Guns are 'cool'?

[wetelectric]

Shooting someone:

When you say that you always thought people fell down and bled to

death, you’re on the right track. I’ve seen a number of people shot in

my 20-something year career in law enforcement. Some of them dropped

dead; some of them were displaced backward a bit and fell to the

ground. Others weren’t fazed at all and continued to run or advance as

if nothing has happened to them, inevitably succumbing to their wounds

in a delayed manner (a load of dope onboard one’s system can sometimes

enable this rare phenomenon).

A .38 caliber and .45 caliber are large caliber bullets. They travel

at a low velocity, which makes them relatively easy to stop. If they

hit someone in the chest it’s like hitting them with a baseball bat

and it “can†knock them off their feet at close range. The impact of

the round again the SURFACE of their body is the causative event.

A .357 and .44 Magnum rounds are large caliber, heavy bullets, that

travel at high velocities. These are more likely to knock a man down

if they hit him in a particularly resistant place that’s hard to

penetrate, but as close range they’ll often go right through him.

Because the velocity is much higher, the bullet doesn’t slow down

until after its much deeper into the body. The impact of the bullet

against the interior surface of the body where the bullet EXITS is

usually the event that knocks them down – if they are knocked down at

all.

In either of these cases, the man is knocked down but for different

reasons of physics. If you add into the mix ammunition that is

designed to split into pieces on impact, or spread out flat or

“mushroom†on impact, the results will differ from one other.

On the other hand, any of these calibers can cause instant clinical

death and spontaneous drop of they sever a large vessel (such as an

aorta, for example) or hit the heart or brain. In the case of major

vessels or the heart, this is relative to a massive drop in blood

pressure. In reality the person falls unconscious due to the drop in

blood pressure or shock and death follows in only a few seconds or

minutes, giving the appearance that he “dropped deadâ€. Where the brain

or spine is concerned, obviously enough damage can cause instantanous

death and, as they say, he "died before he hit the ground". This is a

figure of speech of course and merely indicates that a person was

fatally wounded to such a degree that no amount of aid would have

helped him.

In the case of a high-powered rifle where the velocity is tremendous,

a through-and-through would is not at all uncommon. Such a wound would

put someone in instant shock and he’d likely drop like a stone, or at

a distance may be sent tumbling down from the impact.

The truth is, you can shoot ten different people with the same gun and

get ten different results. As a rule though, (unless you are using an

unusually high powered firearm or a shotgun) a person appears to be

knocked back a foot or two and falls unconscious. In reality, the

actual event, however, is no more remarkable than if he were stung in

the middle of his chest by a bee or a wasp and recoiled backward from

the unexpected shock of it, lost his balance, and fell.

The scenes in the movie where people are lifted off their feet and

knocked head-over-heels across the room when Clint Eastwood shoots

them with his Colt .45 are entertaining concepts to some people, but

in general they are purely theatrical and totally unrealistic. In my

personal experience, if you shoot a man in the chest he will go into

shock and fall down no matter what you shoot him with. If you shoot

him with something big enough, he will fall down and die. Either way,

they normally FALL down rather than get KNOCKED down.

The argument might be that a 200 lb. deer gets knocked down, so a

human being should be knocked down too. The explanation there is three

fold: First, a deer normally gets shot with a high powered rifle,

which can certainly knock him or a person for a loop on impact, but

that's not what we're discussing here. Second, a deer's center of

gravity and reaction to the impact is different from that of a human,

and finally, while a deer has four legs rather than two, only a square

inch or so of his hooves are on the ground at any given time, making

him much easier to imbalance.

If you ever saw a human get shot in real life, my guess is that if you

didn't hear the report of the gun (like on a surveillence film with no

sound), you'd initially have a hard time figuring out for certain what

had actually happened to him, or at what precise point the shot was

fired. It's that unremarkable an event.

Being Shot:

My name is Jesse (online name Danny Bishop). I myself was shot--in the

chest--on November 27th, 1994, at point-blank range with a .22" magnum

revolver (single-action, convertable--to.22" LR with alternate

cylinder). The bullet was likely 40-grain; the type: .224 caliber high

velocity (WMR--Winchester Magnum Rimfire, MAxiMag), with a nominal

muzzle velocity of 1,550 fps, from a likely 6.5" handgun barrel

(applied pressure, point blank: 324 foot pounds per sq. inch). I can

tell you--not from watching it happen--but from actually experiencing

it, exactly what it was like. First of all, there was the most

incredible, shocking impact you could ever imagine--equivalent with

having an M-80 (quarter stick of dynmamite) go off in your shirt

pocket--and I can tell you, I was sent reeling. It felt like I was

thrown back good 2-to-5 feet or more, as my legs gave out on me.

There was simultaneously, a feeling like a bomb went off INSIDE of my

chest, and that of being jack-hammered through my chest wall--all of

this, all at once. Then, everything semed to go into slow motion, as

undoubtedly, a large amount of adrenaline was released from my adrenal

medulla, causing my central nervous system synaopses to fire

faster--like a high-speed camera, producing a slow motion effect. I

was later told that the bullet (not surprisingly) ricocheted around in

my chest like a pinball, first penetrating my entire chest mass,

fracture and bounce off my left scapula, hurle back through my chest

again, fracture a rib, and then bounce back through, trace a path

around another rib (and puncture the pleural lining of my left lung),

next flying straight into my spinal collumn, fracturing my T-9 and

T-10 thoracic vertebrae, and transecting my spinal cord (I am now

paraplegic). Feeling all of this, all at once, was equivalent roughly,

I suppose, was like being shot three times or more, not to mention

that waves of paresthesia (tingling) echoed and serged throughout my

body. My feeling in my legs was gone, just like that, at the same time

I was flying backward--into a chair and a desk. Oddly, at that moment,

I was hell-bent on protecting my head. Finally, laying on the ground

in that room, only a good 30 seconds or so post-impact, I felt my left

lung begin to squeeze, and my breaths were agonizingly painful and

teribly short. Every breath was a knife turning in my lung. Then, I

began to loose my vision--like white-out erasing my visual field) as I

began to go into hypo-volemic shock (low blood volume). I lost my

ability to see temporarily, and could not tell what was going on

around me. Then I passed out for what was probably thirty minutes. It

was a darn miracle that I did not die, as a doctor later told me, the

bullet almost 'curved' around my heart, within a centimeter or two of

hitting it or a major blooc vessel (it could have easily hit me right

in the inferior, or even the superior, veina cava, near the heart

muscle, in which case death would have followed in 1-2 minutes or even

fewer, and unconsciousness in thirty seconds or less. As to the

question: 'Does a person writhe in agony?'--No, I personally did not

WRITHE in agony, like I had been lit on fire, but I was instantly

thrown into the most excruciating, truly agonizing experience of pain

I have ever known--and I have had chronic spinal pain ever since,

being on prescriptions such as morphine sulfate, Dilaudid

(hydromorphone HCl) and levorphanol tartrate. The reason I was not

WRITHING in agony is I was knocked into a state of indescribable

shock, and was incapable of much, if any movement. However, after

waking up thirty minutes or so after passing out, I managed to sit up,

despite my paralysis, and I still remember--even though my pain had

deminished somewhat at that point, due... undoubtedly, to endorphin

release--the feeling of warm blood pouring down my shirt, and adding

tot he pool of blood underneath me, the veinous flow coming directly

from the now hot, burning wound on, and in, my chest. I laid there for

about four more hours before someone found me--I could barely whisper,

much less yell, due to my 16% or so lung capacity, and as it turns

out, nearly two liters... the amount of fluid in a large soda pop

bottle, on my left lung... like a refridgerator crushing the left side

of my chest--and by the time the paramedics got there, I was in utter

shock. I was also beginning to hurt so badly again that no words can

describe it. It was horrible. Hospitalization was no picnic either,

let me tell you. Even after draining off the fluid once with a chest

tube--a rubber catheter inserted through your ribs, into the pleural

lining of your lung, they gave me what is known as positive-pressure

respiratory treatment, and the inflation of my lung popped a blood

vessel and caused additional pleurasy, and another 'hemothorax'.

Originally, I also had air trapped in my chest--a pneumothorax, which

they had to releave with a cannula. That hurt too! After two

additional chest tubes and having to bear down to force the

reddish.-brown fluid out of my chest cavity and into a collector, I

finally regained around 98% lung capacity, amazingly, and then--one

month after arriving at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in the Bay

Area, California, I began Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation. I had to

learn to deal with having little control over my bowels, having to

learn how to do a 'bowel program' with suppositories, and the fact

that I had no feeling in my groin--meaning no future physical sexual

feelings, and no ability to masturbate--and still having a huge sex

drive... how do you like that?--I had almost no way to relieve

tension, escept exciesize, for endorphin release, and taking my pain

meds. What made it worse was, before I was shot, at age 16, I had

never had sex, and never had a girlfriend, eventhough I can say

honestly I am, and have long been, a very attractive man. And even

though I have had half a dozen girlfriends now, ten years later,

dating was no fun... having to explain my limitations. In October of

2003 however, I had one of the happiest days of my life, howver, when

I married my wife, Jennifer. My dad was my best man. However, even

being married, and having a willing sexual partner, I find myself

doing almost all of the pleasing, and I suppose I will never know what

it is like to be inside a woman--to actually FEEL it at all--or orgasm

therein. Any of you out there who have had there experience, count

yourselves as lucky. Unless there's sex in there Hereafter--and I hope

there is... with my wife, I'm talking, right now--I suppose I will

never know what sex is like. You have no idea how angry that makes me,

and how much pent up sexual frustratipn a guy has after a decade of no

orgasmic release. Hey, that may sound shallow, but TRY IT SOME TIME.

It's funny, though. So many people, when finding out I was shot in the

chest, ask the same question. "Did it... hurt?" Um, yeah, it was the

most agonizing thing I ever experience, and could ever imagine

experiencing, and so I can definately say, 'It wasn't like a massage.'

But hey, I understand what fascination people have with pain and

extreme injury. After all, before I was shot, watching action movies,

I wondered what it was like. Some people have imediate endorphine

releases and never have such pain symptomatology. I remember lying in

bed, in the hospital, with this bloddy patch over theupper, left

quadrant of my chest, thinking, "Wow. Was I really shot? Am I really

shot??" it's hard to believe, when it happens to you. And assuming, if

you will, that there's an Afterlife, I bet people, being delivered the

news that they are dead, think/say to themselves, "Wow. Am I really

dead? Dead?" Anyway, I won't bore you any further. I'll just leave you

with, "Being shot--does it... hurt?" Yes, sir-ee, my friend. It most

certainly... does. So now you know, like I have... for ten years. : )

[kickarse]

Wow that was a great read... really makes you think doesn't it?

[VaKo]

Weapons are cool, mainly because you know exactly what you can do with one. I remember being back at art college with a hippy women who was *really* left wing, and for some reason or another I brought in a replica handgun for a discussion about the design. As it went round the room it was weird to see how quickly people would start aiming at others. But the most interesting reaction was the hippy lady, she refused to pick it up for some time but the second she did you could see the look of power in her eyes. Really quite odd to have someone in a CND t-shirt pointing a Glock at your head.

I think weapons are look cool because we don't want to be reminded what there for.

[Shaun]

I have a sort of contradictory view on guns, on one hand I sort of like the idea of having and firing a gun, it seems kind of cool, but on the other hand if I were given the chance I would probably uninvent them. I'm not sure how much progress they have brought us. Of course it would be implausible to uninvent them without us loosing knowledge which has brought progress such as that of using explosives for mining.

[VaKo]

Humans like killing things, and we also happen to be pretty good at making things. Devices like guns would be impossible in uninvent simply because its such a simple idea. Wars are good for us in some respects, they make us think on our feet and reinforces the idea that freedom isn't free.

[Shaun]

Well uninventing something is pretty impossible anyway (at least when it's such a widewspread technology, I suppose if only one person knows about something they can uninvent it) so it's a bit of a moot point anyway.

[SomeoneE1se]

my view is that guns are like cars you have to train to prove you can use a car safely but not a gun? Both are tools to make life easier and both can be dangerous in the wrong hands. That being said, guns are cool because media makes them powerful and a good guy(read cool hero) always seems to have one.

[CaveMan]

long read

[cooper]

Guns suck because they are too easy.

They level the playing field in a fight between two people, but they also elevate the 'game' from a regular fight to a fight to the death. A lot of people don't seem to understand this, and will bring out their weapon at the first sign of trouble.

Because guns are so easy to acquire in certain places, can be used by a 4-year old (as has sadly already been proven) and are such a deterrent (flashing a gun equates to "fuck with me and I will KILL you") that people will treat you with elevated dignity, even when you don't deserve it.

[Shaun]

Guns suck because they are too easy.

They level the playing field in a fight between two people, but they also elevate the 'game' from a regular fight to a fight to the death. A lot of people don't seem to understand this, and will bring out their weapon at the first sign of trouble.

Because guns are so easy to acquire in certain places, can be used by a 4-year old (as has sadly already been proven) and are such a deterrent (flashing a gun equates to "fuck with me and I will KILL you") that people will treat you with elevated dignity, even when you don't deserve it.

I think guns also make killing somone a much more detached thing. When you stab someone you physically have to drive it into them and it's a much more viscious thing. With a gun it's just like pushing a button. It makes it a lot easier to kill someone on a crazy impulse when you emotions get out of control.

[unasoto]

1 If you uninvented the gun then people would use swords, bows and arrows or lasers or invent something to replace the gun.

2 Gun control is finger off the trigger and safty on untill the sights or on the target. :)

[Shaun]

1 If you uninvented the gun then people would use swords, bows and arrows or lasers or invent something to replace the gun.

2 Gun control is finger off the trigger and safty on untill the sights or on the target. :)

1. People could never kill easy other on such a grand scale until guns (and bombs) were invented.

2. Yeah, I'm sure all the gang members who use guns (and children who find guns) all follow that little rule.

[unasoto]

1 If you uninvented the gun then people would use swords, bows and arrows or lasers or invent something to replace the gun.

2 Gun control is finger off the trigger and safty on untill the sights or on the target. :)

1. People could never kill easy other on such a grand scale until guns (and bombs) were invented.

2. Yeah, I'm sure all the gang members who use guns (and children who find guns) all follow that little rule.

1 you forgot about the last part lasers, masers, Ion, or what ever they invent next because someone will invent a better weapon.

2 what we need is gang and child control laws. :P

[Shaun]

There are no laser or other radiation weapons anything like current guns. To make a laser an effective weapon requires a ridiculous amount of power which makes it pretty much impossible for any hand-held laser weapon to exist with any current or forseeable technology. There are already laws which attempt to control gangs, but pretty obviously they are completely ineffective.

[kickarse]

1 If you uninvented the gun then people would use swords, bows and arrows or lasers or invent something to replace the gun.

2 Gun control is finger off the trigger and safty on untill the sights or on the target. :)

1. People could never kill easy other on such a grand scale until guns (and bombs) were invented.

2. Yeah, I'm sure all the gang members who use guns (and children who find guns) all follow that little rule.

Explosives, at least in small scale, have been used for centuries. The only difference is the technology that attaches itself with the explosive, to make it even more dangerous.

http://www.explosives.org/HistoryofExplosives.htm

Cannons were essentially the first "guns". They were created until around the 12 Century AD.

http://armscollectors.com/gunhistorydates.htm

...

Probably the most important discovery isn't the GUN or BOMB but the propellant, black powder.

...

That said, humans most certainly would have found another way to kill one another in hand to "hand" combat. But whats more logical than a projectile in an small form that can do alot of damage. It might have been called something else, but did essentially the same thing.

Humans are always inventing new ways to kill one another. Watch the show Future Weapons for more info on the Discovery channel in the US.

To say guns themselves are good but the people who use them is essentially true. In the same vein as knives or cars. It's how and what you use them for. Early settlers not only used guns in combat but also to get food. Sure you could've used a bow and arrow, but you needed to be highly skilled. With a gun, point and click (for the most part, but a shotgun has a wide dispersion).

A reason so many Indians died were because of guns, and obviously miscommunication and a taking over and abuse of land.

Even if guns were abolished, humans would still kill one another. Despite the detached feeling of shooting someone to death, unless you actually rip their heart out or strangle them, your going to be a little bit detached from the death.

This is the reason why only a select few of the Marines, Army, etc. are trained to kill in actual hand to hand combat, etc. If most got close enough to a person that was mortally wounded, they wouldn't have what it takes to finish them off. There's a huge difference between sniping from 1,000 yards and then coming up in front of the enemy and shooting him point blank in the head or chest.

FPS shooters don't help. While I do play them and enjoy doing so, it does give you a surreal feeling when watching tv programs or movies where people are killed, an apathy toward the one dieing, no movement of the heart.

[Shaun]

I know explosives have been used for centuries, but I didn't say explosives, I said bombs, and what i really mean is bombing with planes (which wasn't really used on a wide scale until the Spanish Civil War). And when I say guns I mean what people refer to in modern times as guns, not cannons. Early cannons especially were unreliable and dangerous for the user anyway. I think handguns are the main problem guns in today's society, and those are the thing I would most like to uninvent.

I think there is a difference between a gun and knives and cars in that the only use for a gun is to kill. Plenty of guns and ammo are designed specifically to kill humans.

Of course there was the need to kill animals for frontiersmen during early settlement of the new world, but I don't think it would have made a huge difference if they had to use a bow, yes it requires skill, but people have used bows for millenia and it's just something you had to learn if you needed to hunt.

[kickarse]

I know explosives have been used for centuries, but I didn't say explosives, I said bombs, and what i really mean is bombing with planes (which wasn't really used on a wide scale until the Spanish Civil War). And when I say guns I mean what people refer to in modern times as guns, not cannons. Early cannons especially were unreliable and dangerous for the user anyway. I think handguns are the main problem guns in today's society, and those are the thing I would most like to uninvent.

I think there is a difference between a gun and knives and cars in that the only use for a gun is to kill. Plenty of guns and ammo are designed specifically to kill humans.

Of course there was the need to kill animals for frontiersmen during early settlement of the new world, but I don't think it would have made a huge difference if they had to use a bow, yes it requires skill, but people have used bows for millenia and it's just something you had to learn if you needed to hunt.

This is true...

A gun was designed for killing, it is not like a knife that was created out of necessity to cut up meat for eating or cut down trees to build a hut then later used for something unintentional. It was invented to kill humans, primarily.

[VaKo]

Not just to kill humans, we've had weapons since before we were humans (look at the chips they found hunting monkeys with spears and clubs). We probally "invented" weapons as an extension of the human body, since thats what our technology is essentially. Extensions. So you can't get rid of weapons without getting rid of a part of what it is to be human. And without violence we wouldn't be having this conversation on the internet, we would probally be dieing from The Consumption in a straw hut on a farm somewhere.

[ferret]

I own many legal pistols and rifles and have used them in self defense. I don't think people should see them as cool. i own them because my family an I were attacked once when we lived in a big city. My mom was beaten and had her purse taken. We knew that the idiot criminals now would come to the house and want to rob it. Or that they might. so I went out and bought an assault rifle. I loaded a 30 round magazine and stayed in house with the lights off. Of course the idiot criminal showed up to rob us. When he was trying to open a window I went around the house(my heart was beating like a mad rabbit at this point) and I pointed the colt ar15 at him ans said you want to die asshole. I said if you move I will shoot you. he moved and I blasted a few rounds in the ground next to him. My friend next door called the police and he is now in prison for 15 years. The only person that can help you is your self. don't ever compare a person who like me owns a gun and bought it leagally to a scum bag criminal who is out to harm people. And yes If he would have went at me I would have shot him. Its not like a lifetime movie where I would have handed him the gun and cried. I carry my pistol all the time when I go out. I was a boy scout and they said be prepared.

[W4RP3D]

A gun was designed for killing, it is not like a knife that was created out of necessity to cut up meat for eating or cut down trees to build a hut then later used for something unintentional. It was invented to kill humans, primarily.

My knowlege on guns is huge, but i disagree with this ^^. This is because back a few years ago, some WW1 expert came and gave a lecture on trench warfair. He said that most guns (well back then anyway) werent designed for killing but more for disabling. Logically this makes a sense bullets arent the largest things and unless it hits you in a vital organ or head its not going to kill you out right. I would imaging a large percentage of gun shoot victoms dont die. To garrentie a kill for each shot the bullet surly must be quite large.

Also I think that the fact that you can own a hand gun legaly in the US. Is rather stupid (please all you pro gun people dont flame me here). Here in the UK its very rare that there is a shooting because its much harder for people to get hold of guns, people wont go outand by a gun for protection and therefore people dont wip it out and have a stand off with someone else.

[killzone]

Enter:: Pro_Gun && Lifetime NRA member && 2nd Amendment Activist.

W4RP3D:: The "size" of a round actually not as important as you may think.

What matters is the grain (mass) of the round, shape, design characteristics, and its velocities (both impact velocity and muzzle velocity)......and also to some extent how it impacts you.

Larger bullets != greater impact. in fact like in the original post your more likely to die from being shot with a .22 then a larger caliper from that range due to the aforementioned characteristics.

SECONDLY:

The U.S. is not the Wild West. There are very strict gun laws here...in most states....and gun law is largely governed by state law, not national law.

There are very rarely any type of stand off between civilians with permits, and any type of government official.

Similarly there are very few instances where civilians with lawful gun permits are involved in shootings or armed conflicts with criminals.

Lastly: It is just as easy here as anywhere for criminals to get guns. Having fewer citizens lawfully carrying guns would not affect the ability of criminals to obtain them. And it is the criminals who engage in armed conflicts with government officials.

AND your a non US Citizen so your ill informed opinion about gun ownership in America, and or Gun laws in America, is a mute point and should be kept to yourself.

[digip]

Enter:: Pro_Gun && Lifetime NRA member && 2nd Amendment Activist.

W4RP3D:: The "size" of a round actually not as important as you may think.

What matters is the grain (mass) of the round, shape, design characteristics, and its velocities (both impact velocity and muzzle velocity)......and also to some extent how it impacts you.

Larger bullets != greater impact. in fact like in the original post your more likely to die from being shot with a .22 then a larger caliper from that range due to the aforementioned characteristics.

SECONDLY:

The U.S. is not the Wild West. There are very strict gun laws here...in most states....and gun law is largely governed by state law, not national law.

There are very rarely any type of stand off between civilians with permits, and any type of government official.

Similarly there are very few instances where civilians with lawful gun permits are involved in shootings or armed conflicts with criminals.

Lastly: It is just as easy here as anywhere for criminals to get guns. Having fewer citizens lawfully carrying guns would not affect the ability of criminals to obtain them. And it is the criminals who engage in armed conflicts with government officials.

AND your a non US Citizen so your ill informed opinion about gun ownership in America, and or Gun laws in America, is a mute point and should be kept to yourself.

Well said.

[kickarse]

A gun was designed for killing, it is not like a knife that was created out of necessity to cut up meat for eating or cut down trees to build a hut then later used for something unintentional. It was invented to kill humans, primarily.

My knowlege on guns is huge, but i disagree with this ^^. This is because back a few years ago, some WW1 expert came and gave a lecture on trench warfair. He said that most guns (well back then anyway) werent designed for killing but more for disabling. Logically this makes a sense bullets arent the largest things and unless it hits you in a vital organ or head its not going to kill you out right. I would imaging a large percentage of gun shoot victoms dont die. To garrentie a kill for each shot the bullet surly must be quite large.

The WW1 expert was probably right about WW1, but not for all the history of guns. It's original aim, no pun intended, was to kill. If it didn't then that's something that they had to deal with.

[Garda]

I guess getting shot must have destroyed this person's ability to write in paragraphs.

[Arsenic]

I guess getting shot must have destroyed this person's ability to write in paragraphs.

+1 Digg :D