That? That is my Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator!

Then why are you so comfortable with hopping in a car? A car can do much, much more damage to your entire body than all of my guns put together.

I believe a lot of it comes down to the negative stigma put on guns as opposed to other things that are just as lethal.

 

A very high percentage of the time, this is what it all boils down to. A lot of anti-gun people just "feel" they are bad, and therefore, hate them. I totally understand: I personally think all small yappy dogs should be executed in gruesome ways. I have no data to back up my fears; in fact, the data tends to show that these dogs extend the life of their owners. But still... I just don't care for them.

 

I'll preface all this by stating I am a gun owner, though I probably own fewer than most of the other posters in this thread. I'm not a collector by any means and each one has been purchased for a specific purpose. I live in the country, and I've had reason to call the police before. It took them about 30 minutes to arrive. There's no way I'm trusting my life and my family to them. My house has an alarm but its only purpose is to alert me that someone has entered the house. I'll have to take care of the rest.

You sound like some gun owners I've known. Now that they have a gun, they're just hoping for someone to give them a reason to use it. Your situation is the same; your choice of protection is the only difference.

My wife makes a similar argument about seatbelts. She hates wearing one for some reason - it makes her feel confined and she tells me I'm trying to control her if I point out that she has forgotten to fasten it. She begrudgingly does it because she knows it the right thing to do. When we arrive home safely, she tells me "See, I didn't need to wear my seatbelt." I always say, "Yes, but we weren't in an accident." Sure, you've been to all those dangerous places and you never felt unsafe because nobody assaulted you. They're considered dangerous places because the chances of being assaulted in some manner are greater than many other places. If you had been assaulted, would you have wanted some method of defense, or would you just accept it? Why did you feel safer with a more aggressive dog in the house? Didn't you say you don't feel unsafe where you live?

So true. When Congress decided which guns to restrict under the Brady Bill, they chose the ones that "looked dangerous." They went purely on their appearance, not their functionality. If you're someone who doesn't like guns, then feel free not to own one. I choose to own guns for my own reasons, and I promise not to use them on you unless you threaten me or my family. If the people who hate guns can guarantee that no criminals have any weapons, then I could give up one of my guns. Until then, I'll be keeping it.

 

Most people I've talked to/read posts by who build their AR-15 with home defense as one of their objectives cite the propensity of 5.56mm (M855 and Mk262) to tumble or disintegrate upon impact with a person or drywall, resulting in smaller, slower fragments showering whatever's behind the wall, as opposed to a shotgun, something in a ~.30 caliber, or a pistol round, which have a higher tendency to continue farther after impact with lethal force. The Surefire is viewed by many as a nonlethal weapon, in that it can be used to temporarily blind and disorient an invader, as well as clue them in that a) there are people home, b) the people know that the intruder is there, and c) there might be a gun at the end of that flashlight.

I have no firearms currently. I can barely afford .22LR, but someday I want a variety of guns, some just because they're asethetically pleasing or historically important(M1 Garand, M14, Winchester Yellow Boy, Henry Repeating Rifle, M1911, Browning Hi-Power, P22[x]), or because they might be handy tools for hunting or pest removal (M16 derivative).

 

I'll post it again. The Box o' Truth doesn't lie.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1_2.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1_2.htm</a>

Tumbling or not, those bullet still sailed through 12 boards and who knows what they could do after that. Thankfully the Box o' Truth cuts through a lot of internet talk and gets to the point.

 

Are humans made of pine?


EDIT: According to the FBI, between 31.8 and 35.6 cm of penetration are optimal for defensive use of a firearm against a human. As you can see by the chart, 5.56 stops well short of that mark after penetrating an interior wall, whereas the other rounds just keep on sailing through, more powerfully and more lethally than Scootah after he's received a grazing hit.

 

I would think that the Mythbusters would use either a pig or ballistics gel. I'm a fan of the Box O' Truth guy, but that particular link does not answer the question posed. If there is a version where he shoots through an intermediate wall with some common variants of 5.56 and they penetrate to FBI-desired levels in ballistics gel behind the wall, then I'd love to see it.

This is the PDF from which the image above was sourced:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf</a>

Look at Page 2 for the qualifications of the author, Dr. Gary K Roberts, a Stanford University Med Center doctor who has studied at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory. I would trust that infographic quite a bit. I'm sorry I didn't provide this information earlier, I have rarely seen it cited (but I don't hang out on the big gun forums, so that might explain it), and so had to do some digging.

 

Well they sure test it.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot2.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot2.htm</a>

Is shattering a brick after going through two walls and a water jug good enough? Would you really trust that to be safe with your family and your neighbors?

Spoiler

Fuck no I wouldn't!

Bullet placement matters much more than just how powerful the round is, and even if that 5.56 bullet has the equivalent energy of a "lowly" .22 headed through the second wall and hits someone in the head or right in the heart/lungs- there's a very good chance it'll be lethal.

 

For all your close quarter home combat try not to kill your neighbor needs with your assault style M-4 these may be a good option for you.
You get 20 for $31.00 that is a lot of dead bad guys.

<a class="postlink" href="http://store.thehuntingshack.com/hsm55625grclosequartersentryandhomedefense.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://store.thehuntingshack.com/hsm556 ... fense.aspx</a>

 

This lovely sucker was outside my office building a little less than 2 hours ago. For those of you individuals that have no idea what the heck it is, it is a rattlesnake. We get these here in Florida. Guess how it died? By a .22 magnum bullet. Thankfully, I carry a gun in my truck. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, anti gun people.

 

Pardon me if this is off topic. At any rate, I wouldn't use 'killing innocent snakes' as an argument in a pro vs. con gun argument.

Looks like he got that one right. Source

 

I know you live in Florida and people live by different rules there, but wouldn't people tend to object to popping off rounds in front of an office building?

 

Right. Water is like ballistics gel, and provides a reasonably accurate measure of bullet lethality. And how did 12ga, .45ACP, and 9mm fare? Were they "less lethal" in this test than 5.56?

As for ammunition: XM193 ball was inconsistent. The frangible round did not completely penetrate the water jug, although as it is not a analogue for flesh the point might be moot. Other common rounds used in the AR-15 with "home defense" as the intent were not tested.

Precisely. Central nervous system shots stop bodies from working the way they're supposed to. Shots to vital organs will do a good job of that too.

Correct. Being hit with any bullet entails a certain amount of risk. However, there are rounds that are reliably lethal, and rounds that are potentially lethal or inconsistently lethal. .25 ACP, for example, is almost universally regarded as a poor choice. The FBI's standard for "reliably lethal" is the aforementioned 30something cm of penetration. If it does not achieve that level of penetration, then a shot to the center of mass/torso might not be a deadly one.

 

You sound like you read a lot more online than you actually go outside and shoot things with a heartbeat.

...and you should probably think before you shoot animals like that.

 

Yep. No reason to go shooting critters just because you think "they needed a shootin'". Everything has a place and purpose and that snake was probably just minding it's own business, doin' its thing. Now she's going to have rats, mice, and Haitians running everywhere.

 

Going back to your chart, I straight up refuse to believe that a .308 round has less penetration than a handgun round. Period.

I've seen 5.56 go through walls and kill people, so I know that it has that capability, regardless of the gelatin tests. And regardless of caliber, anything that can penetrate 15-20cm of flesh will kill with the proper shot placement. The only difference I've ever seen is how FAST they go down. I've seen guys be able to take 10 steps before falling after being hit 6 times in the chest with 5.56 (he still died after that 10th, of course), and I've seen guys go down after a single 7.62x39 round to the shoulder (he lived, but was out of the fight).

00 buckshot is so lethal because it takes shot placement somewhat out of play. A center mass shot with .45 ACP is survivable, but it is NOT with buckshot. I've never heard of it, at least, so perhaps it is possible, but as far as a stop-you-right-now round, it is hard to beat. And again, referencing the chart, I refuse to believe that a round ball traveling less than half the velocity of a .308 round will penetrate less deeply. It just doesn't make physical sense that a spherical round has less penetration than a pointed one.

Obviously I could be very wrong and that chart could be 100% correct. That said, it doesn't strike me as plausible, and is inconsistent with my own observations.

 

Dude... big difference between a native species and an invasive one. If Devils Advocate shot a non-native python, it would be an entirely different story.

 

This is probably not the thread for bashing Haitians.