massive shooting at Batman projection...

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The area of a .22 bullet is ~.038 sq inches

You do realize that body armor substantially increases the area through which the force is transferred, right? I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that the applicable area is greater than 3 square inches.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

The area of a .22 bullet is ~.038 sq inches

You do realize that body armor substantially increases the area through which the force is transferred, right? I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that the applicable area is greater than 3 square inches.

Go buy a big block of modeling clay. Take a 2x2 and slam it end-on into the clay hard enough to make 1" deep depression. Next take that same 2x2 and slam it without warning it into someone's chest with the same amount of force.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>There is no doubt that the NRA facilitated this crime by helping to ensure that the
>weapons and ammo are readily available and law enforcement is unable to prevent it
>from happening.

But again, you could blame the movie industry even more. There is no doubt they facilitated this crime by having midnight showings, and not having more security guards, and intentionally keeping their theaters in the dark so it would be harder to see what's going on etc. But that's going a bit overboard.

True. I could, but I don't blame the movie industry for this at all.

Quote

The NRA has been pretty consistent in being against gun violence. You can argue "they should do more" which is certainly a valid position. What else should they do?

I never said that I thought that the NRA is FOR gun violence. (Although I do think that many NRA members are convinced that the Constitution gives them the right to use the threat of gun violence against the government in the event that the government passes/enforces laws they disagree with.)

I do believe that the NRA is mainly interested in putting as much weaponry and ammo in the hands of every American citizen with little or no regulation. They are a clear threat to our constitutional form of government because of the insurrectionist propaganda that they use to to undermine efforts to regulate firearms.

What NRA produced material are you reading?

I must say I have never heard them called a threat to our "Constitutional form of Government" before, that is a new one, to me.

Maybe, it is just how one reads things and interprets those same things, based on their Ideology.

Matt

Clearly, you haven't been doing enough reading.

Would you kindly provide a link to the material asked about that you're getting your information from?

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

It was not the Context of the post, but we can't build on that can we?


Matt

This thread isn't all about your post, Matt.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Name one thing that is illegal to own that you can't put your hands on.

Smallpox virus

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

.

The NRA has been pretty consistent in being against gun violence. ?

In much the same way that pedophilic Catholic priests are against sin.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

It was not the Context of the post, but we can't build on that can we?


Matt

This thread isn't all about your post, Matt.

Correct, but your direct reply to me was. I am trying to keep my posts context properly represented. If you just happened to respond to me thinking the "Governor" was Romney, I apologize for allowing that to be assumed.

If your reply was because i mentioned the two Presidential Candidates and how they BOTH called for morning and time to heal as well as to allow the LEA's to do their jobs, you should have addressed Presidents stance as well.

Other wise your posts just look like opportunistic thread highjacks (Ironic, I know, based on this little side ways chat).

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Go buy a big block of modeling clay. Take a 2x2 and slam it end-on into the clay hard enough to make 1" deep depression. Next take that same 2x2 and slam it without warning it into someone's chest with the same amount of force.

You've missed the point in more ways than one.

Your experiment does not adequately simulate the transfer of force. There is also no reason to suspect that the shooter was not expecting return fire. His equipment indicates he probably was.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

So far no evidence to his being able to react to return fire with out distraction. Even those of us with multiple combat tours still react to return fire.

I agree, an arm chair commando is not going to be able to do much. And in this case maybe they add to the mess.

But o would not discount the argument that one, trained, armed legal carry citizen might have made a positive impact.

Today, ABC, with its roundtable, called for the banning of all "assault" weapons, all "Clips" (the Governor doesn't know it is a Magazine) holding more than 10 "bullets", and for all "Automatic" guns. The media and politicians (both sides) have jumped on this and are now rolling along at full tilt to advance their agenda, what ever it may be. The two major Presidential Candidates, are doing it by proxy.

Personally, this guy was going to commit murder, no matter what, and it appears he wanted a higher count but miss timed and misunderstood his neighbors reactions.

It is going to be a bumpy ride if your for Gun Control you just got a few new backers, if you exercise your 2nd Amendment Rights, you're a militant domestic terrorist in waiting.

Matt

The Governor sounds like another POS politician riding on the back of the dead to get a few easy votes with sound bite policies about that which he clearly has not got the first clue about.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

.

The NRA has been pretty consistent in being against gun violence. ?

In much the same way that pedophilic Catholic priests are against sin.

NRA does not equal Gun Violence, but Catholic Priests who ARE Pedophiles does equal a Sin (or law violation for the none religious).

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

To many unknowns for any of you to say nothing would have helped.

Here's what we DO know:

1. Holmes purchased all of the guns, ammo, and equipment he needed legally.
2. There's no government database that would have alerted law enforcement about what he might have been up to.
3. Nobody in law enforcement ever questioned him about why he needed to purchase 100 round magazines.
4. Holmes had no problem transporting his arsenal without government interference.

You can thank the NRA for this situation. They so are feared by every politician in the U.S. that none of them will even think about proposing legislation that would at least help law enforcement to detect such purchases in the future.

No, you can blame one crazy person. You can not legislate us into the world you want to live in. It will never happen. If it were possible to legislate something to the point that you couldn't put your hands on it there would be no drugs available in this country right now.

I'm not a drug user but I could bet you $100 I could leave the house now and be back in an hour with at least 3 different types of illegal drugs.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the drug war.

I think it's a matter of time before the tide turns and assault weapons will be banned. We're not going to give up.

And what would be the point of that? They did it here in the UK and its done nothing to cut 'gun crime' in fact its gone up not down since the ban. They banned them after the Hungerford massacre and it was a stupid uninformed move based on fear and easy votes from a uneducated and ill informed public. To do it again would be just the same but worse as now we know for certain it makes no difference to 'gun crime' and it didn't stop Dunblane from happening a few years later either.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

NRA does not equal Gun Violence

Even though I am not an American and at least for now am back living in my native Canuckistan, but I hope the NRA never goes away. I hope the 2nd amendment always exists in the USA. None of us wants to see innocents murdered like what happened this week in Aurora as well as countless other mass murder shooting sprees. But what is more disturbing than the hundreds of innocents who have been murdered in mass shootings are the estimated 170 million who have been murdered in the last 100 or so years thanks to draconian Gun Control regimes. Funny most of the time we think of the millions murdered by Stalin, murdered by Mao, murdered by Hitler as old history. But Cambodia didn't happen all that long ago, Central Americans were murdered in the 80s and African genocide of the unarmed and vulnerable is still happening. Most of us would agree that the world is over populated. But without the ability to fend for yourself, who is to say that history could not repeat itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDivHkQ2GSg

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[NovaTTT 1]

Quote

In much the same way that pedophilic Catholic priests are against sin.

Foul!

There's a reason the Right to keep and bear arms is the Second Amendment - only one Right is superior.

The Right to free speech is the first and foremost fundamental right, and our forefathers were wise enough to see that.

They were equally wise in seeing the second most important right is the right to defend those words, or to stand up against tyranny, or to protect ourselves and/or our neighbors against any threat.

Ultimately, this tragedy sheds light on the real problem with guns in America: They are wrongly governed! What this country needs is fewer and better gun laws.

Insofar as legally eligible gun owners are concerned, a few simple STATE laws are all that is needed to solve the "gun problem".

1 - Mandatory weapons-handling training for the weapon class and specific weapon owned/purchased.
2 - Mandatory skills assessment/qualification.
3 - Mandatory recurrency (10 year cycle, perhaps).
4 - Unrestricted carry privileges for those who quailify based on 1, 2 and 3.

IMO, that would pretty much take care of situations like the Aurora shootings.

"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

[Skyrad 0]

Sorry but those figures are nonsense, it implies that everyone who was killed would have lived if they had a gun, clearly this is patient nonsense as when a minority against ones own government a gun is pretty ineffective.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Sorry but those figures are nonsense, it implies that everyone who was killed would have lived if they had a gun, clearly this is patient nonsense as when a minority against ones own government a gun is pretty ineffective.

Wherever did you get this idea that nobody would die. Of course people would die. Guns are pretty efficient killing tools and any civil war would result in death. The Western military powers (especially the USA) have proved that they are 2nd to none when it comes to invading a country. But the US military really sucks at occupying a country. Yes the US military does out gun the common armed citizen. But just look at the damage the Iraqi insurgency did and then just imagine how difficult the US/UN government would have if it decided to turn on it's own people. It would be bloody, it would be nasty. But as long as the 2nd amendment exists, as long as the US population is armed, the US people could fight back against their own government. There is no fighting back if you are disarmed by your government.

You can call me all the names you want. You can tell me you think I am full of shit, you can tell me that you believe guns should be banned. But history has a way of repeating itself. However history will not repeat itself in North America as long as the 2nd amendment exists. Oh by the way there are millions of unregistered assets sitting dormant in Western Canada.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

Go buy a big block of modeling clay. Take a 2x2 and slam it end-on into the clay hard enough to make 1" deep depression. Next take that same 2x2 and slam it without warning it into someone's chest with the same amount of force.

You've missed the point in more ways than one.

Your experiment does not adequately simulate the transfer of force. There is also no reason to suspect that the shooter was not expecting return fire. His equipment indicates he probably was.

It sounds like you just want to argue. I've got better things to do. Have a g'day.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It sounds like you just want to argue. I've got better things to do. Have a g'day.

No, I just like to look at things more objectively, rather than through the lens of Hollywood shoot 'em ups or the eyes of armchair hero wannabes. The laws of physics do not lie.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

They were equally wise in seeing the second most important right is the right to defend those words, or to stand up against tyranny, or to protect ourselves and/or our neighbors against any threat.

That's the reason why they agreed on a constitutional form of government putting The Rule Of Law above all else!

It's preposterous to assert that the Second Amendment is there for the purpose of allowing any well-armed citizen to decide which laws they will accept as legitimate through the force of arms. (I believe this is one of the arguments that the NRA included in their amicus brief in the Heller case.)

According to the NRA, "The Framers also sought to ensure a well-regulated militia by guaranteeing private ownership of firearms, as civilian ownership and use of firearms would confer experience and arms invaluable to militia service, and a right of private ownership would prevent the federal government from effectively disarming the populace by declining to organize the militia."

It doesn't matter how many weapons you collect, the Federal Government will defeat you if you try to overthrow it by force. The Civil War should have settled the matter. Nullification through armed conflict is exactly what The Constitution must prevent. Having a bunch of seriously armed insurrectionists each deciding on their own that the federal government is the enemy is the worst possible scenario. It can only lead to chaos and tyranny.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It's preposterous to assert that the Second Amendment is there for the purpose of allowing any well-armed citizen to decide which laws they will accept as legitimate through the force of arms.

Agreed.

Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Seems pretty clear.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

It's preposterous to assert that the Second Amendment is there for the purpose of allowing any well-armed citizen to decide which laws they will accept as legitimate through the force of arms.

Agreed.

Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Seems pretty clear.

Yes it is. It applies to well-regulated militia. It doesn't apply to any schmuck who wants to arm himself to the hilt at the neighborhood Wal-Mart because he thinks that he may someday need to defend himself *against his own government*.

[billvon 2,380]

>True. I could, but I don't blame the movie industry for this at all.

That's fine. Just keep in mind that there are plenty of people who won't blame the NRA (or guns) at all - and their position is just as valid as yours.

>They are a clear threat to our constitutional form of government because of the
>insurrectionist propaganda that they use to to undermine efforts to regulate firearms.

I've never seen them publish any "insurrectionist propaganda."

[billvon 2,380]

>In much the same way that pedophilic Catholic priests are against sin.

No, more like the way many churches are against sin. Individual priests (and individual NRA members) may violate the law; that does not mean the organization supports them.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

>In much the same way that pedophilic Catholic priests are against sin.

No, more like the way many churches are against sin. Individual priests (and individual NRA members) may violate the law; that does not mean the organization supports them.

Unfortunately, all too often the organization takes steps to protect such priests. It's not unreasonable to consider such protection to be a kind of support.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

>They are a clear threat to our constitutional form of government because of the
>insurrectionist propaganda that they use to to undermine efforts to regulate firearms.

I've never seen them publish any "insurrectionist propaganda."

I suppose you'll want to argue about what "publish" means, but here's one small example:


"I think it's Katrina. I think it's terrorism. I think it's crime. And I also think that it's people worrying about [whether] they'll be attacked by politicians," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "They're suspicious, and justifiably so."

Here's another gem by NRA celebrity spokeman, Chuck Norris:

“How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?”

If that isn't insurrectionism, then what is?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

It sounds like you just want to argue. I've got better things to do. Have a g'day.

No, I just like to look at things more objectively, rather than through the lens of Hollywood shoot 'em ups or the eyes of armchair hero wannabes. The laws of physics do not lie.

but it's very easy to misapply the "laws of physics."

Quote

While a vest can prevent bullet penetration, the vest and wearer still absorb the bullet's energy. Even without penetration, modern pistol bullets contain enough energy to cause blunt force trauma under the impact point. Vest specifications will typically include both penetration resistance requirements and limits on the amount of impact energy that is delivered to the body.

(Wiki)

of course the body doesn't go flying back on impact. But a broken rib definitely slows you down. The ceramics you refer to do more but do not survive many hits.