REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Bush to send troops to border

POSTED BY: RKLENSETH
UPDATED: Thursday, May 18, 2006 14:56
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6335
PAGE 2 of 2

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:43 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"If a burglar knows they're likely to be confronted with a gun they're going to carry one and be far more likely to use it.
Guns don't make you safer, they make you feel safer."


If a burglar knows they're likely to be confronted with a gun, they're going to go elsewhere. Burglars operate on the hope and assumption that they won't be confronted with a gun. They carry a gun, not out of worry about the other guy carrying a gun, but because it is an effective weapon to control and subdue others.

If I lived in a country (and I don't, despite stereotypes) where every common citizen could be assumed to be armed at all times, then I would expect planned crimes against persons to see a sharp decrease.

Criminals arm themselves to confront unarmed victims. It's a well established fact. They do this so that they are in the superior position. Few are the criminals who go into a situation expecting a firefight... Or any fight at all.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:46 AM

CITIZEN


Well then maybe you can explain to me why in countries where guns are legal home invaders are more likely to be armed, because that runs counter to what you just said.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:47 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Not knowing anything about that little factoid, where you got it, or how this international statistic was collected, I couldn't really give you an answer. Here in the US we have statistic factories that can prove anything you like, including statistics that conclusively prove that a gun in the home definitely IS, or IS NOT, more likely to be used against the resident. (Depending on which statistic you like better.)

Let me ask you a question, Citizen. If someone was breaking into your home, or if they were assaulting you, would you really prefer to be unarmed? Would you really prefer to balance your life on a smile and the criminal's good will?

And do you really believe that posession of a weapon doesn't serve to protect a citizen?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:27 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Let me ask you a question, Citizen. If someone was breaking into your home, or if they were assaulting you, would you really prefer to be unarmed? Would you really prefer to balance your life on a smile and the criminal's good will?
Burglars don't carry over here because they don't need to because the home owners don't, so this really isn't an issue.
Quote:
And do you really believe that posession of a weapon doesn't serve to protect a citizen?
Do you really believe proliferation of deadly weapons makes people safer?


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:54 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"Do you really believe proliferation of deadly weapons makes people safer?"

I believe parity makes people safer, Citizen. And you just can't achieve a no-weapon parity. Criminals will always have access to weapons because they don't mind violating the law. Because of this, I believe in achieving parity by arming myself.

Now, you have asserted that criminals in England don't use weapons, because the citizenry isn't armed. Unfortunately that's just not the case. What astounds me is that you think it IS the case, which leads me to wonder if British propaganda is as effective as American propaganda. I thought we had the best, but I guess not.

Here's an interesting article for you, which you are free to dispute. It does contain those pesky statistics which you will find defending positions on every side of every debate.

********************************************


November 2002


Gun Control’s Twisted Outcome

Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.

By Joyce Lee Malcolm




On a June evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, "theirs is worse than ours." The response was swift and sharp. "Have a Nice Daydream," The Mirror, a London daily, shot back, reporting: "Britain reacted with fury and disbelief last night to claims by American newsmen that crime and violence are worse here than in the US." But sandwiched between the article’s battery of official denials -- "totally misleading," "a huge over-simplification," "astounding and outrageous" -- and a compilation of lurid crimes from "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic where every other car is carrying a gun," The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

In the two years since Dan Rather was so roundly rebuked, violence in England has gotten markedly worse. Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year’s Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice.

None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control. For the better part of a century, British governments have pursued a strategy for domestic safety that a 1992 Economist article characterized as requiring "a restraint on personal liberty that seems, in most civilised countries, essential to the happiness of others," a policy the magazine found at odds with "America’s Vigilante Values." The safety of English people has been staked on the thesis that fewer private guns means less crime. The government believes that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger, and that disarming them lessens the chance that criminals will get or use weapons.

The results -- the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy -- are credited by the world’s gun control advocates with producing a low rate of violent crime. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell reflected this conventional wisdom when, in a 1988 speech to the American Bar Association, he attributed England’s low rates of violent crime to the fact that "private ownership of guns is strictly controlled."

In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.

The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England’s firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London’s Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

This sea change in English crime followed a sea change in government policies. Gun regulations have been part of a more general disarmament based on the proposition that people don’t need to protect themselves because society will protect them. It also will protect their neighbors: Police advise those who witness a crime to "walk on by" and let the professionals handle it.

This is a reversal of centuries of common law that not only permitted but expected individuals to defend themselves, their families, and their neighbors when other help was not available. It was a legal tradition passed on to Americans. Personal security was ranked first among an individual’s rights by William Blackstone, the great 18th-century exponent of the common law. It was a right, he argued, that no government could take away, since no government could protect the individual in his moment of need. A century later Blackstone’s illustrious successor, A.V. Dicey, cautioned, "discourage self-help and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians."

But modern English governments have put public order ahead of the individual’s right to personal safety. First the government clamped down on private possession of guns; then it forbade people to carry any article that might be used for self-defense; finally, the vigor of that self-defense was to be judged by what, in hindsight, seemed "reasonable in the circumstances."

The 1920 Firearms Act was the first serious British restriction on guns. Although crime was low in England in 1920, the government feared massive labor disruption and a Bolshevik revolution. In the circumstances, permitting the people to remain armed must have seemed an unnecessary risk. And so the new policy of disarming the public began. The Firearms Act required a would-be gun owner to obtain a certificate from the local chief of police, who was charged with determining whether the applicant had a good reason for possessing a weapon and was fit to do so. All very sensible. Parliament was assured that the intention was to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous persons. Yet from the start the law’s enforcement was far more restrictive, and Home Office instructions to police -- classified until 1989 -- periodically narrowed the criteria.

At first police were instructed that it would be a good reason to have a revolver if a person "lives in a solitary house, where protection against thieves and burglars is essential, or has been exposed to definite threats to life on account of his performance of some public duty." By 1937 police were to discourage applications to possess firearms for house or personal protection. In 1964 they were told "it should hardly ever be necessary to anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person" and that "this principle should hold good even in the case of banks and firms who desire to protect valuables or large quantities of money."

In 1969 police were informed "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." These changes were made without public knowledge or debate. Their enforcement has consumed hundreds of thousands of police hours. Finally, in 1997 handguns were banned. Proposed exemptions for handicapped shooters and the British Olympic team were rejected.

Even more sweeping was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, which made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted, or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or excuse." Carrying something to protect yourself was branded antisocial. Any item carried for possible defense automatically became an offensive weapon. Police were given extensive power to stop and search everyone. Individuals found with offensive items were guilty until proven innocent.

During the debate over the Prevention of Crime Act in the House of Commons, a member from Northern Ireland told his colleagues of a woman employed by Parliament who had to cross a lonely heath on her route home and had armed herself with a knitting needle. A month earlier, she had driven off a youth who tried to snatch her handbag by jabbing him "on a tender part of his body." Was it to be an offense to carry a knitting needle? The attorney general assured the M.P. that the woman might be found to have a reasonable excuse but added that the public should be discouraged "from going about with offensive weapons in their pockets; it is the duty of society to protect them."

Another M.P. pointed out that while "society ought to undertake the defense of its members, nevertheless one has to remember that there are many places where society cannot get, or cannot get there in time. On those occasions a man has to defend himself and those whom he is escorting. It is not very much consolation that society will come forward a great deal later, pick up the bits, and punish the violent offender."

In the House of Lords, Lord Saltoun argued: "The object of a weapon was to assist weakness to cope with strength and it is this ability that the bill was framed to destroy. I do not think any government has the right, though they may very well have the power, to deprive people for whom they are responsible of the right to defend themselves." But he added: "Unless there is not only a right but also a fundamental willingness amongst the people to defend themselves, no police force, however large, can do it."

That willingness was further undermined by a broad revision of criminal law in 1967 that altered the legal standard for self-defense. Now everything turns on what seems to be "reasonable" force against an assailant, considered after the fact. As Glanville Williams notes in his Textbook of Criminal Law, that requirement is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it [self-defense] still forms part of the law."

The original common law standard was similar to what still prevails in the U.S. Americans are free to carry articles for their protection, and in 33 states law-abiding citizens may carry concealed guns. Americans may defend themselves with deadly force if they believe that an attacker is about to kill or seriously injure them, or to prevent a violent crime. Our courts are mindful that, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife."

But English courts have interpreted the 1953 act strictly and zealously. Among articles found illegally carried with offensive intentions are a sandbag, a pickaxe handle, a stone, and a drum of pepper. "Any article is capable of being an offensive weapon," concede the authors of Smith and Hogan Criminal Law, a popular legal text, although they add that if the article is unlikely to cause an injury the onus of proving intent to do so would be "very heavy."

The 1967 act has not been helpful to those obliged to defend themselves either. Granville Williams points out: "For some reason that is not clear, the courts occasionally seem to regard the scandal of the killing of a robber as of greater moment than the safety of the robber’s victim in respect of his person and property."

A sampling of cases illustrates the impact of these measures:

• In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.

• In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

• In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.

• In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted £5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.

The failure of English policy to produce a safer society is clear, but what of British jibes about "America’s vigilante values" and our much higher murder rate?

Historically, America has had a high homicide rate and England a low one. In a comparison of New York and London over a 200-year period, during most of which both populations had unrestricted access to firearms, historian Eric Monkkonen found New York’s homicide rate consistently about five times London’s. Monkkonen pointed out that even without guns, "the United States would still be out of step, just as it has been for two hundred years."

Legal historian Richard Maxwell Brown has argued that Americans have more homicides because English law insists an individual should retreat when attacked, whereas Americans believe they have the right to stand their ground and kill in self-defense. Americans do have more latitude to protect themselves, in keeping with traditional common law standards, but that would have had less significance before England’s more restrictive policy was established in 1967.

The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn’t subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.

The London-based Office of Health Economics, after a careful international study, found that while "one reason often given for the high numbers of murders and manslaughters in the United States is the easy availability of firearms...the strong correlation with racial and socio-economic variables suggests that the underlying determinants of the homicide rate are related to particular cultural factors."

Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America’s has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall." We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.

Preliminary figures for the U.S. this year show an increase, although of less than 1 percent, in the overall number of violent crimes, with homicide increases in certain cities, which criminologists attribute to gang violence, the poor economy, and the release from prison of many offenders. Yet Americans still enjoy a substantially lower rate of violent crime than England, without the "restraint on personal liberty" English governments have seen as necessary. Rather than permit individuals more scope to defend themselves, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government plans to combat crime by extending those "restraints on personal liberty": removing the prohibition against double jeopardy so people can be tried twice for the same crime, making hearsay evidence admissible in court, and letting jurors know of a suspect’s previous crimes.

This is a cautionary tale. America’s founders, like their English forebears, regarded personal security as first of the three primary rights of mankind. That was the main reason for including a right for individuals to be armed in the U.S. Constitution. Not everyone needs to avail himself or herself of that right. It is a dangerous right. But leaving personal protection to the police is also dangerous.

The English government has effectively abolished the right of Englishmen, confirmed in their 1689 Bill of Rights, to "have arms for their defence," insisting upon a monopoly of force it can succeed in imposing only on law-abiding citizens. It has come perilously close to depriving its people of the ability to protect themselves at all, and the result is a more, not less, dangerous society. Despite the English tendency to decry America’s "vigilante values," English policy makers would do well to consider a return to these crucial common law values, which stood them so well in the past.



Joyce Lee Malcolm, a professor of history at Bentley College and a senior adviser to the MIT Security Studies Program, is the author of Guns and Violence: The English Experience, published in May by Harvard University Press.



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 12:21 PM

CITIZEN


There were 73 gun murders in the UK in 2004/2005. That's 1 for every ~827,965 people.

I couldn't find numbers for 2005 but in 2002 there was 10,800 gun murders in the US, or 1 for every ~27,382 people.

Not 'statistics' just the raw data.

EDIT:
Oh and one last thing, I plainly said burglars and home invaders don't use guns and they really don't. There may have been one or two incidents last year, I'm not sure, but it's certainly nothing in comparison to the US.
Quote:
What astounds me is that you think it IS the case, which leads me to wonder if British propaganda is as effective as American propaganda.
No American propeganda seems to have won the day, since you think it IS NOT the case.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 1:03 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"Let me ask you a question, Citizen. If someone was breaking into your home, or if they were assaulting you, would you really prefer to be unarmed? Would you really prefer to balance your life on a smile and the criminal's good will?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Burglars don't carry over here because they don't need to because the home owners don't, so this really isn't an issue."


See, here's where we disconnected. I thought you were telling me criminals invading homes weren't armed. You meant they don't carry guns. (most of the time.)

So let me clarify your position.

Is it that while you are more likely to be robbed, burgled, or assaulted than I am, you are less likely to be shot?

That the gentlemen robbing, burgling, or assaulting you are more likely to have a knife or club?

Is your position that, while your country has more crime than mine, it has fewer deaths from that crime?

That's a valid argument. It's okay to argue that trading 1 murder for 6 robberies is a good trade.

And it's okay to say that you'd rather be unarmed when an attacker beats the tar out of you with a pipe... because, you know, at least he didn't shoot you.

These are all logical arguments. They make perfect sense. You are looking at a world with fewer deaths in it. I can see the world through your eyes.

But I still don't like the picture.

Is it okay if I'd rather be armed? Maybe I'm a bit of a coward. I don't want to be the guy who 'takes one for the team' and is subjected to more assaults and batteries. I want to have that one extra option, that little bit of control in my hands, about my fate.

What does surprise me (and it surprises me a lot) is that the British citizenship have let themselves be disarmed of all weapons, not just guns. I mean, if you believe the criminal won't have a gun, but will have a knife, wouldn't you want to be able to carry... Something?

But no. You have not made any suggestion that you'd like to be armed with anything. You'd prefer to be utterly unarmed, and that's a concept I just can't wrap my brain around. I suppose you feel the same way about me.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 1:09 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:
Originally posted by rklenseth:
Nothing officially confirmed yet but it appears Bush is sending troops to guard the borders and that as well as the immigration problem in general is what Bush big speech is about tomorrow.

Just thought some of you might be interested to know.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.


yeah!! no mention of doing anything to employers, just as I thought, This administration just wants to create a permenant slave wage under class in this country and their using immigrants to make it happen and so far it looks like its working.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 1:13 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

But no. You have not made any suggestion that you'd like to be armed with anything. You'd prefer to be utterly unarmed, and that's a concept I just can't wrap my brain around. I suppose you feel the same way about me.

Sort of.

In fact home invaders don't ussually have much in the way of weaponry over here, most of the time home owners are attacked with their own weapons.

I'm also pretty sure we don't have as much violent crime over here per capita.

I've been attacked with a pipe, the bruises healed within a week, and I was drunk enough that I could of had a small armoury down my trousers and it wouldn't of done any good.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 1:21 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Well, we agree on that point, Citizen.

I believe that armed persons have a responsibility to remain sober. A drunk man with a weapon is a bad idea.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 3:15 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Bush to send troops to border

Syria or Mexico?

Edited to add: remember good old days when everyone chuckled that Bush couldn't find Afghanistan on the map? Now the twit is in .... charge ... of ... international ... borders.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 8:27 PM

DALLASFIREFLY


It isn't looking good for the latest idea from the White House "brain trust". These guys remind me more and more of the Keystone Cops. Here's today's summary of related items from DailyKos:

Bush Immigration Plan: Sucky? Or Suckiest Plan Ever?
by SusanG
Wed May 17, 2006 at 04:12:15 PM PDT
Let's take stock of the reactions to Bush's immigration plan, shall we?

First off, there's the National Guard itself, resisting federal control:


Nat Guard leaders oppose Bush takeover

U.S. state-level National Guard leaders will fight any effort to place their forces under direct presidential control.

The National Guard commanders are poised to carry out the Bush administration's border-security plan to deploy thousands of troops to patrol the Mexican border, but they likely will fight any attempts to place the state-run units under the president's control, CongressDaily reported Tuesday.


Then there's the governor of California, who would seem to have a stake in the issue:


"Securing our borders is a law enforcement function and what we need are more Border Patrol agents, not National Guard troops who are neither trained nor suited for this purpose," Schwarzenegger said in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

And then there's the entire country of Mexico:


Mexico warned Tuesday it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops detain migrants on the border, and some officials said they fear the crackdown will force illegal crossers into more perilous areas to avoid detection.

There's the Minutemen:


Minutemen dismiss Bush's border plan
TUCSON, Ariz. --A civilian border-patrol group said it still plans to erect a short security fence along the Mexican border, despite President Bush's pledge to deploy thousands of National Guard troops there.

A spokeswoman for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps said Tuesday what Bush promised was not enough.


Add to that the writers at business website Forbes.com, an outlet that felt compelled today to publish not one, but two editorials questioning the wisdom of the idea, one claiming Bush's plan could "lead to a nightmare of contract abuse and waste," and another entitled "Mission Impossible?" that comes dangerously close to arguing Bush cannot possibly satisfy all the people he's claiming he will satisfy (known in reality world as "pandering").

There are various residents of El Paso, interviewed by AP:


"It didn't seem like a meaningful suggestion at all," said O'Rourke, a 33-year-old freshman city councilman in this border city. "But maybe that's because we already have it and it doesn't seem to be working."

And then there are the hodge podge of Senators and Congress people too numerous to cite and mention, fighting it out on the Hill. There's even some group I've never heard of, the National Immigration Institute, saying it will ask the Mexican government to "send a migrant protection force to remote sections of the border."

So who does Bush trot out to defend his nonsense? None other than Donald Rumsfeld. Remember him? The one who showed such prescient judgment on how many troops were needed in Iraq? Yes, that Donald Rumsfeld, if you can believe it.

And he sends Karl Rove, so close to indictment he's shifted his diet to prison fare in anticipation, to twist arms on Capitol Hill. You've got to wonder on that one, with all the back-stabbing he's done over the years. I can hear some House rep now: "Sure, Karl. I'll get back to you on supporting this loser issue. Right after Fitzgerald's next press conference."

So what is Bush's response to all this caterwauling from the ungrateful? Why, a photo op, of course!


Bush to Visit Border Smuggling Hotspot

YUMA, Ariz., May. 17, 2006

President Bush will be get an up-close look on Thursday when he visits Yuma as part of his push to overhaul the nation's immigration laws and tighten the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexican border by sending up to 6,000 National Guardsmen in a backup role.


I have but one request of my country: If we're going to have a president whose sole job in life seems to be flying hither and thither on my taxpayer dollar in search of the ideal manly backdrop, can we at least elect George Clooney? Please? Pretty please




I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 8:50 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:
Originally posted by rklenseth:

Nothing officially confirmed yet but it appears Bush is sending troops to guard the borders and that as well as the immigration problem in general is what Bush big speech is about tomorrow


HAHAHAHA. HE'S SENDING A TINY HANDFUL, SOMEDAY, TO SIT IN OFFICES, TAKE MEMOS AND TAKE OUT THE TRASH. CAN'T HAVE THEM INTERFERING WITH THE NARCOTRAFFIC AND SLAVE PLANTATION.

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:26 AM

SHADOWFLY


Do you have your very own lovebot?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 18, 2006 9:06 AM

DALLASFIREFLY


A lovebot would be sweet!

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:16 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Which is entirely sensible Citizen. Someone who opposes gun control PLEASE tell me what reason an individual would need a 357?

Cause I just can't see it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 18, 2006 11:27 AM

DALLASFIREFLY


When the right wing tries to attack the 1st Amendment they do so piece by piece, gradually. First they'll say, why do we have to have porn DVDs? That's not free speech, that's obscenity. Newspapers and TV shows are free speech, not porn. If they get rid of hardcore porn, then they'll ask, why do we have to have Playboy and soft core mags like it? If they get rid of soft core porn, they'll turn to racy, but not nude, mags like Maxim and FHM. Why do we need that garbage, they'll ask. Once they get rid of that they'll go after internet political sites they don't like, small magazines (like The Nation), TV shows with adult content, movies with nude scenes, and so on. The reason I point this out is people who want to eliminate gun ownership use the same tactics. they go after the most objectionable types of firearms first, establish a precedent that it's ok to ban certain types of firearms, and then they go after the more common firearms (like shotguns or 9mm pistols). A direct answer to your question is that a 357 is a very effective means of self defense. If you're going to have a pistol for self defense, the 357 is a good choice since it will take out an intruder regardless of whether you make a perfect shot or not. I don't own any firearms, but gun ownership is as protected by the Bill of Rights as porn, left wing political magazines, or your right to not incriminate yourself. If the 2nd Amendment were to fall, all other Amendments would follow since the only reason they survive is that they are viewed as sort of sacred and unassailable by the public. If one Amendment were to be destroyed the likelihood is that the other vulnerable Amendments would be stripped away soon after.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:57 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:
Which is entirely sensible Citizen. Someone who opposes gun control PLEASE tell me what reason an individual would need a 357?

Cause I just can't see it.



The .357 magnum revolver is possibly the handiest home defense tool ever invented.

First, it's a revolver. Revolvers are very simple to operate. You point them at what you want to destroy, and you pull the trigger. There's not a lot of switches or settings to bother with.

Second, the .357 magnum revolver is a dual-cartridge weapon. That means that you can fire either the .38 special bullet from it (an old police officer/security guard cartridge that dominated the 20th century; Only the .45 ACP has seen as much use) or you can load it with the more powerful .357 magnum cartridge.

Now, according to the FBI (and I take them seriously, because they learned their lessons the hard way) it is difficult to stop a determined attacker. A certain number of people, when struck by a bullet, will stop and drop. It's psychological. You could shoot them with a flimsy .25 caliber bullet, and that bullet might stop just under the skin. Pychologically, the person thinks, "I'm hit!" and they are out of the fight. In fact, most people are like this.

BUT, there is the other kind of person. Either their mental wiring is different, or they are too upset or too high to think about the fact that they've been shot. This kind of adversary can only be stopped if the bullet destroys them to such a degree that they can't continue. This means the destruction of immediately vital organs (like the heart) or the destruction of the central nervous system (by way of the spinal coord or brain.)

The FBI (and again, I take them seriously after that Florida disaster) has determined that the most essential component to stopping a determined attacker is penetration. You need your bullet to penetrate deeply enough into an adversary so that the bullet can reach and destroy vital organs. (I know this sounds morbid, but it's the way things are.)

There was a horrible shootout in Florida where several FBI agents were killed and maimed by a dead man. The purpetrator was shot lethally more than once, but his heart and central nervous system were not immediately destroyed. An autopsy later revealed that one of the first shots of the engagement had placed a bullet in line to destroy the heart of the criminal, but the bullet did not reach the heart because it did not penetrate deeply enough.

This caused the entire FBI to rework its weapons strategy, and a decade long debate on stopping power and ammunition ensued. In the end, I forget whether the FBI ended up adopting the 10mm or .40 caliber bullet. Their goal was essentially, "Have a bullet powerful enough to penetrate deeply, and then have it be a wide bullet, so that the wound channel is more likely to intersect with a vital organ."

Now, a .38 special bullet will not always penetrate deeply enough to reach a vital organ. It's hit and miss. .38 special rounds aren't known for their superb penetrative properties. However, the .38 special round is a low-recoil bullet that is relatively inexpensive to purchase.

A .357 magnum round is almost certain to penetrate deeply enough to reach internal organs. It can also reliably penetrate very light obstacles such as interior doors and windshields. A .357 magnum round is simply more likely to stop an attacker than a .38 special round.

I own a single-action .357 magnum revolver made by Taurus. It's just like the Wild-West single-action Colt Peacemaker revolver, except that it is chambered in .357 magnum. It allows me to use the inexpensive and fun .38 special rounds when I am shooting for sport or practice. It also allows me to load the more powerful .357 magnum bullets for home defense.

Anyone knowledgeable will tell you that ANY bullet might kill someone. Even the weakest and most anemic bullet is dangerous. However, when your life is on the line, you will tend to want the most effective weapon you can get. Other than a short barrelled shotgun, I think the .357 magnum revolver is the best, simplest, and most reliable weapon for home defense.

Having said all that, you need to wipe out movie stereotypes where the magic magnum round goes in the front of a car and out the back of the car and through the guy hiding behind the car, and through his friends and neighbors and settles down in China. Not all magnums are equal, and the .357 magnum has very good penetration, but not excessive penetration.

In my own personal opinion, the .44 Magnum and .50 Desert Eagle bullets are overkill for personal defense. They have uncomfortable levels of recoil, plus they are bloody expensive to shoot. Still, if that's the bullet someone felt comfortable using, I wouldn't deny them the right. In the end, it's their butt on the line. (Also important to note that the .44 Magnum round is very useful for hunting, and there are a lot of pistol hunters who use it to that end.)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 18, 2006 1:53 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


For those who are interested, here is the actual FBI report on handgun wounding effectiveness:

U.S. Department of Justice
Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness
Special Agent UREY W. PATRICK

FIREARMS TRAINING UNIT
FBI ACADEMY
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

July 14, 1989

Introduction
The handgun is the primary weapon in law enforcement. It is the one weapon any officer or agent can be expected to have available whenever needed. Its purpose is to apply deadly force to not only protect the life of the officer and the lives of others, but to prevent serious physical harm to them as well.1 When an officer shoots a subject, it is done with the explicit intention of immediately incapacitating that subject in order to stop whatever threat to life or physical safety is posed by the subject. Immediate incapacitation is defined as the sudden2 physical or mental inability to pose any further risk or injury to others.

The concept of immediate incapacitation is the only goal of any law enforcement shooting and is the underlying rationale for decisions regarding weapons, ammunition, calibers and training. While this concept is subject to conflicting theories, widely held misconceptions, and varied opinions generally distorted by personal experiences, it is critical to the analysis and selection of weapons, ammunition and calibers for use by law enforcement officers.3,4

Tactical Realities
Shot placement is an important, and often cited, consideration regarding the suitability of weapons and ammunition. However, considerations of caliber are equally important and cannot be ignored. For example, a bullet through the central nervous system with any caliber of ammunition is likely to be immediately incapacitating.5 Even a .22 rimfire penetrating the brain will cause immediate incapacitation in most cases. Obviously, this does not mean the law enforcement agency should issue .22 rimfires and train for head shots as the primary target. The realities of shooting incidents prohibit such a solution.

Few, if any, shooting incidents will present the officer with an opportunity to take a careful, precisely aimed shot at the subject's head. Rather, shootings are characterized by their sudden, unexpected occurrence; by rapid and unpredictable movement of both officer and adversary; by limited and partial target opportunities; by poor light and unforeseen obstacles; and by the life or death stress of sudden, close, personal violence. Training is quite properly oriented towards "center of mass" shooting. That is to say, the officer is trained to shoot at the center of whatever is presented for a target. Proper shot placement is a hit in the center of that part of the adversary which is presented, regardless of anatomy or angle.

A review of law enforcement shootings clearly suggests that regardless of the number of rounds fired in a shooting, most of the time only one or two solid torso hits on the adversary can be expected. This expectation is realistic because of the nature of shooting incidents and the extreme difficulty of shooting a handgun with precision under such dire conditions. The probability of multiple hits with a handgun is not high. Experienced officers implicitly recognize that fact, and when potential violence is reasonably anticipated, their preparations are characterized by obtaining as many shoulder weapons as possible. Since most shootings are not anticipated, the officer involved cannot be prepared in advance with heavier armament. As a corollary tactical principle, no law enforcement officer should ever plan to meet an expected attack armed only with a handgun.

The handgun is the primary weapon for defense against unexpected attack. Nevertheless, a majority of shootings occur in manners and circumstances in which the officer either does not have any other weapon available, or cannot get to it. The handgun must be relied upon, and must prevail. Given the idea that one or two torso hits can be reasonably expected in a handgun shooting incident, the ammunition used must maximize the likelihood of immediate incapacitation.

Mechanics of Projectile Wounding
In order to predict the likelihood of incapacitation with any handgun round, an understanding of the mechanics of wounding is necessary. There are four components of projectile wounding.6 Not all of these components relate to incapacitation, but each of them must be considered. They are:

Penetration. The tissue through which the projectile passes, and which it disrupts or destroys.
Permanent Cavity. The volume of space once occupied by tissue that has been destroyed by the passage of the projectile. This is a function of penetration and the frontal area of the projectile. Quite simply, it is the hole left by the passage of the bullet.
Temporary Cavity. The expansion of the permanent cavity by stretching due to the transfer of kinetic energy during the projectile's passage.
Fragmentation. Projectile pieces or secondary fragments of bone which are impelled outward from the permanent cavity and may sever muscle tissues, blood vessels, etc., apart from the permanent cavity.7,8 Fragmentation is not necessarily present in every projectile wound. It may, or may not, occur and can be considered a secondary effect.9
Projectiles incapacitate by damaging or destroying the central nervous system, or by causing lethal blood loss. To the extent the wound components cause or increase the effects of these two mechanisms, the likelihood of incapacitation increases. Because of the impracticality of training for head shots, this examination of handgun wounding relative to law enforcement use is focused upon torso wounds and the probable results.

Mechanics of Handgun Wounding
All handgun wounds will combine the components of penetration, permanent cavity, and temporary cavity to a greater or lesser degree. Fragmentation, on the other hand, does not reliably occur in handgun wounds due to the relatively low velocities of handgun bullets. Fragmentation occurs reliably in high velocity projectile wounds (impact velocity in excess of 2000 feet per second) inflicted by soft or hollow point bullets.10 In such a case, the permanent cavity is stretched so far, and so fast, that tearing and rupturing can occur in tissues surrounding the wound channel which were weakened by fragmentation damage.11,12 It can significantly increase damage13 in rifle bullet wounds.

Since the highest handgun velocities generally do not exceed 1400-1500 feet per second (fps) at the muzzle, reliable fragmentation could only be achieved by constructing a bullet so frangible as to eliminate any reasonable penetration. Unfortunately, such a bullet will break up too fast to penetrate to vital organs. The best example is the Glaser Safety Slug, a projectile designed to break up on impact and generate a large but shallow temporary cavity. Fackler, when asked to estimate the survival time of someone shot in the front mid-abdomen with a Glaser slug, responded, "About three days, and the cause of death would be peritonitis."14

In cases where some fragmentation has occurred in handgun wounds, the bullet fragments are generally found within one centimeter of the permanent cavity. "The velocity of pistol bullets, even of the new high-velocity loadings, is insufficient to cause the shedding of lead fragments seen with rifle bullets."15 It is obvious that any additional wounding effect caused by such fragmentation in a handgun wound is inconsequential.

Of the remaining factors, temporary cavity is frequently, and grossly, overrated as a wounding factor when analyzing wounds.16 Nevertheless, historically it has been used in some cases as the primary means of assessing the wounding effectiveness of bullets.

The most notable example is the Relative Incapacitation Index (RII) which resulted from a study of handgun effectiveness sponsored by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). In this study, the assumption was made that the greater the temporary cavity, the greater the wounding effect of the round. This assumption was based on a prior assumption that the tissue bounded by the temporary cavity was damaged or destroyed.17

In the LEAA study, virtually every handgun round available to law enforcement was tested. The temporary cavity was measured, and the rounds were ranked based on the results. The depth of penetration and the permanent cavity were ignored. The result according to the RII is that a bullet which causes a large but shallow temporary cavity is a better incapacitater than a bullet which causes a smaller temporary cavity with deep penetration.

Such conclusions ignore the factors of penetration and permanent cavity. Since vital organs are located deep within the body, it should be obvious that to ignore penetration and permanent cavity is to ignore the only proven means of damaging or disrupting vital organs.

Further, the temporary cavity is caused by the tissue being stretched away from the permanent cavity, not being destroyed. By definition, a cavity is a space18 in which nothing exists. A temporary cavity is only a temporary space caused by tissue being pushed aside. That same space then disappears when the tissue returns to its original configuration.

Frequently, forensic pathologists cannot distinguish the wound track caused by a hollow point bullet (large temporary cavity) from that caused by a solid bullet (very small temporary cavity). There may be no physical difference in the wounds. If there is no fragmentation, remote damage due to temporary cavitation may be minor even with high velocity rifle projectiles.19 Even those who have espoused the significance of temporary cavity agree that it is not a factor in handgun wounds:

"In the case of low-velocity missiles, e.g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissues. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause remote injuries produced by a high velocity rifle bullet."20
The reason is that most tissue in the human target is elastic in nature. Muscle, blood vessels, lung, bowels, all are capable of substantial stretching with minimal damage. Studies have shown that the outward velocity of the tissues in which the temporary cavity forms is no more than one tenth of the velocity of the projectile.21 This is well within the elasticity limits of tissue such as muscle, blood vessels, and lungs, Only inelastic tissue like liver, or the extremely fragile tissues of the brain, would show significant damage due to temporary cavitation.22

The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first, or crush mechanism is the hole the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second, or stretch mechanism is the temporary cavity formed by the tissues being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism, the result of penetration and permanent cavity, is the only handgun wounding mechanism which damages tissue.23 To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure. Temporary cavity has no reliable wounding effect in elastic body tissues. Temporary cavitation is nothing more than a stretch of the tissues, generally no larger than 10 times the bullet diameter (in handgun calibers), and elastic tissues sustain little, if any, residual damage.24,25,26

The Human Target
With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the torso is a myth.27 The human target is a complex and durable one. A wide variety of psychological, physical, and physiological factors exist, all of them pertinent to the probability of incapacitation. However, except for the location of the wound and the amount of tissue destroyed, none of the factors are within the control of the law enforcement officer.

Physiologically, a determined adversary can be stopped reliably and immediately only by a shot that disrupts the brain or upper spinal cord. Failing a hit to the central nervous system, massive bleeding from holes in the heart or major blood vessels of the torso causing circulatory collapse is the only other way to force incapacitation upon an adversary, and this takes time. For example, there is sufficient oxygen within the brain to support full, voluntary action for 10-15 seconds after the heart has been destroyed.28

In fact, physiological factors may actually play a relatively minor role in achieving rapid incapacitation. Barring central nervous system hits, there is no physiological reason for an individual to be incapacitated by even a fatal wound, until blood loss is sufficient to drop blood pressure and/or the brain is deprived of oxygen. The effects of pain, which could contribute greatly to incapacitation, are commonly delayed in the aftermath of serious injury such as a gunshot wound. The body engages survival patterns, the well known "fight or flight" syndrome. Pain is irrelevant to survival and is commonly suppressed until some time later. In order to be a factor, pain must first be perceived, and second must cause an emotional response. In many individuals, pain is ignored even when perceived, or the response is anger and increased resistance, not surrender.

Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury (often delayed by the suppression of pain); fear of injury, death, blood, or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; preconceived notions of what people do when they are shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However, psychological factors are also the primary cause of incapacitation failures.

The individual may be unaware of the wound and thus has no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as rage or hate can keep a grievously injured individual fighting, as is common on the battlefield and in the street. The effects of chemicals can be powerful stimuli preventing incapacitation. Adrenaline alone can be sufficient to keep a mortally wounded adversary functioning. Stimulants, anesthetics, pain killers, or tranquilizers can all prevent incapacitation by suppressing pain, awareness of the injury, or eliminating any concerns over the injury. Drugs such as cocaine, PCP, and heroin are disassociative in nature. One of their effects is that the individual "exists" outside of his body. He sees and experiences what happens to his body, but as an outside observer who can be unaffected by it yet continue to use the body as a tool for fighting or resisting.

Psychological factors such as energy deposit, momentum transfer, size of temporary cavity or calculations such as the RII are irrelevant or erroneous. The impact of the bullet upon the body is no more than the recoil of the weapon. The ratio of bullet mass to target mass is too extreme.

The often referred to "knock-down power" implies the ability of a bullet to move its target. This is nothing more than momentum of the bullet. It is the transfer of momentum that will cause a target to move in response to the blow received. "Isaac Newton proved this to be the case mathematically in the 17th Century, and Benjamin Robins verified it experimentally through the invention and use of the ballistic pendulum to determine muzzle velocity by measurement of the pendulum motion."29

Goddard amply proves the fallacy of "knock-down power" by calculating the heights (and resultant velocities) from which a one pound weight and a ten pound weight must be dropped to equal the momentum of 9mm and .45ACP projectiles at muzzle velocities, respectively. The results are revealing. In order to equal the impact of a 9mm bullet at its muzzle velocity, a one pound weight must be dropped from a height of 5.96 feet, achieving a velocity of 19.6 fps. To equal the impact of a .45ACP bullet, the one pound weight needs a velocity of 27.1 fps and must be dropped from a height of 11.4 feet. A ten pound weight equals the impact of a 9mm bullet when dropped from a height of 0.72 inches (velocity attained is 1.96 fps), and equals the impact of a .45 when dropped from 1.37 inches (achieving a velocity of 2.71 fps).30

A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. If it had the energy to do so, then equal energy would be applied against the shooter and he too would be knocked down. This is simple physics, and has been known for hundreds of years.31 The amount of energy deposited in the body by a bullet is approximately equivalent to being hit with a baseball.32 Tissue damage is the only physical link to incapacitation within the desired time frame, i.e., instantaneously.

The human target can be reliably incapacitated only by disrupting or destroying the brain or upper spinal cord. Absent that, incapacitation is subject to a host of variables, the most important of which are beyond the control of the shooter. Incapacitation becomes an eventual event, not necessarily an immediate one. If the psychological factors which can contribute to incapacitation are present, even a minor wound can be immediately incapacitating. If they are not present, incapacitation can be significantly delayed even with major, unsurvivable wounds.

Field results are a collection of individualistic reactions on the part of each person shot which can be analyzed and reported as percentages. However, no individual responds as a percentage, but as an all or none phenomenon which the officer cannot possibly predict, and which may provide misleading data upon which to predict ammunition performance.

Ammunition Selection Criteria
The critical wounding components for handgun ammunition, in order of importance, are penetration and permanent cavity.33 The bullet must penetrate sufficiently to pass through vital organs and be able to do so from less than optimal angles. For example, a shot from the side through an arm must penetrate at least 10-12 inches to pass through the heart. A bullet fired from the front through the abdomen must penetrate about 7 inches in a slender adult just to reach the major blood vessels in the back of the abdominal cavity. Penetration must be sufficiently deep to reach and pass through vital organs, and the permanent cavity must be large enough to maximize tissue destruction and consequent hemorrhaging.

Several design approaches have been made in handgun ammunition which are intended to increase the wounding effectiveness of the bullet. Most notable of these is the use of a hollow point bullet designed to expand on impact.

Expansion accomplishes several things. On the positive side, it increases the frontal area of the bullet and thereby increases the amount of tissue disintegrated in the bullet's path. On the negative side, expansion limits penetration. It can prevent the bullet from penetrating to vital organs, especially if the projectile is of relatively light mass and the penetration must be through several inches of fat, muscle, or clothing.34

Increased bullet mass will increase penetration. Increased velocity will increase penetration but only until the bullet begins to deform, at which point increased velocity decreases penetration. Permanent cavity can be increased by the use of expanding bullets, and/or larger diameter bullets, which have adequate penetration. However, in no case should selection of a bullet be made where bullet expansion is necessary to achieve desired performance.35 Handgun bullets expand in the human target only 60-70% of the time at best. Damage to the hollow point by hitting bone, glass, or other intervening obstacles can prevent expansion. Clothing fibers can wrap the nose of the bullet in a cocoon like manner and prevent expansion. Insufficient impact velocity caused by short barrels and/or longer range will prevent expansion, as will simple manufacturing variations. Expansion must never be the basis for bullet selection, but considered a bonus when, and if, it occurs. Bullet selection should be determined based on penetration first, and the unexpanded diameter of the bullet second, as that is all the shooter can reliably expect.

It is essential to bear in mind that the single most critical factor remains penetration. While penetration up to 18 inches is preferable, a handgun bullet MUST reliably penetrate 12 inches of soft body tissue at a minimum, regardless of whether it expands or not. If the bullet does not reliably penetrate to these depths, it is not an effective bullet for law enforcement use.36

Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness. It will damage a blood vessel the smaller projectile barely misses. The larger permanent cavity may lead to faster blood loss. Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified.

An issue that must be addressed is the fear of over penetration widely expressed on the part of law enforcement. The concern that a bullet would pass through the body of a subject and injure an innocent bystander is clearly exaggerated. Any review of law enforcement shootings will reveal that the great majority of shots fired by officers do not hit any subjects at all. It should be obvious that the relatively few shots that do hit a subject are not somehow more dangerous to bystanders than the shots that miss the subject entirely.

Also, a bullet that completely penetrates a subject will give up a great deal of energy doing so. The skin on the exit side of the body is tough and flexible. Experiments have shown that it has the same resistance to bullet passage as approximately four inches of muscle tissue.37

Choosing a bullet because of relatively shallow penetration will seriously compromise weapon effectiveness, and needlessly endanger the lives of the law enforcement officers using it. No law enforcement officer has lost his life because a bullet over penetrated his adversary, and virtually none have ever been sued for hitting an innocent bystander through an adversary. On the other hand, tragically large numbers of officers have been killed because their bullets did not penetrate deeply enough.

The Allure of Shooting Incident Analyses
There is no valid, scientific analysis of actual shooting results in existence, or being pursued to date. It is an unfortunate vacuum because a wealth of data exists, and new data is being sadly generated every day. There are some well publicized, so called analyses of shooting incidents being promoted, however, they are greatly flawed. Conclusions are reached based on samples so small that they are meaningless. The author of one, for example, extols the virtues of his favorite cartridge because he has collected ten cases of one shot stops with it.38 Preconceived notions are made the basic assumptions on which shootings are categorized. Shooting incidents are selectively added to the "data base" with no indication of how many may have been passed over or why. There is no correlation between hits, results, and the location of the hits upon vital organs.

It would be interesting to trace a life-sized anatomical drawing on the back of a target, fire 20 rounds at the "center of mass" of the front, then count how many of these optimal, center of mass hits actually struck the heart, aorta, vena cava, or liver.39 It is rapid hemorrhage from these organs that will best increase the likelihood of incapacitation. Yet nowhere in the popular press extolling these studies of real shootings are we told what the bullets hit.

These so called studies are further promoted as being somehow better and more valid than the work being done by trained researchers, surgeons and forensic labs. They disparage laboratory stuff, claiming that the "street" is the real laboratory and their collection of results from the street is the real measure of caliber effectiveness, as interpreted by them, of course. Yet their data from the street is collected haphazardly, lacking scientific method and controls, with no noticeable attempt to verify the less than reliable accounts of the participants with actual investigative or forensic reports. Cases are subjectively selected (how many are not included because they do not fit the assumptions made?). The numbers of cases cited are statistically meaningless, and the underlying assumptions upon which the collection of information and its interpretation are based are themselves based on myths such as knock-down power, energy transfer, hydrostatic shock, or the temporary cavity methodology of flawed work such as RII.

Further, it appears that many people are predisposed to fall down when shot. This phenomenon is independent of caliber, bullet, or hit location, and is beyond the control of the shooter. It can only be proven in the act, not predicted. It requires only two factors to be effected: a shot and cognition of being shot by the target. Lacking either one, people are not at all predisposed to fall down and don't. Given this predisposition, the choice of caliber and bullet is essentially irrelevant. People largely fall down when shot, and the apparent predisposition to do so exists with equal force among the good guys as among the bad. The causative factors are most likely psychological in origin. Thousands of books, movies and television shows have educated the general population that when shot, one is supposed to fall down.

The problem, and the reason for seeking a better cartridge for incapacitation, is that individual who is not predisposed to fall down. Or the one who is simply unaware of having been shot by virtue of alcohol, adrenaline, narcotics, or the simple fact that in most cases of grievous injury the body suppresses pain for a period of time. Lacking pain, there may be no physiological effect of being shot that can make one aware of the wound. Thus the real problem: if such an individual is threatening one's life, how best to compel him to stop by shooting him?

The factors governing incapacitation of the human target are many, and variable. The actual destruction caused by any small arms projectile is too small in magnitude relative to the mass and complexity of the target. If a bullet destroys about 2 ounces of tissue in its passage through the body, that represents 0.07 of one percent of the mass of a 180 pound man. Unless the tissue destroyed is located within the critical areas of the central nervous system, it is physiologically insufficient to force incapacitation upon the unwilling target. It may certainly prove to be lethal, but a body count is no evidence of incapacitation. Probably more people in this country have been killed by .22 rimfires than all other caliberscombined, which, based on body count, would compel the use of .22's for self-defense. The more important question, which is sadly seldom asked, is what did the individual do when hit?

There is a problem in trying to assess calibers by small numbers of shootings. For example, as has been done, if a number of shootings were collected in which only one hit was attained and the percentage of one shot stops was then calculated, it would appear to be a valid system. However, if a large number of people are predisposed to fall down, the actual caliber and bullet are irrelevant. What percentage of those stops were thus preordained by the target? How many of those targets were not at all disposed to fall down? How many multiple shot failures to stop occurred? What is the definition of a stop? What did the successful bullets hit and what did the unsuccessful bullets hit? How many failures were in the vital organs, and how many were not? How many of the successes? What is the number of the sample? How were the cases collected? What verifications were made to validate the information? How can the verifications be checked by independent investigation?

Because of the extreme number of variables within the human target, and within shooting situations in general, even a hundred shootings is statistically insignificant. If anything can happen, then anything will happen, and it is just as likely to occur in your ten shootings as in ten shootings spread over a thousand incidents. Large sample populations are absolutely necessary.

Here is an example that illustrates how erroneous small samples can be. I flipped a penny 20 times. It came up heads five times. A nickel flipped 20 times showed heads 8 times. A dime came up heads 10 times and a quarter 15 times. That means if heads is the desired result, a penny will give it to you 25% of the time, and nickel 40% of the time, a dime 50% of the time and a quarter 75% of the time. If you want heads, flip a quarter. If you want tails, flip a penny. But then I flipped the quarter another 20 times and it showed heads 9 times - 45% of the time. Now this "study" would tell you that perhaps a dime was better for flipping heads. The whole thing is obviously wrong, but shows how small numbers lead to statistical lies. We know the odds of getting a head or tail are 50%, and larger numbers tend to prove it. Calculating the results for all 100 flips regardless of the coin used shows heads came up 48% of the time.

The greater the number and complexity of the variables, the greater the sample needed to give meaningful information, and a coin toss has only one simple variable - it can land heads or it can land tails. The coin population is not complicated by a predisposition to fall one way or the other, by chemical stimuli, psychological factors, shot placement, bone or obstructive obstacles, etc.; all of which require even larger numbers to evidence real differences in effects.

Although no cartridge is certain to work all the time, surely some will work more often than others, and any edge is desirable in one's self defense. This is simple logic. The incidence of failure to incapacitate will vary with the severity of the wound inflicted.40 It is safe to assume that if a target is always 100% destroyed, then incapacitation will also occur 100% of the time. If 50% of the target is destroyed, incapacitation will occur less reliably. Failure to incapacitate is rare in such a case, but it can happen, and in fact has happened on the battlefield. Incapacitation is still less rare if 25% of the target is destroyed. Now the magnitude of bullet destruction is far less (less than 1% of the target) but the relationship is unavoidable. The round which destroys 0.07% of the target will incapacitate more often than the one which destroys 0.04%. However, only very large numbers of shooting incidents will prove it. The difference may be only 10 out of a thousand, but that difference is an edge, and that edge should be on the officer's side because one of those ten may be the subject trying to kill him.

To judge a caliber's effectiveness, consider how many people hit with it failed to fall down and look at where they were hit. Of the successes and failures, analyze how many were hit in vital organs, rather than how many were killed or not, and correlate that with an account of exactly what they did when they were hit. Did they fall down, or did they run, fight, shoot, hide, crawl, stare, shrug, give up and surrender? ONLY falling down is good. All other reactions are failures to incapacitate, evidencing the ability to act with volition, and thus able to choose to continue to try to inflict harm.

Those who disparage science and laboratory methods are either too short sighted or too bound by preconceived (or perhaps proprietary) notions to see the truth. The labs and scientists do not offer sure things. They offer a means of indexing the damage done by a bullet, understanding of the mechanics of damage caused by bullets and the actual effects on the body, and the basis for making an informed choice based on objective criteria and significant statistics.

The differences between bullets may be small, but science can give us the means of identifying that difference. The result is the edge all of law enforcement should be looking for. It is true that the streets are the proving ground, but give me an idea of what you want to prove and I will give you ten shootings from the street to prove it. That is both easy, and irrelevant. If it can happen, it will happen.

Any shooting incident is a unique event, unconstrained by any natural law or physical order to follow a predetermined sequence of events or end in predetermined results. What is needed is an edge that makes the good result more probable than the bad. Science will quantify the information needed to make the choice to gain that edge. Large numbers (thousands or more) from the street will provide the answer to the question "How much of an edge?".41 Even if that edge is only 1%, it is not insignificant because the guy trying to kill you could be in that 1%, and you won't know it until it is too late.

Conclusions
Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit. Psychologically, some individuals can be incapacitated by minor or small caliber wounds. Those individuals who are stimulated by fear, adrenaline, drugs, alcohol, and/or sheer will and survival determination may not be incapacitated even if mortally wounded.

The will to survive and to fight despite horrific damage to the body is commonplace on the battlefield, and on the street. Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no longer function, and that takes time. 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.

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed." 42,43 Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.44

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:11 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important



Finally, according to the information I was able to find online, the 125 grain .357 Magnum JHP bullet averages penetration of 13.25" in ordinance gelatin. This falls securely in the FBI recommended zone, which states that, "a handgun bullet MUST reliably penetrate 12 inches of soft body tissue at a minimum"

So... Now that you've absorbed all this ballistic knowledge...

THAT is why a .357 magnum bullet (and the revolvers that fire them) are a prime choice for home defense.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:56 PM

RIVER6213


Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Which is entirely sensible Citizen. Someone who opposes gun control PLEASE tell me what reason an individual would need a 357?

Cause I just can't see it.


I own 4 handguns, well 3 now because my 9mm got taken away from me by the authorities. I have 2 other 9mm pistols plus a .357 magnum. When I purchased it 10 years ago, the guy at the store told me that if I wanted a 100% man-stopper, this was the gun for a girl to get which I did. I bought all these guns years ago when I was in my I'm-not-going-to-be-victimized-by-a-man phase.

I also had to learn to shoot it, and it’s heavy, and if you shoot it enough, it really starts to hurt your wrist, but I have no doubt in my mind that if someone broke into my home, and if they made enough noise that would wake me up, I could get this gun and know that I was going to be safe. If I were attacked, the attacker would die because from what I understand, this gun leaves quite an exit wound.

Another problem is, and I think it varies from state to state, are the gun laws. Even if you use a gun as self defense, you still have to go to jail until they figure out what happened, and the guy better have been armed when you shot him. I think if he has a knife and you shoot him with a gun I think you might be looking at some serious jail time. I'm really fuzzy on the gun laws in this state. I just hope I never have to shoot anyone. The weapons are for a complete life or death, last resort sort of scenario. What did that lady say in that move Matrix? “It’s better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have one.” That works for me.

But right now the whole idea of guns makes me cringe a little bit. I just thought I would add my two cents worth to this conversation.

River

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Oops! Clown Justin Trudeau accidently "Sieg Heils!" a Nazi inside Canadian parliament
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:24 - 4 posts
Stupid voters enable broken government
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:04 - 130 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:09 - 7499 posts
The predictions thread
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:02 - 1190 posts
Netanyahu to Putin: Iran must withdraw from Syria or Israel will ‘defend itself’
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:56 - 16 posts
Putin's Russia
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:51 - 69 posts
The Olive Branch (Or... a proposed Reboot)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:44 - 4 posts
Musk Announces Plan To Buy MSNBC And Turn It Into A News Network
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:39 - 2 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:35 - 4763 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL