Summations Only

It's a bullet that can pierce body armor, and given that it's the AFT that wants to ban it, I'd further guess that it can pierce the type of body armor that ATF agents wear.--Percy

That comment was part of reply to Petro's over-the-top response about Nazis, camps and ovens. It was an attempt to return the focus to a core issue of the gun debate, public safety. So no, that's not what I was saying. Obviously if this is point "(i)" then there must be an "(ii)", so there was no point in carefully chopping off the "or" that followed this clause if you weren't going to chop off the "(i)" too. There are evidently a couple ways they define armor piercing bullets. I of course lack the knowledge to assess how well M855 fits within this definition:

quote:

---

(B) The term armor piercing ammunition means---

​

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and
which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other
substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron,
brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium; or

​

(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended
for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25
percent of the total weight of the projectile.

---

But these details are not why I posted that article, which was to highlight the power of the gun lobby.--Percy

I lack your familiarity with guns and ammunition, but according to the original article I cited (ATF director steps down after bullet ban controversy) it was about ammunition for handguns: And this is from the same document we've been quoting from, the ATF Framework in Question:

quote:

---

Applying the sporting purposes framework set-forth above, the 5.56mm projectile that
ATF exempted in 1986 does not qualify for an exemption because that projectile when loaded
into SS109 and M855 cartridges may be used in a handgun other than a single-shot handgun.
Specifically, 5.56mm projectiles loaded into the SS109 and M855 cartridges are commonly used
in both AR-type rifles and AR-type handguns.

---

So I guess it does meet the ATF definition of an armor piercing bullet. Apparently they were making sense, but the gun lobby forced the ATF director to step down anyway.--Percy

The paragraphs at the top of page 4 immediately after the definition address this, mentioning a specific bill and describing Congressional intent. I hear your metal content concerns, but the article expends a lot of space discussing it. They're making an argument that given other factors that the metal content definition shouldn't be an obstacle to banning this ammunition category.If to you this makes the ATF incompetent then I have no problem living with that. I've never had any particular views of my own concerning the competence of the ATF, and my original point was about something completely different, the power of the gun lobby.--Percy

This appeared in the news today. The deputy accidentally fired his gun instead of his tasar: And then of course there's the murder of Walter Scott in South Carolina. Here's the most recent item of news about it: I wonder if those responsible for firearm deaths, intentional or not, are increasingly charged and possibly convicted of manslaughter and murder if it will begin to change attitudes among the pro-gun crowd.--Percy

9 Killed in Biker Shootout at RestaurantFrom the article: I think more guns is the answer.--Percy

Nothing like a conspiracy theorist in full kemmer.--Percy

Yes there is - good topics for other threads.--Percy

The above misses the mark of being analogous to the statement about gun risks by quite a bit. These two statements are both accurate and analogous:

• Assuming that guns are purchased for protection, then when a gun is purchased it is more likely to injure or kill its owner and/or its owner's family and friends than be used for protection, its intended purpose.

• Assuming that cars are purchased for transportation, then when a car is purchased it is more likely to be used for its entire lifetime for transportation, its intended purpose, than it is to injure or kill someone.

The better one weighs relative risks and benefits based upon the information at hand, including statistics, the safer and better off one will be.It's worth mentioning again that over 50,000 people used to die in vehicle related accidents every year in the US, but now despite a greater population and many, many more miles driven per person, less than 30,000 people die every year. This is primarily due to improved vehicle safety features, primarily in automobiles. Guns could be made safer, too.--Percy

A car's intended purpose is not to hurt or kill criminals, nor anyone else. In other words, a car's purpose is not personal protection. Please see my Message 3480. How are you defining the term "responsible gun owner"? Responsible gun owners would want strong guns laws that keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible gun owners, they'd want safer guns, and they'd want effective answers to the problem of how one keeps a gun available for protection while making misuse and theft very unlikely. How many "responsible gun owners" are there exactly?Based on the discussion here I'd guess the answer is "a very tiny percentage of gun owners," so given the lack of responsible gun owners I'd have to agree with your statement that it is more likely for people to be killed by a motor vehicle driven by an irresponsible operator than by a gun wielded by a "responsible gun owner."Also based on the discussion here it seems that to a gun nut the definition of a responsible gun owner is "me!" And the definition of an irresponsible gun owner is anyone who makes the news injuring or killing someone or ones.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Hi Jon,I'm not sure why you think you have an effective argument there. You can decide to ignore the statistics, but the statistics clearly say that owning a gun increases your risk of being a gun victim.--Percy

I think what you're trying to say is that everyone accepts a degree of risk, but that's not the same thing as ignoring consequences. What actually takes place is a balancing of risks and benefits.Concerning guns, the purchase of a gun is hopefully being made while balancing the risk of injury and death to you, your friends and loved ones against the benefit of providing protection. Those deciding to purchase a gun believe the risk/benefit balance favors improved safety. That's what the gun advocates in this thread have been arguing. This is the first I'm aware of someone arguing that gun owners know guns diminish safety but want them anyway.--Percy

The statistics you're using for your example are off by a very large amount. The fatality rate for vehicles in the US is one per 100 million vehicle miles. If the round trip drive to dinner is around 10 miles then the risk of being killed is around 0.00001%, not 1%. While riding in a car is probably most people's activity of greatest risk, it's still a very, very small one. For comparison, in the US the odds of being struck by lightening in any given year are about the same as driving to dinner ten times.You go on to say: But the risk of dying while driving to dinner is far, far less than you thought, and it isn't an example of people foolishly ignoring serious consequences of perceptible probability. There's been no indication of that in this thread. All the arguments from the gun advocates have been about how gun possession makes them safer.--Percy

Aside from the fact that you're doing a statistical apples to oranges comparison (starvation requires an accumulation of missed meals that increases the risk of death exponentially, while driving a car has nothing analogous - the fact that you drove yesterday has no impact on the risk of death from driving today), this wasn't even your argument. You weren't arguing that the risk of starving to death from missing one meal is less than being killed while driving to dinner, something that no one would dispute (ignoring that some people are diabetic or have other health issues).You were arguing something different, that people were foolishly ignoring dangerous risks by driving to dinner, and that that was an example of the same thing gun advocates do when they ignore risks they probably understand by purchasing a gun.But driving to dinner is not risky, and gun advocates have not exhibited any indication of accepting that guns decrease safety.--Percy

Just to correct some erroneous information posted above, on average approximately 90 people are killed in motor vehicle related accidents each day in the US.--Percy