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

101–110 of 134 posts

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#101

Post by G_Wen »

dkarl wrote: post #65

About fifteen years ago I read a book summarizing research into the effects of different types and calibers of handguns and handgun ammunition. (Long story short: Clinton was trying to ban semiautomatic handguns or something, so my dad developed a sudden interest in buying a gun, and he borrowed some books from a friend who was quite an enthusiast.) The study was a survey of thousands of police reports on shootings,…

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

Here's a PDF analyzing the effectiveness of firearms. It was written in 1989 so it is a bit out of date. Perhaps someone with more experience with firearms can check to see if the article is still relevant.

It does confirm that "Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds".

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#102

Post by rokhayakebe »

jholman wrote: post #87
rokhayakebe wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Joke? I couldn't joke about a deadly situation. I accidentally read "I shot myself". Now as a side note, I want to say to everyone who downvoted my comment without saying why, I think this is an idiot's move. Yes, I am saying it. At least if you are going to do it, give a feedback. Otherwise you haven't added anything to the conversation. And just so you know, it's not about karma. It's about you not adding anything…

In response to your sidenote, bullshit. Whining about downvotes without "saying why" is an idiot's move. Replying to that whining (as I am doing now) might possibly be an idiot's move, I'm not sure. But voting is not an idiot's move, and lack of explanation does not make it so. Upvotes and downvotes add the same thing to the conversation: 1) They're a system by which the collective collectively modifies what comments…

The last I will say on the subject.

Whining about downvotes without "saying why" is an idiot's move. Thank you. According to your comment I am not an idiot because I "said why" : if you are going to do it, give a feedback. Otherwise you haven't added anything to the conversation. .

I cannot start to think of a world where giving someone a coin as a way of saying you are adding value is just as effective as taking away a coin from them as a way of saying you are taking away value. The way we communicate online should just be an extension of how we communicate in real life. In practice you should only be able to downvote someone because you upvoted them in the past. So in a sense you would take back what you gave them. Otherwise it is nothing short of robbery.

I have never downvoted anyone, unless it was done by mistake. Maybe we are different, but I just do not see how downvotes are helpful. I respect your point, but I think it doesn't make sense.

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#103

Post by ars »

JonnieCache wrote: post #89
mgarfias wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the heck? There are millions of us. There are several industries revolving around people who "hack" their weapons. Whether its a new handguard on your AR-15, or buying 10 lbs of gunpowder there are people that can help you out. In fact, I'd say that there are more of them, than hackers.

I was more thinking of DIY firearms/firearm modification. That would seem very dangerous to me. It is quite common for criminals in the UK to "re-bore" replica or deactivated weapons. It is also very common for these guns to backfire, killing the shooter. The idea of gun hacking simply put me in mind of these sad occurrences. I'm not suggesting anyone is a mouth breathing redneck, or an inept criminal for that matter…

Gun hackers in the US are far more familiar with guns than those in the UK. Also you can get higher quality parts for guns in the US (no need for replica or deactivated stuff).

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#104

Post by anamax »

tome wrote: post #91
anamax wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The latest US stats are at http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0299.p... which is derived from http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_informati...

You do have to convert the raw numbers into per-capita rates.

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#105

Post by anamax »

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.

> 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.

How do they get "caught carrying weapons" without a search to find said weapons? (Terry v Ohio explains some of this, but note that Terry lets police search you even if you're not carrying.)

If our goal is to catch drug dealers, we could just let cops search based on hunches. After all, those hunches are fairly accurate.

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

And those cases are representative of what?

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#106

Post by ErrantX »

anamax wrote: post #105
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.

> 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. How do they get "caught carrying weapons" without a search to find said weapons? (Terry v Ohio explains some of this, but note that Terry lets police search you even if you're not carrying.) If our goal is to catch drug deal…

Oh it was just an interesting correlation I saw; there is no implication of causation.

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#107

Post by philwelch »

dkarl wrote: post #94
rdl wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 governme…

"a story, possibly an urban legend, [about] the Israeli army"

In other words, "anti-Semitic libel"?

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#108

Post by archon »

G_Wen wrote: post #101
dkarl wrote: post #65

About fifteen years ago I read a book summarizing research into the effects of different types and calibers of handguns and handgun ammunition. (Long story short: Clinton was trying to ban semiautomatic handguns or something, so my dad developed a sudden interest in buying a gun, and he borrowed some books from a friend who was quite an enthusiast.) The study was a survey of thousands of police reports on shootings,…

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf Here's a PDF analyzing the effectiveness of firearms. It was written in 1989 so it is a bit out of date. Perhaps someone with more experience with firearms can check to see if the article is still relevant. It does confirm that "Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seco…

All I can offer is another anecdote, not a more recent study, but in the self-defense courses I've taken over the past couple years, my instructor has stressed that a shooting is always a gamble.

"The only way to ensure instantaneous incapacitation is to destroy enough important brain matter. Do you want to aim at a 2-inch square target on your opponent's fast-moving head, or do you want to take your chances aiming for center mass?"

So I don't know if this instructor is an oddball or if he represents the current popularly held wisdom, but this instructor at least acknowledges that the effects of gunshot wounds are extremely unpredictable, which lines up with that study.

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#109

Post by jarin »

G_Wen wrote: post #101
dkarl wrote: post #65

About fifteen years ago I read a book summarizing research into the effects of different types and calibers of handguns and handgun ammunition. (Long story short: Clinton was trying to ban semiautomatic handguns or something, so my dad developed a sudden interest in buying a gun, and he borrowed some books from a friend who was quite an enthusiast.) The study was a survey of thousands of police reports on shootings,…

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf Here's a PDF analyzing the effectiveness of firearms. It was written in 1989 so it is a bit out of date. Perhaps someone with more experience with firearms can check to see if the article is still relevant. It does confirm that "Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seco…

So there might be something to the idea that you stay conscious for a bit after getting beheaded?

Re: Getting shot by a handgun

#110

Post by jarin »

ax0n wrote: post #60
zachrose wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never expected to hear that on HN.

Indeed. The front page is riddled with all kinds of alphabet soup. FSM, LLVM, RegExp just to name a few. I'd kind of assumed that most of us here have learned to cope with unfamiliar terms either by dismissing or researching them.

If you spend any time whatsoever in the military you get this weird superhuman ability to guess acronym meanings. True story.
Post reply on HN