Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Getting shot by a handgun

answers.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 134 posts

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#91

Post by tome »

anamax wrote: post #50
someone_here wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Total firearm-related death rate per 100'000 for the US: between 10.2 and 15.22. For the UK: 0.38 to 0.46 Source (and more sources): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re...

You'll find similar differences between the "feet and fists" death rate. What are the "feet" control laws? And, the UK's low firearms death rates predate the firearms laws, which largely occurred post-WWI to stop a communist takeover. Note the US' firearms death rate isn't uniform. For example, most of the peninsula's is better than the UK's best, but East Palo Alto, which has exactly the same laws (and lower firearm…

You'll find similar differences between the "feet and fists" death rate.

If you know of a specific reference I'll be very pleased to read it.

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#92

Post by tome »

ErrantX wrote: post #38
gallamine wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I live in the UK where carrying deadly weapons isn't seen as a right." Whew! It's a good thing too ... stopping all that senseless accidental shootings from law abiding citizens. Many the criminal will take the hint. Oh wait ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573...

Counterpoint; anyone not in uniform and carrying a gun = criminal. Deal with accordingly. (This is definitely one of the debates to avoid here because it is very polarizing, however, for the record we have a pretty good firearms record in the UK)

I'm not sure why you were downvoted. What you say is absolutely correct. In the UK it's easy for law enforcement to find certain types of criminal simply because they are in posession of firearms.

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#93

Post by tome »

msquared wrote: post #80

Just have to say, before reading all of this, REALLY glad this many HN readers and posters are into this topic. Thought I was the only nut that loved technology and firearms, guess I was wrong. happy sigh

You surely can't be unaware that Eric Raymond loves both tech and guns?

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#94

Post by dkarl »

rdl wrote: post #8
iamelgringo wrote: post #5

Speaking from years of experience working as an ER nurse in the Chicago ghetto... He drew a short straw on the weapon of choice. .22 caliber slugs tend to bounce around inside a person. Anything carrying more energy would likely have shattered his scapula, and gone clean through him. The energy of the slug wouldn't have been used up bouncing around his chest. I took care of a person shot in the ankle with a .22. The…

Aside from the ease of sound suppressing them, and the small size of the weapons, there is a reason some of the best hit squads in the world use the .22lr! Admittedly, a .22WMR is pretty much a different animal than the .22lr. Out of a rifle, it would have probably been a through and through, assuming a FMJ bullet -- you'd probably get 2000fps for a 40gr. A JSP might not have, and out of a Ruger Single Six, it's a lo…

I heard a story, possibly an urban legend, that the Israeli army had classified a particularly underpowered .22 rifle as a "less lethal" weapon so they could use it to shoot protesters, juvenile rock-throwers, and other targets with which they were supposed to exercise a certain amount of restraint. Soldiers then measured their marksmanship by how lethal they could be with this "less lethal" weapon until the government was forced to correct the "mistake."

This is a pretty ugly story that would have gratifying appeal to many people on either side of the issue (I heard it from a conservative guy who was grinning with glee at the supposed cleverness of the Israelis) so there's a good chance it's an urban legend. Confirmation or refutation would be welcome.

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#95

Post by niels_olson »

Doc with a degree in physics, previously a weapons and anti-terrorism officer on an aircraft carrier and recently (a year ago) took the combined forces combat casualty care course, and have done a few trauma rotations in inner-city ERs (New Orleans and Norfolk).

Chapter 1 of the Emergency War Surgery Manual (updated in 2006 to collect lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan) dedicates Chapter 1 to dispelling misconceptions about injuries. The science comes down on the side of the cop answering in Google: the weapon is of little use in predicting the outcome.

http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/other_pub/ews.html

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#96

Post by ErrantX »

tome wrote: post #92
ErrantX wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint; anyone not in uniform and carrying a gun = criminal. Deal with accordingly. (This is definitely one of the debates to avoid here because it is very polarizing, however, for the record we have a pretty good firearms record in the UK)

I'm not sure why you were downvoted. What you say is absolutely correct. In the UK it's easy for law enforcement to find certain types of criminal simply because they are in posession of firearms.

Random anecdote; for some (I suppose obvious) reason a surprising number of drug dealers are caught because they are caught carrying weapons - which leads to searches, which leads to the drugs.

At least; that is my impression from the cases I see.

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#97

Post by ams6110 »

rdl wrote: post #8
iamelgringo wrote: post #5

Speaking from years of experience working as an ER nurse in the Chicago ghetto... He drew a short straw on the weapon of choice. .22 caliber slugs tend to bounce around inside a person. Anything carrying more energy would likely have shattered his scapula, and gone clean through him. The energy of the slug wouldn't have been used up bouncing around his chest. I took care of a person shot in the ankle with a .22. The…

Aside from the ease of sound suppressing them, and the small size of the weapons, there is a reason some of the best hit squads in the world use the .22lr! Admittedly, a .22WMR is pretty much a different animal than the .22lr. Out of a rifle, it would have probably been a through and through, assuming a FMJ bullet -- you'd probably get 2000fps for a 40gr. A JSP might not have, and out of a Ruger Single Six, it's a lo…

Admittedly, a .22WMR is pretty much a different animal than the .22lr. Out of a rifle, it would have probably been a through and through, assuming a FMJ bullet -- you'd probably get 2000fps for a 40gr. A JSP might not have, and out of a Ruger Single Six, it's a lot closer to a really hot .22lr rifle.

I think I have just experienced what a non-technical user feels like when talking to a hardware geek.

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#98

Post by tome »

ErrantX wrote: post #96
tome wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why you were downvoted. What you say is absolutely correct. In the UK it's easy for law enforcement to find certain types of criminal simply because they are in posession of firearms.

Random anecdote; for some (I suppose obvious) reason a surprising number of drug dealers are caught because they are caught carrying weapons - which leads to searches, which leads to the drugs. At least; that is my impression from the cases I see.

I should say that banning guns because guns are a good way to detect general crime seems like a flawed move to me. What I support is banning guns as a good way to detect gun crime.

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#99

Post by ErrantX »

tome wrote: post #98
ErrantX wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Random anecdote; for some (I suppose obvious) reason a surprising number of drug dealers are caught because they are caught carrying weapons - which leads to searches, which leads to the drugs. At least; that is my impression from the cases I see.

I should say that banning guns because guns are a good way to detect general crime seems like a flawed move to me. What I support is banning guns as a good way to detect gun crime.

The two are often intrinsically linked.

Tbh I'm not really giving an opinion on the actual issue, my orginal reply was supposed to "show up" the fallacy of the gp.

The relationships between guns, crime and their banning is way too complex for me to have an opinion on :p

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#100

Post by msquared »

tome wrote: post #93
msquared wrote: post #80

Just have to say, before reading all of this, REALLY glad this many HN readers and posters are into this topic. Thought I was the only nut that loved technology and firearms, guess I was wrong. happy sigh

You surely can't be unaware that Eric Raymond loves both tech and guns?

I surely was, but surely am no longer :) He resides in PA too, just like me, where our gun control laws favor freedom over oppression (all you Cali/NJ/NYers out there). But I digress.
Post reply on HN