In art. , DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in .. .
I agree and, as I said, it's easier for the prosecution to make a case
if the ammunition used was marketed as a mutilating round instead of a
"safety" bullet.
All it would take is big color photos of wounds caused by such ammo to
convince the jury that the "safety" label was nonsense.
I urge you to refrain from commenting on matters of detail of which you
know little. Glasers are NOT hollow-point bullets.
They're de facto hollow-points filled with birdshot.
If they create horrible wounds, with great rapid blood loss if they hit
a broad area of the chest especially in the lungs, then they cause quick
incapacitation without necessity to achieve shot placement to the heart,
aorta or brainstem or spinal cord.
Self-defense by use of a gun is better served by quick incapacitation of
your enemy, which has a significant fatality rate. Deterrence achieved
without firing a shot is usually achieved through threat of death,
secondarily threat of great weakening leading to arrest and/or major body
damage - if survived.
Why else have a gun?
Yes, I am aware of training classes towards carrying permits that
advise to carry what the cops carry, nothing "deadlier". Thankfully for
Philadelphia, their cops have 4 official options (that they have to pay
for) to officially-on-duty-carry heavier-caliber sidearms than the
standard-issue-for-free 9 mm one.
As such, they are NOT banned for use in warfare and, in fact, ARE
used in some military operations (i.e., SEAL team type operations).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../frangible.htm
"Frangible rounds are available in a wide array of pistol calibers, but
due to the inherently high velocities of rifle rounds, frangible
ammunition is much less effective in rifles.
I can see issue of the bullet breaking up before hitting its target if
it has to be accelerated to ~3,000 feet/second / ~900 meters/second.
Other than that, if the target is unarmored personnel, and a frangible
or hollowpoint bullet stays intact until impact, what better to use?
It is only produced in 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO, and its performance
in actual combat is dubious. There are two frangible rounds that have
been approved for training purposes only. One is a 9mm, and the other a
5.56.
Can you get your story straight as to whether the one other than 5.56mm
is 7.62mm or 9mm?
Otherwise, one approved for training purposes only is not produced.
Unless, approved-for-training-only is not necessarily being produced.
That could mean 7.62mm is in production and not limited to training.
For that matter, is 5.56 mm production limited to a specific item only
approved for training?
Furthermore, there is common usage of a 5.56 mm round that often
fragments if it hits human bodies within 150 meters or whatever.
There is a requirement for military rounds to not flatten or expand
after getting into a human body: Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration
III.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp
That follows St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868.
There is such a thing as a jurisdiction that restricts towards
generally-prohibiting hollow-point ammo, but requires bullets that
*do* expand after impact in some of the few areas where it is legal to
use guns:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_...United_Kingdom
The hollow-point article in Wikipedia mentions desireability for
usually stopping in first human it hits in police work and civilian
self-defense. Same can be said of frangible bullets.
Approval for operational use will depend on the special mission
requirements (the military necessity) for the round."
There is some desire for military rifle rounds to be penetrating - such
as for use against vehicle occupants, vehicle gasoline tanks, and enemies
wearing lighter-weight body armor.
SNIP stuff on lead and children
--
- Don Klipstein )