Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[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.