|
"Kegs" wrote in message ... "rick" writes: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/24/05 10:41 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... Where did I ever say an AK47 knockoff is any different than another less vicious gun (whatever that means)? ================== Just displaying the ignorance of you and other anti-gun idiots. The assualt rifle you keep spewing about works no differently, and fires a bullet no more powerful than other weapons. If you mean there are other weapons that are equally capable of killing, I am aware, and never said otherwise. ===================== Really? I'm surprised. Your facination with a certain weapon because of its looks is quite amusing. Again, what makes the AK more dangerous than other weapons? Well, the fact that AK47s fire 7.62mm hypervelocity rounds might have something to do with it. ========================== that's a 39 round. And that compares with other weapons how? Less powerful than many hunting rifles. Actually kind of a mediocre round. They are easily capable of taking off an arm or a leg if they stike bone, and, even if they don't strike bone, they will blast out a sizable chunk of flesh. ==================== Yep. Just what is was designed to do, wound. They have quite a respectable rate of fire as well, even if they aren't the most accurate assault rifles in the world. ============== So do many other weaopns.. The fact that criminals aren't likely to have any qualms about modifying their ammo (hollow points etc) doesn't help either. ======================= Yeah, sure, crack dealers are just sitting around making their own rounds... Of cource they are really no more lethal than any other weapon that uses that size of high-velocity round, and only slightly more lethal than an assault rifle using NATO issue 5.54mm rounds, such as the armalite, L85A1 or the Steyr-Aug. ====================== The point was that they are less powerful than many other rifles that are not the dreaded "assault" weapon. A disignation based on looks, not killing power or accuracy. Any of that class of weapon is rather more lethal than an equivalent low-velocity type weapon, though you are still just as dead if you get shot by someone carrying a .22 pistol with good aim. ================== The point was that they are less powerful than most hunting rifles. -- James jamesk[at]homeric[dot]co[dot]uk "I'm with Them. Same group, different department." (Justin, B5 "Z'Ha'Dum") |
A Usenet persona calling itself Kegs wrote:
"rick" writes: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/24/05 10:41 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... Where did I ever say an AK47 knockoff is any different than another less vicious gun (whatever that means)? ================== Just displaying the ignorance of you and other anti-gun idiots. The assualt rifle you keep spewing about works no differently, and fires a bullet no more powerful than other weapons. If you mean there are other weapons that are equally capable of killing, I am aware, and never said otherwise. ===================== Really? I'm surprised. Your facination with a certain weapon because of its looks is quite amusing. Again, what makes the AK more dangerous than other weapons? Well, the fact that AK47s fire 7.62mm hypervelocity rounds might have something to do with it. Once again you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The 7.62 x 39 AK round is not a "hypervelocity" round by any known ballistic metric. They are easily capable of taking off an arm or a leg if they stike bone, and, even if they don't strike bone, they will blast out a sizable chunk of flesh. More ignorance. The lethality of the AK round is no greater than any other similar caliber round, and is in fact much less, because the muzzle velocity is actually less than that of the 7.62 NATO round and the bullet behavior in flesh is entirely different from even the standard 5.56 NATO round used in the M-16. The muzzle velocity of the standard military 7.62 x 39mm round is 710 m/s and muzzle energy is about 1990 joules for a standard 8 gram full metal jacket military round. "The Soviet AK-47 Kalashnikov fires a full-metal-jacketed, boat-tail bullet that has a copper-plated steel jacket, a large steel core, and some lead between the two. In tissue, this bullet typically travels for about 26cm point-forward before beginning significant yaw. This author observed, on many occasions, the damage pattern shown while treating battle casualties in Da Nang, Vietnam (1968). The typical path through the abdomen caused minimal disruption; holes in organs were similar to those caused by a non-hollow-point handgun bullet. The average uncomplicated thigh wound was about what one would expect from a low-powered handgun: a small, punctate entrance and exit wound with minimal intervening muscle disruption." Source: http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/b...b.html#nato762 The standard 7.26 NATO round is a 7.62 x 51mm round carrying a 9.72 gram full metal jacket bullet at a muzzle velocity of 860 m/s with a muzzle energy of 3594 joules. "The uncomplicated thigh wound might show very minimal tissue disruption since the streamlined bullet tends to travel point forward during the first 16cm of its tissue path. The abdominal wound, with a sufficiently long path so that the bullet will yaw, causing the large temporary cavity that is seen at depths of 20 to 35cm, would be expected to be very disruptive. If the bullet path is such that this temporary cavity occurs in the liver, this amount of tissue disruption is likely to make survival improbable." Source: Ibid. The 5.56 x 45mm NATO round carries a 4.01 gram bullet at 921 m/s with a muzzle energy of only 1700 joules, but it's lethality is greater than the AK round because of bullet design and fragmentation. "This bullet is fired from the US armed forces' first-generation smaller-calibre rifle, the M16A1. The large permanent cavity it produces, shown in the wound profile, was observed by surgeons who served in Vietnam, but the tissue disruption mechanism responsible was not clear until the importance of bullet fragmentation as a cause of tissue disruption was worked out and described. As shown on the wound profile, this full-metal-jacketed bullet travels point-forward in tissue for about 12cm after which it yaws to 90°, flattens, and breaks at the cannelure (groove around bullet midsection into which the cartridge neck is crimped). The bullet point flattens but remains in one piece, retaining about 60 per cent of the original bullet weight. The rear portion breaks into many fragments that penetrate up to 7cm radially from the bullet path. The temporary cavity stretch, its effect increased by perforation and weakening of the tissue by fragments, then causes a much enlarged permanent cavity by detaching tissue pieces. The degree of bullet fragmentation decreases with increased shooting distance (as striking velocity decreases), as shown in Fig. 5. At a shooting distance over about 100m the bullet breaks at the cannelure, forming two large fragments and, at over 200m, it no longer breaks, although it continues to flatten somewhat, until 400m. This consistent change in deformation/fragmentation pattern has an important forensic application. It can be used to estimate shooting distance if the bullet is recovered in the body and has penetrated only soft tissue. The effects of this bullet in the abdomen shot will show the temporary cavity effects as described for the Yugoslav AK-47 and, in addition, there will be an increased tissue disruption from the synergistic effect of temporary cavitation acting on tissue that has been weakened by bullet fragmentation. Instead of finding a hole consistent with the size of the bullet in hollow organs such as the intestine, we typically find a hole left by missing tissue of up to 7cm in diameter. The thigh entrance wound will be small and punctate. The first part of the tissue path will show minimal disruption. The exit will vary from the small punctate hole described for the Soviet AK-47 to the stellate exit described for the Yugoslav AK-47, depending on how thick the thigh is where the bullet perforates it. In a sufficiently thick thigh, the M193 bullet fragmentation is also likely to cause a significant loss of tissue and possibly one or more small exit wounds near the large stellate one." Source: Ibid. Thus, once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. They have quite a respectable rate of fire as well, even if they aren't the most accurate assault rifles in the world. The civilian variant have exactly the same rate of fire as any other semi-automatic firearm: one round per trigger pull. The fact that criminals aren't likely to have any qualms about modifying their ammo (hollow points etc) doesn't help either. Nor does it hurt, particularly, since AK variants are seldom used in crime. Of cource they are really no more lethal than any other weapon that uses that size of high-velocity round, and only slightly more lethal than an assault rifle using NATO issue 5.54mm rounds, such as the armalite, L85A1 or the Steyr-Aug. Once again, you are wrong. Any of that class of weapon is rather more lethal than an equivalent low-velocity type weapon, though you are still just as dead if you get shot by someone carrying a .22 pistol with good aim. The velocities of AK variants, M-16 variants and 7.62 variants is no different than, and usually less than the velocities of your average, ordinary hunting round. There is no such thing as a "low velocity" rifle round, nor is there any commercially available "hypervelocity" ammunition available. Your argument is specious because you haven't a clue what the term "hypervelocity" means in the firearms projectile lexicon. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Tinkerntom snip.. Tinkerntom, I'm actually surprised that a man of your high moral stands has not jumped in to criticize rick for being a liar and a coward. Why is that? ================ MAybe for the simple reason that I have not lied. Of course, you cannot make the same claim. Why not at least back up one of your claims, fool? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... snip.. FYI, it's not just with me that rick is a liar and a coward. His behavior is rather universal on that note. =============== The only proven liar in the thread had been you. I'm still waiting for you to provide the proof that refutes what I have already posted. |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
KMAN says: ================ There's no way that even a gun nut really believes that a community without guns is going to have more gun deaths than a community with guns. Right? =============== I think you're being overly optimistic. Indeed. The problem with this utopian ideal is that it is functionally impossible, anywhere in the world, to have a community without guns. That being the case, the argument is fallacious at its core. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Tinkerntom snip... Rick is claiming that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care, =============== No fool, I have provided sites that claim that Canadians are dying in wait lines. YIOU have yet to provide anything that refutes those sites. but he refuses to support his claim, and worse, says that he has done so, when everyone can see that he hasn't. ===================== Yes, I have. That you are too stupid, lazy, or ignorant on how to fully use you computer is your problem. Plus, I have told you where to go look for yourself on several occasions. YOU are too afraid to do so, because your ideology will be found wanting. That makes him a liar and a coward ===================== So far, the only proven liar and coward has been you, fool. Tinkerntom, and so to (cowards) are all those who cower in the closet, afraid that their "toes will get stepped on." C'mon Tinkerntom, what type of society are we to build here in rec.boats.paddle if we are not to support the basic building blocks of logical discussion? Shame on you! ==================== ROTFLMAO This from the loony-toon that doesn't have a logical bone is his body? Stop! The laughing is killing me! At least I won't have to wait for treatment! |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/27/05 2:39 PM: snip... Do you think rick is interested in any messages? ============== Yes, truthful ones. When you going to make one? He's not even interested in supporting any of his own statements. ================ I have fool. You, on the other hand, have never been able to. Why is that? Too busy lying? snip.. Well Tinkerntom, it's very simple. Rick has made the claim, and he has failed to support it. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Do you agree? ================= Not if he reads the entire thread, and sees that I have supported my claims. More than once. And yet the bottom line as I see it, is that it is your system, and if it works for you, that is your business. It would only become my business if someone tried to enforce the system or some variation here in the States, which Hillary tried, and at the time, the majority of the people decided that we preferred the existing system we already have. But do you agree that rick has made a claim that he has failed to support? The topic at hand is really quite irrlevant to the question. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Now as far as r being a liar and a coward, I don't know. I came back refreshed from vacation to find you two carrying on. I don't know when or where it started, and mostly have tried to ignore your spat. I have not seen any point in getting involved, or of even going back and trying to find the supposed and questioned post by either one of you. I have enough trouble keeping my post square as you well know from our previous experiences. I have been told back in the beginning by my good friends Wilko and riverman, not to say anything on the forum, that you would say to someone face to face. Now seeing that he is a gun nut (your definition) and possibly walks around with his "Assault weapon" armed and ready, it might not be wise to walk up to him and call him a "liar and a coward." So then I find it most profitable to refraim from doing so here on the net as well. But do you agree that rick has made a claim that he has failed to support? ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... C'mon Tinkerntom, what type of society are we to build here in rec.boats.paddle if we are not to support the basic building blocks of logical discussion? Shame on you! Now if you wanted to continue a new thread about the advantages of the Canadian Health Care system, sometime in the future, maybe there could be a logical discussion, but I doubt that could happen at this time in this thread. There appears to be to much macho image at risk between the two of you. I will look forward to that discussion, and I hope that I am back on your list of reasonable non cowards! TnT This is about basic integrity Tinkerntom. The topic is really a subordinate issue. It is no different than if rick were to claim that purple kayaks result in increased death rates. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ============= I'm talking about the rate of violent victimization overall and the impact that banning guns has on the rate at which people are victimized. ================= I agree with you, rates of change with respect to criminality may be significant. To determine, however, the causes of these changes may be more problematic. True. But significant and persuasive scientific and statistical research has been done on the subject that bears out my claims. Certainly the presence in society of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is not the ONLY reason for drops in violent crime, but it has been credibly verified as a major factor in the US. From the same source I cited previously, here are some sample crime rate changes. [for 1990-2000] Crimes recorded by the police (percentage changes) 1990-2000 ============= EU Member States average -1% England & Wales 4% Scotland -18% Austria 22% Estonia 143% Finland -11% France 8% Hungary 32% Lithuania 122% Italy -12% Netherlands 12% Russia 85% Slovakia -1% Slovenia 76% Sweden 0% Canada -10% Japan 49% U.S.A. -20% After looking at those figures, I'm not sure what kind of conclusions one might draw. A simplisic fool might conclude that communism served many peoples much better (from a crime perspective) because, since the introduction of a free market system, things appear to have gone hell in a hand basket in Russia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Estonia etc. Slovakia seems to be an anomaly, but perhaps, now that the politically correct commies are no longer in charge, the Slovaks can finally give their gypsy population a good hiding [apologies to all those of either Slovak or gypsy extration]. One must also remember that in communist governments, "crimes reported by police" donąt happen to include crimes COMMITTED by police. Viz: Stalin's 20 million murders and the genocide in Cambodia don't get factored into the "violent crime" statistics, which would significantly skew the figures for most of the communist entries above. As to the USA, perhaps the 20% decline is due to the dot-com economic explosion under the careful stewardship of President Clinton. Huh? I think one fairly well-established cause of crime is unemployment, underemployment, and poverty (Scott, as you so eloquently said in your "What I'd do to lazy welfare Queens" treatise, idle hands do the devil's work). Sorry, but no. I dispute your thesis and your conclusion. OK, shall we chalk that -20% in the USA up to Clinton? Not unless you can prove a causal link. Japan is a surprise at +49%. But perhaps not. If we note that the decade in question was not particularly kind to Japan economically, we ought not to be surprised that crime was up in Japan. Which has exactly what to do with the issue? In terms of Canada; often Canada follows the USA in economic development (I'll not revisit the nature of trade between Canada and the USA), so quite likely the positive data for Canada can also be attributed to 8 years of a Democrat in the Whitehouse GRIN. What's your take on these numbers, Scott? That you're making specious arguments again. While economics may play some part in the rates of crime, and in the rates of change in crime, your argument fails because despite improvements in the economies of the US, GB, Canada and Australia, the rate of change in violent crime STILL goes up in nations where guns are banned, and STILL goes down in jurisdictions in the US where concealed carry is lawful, in ways independent of the economy, and over longer periods than short-term economic fluctuations. The reductions in violent crime in, for example, Florida, began almost immediately in the mid 80s, after the new concealed carry law was enacted, and similar reductions have been seen in every place concealed carry has been made lawful in the US in the intervening 20 years, through all the economic fluctuations. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... ...it is functionally impossible, anywhere in the world, to have a community without guns... Hm..... Gonna have to stop doing volunteer work at the orphanage, the convent, and the Buddhist temple. Wolfgang ducking and covering. :( |
Wolfgang wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... ...it is functionally impossible, anywhere in the world, to have a community without guns... Hm..... Gonna have to stop doing volunteer work at the orphanage, the convent, and the Buddhist temple. Wolfgang ducking and covering. :( I am surprised that Scott has let you slide this long on this one. Maybe cause you let me slide on something ealier. Naw, no chance! I commend you for you charity work, however the above do not represent a community. Only a small fraction of a community, as there are households without guns in possession, all are under hopefully the protective umbrella of those police officer and military who do carry firearms. Obviously the Tibetan Buddist in their isolation from the rest of the real world, found that all military possession of firearms is not benevolent, and certainly not something that can be separated from in isolation. Same with orphanages and convents, they may not have a firearm in their possession, but there is more than likely one in th vicinity. I hate being a pragmatist sometimes, but I found that utopian ideology left me feeling very vulnerable. Sorry about bursting your bubble. TnT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com