On 7/9/2011 1:33 PM, DGDevin wrote:

(snip)
Just keep in mind that fishing lures aren't designed
to catch fish, they're designed to catch fishermen.


Chortle. I love that one- so true! Brings to mind how pet food recipes
are designed to appeal to the human, not the dog or cat.

--
aem sends...

(Don Klipstein) wrote in
:

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.

they are NOT not "defacto hollow points".
who came up with that nonsense?

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.

they aren't going to "hit a broad area" because they don't begin to
fragment until they actually strike something stiff enough.
by that time,the birdshot will stay pretty much in the immediate area.it
will lose momentum very quickly.

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?

the mass of a frangible will be lower than that of a solid bullet,and thus
have a worse ballistic trajectory(they don't go as far),and have lower
terminal impact energy.(they don't hit hard enough)

that's why shotgun pellets are only effective out to a few 100 yards or
so,they lose so much energy they are not effective.
Same goes for BB's from BBguns.

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?

9mm is a pistol/carbine caliber,and the US doesn't use 7.62 for it's
general purpose assault rifles.
7.62 NATO is used in sniper rifles(M-21),along with .300 Win Magnum and
..338 Lapua.

M-4's/M-16's are .223 or 5.56 NATO.
Even Russia moved away from 7.62x39 for it's assault rifles.they now use
5.45mmx39.

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.

"not EASILY fragment or expand" is what Wiki said.

bullets may not be DESIGNED to fragment.(for war use)
if a legal bullet hits bone,it still may fragment. there are variables to
be considered.
FMJ bullets normally flatten or distort upon impact with bone.

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

Who cares what the UK does??

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.

such ammo generally uses hard metal cores,like steel or tungsten carbide.
Prohibited from import into the US since 1986,IIRC.
civilian handgun ammo is prohibited from having steel or other hard
materials used in their bullet construction. no steel core,no brass
slugs,no carbide cores. the original KTW "armor-piercing" ammo was designed
for police to use against automobiles,but was never put into production.
then there was the "teflon coated bullet" furor,where the teflon was only
intended to prevent damage to the rifling and make for better
windshield penetration,not for any armor-piercing quality.(which it doesn't
have...)


check out Raufoss ammo.....


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message ...

Self-defense by use of a gun is better served by quick incapacitation of
your enemy, which has a significant fatality rate.

That's true and irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking about what a
DA can sell to a jury, and a bullet that breaks up on impact producing a
horrific wound is just what the DA is looking for in convincing jurors that
the guy who fired that bullet is a bloodthirsty thug. That's why there are
consultants who make good money testifying as expert witnesses in
self-defense cases whose job it is to explain to a jury why a hollow point
bullet is actually safer than a FMJ bullet. Presumably said experts could
make the same argument for Glaser rounds if the defense lawyer is smart
enough to hire them and the client can afford it.

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.

That's a good point, matching what the cops use is a smart move legally, the
so-called "New York trigger" also being useful. Because if God forbid you
ever need to use a firearm defensively then there is a chance your troubles
aren't over when they haul away the burglar you shot. A hungry lawyer or an
ambitious DA will be looking for pegs on which to hang the story that you
were looking for trouble etc.

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?

I assume the source I linked to (it isn't *my* story) means there are only
two rifle cartridges using Glaser bullets, but the military has authorized
both a rifle round and a handgun/SMG round for training purposes.

(Don Klipstein) wrote in
:

In , DGDevin wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:ZtednY83jK23xIXTnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@earthlink. com...

Couple of reasons: First, the Judge can fire .410 shotgun ammo. You
are almost guaranteed a hit in a darkened hallway - maybe only a
sting, but the damage to the squint goes from a twitch to death.

Hogwash. Can you document that the shot spread from a .410 fired from
a Judge would cover the average residential hallway at the ranges at
which such an encounter is likely to occur? This issue has come up
here before, and we learned that at realistic home-defense ranges the
spread of shot from a short-barreled shotgun is so small as to be
pointless.

A pistol usually has a shorter barrel than most short-barrel
shotguns.

heh,WAY shorter.

BTW,in the US,short-barrel shotguns are NFA weapons,meaning they have to be
registered,the owner fingerprinted,background checked,and a $200 tax paid.


Second, one purpose of a firearm is intimidation. That's why police
agencies abandoned flap holsters many years ago; the mere sight of a
pistol has a calming effect on most slopes. While not a BIG
intimidating factor, the bigger the weapon the more sobering effect
on the stink-eye.

So last paragraph you were painting a picture of a dark hallway in
which one would need to spray shot around to get a hit, but now
suddenly the burglar can see and identify the model of firearm you're
holding and be intimidated by the awesome manliness of your choice of
weapon. More hogwash.

Enemy is not always a burglar, and not always threatening in such
dark
situations. One's self-defense weapon should be useful at
intimidation when seen in lighting conditions that allow it to be
seen, which I expect to be more than 0% of the time.

SNIP stuff from here 1st line of which includes "goofball weapons"

To a crook trying to rob you,appearance of ANY handgun is enough to usually
make them turn and flee.
the LAST thing any crook wants is to get shot,because they'd have to go to
a doctor or emergency room for treatment(or bleed out...fine with me.),and
gunshot wounds MUST be reported to police,meaning that they WILL be
apprehended. Blood at the scene is also evidence.
Crooks would rather flee and pick an easier target,an unarmed victim.
Far safer and less risky for the crook.

Larger handguns are less likely to be carried,because of their size and
weight making for poor concealment and discomfort.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message ...

A pistol usually has a shorter barrel than most short-barrel shotguns.

If someone can document that the .410 buckshot rounds that one could shoot
out of a Judge revolver will spread those three pellets out at least a foot
or maybe eighteen inches apart at a range of say twelve feet (realistic home
defense range) then fine, I'll take it as proven that such a weapon will
indeed sweep HeyBub's hypothetical hallway. Can anyone do that?

Enemy is not always a burglar, and not always threatening in such dark
situations. One's self-defense weapon should be useful at intimidation
when seen in lighting conditions that allow it to be seen, which I expect
to be more than 0% of the time.

Would-be burglar, would-be mugger, would-be carjacker--the notion that
they're likely to size up the bore diameter of one revolver vs. another and
make a calculated judgment that they going to go for it rather than run away
or freeze strikes me as highly unlikely. How many of us here would think,
"Hmmm, that looks like it's only a 16 ga., I think I'll take a run at that
guy," or "I'd surrender if he had a .44, but I ain't scared of no .357."
Get real.

SNIP stuff from here 1st line of which includes "goofball weapons"

Many years ago I worked in a gun shop for a short time, and the owner and
his employees would happily take the money of people who talked themselves
into goofball weapons they saw in Guns & Ammo or Soldier of Fortune or
whatever magazine. The idea of using a handgun chambered for a shotgun
shell as a defensive weapon is hilarious to me, but as I say, the people who
buy such things keep the gun companies in business.

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...

Just keep in mind that fishing lures aren't designed
to catch fish, they're designed to catch fishermen.

Chortle. I love that one- so true! Brings to mind how pet food recipes are
designed to appeal to the human, not the dog or cat.

Yup, and some tools seem to be aimed at the guy who cares what his neighbor
thinks rather than at a pro who uses the tool to make a living. I don't
need flames and skulls on my power tools thanks. ;~)

"DGDevin" wrote in message
news
If someone can document that the .410 buckshot rounds that one could shoot
out of a Judge revolver will spread those three pellets out at least a
foot or maybe eighteen inches apart at a range of say twelve feet
(realistic home defense range) then fine, I'll take it as proven that such
a weapon will indeed sweep HeyBub's hypothetical hallway. Can anyone do
that?


You can go here for some demonstrations of the Judge and other guns.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

Just look for the Judge Revisited.

In art. , Jim Yanik wrote:
wrote in :

BIG SNIP be me to this particular point

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.

such ammo generally uses hard metal cores,like steel or tungsten carbide.
Prohibited from import into the US since 1986,IIRC.
civilian handgun ammo is prohibited from having steel or other hard
materials used in their bullet construction. no steel core,no brass
slugs,no carbide cores. the original KTW "armor-piercing" ammo was
designed for police to use against automobiles,but was never put into
production. Then there was the "teflon coated bullet" furor,where the
teflon was only intended to prevent damage to the rifling and make for
better windshield penetration,not for any armor-piercing quality.(which
it doesn't have...)

check out Raufoss ammo.....

I was thinking of usual military small-arms rifle rounds, which in my
bits of Wiki experience tend to be FMJ "spitzer" bullets.

Such as usual implementations of 5.56x45 mm NATO, and 7.62x51 mm NATO.

(Although 5.56x45 mm NATO did run into standardization to SS109 bullet,
more-penetrating, to penetrate a steel helmet, largely in response to
many complaints of the previous 5.56 mm M193 round producing devastating
wounds.)

According to the Wiki article on 5.56x45mm NATO.

(Then again, what is warfare?)
--
- Don Klipstein )

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

In , Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

Right now there's not a commander in the field, from sergeant to general,
who hasn't lead men in combat! You can't BUY that kind of competence.

Last year more members of the American armed services committed suicide
than died in combat. But I forget, you don't care much about stuff like
that, since they volunteered their lives can be squandered in any
half-witted adventure the CinC can dream up.

Which means nothing. 2008, the last year I can find actual rates of
suicide, the 17.5 soldiers committing suicide per 100,000 soliders was a
tick below the rate for civilians. What is interesting, is that there is
an increase because the rate actually used to be much below the civilian
rate.

You think USA's overall suicide rate or civilian suicide rate exceeds
17.5 per 100,000 per year?

http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/...-rates-on-the-
up.html

"By the year's end, it had leapt to 17.5/ 100,000.
Such a ratio lies marginally below that of suicides among civilians."



So, it is looking like military suicide rate rose to about that of
comparable-age-gender-demographics civilians.

Which is pretty much what I said.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article , DGDevin wrote:

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message ...

Self-defense by use of a gun is better served by quick incapacitation of
your enemy, which has a significant fatality rate.

That's true and irrelevant to this discussion.

But very relevant to why to use guns, which I think *is* relevant,
even in cases of deciding by DA or a judge or a jury as to "justifiable
homicide vs. murder".

We're talking about what a
DA can sell to a jury, and a bullet that breaks up on impact producing a
horrific wound is just what the DA is looking for in convincing jurors that
the guy who fired that bullet is a bloodthirsty thug. That's why there are
consultants who make good money testifying as expert witnesses in
self-defense cases whose job it is to explain to a jury why a hollow point
bullet is actually safer than a FMJ bullet. Presumably said experts could
make the same argument for Glaser rounds if the defense lawyer is smart
enough to hire them and the client can afford it.

The DA can alternatively make a case to the jury that penetrating bullets
were irresponsibly or deliberately chosen, should the defendant that the
DA has a hard-on for choose to make a case against.
Penetrating bullets are riskier to penetrate walls and initial human
targets, which means greater risk of killing/harming those other than who
they initially hit. (Or missed, if they penetrate walls-in-question in
fatal way that frangible bullets cannot penetrate.)

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.

That's a good point, matching what the cops use is a smart move legally,
the so-called "New York trigger" also being useful. Because if God
forbid you ever need to use a firearm defensively then there is a chance
your troubles aren't over when they haul away the burglar you shot.

Preferably call the police to haul away someone giving good appearance
of being lawfully shot in self-defense of life or home, as jurisdictional
law allows.

A hungry lawyer or an ambitious DA will be looking for pegs on which to
hang the story that you were looking for trouble etc.

Will a DA be ambitious to prosecute a law-abider doing self-defense
against a criminal? How well would that play, unless needing to be
re-elected in a jurisdiction whose voters favor the criminals?
........................

SNIP whether or not stories are straight as to 2 or 3 military rifle
rounds were usede in form of frangible bullets, and how many if any were
put into production.
--
- Don Klipstein )

DGDevin wrote:

Last year more members of the American armed services committed
suicide than died in combat. But I forget, you don't care much about
stuff like that, since they volunteered their lives can be squandered
in any half-witted adventure the CinC can dream up.

As a percentage, fewer members of the armed services commit suicide than
their same-age-group counterparts in the civilian sector. One could claim,
therefore, that military service REDUCES the incidence of people taking
their own life.

In art. , Jim Yanik wrote:
(Don Klipstein) wrote in
:

In , DGDevin wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:ZtednY83jK23xIXTnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@earthlink .com...

Couple of reasons: First, the Judge can fire .410 shotgun ammo. You
are almost guaranteed a hit in a darkened hallway - maybe only a
sting, but the damage to the squint goes from a twitch to death.

Hogwash. Can you document that the shot spread from a .410 fired from
a Judge would cover the average residential hallway at the ranges at
which such an encounter is likely to occur? This issue has come up
here before, and we learned that at realistic home-defense ranges the
spread of shot from a short-barreled shotgun is so small as to be
pointless.

A pistol usually has a shorter barrel than most short-barrel
shotguns.

heh,WAY shorter.

BTW,in the US,short-barrel shotguns are NFA weapons,meaning they have to be
registered,the owner fingerprinted,background checked,and a $200 tax paid.


Second, one purpose of a firearm is intimidation. That's why police
agencies abandoned flap holsters many years ago; the mere sight of a
pistol has a calming effect on most slopes. While not a BIG
intimidating factor, the bigger the weapon the more sobering effect
on the stink-eye.

So last paragraph you were painting a picture of a dark hallway in
which one would need to spray shot around to get a hit, but now
suddenly the burglar can see and identify the model of firearm you're
holding and be intimidated by the awesome manliness of your choice of
weapon. More hogwash.

Enemy is not always a burglar, and not always threatening in such
dark
situations. One's self-defense weapon should be useful at
intimidation when seen in lighting conditions that allow it to be
seen, which I expect to be more than 0% of the time.

SNIP stuff from here 1st line of which includes "goofball weapons"

To a crook trying to rob you,appearance of ANY handgun is enough to usually
make them turn and flee.
the LAST thing any crook wants is to get shot,because they'd have to go to
a doctor or emergency room for treatment(or bleed out...fine with me.),and
gunshot wounds MUST be reported to police,meaning that they WILL be
apprehended. Blood at the scene is also evidence.
Crooks would rather flee and pick an easier target,an unarmed victim.
Far safer and less risky for the crook.

Larger handguns are less likely to be carried, because of their size and
weight making for poor concealment and discomfort.

I was hoping you would disagree more with DGDevin than that...

Someone self-defending home, body, life, or limb with a handgun -
I want to be as free to do so with a .357 Magnum revolver with deadliest
rounds, .44 magnum, whatever .45 looks intimidating, .50 "Desert Eagle",
even .500 S&W,
(Even in the unlikely event the perp knows that most human can't
effectively tactically handle a handgun that is majority of an
"elephant gun", and also recognizes the handgun as being better against
buffalo than quick-and-nimble ciminals - though many criminals aren't
so quick-and-nimble.)

I want freedom to use .500 S&W or biggest-baddest that Philadelphia
cops can buy into officially carrying on-duty to be as free to use as
handguns are allowed to use, as whatever weakling handguns are proposed
as alternative to be less restricted. (I prefer to not name examples
of "weaklings" of self-defense handguns, since I prefer more-capable and
more-intimidating-regardless-of-capability handguns to be allowed where
any all are legally allowed - which should be by law-abiding citizens in
all 50 states and DC!)
--
- Don Klipstein )

Jim Yanik wrote:

BTW,in the US,short-barrel shotguns are NFA weapons,meaning they have
to be registered,the owner fingerprinted,background checked,and a
$200 tax paid.


That's why you have your CORPORATION buy the weapon. You still have to pay
the transfer tax, but there's no background check or fingerprinting.

And the best reason to put down on the NFA form as a reason for obtaining
the weapon: "Investment."

DGDevin wrote:
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
A pistol usually has a shorter barrel than most short-barrel
shotguns.

If someone can document that the .410 buckshot rounds that one could
shoot out of a Judge revolver will spread those three pellets out at
least a foot or maybe eighteen inches apart at a range of say twelve
feet (realistic home defense range) then fine, I'll take it as proven
that such a weapon will indeed sweep HeyBub's hypothetical hallway. Can
anyone do that?

A three-inch spread at 21 feet using special defensive ammo
http://gunnuts.net/2010/12/15/winche...0-ammo-review/

In article , DGDevin wrote:


"Don Klipstein" wrote in message ...

A pistol usually has a shorter barrel than most short-barrel shotguns.

If someone can document that the .410 buckshot rounds that one could
shoot out of a Judge revolver will spread those three pellets out at
least a foot or maybe eighteen inches apart at a range of say twelve feet
(realistic home defense range) then fine, I'll take it as proven that
such a weapon will indeed sweep HeyBub's hypothetical hallway. Can
anyone do that?

It appears to me that you are asking for incompacitation by beyond
merely stinging. It appears to me that a perp stung that way can usually
take 15 hours or a day to go to a hospital, (in the only-somewhat-likely
event the wound is worse than home care and a loving spouse,
prospective-spouse or parent can do everything needed.)

And, I expect such better-incapacitation-by-shotguns to be better-done
with barrel length longer than that of most pistols.

Enemy is not always a burglar, and not always threatening in such dark
situations. One's self-defense weapon should be useful at intimidation
when seen in lighting conditions that allow it to be seen, which I expect
to be more than 0% of the time.

Would-be burglar, would-be mugger, would-be carjacker--the notion that
they're likely to size up the bore diameter of one revolver vs. another and
make a calculated judgment that they going to go for it rather than run away
or freeze strikes me as highly unlikely. How many of us here would think,
"Hmmm, that looks like it's only a 16 ga., I think I'll take a run at that
guy," or "I'd surrender if he had a .44, but I ain't scared of no .357."
Get real.

"Ain't scared of no .357" - my Wiki experience so far that fastest
"time to incapacitation" among all rounds mentioned in that area is a
..357 one, more of a champion in that area than .44 magnum according to
Wiki.

As for surrender in face of some but not all handguns - I expect some
perps to be willing to combat ones with .25 single-shot derrigers and
some (orten at their own expense) to be willing to combat persons armed
with .22 handguns.
I expect most law-abiders armed with obviously-multi-shot handguns
at least .357, .38, 9mm, especially anything bigger-"badder" to
at least sometimes out-intimidate criminals packing "lesser heat".
Especially if the good-guys (and gals) take the class that some USA
states require to get a license/permit to "pack heat".

SNIP stuff from here 1st line of which includes "goofball weapons"

Many years ago I worked in a gun shop for a short time, and the owner and
his employees would happily take the money of people who talked themselves
into goofball weapons they saw in Guns & Ammo or Soldier of Fortune or
whatever magazine. The idea of using a handgun chambered for a shotgun
shell as a defensive weapon is hilarious to me, but as I say, the people
who buy such things keep the gun companies in business.

Handgun chambered for a shotgun round, at least primarily for a common
shotgun round, sounds to me even more goofball than a handgun that is
"majority of being an elephant gun" (my words), such as S&W 500.
--
- Don Klipstein )

On 7/9/2011 6:54 PM, DGDevin wrote:


"aemeijers" wrote in message
...

Just keep in mind that fishing lures aren't designed
to catch fish, they're designed to catch fishermen.

Chortle. I love that one- so true! Brings to mind how pet food recipes
are designed to appeal to the human, not the dog or cat.

Yup, and some tools seem to be aimed at the guy who cares what his
neighbor thinks rather than at a pro who uses the tool to make a living.
I don't need flames and skulls on my power tools thanks. ;~)

Ooh, you stumbled on a pet peeve of mine. A couple three years ago, I
needed to buy a drill for screwing down some deck boards. My cordless
didn't have the oomph, and I had recently smoked my 30 YO B&D cheapie
drilling through some 45 YO doug fir top plates to fish wiring. Seems
like every damn drill both big-boxes had in my price range looked like a
damn kid's toy raygun, with two-tone paint jobs, meaningless fins and
fake cooling grilles, etc. I finally went up a notch on price, and
found a Makita that actually looked like a frigging drill- one color, no
fins, etc. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised- almost all the new
cars and trucks currently on the lots look like gigantic 1970s Hot
Wheels cars, with exaggerated cartoon styling cues and all sorts of
pointless bumps and bulges. I guess today's industrial designers are
drawing what they grew up with. Miles Van de Rohe (sp?) would be
spinning in his grave.

--
aem sends...

--
aem sends....

On 7/9/2011 9:35 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:

BTW,in the US,short-barrel shotguns are NFA weapons,meaning they have
to be registered,the owner fingerprinted,background checked,and a
$200 tax paid.


That's why you have your CORPORATION buy the weapon. You still have to pay
the transfer tax, but there's no background check or fingerprinting.

And the best reason to put down on the NFA form as a reason for obtaining
the weapon: "Investment."



What is the current definition of 'short barrel' shotgun? IIRC, the
Mossberg 500 'special service' cheapie sitting in the closet came from
factory with 18.5" or 19" breech-to-muzzle-tip barrel, same length as
the 5-shot magazine. Signed my name, gave them money (it was on sale),
and walked out with it.

--
aem sends...

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 20:26:18 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

DGDevin wrote:

Last year more members of the American armed services committed
suicide than died in combat. But I forget, you don't care much about
stuff like that, since they volunteered their lives can be squandered
in any half-witted adventure the CinC can dream up.

As a percentage, fewer members of the armed services commit suicide than
their same-age-group counterparts in the civilian sector. One could claim,
therefore, that military service REDUCES the incidence of people taking
their own life.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? More likely fewer crazies make it through the
selection process.

On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 22:53:17 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

On 7/9/2011 9:35 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:

BTW,in the US,short-barrel shotguns are NFA weapons,meaning they have
to be registered,the owner fingerprinted,background checked,and a
$200 tax paid.


That's why you have your CORPORATION buy the weapon. You still have to pay
the transfer tax, but there's no background check or fingerprinting.

And the best reason to put down on the NFA form as a reason for obtaining
the weapon: "Investment."



What is the current definition of 'short barrel' shotgun? IIRC, the
Mossberg 500 'special service' cheapie sitting in the closet came from
factory with 18.5" or 19" breech-to-muzzle-tip barrel, same length as
the 5-shot magazine. Signed my name, gave them money (it was on sale),
and walked out with it.

There is a reason you see them with a barrel length of 18.5" or 19". The
legal limit is 18" (overall length 26"). Below that and you have to throw
them back.

On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 22:43:05 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

snip
I finally went up a notch on price, and
found a Makita that actually looked like a frigging drill- one color, no
fins, etc. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised- almost all the new
cars and trucks currently on the lots look like gigantic 1970s Hot
Wheels cars, with exaggerated cartoon styling cues and all sorts of
pointless bumps and bulges. I guess today's industrial designers are
drawing what they grew up with. Miles Van de Rohe (sp?) would be
spinning in his grave.


Seems the odd lines and bulges are more of a PU and SUV trend.
Newer cars all look pretty much the same to me. Not sure though.
I think gas-mileage aerodynamics is dictating a lot of styling.
The Pontiacs with all that side molding is what I always found "ugly
and stupid."
Here's an example.
http://tinyurl.com/3rw9w46

But some people like that kind of thing. Think the Grand Am was the
main Pontiac culprit, and they sold a lot of those.
Hey, I have one in my driveway, a '93, real cheap bought used and a
good runner, so maybe I should just shut up about it..

--Vic

On 6/28/2011 10:43 AM, Jim Yanik wrote:

When did the facts ever agree with "progressives" theories?
they just go on their "feelings",without any factual or rational basis.

"Progressives" are the cause of many of the world's woes.

QUINNs FIRST LAW:

Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.

--
Jack
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject
http://jbstein.com

On 7/1/2011 8:14 AM, HeyBub wrote:

There is a reason I tend to read mostly your posts when I broach a long
thread, and this is but one fine example:

By every measure, energy gulping societies are healthy, wealthy, and wise.
Conversely, those societies who gather sticks to ward off the nighttime cold
live short lives of despair, hunger, and tribulation.

You have a way with words, keep 'em coming.

--
Jack
Got Change: Inconvenient Truth ===== Convenient Lies!
http://jbstein.com

What the environmentalists don't seem to understand is converting to
renewables is not a zero-sum game. EVERY move in that direction costs more
than it profits society.


Again, won't the day we can tell OPEC to go pound sand be a fine day?

It would be a fine day if every child had a pony. It's not going to happen
and it's not even a worthwhile goal. Already several countries can flip off
OPEC (i.e., Sudan, Somalia, Burma, and others).

Further, if it's such a good idea to divorce ourselves from OPEC, that could
be done today with legislation. Doing so, however, would not advance the
goals of the environmentalists inasmuch as oil is fungible. If we don't buy
oil from OPEC, we'll get it from Nigeria. Countries who were getting oil
from Nigeria will then get it from OPEC.

I do agree that riding a bike would be good for us. I recently took a plane
trip from Houston to Buffalo (five hours). Not only did I have to spend four
days in western New York but, equally bad, got hit with a deep vein
thrombosis which resulted in a pulmonary embolism! Five days in the hospital
and $70,000 later, I'm good as new. But I learned a valuable lesson.

Next time I'll consider a bicycle. Or a pony.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 20:26:18 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

DGDevin wrote:

Last year more members of the American armed services committed
suicide than died in combat. But I forget, you don't care much
about stuff like that, since they volunteered their lives can be
squandered in any half-witted adventure the CinC can dream up.

As a percentage, fewer members of the armed services commit suicide
than their same-age-group counterparts in the civilian sector. One
could claim, therefore, that military service REDUCES the incidence
of people taking their own life.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? More likely fewer crazies make it through
the selection process.

Yep, which illustrates why a particular statistic often illuminates the
symptom rather than the underlying problem.

Further, there is the assumed premise that these suicides are a bad thing.

Don Klipstein wrote:

Someone self-defending home, body, life, or limb with a handgun -
I want to be as free to do so with a .357 Magnum revolver with
deadliest rounds, .44 magnum, whatever .45 looks intimidating, .50
"Desert Eagle", even .500 S&W,
(Even in the unlikely event the perp knows that most human can't
effectively tactically handle a handgun that is majority of an
"elephant gun", and also recognizes the handgun as being better
against buffalo than quick-and-nimble ciminals - though many
criminals aren't
so quick-and-nimble.)

I want freedom to use .500 S&W or biggest-baddest that Philadelphia
cops can buy into officially carrying on-duty to be as free to use as
handguns are allowed to use, as whatever weakling handguns are
proposed as alternative to be less restricted. (I prefer to not name
examples
of "weaklings" of self-defense handguns, since I prefer more-capable
and more-intimidating-regardless-of-capability handguns to be allowed
where any all are legally allowed - which should be by law-abiding
citizens in all 50 states and DC!)

Don't forget the rule: "A pistol is used to fight your way to a long gun."

Don Klipstein wrote:

If someone can document that the .410 buckshot rounds that one could
shoot out of a Judge revolver will spread those three pellets out at
least a foot or maybe eighteen inches apart at a range of say twelve
feet (realistic home defense range) then fine, I'll take it as
proven that
such a weapon will indeed sweep HeyBub's hypothetical hallway. Can
anyone do that?

It appears to me that you are asking for incompacitation by beyond
merely stinging. It appears to me that a perp stung that way can
usually take 15 hours or a day to go to a hospital, (in the
only-somewhat-likely event the wound is worse than home care and a
loving spouse, prospective-spouse or parent can do everything needed.)

And, I expect such better-incapacitation-by-shotguns to be
better-done with barrel length longer than that of most pistols.

A "sting" may be good enough. While the goblin is hopping around shouting
"****! That hurts!," you get an opportunity to take better aim.

I can imagine sticking the shotgun (pistol or short-barreled) out the hall
door and letting rip. If I hear some profanity, I can step out the doorway
and finish him off. And the horse he rode in on. And his little dog, too.

aemeijers wrote:

Ooh, you stumbled on a pet peeve of mine. A couple three years ago, I
needed to buy a drill for screwing down some deck boards. My cordless
didn't have the oomph, and I had recently smoked my 30 YO B&D cheapie
drilling through some 45 YO doug fir top plates to fish wiring. Seems
like every damn drill both big-boxes had in my price range looked
like a damn kid's toy raygun, with two-tone paint jobs, meaningless
fins and fake cooling grilles, etc. I finally went up a notch on
price, and found a Makita that actually looked like a frigging drill-
one color, no fins, etc. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised-
almost all the new cars and trucks currently on the lots look like
gigantic 1970s Hot Wheels cars, with exaggerated cartoon styling cues
and all sorts of pointless bumps and bulges. I guess today's
industrial designers are drawing what they grew up with. Miles Van de
Rohe (sp?) would be spinning in his grave.


But just because pistols now come in pastel pinks, teal, and even checks,
doesn't mean they don't work.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 07:40:26 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 20:26:18 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

DGDevin wrote:

Last year more members of the American armed services committed
suicide than died in combat. But I forget, you don't care much
about stuff like that, since they volunteered their lives can be
squandered in any half-witted adventure the CinC can dream up.

As a percentage, fewer members of the armed services commit suicide
than their same-age-group counterparts in the civilian sector. One
could claim, therefore, that military service REDUCES the incidence
of people taking their own life.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? More likely fewer crazies make it through
the selection process.

Yep, which illustrates why a particular statistic often illuminates the
symptom rather than the underlying problem.

Further, there is the assumed premise that these suicides are a bad thing.

Well, that certainly is a personal judgment. I happen to think they are, if
only for the wreckage they leave around them and sometimes not just in the
immediate vicinity.

(Don Klipstein) wrote in
:

In art. , Jim Yanik
wrote:
wrote in :

BIG SNIP be me to this particular point

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.

such ammo generally uses hard metal cores,like steel or tungsten
carbide. Prohibited from import into the US since 1986,IIRC.
civilian handgun ammo is prohibited from having steel or other hard
materials used in their bullet construction. no steel core,no brass
slugs,no carbide cores. the original KTW "armor-piercing" ammo was
designed for police to use against automobiles,but was never put into
production. Then there was the "teflon coated bullet" furor,where the
teflon was only intended to prevent damage to the rifling and make for
better windshield penetration,not for any armor-piercing
quality.(which it doesn't have...)

check out Raufoss ammo.....

I was thinking of usual military small-arms rifle rounds, which in
my
bits of Wiki experience tend to be FMJ "spitzer" bullets.

Such as usual implementations of 5.56x45 mm NATO, and 7.62x51 mm
NATO.

(Although 5.56x45 mm NATO did run into standardization to SS109
bullet, more-penetrating, to penetrate a steel helmet, largely in
response to many complaints of the previous 5.56 mm M193 round
producing devastating wounds.)

According to the Wiki article on 5.56x45mm NATO.

(Then again, what is warfare?)

more soldiers are wearing body armor,too,so penetration has become more
important.

the earlier 5.56 round was not efficient at short ranges because it would
yaw on impact.
when they changed the projectile,they also had to change the barrel rifling
twist rate to better stabilize the new bullet.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

" wrote in
:

On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 22:53:17 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

On 7/9/2011 9:35 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:

BTW,in the US,short-barrel shotguns are NFA weapons,meaning they
have to be registered,the owner fingerprinted,background
checked,and a $200 tax paid.


That's why you have your CORPORATION buy the weapon. You still have
to pay the transfer tax, but there's no background check or
fingerprinting.

And the best reason to put down on the NFA form as a reason for
obtaining the weapon: "Investment."



What is the current definition of 'short barrel' shotgun? IIRC, the
Mossberg 500 'special service' cheapie sitting in the closet came from
factory with 18.5" or 19" breech-to-muzzle-tip barrel, same length as
the 5-shot magazine. Signed my name, gave them money (it was on sale),
and walked out with it.

There is a reason you see them with a barrel length of 18.5" or 19".
The legal limit is 18" (overall length 26"). Below that and you have
to throw them back.


Yeah,ask Randy Weaver about short-barrelled shotguns being trouble....
(Ruby Ridge/ATF-FBI fiasco)

OR,get a NFA registry stamp for a "short-barrelled shotgun",be
fingerprinted,background checked,pay the $200 tax,and be open to F-Troop
doing an unannounced inspection any time they want.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

Further, there is the assumed premise that these suicides are a bad thing.

As a child were you known for torturing animals?

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message ...


Someone self-defending home, body, life, or limb with a handgun -
I want to be as free to do so with a .357 Magnum revolver with deadliest
rounds, .44 magnum, whatever .45 looks intimidating, .50 "Desert Eagle",
even .500 S&W,

I am not disputing your right to own a silly weapon for home defense, I'm
just pointing out the silliness of such a decision. Hey, a flamethrower
would be intimidating as hell and quite effective if you had to pull the
trigger, but it probably wouldn't be your best choice.

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message ...


(Then again, what is warfare?)

A continuation of politics by other means.

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message ...

Preferably call the police to haul away someone giving good appearance
of being lawfully shot in self-defense of life or home, as jurisdictional
law allows.

That's taught in some self-defense shooting courses--always be the one to
call the cops, before or after the fact.

A hungry lawyer or an ambitious DA will be looking for pegs on which to
hang the story that you were looking for trouble etc.

Will a DA be ambitious to prosecute a law-abider doing self-defense
against a criminal?

Hell yes, at least in some states. That's why some self-defense instructors
teach that if you neglect the legal aspects of self-defense you're asking
for trouble. Remember that Oklahoma druggist who shot the armed robber and
then for some reason went and got another gun and shot him five more times
as he was helpless on the floor? The first shot was perfectly legal, the
later shots got the druggist convicted of murder. That is a basic principle
of the law on self-defense, when the threat is ended you must cease
defensive violence, the law does not allow for revenge.

How well would that play, unless needing to be
re-elected in a jurisdiction whose voters favor the criminals?

I recall a case in New York where the owner of an auto-body shop shot a
burglar and the DA charged him with attempted murder on the grounds that the
owner wasn't really working late, he was waiting for burglars since his
business had repeatedly been broken into. Apparently he only dropped the
charges when it became obvious that public opinion was so against him that
he was never going to get a jury to convict. So it seems there are DAs who
will pursue their political biases even in the face of common sense.

On 7/10/2011 4:47 PM, DGDevin wrote:


"Don Klipstein" wrote in message ...


Someone self-defending home, body, life, or limb with a handgun -
I want to be as free to do so with a .357 Magnum revolver with deadliest
rounds, .44 magnum, whatever .45 looks intimidating, .50 "Desert Eagle",
even .500 S&W,

I am not disputing your right to own a silly weapon for home defense,
I'm just pointing out the silliness of such a decision. Hey, a
flamethrower would be intimidating as hell and quite effective if you
had to pull the trigger, but it probably wouldn't be your best choice.

What do you consider a non-silly weapon for home defense? A safe room
and a telephone to call the cops with? You can even have a CCTV system
so you can watch the bipedal vermin tear apart your home then set it on
fire while you're waiting for police to show up. ^_^

I caught a burglar in my business one night and when he threw a brick at
my face and missed, I stomped him until he quit twitching. I thought he
was dead because 375lbs driving a pair of size 14 stomping shoes will do
a lot of damage to the abdomen of your average burglar. I believed the
rat was dead and I decided to throw the corpse into the nearest dumpster
and not report it. When I went to drag the body to the truck, he came to
with a "Oh ****, what have I done?" look on his face. I made him crawl
out the front door into the middle of the street, walked back in
to the shop, shut the door and didn't call it in. A while later I heard
sirens and a fleet of fire trucks and police cars were at the office
building in the middle of the next block tending to a severely injured
two legged predator who had one hell of a story about a pickup truck
load of crazy honkeys wearing Rebel Flag T shirts who jumped him for no
reason. I had no more break ins after that, word got out. :-)

TDD

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message ...


(Then again, what is warfare?)

A continuation of politics by other means.
The original statement Carl von Clausewitz stated it was policy by
other means...

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Jack Stein wrote:
On 6/28/2011 10:43 AM, Jim Yanik wrote:

When did the facts ever agree with "progressives" theories?
they just go on their "feelings",without any factual or rational
basis. "Progressives" are the cause of many of the world's woes.

QUINNs FIRST LAW:

Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.

Heybub's corollary: Most problems in society can be traced to an upstream
liberal program that failed.

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

Further, there is the assumed premise that these suicides are a bad
thing.

As a child were you known for torturing animals?

Er, no. Why do you ask?

To expand, I've met, or heard about, any number of people who, had they
committed suicide, the world would be a better place.

If, however, some miscellaneous person takes his own life, there's generally
no way to know whether his continued existence would be a blessing or a
curse to those around him. We don't and can't know.

Therefore, as I said, you can't always assume that the suicide was a bad
thing.

"I don't think we're in liberal gun free New York city, any
more, Toto!"

"No, Kemo Sabe. No got horse, either."

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

And, I expect such better-incapacitation-by-shotguns to
be
better-done with barrel length longer than that of most
pistols.

A "sting" may be good enough. While the goblin is hopping
around shouting
"****! That hurts!," you get an opportunity to take better
aim.

I can imagine sticking the shotgun (pistol or
short-barreled) out the hall
door and letting rip. If I hear some profanity, I can step
out the doorway
and finish him off. And the horse he rode in on. And his
little dog, too.

Lets make suicide a felony, capital crime, punishable by
death?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...

Further, there is the assumed premise that these suicides
are a bad thing.

Well, that certainly is a personal judgment. I happen to
think they are, if
only for the wreckage they leave around them and sometimes
not just in the
immediate vicinity.

Were those size 14 properly registered? You didn't have them
concealed, by any chance? What was the magazine capacity,
and were they silenced?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in
message ...


What do you consider a non-silly weapon for home defense? A
safe room
and a telephone to call the cops with? You can even have a
CCTV system
so you can watch the bipedal vermin tear apart your home
then set it on
fire while you're waiting for police to show up. ^_^

I caught a burglar in my business one night and when he
threw a brick at
my face and missed, I stomped him until he quit twitching. I
thought he
was dead because 375lbs driving a pair of size 14 stomping
shoes will do
a lot of damage to the abdomen of your average burglar. I
believed the
rat was dead and I decided to throw the corpse into the
nearest dumpster
and not report it. When I went to drag the body to the
truck, he came to
with a "Oh ****, what have I done?" look on his face. I made
him crawl
out the front door into the middle of the street, walked
back in
to the shop, shut the door and didn't call it in. A while
later I heard
sirens and a fleet of fire trucks and police cars were at
the office
building in the middle of the next block tending to a
severely injured
two legged predator who had one hell of a story about a
pickup truck
load of crazy honkeys wearing Rebel Flag T shirts who jumped
him for no
reason. I had no more break ins after that, word got out.
:-)

TDD