Jump to content

The Miscellaneous Liberal\PC BS\Commie Gibberish\Clown World\Lame Hunt Jokes\Corporate Virtue Signaling Thread

Featured Replies

2 hours ago, paco said:

Yes :lol: 

 

My Ruger Mark VI I can hit anything with it.  The Glock 21, not so much.  (My Glock 19 I do ok with).  Honestly, i think its because the 21 has a much shorter barrel so my aim is all wack.  Lets just say shooting them has give me a healthy respect for how hard it is to be effective with them.  So when I see scenes like this, I have to laugh:

 

 

I think you’re anticipating recoil. 

  • Replies 14.6k
  • Views 482k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

Posted Images

48 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

sigh.

all of that is nice information that does not practically challenge a damn thing I'm saying. kinetic energy is commonly used as a stand-in for the combination of mass + velocity that a round hits the target with. that's it.

yes, I realize that it is a an approximation. and that there are many other variables that contribute to lethality: did the projectile pass through soft tissue and not hit bone? did the projectile hit a major organ? was it a hollow point round? 

I was trying to not complicate the conversation by getting dragged into the nuances of how individual rounds may or may not react under different circumstances. because this is where "gun experts" try to dismiss "laymen" like myself because "we're ignorant".

so let's discuss this:

wow. that basically says EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING. you keep saying "the kinetic energy means nothing!" then you go on to say that it's really the velocity (which is half of the calculation of kinetic energy - F = ma, with a in this case being negative acceleration of an object being "slowed down" by things like, I don't know, bones and organs) that can only come from a rifle (not a handgun) fragmenting upon sudden deceleration (hitting a body, especially a bone for example).  

the round "destabilizing" HAPPENS BECAUSE OF KINETIC ENERGY. it is literally the fact that the bullet size is relatively small but the velocity is so damn high that causes this "destablizing" effect that results in such tremendous damage.

"lethality has nothing to do with kinetic energy. no no. because you're just some emotional guy who doesn't know about guns. it's really about how the kinetic energy is converted into bond energy that results in fragmentation of the round spreading the damage to various critical organs at once! you dumb not-gun guy."

(I may not "know guns" like you, but I majored in mechanical engineering with an emphasis on materials engineering)

if we want to get into the lethality against humans of an AR-15 vs. a handgun, let's read a bit from the doctors who treated the wounds: https://gizmodo.com/doctors-want-you-to-know-how-much-damage-rifle-bullets-1823503094 

I mean, I know you probably know more about guns than these doctors. good on you. 

here's some more: https://www.wired.com/2016/06/ar-15-can-human-body/

then you say this:

that is so incredibly wrong from a physics standpoint it boggles my mind. kinetic energy in this context is literally the measurement of how much energy a projectile has; it is a factor of 1. its velocity and 2. its mass. and those are the two primary factors of ballistics. of course the shape of the round matters. but its mass and velocity are the bulk of what matters in ballistics. and because an AR-15 round is relatively small but the velocity is so high, hitting what you're aiming for and hitting it at a velocity that causes "fragmentation" is enhanced. 

regarding the Glock, yes I'm aware it (and other handguns) are tied to the vast majority of deaths. however, despite the total numbers of deaths, it's worth noting that handguns are the most commonly owned gun. and despite being tied to more deaths, handgun wounds are much less commonly fatal than rifle wounds.

it's also not lost on me that handguns are the primary weapon owned for home protection in the United States. to me this is a much bigger gray area. Americans have a right to defend themselves and their home.

the difference with semi-autos like the AR-15 and handguns is the ability to dole out lethal force to multiple targets in a short period of time. if you want to start discussing Glocks vs AR-15s, I'd ask you this: which would you rather be shot with, if you were faced with the impossible choice?

The fact that you’re citing bond energy further enhances my position and shows how little you know about the construction of rounds. Because bond energy isn’t what causes them to separate. Which is why I didn’t mention bond energy. 
 

If kinetic energy is the issue, then why does a 77gr 5.56x45mm round traveling at 2100fps have the same wound profile as a 55gr 5.56x45mm round traveling at 3100fps, when they have different joules?
 

Also you’re thinking too much on mechanics and not enough about fluid. 
 

Just because you have a degree in it doesn’t mean you are good at it. 
 

 

8 minutes ago, Bill said:

Just because you have a degree in it doesn’t mean you are good at it. 
 

 

A123CA90-15D2-4C4C-A2C7-CB98661B48EF-1031-0000015C7410C452.gif

12 hours ago, bobeph said:

Quality retort their, Ricky Retardo. :roll:

Says the guy who thinks logical fallacies are some sort of liberal conspiracy. You get the replies you deserve. 

9 hours ago, Bill said:

Just because you have a degree in it doesn’t mean you are good at it.

A lot of people who post here are unaware of this fact.

 

 

1 hour ago, Tnt4philly said:

Says the guy who thinks logical fallacies are some sort of liberal conspiracy. You get the replies you deserve. 

Nice straw man there, sheet for brains. :roll:

10 hours ago, Bill said:

The fact that you’re citing bond energy further enhances my position and shows how little you know about the construction of rounds. Because bond energy isn’t what causes them to separate. Which is why I didn’t mention bond energy. 
 

If kinetic energy is the issue, then why does a 77gr 5.56x45mm round traveling at 2100fps have the same wound profile as a 55gr 5.56x45mm round traveling at 3100fps, when they have different joules?
 

Also you’re thinking too much on mechanics and not enough about fluid. 
 

Just because you have a degree in it doesn’t mean you are good at it. 
 

 

jesus christ dude. your refusal to move past my use of kinetic energy is impressive. as I stated already it was a simplification, and that it doesn't cover everything but unless we wanted to get into the specifics of the shape of individual rounds it was more than sufficient for the discussion. KE is meaningful, but I never said it drew the full picture. but that in no way detracts from my original point, which you refuse to engage on.

you instead decided it was better to shift the argument somewhere else (which I was trying to avoid but bit on anyway, my bad.)

THE POINT I was making, and one you heretofore have refused to acknowledge or engage on, and instead would rather pontificate about how since I didn't write an essay taking every possible consideration into account and demonstrate my vast knowledge of ballistics, is that what makes a weapon like the AR-15 different is the amount of damage it can inflict in a very short amount of time.

Yes, I used KE as part of this argument, and rather than grappling with the main point you chose to make an issue of my use of KE. because that's where you think you can make a better argument. Notwithstanding that KE is an imperfect measure but one used broadly by medical and forensic specialists to convey the concept of "potential bodily harm" different firearms and rounds represent, I'm well aware that KE alone is not enough in every situation, and how that energy is delivered and dissipated by the body is going to determine the severity of the wound (not to mention whether it hits soft tissue, organs, and/or bone). this is where one would need to get into fragmentation velocity and difference between specific types of rounds fired from the same weapon - something that depends on various other factors (target distance, entry point on the body, type of round, etc.)

yet you want to make the argument entirely about that rather than grappling with the actual premise of the argument.

do you want to have a good faith discussion? or do you just want to duck behind the fact that no, KE is not the be-all end-all in lethality and there are other factors at play?

even if we're basing some measurement of "lethality" on a single round, a single shot from an AR-15 is more likely to be fatal than a single shot from a 9mm Glock all other thing being equal. yes? or are you just going to be obstinate in your "well you don't understand that KE is not the be-all end-all and fluid dynamics of the body come into play so ... I'm totally right" position? 

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

jesus christ dude. your refusal to move past my use of kinetic energy is impressive. as I stated already it was a simplification, and that it doesn't cover everything but unless we wanted to get into the specifics of the shape of individual rounds it was more than sufficient for the discussion. KE is meaningful, but I never said it drew the full picture. but that in no way detracts from my original point, which you refuse to engage on.

you instead decided it was better to shift the argument somewhere else (which I was trying to avoid but bit on anyway, my bad.)

THE POINT I was making, and one you heretofore have refused to acknowledge or engage on, and instead would rather pontificate about how since I didn't write an essay taking every possible consideration into account and demonstrate my vast knowledge of ballistics, is that what makes a weapon like the AR-15 different is the amount of damage it can inflict in a very short amount of time.

Yes, I used KE as part of this argument, and rather than grappling with the main point you chose to make an issue of my use of KE. because that's where you think you can make a better argument. Notwithstanding that KE is an imperfect measure but one used broadly by medical and forensic specialists to convey the concept of "potential bodily harm" different firearms and rounds represent, I'm well aware that KE alone is not enough in every situation, and how that energy is delivered and dissipated by the body is going to determine the severity of the wound (not to mention whether it hits soft tissue, organs, and/or bone). this is where one would need to get into fragmentation velocity and difference between specific types of rounds fired from the same weapon - something that depends on various other factors (target distance, entry point on the body, type of round, etc.)

yet you want to make the argument entirely about that rather than grappling with the actual premise of the argument.

do you want to have a good faith discussion? or do you just want to duck behind the fact that no, KE is not the be-all end-all in lethality and there are other factors at play?

even if we're basing some measurement of "lethality" on a single round, a single shot from an AR-15 is more likely to be fatal than a single shot from a 9mm Glock all other thing being equal. yes? or are you just going to be obstinate in your "well you don't understand that KE is not the be-all end-all and fluid dynamics of the body come into play so ... I'm totally right" position? 

JohnSnowsHair: *Makes factually incorrect statement about guns.*

Bill: *Calls out JohnSnowsHair repeatedly on incorrect statement after JohnSnowsHair digs heels in.*

JohnSnowsHair: Why can’t you move past this factually incorrect statement that I keep making every post?

 

The problem is that you’re too obtuse to see what I’m getting at.  Statistically speaking I’m more likely to get shot by a handgun than I am a rifle. Any rifle. Statistically speaking I’m more likely to get beaten to death than I am killed by a rifle shot. Any rifle. Then you look at where you guys are scared of guns: the active shooter. Here’s the thing. You’re trying to ban something that is used to create a statistical anomaly within a statistical anomaly.
 

You’re saying that we should ban them because they are more lethal than other types of firearms.  I get that. What you don’t get is that their used in so little crime that there is no point. Which I’ve tried to address. It would be like banning Mack trucks to end vehicle v. pedestrian accidents because they’re so big and powerful. While I imagine getting hit with a Mack truck is not a fun experience, statistically speaking when I’m crossing the road I’m more likely to get hit by a regular car, not a dump truck.  
 

Also, as you’ve posted earlier in this thread, banning drugs doesn’t work. What makes you think gun bans do? (Hint: the only things trafficked more than guns in the world are women and drugs.)

11 minutes ago, Bill said:

JohnSnowsHair: *Makes factually incorrect statement about guns.*

Bill: *Calls out JohnSnowsHair repeatedly on incorrect statement after JohnSnowsHair digs heels in.*

JohnSnowsHair: Why can’t you move past this factually incorrect statement that I keep making every post?

 

The problem is that you’re too obtuse to see what I’m getting at.  Statistically speaking I’m more likely to get shot by a handgun than I am a rifle. Any rifle. Statistically speaking I’m more likely to get beaten to death than I am killed by a rifle shot. Any rifle. Then you look at where you guys are scared of guns: the active shooter. Here’s the thing. You’re trying to ban something that is used to create a statistical anomaly within a statistical anomaly.
 

You’re saying that we should ban them because they are more lethal than other types of firearms.  I get that. What you don’t get is that their used in so little crime that there is no point. Which I’ve tried to address. It would be like banning Mack trucks to end vehicle v. pedestrian accidents because they’re so big and powerful. While I imagine getting hit with a Mack truck is not a fun experience, statistically speaking when I’m crossing the road I’m more likely to get hit by a regular car, not a dump truck.  
 

Also, as you’ve posted earlier in this thread, banning drugs doesn’t work. What makes you think gun bans do? (Hint: the only things trafficked more than guns in the world are women and drugs.)

Stop Stop Hes Already Dead GIF - TheSimpsons HeIsAlreadyDead Stop GIFs

  • Author

Take this to the NRA Thread.... 

unDiAx9jMiM=

 

4 minutes ago, iladelphxx said:

Take this to the NRA Thread.... 

unDiAx9jMiM=

 

Amen

Is this what it's come to?  We now follow people who cut us off, and flip us off, home, harass and doxx them, then others eagerly await the publication their personal info so that they can continue the harassment of that person?  What the f is wrong with everyone?

 

 

His twitter is a fun read :lol:

 

55 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Is this what it's come to?  We now follow people who cut us off, and flip us off, home, harass and doxx them, then others eagerly await the publication their personal info so that they can continue the harassment of that person?  What the f is wrong with everyone?

 

 

What a d-bag. 

3 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

What a d-bag. 

Leave zuke alone.  What do you think about the guy in the video?

:P

2 hours ago, The_Omega said:

Is this what it's come to?  We now follow people who cut us off, and flip us off, home, harass and doxx them, then others eagerly await the publication their personal info so that they can continue the harassment of that person?  What the f is wrong with everyone?

 

 

Hard to say who is worse. She is awful, but he is a relentless a-hole.

 

2 minutes ago, rambo said:

 

The democratic party, ladies and gentlemen!

26 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

Hard to say who is worse. She is awful, but he is a relentless a-hole.

Soooooo...

A giant **** vs. a Turd Sandwich?

Giant Douche/Turd Sandwich Blank Template - Imgflip

Maybe 2020 isn't the disease, we are and 2020 is the cure.  :ph34r:

  • Author

This is still my favorite video of all time:

 

  • Author

I just saw this on Facebook Marketplace.... Screenshot_20200623-163122_Facebook.thumb.jpg.90ff87fcee911a3c44bb37d580da42a2.jpg

lg=

 

71481B81-4AAB-4D6B-B10F-33799C44639E.jpeg

🤣🤣🤣

Create an account or sign in to comment