arma virumque cano (et alia)
Black powder guns generate low velocity, and the soft lead of the Minie' ball expanded rapidly. A lot of the deaths in the Civil War came from infection, thanks to the pieces of cloth and other trash that the bullet took into the wound with it.
Teddy Roosevelt was saved from a bullet by his 50 page speech and his eye glass case.That was considerably later, and with a more modern weapon and ammo.And yet Roosevelt was famous for a comment he made at the Minnesota State Fair, walk softly and carry a big stick.Not act belligerently, as so many gun carriers do, and not carry a big gun either.It would be as logical to assert that modern ophthalmology saved the life of Roosevelt as to assert that divine intervention or religion saved the civil war soldier.It does however illustrate very well that we have the option of making firearms less lethal. That was the premise - altering equipment so as to result in less injury and death - when automobile safety began to be treated as a public health issue.Time to do apply that same approach to firearms. Let's reduce the numbers of injuries, deaths, and especially accidents, as well as the number of firearms that go from legal to illegal owners, through the wonders of science (and some common sense in place of delusional emotional thinking).
Roosevelt was shot with a .38 S&W black powder cartridge. The velocity tops out in the 700 ft/sec range. But it's interesting that you would say that he wasn't belligerent, considering the details of his life. He was an active hunter and carried a gun regularly--not on the day that he was shot, though.Dog Gone, if you make a firearm "less lethal," it won't be effective any more. You want to reduce this and that and the other, but ultimately, you want to ban guns from private ownership.You call for common sense. Have you been hanging out with Joan Peterson too much lately? How about reason instead. That's my choice.
Greg, I would appreciate it if you would keep me out of this discussion. I have not weighed in on it yet but now I will since you mentioned my name in a demeaning way, as you guys are want to do. No one is going to ban guns. But you will never admit to that because it doesn't fit with your agenda. Just keep going with your ludicrous statements though if it makes you feel good. And, by the way, I do not know dog gone. We have never met. I would suggest that you stop casting aspersions on people you don't know. It's unbecoming and unnecessary.
No deal, Joan. You take a dismissive tone with anyone who disagrees with you. I find it hard to believe that you don't know Dog Gone. The two of you live in the same (admittedly large) state and are activists on the same subject. She certainly does comment a lot on your blog. She used your favorite phrase, common sense. And now, here you are to whine about it within a few minutes of my comment.You call my comments ludicrous, but they're based on facts and reasoning and on the fact that I value freedom. You refuse to allow an open discussion on your blog, something that shows your sympathies. What you fail to understand is that you aren't our grandmother and we aren't sitting around your dining room table. When you get snippy, don't bother having a fainting spell. I won't care. The better approach would be for you to get up and leave. We don't need you around.How about this, Joan: You stop trying to take away my rights, and I'll refrain from mentioning you ever again.
Japete, did you mean to say all guns? Clearly you want to ban lots of guns, for example AR-15 pattern guns which is the best selling rifle platform in the country. And you want to ban guns that have never killed anyone in this country (guns chambered in .50 BMG). Whom are you trying to appeal to when you say “No one is going to ban guns”?
TS, you guys are the ones who misuse the word ban. You say it to conjure up the proverbial jack-booted thugs going door to door for your precious guns. That's what you infer with your use of the word. We don't mean that. The prohibition of certain items is different from a ban, unless you want to do what Greg love so much and argue over picky little points.
No, Mikeb, you want words to be meaningless--look up NewSpeak for an explanation. Joan and you have both called for bans on many kinds of guns. If you ever get those banned, what's to stop you from trying to ban a new class of firearm? We know what you want. You're not fooling us.
Well, when I use the word “ban” I mean it to apply to prohibitions on certain items- be it “assault weapons”, or magazines that carry more than 10 rounds, or guns chambers in .50BMG, or “partial birth abortions”. And considering that The Brady Campaign also uses that word the same way, as well as Josh Sugarmann, President Obama, and the actual text of the legislation uses the word that way… I am more inclined to believe that you are the one misusing the word.
Do I have this correct, the feral liberals are suggesting the best defense against a gun-toting criminal is a book? LOL!orlin sellers
Doggone, Mike doesn't like vehicle comparisons to firearms on his blog. He says that never works. So if your going to open the subject of cars and guns, I can work up a long list for you. As I am sure a LOT on here could.Want to go down that "road"?
Actually I don't mind comparisons that make sense.