissues are mostly water) and then snaps back into place. You have to exceed a certain level of speed/energy to overwhelm the body's ability to expand and then snap back into place - instead of snapping back into place, it just tears.

[Gabriel]

Remember what I said about you needing to slow your roll and actually read before trying to play keyboard warrior?

I never *once* said that rimfire is just as lethal as center fire. I said the literal, exact opposite. I also explained how a rimfire caliber can be the most deadly caliber, but also simultaneously less deadly (lethal would probably be the more accurate term) than a center fire caliber. Please go back and actually read the posts you're replying to, I *twice* explained to you why that is and how that works.

So rimfire calibers are more deadly than center fire calibers? Your writing makes zero fucking sense.

You're apparently reading a post and then making up your own mind about what was *actually* written and then arguing against that. I didn't suggest .22 was somehow incapable of killing people, just that it's going to be a lot less effective at killing people than larger calibers... which is completely true.

So if rimfire calibers can be just as deadly as center fire calibers, why should rimfire calibers be less controlled that center fire calibers?

Are you seriously so blind to your own argument that you want to die on this particular hill, instead of just admitting that the type of action of the firearm is the most deciding factor in how much damage a spree shooter can do?

Lucky Gunner did a video on the fuddlore of "stopping power" and arguments about caliber size a while back, took me a bit to dig through old videos to find it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6kUvi72s0Y

You summarized it pretty well. Below a certain amount of energy, you're just poking holes in things. The flesh of the body expands (like water, because our soft tissues are mostly water) and then snaps back into place. You have to exceed a certain level of speed/energy to overwhelm the body's ability to expand and then snap back into place - instead of snapping back into place, it just tears.

You'll die all the same if you get shot in the head with .22 or 9mm and don't get medical attention soon enough.

[BigToast]

Guns for women only. Sorry guys, all the incel male mass shooters ruined it for you all. Time to find another hobby to compensate for what you lack downstairs.

[Gabriel]

Guns for women only. Sorry guys, all the incel male mass shooters ruined it for you all. Time to find another hobby to compensate for what you lack downstairs.

Female please. Just like my penis, the sole function of guns is my own pleasure.

[Elder Millennial]

Guns for women only. Sorry guys, all the incel male mass shooters ruined it for you all. Time to find another hobby to compensate for what you lack downstairs.

I can get behind this.

[Doctor Amadeus]

If every woman who can legally own a gun, learns how to use them my guess is that the questions and misunderstandings about informed consent issues is going to drop like a fucking rock.

I also think Trans and LGBTQIA+ who do the same thing along with EVERY Marginalized group, targeted for death threats and stalking are going to be a lot better off too.

[Grinning Serpent]

So rimfire calibers are more deadly than center fire calibers? Your writing makes zero fucking sense.

Because we've been using deadly in two different definitions of the world. Something can be deadly by sheer number of things it's killed, or it can be deadly by just having very high lethality. Imagine you had a mildly poisonous substance that accumulated in the body and eventually killed people and it was only in very minute amounts, but in an entire town's water supply. It would kill many people in that town, over the space of several months or years - it would therefore be very "deadly." You could also have a poison with an extremely low LD50, which would also be "deadly." You're using the same word to refer to two different things. English is a bad language.

Like I said, the more precise term is probably *lethal.* The *lethality* of something. Being shot with a .223 is a lot more *lethal* than a .22.

So if rimfire calibers can be just as deadly as center fire calibers, why should rimfire calibers be less controlled that center fire calibers?

I don't think ammo control is a serious possibility here, but if you were going to control one type of ammo you would want to do it for all types. Probably only small pellets and BB's would be the sort of thing that wouldn't need controls for.

You'll die all the same if you get shot in the head with .22 or 9mm and don't get medical attention soon enough.

Basically. But 9mm has about 3 times the energy as .22, so penetration would be more likely. There are supposedly reports of .22 bouncing off of the target's forehead - likely a factor of barrel length and distance from shooter to target.

Someone spraying a room with .22 will still be deadly. But it would be less deadly (or lethal?) than someone spraying the room with 9mm, or emptying a shotgun loaded with buckshot into it.

[Gabriel]

Because we've been using deadly in two different definitions of the world. Something can be deadly by sheer number of things it's killed, or it can be deadly by just having very high lethality. Imagine you had a mildly poisonous substance that accumulated in the body and eventually killed people and it was only in very minute amounts, but in an entire town's water supply. It would kill many people in that town, over the space of several months or years - it would therefore be very "deadly." You could also have a poison with an extremely low LD50, which would also be "deadly." You're using the same word to refer to two different things. English is a bad language.

Like I said, the more precise term is probably *lethal.* The *lethality* of something. Being shot with a .223 is a lot more *lethal* than a .22.



I don't think ammo control is a serious possibility here, but if you were going to control one type of ammo you would want to do it for all types. Probably only small pellets and BB's would be the sort of thing that wouldn't need controls for.



Basically. But 9mm has about 3 times the energy as .22, so penetration would be more likely. There are supposedly reports of .22 bouncing off of the target's forehead - likely a factor of barrel length and distance from shooter to target.

Someone spraying a room with .22 will still be deadly. But it would be less deadly (or lethal?) than someone spraying the room with 9mm, or emptying a shotgun loaded with buckshot into it.

Someone armed with 10/22 and 50 round magazine is going to do a lot more damage in a crowd than someone armed with Remington 870 with 8 rounds tube. Especially when the 10/22 takes maybe 5 seconds to switch magazine, while the guy with the shotgun is going to spend a while loading new shells into his gun unless they are an actual sports shooter.

[Grinning Serpent]

Someone armed with 10/22 and 50 round magazine is going to do a lot more damage in a crowd than someone armed with Remington 870 with 8 rounds tube. Especially when the 10/22 takes maybe 5 seconds to switch magazine, while the guy with the shotgun is going to spend a while loading new shells into his gun unless they are an actual sports shooter.

Sure, they're going to result in more injuries. But the shotgun will kill more people.

[Gabriel]

Sure, they're going to result in more injuries. But the shotgun will kill more people.

You are an honest to god retard if you think .22s are something you can just shrug off.

[Grinning Serpent]

You are an honest to god retard if you think .22s are something you can just shrug off.

Once again you're creating straw men to argue against. I never said .22's aren't dangerous, just that they are less dangerous than alternatives. We literally use buckshot or .308 for deer because they're large and powerful enough to reliably kill deer humanely - in one clean hit. Guess what? Adult humans are about the same mass as adult deer.

If you can't manage to stop dealing in fallacies, the least you could do is stop being a jackass.

[Gabriel]

Once again you're creating straw men to argue against. I never said .22's aren't dangerous, just that they are less dangerous than alternatives. We literally use buckshot or .308 for deer because they're large and powerful enough to reliably kill deer humanely - in one clean hit. Guess what? Adult humans are about the same mass as adult deer.

If you can't manage to stop dealing in fallacies, the least you could do is stop being a jackass.

What you don't get is that shooting deer with .22s will also kill the deer. Sometimes it just takes a while for the deer to die agonizingly from infected wounds, or blood loss after it has gotten far enough away from you for you to lose it. You even again admitted to this yourself in your post. We use larger calibers for larger game, because they kill the animal faster.

Stopping power and lethality are two different concepts.

When people argue about what caliber handguns are ideal for self defense, they go on and on about stopping power of various cartridges versus things such as capacity. What stopping power means in this context, is the ability of one or two shots to immediately incapacitate the target. It isn't about lethality per say (though rounds with higher stopping power tend to also be very lethal).

In a scenario where an assailant is high on drugs or whatever, you want a gun with a lot of stopping power, i.e. you want want the target to cease functioning after you shoot them couple of times. Rimfire cartridges lack this stopping power, because they don't deal so much tissue damage to larger animals (humans), but they will still kill the target in self defense scenario just fine. It's just that dying from blood loss takes slightly longer when the holes in you are pencil sized, instead of fist sized, and the assailant is more likely to have time to harm you too.

[Grinning Serpent]

Read a news article the other day. There was a podcaster up in Washington (Redmond area I think) that was murdered by a stalker, her and her husband. Stalker tried to kill her mom, but the mom escaped and called police. Stalker killed himself afterwards.

This stalker was known to them. He'd previously shown up to their house with gifts and had to be escorted away by police. She'd obtained a restraining order, which went into effect on 3/3, and the murder took place on I think 3/15. Richmond police would like to have confiscated the man's guns, but he was a truck driver that lived in Texas - so there was nothing they could do.

But someone I was talking about the article with pointed out that assault doesn't actually require violence, only the belief that you will have violence done to you/intent to do violence on someone. It varies a bit based on jurisdiction since it's not a federally defined crime, but both WA and TX have laws on the books that very clearly state that you don't *require* violence to qualify for assault.

IANAL, but under https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-c...al-sect-22-01/ section A, #2 and #3 very clearly fit. He'd threatened this woman and her husband in the past and was saying the weird, fucked up shit that stalkers so often do say to them. "If I can't have you, no one can" type of stuff. So then my question is, why the fuck couldn't Texas police charge the guy with assault? Or if TX can't charge because it may technically have taken place on WA soil (I guess it depends on if only showing up at their home counts, or if calling and talking about showing up does?), wouldn't that make it a crime that crosses state lines and could therefore involve federal authorities?

This lady did everything by the book. She told the cops, the cops were useless, the fact that she took out a restraining order angered the stalker (as it invariably does), stalker shot her and her husband to death. This plays out so fucking often (comparatively) here. Yes, yes, don't let stalkers get guns, but when you can get a gun from a dude in a Denny's parking lot no questions asked, that's a pretty fucking tall order and I'd like to look at addressing it from a more plausible end. While I personally would recommend "buy a gun and train with it" as one step that she should have taken, you can't have the gun with you absolutely everywhere and if the stalker attacks you in a place where you're not armed or not plausibly able to defend yourself, the gun doesn't help. The gun will help a lot if you see him coming, but it's not some magical shield that makes you proof against harm.

I feel like "make our pigs less fucking useless" is probably the answer, but how? How would we address this through legislation? Would police unions try to stymie it on the grounds of, it makes pigs have to stop abusing Black people and shooting dogs and actually have to do some work?

In a scenario where an assailant is high on drugs or whatever, you want a gun with a lot of stopping power, i.e. you want want the target to cease functioning after you shoot them couple of times. Rimfire cartridges lack this stopping power, because they don't deal so much tissue damage to larger animals (humans), but they will still kill the target in self defense scenario just fine. It's just that dying from blood loss takes slightly longer when the holes in you are pencil sized, instead of fist sized, and the assailant is more likely to have time to harm you too.

In context of a mass shooting, someone that gets peppered by .22's being fired willy nilly is a lot more likely to survive long enough for medical treatment than someone that takes a deer round or buckshot to center mass. You could probably get really high on the total casualties high score list if you just took a rubber band and a bunch of drum magazines full of .22, but I'm not convinced it would be more deadly than someone emptying a shotgun's tube into that same room.

A lot of the statistics going into the ".22 most deadly caliber" involves crimes that tend to take place at very close range (so hitting a vital area is much more likely) and involve people that very often do not want to attract attention from authorities, so medical attention may be significantly delayed. Throwing someone out of a car in front of the ER probably has a less optimistic prognosis than an ambulance ride.

[Gabriel]

In context of a mass shooting, someone that gets peppered by .22's being fired willy nilly is a lot more likely to survive long enough for medical treatment than someone that takes a deer round or buckshot to center mass. You could probably get really high on the total casualties high score list if you just took a rubber band and a bunch of drum magazines full of .22, but I'm not convinced it would be more deadly than someone emptying a shotgun's tube into that same room.

A lot of the statistics going into the ".22 most deadly caliber" involves crimes that tend to take place at very close range (so hitting a vital area is much more likely) and involve people that very often do not want to attract attention from authorities, so medical attention may be significantly delayed. Throwing someone out of a car in front of the ER probably has a less optimistic prognosis than an ambulance ride.

Why do you assume the shooter with shotgun will take aimed shots while the .22 shooter will fire "willy nilly"?

Why is it so hard to just admit that semi auto firearms are better at killing a lot of people in short succession than bolt actions or break open firearms, regardless of the caliber?

[Grinning Serpent]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/shooting-r...ry?id=98045110

A student who was under a "certain agreement to be patted down each day" at school allegedly shot and wounded two school administrators at East High School in Denver, authorities said.

The suspect, 17-year-old Austin Lyle, fled the school after the Wednesday morning shooting and a search for him is ongoing, Denver police said. His car was located in Park County, which is located southwest of Denver, and "efforts to locate the suspect are ongoing," police said Wednesday evening.

The handgun used in the shooting has not been recovered, and police warned the public to not approach Lyle, calling him armed and dangerous. Lyle, who is wanted for attempted homicide, may be driving a 2005 red Volvo XC90 with Colorado license plate BSCW10, police said.

The faculty members were both hospitalized following the shooting. They have been identified by the school district as Eric Sinclair, who remains in serious condition, and Jerald Mason, who was upgraded from serious to good condition. Mason has since been released from the hospital, Denver Health said.

The suspected shooter was required to be searched at the beginning of each school day, officials said. He allegedly shot the school administrators as they patted him down Wednesday morning in the school's office area, which officials said is away from other students and staff.


I gotta wonder, if the kid was considered enough of a security risk that he had to be frisked each day... why was he even allowed into the school? I like the bit later in the article where they said that reducing school resource officers was a mistake so they needed to add more. Like, no, that doesn't solve any problems and in fact creates *more* problems. You'd think school superintendents would be aware of how badly introducing pigs to our schools has been. Leads to a lot of kids getting fast tracked to criminal college...

[Endus]

I gotta wonder, if the kid was considered enough of a security risk that he had to be frisked each day... why was he even allowed into the school? I like the bit later in the article where they said that reducing school resource officers was a mistake so they needed to add more. Like, no, that doesn't solve any problems and in fact creates *more* problems. You'd think school superintendents would be aware of how badly introducing pigs to our schools has been. Leads to a lot of kids getting fast tracked to criminal college...

I can't imagine any policy which would suggest school administrators pat a student down daily. If there's an actual offense, expel the student and get him into a school for troubled teens or whatever, which will have the resources to handle it, including the proper staff for actions like this. If there isn't, hands fuckin' off.

Not saying this was a "good kid", but it was handled abysmally and in a way that probably contributed to his motive for shooting.

Not enough funding for schools.
Shitty training and/or policy for educators.
Far too open access to weaponry, to let a 17 year old arm themselves this way.
This is multiple levels of systemic failure.

[Edge-]

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...hool-shooting/

She said the superintendent said other parents were not told about the safety plan to protect the student’s privacy.

Yeah, gonna be some heads rolling on this one as there should be.

[Edge-]

https://abc13.com/humble-isd-student...hers/12999504/

Humble ISD is supplying teachers with ballistic shields to use in the event of a school shooting.

A letter sent to parents and staff on behalf of the district stated that teachers may use the shields to "delay or evade the attacker until police officers intervene."

Teachers are not paid enough for this shit and our continued failure to address this problem through proper policies and reforms. This continues to be the only nation in the world where there are serious proposals and action on giving teachers ballistic shields because school shootings are such a regular occurence.

Also, stupidly reactionary bullshit.

On Wednesday, a student brought a gun to Humble Middle School. In a letter to parents shared with ABC13, Humble Middle School Principal Jerrell Barron wrote, "The student who brought the gun shared with campus administrators that a threatening post from another student caused him to fear for his safety."

Because armed preteens at school is clearly the kind of freedoms that the rest of the world is jealous of.

[Grinning Serpent]

Because armed preteens at school is clearly the kind of freedoms that the rest of the world is jealous of.

Damn, fast-track him to the police academy with a record like that! He'll fit right in. Adults set the standards that kids pattern themselves after.

[Edge-]

https://www.denverpost.com/2023/03/2...urce-officers/

yeah boi, armed officers haven't prevented multiple school shootings despite being present and the data on their presence in schools largely shows them to be detrimental to students well being and ability to learn without any consistently positive outcomes to balance them out

that's the solution, just more armed officers and guns, because that's been working out super fuckin well so far

surely this won't mean additional funding is needed to provide additional law enforcement officers with these new potential staffing needs, it would be a shame if we kept wasting a ton of money on policies we fuckin know don't work but do just make some adults feel like they've really and truly done something to protect da keeds