[modi123_1]

Falling icicles kill record numbers in St Petersburg

The whole mechanism of having bubble-less ice and a mechanism for carrying them around (and not melting) may do.. but I think that is all.... *puts on sunglasses* Over kill. Yeaaaaaaah!

[h4nnib4l]

I don't have to test any of those bullet ideas: I shoot, and reload, enough ammo to know that those are all retarded ideas. No shit an ice bullet can't survive being fired from a rifle. And killing someone with a bit of meat or gelatin fired as a projectile? Really?

We're getting into the realm of "doing shit for the sake of doing it" at this point. Yeah, you might be able to make it happen, but nobody who is willing to screw around with it for that long is actually going to kill anybody (except maybe themselves, trying to make it work). There are plenty of legitimate ways to either shoot an untraceable bullet or make a bullet not trace back to the weapon from which it was fired. Just read some gunsmithing and reloading manuals.

This post has been edited by h4nnib4l: 12 October 2012 - 07:54 AM

[Choscura]

Seconded. Bullets are small bombs built with optimism about the ability to direct shrapnel. An ice bullet wouldn't melt, it would evaporate. The inside of the barrel wouldn't even be wet afterwards. If you really want to kill people by penetration wounds from high-velocity pointed ice, do what the Russians do: build tall buildings with eaves that hang over busy pedestrian walkways from a great height in cold parts of the world with high humidity and not much ground-level wind.

[h4nnib4l]

Choscura, on 12 October 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

Bullets are small bombs built with optimism about the ability to direct shrapnel.

Not quite. Frangible rounds are designed to fragment inside the target, but standard ball ammo and hollow points are designed to stay intact. Ball ammo will generally travel through the target, which is why it is a terrible choice for self- or home-defense (states really show their ignorance when they ban hollow points for self-defense use, because ball is much more likely to hit secondary targets). Hollow points expand, both to bleed energy and to create more cavitation and increasing the likelihood of a kill. I guess the idea is that ball ammo could be considered "for target shooting," while hollow points only have one purpose. Frangible rounds, like the Hornady VMax that I use for self defense and competition shooting, will break apart inside a soft target, and will shatter on a hard one.

This post has been edited by h4nnib4l: 12 October 2012 - 11:07 AM

[jon.kiparsky]

Quote

Ball ammo will generally travel through the target, which is why it is a terrible choice for self- or home-defense (states really show their ignorance when they ban hollow points for self-defense use, because ball is much more likely to hit secondary targets). Hollow points expand, both to bleed energy and to create more cavitation and increasing the likelihood of a kill.

I was always a little confused by the idea of banning some kinds of ammunition because it might hurt someone. I kinda thought that was the point.

[Atli]

I don't think the "hurt" part is what they are trying to minimize, but rather the "killed" part.

[h4nnib4l]

Yep, especially when contrasted with police officers, who are told to shoot to kill when they do have to shoot. At least part of this reasoning is that the case is much cleaner when there isn't a "victim's" side to the story. That is part of the reason that I teach the same in my classes (the other one obviously being that dead guys can't keep coming at you).

One of my favorite bits of recent gun legislation was in California. They proposed a law that all firearms sold in their state must employ technology that causes the firing pin to stamp the primer with the weapon's serial number, despite the fact that this technology doesn't exist. For anyone who's seen a firing pin, this would be quite a feat, and this presents an interesting new problem.

Currently, to pin a crime to a weapon, a projectile has to be recovered that is intact and can be matched to the rifling in the gun's barrel. With that technology, all you'd have to do to pin someone else's weapon to a crime is shoot frangibles and drop some casings at the scene (making sure you collect your own, obviously). You can generally find casings at any shooting range. And anyone who shoots with any regularity will wear that serial number off of their firing pin or striker.

EDIT: @Atli - in any state that licenses people to carry weapons (and this is including cops, so I'm referring to every state), any course you take will teach you to shoot to kill. Even the staunchest anti-gun states train their officers to shoot to kill: purposefully shooting to wound can actually get you charged if it can be proven, even if the shooting itself is justified.

This post has been edited by h4nnib4l: 12 October 2012 - 11:59 AM

[jon.kiparsky]

Atli, on 12 October 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

I don't think the "hurt" part is what they are trying to minimize, but rather the "killed" part.

I was also under the impression that you don't point a gun at someone unless the "killed" part is okay with you.

Not that I know anything about this stuff, mind you. Never fired a gun in my life, but that's what I hear.

[h4nnib4l]

Correct again. Brandishing a weapon to "deter" someone from trying to [insert violent crime] you can get you charged with, well, brandishing a weapon. You have to have already made the decision to kill when you reach for your gun. That's why many CHL holders end up not drawing their weapon during crimes.

This post has been edited by h4nnib4l: 12 October 2012 - 12:06 PM

[raghav.naganathan]

jon.kiparsky, on 13 October 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

Not that I know anything about this stuff, mind you. Never fired a gun in my life, but that's what I hear.

Glad you said that. This will certainly prevent cops from knocking on your door after looking at your expertise on weapons.

This post has been edited by raghav.naganathan: 12 October 2012 - 12:08 PM

[BenignDesign]

jon.kiparsky, on 12 October 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Never fired a gun in my life

I used a Super Soaker once. That's as close as it gets on my planet.

[jon.kiparsky]

raghav.naganathan, on 12 October 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

jon.kiparsky, on 13 October 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

Not that I know anything about this stuff, mind you. Never fired a gun in my life, but that's what I hear.

Glad you said that. This will certainly prevent cops from knocking on your door after looking at your expertise on weapons.

Hey, if they bring the doughnuts I'll be glad to tell them everything I know. Won't take very long.

[raghav.naganathan]

h4nnib4l, on 13 October 2012 - 12:35 AM, said:

Correct again. Brandishing a weapon to "deter" someone from trying to [insert violent crime] you can get you charged with, well, brandishing a weapon. You have to have already made the decision to kill when you reach for your gun. That's why many CHL holders end up not drawing their weapon during crimes.

I would certainly agree with you but there is a law which states that it is OK to kill anyone in self defense or in any situation where you feel your life is threatened.

[h4nnib4l]

Hope you have a Keurig, or the coffee won't be done in time.

[jon.kiparsky]

BenignDesign, on 12 October 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

jon.kiparsky, on 12 October 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Never fired a gun in my life

I used a Super Soaker once. That's as close as it gets on my planet.

No, not even that. I shot a rubber band at a co-worker, that's about it.

Hang on, I'm going to do it again.

EDIT: Missed!

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 12 October 2012 - 12:11 PM