Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Is Holmes mentally ill?

rated by 0 users
This post has 62 Replies | 4 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Thu, Jul 26 2012 8:24 PM
So, I am not wrong.
youre not wrong like you would be if you punched somebody in the nose or stole a lawn ornament. Youre using the wrong terminology. I can redefine "reason" and its family of related terms to mean "my own personal whims" but thats not going to do me much good if I want to communicate with people. The semantic shift you envision is worse, as it actually enables evil propagandists to strike at the root of freedom: personal physical security.
You are scared that the people who call the guns the batman nut used "automatic" that you are unwilling to accept the categorization of 'automatic" as "autoloader" in the semantic field.
youre typing fast and missing words, I suspect that you still fail to grasp the distinction here so I will refer you to my above post, and this brief reiteration. Automatics are autoloaders. Semiautomatics are autoloaders. Semiautomatics are not automatics. Automatics may be capable of semiautomatic fire, they are still automatics, not semiautomatics. Automatic weapons require special permits to own in the united states. Semiautomatic weapons are, by comparison, easy to get.
Sure, you'll admit, as evidenced above, that operationally I am correct
thats a negative. "automatic" refers to the capability of producing automatic fire. Semiautos cannot do this, hence the prefix.
but you don't want to admit that semantically the people who call for gun control are technically correct as well.  Even if they use the term ignorantly.
no, they are technically incorrect, but not always as ignorant as you seem to assume. You alluded to this earlier when you suggested that average television viewers might grasp this distinction. The prohibitionists wish to equivocate on this term, and you are enabling them by lobbying for a semantic shift.
It is not backwards.  It looks that way to you because (paragraph above).
thanks for the free psychoanalysis but youre still wrong. Automatic weapons are weapons that are able to be fired automatically, that is release multiple rounds with one single trigger press. This category excludes semiautomatic weapons, that have a firing mechanism that necessitates the release and subsequent press of the trigger. You would know this if you were fluent in this lexicon.
You wish to use the terms as the gun control lobby does...
are you trolling me? I wish to use standard firearms terminology, where when you call a semiauto like its a machine pistol, people realize that youre not familiar enough with pistols at all to really care about the difference. Because people, in america, who own guns and shoot them regularly naturally have two different terms for the type that are easy to get and the type that are hard to get. If youre still excited about that one time three years ago you went to the range and fired all your friend's guns, the distinction isnt very important to you because youre not an active firearms user. If you have a .38 special in your nightstand and you have never felt the need to clean in, the distinction isnt important to you. If you are a member of the political class and you wish to influence people to support more and stricter regulations on firearms ownership in general, it is important to you that this distinction be lost in translation. And if you are an active firearms user, then you more than likely own semiautos but not automatic weapons. You have probably discussed firearms for hundreds/thousands of hours, and you might own an automatic weapon if it didnt require so much more money and invasion of privacy. So telling a buddy "I just got a new semiautomatic rifle" is a LOT different than telling him "I just got a new automatic rifle." its like $10,000 and 6-12 months different, and worlds apart in the details. Those are two different messages, hence firearms users actually employing distinctions that people who keep baseball bats and rubberband guns for defense wouldnt even think about.
If they say "ban automatics" but they mean fully automatic guns and I point out that semi-automatic guns have the same automatic function (chambering) then you are worried that semis will get culled as well.
no, if they say "ban automatics" they are delivering agitprop as automatics are more or less banned anyway. They are trying to imply that machineguns are prolific and need to be restricted so that when they do attempt to restrict semiautos, the ignorant public will think they are banning something that was banned 48 years ago instead of banning just regular semiautomatic autoloading pistols. The proper response would be to point out that automatics are basically banned anyway, and legally registered automatic weapons are rarely involved in any sort of crime, so what do they want us to do, they banned them back in 64 and again in the 80s when they made it so you had to be a dealer in full-auto weapons in order to own any machine gun that was made after a certain date (ostensibly so you can sell it to an agency of the state). The proper rhetorical response is to observe that the prohibitionist says they want something that they already have, so what do they really want and why are they lying to us? buts its awfully hard to do that when well-intentioned ignorant members of the liberty lobby try to modify semantics so that 85% of firearms in private hands today are considered to be machine guns.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

You know, JJ, people could link to MIses wiki and say the same thing...

This explains exactly what we were discussing in between your troll posts.

@Malachi and JJ

Autoloader

A firearm that automatically loads the next cartridge to be fired into the chamber either upon the pull of the trigger in an open bolt design or upon the firing of the previous round in a close bolt design.  Over time this term has been shortened to just "auto" and sometimes "automatic" thus creating confusion between a full-auto firearm and a semi-automatic firearm.

Automatic

An fully automatic firearm is capable of sequentially firing two or more cartridges with a single pull of the trigger.  A fully automatic firearm is also called a machine gun. 

Automatic can also refer to a semi-automatic firearm--see Autoloader.

try to modify semantics so that 85% of firearms in private hands today are considered to be machine guns.

This is not at all what I am saying.  The prohibitionist needs to be shown exactly what you said.  They, "they want something that happened 50 years ago."

Every god damn gun dealer I have ever been to has referred to magazine loading pistols as automatics.  Because they refer to the autoloading sequence not the firing mechanism.

Just go to a gun dealers website and browse.  I provided links to some 1911's.  They are automatics.  Not to be confused with "fully automatic."

You are too scared of the politics of it all.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 664
Points 13,095

Within battle, military scholars have consistently found that the vast majority of the killing is done by a small number of people who can be considered the "Michael Jordans" of killing. In his book On Killing, Lt. Col. David Grossman documents how, during the civil war era, a regiment would fire at a target shaped like a regiment on the battle-field as target-practice and get something like an 80+% hit rate. When in battle, however, their hit rates were abyssmally low, in the teens. It doesn't make sense to say "they're scared" because the best thing you can do, rationally, is KILL the things that are the cause of your fear. It was true of experienced as well as green troops. WWII-era studies duplicated these results even though troops were armed with rifles which are inestimably more accurate than smooth-bore weapons.

That's very interesting, Clayton. I never knew that.

"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Thu, Jul 26 2012 8:37 PM
"machine gun" its itself a misnomer, but its taken on its own militaristic life because in military lexicon, not all automayic weapons are machine guns. And my half a percent estimate is seat of the pants, but you cant point to a few examples and prove it wrong. I just said that theres probably 750,000 americans who could do it, basically. By the seat of my pants, I would say thats accurate. I would like a five-seven for fun but that $1,200 could get me a lot of other things, including two s&w governors (dual wield hahaha). I actually wish I had a ruger .44 because its bomb-proof and it brings the damage. Your mom could use both by keeping one in her purse and wearing the other on her person. Thats what I would do if I were a mother with two guns anyway.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Aristophanes:
You know, JJ, people could link to MIses wiki and say the same thing...

?

 

Malachi:
are you trolling me? I wish to use standard firearms terminology, where when you call a semiauto like its a machine pistol, people realize that youre not familiar enough with pistols at all to really care about the difference. Because people, in america, who own guns and shoot them regularly naturally have two different terms for the type that are easy to get and the type that are hard to get. If youre still excited about that one time three years ago you went to the range and fired all your friend's guns, the distinction isnt very important to you because youre not an active firearms user. If you have a .38 special in your nightstand and you have never felt the need to clean in, the distinction isnt important to you. If you are a member of the political class and you wish to influence people to support more and stricter regulations on firearms ownership in general, it is important to you that this distinction be lost in translation. And if you are an active firearms user, then you more than likely own semiautos but not automatic weapons. You have probably discussed firearms for hundreds/thousands of hours, and you might own an automatic weapon if it didnt require so much more money and invasion of privacy. So telling a buddy "I just got a new semiautomatic rifle" is a LOT different than telling him "I just got a new automatic rifle." its like $10,000 and 6-12 months different, and worlds apart in the details. Those are two different messages, hence firearms users actually employing distinctions that people who keep baseball bats and rubberband guns for defense wouldnt even think about.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

I would like a five-seven for fun but that $1,200 could get me a lot of other things, including two s&w governors (dual wield hahaha). I actually wish I had a ruger .44 because its bomb-proof and it brings the damage. Your mom could use both by keeping one in her purse and wearing the other on her person. Thats what I would do if I were a mother with two guns anyway.

One of my friends at home just got an AR-15 (.223) and a colt 1911 (.40) (why I was looking at them), his brother got some Russian AK-47 that is made of rubber or something and a glock of some type.

The RSBH is "bomb proof"?  Meaning that...a bomb could go off near it and it wouldn't be harmed?  I don't even have any bullets for it at the moment...

Is there an advantage to the western grip?  Or is it antiquated?  I don't see any new revolvers with it...

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Thu, Jul 26 2012 8:52 PM
I'm not scared of the politics, I see no good reason for the change (because thats what it is, I am the conservative here) and plenty of bad reasons. I dont think the category titles on any number of gun dealers websites are authoritative, either. Its probably like that because of a variety of reasons stemming from a) the market for machine pistols is artificially small, b) those people dont necessarily buy their class III stuff online, and c) the guy who made the webpage was trying to use shorter words for seo/ real people o. The web designer may not have even realized the distinction.

gun store clerks are notoriously idiotic anyway. Every time I take my wife shopping for pocket pistols, they try to sell her a 9mm that doesnt fit her hands or her pockets. And when I take her shopping for a .380 or 9mm, they try to sell her a .40 or .45. She's obviously like 105 pounds and has small hands, but somehow a colt mustang .380 doesnt have enough stopping power. Its ridiculous. I'm going to bed so you guys got saved from a diatribe on the chimera of "stopping power" which involves a exponential increase in inertia as the diameter of your projectile approaches half an inch.

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Aristophanes:
Automatics are autoloaders. Semiautomatics are autoloaders. Semiautomatics are not automatics.

Logic fail.

...So why'd we delete this one?

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Thu, Jul 26 2012 9:04 PM
I just mean that ruger revolvers are known for their durability. The sp101 weighs like 50% more than the s&w j-frame (in steel!) iirc, and thats all meat. Its an impact weapon, basically. As for the western grip, its better for single action shooting and clubbing people in the head. I'm serious, the practical application of all that spinning and twirling that western-style showmen used to do is this move where you flip the revolver around and use the butt end to crush noses and such. The barrel is pointing back at you, but you have to remember that these old-school revolvers didnt have a firing pin safety, so they carried them hammer-down on an empty chamber. This way, the revolver is always safe to point until the hammer is cocked. If a round is discharged then its hammer down, empty chamber again, and you can spin it and split skulls. This technique was developed in the american west in 19th century in actual melee brawls with multiple participants and questionable loyalties. Also, cowboys didnt have nearly so much of an ammunition budget as is protrayed in modern depictions, so if you could split a skull instead of shooting a dude, you didnt waste rounds. This explains the brass cap found on the pistol butt of all sorts of firearms that were made before people knoew how to make reliable repeating firearms.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Malachi:
you guys got saved from a diatribe on the chimera of "stopping power" which involves a exponential increase in inertia as the diameter of your projectile approaches half an inch.

Can we get a raincheck? 

We don't get enough gun talk around here.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Thu, Jul 26 2012 9:09 PM
I was going to say "absolutely" but I remembered that the future is uncertain. So, I will just say "yes."

yes, I will diatribe again, referencing the amazing physics involved in calibers that start with .4.

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

Its probably like that because of a variety of reasons stemming from a) the market for machine pistols is artificially small, b) those people dont necessarily buy their class III stuff online, and c) the guy who made the webpage was trying to use shorter words for seo/ real people o. The web designer may not have even realized the distinction.

None of those reasons are convincing.  They are stretching.

I found this conversation that is similar to ours:

I always thought some people called them "Autos" because semi-automatics were "autoloaders", not because they were automatic fire.

I have heard both... some refer to autoloaders as automatics and that would be accurate... And others (not so smart) refer to an autoloader as an "automatic firing" "gun".....

These people are on my side of this.

Indeed. Auto is regardless of which way you look at it a shortened term, so I view it as more acceptable than stating "Automatic" which has a specific connation.

Maybe the reason they call automatics that is because that is what John Browning called them when he invented his first one in 1900.

Other Browning inventions?
.25 ACP, .32 ACP, .38 ACP, .380 ACP, and .45 ACP calibers?
ACP = Automatic Colt Pistol

This is what, Malachi, you were saying,

"Auto pistol" is a misnomer. "Semi-auto pistol" is correct terminology.

It is kind of an intersting thread on the semantics of handgun/pistol/revolver.  They make jokes about clip/magazine, haha.  That mistake is made in movies.

 

 

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Malachi:
I was going to say "absolutely" but I remembered that the future is uncertain. So, I will just say "yes."

yes, I will diatribe again, referencing the amazing physics involved in calibers that start with .4.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Fri, Jul 27 2012 4:17 PM
None of those reasons are convincing.  They are stretching.
they werent really intended to convince you, especially since none of my earlier posts persuaded you to my way of thinking. I was just speculating on why those webpages might use informal terminology. I shouldnt need to establish the fact that employees of gun stores are notorious for spreading misinformation. They arent authorities on nomenclature, just like a journeyman carpenter isnt really an authority on building codes. The thread over a the high road sounds like a typical conversation, they werent authoritative. I am aware that a significant number of people fail to recognize the distinction in their conversation. This is unpersuasive to me, just like people who dont work with metal typically dont recognize the distinction between an oxyacetylene torch and a plasma cutter. They dont need to, and thats fine, but they do not get to dictate diction to the professionals. Likewise, people who dont find a need to differentiate between automatic weapons and semiautomatic weapons dont get to dictate semantics to people who do find the distinction meaningful.
These people are on my side of this.
those people have not seriously discussed the purchase of automatic weapons with other firearms enthusiasts, elsewise their use of terminology would reflect such.
Maybe the reason they call automatics that is because that is what John Browning called them when he invented his first one in 1900. Other Browning inventions? .25 ACP, .32 ACP, .38 ACP, .380 ACP, and .45 ACP calibers? ACP = Automatic Colt Pistol
At first glance this is persuasive but its really not. My semantic reasoning is that weapons (and therefore ammunition as well) are described by their capabilities and limitations. An automatic weapon is capable of automatic fire. A semiautomatic weapon is limited to semiautomatic fire. ACP cartridges are capable of automatic fire when loaded into an automatic weapon. They headspace on the case mouth and they are rimless, making them pistol (as opposed to revolver) cartridges. The thompson submachine gun fires .45 acp and dillinger's armorer (forgot his name) made several custom machine pistols based on 1911's, although now I think those were in .38 super. Point being that your argument is unpersuasive. I will concede that the "automatic" in "ACP" might originally have referred to the loading system, but I dont consider myself bound to respect conventions from over a century ago when we have living conventions that supercede, furthermore when self-loading firearms were a novelty and automatic weapons were not "banned" I dont feel that the distinction at issue was important enough for the terminology to reflect.
It is kind of an intersting thread on the semantics of handgun/pistol/revolver.  They make jokes about clip/magazine, haha.  That mistake is made in movies.
handguns are able to be fired with one hand. Pistols have a chamber that is integral with the barrel. Revolvers incorporate multiple chambers that revolve into and out of battery. Anything else is sloppy communication.

semantics are relative but that doesnt mean that all semantic propositions are equally utilitarian. Some semantics are superior to other semantics, given a desired end.

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Fri, Jul 27 2012 6:33 PM
Requested post on "stopping power" of firearms:

if you attempt to purchase a firearm for hunting or defense, be prepared to deal with a lot of information on the relative merits of different calibers and cartridges. Because weapons are owned and kept silent much more often than they are discharged in defense (by orders of magnitude) and because its frowned upon to perform injurious experiments on humans and animals, most of this information is not based on experience or historical performance. Even attempts to create some sort of empirical basis are subject to methodological errors. So basically you have to employ rigorous epistemology when you discuss the subject. Dont take my word for this, you wont have confidence until you understand it yourself.

Another caveat is that lethality is only tangential to our discussion for moral and legal reasons. If you shoot someone in defense of yourself or another, in order to prevent aggressive violence, you had better shoot with the intent of incapacitating the aggressor. Dont shoot to kill, dont shoot to wound, dont fire warning shots. Shoot with the intent to stop the aggressor as quickly as possible. This is appropriate use of deadly force, and it follows from the nature of the conflict. The only reason your use of violence is legitimate is because of the threat posed towards you by the aggressor. You may not attempt to "punish" the aggressor by killing him, but you may employ deadly force in order to stop the threat. I hope thats clear, and I hope thats something that all of you will remember if the worst should happen.

so what stops a human or animal aggressor? The wound. Theres a bunch of theories about stopping power that focus on the characteristics of the projectile, but thats a distraction. Human physical action (threatening or aggressive behavior) is dependent on physiological factors, as in a guy who doesnt have enough blood pressure to stand up isnt going to pursue you. What stops an aggressor? The wounds that you inflict on him. I hope this doesnt sound condescending, its a premise for the subsequent discussion.

there are three basic rapid failure modes for humans and other animals: electrical, hydraulic, and mechanical. If the nervous system is damaged to the extent that the brain does not send signals to the muscles, the aggressor is not going to move, thats electrical failure. If the person's blood supply is inadequate to the task of aggression, then he isnt aggressing against you, you stopped him. Thats hydraulic failure. And if the musculoskeletal system doesnt have the physical integrity to aggress (a shattered pelvis for example), thats mechanical failure. Theres other failure modes but I dont think anyone is shooting out somebody's eyes intentionally in a lethal force situation so they can cause epistemological failure modes. That would probably be electrical, because nervous system damage is electrica failure.

Electrical incapacitation is the fastest, the targets (brain and spinal cord) are also small and hard to hit. I mention spinal cord for completeness but it isnt something that people are usually trained to target. This is also the most lethal. Exsanguination (blood loss) is slower, but also easier to achieve because if you break the skin, you get blood and even extremities have vascular regions (femoral artery) that can cause rapid loss of blood leading to incapacitation and death if not treated. However this is on the order of minutes, so depending on the aggressor's psychological and pharmacological state, he may remain a threat for quite some time. If you have ever been in a fistfight, you know that minutes are like hours, so a minute in a firefight must be like a day lol. Now mechanical incapacitation is the dark horse here, it is a tertiary option if you are in some deep shit, like the guy is too far away for a headshot and he is wearing body armor covering his center of mass (which is your default position for aiming is, for multiple reasons) so you shoot him in the pelvis so he stops walking towards you firing, and if he is still a threat you shoot him in the head (which should be easier because his pelvis just disintegrated). How easy is it to shatter a pelvis with small arms fire? I dont know, its up for debate. The pelvic area is a vascular region and the pelvis is one of the strongest bones in the body, its actually an ellipse (sort of) so multiple rounds are reccommended. Its supposed to be really really painful to have abroken pelvis and its a structural member so its basically the main mechanical target. Knees are smaller than the cns target and they are probably moving faster anyway.

ok so we established our goal (incapacitation), we established our rules of engagement (the prevention or interruption of imminent or current aggressive violence), and we established our desired failure modes (electrical, hydraulic, or mechanical). What means do we use to achieve incapacitation as a result of electrical, hydraulic, or mech failure? Gunshot wounds. The gunshot has a number of effects on the aggressor, and the multitude of variables makes many of these effects difficult to predict. I will list and expound on these effects in decreasing order of importance, according to my opinion.

the major effect is the permanent crush cavity, which is a technical term for the path of severed tissue that has been destroyed by the round. This is the primary means of achieving incapacitation. If parts of the reptile brain are destroyed, then basic motor functions cease and the aggressor no longer acts to pose a threat (his corpse might contain a bomb but thats beyond the scope of this discussion). Its possible to sustain brain damage and continue to function, this is why people are taught to shoot at the area of the brain above the plane intersecting the nostrils and below the plane bisecting the eyes. A crush cavity that intersects blood vessels leads to blood loss. A crush cavity causes mechanical damage, impairing the function of those body parts (please dont try to shoot the gun out of someone's hands). A crush cavity is like a stab wound from long range. It severs tissue, and that is the primary mode of incapacitation because of its mechanical certainty.

The transference of kinetic energy from the massive, rapidly moving projectile to the tissue also has two secondary effects that are sometimes significant. The first of these is a temporary crush cavity, which represents the elastic tissue distorting away from the path of the round and returning to its original location. This usually doesnt cause permanent damage or contribute to incapacitation (as far as we know) except in circumstances that involve another projectile creating another crush cavity. This is what frangible rounds do (they also refrain from penetrating through things like drywall, for the safety of noncombatants and liability limitation. I cant tell you how well they do). The fragments cut through the compressed tissue like if you folded up a piece of paper and cut it wit scissors. You fold a paper in half twice and cut a 1" slot, unfold it and you have 4" of severed paper. Thats what happens to tissue, and the temporary crush cavity facilitates more severe wounds, resulting in more severed blood vessels.

The second of these kinetic energy effects is called hydrostatic shock, and this is where the b starts to s. You guys know that fluids in a container have significant inertial properties, such that vehicles with large tanks, like trucks or ships, need to have baffles to slow and disrupt the movement of fluids. Well the human body is mostly fluid, and that fluid has the tendency of transmitting KE from the path of the projectile to other tissues and organs. People love to talk about "energy transfer" and such when it comes to calibers, but this is oftentimes wishful thinking. Nobody really knows because of aforesaid methodological and epistemological difficulties, but in my opinion rounds have to be moving pretty fast to make this happen in a nontrivial way. This is because energy equals mass times velocity squared. My brief physics refresher prior to typing this post suggests that the statement "ke=m*(v*v)" is an oversimplification but no one should quibble unless you have a problem with my assertion that an increase in velocity produces disproportionately larger energy than a similar increase in mass. Thats the important part of the theory as to why hydrostatic shock is difficult to achieve from pistol rounds (at least reliably, dont badger me with anecdotes). The answer I was taught is that unless your rounds have a muzzle velocity of around 2,700 feet per second, theyre not going to create incapacitating shock waves in the enemy. Furthermore, if hydrostatic shock was reliable and effective at inducing failure modes in humans, you wouldnt see things like guys getting hit in the torso a bunch of times and surviving. Hydrostatic shock exists, and has nontrivial incapacitation effects, but its not reliable to induce as of yet.

the fourth significant effect of KE projectile weapons that we will discuss is muzzle blast effects. We know that firearms work because propellant deflagrates, producing hot, expanding gas that pushes the projectile down the barrel and towards the target. This hot gas creates noise, flash, and a pressure wave, and if you are standing near the muzzle when an unsuppressed firearm is discharged, you will experience at least two of these (the muzzle flash might not be visible because of the firearm or because its daylight, but if you cant feel the pressure then you arent really "near" the muzzle). In close range shootings, these phenomena have nontrivial effects. For instance, one of the attempts to empirically study the effectiveness of calibers, in the 1980s some guys collected data on a bunch of law enforcement shootings, trying to find what round/caliber was most reliable at achieving a one-shot stop. They published data (that was influential at the time) basically saying that .357 magnum 125 grain jacketed hollowpoint rounds produced a one-shot stop like 95% of the time. Well science moves on, and the analysis of the data that I am partial to observes that the data they used contained a disproportionate amount of low-light, close range shootings. So, muzzle blast from a 4" barrel .357 magnum (which is the longest barrel length that you could expect to see a law enforcement officer use in a revolver) in low light is like a 6 foot expanding fireball (think dhalsim from street fighter doing yoga flame) and the hot gas displaces air. So a guy gets shot once, at close range, in low light, he actually has multiple effects working together: theres the one-third inch diameter, 12 inch deep stab wound in his body; theres the KE delivery, which likely isnt enough for bona fide hydrostatic shock but would be kind of like getting punched; there is the fireball effect; and when all of this causes him to take a deep breath (because he is surprised and had the wind knocked out of him) he breathes in hot gas with low oxygen content. I would fall down too. After all this has happened, including the impact on the ground (wanna bet he hit his head on the floor?), most people probably dont have the physical capacity or wherewithal to get back up and fight while bleeding from a .357 magnum gsw.

you'll note that I only recently began talking about individual calibers, and that was only for purposes of illustration. This is because, as I said above, the factors affecting stopping power are related to the wound, not the weapon per se. Now its time to talk about calibers. Now considering our two primary means of incapacitation (electrical and hydraulic), is there any reason why you couldnt defend yourself with a .22 lr? Of course not, you can cause CNS damage and exsanguination with a .22. Knowing what we know now, is it possible to hit someone with a .50 bmg and not remove the threat? Yes, shoot someone in the lower extremity with a .50 and its still conceivable that they could aim and fire upon you. So you see that shot placement is always more important than the energetic and wounding characteristics of the caliber/round combination.

Of course, larger wounds destroy more tissue and facilitate more rapid blood loss. More wounds also cause more tissue damage and facilitate more rapid blood loss, so youre in a tradeoff between larger, more powerful rounds and higher ammunition capacity. This is a decision that has few clear-cut answers, as firearm selection is a intensely personal decision. People should own and carry weapons that they feel confident in using, meaning that ultimately the question has subjective answers (within objective limitations, i.e. one should carry a weapon that is reliable and accurate).

the fabrique national five-seven pistol in 5.7 mm was an attempt to achieve hydrostatic shock from a pistol. To my knowledge, the terminal ballistics experts dont consider it to be successful at this goal. I tend to lean towards their opinion, as muzzle velocity is just over 2100 fps, below our arbitrary floor of 2700.

I alluded to this above, frequently people attempt to quantify stopping power with formulas or metrics like kinetic energy. These metrics are good for comparative purposes, but the numbers describing the dimensions and energy state of a projectile are not what stops aggressors. The wounds imparted to these individuals are what stops them. This is why a moving car has way more KE than a rifle round, but one will break your bones and knock you down, and the other will pierce your heart and kill you.

the worst examples of the "quantification of incapacitation" are sometimes the guys who think anything less than a .45 is designed for women and mental incompetents. Any time they see a weapon that isnt a 1911, they turn up their noses and ask when youre going to get a "real gun." and if its bore measures under .4", be prepared to explain what you plan to do after you empty your magazine into a perp and he laughs at you. If its less than a 9mm, prepare to have your manhood questioned (even if youre a woman). You probably shouldnt even let these guys know that you own a .22, because they dont do much shooting so appealing to low cost ammunition will get you nowhere. They have a fascinating theory of physics that involves momentum transfer and bullets that accelerate between the muzzle and the target. A .45 will stop anything in north america, and if its a 1911 in .45, you can take herds of tyrannosaurus rex with ease, mozambique style (a mozambique drill is a type of failure-to-stop drill where you shoot two rounds in the chest and one round in the head). If these guys ever do shoot anyone, they will be surprised when the perp doesnt fly backwards, flip over twice, and dent the wall they impact. This population heavily overlaps the beer-can patriots, they hate us for our freedoms, turn their country to glass type population. Just tell them you carry a 9mm because you like to exercise your rights but you dont want to hurt anyone, they will "understand".

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the members for question-and-answer.

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

Some semantics are superior to other semantics, given a desired end.

Plato would love you.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Fri, Jul 27 2012 6:46 PM
I'm guessing we would be platonic friends?
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

(last post understood) iff /sarcasm

as per your comment about semantics...

Plato was not a fan of rhetorical manipulation.  I knew the guy.  Helluva dude to trip with.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Sat, Jul 28 2012 4:54 AM

Most people know nothing about guns and use ignorant phrases to describe them.  An "automatic" refers to the chambering system not the firing pin.  (All it takes is a rubber band and a slight bend in the firing pin to make a "semi-auto" a "full-auto.")  The same cannot be said for a gun with a manual hammer.  That was all my point was.

haha, yeah.  Semi-autos are automatic...SEMI refers to the TRIGGER and FIRING MECHANISM.  AUTOMATIC refers to the chambering system.  They used to call them autoloaders.

A weapon with an autoloader, is a self-loading weapon, it is not an automatic weapon. The semi-automatic SKS is merely self-loading thus its designation of Self-loading Carbine of Simonov, where the AK which is both self-loading and capable of fully automatic fire is designated Automat of Kalashnikov — a truly automatic weapon.

Except of course if you think the people who built and named the SKS and AK didn't know about guns and what makes a weapon automatic.


My grandpa has a Chinese SKS that he said he modified before steel bullets were illegal (he also has a bucket of steel rounds!!) and it still fires full auto.

If the Soviets thought the SKS was an automatic weapon they would have, as per their naming conventions, designated it the Avtomaticheskiy Karabin Simonova or Avtomat Simonova and it would have been then known as AKS, or AS and not SKS.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

For God's sake, all I pointed out was that 'autoloader' is sometimes referred to as "automatic."

Self-loading is sometimes called automatic.

I never made the claim that 'autoloader' had anything to do with the 'amount of rounds fired'.  Quite the opposite.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Sat, Jul 28 2012 5:26 AM

The question is to what noun is the adjective 'automatic' being applied. A weapon can have automatic loading — for example the 125mm gun on many Soviet tanks —  but this does not make the weapon itself automatic. The 125mm cannon on Soviet tanks was not an automatic weapon.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 244
Points 3,770
MMMark replied on Sat, Jul 28 2012 3:51 PM

Sat. 12/07/28 2012 16:52 EDT
.post #229

I haven't really considered whether murderers are all inherently mentally ill, but to me it seems from a naive perspective that not all murderers have to be mentally ill or psychopaths.

I'd appreciate any ideas.


Wheylous, have a look at this article by Szasz: Senseless

Three passages:
Thomas Szasz:
Do people really want to know why, on January 8, 2011, in Tucson, Arizona, a young man named Jared Lee Loughner engaged in mass murder? I submit they do not. Politicians, psychiatrists, pundits, and the press univocally assert that Loughner’s deed is the "senseless" product of mental illness.
Thomas Szasz:
And so have we if we prefer to believe that his self-destructive and destructive act is the senseless product of his "mental illness" rather than the result of his planned, "sensible" decision. The latter view is unpopular and unacceptable because it acknowledges Loughner’s humanity and free will, precisely the qualities that psychiatrists - aided and abetted by the criminal justice system - are intent on removing from persons they label "mad."
Thomas Szasz:
Wedded to the idea that we have two kinds of lawbreakers in America, sane and insane, we are unable to attend to the human problems we call "mental illnesses." But not to worry: We can always operate on the vocabulary.
The idea here (and in much of what Szasz writes) is that the myth of mental illness persists because it is a [rueful[/i] myth: Invoking it provides the appearance of "explaining" some unpleasant reality while simultaneously allowing the evasion of the tougher (and sometimes impossible) task of reaching a deeper understanding. Among other things, "mental illness" functions as a "anchorperson" (explain-all).

Some other relevant quotes:

From Mental Illness: Sickness or Status?:

Thomas Szasz:
Action, behavior, conduct, call it what you will, is goal-directed and meaningful. Unless it’s "senseless mental illness."


From Creativity and Criminality: The Two Faces of Responsibility:
Thomas Szasz:
The behavior of every person - regardless of whether we regard him as creative, criminal, or normal - is intentional. Hence, he is responsible for it. Nevertheless, we believe it is scientific to divide people into three groups: individuals with exceptionally large amounts of intentionality - creative geniuses; individuals with little or no intentionality - insane criminals; and individuals with an average amount of intentionality - ordinary persons:


From Does Insanity Cause Crime?:
Thomas Szasz:
The problem is that whenever a person factually guilty of committing a serious crime pleads insanity, the jury is asked to answer an intrinsically nonsensical question, namely, what "caused" the defendant to commit his wrongful act: his self or his mental illness?

More articles by Szasz:

Archive for Thomas Szasz


If you're looking for ideas on the relationship between crime and "mental illness," then Szasz is your source. If you've not read any of his books, don't wait a day longer. I suggest these four, for starters:

The Manufacture of Madness
Ceremonial Chemistry
Insanity: The Idea and Its Consequences
Ideology and Insanity

Prepare to "have your mind blown."


Top 500 Contributor
Posts 244
Points 3,770
MMMark replied on Sun, Aug 5 2012 9:31 PM

Sun. 12/08/05 22:32 EDT
.post #230

Here is the corrected paragraph from my above post:

The idea here (and in much of what Szasz writes) is that the myth of mental illness persists because it is a [rueful[/i] useful myth: Invoking it provides the appearance of "explaining" some unpleasant reality while simultaneously allowing the evasion of the tougher (and sometimes impossible) task of reaching a deeper understanding. Among other things, "mental illness" functions as a "anchorpersonpanchreston" (explain-all).

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 2 (63 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS