Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

Nobody is making money from our prisoners, thus nobody wants them in prison.

I guarantee you this is not true. The people making money off prisoners may be making less, and they may not be making power grabs, and they may have an incentive structure that doesn't make them want to screw the system for personal gain, but OF COURSE there are people in your country who make their living off prisoners. Security, Wardens, even the Janitors.

Also, for those arguing about shooting to "wound"
There's no non-lethal way to shoot someone moving to attack you. The only fairly place safe to shoot someone is the foot or the ass, and in a self-defense situation neither would serve you well as justification - a shot to the foot won't stop someone unless you get super lucky (since you WILL miss), and a shot to the ass is obviously not going to be self defense unless it's a Marvel female that's assaulting you.

Also... Britain and Australia with worse crime rates than the states? What? Just going by reported crimes and a cursory search, the US has more than five million more crimes reported than in the UK. Also the highest rate of incarceration of any of the first world countries.

Yes, the UK has worse violent crime rates than the US. The US simply has more people.
(Note, US crime rates are higher overall due to increased drug use crimes, and reporting between countries is... generally hard to compare, regardless)

All that said - I'm totally with Max and those arguing training should be more in depth than it is for gun registration - hell, I even liked the comment about making it actually militia worthy - perhaps buying a weapon should put you on call for various milita related duties as well.

I'm against the assault weapon ban though - the legislation was never anything but cosmetic and did basically nothing.

There is no such thing as "stopping power" a bullet either hits some vital anatomy and is instantly fatal or it doesn't. The kinetic energy of a bullet impact is no worse then the recoil of the gun itself. If a bullet had the energy to knock somebody down, it'd knock down the shooter as well.

You... don't actually have experience with... I don't even know how to respond to your posts. The shooter is clearly braced and prepared for the impact - the target, if moving towards you, probably won't be. And a bullet that puts all its force into the body instead of passing through will obviously be more likely to slow and destabilize a target, simple because more damage is likely to be done (assuming same amount of kinetic force and same target area) than if the bullet passed through. Seriously, this is like arguing that hitting you in the head with a solid wood plank couldn't have any stopping power because if it did it would knock over the person swinging. It's just kind of absurd.

Regardless, most stopping power doesn't come from sheer kinetic force, or necessarily from an increase in lethality, but is a combination of a variety of factors and effect, the end result being "bullets that are better than other bullets at incapacitating".

[Leafsnail]

Yes, the UK has worse violent crime rates than the US. The US simply has more people.

Is there a source on this other than the Daily Mail?  Because I'm pretty sure that was just because "affray" without injuries counts as a violent crime over here.  If you compare well defined crimes such as murder America seems to tend to have a higher rate.

[Montague]

You... don't actually have experience with... I don't even know how to respond to your posts. The shooter is clearly braced and prepared for the impact - the target, if moving towards you, probably won't be. And a bullet that puts all its force into the body instead of passing through will obviously be more likely to slow and destabilize a target, simple because more damage is likely to be done (assuming same amount of kinetic force and same target area) than if the bullet passed through. Seriously, this is like arguing that hitting you in the head with a solid wood plank couldn't have any stopping power because if it did it would knock over the person swinging. It's just kind of absurd.

Regardless, most stopping power doesn't come from sheer kinetic force, or necessarily from an increase in lethality, but is a combination of a variety of factors and effect, the end result being "bullets that are better than other bullets at incapacitating".

Newton's Third Law: "To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction"... or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions. Firearms are no different. If somebody is shot and they fall over, its a psychological response to having been injured, not because the bullet pushed them over. Shot placement is the only thing that reliably matters, eg, you hit someplace to make something in the human body stop working. I don't know why people still perpetuate this 'stopping power' or 'knock-down power' myth.

[Deadmeat1471]

Yes, the UK has worse violent crime rates than the US. The US simply has more people.

Is there a source on this other than the Daily Mail?  Because I'm pretty sure that was just because "affray" without injuries counts as a violent crime over here.  If you compare well defined crimes such as murder America seems to tend to have a higher rate.

Someone here is abit savvy 

Using the daily mail for evidence against gun control is like asking charlton heston to run a anti-gun rally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0B_UZNtEk4

Nuff said.

[Frumple]

Is there a source on this other than the Daily Mail?  Because I'm pretty sure that was just because "affray" without injuries counts as a violent crime over here.  If you compare well defined crimes such as murder America seems to tend to have a higher rate.

Actually, yeah, here:

According to the Home Office, there were around 880,000 "Violence against the person" crimes in England and Wales in 2008–9, equivalent to 16 per thousand people in England and Wales.

From here.

To match numbers, from here, assuming violent crime is equal to violence against the person, in 2009, the UK crime rare was 160 per 100k, the US crime rate ~429 per 100k. Slightly less than 4x.

Homicide rate in 2000-1 was 5.6 vs 1.4 per 100k, again, about 4x.

Wikipedia stuff, but the sources seem legit, though those numbers are for england and wales specifically. The other areas (Scotland/North Ireland) have considerably less reported crimes in general, presumably due to lower population density.

[Pnx]

You... don't actually have experience with... I don't even know how to respond to your posts. The shooter is clearly braced and prepared for the impact - the target, if moving towards you, probably won't be. And a bullet that puts all its force into the body instead of passing through will obviously be more likely to slow and destabilize a target, simple because more damage is likely to be done (assuming same amount of kinetic force and same target area) than if the bullet passed through. Seriously, this is like arguing that hitting you in the head with a solid wood plank couldn't have any stopping power because if it did it would knock over the person swinging. It's just kind of absurd.

Regardless, most stopping power doesn't come from sheer kinetic force, or necessarily from an increase in lethality, but is a combination of a variety of factors and effect, the end result being "bullets that are better than other bullets at incapacitating".

Newton's Third Law: "To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction"... or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions. Firearms are no different. If somebody is shot and they fall over, its a psychological response to having been injured, not because the bullet pushed them over. Shot placement is the only thing that reliably matters, eg, you hit someplace to make something in the human body stop working. I don't know why people still perpetuate this 'stopping power' or 'knock-down power' myth.

I think mostly the issue is hydrostatic shock. More force would give a greater effect, so "stopping power" would make a difference in how easily you could knock someone unconscious with a shot to the chest.

[GlyphGryph]

Wikipedia stuff, but the sources seem legit, though those numbers are for england and wales specifically. The other areas (Scotland/North Ireland) have considerably less reported crimes in general, presumably due to lower population density.

Your sources aren't comparing the same numbers, is the problem.

The US does lead in straight homicides though. And in straight crimes thanks to drug crimes. (Both of which are related quite strongly to the war on drugs actually).

Does anyone have sources for an actual comparison of violent crime, in general, between the two countries?

[Tellemurius]

You... don't actually have experience with... I don't even know how to respond to your posts. The shooter is clearly braced and prepared for the impact - the target, if moving towards you, probably won't be. And a bullet that puts all its force into the body instead of passing through will obviously be more likely to slow and destabilize a target, simple because more damage is likely to be done (assuming same amount of kinetic force and same target area) than if the bullet passed through. Seriously, this is like arguing that hitting you in the head with a solid wood plank couldn't have any stopping power because if it did it would knock over the person swinging. It's just kind of absurd.

Regardless, most stopping power doesn't come from sheer kinetic force, or necessarily from an increase in lethality, but is a combination of a variety of factors and effect, the end result being "bullets that are better than other bullets at incapacitating".

Newton's Third Law: "To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction"... or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions. Firearms are no different. If somebody is shot and they fall over, its a psychological response to having been injured, not because the bullet pushed them over. Shot placement is the only thing that reliably matters, eg, you hit someplace to make something in the human body stop working. I don't know why people still perpetuate this 'stopping power' or 'knock-down power' myth.

I think mostly the issue is hydrostatic shock. More force would give a greater effect, so "stopping power" would make a difference in how easily you could knock someone unconscious with a shot to the chest.

There you go, thats why the army complained about NATO rounds as it just goes through the enemy but using anything else is inhumane....

[GlyphGryph]

Newton's Third Law: "To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction"... or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions. Firearms are no different. If somebody is shot and they fall over, its a psychological response to having been injured, not because the bullet pushed them over. Shot placement is the only thing that reliably matters, eg, you hit someplace to make something in the human body stop working. I don't know why people still perpetuate this 'stopping power' or 'knock-down power' myth.

First: Response to your inability to understand physics
I can push you over. I can push you over without pushing myself over. This is perfectly in keeping with Newton's third law - what the hell is so hard to understand about that? Application and propogation of force  - direction, transference to other objects, how much passes through and how much is caught - matters just as much to destabilize someone as the amount of force put out. Again - this is why I can hit you in the face with a 2x4 and knock you to the ground, or push you over, even if I'm pushing against your chest. And a lot of guns can knock the shooter off their feet if they aren't prepared for it - I assume those guns must have quite a bit of stopping power eh, since by your argument if there's enough force to knock the shooter of their feet, why, that means every time anyone is hit with that amount of force, down they'll go!

Second: Response to your assertion that only shot placement matters
Except, as I said, kinetic force isn't the primary cause of stopping power, and your Newton's third law stuff is being terribly misapplied here.
You think shot placement is the only thing that matters? Seriously? Fine - let's shoot you in the gut with a 9mm solid bullet and a 45 hollow point, and see which is more likely to drop you. Now lets do the same with a bb gun and and an elephant gun. Shot placement is the only thing that matters, after all - so there shouldn't be a difference, right?

Incapacitation is only rarely caused by direct organ failure - blood loss, especially significant and sudden blood loss, is a much more reliably way of stopping someone than trying to shoot them in the heart or brain.

[Pnx]

Wikipedia stuff, but the sources seem legit, though those numbers are for england and wales specifically. The other areas (Scotland/North Ireland) have considerably less reported crimes in general, presumably due to lower population density.

Your sources aren't comparing the same numbers, is the problem.

The US does lead in straight homicides though. And in straight crimes thanks to drug crimes. (Both of which are related quite strongly to the war on drugs actually).

Does anyone have sources for an actual comparison of violent crime, in general, between the two countries?

There's this site:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
The numbers are rather fudgey though. It doesn't compare a lot of the numbers to the population, also the reported numbers are a bit fishy. I find it hard to believe there's actually less crime in Russia than in the UK unless what's actually a crime is a little more "flexible".

[Tellemurius]

Wikipedia stuff, but the sources seem legit, though those numbers are for england and wales specifically. The other areas (Scotland/North Ireland) have considerably less reported crimes in general, presumably due to lower population density.

Your sources aren't comparing the same numbers, is the problem.

The US does lead in straight homicides though. And in straight crimes thanks to drug crimes. (Both of which are related quite strongly to the war on drugs actually).

Does anyone have sources for an actual comparison of violent crime, in general, between the two countries?

There's this site:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
The numbers are rather fudgey though. It doesn't compare a lot of the numbers to the population, also the reported numbers are a bit fishy. I find it hard to believe there's actually less crime in Russia than in the UK unless what's actually a crime is a little more "flexible".

I saw nationmaster but that was too effy for me, i believe their sources are too bias.

[Montague]

First:

You are entirely correct that you and a 2x4 could probably knock me down, a person can apply a lot of force and leverage to do that. A bullet, isn't going to do that, they simply weigh too little to do that.

Second:
A handgun caliber, or any other sort of bullet is effective if it can penetrate deep enough to reach some vital organ and render it inoperable. So, there won't be much difference between a .45 and a 9mm because they both do the job just fine. Although the latter is probably more likely to create an exit wound and ultimately become more lethal. The diameter of the bullet is almost irrelevant. Only a shot to the head, spine, hip joint or something will physically stop a person. That's just science. Hydrostatic shock doesn't even occur at the lower velocities of a handgun caliber and temporary cavitation is dubiously lethal or effective at stopping anybody.

Fact is, if a bullet doesn't physically disable a person from acting, it'd be a psychological response to being shot. Eg, they are hurt and they drop to the ground because they don't want to just stand there and be shot again. That's why they train to keep shooting untill the target is no longer a threat, they don't tell you to buy a .45 so you can knock over assailants with a single shot like they were bowling pins.

[Tellemurius]

First:

You are entirely correct that you and a 2x4 could probably knock me down, a person can apply a lot of force and leverage to do that. A bullet, isn't going to do that, they simply weigh too little to do that.

Second:
A handgun caliber, or any other sort of bullet is effective if it can penetrate deep enough to reach some vital organ and render it inoperable. So, there won't be much difference between a .45 and a 9mm because they both do the job just fine. Although the latter is probably more likely to create an exit wound and ultimately become more lethal. The diameter of the bullet is almost irrelevant. Only a shot to the head, spine, hip joint or something will physically stop a person. That's just science. Hydrostatic shock doesn't even occur at the lower velocities of a handgun caliber and temporary cavitation is dubiously lethal or effective at stopping anybody.

Fact is, if a bullet doesn't physically disable a person from acting, it'd be a psychological response to being shot. Eg, they are hurt and they drop to the ground because they don't want to just stand there and be shot again. That's why they train to keep shooting untill the target is no longer a threat, they don't tell you to buy a .45 so you can knock over assailants with a single shot like they were bowling pins.

Actually you are wrong, clean shots are considered non-lethal. True theres a hole in your body now but they are easier to patch up as usually those shots missed any vital spots, imbedded shots however hit something and are worse. Also Montague you are not calculating energy these bullets are hitting the person, true they are small but these things are hitting you faster than a car and if you increase the diameter of the bullet you are increasing surface area of impacted. .45s are better than 9mm cause its a fatter bullet and has a larger area of impact.

[GlyphGryph]

You are entirely correct that you and a 2x4 could probably knock me down, a person can apply a lot of force and leverage to do that.

Oh, but by your own argument wouldn't that require I be knocked down as well? (Obviously not, but that was your position just a bit ago)

Montague, heck, I could knock you down with a thrown baseball if you weren't expecting it. Being knocking down doesn't take a lot of force, just enough to throw you off balance. And a bullet has the ability to do that if it exerts all its kinetic energy, and larger bullets traveling at the same speed as a smaller one, that are fully stopped, are actually carrying quite a bit of kinetic energy. Again, obviously, this isn't what people mean when they talk about stopping power, but its directly relevant to the portion of your argument I disagree with the most - namely, that you can't knock someone down with a bullet. Maybe getting knocked off your feet in a weigh that DOESN'T pick you up and physically put you to the ground is always "psychological" to you, in which case, well... you're using the word poorly, at the minimum. It would be like saying momentarily blinding someone with a flash of light is "just psychological". :/

And as I said before - the person firing the gun would presumably be braced against impact anyways - they could absorb enough force to be knocked down without being knocked down by dissipating it successfully. Your argument here is just wrong on so very many levels.

And all of this is irrelevant to stopping power, which is more about various issues (psychological ones among them) that work together to incapacitate a person. And its clear that more powerful weapons accomplish this more quickly, and there's evidence higher caliber bullets have a similar increased stopping power effectiveness.

[Truean]

http://news.yahoo.com/lemming-exodus-manufacturers-look-u-165814959.html

Ha! I knew moving all those jobs to 3rd world countries wouldn't be profitable or lack serious indirect concerns.