# New Bullets Mean Certain Death



## Lakhota

People get shot a lot in America, and it isn&#8217;t always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. They&#8217;re often &#8220;playing&#8221; with their guns. Or &#8220;cleaning&#8221; them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes they&#8217;re just injured, like in the examples cited above.

But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. That&#8217;s because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.

G2 Research&#8217;s &#8220;Radically Invasive Projectile&#8221; (RIP, get it? &#8212; because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullet&#8217;s core to travel deeper through a person.

This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.

And this is the bullet&#8217;s selling point.

Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, it&#8217;s time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting &#8220;open carry&#8221; protests at restaurants and stores around the country don&#8217;t have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon they&#8217;ll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.

What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nation&#8217;s military? Whom do you think you&#8217;re making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.

There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.

New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review

This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jg1Qyz0Jus]G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube[/ame]

This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.


----------



## tyroneweaver

guns aren't the problem


----------



## Lakhota

tyroneweaver said:


> guns aren't the problem



Would you use these bullets?  If so, for what purpose?


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## TheOldSchool

Is this more relevant now than ever? 

[YOUTUBE]VZrFVtmRXrw[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Yurt

i'm sure our soldiers will be thankful when using it against our enemy.

i highly doubt these bullets will be everyday bullets

lakhota is just fear mongering


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Exposing G2 Research's Radically Over-hyped Projectile - Bearing Arms


----------



## Lakhota

Yurt said:


> i'm sure our soldiers will be thankful when using it against our enemy.
> 
> i highly doubt these bullets will be everyday bullets
> 
> lakhota is just fear mongering



"Everyday bullets"?  You mean just for Sundays?  You actually think our soldiers would be allowed to use them?


----------



## eagle1462010

Yawn.

Tumbler bullets, hollow points, and the like have been around for a while now.

None of them matter if you can't hit what your aiming at.

Bullets are used to kill............But only when necessary.................

If they never become necessary, then no problem.


----------



## SmedlyButler

I still think it must be. This is just too over-the-top even for America's most extreme ammophiles. But if it is a hoax it's all over the net. *R.I.P.* Youve got to be kidding me. No self-censuring shame in this manufacturer. Ha! Hoax. Right???


----------



## Yurt

Lakhota said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure our soldiers will be thankful when using it against our enemy.
> 
> i highly doubt these bullets will be everyday bullets
> 
> lakhota is just fear mongering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Everyday bullets"?  You mean just for Sundays?  You actually think our soldiers would be allowed to use them?
Click to expand...


you obviously don't know the idiom "everyday"...i mean i doubt they will be in everyone's gun.  

are you kidding me about the soldiers?  why would they not use them?  or why would they not be allowed?  they are allowed hand grenades, missile launchers, tanks....but not these bullets?  and the bullets were originally designed for air marshals, to avoid collateral damage or moving beyond the target and breaking a window....

and if you want a deadlier bullet, check this out:

World's Deadliest Bullet Expands Into Four Parts, Making It Harder To Miss In 'High Pressure Situations' - International Science Times


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Lakhota said:


> People get shot a lot in America, and it isnt always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. Theyre often playing with their guns. Or cleaning them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes theyre just injured, like in the examples cited above.
> 
> But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. Thats because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.
> 
> G2 Researchs Radically Invasive Projectile (RIP, get it?  because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullets core to travel deeper through a person.
> 
> This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.
> 
> And this is the bullets selling point.
> 
> Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nations military? Whom do you think youre making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.
> 
> There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.
> 
> New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review
> 
> This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare
> 
> G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube
> 
> This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.



They already have bullets that do that. In addition, unless the bullets are magic, getting shot in the penis is unlikely to kill you.

In other words, you can still stuff your gun in your pants.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Since a gun is designed only to kill things, usually people, it hardly matters what you load it with.  If the desired outcome isn't a funeral, yours or that of someone else, don't bother.  It's a game of you bet your life, play on...


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Maybe this bullet can get this into the low to mid 90's?  Gotta love progress...

"Suicide is the 10th-leading cause of death in the U.S.; in 2010, 38,364 people killed themselves. In more than half of these cases, they used firearms. Indeed, more people in this country kill themselves with guns than with all other intentional means combined, including hanging, poisoning or overdose, jumping, or cutting.

"Though guns are not the most common method by which people attempt suicide, they are the most lethal. *About 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death.* (Drug overdose, the most widely used method in suicide attempts, is fatal in less than 3 percent of cases.) Moreover, guns are an irreversible solution to what is often a passing crisis. Suicidal individuals who take pills or inhale car exhaust or use razors have time to reconsider their actions or summon help. With a firearm, once the trigger is pulled, there&#8217;s no turning back."
Guns & Suicide: The Hidden Toll | Magazine Features | Harvard School of Public Health Magazine Features


----------



## Lakhota

Yurt said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure our soldiers will be thankful when using it against our enemy.
> 
> i highly doubt these bullets will be everyday bullets
> 
> lakhota is just fear mongering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Everyday bullets"?  You mean just for Sundays?  You actually think our soldiers would be allowed to use them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you obviously don't know the idiom "everyday"...i mean i doubt they will be in everyone's gun.
> 
> are you kidding me about the soldiers?  why would they not use them?  or why would they not be allowed?  they are allowed hand grenades, missile launchers, tanks....but not these bullets?  and the bullets were originally designed for air marshals, to avoid collateral damage or moving beyond the target and breaking a window....
> 
> and if you want a deadlier bullet, check this out:
> 
> World's Deadliest Bullet Expands Into Four Parts, Making It Harder To Miss In 'High Pressure Situations' - International Science Times
Click to expand...


So, you really think soldiers would be allowed to use them?  Interesting...


----------



## blackhawk

The bullet is only as deadly as the person firing if can't shoot accurately the bullet is no more deadly than a standard round if you can it makes no difference what type you use this or a standard round you will still be able to kill. Somehow I suspect a round like this would only be available to the military and law enforcement.


----------



## Lakhota

blackhawk said:


> The bullet is only as deadly as the person firing if can't shoot accurately the bullet is no more deadly than a standard round if you can it makes no difference what type you use this or a standard round you will still be able to kill. Somehow I suspect a round like this would only be available to the military and law enforcement.



Where in the military?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Turns out that most of the claims Luddly posted are hype, what a surprise.

G2 Research's RIP Ammo - Ballistic Testing, Phase One | The Truth About Guns


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Turns out that most of the claims Luddly posted are hype, what a surprise.

G2 Research's RIP Ammo - Ballistic Testing, Phase One | The Truth About Guns


----------



## Lakhota

The Avalon Project : Laws of War - Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899


----------



## HenryBHough

Lakhota said:


>



I need to know more about available calibers and where to buy!  This looks like the perfect replacement for the sabot rounds I've been loading in the 10-gauge when I'm going into (brown) bear country.  Would be really nice to be able to abandon the 18-1/8 inch shotgun with a hand piece!


----------



## blackhawk

Lakhota said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bullet is only as deadly as the person firing if can't shoot accurately the bullet is no more deadly than a standard round if you can it makes no difference what type you use this or a standard round you will still be able to kill. Somehow I suspect a round like this would only be available to the military and law enforcement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the military?
Click to expand...

Ask the military I don't speak for them if I had to guess special forces operators would be a logical choice.


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns aren't the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you use these bullets?  If so, for what purpose?
Click to expand...







To stop someone who is trying to harm me or mine.  Scumbags don't play fair so why should I?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

"Let&#8217;s consider our first impressions, though. Just looking at the box, it really does look like no other ammunition you&#8217;ve seen. The box uses a window like Barnes TAC-XP rounds do, but, unlike Barnes&#8217;s box, the G2 Research R.I.P. box is decorated with the letters &#8220;R.I.P.&#8221; in a design and color scheme that looks like something you might find on a tombstone, or on an album cover from an &#8217;80&#8242;s metal band.

I could say a lot about this &#8211; such as that it&#8217;s irresponsible, or even offensive to the very essence of self defense (which is about stopping an attack, not about killing the attacker).  If a prosecutor could prove that you intended and set about to kill an attacker, your claim of self defense might just go out the window. Will marketing like this help your case? Depending on your lawyers, the prosecutor, and whether it&#8217;s a criminal or civil suit, it may or may not matter. But I can certainly say that this over-the-top presentation makes me appreciate the restraint and more responsible branding of, oh, for example, Hornady&#8217;s Critical Defense."

From QW's link...


----------



## Slyhunter

Lakhota said:


> People get shot a lot in America, and it isnt always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. Theyre often playing with their guns. Or cleaning them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes theyre just injured, like in the examples cited above.
> 
> But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. Thats because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.
> 
> G2 Researchs Radically Invasive Projectile (RIP, get it?  because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullets core to travel deeper through a person.
> 
> This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.
> 
> And this is the bullets selling point.
> 
> Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nations military? Whom do you think youre making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.
> 
> There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.
> 
> New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review
> 
> This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare
> 
> G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube
> 
> This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.


I see nothing wrong with limiting certain ammo to military only. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to ammo.


----------



## Meister

Lakhota said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Everyday bullets"?  You mean just for Sundays?  You actually think our soldiers would be allowed to use them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you obviously don't know the idiom "everyday"...i mean i doubt they will be in everyone's gun.
> 
> are you kidding me about the soldiers?  why would they not use them?  or why would they not be allowed?  they are allowed hand grenades, missile launchers, tanks....but not these bullets?  and the bullets were originally designed for air marshals, to avoid collateral damage or moving beyond the target and breaking a window....
> 
> and if you want a deadlier bullet, check this out:
> 
> World's Deadliest Bullet Expands Into Four Parts, Making It Harder To Miss In 'High Pressure Situations' - International Science Times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you really think soldiers would be allowed to use them?  Interesting...
Click to expand...

Soldiers made their own for a very long time by just notching the lead with a knife. They're called dum dum bullets


----------



## daveman

Lakhota said:


> People get shot a lot in America, and it isnt always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. Theyre often playing with their guns. Or cleaning them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes theyre just injured, like in the examples cited above.
> 
> But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. Thats because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.
> 
> G2 Researchs Radically Invasive Projectile (RIP, get it?  because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullets core to travel deeper through a person.
> 
> This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.
> 
> And this is the bullets selling point.
> 
> Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nations military? Whom do you think youre making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.
> 
> There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.
> 
> New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review
> 
> This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare
> 
> G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube
> 
> This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.


You're right.  All bullets should be made of marshmallow.


----------



## Manonthestreet

HenryBHough said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to know more about available calibers and where to buy!  This looks like the perfect replacement for the sabot rounds I've been loading in the 10-gauge when I'm going into (brown) bear country.  Would be really nice to be able to abandon the 18-1/8 inch shotgun with a hand piece!
Click to expand...

Could  Always go with Judge with these...
[ame=http://youtu.be/7bLonprIWm4]Taurus Judge/Governor Ammo Test: Lehigh Defense Maximum Expansion 45 Colt review - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PaintMyHouse

"To me, that&#8217;s a lousy tradeoff. I would hate to give up penetration depth and having a larger bullet striking deep in the body, in exchange for some superficial flesh wounding at 4&#8221; deep (and note, that&#8217;s 4&#8221; in gel, not 4&#8221; in a body &#8211; it&#8217;d be shallower in a body, and may not even get past the ribcage.) That&#8217;s not a choice I&#8217;m comfortable making, and I think most, if not all ballistics experts would agree with me."

And at only $2.50 per round, the ones that don't refuse to load that is.


----------



## Lakhota

Meister said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> you obviously don't know the idiom "everyday"...i mean i doubt they will be in everyone's gun.
> 
> are you kidding me about the soldiers?  why would they not use them?  or why would they not be allowed?  they are allowed hand grenades, missile launchers, tanks....but not these bullets?  and the bullets were originally designed for air marshals, to avoid collateral damage or moving beyond the target and breaking a window....
> 
> and if you want a deadlier bullet, check this out:
> 
> World's Deadliest Bullet Expands Into Four Parts, Making It Harder To Miss In 'High Pressure Situations' - International Science Times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you really think soldiers would be allowed to use them?  Interesting...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Soldiers made their own for a very long time by just notching the lead with a knife. They're called dum dum bullets
Click to expand...


Yep, that was addressed by the Hague Convention of 1899.


----------



## westwall

blackhawk said:


> The bullet is only as deadly as the person firing if can't shoot accurately the bullet is no more deadly than a standard round if you can it makes no difference what type you use this or a standard round you will still be able to kill. Somehow I suspect a round like this would only be available to the military and law enforcement.







The military is not allowed to use hollowpoint ammunition.  Geneva Convention prohibitions and all that.


----------



## Yurt

Lakhota said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Everyday bullets"?  You mean just for Sundays?  You actually think our soldiers would be allowed to use them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you obviously don't know the idiom "everyday"...i mean i doubt they will be in everyone's gun.
> 
> are you kidding me about the soldiers?  why would they not use them?  or why would they not be allowed?  they are allowed hand grenades, missile launchers, tanks....but not these bullets?  and the bullets were originally designed for air marshals, to avoid collateral damage or moving beyond the target and breaking a window....
> 
> and if you want a deadlier bullet, check this out:
> 
> World's Deadliest Bullet Expands Into Four Parts, Making It Harder To Miss In 'High Pressure Situations' - International Science Times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you really think soldiers would be allowed to use them?  Interesting...
Click to expand...


again...why do YOU think they won't?  i mean the bullet was designed for air marshals...why can't soldiers use them?


----------



## westwall

Slyhunter said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> People get shot a lot in America, and it isnt always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. Theyre often playing with their guns. Or cleaning them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes theyre just injured, like in the examples cited above.
> 
> But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. Thats because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.
> 
> G2 Researchs Radically Invasive Projectile (RIP, get it?  because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullets core to travel deeper through a person.
> 
> This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.
> 
> And this is the bullets selling point.
> 
> Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nations military? Whom do you think youre making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.
> 
> There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.
> 
> New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review
> 
> This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare
> 
> G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube
> 
> This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.
> 
> 
> 
> I see nothing wrong with limiting certain ammo to military only. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to ammo.
Click to expand...







"Infringed" covers that.


----------



## Lakhota

Yurt said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> you obviously don't know the idiom "everyday"...i mean i doubt they will be in everyone's gun.
> 
> are you kidding me about the soldiers?  why would they not use them?  or why would they not be allowed?  they are allowed hand grenades, missile launchers, tanks....but not these bullets?  and the bullets were originally designed for air marshals, to avoid collateral damage or moving beyond the target and breaking a window....
> 
> and if you want a deadlier bullet, check this out:
> 
> World's Deadliest Bullet Expands Into Four Parts, Making It Harder To Miss In 'High Pressure Situations' - International Science Times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you really think soldiers would be allowed to use them?  Interesting...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again...why do YOU think they won't?  i mean the bullet was designed for air marshals...why can't soldiers use them?
Click to expand...


Not allowed by soldiers.  Here's an informative article on the subject - but don't let the title fool you.

Army OKs Hollow-Point Bullets | Mother Jones


----------



## Meister

Lakhota said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you really think soldiers would be allowed to use them?  Interesting...
> 
> 
> 
> Soldiers made their own for a very long time by just notching the lead with a knife. They're called dum dum bullets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, that was addressed by the Hague Convention of 1899.
Click to expand...

Yet, it didn't stop them.


----------



## Kosh

Lakhota said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you really think soldiers would be allowed to use them?  Interesting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again...why do YOU think they won't?  i mean the bullet was designed for air marshals...why can't soldiers use them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not allowed by soldiers.  Here's an informative article on the subject - but don't let the title fool you.
> 
> Army OKs Hollow-Point Bullets | Mother Jones
Click to expand...


Yet another mother jones far left blog site command this far left Obama drone on how and what to think.

Seriously can we get one ID for all the far left posters?


----------



## Noomi

tyroneweaver said:


> guns aren't the problem



No, your gun culture is.


----------



## daveman

Lakhota said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Everyday bullets"?  You mean just for Sundays?  You actually think our soldiers would be allowed to use them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you obviously don't know the idiom "everyday"...i mean i doubt they will be in everyone's gun.
> 
> are you kidding me about the soldiers?  why would they not use them?  or why would they not be allowed?  they are allowed hand grenades, missile launchers, tanks....but not these bullets?  and the bullets were originally designed for air marshals, to avoid collateral damage or moving beyond the target and breaking a window....
> 
> and if you want a deadlier bullet, check this out:
> 
> World's Deadliest Bullet Expands Into Four Parts, Making It Harder To Miss In 'High Pressure Situations' - International Science Times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you really think soldiers would be allowed to use them?  Interesting...
Click to expand...


I doubt it.  NATO treaties specify ball ammunition (the bullet has a rounded tip) for general-purpose use.  






The ball tip ensures the bullet will travel through the target without breaking apart.  It's less lethal than hollow-point ammunition, but it's not primarily a humanitarian concern.  A wounded soldier requires help off the field.  Two guys carrying a wounded buddy aren't shooting back at you.  One bullet has taken three guys out of the battle.  

The humanitarian concern is that if a shot with a hollow-point round isn't immediately fatal, it induces unnecessary pain and suffering in the target.  Thus hollow-point rounds, with few exceptions, are prohibited from combat use by the Law of Armed Conflict.


----------



## Lakhota

Kosh said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> again...why do YOU think they won't?  i mean the bullet was designed for air marshals...why can't soldiers use them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not allowed by soldiers.  Here's an informative article on the subject - but don't let the title fool you.
> 
> Army OKs Hollow-Point Bullets | Mother Jones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another mother jones far left blog site command this far left Obama drone on how and what to think.
> 
> Seriously can we get one ID for all the far left posters?
Click to expand...


It has good information and live supporting source links for the mentally impaired.


----------



## Meister

Noomi said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns aren't the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your gun culture is.
Click to expand...


People are the problem.....guns don't shoot themselves.


----------



## westwall

Noomi said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns aren't the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your gun culture is.
Click to expand...







No, criminals are the problem and the legal system that allows violent offenders out of prison instead of keeping them incarcerated.  Add to that the drug laws and you have 6-8 percent of the criminal population committing 80% of the violent crime in this country.  And those are the scumbags that are always let out.


----------



## Meister

westwall said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns aren't the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your gun culture is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, criminals are the problem and the legal system that allows violent offenders out of prison instead of keeping them incarcerated.  Add to that the drug laws and you have 6-8 percent of the criminal population committing 80% of the violent crime in this country.  And those are the scumbags that are always let out.
Click to expand...

Also, the courts far too often let the perp plead down to a lesser charge.


----------



## daveman

Lakhota said:


> It has good information and live supporting source links for the mentally impaired.


Must be why you use it, then.


----------



## Kosh

Noomi said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns aren't the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your gun culture is.
Click to expand...


More far left propaganda!

Serious it is time to get all these far left posters one ID.

Seen one far left post seen them all.

I dare to load a gun and lay on the table (do not touch or disturb it) and see how many people it kills in a week.


----------



## Wildman

tyroneweaver said:


> guns aren't the problem





nor are the bullets


----------



## eagle1462010

Kosh said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns aren't the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your gun culture is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More far left propaganda!
> 
> Serious it is time to get all these far left posters one ID.
> 
> Seen one far left post seen them all.
> 
> I dare to load a gun and lay on the table (do not touch or disturb it) and see how many people it kills in a week.
Click to expand...


My guns all got up one day and started running lose..............Took me hours to round them up.  Had to lock them in a safe so they wouldn't run out and start killing.


----------



## Noomi

Meister said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns aren't the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your gun culture is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People are the problem.....guns don't shoot themselves.
Click to expand...


Yes, people who own guns are the problem. Glad you understand.


----------



## eagle1462010

Noomi said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your gun culture is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are the problem.....guns don't shoot themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, people who own guns are the problem. Glad you understand.
Click to expand...


And people like you would punish the innocent for the acts of the criminals..........

Typical BS.


----------



## Wildman

Lakhota said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns aren't the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you use these bullets?  If so, for what purpose?
Click to expand...


would i use them ? you bet your ass on that pal, but, i can make my own if i wanted to, but.., i invented a much deadlier bullet, tested by L.A. Country sheriffs Dept. and rejected due to it's *"massive destruction and inhumane properties."*

i laff...... [sic]


----------



## daveman

Noomi said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your gun culture is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are the problem.....guns don't shoot themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, people who own guns are the problem. Glad you understand.
Click to expand...


----------



## DigitalDrifter

Lakhota said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns aren't the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you use these bullets?  If so, for what purpose?
Click to expand...


Because at present, unless a silver bullet is used, (which are very expensive) regular bullets have little effect on liberals.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

DigitalDrifter said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns aren't the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you use these bullets?  If so, for what purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because at present, unless a silver bullet is used, (which are very expensive) regular bullets have little effect on liberals.
Click to expand...

These are $2.50 a pop.  I'd go with silver.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Haven't such dum-dum bullets been illegal for a very long time?

This is hardly a new idea. Fragmenting bulles are very old-fashioned.


----------



## auditor0007

Lakhota said:


> People get shot a lot in America, and it isnt always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. Theyre often playing with their guns. Or cleaning them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes theyre just injured, like in the examples cited above.
> 
> But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. Thats because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.
> 
> G2 Researchs Radically Invasive Projectile (RIP, get it?  because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullets core to travel deeper through a person.
> 
> This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.
> 
> And this is the bullets selling point.
> 
> Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nations military? Whom do you think youre making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.
> 
> There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.
> 
> New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review
> 
> This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare
> 
> G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube
> 
> This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.



Best thing about this is that only the good guys will have these at their disposal.


----------



## Politico

Lakhota said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns aren't the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you use these bullets?  If so, for what purpose?
Click to expand...


Hell yeah.



Yurt said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure our soldiers will be thankful when using it against our enemy.
> 
> i highly doubt these bullets will be everyday bullets
> 
> lakhota is just fear mongering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Everyday bullets"?  You mean just for Sundays?  You actually think our soldiers would be allowed to use them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you obviously don't know the idiom "everyday"...i mean i doubt they will be in everyone's gun.
> 
> are you kidding me about the soldiers?  why would they not use them?  or why would they not be allowed?  they are allowed hand grenades, missile launchers, tanks....but not these bullets?  and the bullets were originally designed for air marshals, to avoid collateral damage or moving beyond the target and breaking a window....
> 
> and if you want a deadlier bullet, check this out:
> 
> World's Deadliest Bullet Expands Into Four Parts, Making It Harder To Miss In 'High Pressure Situations' - International Science Times
Click to expand...


If you had served a day or had a clue you would know why they can't use them. I would suggest you stopping digging this hole.


----------



## Jarlaxle

PaintMyHouse said:


> Since a gun is designed only to kill things, usually people, it hardly matters what you load it with.  If the desired outcome isn't a funeral, yours or that of someone else, don't bother.  It's a game of you bet your life, play on...



Repeating a stupid statement does not make it less stupid, just more annoying!


----------



## Jarlaxle

Lakhota said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you really think soldiers would be allowed to use them?  Interesting...
> 
> 
> 
> Soldiers made their own for a very long time by just notching the lead with a knife. They're called dum dum bullets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, that was addressed by the Hague Convention of 1899.
Click to expand...


One or the stupidest agreements ever made. ALL issue ammo should be either hollow-point or steel-cored AP.


----------



## Wake

While it's true that there do exist more than some people who shoot themselves accidentally, it's also true that more more than some people hurt themselves on accident. Risky behavior, automobiles, and controlled substances are other ways people hurt themselves, whether intentionally or not. Also Lakhota, if a person injures themselves accidentally with a gun, chances are they're not as responsible as one would think.

I've mixed feelings on this destructive bullet. How will it be used? Who will use it? I don't see why a civilian would need to be armed with such a lethal weapon. Now, that doesn't mean I'm not an ardent defender of gun rights. Things like this made solely to kill instead of maim... don't make much sense to me. If someone attacks me, I'd shoot the person to put him on his back, but it wouldn't be my intent to kill him. This weapon increases the chance of fatality. How much so is a good question. If I wanted to kill a threat, I'd unload my cartridge. But this one bullet becomes like 7-8 bullets that rip through the body. Do we now intend to kill rather than stop, when it comes to personal defense? When do we start using bullets laced with cyanide?

As with all cultures, gun culture isn't perfect, and there will always be unsavory elements at play. I think there needs to be a balance. Should people be allowed to holster a handgun? Yes. Should they be allowed to pack two assault rifles on their backs? I don't believe so. There is a point where one being goes from having an effective deterrent to personal injury, to becoming a lethal force that can kill large groups of people. 

I partially agree with tyroneweaver's first post. Guns aren't the problem... but they can be... if their lethality becomes ever greater. Would he be alright with bullets dripping with cyanide? What difference would it make? Guns aren't the problem, correct? With these bullets, the death rate becomes 100% for everyone without an immunity to cyanide. 

And I feel there is something rather unsettling about weaponry that's made more and more so to kill. The goal should be to stop someone not increasingly assure death. In my opinion some of Lakhota's concerns are quite valid, and merit further discussion. If these bullets are used militarily, then I have little issue with that. But in the hands of civilians, to be packing such lethal force? Where does it end? And if that shouldn't matter, than stand behind citizens using bullets soaked in poison. 

I am a conservative, but I don't feel glee in the thought of adding more killing force to a tool designed to keep me safe. If I wanted to kill my threat, I need only aim and pull the trigger three times.    [MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION], I don't particularly agree with your post #23. I feel I can stop someone trying to hurt me and mine with a good gun, and reasonable aim. One, two, maybe three quick pulls of the trigger and he's down. With these bullets, it likely takes just one pull of the trigger to rip through his guts with the lethality of 8 bullets. If lethality is not the matter, would you support using bullets that deliver lethal doses of cyanide instead, to ensure death?

*Where do we draw the line on lethality?*


----------



## zeke

I bet the cops are excited the criminals will have an ammunition that is even more lethal that what they face now.

And how about the ER doctors. When some kid is shot by these rounds and not killed immediately, it will present a real challenge for the ER staff to try and save a life. When several major organs have been damaged by this type of ammo, it will be a real challenge for sure. And expensive.

But who cares about expense and lives when you have this type of ammo available.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Lakhota said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns aren't the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you use these bullets?  If so, for what purpose?
Click to expand...


  Self defense. All this really does is make smaller calibers more deadly.
If you get shot in the vitals with a .45 hollow point you're most likely gonna die,some new gee wiz bullet wont change that.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Yurt said:


> i'm sure our soldiers will be thankful when using it against our enemy.
> 
> i highly doubt these bullets will be everyday bullets
> 
> lakhota is just fear mongering



  The military isn't allowed to use hollow points. It's against the Geneva convention.
That being said,I'll be looking for these rounds on the store shelf with great anticipation.


----------



## PredFan

Lakhota said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns aren't the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you use these bullets?  If so, for what purpose?
Click to expand...


I will. 

The purpose?

Why, to kill of course.


----------



## Meister

Noomi said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your gun culture is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are the problem.....guns don't shoot themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, people who own guns are the problem. Glad you understand.
Click to expand...


What I'll admit to is that less than 1% are the problem....much less than 1%.
I'm glad that you can understand THAT.


----------



## daveman

Wake said:


> While it's true that there do exist more than some people who shoot themselves accidentally, it's also true that more more than some people hurt themselves on accident. Risky behavior, automobiles, and controlled substances are other ways people hurt themselves, whether intentionally or not. Also Lakhota, if a person injures themselves accidentally with a gun, chances are they're not as responsible as one would think.
> 
> I've mixed feelings on this destructive bullet. How will it be used? Who will use it? I don't see why a civilian would need to be armed with such a lethal weapon. Now, that doesn't mean I'm not an ardent defender of gun rights. Things like this made solely to kill instead of maim... don't make much sense to me. If someone attacks me, I'd shoot the person to put him on his back, but it wouldn't be my intent to kill him. This weapon increases the chance of fatality. How much so is a good question. If I wanted to kill a threat, I'd unload my cartridge. But this one bullet becomes like 7-8 bullets that rip through the body. Do we now intend to kill rather than stop, when it comes to personal defense? When do we start using bullets laced with cyanide?
> 
> As with all cultures, gun culture isn't perfect, and there will always be unsavory elements at play. I think there needs to be a balance. Should people be allowed to holster a handgun? Yes. Should they be allowed to pack two assault rifles on their backs? I don't believe so. There is a point where one being goes from having an effective deterrent to personal injury, to becoming a lethal force that can kill large groups of people.
> 
> I partially agree with tyroneweaver's first post. Guns aren't the problem... but they can be... if their lethality becomes ever greater. Would he be alright with bullets dripping with cyanide? What difference would it make? Guns aren't the problem, correct? With these bullets, the death rate becomes 100% for everyone without an immunity to cyanide.
> 
> And I feel there is something rather unsettling about weaponry that's made more and more so to kill. The goal should be to stop someone not increasingly assure death. In my opinion some of Lakhota's concerns are quite valid, and merit further discussion. If these bullets are used militarily, then I have little issue with that. But in the hands of civilians, to be packing such lethal force? Where does it end? And if that shouldn't matter, than stand behind citizens using bullets soaked in poison.
> 
> I am a conservative, but I don't feel glee in the thought of adding more killing force to a tool designed to keep me safe. If I wanted to kill my threat, I need only aim and pull the trigger three times.    [MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION], I don't particularly agree with your post #23. I feel I can stop someone trying to hurt me and mine with a good gun, and reasonable aim. One, two, maybe three quick pulls of the trigger and he's down. With these bullets, it likely takes just one pull of the trigger to rip through his guts with the lethality of 8 bullets. If lethality is not the matter, would you support using bullets that deliver lethal doses of cyanide instead, to ensure death?
> 
> *Where do we draw the line on lethality?*


Your opposition to this fragmenting round also applies to shotguns.  Are they "too lethal"?


----------



## daveman

zeke said:


> I bet the cops are excited the criminals will have an ammunition that is even more lethal that what they face now.
> 
> And how about the ER doctors. When some kid is shot by these rounds and not killed immediately, it will present a real challenge for the ER staff to try and save a life. When several major organs have been damaged by this type of ammo, it will be a real challenge for sure. And expensive.
> 
> But who cares about expense and lives when you have this type of ammo available.



Since you support abortion, your concern about kids rings hollow.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Lakhota said:


> People get shot a lot in America, and it isnt always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. Theyre often playing with their guns. Or cleaning them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes theyre just injured, like in the examples cited above.
> 
> But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. Thats because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.
> 
> G2 Researchs Radically Invasive Projectile (RIP, get it?  because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullets core to travel deeper through a person.
> 
> This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.
> 
> And this is the bullets selling point.
> 
> Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nations military? Whom do you think youre making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.
> 
> There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.
> 
> New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review
> 
> This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare
> 
> G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube
> 
> This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.



its a fancy hollow point go away with your bs


----------



## Pennywise

You don't aim a gun at a man unless you intend to shoot him. And you don't shoot a man unless you intend to kill him.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

PaintMyHouse said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you use these bullets?  If so, for what purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because at present, unless a silver bullet is used, (which are very expensive) regular bullets have little effect on liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These are $2.50 a pop.  I'd go with silver.
Click to expand...


  $2.50 A piece isnt that bad. It's not like you're using them at the range.
I keep several mags of high end rounds for my home defense guns.


----------



## whitehall

Most anti-2nd Amendment people don't know the difference between automatic, semi auto, bolt action or lever action so why would they presume to know about wound ballistics? A bullet that splits into four parts isn't necessarily more deadly than a heavier bullet that stays together and delivers the most energy to the target.


----------



## PredFan

If we are to believe the idiotic title of this thread, if I shoot myself in the foot, I'm dead.

Fearmongering bull shit.


----------



## skookerasbil

Another nonsensical thread by a gun grabber k00k!!


Doesn't matter s0n......Im gonna save my $$!! Can do all the damage I need to when I need to come get all the limpwristers shit with this >>>




......mostly








Good luck with wiffle ball bats and Nurf guns!!!


----------



## skookerasbil

some of this just for the hoot of it!!


----------



## skookerasbil

Dumbass gun grabbers......there are already so many exotic ammo rounds out there for years!!!


Like these!!!! >>>  Shotgun Ammo


The 12G flame thrower rounds are particularly interesting!!!


----------



## jon_berzerk

whitehall said:


> Most anti-2nd Amendment people don't know the difference between automatic, semi auto, bolt action or lever action so why would they presume to know about wound ballistics? A bullet that splits into four parts isn't necessarily more deadly than a heavier bullet that stays together and delivers the most energy to the target.



this projectile barely hits the minimum depth in gelatin tests 

to hit the vitals


----------



## skookerasbil

or the "Mocho Gaucho" 12G barbed wire round........OMG.......one shell to the torso and HOLY MOTHER OF GOD......that's a bad day for somebody!!


Firequest 12 Gauge Macho Gaucho - 3 Round Pack - G12-018


----------



## skookerasbil

Who needs that shit......the old reliable 00buck.....removes a whole head at 20 paces >>>


----------



## skookerasbil

Hey Lakota.....wondered if you could give us a review on this lethal beauty >>>








Do you have to correct for windage at 100 yards??


----------



## Spoonman

Lakhota said:


> People get shot a lot in America, and it isnt always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. Theyre often playing with their guns. Or cleaning them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes theyre just injured, like in the examples cited above.
> 
> But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. Thats because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.
> 
> G2 Researchs Radically Invasive Projectile (RIP, get it?  because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullets core to travel deeper through a person.
> 
> This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.
> 
> And this is the bullets selling point.
> 
> Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nations military? Whom do you think youre making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.
> 
> There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.
> 
> New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review
> 
> This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare
> 
> G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube
> 
> This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.



*Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.*

they are protesting in support of their 2nd amendment rights which are under attack in this country.  How is this any different from civil rights protests or pro gay protests


----------



## PredFan

skookerasbil said:


> Who needs that shit......the old reliable 00buck.....removes a whole head at 20 paces >>>



My 12 gauge Springfield pump sits at the head of my bed for this very reason. Though I can't really carry a shotgun around with me outside, so I also have handguns. This ammo would be good to have.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Spoonman said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> People get shot a lot in America, and it isnt always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. Theyre often playing with their guns. Or cleaning them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes theyre just injured, like in the examples cited above.
> 
> But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. Thats because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.
> 
> G2 Researchs Radically Invasive Projectile (RIP, get it?  because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullets core to travel deeper through a person.
> 
> This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.
> 
> And this is the bullets selling point.
> 
> Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nations military? Whom do you think youre making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.
> 
> There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.
> 
> New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review
> 
> This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare
> 
> G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube
> 
> This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.*
> 
> they are protesting in support of their 2nd amendment rights which are under attack in this country.  How is this any different from civil rights protests or pro gay protests
Click to expand...


   You know whats really sick in this country? Politicians who allow mexicans to invade our country. Thats really sick....


----------



## jon_berzerk

Spoonman said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> People get shot a lot in America, and it isnt always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. Theyre often playing with their guns. Or cleaning them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes theyre just injured, like in the examples cited above.
> 
> But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. Thats because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.
> 
> G2 Researchs Radically Invasive Projectile (RIP, get it?  because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullets core to travel deeper through a person.
> 
> This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.
> 
> And this is the bullets selling point.
> 
> Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nations military? Whom do you think youre making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.
> 
> There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.
> 
> New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review
> 
> This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare
> 
> G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube
> 
> This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.*
> 
> they are protesting in support of their 2nd amendment rights which are under attack in this country.  How is this any different from civil rights protests or pro gay protests
Click to expand...


this round is actually a wimpy round 

there are  rounds that if hit in the chest would splat ones lungs  on to the wall 

that exist today that have existed for years


----------



## jon_berzerk

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> People get shot a lot in America, and it isnt always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. Theyre often playing with their guns. Or cleaning them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes theyre just injured, like in the examples cited above.
> 
> But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. Thats because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.
> 
> G2 Researchs Radically Invasive Projectile (RIP, get it?  because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullets core to travel deeper through a person.
> 
> This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.
> 
> And this is the bullets selling point.
> 
> Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nations military? Whom do you think youre making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.
> 
> There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.
> 
> New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review
> 
> This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare
> 
> G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube
> 
> This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.*
> 
> they are protesting in support of their 2nd amendment rights which are under attack in this country.  How is this any different from civil rights protests or pro gay protests
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know whats really sick in this country? Politicians who allow mexicans to invade our country. Thats really sick....
Click to expand...


allows anyone to invade our country 

that really sucks


----------



## Contumacious

Lakhota said:


> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nation&#8217;s military? Whom do you think you&#8217;re making safer by toting this stuff around? .



Let me remind you that the federal government has become a massive continuing criminal enterprise. It has a huge paramilitary domestic army. 

When the bureaucracy decides to target someone that person needs the means to defend him/herself.

The administration will always find apologists which will defend the gestapo's actions. The owner of the house will have his character assassinated, ie, he raped a 10 old girl, he was part of an AQ cell, etc. The narcotized majority will swallow whatever bullshit pretexts are dished out.

.


----------



## skookerasbil

PredFan said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who needs that shit......the old reliable 00buck.....removes a whole head at 20 paces >>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My 12 gauge Springfield pump sits at the head of my bed for this very reason. Though I can't really carry a shotgun around with me outside, so I also have handguns. This ammo would be good to have.
Click to expand...



Pred fan.....the gun grabber limpwristers have no clue.

My 14 year old son has a Savage .17 HMR. Tiny little bullet........nasty as shit.....plow through a quarter at 200 yards. That thing enters the body at the shoulder and God knows how many organs it is bouncing around and tearing up as it tumbles around. In some cases, Id much prefer being hit by a round from my 7.62 X 39 AK.......be on my back and without most of my shoulder but might well survive. .17 HMR......damn thing is probably passing through a lung, the heart and stopping maybe in the liver. Awesome!!!

Stupid moron gun grabbers........bubble dwellers.


----------



## skookerasbil

The bubble dwelling gun grabber k00ks are so stuck deep in the matrix its not even real. The connect the dots ability just isn't there.

Exotic ammo has been around forever.......this is just typical far left bomb thrower scare BS. The limpwristers dive for cover.


----------



## skookerasbil

Contumacious said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nations military? Whom do you think youre making safer by toting this stuff around? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me remind you that the federal government has become a massive continuing criminal enterprise. It has a huge paramilitary domestic army.
> 
> When the bureaucracy decides to target someone that person needs the means to defend him/herself.
> 
> The administration will always find apologists which will defend the gestapo's actions. The owner of the house will have his character assassinated, ie, he raped a 10 old girl, he was part of an AQ cell, etc. The narcotized majority will swallow whatever bullshit pretexts are dished out.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Indeed. Who thought we'd ever see a day when the DHS, EPA and Post Office could tomorrow, walk onto any military base and take over in 5 minutes. The far left k00ks yawn.


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Everyday bullets"?  You mean just for Sundays?  You actually think our soldiers would be allowed to use them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you obviously don't know the idiom "everyday"...i mean i doubt they will be in everyone's gun.
> 
> are you kidding me about the soldiers?  why would they not use them?  or why would they not be allowed?  they are allowed hand grenades, missile launchers, tanks....but not these bullets?  and the bullets were originally designed for air marshals, to avoid collateral damage or moving beyond the target and breaking a window....
> 
> and if you want a deadlier bullet, check this out:
> 
> World's Deadliest Bullet Expands Into Four Parts, Making It Harder To Miss In 'High Pressure Situations' - International Science Times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you really think soldiers would be allowed to use them?  Interesting...
Click to expand...


I'm not going to address the military applications, because the cost factor will keep these out of basic military use for a while.

But expanding bullets or fragmenting bullets are nothing new.  Glaser had one that was a thin sheath of lead over a bunch of tiny birdshot.  The point of these bullets is two-fold.   

First, the fragmentation means more damage to whatever you shoot.  It is called "Deadly Force" for a reason.  You should expect everything you should to die.

Second, the fragmentation happens on impact, so these bullets will not penetrate the walls of apartments and kill someone in the next apt or next room.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Lakhota said:


> People get shot a lot in America, and it isnt always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. Theyre often playing with their guns. Or cleaning them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes theyre just injured, like in the examples cited above.
> 
> But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. Thats because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.
> 
> G2 Researchs Radically Invasive Projectile (RIP, get it?  because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullets core to travel deeper through a person.
> 
> This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.
> 
> And this is the bullets selling point.
> 
> Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nations military? Whom do you think youre making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.
> 
> There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.
> 
> New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review
> 
> This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare
> 
> G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube
> 
> This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.



Lethal ammunition is a very old issue. Hollowpoints were first met with this same opposition because they caused more tissue damage replacing solid rounds which simply made little holes. And hollowpoints were illegal in war (if not still are) because of this and practical tactical matters of: shoot an enemy with a solid round and it takes one more more healthy soldiers to carry them off the battlefield. Kill the soldier outright with more lethal ammo and you only kill one soldier. 

The saving grace of hollowpoints is by expanding and thus slowing and not travelling through the target, you greatly reduce the risk of the round hitting anyone behind your target. Glaser 'safety-slugs' came out decades back taking this logic even further by including as their bullet birdshot for shotguns. Round enters the target's body and hundreds of sub-projectiles zip inside. Overall penetration which about half that of hollowpoints of the time. Was such a good idea they issued them to sky marshals where penetrated the hull of the aircraft was a real issue. 

I therefore expect this latest 'safety round' to fall by the wayside. Most every ammunition is advertized as more lethal than it's rivals. Truth though comes from street-use years after. According to FBI police-shooting records, the all-time most effective ammo is a .357 magnum jacketed hollowpoint with a 97% 'one shot stop' record. Meaning 97% of the time all it took was a single shot to stop the target either by death or other reason for ceasing being a target.

Once you're talking about shooting somebody, worrying about the bullet is kinda redundant.


----------



## WinterBorn

Slyhunter said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> People get shot a lot in America, and it isnt always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. Theyre often playing with their guns. Or cleaning them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes theyre just injured, like in the examples cited above.
> 
> But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. Thats because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.
> 
> G2 Researchs Radically Invasive Projectile (RIP, get it?  because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullets core to travel deeper through a person.
> 
> This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.
> 
> And this is the bullets selling point.
> 
> Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nations military? Whom do you think youre making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.
> 
> There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.
> 
> New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review
> 
> This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare
> 
> G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube
> 
> This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.
> 
> 
> 
> I see nothing wrong with limiting certain ammo to military only. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to ammo.
Click to expand...


These bullets do not explode.  They expand and fragment.  And fragmenting ammo is nothing new.

The biggest value to this sort of ammo is that the fragmentation takes away much of the energy and prevents over-penetration.  Considering the number of accidental killings when a bullet goes thru a wall, I would think this sort of ammo would be better.


----------



## earlycuyler

Lakhota said:


> People get shot a lot in America, and it isnt always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. Theyre often playing with their guns. Or cleaning them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes theyre just injured, like in the examples cited above.
> 
> But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. Thats because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.
> 
> G2 Researchs Radically Invasive Projectile (RIP, get it?  because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullets core to travel deeper through a person.
> 
> This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.
> 
> And this is the bullets selling point.
> 
> Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nations military? Whom do you think youre making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.
> 
> There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.
> 
> New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review
> 
> This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare
> 
> G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube
> 
> This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.



They are called frangable projectiles and they have existed for decades. They also actually save lives due to the fact that they dont over penetrate walls and other people. As fas as how accurate they can be, as me someone who is into varment hunting. 400+ yard shots are the norm, and bullets that explode (desentigrat) on impact are desired. Ont to utterly destroy the target, and two, so that the bullet wont pass through the target and keep traveling. Nothing to see here. Wasnt even a good try on your part.


----------



## skookerasbil

WinterBorn said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> People get shot a lot in America, and it isnt always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. Theyre often playing with their guns. Or cleaning them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes theyre just injured, like in the examples cited above.
> 
> But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. Thats because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.
> 
> G2 Researchs Radically Invasive Projectile (RIP, get it?  because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullets core to travel deeper through a person.
> 
> This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.
> 
> And this is the bullets selling point.
> 
> Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nations military? Whom do you think youre making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.
> 
> There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.
> 
> New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review
> 
> This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare
> 
> G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube
> 
> This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.
> 
> 
> 
> I see nothing wrong with limiting certain ammo to military only. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to ammo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These bullets do not explode.  They expand and fragment.  And fragmenting ammo is nothing new.
> 
> The biggest value to this sort of ammo is that the fragmentation takes away much of the energy and prevents over-penetration.  Considering the number of accidental killings when a bullet goes thru a wall, I would think this sort of ammo would be better.
Click to expand...



Give this man another cigar!!! Unlike the gun grabber k00ks, he knows his ballistics.


----------



## WinterBorn

skookerasbil said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see nothing wrong with limiting certain ammo to military only. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to ammo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These bullets do not explode.  They expand and fragment.  And fragmenting ammo is nothing new.
> 
> The biggest value to this sort of ammo is that the fragmentation takes away much of the energy and prevents over-penetration.  Considering the number of accidental killings when a bullet goes thru a wall, I would think this sort of ammo would be better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give this man another cigar!!! Unlike the gun grabber k00ks, he knows his ballistics.
Click to expand...


And I have tried to educate the idiots on here.  But alas, they will not hear.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

The anti-ammo arguement boils down to "I was all for shooting people as long as they didn't die."


----------



## Wake

daveman said:


> Your opposition to this fragmenting round also applies to shotguns.  Are they "too lethal"?



That's a fair question, and a valid point. I'm not exactly sure how lethal a shotgun is, but I imagine one blast from 15 feet would be enough to put a man under. It probably gets weaker from further ranges, unlike normal handguns, but that in itself is a moot point. Huh, now you've got me thinking Daveman, and I appreciate that.

 [MENTION=31132]Lakhota[/MENTION], what do you make of my post, and Daveman's response to it? I don't know much about guns, so I'm likely missing quite a few details.  [MENTION=23991]daveman[/MENTION], do you think bullets containing cyanide, if they existed, would be too lethal?

On guns I do support the right to own, and would like to buy a nice, black shotgun for hunting. I went to a Reinneman's awhile ago, and found a nice black shotgun around $400 or so, and it had two interchangeable barrels. I'd like to bag some deer for venison steaks and chili.


----------



## Lakhota

Wake said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opposition to this fragmenting round also applies to shotguns.  Are they "too lethal"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a fair question, and a valid point. I'm not exactly sure how lethal a shotgun is, but I imagine one blast from 15 feet would be enough to put a man under. It probably gets weaker from further ranges, unlike normal handguns, but that in itself is a moot point. Huh, now you've got me thinking Daveman, and I appreciate that.
> 
> [MENTION=31132]Lakhota[/MENTION], what do you make of my post, and Daveman's response to it? I don't know much about guns, so I'm likely missing quite a few details.  [MENTION=23991]daveman[/MENTION], do you think bullets containing cyanide, if they existed, would be too lethal?
> 
> On guns I do support the right to own, and would like to buy a nice, black shotgun for hunting. I went to a Reinneman's awhile ago, and found a nice black shotgun around $400 or so, and it had two interchangeable barrels. I'd like to bag some deer for venison steaks and chili.
Click to expand...


Regarding the shotgun, are the barrels rifled?


----------



## HenryBHough

Wake said:


> On guns I do support the right to own, and would like to buy a nice, black shotgun for hunting. I went to a Reinneman's awhile ago, and found a nice black shotgun around $400 or so, and it had two interchangeable barrels. I'd like to bag some deer for venison steaks and chili.



Some states only allow shotguns for deer.  When I lived in one I used a 14 gauge with rifled slugs which seemed plenty for the smaller deer native to the area.  I wouldn't use buck shot - hell to clean out of the meat.

My preferred rifle for larger species of deer, up to moose, is a 30.06 with a 180 grain bullet.  At a moderate distance it makes for a clean kill and has enough stopping power that a second shot is seldom needed.

A lot of people with whom I have hunted like a lot more power and they have a point - or they would if it were not that having the power causes them to take long shots.  Then there's a hell of a long walk on tough terrain to get to the kill and, by the time you get there, you're too tired to do a good job of saving the meat.  

But, of course, we're hunting for the meat, not for "sport".


----------



## whitehall

There was always something for the Henny Penny sky is falling anti-2nd Amendment left wing to be afraid of. First it was "saturday night specials" and then it was "plastic guns" that couldn't be detected by metal detectors and at one time it was "cop killer bullets". It was all show boat propaganda bull shit designed to make people afraid but it only works with the low information left who ain't got a clue on a good day.


----------



## PredFan

DiabloBlanco said:


> Cool. When morons who point the guns at themselves or try cleaning it without making sure its unloaded first it will make sure they get their Darwin Award right fast and efficient!



No one has a problem with this. If one is stupid enough to point any gun at themselves or to clean it without checking it is an idiot who hopefully won't get a chance to breed before Darwin visits them.


----------



## WinterBorn

Wake said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opposition to this fragmenting round also applies to shotguns.  Are they "too lethal"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a fair question, and a valid point. I'm not exactly sure how lethal a shotgun is, but I imagine one blast from 15 feet would be enough to put a man under. It probably gets weaker from further ranges, unlike normal handguns, but that in itself is a moot point. Huh, now you've got me thinking Daveman, and I appreciate that.
> 
> [MENTION=31132]Lakhota[/MENTION], what do you make of my post, and Daveman's response to it? I don't know much about guns, so I'm likely missing quite a few details.  [MENTION=23991]daveman[/MENTION], do you think bullets containing cyanide, if they existed, would be too lethal?
> 
> On guns I do support the right to own, and would like to buy a nice, black shotgun for hunting. I went to a Reinneman's awhile ago, and found a nice black shotgun around $400 or so, and it had two interchangeable barrels. I'd like to bag some deer for venison steaks and chili.
Click to expand...


If you want a shotgun, and are not going to have multiple guns, look for either a Remington 870 or a Mossberg 500.  You can buy extra barrels for either one.  Both are rock solid firearms that will last the rest of your life.  And both make excellent defensive guns.  I prefer the Remington because it has dual rails for the pump action.  I don't know of any failures by the Mossberg, but having 2 rails instead of 1 sounds more dependable.

As for the lethality of shotguns, they are more deadly than handguns.  I read a statistic years ago that had 9mm handguns being lethal something like 30% of the time.  A 12 ga shotgun was lethal 85% of the time.  (stats were from police reports and hospital ER data)


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opposition to this fragmenting round also applies to shotguns.  Are they "too lethal"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a fair question, and a valid point. I'm not exactly sure how lethal a shotgun is, but I imagine one blast from 15 feet would be enough to put a man under. It probably gets weaker from further ranges, unlike normal handguns, but that in itself is a moot point. Huh, now you've got me thinking Daveman, and I appreciate that.
> 
> [MENTION=31132]Lakhota[/MENTION], what do you make of my post, and Daveman's response to it? I don't know much about guns, so I'm likely missing quite a few details.  [MENTION=23991]daveman[/MENTION], do you think bullets containing cyanide, if they existed, would be too lethal?
> 
> On guns I do support the right to own, and would like to buy a nice, black shotgun for hunting. I went to a Reinneman's awhile ago, and found a nice black shotgun around $400 or so, and it had two interchangeable barrels. I'd like to bag some deer for venison steaks and chili.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regarding the shotgun, are the barrels rifled?
Click to expand...


Shotgun barrels are not rifled.  But the slugs are rifled.  It is not as precise as a rifle barrel, but for the ranges used by shotguns it works pretty well.


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota, if you are worried about killing someone when you use "deadly force", feel free to buy nonlethal rounds for your shotgun.  Either beanbags or rubber pellets hurt like hell but don't kill.

Personally, I will stick with MagSafe fragmenting rounds.


----------



## Slyhunter

zeke said:


> I bet the cops are excited the criminals will have an ammunition that is even more lethal that what they face now.
> 
> And how about the ER doctors. When some kid is shot by these rounds and not killed immediately, it will present a real challenge for the ER staff to try and save a life. When several major organs have been damaged by this type of ammo, it will be a real challenge for sure. And expensive.
> 
> But who cares about expense and lives when you have this type of ammo available.



Actually bullet proof vest would be more effective vs this kind of ammo then what is already out there.


----------



## Lakhota

WinterBorn said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a fair question, and a valid point. I'm not exactly sure how lethal a shotgun is, but I imagine one blast from 15 feet would be enough to put a man under. It probably gets weaker from further ranges, unlike normal handguns, but that in itself is a moot point. Huh, now you've got me thinking Daveman, and I appreciate that.
> 
> [MENTION=31132]Lakhota[/MENTION], what do you make of my post, and Daveman's response to it? I don't know much about guns, so I'm likely missing quite a few details.  [MENTION=23991]daveman[/MENTION], do you think bullets containing cyanide, if they existed, would be too lethal?
> 
> On guns I do support the right to own, and would like to buy a nice, black shotgun for hunting. I went to a Reinneman's awhile ago, and found a nice black shotgun around $400 or so, and it had two interchangeable barrels. I'd like to bag some deer for venison steaks and chili.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the shotgun, are the barrels rifled?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shotgun barrels are not rifled.  But the slugs are rifled.  It is not as precise as a rifle barrel, but for the ranges used by shotguns it works pretty well.
Click to expand...


Hey, dumbass, I suggest you do a little more research.


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the shotgun, are the barrels rifled?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shotgun barrels are not rifled.  But the slugs are rifled.  It is not as precise as a rifle barrel, but for the ranges used by shotguns it works pretty well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, dumbass, I suggest you do a little more research.
Click to expand...


My mistake.  I guess I should have done more than look at the shotgun barrels I own.

Now, if you know so much about ammunition, why did you start this thread?


----------



## Lakhota

WinterBorn said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shotgun barrels are not rifled.  But the slugs are rifled.  It is not as precise as a rifle barrel, but for the ranges used by shotguns it works pretty well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, dumbass, I suggest you do a little more research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mistake.  I guess I should have done more than look at the shotgun barrels I own.
> 
> Now, if you know so much about ammunition, why did you start this thread?
Click to expand...


To hear comments from geniuses like you.


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the shotgun, are the barrels rifled?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shotgun barrels are not rifled.  But the slugs are rifled.  It is not as precise as a rifle barrel, but for the ranges used by shotguns it works pretty well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, dumbass, I suggest you do a little more research.
Click to expand...


I stand corrected on the slug barrels.  I thought they were smooth bores as well.  I do not use them so my knowledge is limited.


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, dumbass, I suggest you do a little more research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake.  I guess I should have done more than look at the shotgun barrels I own.
> 
> Now, if you know so much about ammunition, why did you start this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To hear comments from geniuses like you.
Click to expand...


Right, because fragmenting bullets are new, right?

And because these bullets are much more lethal, right?

And the lethality is the reason for them, right?

And your obvious ignorance in ballistics has not been shown over and over in this thread, right?


You create a thread whining about bullets that make "deadly force" less deadly?    You whine that when people do incredibly stupid things, the bullet prevent their death?    And you have the gall to ridicule anyone else's mistakes?


----------



## PredFan

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the shotgun, are the barrels rifled?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shotgun barrels are not rifled.  But the slugs are rifled.  It is not as precise as a rifle barrel, but for the ranges used by shotguns it works pretty well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, dumbass, I suggest you do a little more research.
Click to expand...


Shotgun barrels are not rifled. At least none that I've ever heard of.


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the shotgun, are the barrels rifled?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shotgun barrels are not rifled.  But the slugs are rifled.  It is not as precise as a rifle barrel, but for the ranges used by shotguns it works pretty well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, dumbass, I suggest you do a little more research.
Click to expand...


Oh, and one more tidbit concerning your knowledge.  You asked if shotgun barrels are rifled?  Only a specialized rifled slug barrel is rifled.  The basic shotgun barrel is smooth.  So the overwhelming majority of shotgun barrels are smooth.  This is why the slugs themselves are rifled.


----------



## WinterBorn

PredFan said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shotgun barrels are not rifled.  But the slugs are rifled.  It is not as precise as a rifle barrel, but for the ranges used by shotguns it works pretty well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, dumbass, I suggest you do a little more research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shotgun barrels are not rifled. At least none that I've ever heard of.
Click to expand...


Apparently the newer models of slug barrels are rifled.  Not the standard shotgun barrels.


----------



## westwall

Wake said:


> While it's true that there do exist more than some people who shoot themselves accidentally, it's also true that more more than some people hurt themselves on accident. Risky behavior, automobiles, and controlled substances are other ways people hurt themselves, whether intentionally or not. Also Lakhota, if a person injures themselves accidentally with a gun, chances are they're not as responsible as one would think.
> 
> I've mixed feelings on this destructive bullet. How will it be used? Who will use it? I don't see why a civilian would need to be armed with such a lethal weapon. Now, that doesn't mean I'm not an ardent defender of gun rights. Things like this made solely to kill instead of maim... don't make much sense to me. If someone attacks me, I'd shoot the person to put him on his back, but it wouldn't be my intent to kill him. This weapon increases the chance of fatality. How much so is a good question. If I wanted to kill a threat, I'd unload my cartridge. But this one bullet becomes like 7-8 bullets that rip through the body. Do we now intend to kill rather than stop, when it comes to personal defense? When do we start using bullets laced with cyanide?
> 
> As with all cultures, gun culture isn't perfect, and there will always be unsavory elements at play. I think there needs to be a balance. Should people be allowed to holster a handgun? Yes. Should they be allowed to pack two assault rifles on their backs? I don't believe so. There is a point where one being goes from having an effective deterrent to personal injury, to becoming a lethal force that can kill large groups of people.
> 
> I partially agree with tyroneweaver's first post. Guns aren't the problem... but they can be... if their lethality becomes ever greater. Would he be alright with bullets dripping with cyanide? What difference would it make? Guns aren't the problem, correct? With these bullets, the death rate becomes 100% for everyone without an immunity to cyanide.
> 
> And I feel there is something rather unsettling about weaponry that's made more and more so to kill. The goal should be to stop someone not increasingly assure death. In my opinion some of Lakhota's concerns are quite valid, and merit further discussion. If these bullets are used militarily, then I have little issue with that. But in the hands of civilians, to be packing such lethal force? Where does it end? And if that shouldn't matter, than stand behind citizens using bullets soaked in poison.
> 
> I am a conservative, but I don't feel glee in the thought of adding more killing force to a tool designed to keep me safe. If I wanted to kill my threat, I need only aim and pull the trigger three times.    [MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION], I don't particularly agree with your post #23. I feel I can stop someone trying to hurt me and mine with a good gun, and reasonable aim. One, two, maybe three quick pulls of the trigger and he's down. With these bullets, it likely takes just one pull of the trigger to rip through his guts with the lethality of 8 bullets. If lethality is not the matter, would you support using bullets that deliver lethal doses of cyanide instead, to ensure death?
> 
> *Where do we draw the line on lethality?*









Gunfights are not what you see in the movies.  They are sudden, horribly violent and to the innocents who are victimized by them, life long nightmares.  I want the best possible ammunition (this may or may not be it) to do the job because bad guys don't quit after being shot two or three times.  There are plenty of cases where they have been hit 5 to 10times with mortal wounds and they keep fighting.

I don't ever want to have to take someone's life.  However, if someone places me in that position through _their_ actions, then I want to put them down as fast as possible.  The faster they go down, the less likely it is that I will be harmed.

During WWII American tankers had a habit of putting hits into German tanks till they caught fire....that way they can know for sure it's knocked out.  I'm the same way in a defensive shooting situation.  I can't set them on fire but I can sure make sure they're laid out on the ground.


----------



## daveman

Wake said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opposition to this fragmenting round also applies to shotguns.  Are they "too lethal"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a fair question, and a valid point. I'm not exactly sure how lethal a shotgun is, but I imagine one blast from 15 feet would be enough to put a man under. It probably gets weaker from further ranges, unlike normal handguns, but that in itself is a moot point. Huh, now you've got me thinking Daveman, and I appreciate that.
Click to expand...

*tips hat*  



Wake said:


> [MENTION=31132]Lakhota[/MENTION], what do you make of my post, and Daveman's response to it? I don't know much about guns, so I'm likely missing quite a few details.  [MENTION=23991]daveman[/MENTION], do you think bullets containing cyanide, if they existed, would be too lethal?


Rounds containing cyanide would be correctly classed as chemical weapons, and would thus be verboten.  Any other round is perfectly safe once expended.  A cyanide round would be dangerous even after it's been fired.


----------



## Stephanie

Lakhota said:


> People get shot a lot in America, and it isn&#8217;t always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. They&#8217;re often &#8220;playing&#8221; with their guns. Or &#8220;cleaning&#8221; them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes they&#8217;re just injured, like in the examples cited above.
> 
> But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. That&#8217;s because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.
> 
> G2 Research&#8217;s &#8220;Radically Invasive Projectile&#8221; (RIP, get it? &#8212; because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullet&#8217;s core to travel deeper through a person.
> 
> This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.
> 
> And this is the bullet&#8217;s selling point.
> 
> Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, it&#8217;s time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting &#8220;open carry&#8221; protests at restaurants and stores around the country don&#8217;t have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon they&#8217;ll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nation&#8217;s military? Whom do you think you&#8217;re making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.
> 
> There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.
> 
> New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review
> 
> This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare
> 
> G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube
> 
> This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.



 we could go back to bow and arrows...Would that make you happier?


----------



## PredFan

Stephanie said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> People get shot a lot in America, and it isnt always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. Theyre often playing with their guns. Or cleaning them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes theyre just injured, like in the examples cited above.
> 
> But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. Thats because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.
> 
> G2 Researchs Radically Invasive Projectile (RIP, get it?  because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullets core to travel deeper through a person.
> 
> This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.
> 
> And this is the bullets selling point.
> 
> Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nations military? Whom do you think youre making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.
> 
> There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.
> 
> New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review
> 
> This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare
> 
> G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube
> 
> This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we could go back to bow and arrows...Would that make you happier?
Click to expand...


I'm thinking about buying a crossbow really. Lethal and silent. I kind of like that.


----------



## Lakhota

I'm 67 and been hunting since I was 6 - mostly deer.  I no longer reload because many manufacturers provide accurate high-quality bullet/powder loads off the shelf.  For home protection, I prefer a .357 with heavy grain bullets and a smooth-bore 12-gauge shotgun with 00 buckshot - open choke.  For deer hunting, I prefer my old .270 Weatherby Magnum and .280 Remington.    I no longer keep up with the latest bullet fads and technology.  I'm somewhat old-fashioned and stick with what I know works well for me that produces sufficient accuracy, expansion, penetration, and shock.  I guess Nosler remains my favorite bullet.  My hunting goals remain constant - a humane kill, quality venison for the table, safety and enjoyment.  As for the bullets in the OP, I wouldn't own them - for home protection or hunting.

Bottom line - I no longer consider myself an expert on any of this stuff.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

skookerasbil said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who needs that shit......the old reliable 00buck.....removes a whole head at 20 paces >>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My 12 gauge Springfield pump sits at the head of my bed for this very reason. Though I can't really carry a shotgun around with me outside, so I also have handguns. This ammo would be good to have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pred fan.....the gun grabber limpwristers have no clue.
> 
> My 14 year old son has a Savage .17 HMR. Tiny little bullet........nasty as shit.....plow through a quarter at 200 yards. That thing enters the body at the shoulder and God knows how many organs it is bouncing around and tearing up as it tumbles around. In some cases, Id much prefer being hit by a round from my 7.62 X 39 AK.......be on my back and without most of my shoulder but might well survive. .17 HMR......damn thing is probably passing through a lung, the heart and stopping maybe in the liver. Awesome!!!
> 
> Stupid moron gun grabbers........bubble dwellers.
Click to expand...


  Yep....a 5.56 standard ball ammo round will pass through .400 of an inch of 4140 commercial heat treated steel at 100 yards. The bullet is only slightly heavier then a .22 bullet. Score one for hydrostatic shock!!


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Lakhota said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opposition to this fragmenting round also applies to shotguns.  Are they "too lethal"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a fair question, and a valid point. I'm not exactly sure how lethal a shotgun is, but I imagine one blast from 15 feet would be enough to put a man under. It probably gets weaker from further ranges, unlike normal handguns, but that in itself is a moot point. Huh, now you've got me thinking Daveman, and I appreciate that.
> 
> [MENTION=31132]Lakhota[/MENTION], what do you make of my post, and Daveman's response to it? I don't know much about guns, so I'm likely missing quite a few details.  [MENTION=23991]daveman[/MENTION], do you think bullets containing cyanide, if they existed, would be too lethal?
> 
> On guns I do support the right to own, and would like to buy a nice, black shotgun for hunting. I went to a Reinneman's awhile ago, and found a nice black shotgun around $400 or so, and it had two interchangeable barrels. I'd like to bag some deer for venison steaks and chili.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regarding the shotgun, are the barrels rifled?
Click to expand...


  Slug guns are. Most aren't though.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

PredFan said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shotgun barrels are not rifled.  But the slugs are rifled.  It is not as precise as a rifle barrel, but for the ranges used by shotguns it works pretty well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, dumbass, I suggest you do a little more research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shotgun barrels are not rifled. At least none that I've ever heard of.
Click to expand...


   They make em. They're pretty common actually.


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

I want these bullets


----------



## Missourian

Meister said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soldiers made their own for a very long time by just notching the lead with a knife. They're called dum dum bullets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that was addressed by the Hague Convention of 1899.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, it didn't stop them.
Click to expand...


An M60 gunner lights up an enemy soldier as he runs from one combat position to another.

The new shavetail butter bar observes this and orders the machine gunner to ceasefire.

The green platoon leader rebukes the gunner "Were you not briefed on the geneva convention as part of your training?"  he demanded.

Sure thing LT...I was attempting to destroy his canteen and rank insignia when the rest of him  got in the way,  Sir.


----------



## Missourian

Lakhota said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opposition to this fragmenting round also applies to shotguns.  Are they "too lethal"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a fair question, and a valid point. I'm not exactly sure how lethal a shotgun is, but I imagine one blast from 15 feet would be enough to put a man under. It probably gets weaker from further ranges, unlike normal handguns, but that in itself is a moot point. Huh, now you've got me thinking Daveman, and I appreciate that.
> 
> [MENTION=31132]Lakhota[/MENTION], what do you make of my post, and Daveman's response to it? I don't know much about guns, so I'm likely missing quite a few details.  [MENTION=23991]daveman[/MENTION], do you think bullets containing cyanide, if they existed, would be too lethal?
> 
> On guns I do support the right to own, and would like to buy a nice, black shotgun for hunting. I went to a Reinneman's awhile ago, and found a nice black shotgun around $400 or so, and it had two interchangeable barrels. I'd like to bag some deer for venison steaks and chili.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regarding the shotgun, are the barrels rifled?
Click to expand...


Some are,  and some are not.

The reality is it really doesn't make any difference.

If you shoot yourself,  that's point blank...and if I shoot you,  it's not going to be 100 yards away...statistically,  it's going to be less than 7 yards.


----------



## Missourian

Well,  I've read the entire thread,  and I'm now convinced the bullets do cause certain death.

A gullible gun grabber reads this shit on GunGrabberCentral.org,  swallows it hook, line and sinker,  posts it as fact on a message board...

...then when it is thoroughly and viciously debunked...they die of embarrassment.


----------



## HenryBHough

Missourian said:


> Well,  I've read the entire thread,  and I'm now convinced the bullets do cause certain death.
> 
> A gullible gun grabber reads this shit on GunGrabberCentral.org,  swallows it hook, line and sinker,  posts it as fact on a message board...
> 
> ...then when it is thoroughly and viciously debunked...they die of embarrassment.




Careful....they'll generate some stats and magic up a protest march demanding that embarrassment be outlawed or, at the very least, that licenses and training be required for setting out to embarrass their sorry asses.


----------



## pismoe

Just a mention but wasn't it BLACK TALON ammo that every gun grabber was up in arms about sometime in the 90s , mid 90s I think .


----------



## Stephanie

Now they're crapping their diapers over bullets

they'll be getting to bats soon enough


----------



## Jarlaxle

WinterBorn said:


> Lakhota, if you are worried about killing someone when you use "deadly force", feel free to buy nonlethal rounds for your shotgun.  Either beanbags or rubber pellets hurt like hell but don't kill.
> 
> Personally, I will stick with MagSafe fragmenting rounds.



I much prefer 00 buckshot.


----------



## Jarlaxle

HereWeGoAgain said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> My 12 gauge Springfield pump sits at the head of my bed for this very reason. Though I can't really carry a shotgun around with me outside, so I also have handguns. This ammo would be good to have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pred fan.....the gun grabber limpwristers have no clue.
> 
> My 14 year old son has a Savage .17 HMR. Tiny little bullet........nasty as shit.....plow through a quarter at 200 yards. That thing enters the body at the shoulder and God knows how many organs it is bouncing around and tearing up as it tumbles around. In some cases, Id much prefer being hit by a round from my 7.62 X 39 AK.......be on my back and without most of my shoulder but might well survive. .17 HMR......damn thing is probably passing through a lung, the heart and stopping maybe in the liver. Awesome!!!
> 
> Stupid moron gun grabbers........bubble dwellers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep....a 5.56 standard ball ammo round will pass through .400 of an inch of 4140 commercial heat treated steel at 100 yards. The bullet is only slightly heavier then a .22 bullet. Score one for hydrostatic shock!!
Click to expand...


A .22-250 SOFTPOINT will go through half-inch steel plate like paper.


----------



## Lakhota

The most amusing posts on this thread, aside from those who don't know shit about what they're talking about, are the "gun grabber" posts.  As a lifelong hunter and avid gun enthusiast, I strongly support universal background checks.  I don't understand why anyone would oppose that.


----------



## yidnar

Lakhota said:


> People get shot a lot in America, and it isnt always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. Theyre often playing with their guns. Or cleaning them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes theyre just injured, like in the examples cited above.
> 
> But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. Thats because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.
> 
> G2 Researchs Radically Invasive Projectile (RIP, get it?  because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullets core to travel deeper through a person.
> 
> This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.
> 
> And this is the bullets selling point.
> 
> Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nations military? Whom do you think youre making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.
> 
> There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.
> 
> New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review
> 
> This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare
> 
> G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube
> 
> This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.


I'll take a few boxes for my 45 and 357 magnum !!


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> The most amusing posts on this thread, aside from those who don't know shit about what they're talking about, are the "gun grabber" posts.  As a lifelong hunter and avid gun enthusiast, I strongly support universal background checks.  I don't understand why anyone would oppose that.










We don't either for the most part.  the problem is you asshats always, and I mean ALWAYS want there to be a gun registration scheme involved as well.  Take the registration out, and the majority of us have no problem with it.


----------



## Missourian

Lakhota said:


> The most amusing posts on this thread, aside from those who don't know shit about what they're talking about, are the "gun grabber" posts.  As a lifelong hunter and avid gun enthusiast, I strongly support universal d checks.  I don't understand why anyone would oppose that.



Riiiiiight.  

Let's go snipe hunting...you can hold the bag and the flashlight,  and we'll flush 'em right to ya.


----------



## Spoonman

Noomi said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns aren't the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your gun culture is.
Click to expand...


366,000,000 plus guns and only 11k deaths.  like .00003 guns ever kill.  hardly a gun culture issue.  the number of deaths to the number of guns is so small that the percentage doesn't even register as a risk


----------



## Missourian

westwall said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most amusing posts on this thread, aside from those who don't know shit about what they're talking about, are the "gun grabber" posts.  As a lifelong hunter and avid gun enthusiast, I strongly support universal background checks.  I don't understand why anyone would oppose that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't either for the most part.  the problem is you asshats always, and I mean ALWAYS want there to be a gun registration scheme involved as well.  Take the registration out, and the majority of us have no problem with it.
Click to expand...



Exactly.  I'd be happy to go to the FFL and say "hey,  I'm selling a gun to Westwall...is he ok?"

Leave the serial number out of it...qualify the person.


----------



## Lakhota

Missourian said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most amusing posts on this thread, aside from those who don't know shit about what they're talking about, are the "gun grabber" posts.  As a lifelong hunter and avid gun enthusiast, I strongly support universal d checks.  I don't understand why anyone would oppose that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight.
> 
> Let's go snipe hunting...you can hold the bag and the flashlight,  and we'll flush 'em right to ya.
Click to expand...


Aw, yes, the old snipe hunt.  I remember my first one.  As you know, snipe really exist, but are notoriously hard to hunt.  Hence, reportedly the origin of the word sniper.


----------



## PredFan

"New bullets mean certain death!" It's true. I touched one yesterday and got really sick.


----------



## Lakhota

PredFan said:


> "New bullets mean certain death!" It's true. I touched one yesterday and got really sick.



See, I told ya so.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Jarlaxle said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pred fan.....the gun grabber limpwristers have no clue.
> 
> My 14 year old son has a Savage .17 HMR. Tiny little bullet........nasty as shit.....plow through a quarter at 200 yards. That thing enters the body at the shoulder and God knows how many organs it is bouncing around and tearing up as it tumbles around. In some cases, Id much prefer being hit by a round from my 7.62 X 39 AK.......be on my back and without most of my shoulder but might well survive. .17 HMR......damn thing is probably passing through a lung, the heart and stopping maybe in the liver. Awesome!!!
> 
> Stupid moron gun grabbers........bubble dwellers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep....a 5.56 standard ball ammo round will pass through .400 of an inch of 4140 commercial heat treated steel at 100 yards. The bullet is only slightly heavier then a .22 bullet. Score one for hydrostatic shock!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A .22-250 SOFTPOINT will go through half-inch steel plate like paper.
Click to expand...


 4140 .500 CH would stop that round. .500 mild steel is butter for most high velocity rounds.
   My buddy and I have been trying to find a cheap alternative to armor plate for high velocity rounds for targets.....so far we haven't been successful until we've reached .750
And even at that the damage is so great that after a couple of hundred rounds it totally destroy's the target.
   Yeah we're cheap that way....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Lakhota said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most amusing posts on this thread, aside from those who don't know shit about what they're talking about, are the "gun grabber" posts.  As a lifelong hunter and avid gun enthusiast, I strongly support universal d checks.  I don't understand why anyone would oppose that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight.
> 
> Let's go snipe hunting...you can hold the bag and the flashlight,  and we'll flush 'em right to ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, yes, the old snipe hunt.  I remember my first one.  As you know, snipe really exist, but are notoriously hard to hunt.  Hence, reportedly the origin of the word sniper.
Click to expand...


 My first snipe hunt at 15 years old I shot 24 out of 25. Never forget that day.

My second was an arranged hunt for my nephews who I sent into the bush of the Texas hill country banging rocks together and saying "whodee who,whodee who" Needless to say they didnt nab shit.....Oh yeah,they were from Minnesota.


----------



## Lakhota

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight.
> 
> Let's go snipe hunting...you can hold the bag and the flashlight,  and we'll flush 'em right to ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aw, yes, the old snipe hunt.  I remember my first one.  As you know, snipe really exist, but are notoriously hard to hunt.  Hence, reportedly the origin of the word sniper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My first snipe hunt at 15 years old I shot 24 out of 25. Never forget that day.
> 
> My second was an arranged hunt for my nephews who I sent into the bush of the Texas hill country banging rocks together and saying "whodee who,whodee who" Needless to say they didnt nab shit.....Oh yeah,they were from Minnesota.
Click to expand...


Wow, 15 years old?  Simo would be envious.


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> The most amusing posts on this thread, aside from those who don't know shit about what they're talking about, are the "gun grabber" posts.  As a lifelong hunter and avid gun enthusiast, I strongly support universal background checks.  I don't understand why anyone would oppose that.



I support gun dealers doing background checks.

Do you want private sales to do them as well?


----------



## Geaux4it

PaintMyHouse said:


> Maybe this bullet can get this into the low to mid 90's?  Gotta love progress...
> 
> "Suicide is the 10th-leading cause of death in the U.S.; in 2010, 38,364 people killed themselves. In more than half of these cases, they used firearms. Indeed, more people in this country kill themselves with guns than with all other intentional means combined, including hanging, poisoning or overdose, jumping, or cutting.
> 
> "Though guns are not the most common method by which people attempt suicide, they are the most lethal. *About 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death.* (Drug overdose, the most widely used method in suicide attempts, is fatal in less than 3 percent of cases.) Moreover, guns are an irreversible solution to what is often a passing crisis. Suicidal individuals who take pills or inhale car exhaust or use razors have time to reconsider their actions or summon help. With a firearm, once the trigger is pulled, theres no turning back."
> Guns & Suicide: The Hidden Toll | Magazine Features | Harvard School of Public Health Magazine Features


----------



## Slyhunter

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight.
> 
> Let's go snipe hunting...you can hold the bag and the flashlight,  and we'll flush 'em right to ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aw, yes, the old snipe hunt.  I remember my first one.  As you know, snipe really exist, but are notoriously hard to hunt.  Hence, reportedly the origin of the word sniper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My first snipe hunt at 15 years old I shot 24 out of 25. Never forget that day.
> 
> My second was an arranged hunt for my nephews who I sent into the bush of the Texas hill country banging rocks together and saying "whodee who,whodee who" Needless to say they didnt nab shit.....Oh yeah,they were from Minnesota.
Click to expand...

I used to hunt refrigerators when I was 15 with a 12 gauge shot gun. Killed a wood pecker once. Didn't like the idea of a dead wood pecker serving no purpose so didn't do it again.
Killing for food, that's different. Somebody has to.


----------



## westwall

WinterBorn said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most amusing posts on this thread, aside from those who don't know shit about what they're talking about, are the "gun grabber" posts.  As a lifelong hunter and avid gun enthusiast, I strongly support universal background checks.  I don't understand why anyone would oppose that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I support gun dealers doing background checks.
> 
> Do you want private sales to do them as well?
Click to expand...






If I don't know the person, yes, I would favor a background check.  On the person alone, no gun data at all.


----------



## Lakhota

WinterBorn said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most amusing posts on this thread, aside from those who don't know shit about what they're talking about, are the "gun grabber" posts.  As a lifelong hunter and avid gun enthusiast, I strongly support universal background checks.  I don't understand why anyone would oppose that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I support gun dealers doing background checks.
> 
> Do you want private sales to do them as well?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most amusing posts on this thread, aside from those who don't know shit about what they're talking about, are the "gun grabber" posts.  As a lifelong hunter and avid gun enthusiast, I strongly support universal background checks.  I don't understand why anyone would oppose that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I support gun dealers doing background checks.
> 
> Do you want private sales to do them as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


In order to call in to the NICS to do a background check, you have to be able to give your name, address, social security number and driver's license number.

Giving that to a business is one thing.  Do you really think people should give that to someone who does not have a business and no way to find them if they steal your ID?


----------



## westwall

WinterBorn said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support gun dealers doing background checks.
> 
> Do you want private sales to do them as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to call in to the NICS to do a background check, you have to be able to give your name, address, social security number and driver's license number.
> 
> Giving that to a business is one thing.  Do you really think people should give that to someone who does not have a business and no way to find them if they steal your ID?
Click to expand...






If someone is going to steal your ID this is an automatic conviction (pretty easy to figure out where the breach came from) and if that is a concern I certainly wouldn't be buying a gun from them.


----------



## Lakhota

WinterBorn said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support gun dealers doing background checks.
> 
> Do you want private sales to do them as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to call in to the NICS to do a background check, you have to be able to give your name, address, social security number and driver's license number.
> 
> Giving that to a business is one thing.  Do you really think people should give that to someone who does not have a business and no way to find them if they steal your ID?
Click to expand...


Food for thought...

Universal Background Checks & the Private Sale Loophole Policy Summary


----------



## PredFan

WinterBorn said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most amusing posts on this thread, aside from those who don't know shit about what they're talking about, are the "gun grabber" posts.  As a lifelong hunter and avid gun enthusiast, I strongly support universal background checks.  I don't understand why anyone would oppose that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I support gun dealers doing background checks.
> 
> Do you want private sales to do them as well?
Click to expand...


They already do background checks, it hasn't stopped the violence.


----------



## PredFan

Can anyone state logically how a background check would have stopped any of the mass shootings?


----------



## Lakhota

PredFan said:


> Can anyone state logically how a background check would have stopped any of the mass shootings?



So your solution is to do nothing?


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone state logically how a background check would have stopped any of the mass shootings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your solution is to do nothing?
Click to expand...







Background checks cost money.  That money could be used to do something that is actually productive don't you think?  What point is there in doing something that provably doesn't work?


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone state logically how a background check would have stopped any of the mass shootings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your solution is to do nothing?
Click to expand...


As long as the mental health professionals refuse to submit their patient's names to be added to the database, it seems that a significant portion of the individuals we want disarmed are able to buy guns anywhere.


----------



## Geaux4it

PredFan said:


> Can anyone state logically how a background check would have stopped any of the mass shootings?



As Uncle Joe said, um....No

-Geaux


----------



## Meister

PredFan said:


> Can anyone state logically how a background check would have stopped any of the mass shootings?



I've been asking this question many times, never got an answer.


----------



## PredFan

Lakhota said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone state logically how a background check would have stopped any of the mass shootings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your solution is to do nothing?
Click to expand...


That isn't an answer.


----------



## Lakhota

PredFan said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone state logically how a background check would have stopped any of the mass shootings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your solution is to do nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't an answer.
Click to expand...


Mass shootings attract mass media coverage - whereas MOST shootings do not.


----------



## Meister

Lakhota said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your solution is to do nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mass shootings attract mass media coverage - whereas MOST shootings do not.
Click to expand...


You simply can't answer the question, can you?  It's ok because smarter liberals than yourself have avoided the question too.


----------



## Lakhota

Meister said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mass shootings attract mass media coverage - whereas MOST shootings do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply can't answer the question, can you?  It's ok because smarter liberals than yourself have avoided the question too.
Click to expand...


There is no simple answer for such a broad question.  I could also ask the following: Would universal background checks not have saved any lives?

For universal background checks to be effective, there must be effective coordination between federal and state governments.  They're not there yet - and probably won't be in my lifetime.  No one is suggesting that shooting deaths can be legislatively eliminated - but they can be greatly reduced.  I certainly feel safer when I'm on the highway, knowing that there are enforceable laws and penalties that help protect me from unauthorized and unsafe drivers.  Otherwise, the highways would just be an unregulated nightmare.


----------



## Slyhunter

Lakhota said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone state logically how a background check would have stopped any of the mass shootings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your solution is to do nothing?
Click to expand...


The solution is not to enact laws that do not solve the alleged problem. So maybe do nothing is the only answer.


----------



## Meister

Lakhota said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mass shootings attract mass media coverage - whereas MOST shootings do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You simply can't answer the question, can you?  It's ok because smarter liberals than yourself have avoided the question too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no simple answer for such a broad question.  I could also ask the following: Would universal background checks not have saved any lives?
> 
> For universal background checks to be effective, there must be effective coordination between federal and state governments.  They're not there yet - and probably won't be in my lifetime.  No one is suggesting that shooting deaths can be legislatively eliminated - but they can be greatly reduced.  I certainly feel safer when I'm on the highway, knowing that there are enforceable laws and penalties that help protect me from unauthorized and unsafe drivers.  Otherwise, the highways would just be an unregulated nightmare.
Click to expand...


It was a simple question.  The problem is that the answer is not what you want to hear.


As for your question.........few, if any.


----------



## Lakhota

Meister said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply can't answer the question, can you?  It's ok because smarter liberals than yourself have avoided the question too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no simple answer for such a broad question.  I could also ask the following: Would universal background checks not have saved any lives?
> 
> For universal background checks to be effective, there must be effective coordination between federal and state governments.  They're not there yet - and probably won't be in my lifetime.  No one is suggesting that shooting deaths can be legislatively eliminated - but they can be greatly reduced.  I certainly feel safer when I'm on the highway, knowing that there are enforceable laws and penalties that help protect me from unauthorized and unsafe drivers.  Otherwise, the highways would just be an unregulated nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a simple question.  The problem is that the answer is not what you want to hear.
> 
> 
> As for your question.........few, if any.
Click to expand...


There is no answer that anyone could give you that would open your closed mind on this subject.  Would you rather have our highways unregulated?


----------



## Meister

Lakhota said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no simple answer for such a broad question.  I could also ask the following: Would universal background checks not have saved any lives?
> 
> For universal background checks to be effective, there must be effective coordination between federal and state governments.  They're not there yet - and probably won't be in my lifetime.  No one is suggesting that shooting deaths can be legislatively eliminated - but they can be greatly reduced.  I certainly feel safer when I'm on the highway, knowing that there are enforceable laws and penalties that help protect me from unauthorized and unsafe drivers.  Otherwise, the highways would just be an unregulated nightmare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a simple question.  The problem is that the answer is not what you want to hear.
> 
> 
> As for your question.........few, if any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no answer that anyone could give you that would open your closed mind on this subject.  Would you rather have our highways unregulated?
Click to expand...


Apples and oranges.   
Still no answer to the question that was presented to you.  Like I said, smarter liberals didn't answer it either.


----------



## Lakhota

Meister said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a simple question.  The problem is that the answer is not what you want to hear.
> 
> 
> As for your question.........few, if any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no answer that anyone could give you that would open your closed mind on this subject.  Would you rather have our highways unregulated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.
> Still no answer to the question that was presented to you.  Like I said, smarter liberals didn't answer it either.
Click to expand...


Apples and oranges?  How so?  Would you feel safer if our highways and vehicles were unregulated?


----------



## Meister

Lakhota said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no answer that anyone could give you that would open your closed mind on this subject.  Would you rather have our highways unregulated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.
> Still no answer to the question that was presented to you.  Like I said, smarter liberals didn't answer it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges?  How so?  Would you feel safer if our highways and vehicles were unregulated?
Click to expand...


I'll just say....."background checks".  Now you connect the dots.


----------



## Lakhota

Meister said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.
> Still no answer to the question that was presented to you.  Like I said, smarter liberals didn't answer it either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges?  How so?  Would you feel safer if our highways and vehicles were unregulated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll just say....."background checks".  Now you connect the dots.
Click to expand...


In other words, you have no answer.  "Background checks"?  It would only take ONE universal background check to purchase a gun - whereas, highway and vehicle regulations are ONGOING.


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no answer that anyone could give you that would open your closed mind on this subject.  Would you rather have our highways unregulated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.
> Still no answer to the question that was presented to you.  Like I said, smarter liberals didn't answer it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges?  How so?  Would you feel safer if our highways and vehicles were unregulated?
Click to expand...


Ok, why don't we take your comparison to the logical conclusion.

You say you "feel safer" because of the regulations.  

But can you honestly say that you believe that someone without a license cannot buy a car and drive on the highways?  

Can you honestly say that you believe that all drivers on the road at any given time are sober and not influenced by drugs?  

Can you honestly say that, if someone wanted to run into you with a car, the regulations actually make any real difference?


What is really happening on our highways is that most drivers conform to the laws willingly.  Just as most gun owners currently follow the laws willingly.

And given that these laws rely, almost entirely, on the law abiding citizen following them willingly, creating new laws has little effect on your actual safety.

Plus, the vehicle laws only apply when the vehicle will be operated on public roads.  If I have had my license revoked, I can still own a car and operate it on private property.  I can own a car that is unregistered and unlicensed, as long as I transport it to and from the private properties without using it on public roads.

I can own a car that violates all the safety laws, as long as I do not drive it on public roads.  I can transport it via a trailer on the public roads.



So why not allow gun owners to only be regulated when they are using or carrying their guns on public properties?  And as long as they transport them in a safe manner, allow them to be taken from private property to private property?


----------



## Lakhota

WinterBorn said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.
> Still no answer to the question that was presented to you.  Like I said, smarter liberals didn't answer it either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges?  How so?  Would you feel safer if our highways and vehicles were unregulated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, why don't we take your comparison to the logical conclusion.
> 
> You say you "feel safer" because of the regulations.
> 
> But can you honestly say that you believe that someone without a license cannot buy a car and drive on the highways?
> 
> Can you honestly say that you believe that all drivers on the road at any given time are sober and not influenced by drugs?
> 
> Can you honestly say that, if someone wanted to run into you with a car, the regulations actually make any real difference?
> 
> 
> What is really happening on our highways is that most drivers conform to the laws willingly.  Just as most gun owners currently follow the laws willingly.
> 
> And given that these laws rely, almost entirely, on the law abiding citizen following them willingly, creating new laws has little effect on your actual safety.
> 
> Plus, the vehicle laws only apply when the vehicle will be operated on public roads.  If I have had my license revoked, I can still own a car and operate it on private property.  I can own a car that is unregistered and unlicensed, as long as I transport it to and from the private properties without using it on public roads.
> 
> I can own a car that violates all the safety laws, as long as I do not drive it on public roads.  I can transport it via a trailer on the public roads.
> 
> 
> 
> So why not allow gun owners to only be regulated when they are using or carrying their guns on public properties?  And as long as they transport them in a safe manner, allow them to be taken from private property to private property?
Click to expand...


Apparently you didn't read one of my previous posts.  NO ONE is saying that universal background checks will totally eliminate gun shootings - any more than highway and vehicle regulations totally eliminate all violations - BUT THEY SURE AS HELL REDUCE VIOLATIONS AND IMPROVE SAFETY.

BTW, are you suggesting that felons and assorted mental nuts be allowed to legally purchase guns and "only be regulated when they are using or carrying their guns on public properties?"  Holy shit...


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges?  How so?  Would you feel safer if our highways and vehicles were unregulated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, why don't we take your comparison to the logical conclusion.
> 
> You say you "feel safer" because of the regulations.
> 
> But can you honestly say that you believe that someone without a license cannot buy a car and drive on the highways?
> 
> Can you honestly say that you believe that all drivers on the road at any given time are sober and not influenced by drugs?
> 
> Can you honestly say that, if someone wanted to run into you with a car, the regulations actually make any real difference?
> 
> 
> What is really happening on our highways is that most drivers conform to the laws willingly.  Just as most gun owners currently follow the laws willingly.
> 
> And given that these laws rely, almost entirely, on the law abiding citizen following them willingly, creating new laws has little effect on your actual safety.
> 
> Plus, the vehicle laws only apply when the vehicle will be operated on public roads.  If I have had my license revoked, I can still own a car and operate it on private property.  I can own a car that is unregistered and unlicensed, as long as I transport it to and from the private properties without using it on public roads.
> 
> I can own a car that violates all the safety laws, as long as I do not drive it on public roads.  I can transport it via a trailer on the public roads.
> 
> 
> 
> So why not allow gun owners to only be regulated when they are using or carrying their guns on public properties?  And as long as they transport them in a safe manner, allow them to be taken from private property to private property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you didn't read one of my previous posts.  NO ONE is saying that universal background checks will totally eliminate gun shootings - any more than highway and vehicle regulations totally eliminate all violations - BUT THEY SURE AS HELL REDUCE VIOLATIONS AND IMPROVE SAFETY.
> 
> BTW, are you suggesting that felons and assorted mental nuts be allowed to legally purchase guns and "only be regulated when they are using or carrying their guns on public properties?"  Holy shit...
Click to expand...


Felons and assorted mental nuts are already prohibited from owning firearms.  I am not suggesting that this law be changed.

Do you suggest that having more gun laws will actually stop someone from obtaining a firearm?


----------



## Meister

Lakhota said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges?  How so?  Would you feel safer if our highways and vehicles were unregulated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just say....."background checks".  Now you connect the dots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you have no answer.  "Background checks"?  It would only take ONE universal background check to purchase a gun - whereas, highway and vehicle regulations are ONGOING.
Click to expand...


You didn't connect the dots.

What background checks were made on the I-5 freeway?
What background checks were made with a Pontiac?


Still, background checks wouldn't have stopped the mass shootings as the guns were stolen from friends or family.


----------



## WinterBorn

More background checks would not do nearly as much as forcing the mental health professionals to report their crazy patients to the NICS database.


But I'm still not sure what background checks have to do with the hysterical post about "new" fragmenting bullets causing instant death in all shootings, as if the previous generations of fragmenting bullets did not.


----------



## earlycuyler

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight.
> 
> Let's go snipe hunting...you can hold the bag and the flashlight,  and we'll flush 'em right to ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aw, yes, the old snipe hunt.  I remember my first one.  As you know, snipe really exist, but are notoriously hard to hunt.  Hence, reportedly the origin of the word sniper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My first snipe hunt at 15 years old I shot 24 out of 25. Never forget that day.
> 
> My second was an arranged hunt for my nephews who I sent into the bush of the Texas hill country banging rocks together and saying "whodee who,whodee who" Needless to say they didnt nab shit.....Oh yeah,they were from Minnesota.
Click to expand...


My first snipe hunt was in Cleveland Texas. Weapons were a paper sack (to contain the snipers) and  the bait was a hot dog. You had to tap the paper sack with the hot dog and between the smell of the dog and the sound you lured in the snipes. My Dad felt so bad over how easely I fell for that that he took me to Tennessee to hunk wood cocktail the following year. The gun was my grandfather's Browning sweet 16 and while the action was slow, when it happened it was pretty darn fun. It you want some challenging wing shooting I highly recommend wood cock. They will make you cuss more then dove. I also suggest you budget for lots of ammo. You will burn it up.


----------



## WinterBorn

earlycuyler said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aw, yes, the old snipe hunt.  I remember my first one.  As you know, snipe really exist, but are notoriously hard to hunt.  Hence, reportedly the origin of the word sniper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My first snipe hunt at 15 years old I shot 24 out of 25. Never forget that day.
> 
> My second was an arranged hunt for my nephews who I sent into the bush of the Texas hill country banging rocks together and saying "whodee who,whodee who" Needless to say they didnt nab shit.....Oh yeah,they were from Minnesota.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My first snipe hunt was in Cleveland Texas. Weapons were a paper sack (to contain the snipers) and  the bait was a hot dog. You had to tap the paper sack with the hot dog and between the smell of the dog and the sound you lured in the snipes. My Dad felt so bad over how easely I fell for that that he took me to Tennessee to hunk wood cocktail the following year. The gun was my grandfather's Browning sweet 16 and while the action was slow, when it happened it was pretty darn fun. It you want some challenging wing shooting I highly recommend wood cock. They will make you cuss more then dove. I also suggest you budget for lots of ammo. You will burn it up.
Click to expand...


My first snipe hunt was great fun!!   It was planned during the week and it was scheduled for a friday night.  I was about 12 years old.  My older brother heard me talking about it and decided to have some fun.  He explained the reality of this kind of snipe hunting and came up with a great plan.  The guys taking me hunting drove me out to the pre-planned location, and dropped me off.  My brother was waiting on a dirt road just a little ways thru the woods.  I walked there and we drove home.  It was early the next morning that my "friends" finally called my house, panicked, because they had spent the entire night searching for me and couldn't find me.

We still laugh about it, and it has been over 40 years since we cured those guys of such games.


----------



## Lakhota

Well, I'll move on from the wingnut circular logic.

Here is something else that boggles my mind: Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines - when even duck hunters are limited in magazine capacity.  Aren't people more important than ducks?


----------



## Warrior102

Hopefully they will make this round in a .380
Although I own many weapons, I prefer to carry the .380 due to the small size. One thing that bothers me is the round. One round, unless placed squarely between the eyes or behind the ear, will unfortunately not kill the bad guy. I would undoubtedly have to empty the entire clip into him - and with ammo prices these days - this is a costly take-down. 
Better to have one round that's a guaranteed kill. 
Thanks for the informative OP, nutsack. I'll look into it.


----------



## HenryBHough

Ducks have never been known to shoot back.


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> Well, I'll move on from the wingnut circular logic.
> 
> Here is something else that boggles my mind: Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines - when even duck hunters are limited in magazine capacity.  Aren't people more important than ducks?



I only have high capacity magazines for my Ruger .22 rifle.  I like them for the convenience.

But since you disagree with high capacity magazines, tell us how many rounds will assure safety in all defensive situation?

Also, the reason for limitations for duck hunters is not out of an attempt to save the individual ducks.  It is to assure that the population survives.  I don't think the human race is in any danger of extinction.

Also, if a 10 round magazine is ok, but a 15 round magazine is not, aren't you saying that it's ok to kill 10 people, but it's a moral outrage to kill 15?


----------



## WinterBorn

Warrior102 said:


> Hopefully they will make this round in a .380
> Although I own many weapons, I prefer to carry the .380 due to the small size. One thing that bothers me is the round. One round, unless placed squarely between the eyes or behind the ear, will unfortunately not kill the bad guy. I would undoubtedly have to empty the entire clip into him - and with ammo prices these days - this is a costly take-down.
> Better to have one round that's a guaranteed kill.
> Thanks for the informative OP, nutsack. I'll look into it.



This is why I prefer my .45 ACP.  The gun is a larger, but still fairly slim, and the round packs a wallop.


----------



## Warrior102

WinterBorn said:


> This is why I prefer my .45 ACP.  The gun is a larger, but still fairly slim, and the round packs a wallop.



Agree - nothing stops/maims like a .45 ACP -I own one as well. Just prefer the .380, especially when out on the motorcycle. Very nice concealed wep.


----------



## Warrior102

Lakhota said:


> Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines -



What business is it of yours? 
Why would a President take six $5.8 million (each) vacations to Hawaii on taxpayers expense? Did you question that?? 
Of course not. 
You're a fucking stooge.


----------



## WinterBorn

Warrior102 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I prefer my .45 ACP.  The gun is a larger, but still fairly slim, and the round packs a wallop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree - nothing stops/maims like a .45 ACP -I own one as well. Just prefer the .380, especially when out on the motorcycle. Very nice concealed wep.
Click to expand...


You have a good point.  A small .380 is an excellent concealed weapon.  In the past it was said to be underpowered, but the newer ammunition has brought it up considerably.


----------



## Warrior102

Very underpowered - and inaccurate as hell (Ruger). I don't believe I could hit a barn at 20 feet with the damned thing... LOL


----------



## Lakhota

WinterBorn said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'll move on from the wingnut circular logic.
> 
> Here is something else that boggles my mind: Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines - when even duck hunters are limited in magazine capacity.  Aren't people more important than ducks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only have high capacity magazines for my Ruger .22 rifle.  I like them for the convenience.
> 
> But since you disagree with high capacity magazines, tell us how many rounds will assure safety in all defensive situation?
> 
> Also, the reason for limitations for duck hunters is not out of an attempt to save the individual ducks.  It is to assure that the population survives.  I don't think the human race is in any danger of extinction.
> 
> Also, if a 10 round magazine is ok, but a 15 round magazine is not, aren't you saying that it's ok to kill 10 people, but it's a moral outrage to kill 15?
Click to expand...


You are only comparing 10 to 15 capacity.  Personally, other than single-shot, I would prefer the maximum be 10 - maybe even 5.  My current understanding is that there are no limits on magazine capacity for civilian non-hunting use.  BTW, I care more about the survival of people than ducks.  Most fish and wildlife regulations are stricter than gun purchasing and ownership.


----------



## earlycuyler

Lakhota said:


> Well, I'll move on from the wingnut circular logic.
> 
> Here is something else that boggles my mind: Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines - when even duck hunters are limited in magazine capacity.  Aren't people more important than ducks?




1. Because this limeted capacity is a handicap designed to limit the amount of ducks taken. Years ago here in Texas they removed the mag limit during the snow goose season because the population had exploded. TPWD even resorted to poisoning them. All this is covred in hunter safety that just about all states require before one can get a license to hunt.

2. When it comes to shooting thugs, when I took my CCW it was drilled into our heads that we acquire said thug in our sights and hit them center mass repeatedly until they hit the ground and do not get up. In short, kill them good so that they dont file a law suet.


----------



## Lakhota

earlycuyler said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'll move on from the wingnut circular logic.
> 
> Here is something else that boggles my mind: Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines - when even duck hunters are limited in magazine capacity.  Aren't people more important than ducks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Because this limeted capacity is a handicap designed to limit the amount of ducks taken. Years ago here in Texas they removed the mag limit during the snow goose season because the population had exploded. TPWD even resorted to poisoning them. All this is covred in hunter safety that just about all states require before one can get a license to hunt.
> 
> 2. When it comes to shooting thugs, when I took my CCW it was drilled into our heads that we acquire said thug in our sights and hit them center mass repeatedly until they hit the ground and do not get up. In short, kill them good so that they dont file a law suet.
Click to expand...


1. In other words, your DUCKS are regulated.

2. Holy shit.  Family members can file a lawsuit.  Texas logic...


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges?  How so?  Would you feel safer if our highways and vehicles were unregulated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, why don't we take your comparison to the logical conclusion.
> 
> You say you "feel safer" because of the regulations.
> 
> But can you honestly say that you believe that someone without a license cannot buy a car and drive on the highways?
> 
> Can you honestly say that you believe that all drivers on the road at any given time are sober and not influenced by drugs?
> 
> Can you honestly say that, if someone wanted to run into you with a car, the regulations actually make any real difference?
> 
> 
> What is really happening on our highways is that most drivers conform to the laws willingly.  Just as most gun owners currently follow the laws willingly.
> 
> And given that these laws rely, almost entirely, on the law abiding citizen following them willingly, creating new laws has little effect on your actual safety.
> 
> Plus, the vehicle laws only apply when the vehicle will be operated on public roads.  If I have had my license revoked, I can still own a car and operate it on private property.  I can own a car that is unregistered and unlicensed, as long as I transport it to and from the private properties without using it on public roads.
> 
> I can own a car that violates all the safety laws, as long as I do not drive it on public roads.  I can transport it via a trailer on the public roads.
> 
> 
> 
> So why not allow gun owners to only be regulated when they are using or carrying their guns on public properties?  And as long as they transport them in a safe manner, allow them to be taken from private property to private property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you didn't read one of my previous posts.  NO ONE is saying that universal background checks will totally eliminate gun shootings - any more than highway and vehicle regulations totally eliminate all violations - BUT THEY SURE AS HELL REDUCE VIOLATIONS AND IMPROVE SAFETY.
> 
> BTW, are you suggesting that felons and assorted mental nuts be allowed to legally purchase guns and "only be regulated when they are using or carrying their guns on public properties?"  Holy shit...
Click to expand...






Laws have had no effect on drunk driving deaths.  People survive more often now because of good medical care and yet there are just as many drunk driving deaths as there was 15 years ago.


----------



## earlycuyler

Lakhota said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'll move on from the wingnut circular logic.
> 
> Here is something else that boggles my mind: Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines - when even duck hunters are limited in magazine capacity.  Aren't people more important than ducks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Because this limeted capacity is a handicap designed to limit the amount of ducks taken. Years ago here in Texas they removed the mag limit during the snow goose season because the population had exploded. TPWD even resorted to poisoning them. All this is covred in hunter safety that just about all states require before one can get a license to hunt.
> 
> 2. When it comes to shooting thugs, when I took my CCW it was drilled into our heads that we acquire said thug in our sights and hit them center mass repeatedly until they hit the ground and do not get up. In short, kill them good so that they dont file a law suet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. In other words, your DUCKS are regulated.
> 
> 2. Holy shit.  Family members can file a lawsuit.  Texas logic...
Click to expand...


Yes thay can. Unlike law inforcement civilians dont have a union to pay all their legal bills. While many joke about it and make snippy little bumper stickers on the topic CCW is extreamly serious. As for regulating ducks, deer and methods of take, we hunters and fishermen want wildlife to exist for feuture generations. This is why we pay cash dollars to be restricted in these mattres. As for the thugs, we want them all dead so future generations dont have to deal with them. Savvy ?


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> Well, I'll move on from the wingnut circular logic.
> 
> Here is something else that boggles my mind: Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines - when even duck hunters are limited in magazine capacity.  Aren't people more important than ducks?







No.  Scumbags who wish to harm people are not more valuable than ducks.  There are a LIABILITY.  Sometimes they travel in packs.  That's why normal capacity magazines are beneficial.


----------



## Lakhota

westwall said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, why don't we take your comparison to the logical conclusion.
> 
> You say you "feel safer" because of the regulations.
> 
> But can you honestly say that you believe that someone without a license cannot buy a car and drive on the highways?
> 
> Can you honestly say that you believe that all drivers on the road at any given time are sober and not influenced by drugs?
> 
> Can you honestly say that, if someone wanted to run into you with a car, the regulations actually make any real difference?
> 
> 
> What is really happening on our highways is that most drivers conform to the laws willingly.  Just as most gun owners currently follow the laws willingly.
> 
> And given that these laws rely, almost entirely, on the law abiding citizen following them willingly, creating new laws has little effect on your actual safety.
> 
> Plus, the vehicle laws only apply when the vehicle will be operated on public roads.  If I have had my license revoked, I can still own a car and operate it on private property.  I can own a car that is unregistered and unlicensed, as long as I transport it to and from the private properties without using it on public roads.
> 
> I can own a car that violates all the safety laws, as long as I do not drive it on public roads.  I can transport it via a trailer on the public roads.
> 
> 
> 
> So why not allow gun owners to only be regulated when they are using or carrying their guns on public properties?  And as long as they transport them in a safe manner, allow them to be taken from private property to private property?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you didn't read one of my previous posts.  NO ONE is saying that universal background checks will totally eliminate gun shootings - any more than highway and vehicle regulations totally eliminate all violations - BUT THEY SURE AS HELL REDUCE VIOLATIONS AND IMPROVE SAFETY.
> 
> BTW, are you suggesting that felons and assorted mental nuts be allowed to legally purchase guns and "only be regulated when they are using or carrying their guns on public properties?"  Holy shit...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws have had no effect on drunk driving deaths.  People survive more often now because of good medical care and yet there are just as many drunk driving deaths as there was 15 years ago.
Click to expand...


Some truth in your statement, but are you saying to ignore the problem?  Plus, I don't equate drunk driving to universal background checks and limits on high-capacity magazines.

Effects of legislative reform to reduce drunken driving and alcohol-related traffic fatalities

Board Meeting: Safety Report on Eliminating Impaired Driving - NTSB


----------



## HenryBHough

For any given driver odds of being involved in a fatal accident increase with the number of miles driven.

Therefore we MUST limit fuel tank capacity to 2.5 liters.


----------



## Lakhota

HenryBHough said:


> For any given driver odds of being involved in a fatal accident increase with the number of miles driven.
> 
> Therefore we MUST limit fuel tank capacity to 2.5 liters.



Well, that makes as much sense as some of the other opposing posts.  Would you prefer that highways and vehicles be totally unregulated - or even less regulated?


----------



## HenryBHough

Lakhota said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> For any given driver odds of being involved in a fatal accident increase with the number of miles driven.
> 
> Therefore we MUST limit fuel tank capacity to 2.5 liters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that makes as much sense as some of the other opposing posts.  Would you prefer that highways and vehicles be totally unregulated?
Click to expand...


When highways start leaping up and killing people not using them then, yeah, we need extreme regulation.  Same for vehicles that are not in motion.  As soon as the first one starts itself up all by itself and kills somebody then they must have psychological testing and close regulation.  Maybe assign a bureaucrat to stand next to each and every one to be sure it's acting responsibly.


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'll move on from the wingnut circular logic.
> 
> Here is something else that boggles my mind: Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines - when even duck hunters are limited in magazine capacity.  Aren't people more important than ducks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only have high capacity magazines for my Ruger .22 rifle.  I like them for the convenience.
> 
> But since you disagree with high capacity magazines, tell us how many rounds will assure safety in all defensive situation?
> 
> Also, the reason for limitations for duck hunters is not out of an attempt to save the individual ducks.  It is to assure that the population survives.  I don't think the human race is in any danger of extinction.
> 
> Also, if a 10 round magazine is ok, but a 15 round magazine is not, aren't you saying that it's ok to kill 10 people, but it's a moral outrage to kill 15?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are only comparing 10 to 15 capacity.  Personally, other than single-shot, I would prefer the maximum be 10 - maybe even 5.  My current understanding is that there are no limits on magazine capacity for civilian non-hunting use.  BTW, I care more about the survival of people than ducks.  Most fish and wildlife regulations are stricter than gun purchasing and ownership.
Click to expand...


That you wish to limit magazine capacities for the law abiding citizens is funny, since the criminals who rob, rape and murder us will obviously not follow those laws.

Why do you think a limitation on magazine capacity would be a good think?  And don't go with the "why do you need them" nonsense.  Actually answer and tell us why you think passing laws to limit the amount of ammunition is one loading would make a difference.


----------



## HenryBHough

Of course no criminal currently owns a firearm because that's already illegal.


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'll move on from the wingnut circular logic.
> 
> Here is something else that boggles my mind: Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines - when even duck hunters are limited in magazine capacity.  Aren't people more important than ducks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Because this limeted capacity is a handicap designed to limit the amount of ducks taken. Years ago here in Texas they removed the mag limit during the snow goose season because the population had exploded. TPWD even resorted to poisoning them. All this is covred in hunter safety that just about all states require before one can get a license to hunt.
> 
> 2. When it comes to shooting thugs, when I took my CCW it was drilled into our heads that we acquire said thug in our sights and hit them center mass repeatedly until they hit the ground and do not get up. In short, kill them good so that they dont file a law suet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. In other words, your DUCKS are regulated.
> 
> 2. Holy shit.  Family members can file a lawsuit.  Texas logic...
Click to expand...


I think you misunderstand the point of a gun.  You do not carry a gun to scare people.  You do not wave it around thinking it will intimidate the criminals.  And you do not try and wound the bad guy who is actively trying to hurt you or someone else.

It is called "deadly force" for a reason.  You use it to completely stop the criminal(s) from doing further harm.  It is standard for civilians to shoot until the criminal is down for the count.

The fact that they will not sue you is just a bonus.


----------



## earlycuyler

WinterBorn said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Because this limeted capacity is a handicap designed to limit the amount of ducks taken. Years ago here in Texas they removed the mag limit during the snow goose season because the population had exploded. TPWD even resorted to poisoning them. All this is covred in hunter safety that just about all states require before one can get a license to hunt.
> 
> 2. When it comes to shooting thugs, when I took my CCW it was drilled into our heads that we acquire said thug in our sights and hit them center mass repeatedly until Uhhthey hit the ground and do not get up. In short, kill them good so that they dont file a law suet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. In other words, your DUCKS are regulated.
> 
> 2. Holy shit.  Family members can file a lawsuit.  Texas logic...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you misunderstand the point of a gun.  You do not carry a gun to scare people.  You do not wave it around thinking it will intimidate the criminals.  And you do not try and wound the bad guy who is actively trying to hurt you or someone else.
> 
> It is called "deadly force" for a reason.  You use it to completely stop the criminal(s) from doing further harm.  It is standard for civilians to shoot until the criminal is down for the count.
> 
> The fact that they will not sue you is just a bonus.
Click to expand...


brandishing a fire arm is also a felony in many states as well. It is here in Texas anyway.


----------



## Lakhota

WinterBorn said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Because this limeted capacity is a handicap designed to limit the amount of ducks taken. Years ago here in Texas they removed the mag limit during the snow goose season because the population had exploded. TPWD even resorted to poisoning them. All this is covred in hunter safety that just about all states require before one can get a license to hunt.
> 
> 2. When it comes to shooting thugs, when I took my CCW it was drilled into our heads that we acquire said thug in our sights and hit them center mass repeatedly until they hit the ground and do not get up. In short, kill them good so that they dont file a law suet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. In other words, your DUCKS are regulated.
> 
> 2. Holy shit.  Family members can file a lawsuit.  Texas logic...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you misunderstand the point of a gun.  You do not carry a gun to scare people.  You do not wave it around thinking it will intimidate the criminals.  And you do not try and wound the bad guy who is actively trying to hurt you or someone else.
> 
> It is called "deadly force" for a reason.  You use it to completely stop the criminal(s) from doing further harm.  It is standard for civilians to shoot until the criminal is down for the count.
> 
> The fact that they will not sue you is just a bonus.
Click to expand...


Well, unless someone is a piss poor shot, how many times must a thug be shot to end his/her thuggery?  Would you feel safer with a belt-fed machine gun mounted inside your home?  Would your neighbors feel safer?


----------



## Mojo2

Lakhota said:


> People get shot a lot in America, and it isnt always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. Theyre often playing with their guns. Or cleaning them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes theyre just injured, like in the examples cited above.
> 
> But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. Thats because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.
> 
> G2 Researchs Radically Invasive Projectile (RIP, get it?  because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullets core to travel deeper through a person.
> 
> This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.
> 
> And this is the bullets selling point.
> 
> Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nations military? Whom do you think youre making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.
> 
> There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.
> 
> New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review
> 
> This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare
> 
> G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube
> 
> This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.



I'm not going to draw on someone unl4ess it's a life or death encounter.

And when I draw on someone and I feel I have to shoot to save life I want the perp to stop threatening me ASAP.

Like immediately.

And I will continue shooting him until he does.

If I'm carrying a five shot revolver I have 5 chances to STOP this guy or these guys before they kill me or mine.

If this bullet is more likely to stop an assailant quicker or more often than with other bullets this is the one I believe everyone will want to carry.

If my loved ones have to shoot to save their lives I want them armed with something that will render an assailant helpless as quickly and as certainly as possible.

RIP bullets sound like the ones to buy.


----------



## Mojo2

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. In other words, your DUCKS are regulated.
> 
> 2. Holy shit.  Family members can file a lawsuit.  Texas logic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you misunderstand the point of a gun.  You do not carry a gun to scare people.  You do not wave it around thinking it will intimidate the criminals.  And you do not try and wound the bad guy who is actively trying to hurt you or someone else.
> 
> It is called "deadly force" for a reason.  You use it to completely stop the criminal(s) from doing further harm.  It is standard for civilians to shoot until the criminal is down for the count.
> 
> The fact that they will not sue you is just a bonus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, unless someone is a piss poor shot, how many times must a thug be shot to end his/her thuggery?  Would you feel safer with a belt-fed machine gun mounted inside your home?  Would your neighbors feel safer?
Click to expand...


How many videos will you need to view to accept that often, for a number of reasons, a perp who is shot multiple times in lethal places often continues functioning and shooting and killing cops and other good guys before they die of their wounds.

I want a bullet that will STOP an assailant NOW.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Mojo2 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you misunderstand the point of a gun.  You do not carry a gun to scare people.  You do not wave it around thinking it will intimidate the criminals.  And you do not try and wound the bad guy who is actively trying to hurt you or someone else.
> 
> It is called "deadly force" for a reason.  You use it to completely stop the criminal(s) from doing further harm.  It is standard for civilians to shoot until the criminal is down for the count.
> 
> The fact that they will not sue you is just a bonus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unless someone is a piss poor shot, how many times must a thug be shot to end his/her thuggery?  Would you feel safer with a belt-fed machine gun mounted inside your home?  Would your neighbors feel safer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many videos will you need to view to accept that often, for a number of reasons, a perp who is shot multiple times in lethal places often continues functioning and shooting and killing cops and other good guys before they die of their wounds.
> 
> I want a bullet that will STOP an assailant NOW.
Click to expand...


  Which is why I hate the 9mm. If there ever was a pistol that needs all the help it can get,thats the one. Give me a .45 all day everyday.


----------



## earlycuyler

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unless someone is a piss poor shot, how many times must a thug be shot to end his/her thuggery?  Would you feel safer with a belt-fed machine gun mounted inside your home?  Would your neighbors feel safer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many videos will you need to view to accept that often, for a number of reasons, a perp who is shot multiple times in lethal places often continues functioning and shooting and killing cops and other good guys before they die of their wounds.
> 
> I want a bullet that will STOP an assailant NOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why I hate the 9mm. If there ever was a pistol that needs all the help it can get,thats the one. Give me a .45 all day everyday.
Click to expand...


Dunno. My grandpa took a bayonet through his hand from a Japanese soldier in the Philippines after biting him center mass four times and in the throat twice. .45 CAP is a man stopper, but not all its cra ked up to be. 9mm has just as good a reputation as a man stopper as any of them. In the end, no hand gun tops the shot gun in close combat. Ill take one of those. As for my CCW, I keep a S&W model 19 that was my Dads.


----------



## Lakhota

I appreciate most of the responses.  I don't pretend to know all the answers, but one thing I do know - the solution is not to ignore the problem.  Many things not specifically addressed in the Constitution help make our lives much better.  Such as...

Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. In other words, your DUCKS are regulated.
> 
> 2. Holy shit.  Family members can file a lawsuit.  Texas logic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you misunderstand the point of a gun.  You do not carry a gun to scare people.  You do not wave it around thinking it will intimidate the criminals.  And you do not try and wound the bad guy who is actively trying to hurt you or someone else.
> 
> It is called "deadly force" for a reason.  You use it to completely stop the criminal(s) from doing further harm.  It is standard for civilians to shoot until the criminal is down for the count.
> 
> The fact that they will not sue you is just a bonus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, unless someone is a piss poor shot, how many times must a thug be shot to end his/her thuggery?  Would you feel safer with a belt-fed machine gun mounted inside your home?  Would your neighbors feel safer?
Click to expand...


If the thugs will stand still and always act alone, a single shot would suffice.  Since they don't, more shots are often required.

And given that a semi-auto can be reloaded in a couple of seconds, I do not think limiting the number of rounds per loading accomplishes anything one way or another.  My highest capacity semi-auto pistol holds 8 rounds.  After I fire all of those, a single push of a button drops the old mag out, after shoving the new mag in, a single press of a level puts a round in the chamber and has me locked, cocked and ready to resume firing.


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> I appreciate most of the responses.  I don't pretend to know all the answers, but one thing I do know - the solution is not to ignore the problem.  Many things not specifically addressed in the Constitution help make our lives much better.  Such as...
> 
> Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican



Are you looking to switch to the 4th topic for this thread?


----------



## Lakhota

WinterBorn said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate most of the responses.  I don't pretend to know all the answers, but one thing I do know - the solution is not to ignore the problem.  Many things not specifically addressed in the Constitution help make our lives much better.  Such as...
> 
> Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you looking to switch to the 4th topic for this thread?
Click to expand...


Showing how regulations benefit us is not "looking to switch" the topic.  BTW, I'm sorry you live in such a dangerous high-crime area that makes you so fearful.  I've been fortunate in avoiding such areas.


----------



## earlycuyler

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate most of the responses.  I don't pretend to know all the answers, but one thing I do know - the solution is not to ignore the problem.  Many things not specifically addressed in the Constitution help make our lives much better.  Such as...
> 
> Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you looking to switch to the 4th topic for this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> E
> Showing how regulations benefit us is not "looking to switch" the topic.  BTW, I'm sorry you live in such a dangerous high-crime area that makes you so fearful.  I've been fortunate in avoiding such areas.
Click to expand...


Good for you ! But in the mean time ill not be having a politition set regulations on how I will defend my self. Anyone comes at me or mine the will die by what ever means is at hand be it lamp or .357 mangleum.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Lakhota said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns aren't the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you use these bullets?  If so, for what purpose?
Click to expand...


Explosive ammo is illegal. You (and the hate site that does your thinking for you) are lying.

These are just hollow point rounds that have been around for over a century.


----------



## Spoonman

Lakhota said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns aren't the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you use these bullets?  If so, for what purpose?
Click to expand...


you never know when a gun grabber is going to come knocking on your door


----------



## WinterBorn

Uncensored2008 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns aren't the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you use these bullets?  If so, for what purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explosive ammo is illegal. You (and the hate site that does your thinking for you) are lying.
> 
> These are just hollow point rounds that have been around for over a century.
Click to expand...


I almost addressed the "explosive" comment too.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Yurt said:


> i'm sure our soldiers will be thankful when using it against our enemy.
> 
> i highly doubt these bullets will be everyday bullets
> 
> lakhota is just fear mongering



No soldier will ever use a hollow point. Hollow points are like firing a little parachute, the round actually slows itself down due to design. 

The military uses a 5.56 round  (.223) for a reason - it basically a .22 slug with a lot of powder, making a small, fast projectile.


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate most of the responses.  I don't pretend to know all the answers, but one thing I do know - the solution is not to ignore the problem.  Many things not specifically addressed in the Constitution help make our lives much better.  Such as...
> 
> Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you looking to switch to the 4th topic for this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Showing how regulations benefit us is not "looking to switch" the topic.  BTW, I'm sorry you live in such a dangerous high-crime area that makes you so fearful.  I've been fortunate in avoiding such areas.
Click to expand...


No it does not.  But addressing things "...not specifically addressed in the Constitution..." is certainly not on topic.  The 2nd Amendment does indeed address this issue.

You started out bemoaning this terrible ammunition with plenty of sensationalistic nonsense.   Then you switched to wanting to discuss background checks.  Then you went to magazine capacities.  And now you want to discuss the way liberals have improved our lives.  That is 4 topics in one thread.  The first 3 were soundly thrashed.

Care to go back to discussing these "dangerous" bullets that will cause so many more deaths?


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate most of the responses.  I don't pretend to know all the answers, but one thing I do know - the solution is not to ignore the problem.  Many things not specifically addressed in the Constitution help make our lives much better.  Such as...
> 
> Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you looking to switch to the 4th topic for this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Showing how regulations benefit us is not "looking to switch" the topic.  BTW, I'm sorry you live in such a dangerous high-crime area that makes you so fearful.  I've been fortunate in avoiding such areas.
Click to expand...


Who says I am fearful?   I have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in my home as well.  Does that mean I am "fearful" concerning fires?   I call it being prepared.

Also, I have basically had the same firearms in very rural environments and urban environments.  I currently live in Atlanta.  My previous residence was in Delta AL.  Neither place has made me "fearful".


----------



## WinterBorn

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exposing G2 Research's Radically Over-hyped Projectile - Bearing Arms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the matter ? Cat got your tongue ?
Click to expand...


The link seems to address the issue concerning the ammo in question.  What more needed saying?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

earlycuyler said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many videos will you need to view to accept that often, for a number of reasons, a perp who is shot multiple times in lethal places often continues functioning and shooting and killing cops and other good guys before they die of their wounds.
> 
> I want a bullet that will STOP an assailant NOW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I hate the 9mm. If there ever was a pistol that needs all the help it can get,thats the one. Give me a .45 all day everyday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dunno. My grandpa took a bayonet through his hand from a Japanese soldier in the Philippines after biting him center mass four times and in the throat twice. .45 CAP is a man stopper, but not all its cra ked up to be. 9mm has just as good a reputation as a man stopper as any of them. In the end, no hand gun tops the shot gun in close combat. Ill take one of those. As for my CCW, I keep a S&W model 19 that was my Dads.
Click to expand...


 You got to remember your grandpa was shooting ball ammo.
Here's a pretty interesting chart on handgun round lethality.

THE STOPPING POWER OF DIFFERENT HANDGUN CARTRIDGES

   The .357 scores very high,but I like my FNX for the stopping power and the fifteen round mag.


----------



## House

_(After reading the OP...)_

I totally gotta get me a few cases of those before they get taken off the market (I miss Black Talons)

_(Back to reading the thread...)_


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you didn't read one of my previous posts.  NO ONE is saying that universal background checks will totally eliminate gun shootings - any more than highway and vehicle regulations totally eliminate all violations - BUT THEY SURE AS HELL REDUCE VIOLATIONS AND IMPROVE SAFETY.
> 
> BTW, are you suggesting that felons and assorted mental nuts be allowed to legally purchase guns and "only be regulated when they are using or carrying their guns on public properties?"  Holy shit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws have had no effect on drunk driving deaths.  People survive more often now because of good medical care and yet there are just as many drunk driving deaths as there was 15 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some truth in your statement, but are you saying to ignore the problem?  Plus, I don't equate drunk driving to universal background checks and limits on high-capacity magazines.
> 
> Effects of legislative reform to reduce drunken driving and alcohol-related traffic fatalities
> 
> Board Meeting: Safety Report on Eliminating Impaired Driving - NTSB
Click to expand...







The laws are equally useless in PREVENTING deaths.  All they allow you to do is prosecute the killers.


----------



## westwall

WinterBorn said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only have high capacity magazines for my Ruger .22 rifle.  I like them for the convenience.
> 
> But since you disagree with high capacity magazines, tell us how many rounds will assure safety in all defensive situation?
> 
> Also, the reason for limitations for duck hunters is not out of an attempt to save the individual ducks.  It is to assure that the population survives.  I don't think the human race is in any danger of extinction.
> 
> Also, if a 10 round magazine is ok, but a 15 round magazine is not, aren't you saying that it's ok to kill 10 people, but it's a moral outrage to kill 15?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are only comparing 10 to 15 capacity.  Personally, other than single-shot, I would prefer the maximum be 10 - maybe even 5.  My current understanding is that there are no limits on magazine capacity for civilian non-hunting use.  BTW, I care more about the survival of people than ducks.  Most fish and wildlife regulations are stricter than gun purchasing and ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you wish to limit magazine capacities for the law abiding citizens is funny, since the criminals who rob, rape and murder us will obviously not follow those laws.
> 
> Why do you think a limitation on magazine capacity would be a good think?  And don't go with the "why do you need them" nonsense.  Actually answer and tell us why you think passing laws to limit the amount of ammunition is one loading would make a difference.
Click to expand...






Lacky clearly wishes to protect criminals.  What other possible reason could there be...


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. In other words, your DUCKS are regulated.
> 
> 2. Holy shit.  Family members can file a lawsuit.  Texas logic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you misunderstand the point of a gun.  You do not carry a gun to scare people.  You do not wave it around thinking it will intimidate the criminals.  And you do not try and wound the bad guy who is actively trying to hurt you or someone else.
> 
> It is called "deadly force" for a reason.  You use it to completely stop the criminal(s) from doing further harm.  It is standard for civilians to shoot until the criminal is down for the count.
> 
> The fact that they will not sue you is just a bonus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, unless someone is a piss poor shot, how many times must a thug be shot to end his/her thuggery?  Would you feel safer with a belt-fed machine gun mounted inside your home?  Would your neighbors feel safer?
Click to expand...






Considering that in the ARMY, where they are trained the average number of shots necessary to hit one enemy soldier is on the order of 40,000 ROUNDS, and the police, when they do engage in a shootout tend to hit everything BUT the bad guy, it makes sense that a CIVILIAN, in fear for their life is not going to be the best shot in the world.

Your complete cluelessness as regards defensive shooting is duly noted.


----------



## westwall

Uncensored2008 said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure our soldiers will be thankful when using it against our enemy.
> 
> i highly doubt these bullets will be everyday bullets
> 
> lakhota is just fear mongering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No soldier will ever use a hollow point. Hollow points are like firing a little parachute, the round actually slows itself down due to design.
> 
> The military uses a 5.56 round  (.223) for a reason - it basically a .22 slug with a lot of powder, making a small, fast projectile.
Click to expand...







Untrue.  The exterior ballistics of hollowpoint rounds are identical to softpoint.


----------



## KissMy

Noomi said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns aren't the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your gun culture is.
Click to expand...


Is our gun culture why *your* black glove wearing avatar is standing next to a dead body aiming a gun with the caption "Hunter Killer".


----------



## KissMy

Lakhota said:


> New Bullets Mean Certain Death.



I've been using those type bullets for 40 years. No big deal. You should see the mess a shotgun will make of a human. I knew a dude who attempted suicide with a shotgun when he was 17 & lived. 20 years later he did it again & succeeded.

Guns & Ammo are not the problem, nutjobs are. Since liberals won't allow a publicized list of nutjobs but love to publicize gun owners list, nothing will change. We need a registered nutjob list just like the registered sex offender list.


----------



## daveman

Lakhota said:


> Well, I'll move on from the wingnut circular logic.
> 
> Here is something else that boggles my mind: Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines - when even duck hunters are limited in magazine capacity.  Aren't people more important than ducks?


Yesterday, MILLIONS of legal gun owners didn't shoot anyone.

Your emotional insinuation that people who want large-capacity magazines are incipient murders is foolish and offensive.


----------



## daveman

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. In other words, your DUCKS are regulated.
> 
> 2. Holy shit.  Family members can file a lawsuit.  Texas logic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you misunderstand the point of a gun.  You do not carry a gun to scare people.  You do not wave it around thinking it will intimidate the criminals.  And you do not try and wound the bad guy who is actively trying to hurt you or someone else.
> 
> It is called "deadly force" for a reason.  You use it to completely stop the criminal(s) from doing further harm.  It is standard for civilians to shoot until the criminal is down for the count.
> 
> The fact that they will not sue you is just a bonus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, unless someone is a piss poor shot, how many times must a thug be shot to end his/her thuggery?  Would you feel safer with a belt-fed machine gun mounted inside your home?  Would your neighbors feel safer?
Click to expand...

You really need to stop with the simplistic binary thinking.  It's not an either/or issue, no matter what the irrational gun-haters insist.


----------



## daveman

Lakhota said:


> I appreciate most of the responses.  I don't pretend to know all the answers, but one thing I do know - the solution is not to ignore the problem.  Many things not specifically addressed in the Constitution help make our lives much better.  Such as...
> 
> Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican


Liberal twaddle that claims that everything that's good and righteous and holy in the world comes from liberals is less than credible.


----------



## Geaux4it

Why do the liberals want criminals to suffer?

Seems they want them to die slower with less lethal projectiles

That's cruel and mean  

-Geaux


----------



## Lakhota

daveman said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate most of the responses.  I don't pretend to know all the answers, but one thing I do know - the solution is not to ignore the problem.  Many things not specifically addressed in the Constitution help make our lives much better.  Such as...
> 
> Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal twaddle that claims that everything that's good and righteous and holy in the world comes from liberals is less than credible.
Click to expand...


Please tell us about all the good things conservatives have done for Americans - in contrast to "Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican"...


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate most of the responses.  I don't pretend to know all the answers, but one thing I do know - the solution is not to ignore the problem.  Many things not specifically addressed in the Constitution help make our lives much better.  Such as...
> 
> Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal twaddle that claims that everything that's good and righteous and holy in the world comes from liberals is less than credible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please tell us about all the good things conservatives have done for Americans - in contrast to "Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican"...
Click to expand...


Wouldn't that be better served in it's own thread?  

You started a thread about the "RIP" bullets.  Are you convinced they are not what you first thought?


----------



## Lakhota

WinterBorn said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal twaddle that claims that everything that's good and righteous and holy in the world comes from liberals is less than credible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell us about all the good things conservatives have done for Americans - in contrast to "Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that be better served in it's own thread?
> 
> You started a thread about the "RIP" bullets.  Are you convinced they are not what you first thought?
Click to expand...


Duh, it all ties into how regulations have helped us all.  For example, I take pleasure in knowing my electrical appliances are regulated to help prevent harm to me and my family - as I would take pleasure in having universal background checks and limits on high-capacity magazines, etc...


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell us about all the good things conservatives have done for Americans - in contrast to "Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that be better served in it's own thread?
> 
> You started a thread about the "RIP" bullets.  Are you convinced they are not what you first thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh, it all ties into how regulations have helped us all.  For example, I take pleasure in knowing my electrical appliances are regulated to help prevent harm to me and my family - as I would take pleasure in having universal background checks and limits on high-capacity magazines, etc...
Click to expand...


The regulations on electrical appliance save you and your family from potentially life threatening accidents.

What exactly would a limit on the high capacity magazine do to make your family safer?


----------



## Lakhota

*Westfart*, after reading some of your posts, I clearly realize you are part of the problem - not the solution.  Also, why are you so eager to respond to posts not addressed to you?


----------



## WinterBorn

Lakhota said:


> *Westfart*, after reading some of your posts, I clearly realize you are part of the problem - not the solution.  Also, why are you so eager to respond to posts not addressed to you?



It is an open forum.  If you wish to have a direct conversation with someone, perhaps IMs would do better?

I have no problem answering posts that are addressed to others, if I feel I have something to add.


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell us about all the good things conservatives have done for Americans - in contrast to "Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that be better served in it's own thread?
> 
> You started a thread about the "RIP" bullets.  Are you convinced they are not what you first thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh, it all ties into how regulations have helped us all.  For example, I take pleasure in knowing my electrical appliances are regulated to help prevent harm to me and my family - as I would take pleasure in having universal background checks and limits on high-capacity magazines, etc...
Click to expand...






Did you know that guilds did that before government?  Nope!  Didn't think so.  I am never amazed by how little you know!


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> *Westfart*, after reading some of your posts, I clearly realize you are part of the problem - not the solution.  Also, why are you so eager to respond to posts not addressed to you?







Because stupidity needs to be dealt with quickly before it spreads and infects more innocents.


----------



## daveman

Lakhota said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate most of the responses.  I don't pretend to know all the answers, but one thing I do know - the solution is not to ignore the problem.  Many things not specifically addressed in the Constitution help make our lives much better.  Such as...
> 
> Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal twaddle that claims that everything that's good and righteous and holy in the world comes from liberals is less than credible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please tell us about all the good things conservatives have done for Americans - in contrast to "Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican"...
Click to expand...

Not playing your stupid game.  Besides, you'd claim it all came from liberals anyway.


----------



## Lakhota

daveman said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal twaddle that claims that everything that's good and righteous and holy in the world comes from liberals is less than credible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell us about all the good things conservatives have done for Americans - in contrast to "Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not playing your stupid game.  Besides, you'd claim it all came from liberals anyway.
Click to expand...


You're just an idiot flamer with nothing to offer.  Move along...


----------



## daveman

Lakhota said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell us about all the good things conservatives have done for Americans - in contrast to "Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican"...
> 
> 
> 
> Not playing your stupid game.  Besides, you'd claim it all came from liberals anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just an idiot flamer with nothing to offer.  Move along...
Click to expand...

"Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican" IS idiot flaming.


----------



## Missourian

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. In other words, your DUCKS are regulated.
> 
> 2. Holy shit.  Family members can file a lawsuit.  Texas logic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you misunderstand the point of a gun.  You do not carry a gun to scare people.  You do not wave it around thinking it will intimidate the criminals.  And you do not try and wound the bad guy who is actively trying to hurt you or someone else.
> 
> It is called "deadly force" for a reason.  You use it to completely stop the criminal(s) from doing further harm.  It is standard for civilians to shoot until the criminal is down for the count.
> 
> The fact that they will not sue you is just a bonus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, unless someone is a piss poor shot, how many times must a thug be shot to end his/her thuggery?  Would you feel safer with a belt-fed machine gun mounted inside your home?
Click to expand...


Is that an option?

The neighbor can get his own.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Lakhota said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell us about all the good things conservatives have done for Americans - in contrast to "Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that be better served in it's own thread?
> 
> You started a thread about the "RIP" bullets.  Are you convinced they are not what you first thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh, it all ties into how regulations have helped us all.  For example, I take pleasure in knowing my electrical appliances are regulated to help prevent harm to me and my family - as I would take pleasure in having universal background checks and limits on high-capacity magazines, etc...
Click to expand...


*I take pleasure in knowing my electrical appliances are regulated* 

a false sense of security is often dangerous 

UL Standards

UL is an abbreviation for Underwriters Laboratories Inc. which is a not-profit testing organization established by Fire Underwriter's Association in 1894. UL has now become the most famous NRTL (Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory) in the U.S. and conducts certification testing of every electrical appliance. *Although adopting the UL certification system is basically on a voluntary basis*, many U.S.-made electrical appliances have obtained the certification. 
The UL certification can be largely divided into two levels: Listing certification and Recognition certification. UL Listing generally means a certification for a final product. UL Recognition means a certification for a part or a component built into a product.



Based on the MRA (Mutual Recognition Agreement), cross-certification has been granted between the U.S. and Canada. When a product is certified by UL using the Canadian standards (CSA Standards), the product will have the following C-UL certification mark expressing the conformity to the CSA Standards.

North American Standards: UL, FDA, ANSI, FCC, and CSA - KEYENCE Corporation


----------



## Jarlaxle

WinterBorn said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I prefer my .45 ACP.  The gun is a larger, but still fairly slim, and the round packs a wallop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree - nothing stops/maims like a .45 ACP -I own one as well. Just prefer the .380, especially when out on the motorcycle. Very nice concealed wep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a good point.  A small .380 is an excellent concealed weapon.  In the past it was said to be underpowered, but the newer ammunition has brought it up considerably.
Click to expand...


A .380 is a mouse gun.  It is a pipsqueak caliber TOTALLY unsuited for self-protection. (I'd call it marginal for stopping even a big dog.)  If the dude is cranked out, he might not NOTICE a .380 unless it hit him in the eyesocket.


----------



## Jarlaxle

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unless someone is a piss poor shot, how many times must a thug be shot to end his/her thuggery?  Would you feel safer with a belt-fed machine gun mounted inside your home?  Would your neighbors feel safer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many videos will you need to view to accept that often, for a number of reasons, a perp who is shot multiple times in lethal places often continues functioning and shooting and killing cops and other good guys before they die of their wounds.
> 
> I want a bullet that will STOP an assailant NOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why I hate the 9mm. If there ever was a pistol that needs all the help it can get,thats the one. Give me a .45 all day everyday.
Click to expand...


S&W Model 29, please.


----------



## Spoonman

while you gun grabbing liberal idiots are pissing and moaning about more nothing, two girls brought the friend into the woods and stabber her 19 times as an offering of homage to slenderman.    it's a goof thing they didn't have a gun or some of these bullets.   or something fucked up really could have happened.


----------



## Jarlaxle

westwall said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure our soldiers will be thankful when using it against our enemy.
> 
> i highly doubt these bullets will be everyday bullets
> 
> lakhota is just fear mongering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No soldier will ever use a hollow point. Hollow points are like firing a little parachute, the round actually slows itself down due to design.
> 
> The military uses a 5.56 round  (.223) for a reason - it basically a .22 slug with a lot of powder, making a small, fast projectile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Untrue.  The exterior ballistics of hollowpoint rounds are identical to softpoint.
Click to expand...


Don't most of the very-long-range (1000+ yard) shooters use boat-tail hollow points?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Reading around about other things, this thread came to mind seeing this item:

DARPA?s new experimental sniper bullet can turn in mid-flight - The Washington Post

"The Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance (EXACTO) program, funded by the Pentagons Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, recently conducted the first successful live-fire tests of its new, experimental .50-caliber sniper ammunition. As shown by the green path above, its flight path can be adjusted while in mid-air."


----------



## westwall

Jarlaxle said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No soldier will ever use a hollow point. Hollow points are like firing a little parachute, the round actually slows itself down due to design.
> 
> The military uses a 5.56 round  (.223) for a reason - it basically a .22 slug with a lot of powder, making a small, fast projectile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue.  The exterior ballistics of hollowpoint rounds are identical to softpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't most of the very-long-range (1000+ yard) shooters use boat-tail hollow points?
Click to expand...







Yes, we do.  I use the Federal 175gr Premium Match .308 in my Steyr SSG.  I'm good out to 1200 meters with that load.  It drops out of supersonic somewhere between 1225 and 1235 meters depending on the individual round.

 [MENTION=39447]Jarlaxle[/MENTION]


----------



## westwall

Delta4Embassy said:


> Reading around about other things, this thread came to mind seeing this item:
> 
> DARPA?s new experimental sniper bullet can turn in mid-flight - The Washington Post
> 
> "The Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance (EXACTO) program, funded by the Pentagons Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, recently conducted the first successful live-fire tests of its new, experimental .50-caliber sniper ammunition. As shown by the green path above, its flight path can be adjusted while in mid-air."







Basically a super miniaturized Hellfire missile.  Not very sporting if you ask me!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading around about other things, this thread came to mind seeing this item:
> 
> DARPA?s new experimental sniper bullet can turn in mid-flight - The Washington Post
> 
> "The Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance (EXACTO) program, funded by the Pentagons Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, recently conducted the first successful live-fire tests of its new, experimental .50-caliber sniper ammunition. As shown by the green path above, its flight path can be adjusted while in mid-air."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically a super miniaturized Hellfire missile.  Not very sporting if you ask me!
Click to expand...


Snipers don't care about sport.

On the other hand, if they actually make these things work, anyone could be a sniper, especially if they have a smart gun sight. 

'Intelligent' Rifle Lets You Pre-Tag Your Target, Then Fire When Ready | Popular Science


----------



## bayoubill

Lakhota said:


> People get shot a lot in America, and it isnt always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. Theyre often playing with their guns. Or cleaning them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes theyre just injured, like in the examples cited above.
> 
> But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. Thats because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.
> 
> G2 Researchs Radically Invasive Projectile (RIP, get it?  because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullets core to travel deeper through a person.
> 
> This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.
> 
> And this is the bullets selling point.
> 
> Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, its time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting open carry protests at restaurants and stores around the country dont have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon theyll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.
> 
> What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nations military? Whom do you think youre making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.
> 
> There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.
> 
> New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review
> 
> This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare
> 
> G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube
> 
> This certainly is a deadly looking bullet.  I wonder how accurate it is.  I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.



wow... a bullet designed to kill people...

mebbe I missed something, but I thought we already had such things...


----------



## HenryBHough

Always room for improvement.

Invent a better mousetrap and all that shit.......


----------



## Jarlaxle

westwall said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue.  The exterior ballistics of hollowpoint rounds are identical to softpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't most of the very-long-range (1000+ yard) shooters use boat-tail hollow points?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we do.  I use the Federal 175gr Premium Match .308 in my Steyr SSG.  I'm good out to 1200 meters with that load.  It drops out of supersonic somewhere between 1225 and 1235 meters depending on the individual round.
> 
> [MENTION=39447]Jarlaxle[/MENTION]
Click to expand...


That's what I thought...my uncle uses them (though he casts & loads his own .22-250's) in his Remington 40.  He's good to ~950 yards...that's all the space he has around here.


----------



## SmileyFaze

Lakhota said:


> Would you use these bullets?  If so, for what purpose?



Absolutely. 

I carry. 

I have for over 30 years.

I've never had to use my firearm, but I'm well trained to do so if the need should ever arise.  

That said, I hope to never have to use my firearm with bad intentions, but if I need to I sure as hell don't want my assailant gettin' up for a second shot at me. 

When I put him/her down, I mean them to stay down ..... permanently .... period. _*RIP*_


----------



## itfitzme

tyroneweaver said:


> guns aren't the problem



You are right.  It's people WITH guns that are the problem.

See, it's an advanced logic problem.   There is "OR" and "AND".  The problem isn't one or the other.  The problem is one AND the other.   

Alot of thing are like that.  Like charcoal, potassium nitrate AND sulfer.  By themselves, they are stable.  Put them together and they are explosive.  

It is important to expand your logic skills to include "AND".  Nobody expects you to learn XAND or XOR.  Those are advanced concepts.  But you really should learn " AND".  Most thing are "AND".

So, what do you do to keep sulfer, potassium nirtate AND charcoal from exploding?  You separate them.

So, you are half right.  By themselves, guns don't kill people.  Just don't give them to people.


----------



## SmileyFaze

*@ **itfitzme*

You think too much. I knew a young lil fella that did that...On his second patrol he ended up with a bamboo spike in his eye....dead as dead he was. 

Like they say, you snooze, you lose.....you think, they act.

Lights out......eternal dreams.


----------

