An Army colonel's open letter to morons who videotape shootouts with smartphones

[Charles Kozierok]

A great read if you don't know much about guns, and just as good a read if you do.

 

[werepossum]

That is a good read, quite witty. Although now I have a mental image of someone sheltering behind a fiberglass bathtub . . .

 

[RampantAndroid]

Same thoughts I had seeing those photos. I'm all too well aware of the fact that rounds can clear MULTIPLE walls in a home, if it somehow misses all the conduit, studs, glass and whatever else. I guess it just shows how little people think in these situations....curiosity killed the cat, right?

 

[Murloc]

yeah those people are really retarded hanging like that.
That house looks like a wooden box, probably not safe.

 

[beachchica]

Soooo... the one thing I didn't see there was... citizens who fire back. Just sayin'.

If there's a gunfight and they can tell the difference between the good guys and bad guys, why not fire at the bad guys?

 

[DrPizza]

Soooo... the one thing I didn't see there was... citizens who fire back. Just sayin'.

If there's a gunfight and they can tell the difference between the good guys and bad guys, why not fire at the bad guys?

Uh, because the police can't tell the difference between the good guys and bad guys? As soon as you pull the trigger, you made yourself a target.


And, fwiw, as a teacher, we've had to go through training, etc., for what to do. At lunch, a coworker was completely convinced that a desktop was sufficient to stop a bullet.

 

[Jaskalas]

And, fwiw, as a teacher, we've had to go through training, etc., for what to do. At lunch, a coworker was completely convinced that a desktop was sufficient to stop a bullet.

Maybe his desk was made of Kevlar.

 

[DrPizza]

Maybe his desk was made of Kevlar.

She was going to have students put the desks on their side & lie down behind them to stop bullets if there were ever a school shooting. I was amused when she claimed expertise because she owned rifles. Though, she didn't know the caliber of the rifles she owned. Then it was one rifle she inherited from her grandfather. LOL. I think the colonel is vastly overestimating how much people know about guns who don't own guns - and, that's obvious from much of the gun debate. She, like many people, think that "assault weapons" are deadlier than hunting rifles, which are "relatively harmless compared to an assault rifle." Again, lol.

 

[Scotteq]

Soooo... the one thing I didn't see there was... citizens who fire back. Just sayin'.

If there's a gunfight and they can tell the difference between the good guys and bad guys, why not fire at the bad guys?

The law here, and I'm sure in MA as well, is that you may fire in direct response to an attack on *yourself* or "persons in your care". And only in cases where there appears to be a real threat to life and limb. So for example, (wife's friend) is at my house and (abusive ex) comes to my house and assaults her with a tire iron. In such a scenario, it's likely I could successfully defend myself in court that shooting the guy was justifiable. But I can't shoot him for less. If he was just hollering at her, or just smashing some inanimate object (her car) instead of assaulting her person, then shooting him would not be justified and I would go to prison if I did that.

In your scenario, there is no direct threat to the bystanders. Therefore, firing would be illegal.

 

[Moonbeam]

While everything the colonel said is factual I don't think it's being morons that keep folk from acting on this. I think many value being front seat over the fear of getting shot like folk who go the racetrack edge to watch NASCAR events. I think calling them morons precludes a deeper analysis of this as all assumptions and preconceptions do. I think that for many people exposing themselves to danger is the only time they feel truly alive. Why is a bit of a story.

 

[drinkmorejava]

The energy in a bullet is 1/2mv^2. His f=ma stuff is all nonsense.

 

[Moonbeam]

momentum (P) = M*V

E = P^2/2M

E = MV*MV/2M

E = 1/2*V^2

So is it the momentum or the kinetic energy that gets you?

 

[woolfe9998]

The article was amusing. I for one don't have to be told any of that though. If I hear bullets, I will run in the opposite direction as fast as my legs can move, and not stop until they give out.

 

[Quantos]

I think the point isn't that people don't care about the danger, but rather that they don't know of it. It's true that, often, movies and TV shows have the police look at the round that ended up in the wall, or an otherwise rather thin piece of material. Of course, whether the round will cross an obstacle or not depends on numerous factors, most of which will not immediately be known by people in the vicinity of a shooting (guns and caliber being used for instance). Thus, if there's a shooting, I'm going in the windowless room of my basement :biggrin:

 

[Exterous]

I think the point isn't that people don't care about the danger, but rather that they don't know of it. It's true that, often, movies and TV shows have the police look at the round that ended up in the wall, or an otherwise rather thin piece of material.

His point about hiding behind the doors of a cop car was a good one - although that is hardly limited to the 70s. Movies and TV shows use all manner of stupid 'bullet proof' items: books, couches, tables

Not to mention you almost never see innocent bystanders get hit with stray bullets unless they are right next to the target

So while people may know that bullets are dangerous I think they have enough indoctrination about a false sense of security that the fear and concern they should have isn't enough to override curiosity.

 

[Scotteq]

momentum (P) = M*V

E = P^2/2M

E = MV*MV/2M

E = 1/2*V^2

So is it the momentum or the kinetic energy that gets you?

Kinetic energy is the usual measure, which favors smaller faster objects. Though note it's a subject of endless debate, much like Horsepower versus Torque among Auto enthusiasts.

 

[JTsyo]

The law here, and I'm sure in MA as well, is that you may fire in direct response to an attack on *yourself* or "persons in your care". And only in cases where there appears to be a real threat to life and limb. So for example, (wife's friend) is at my house and (abusive ex) comes to my house and assaults her with a tire iron. In such a scenario, it's likely I could successfully defend myself in court that shooting the guy was justifiable. But I can't shoot him for less. If he was just hollering at her, or just smashing some inanimate object (her car) instead of assaulting her person, then shooting him would not be justified and I would go to prison if I did that.

In your scenario, there is no direct threat to the bystanders. Therefore, firing would be illegal.

Wasn't the whole point of the letter that the bystanders are in danger so they shouldn't be bystanders?

 

[JTsyo]

momentum (P) = M*V

E = P^2/2M

E = MV*MV/2M

E = 1/2*V^2

So is it the momentum or the kinetic energy that gets you?

its' the wound. A small fast bullet with AP features won't do as much damage as a slow round that doesn't come out the other side. What he was talking about was penetration, what can the bullets go through BEFORE it gets to you. Of course in that case too, like posted above, you want to look at energy since it would be hard to measure the decelerations as it go through items.

 

[smackababy]

The law here, and I'm sure in MA as well, is that you may fire in direct response to an attack on *yourself* or "persons in your care". And only in cases where there appears to be a real threat to life and limb. So for example, (wife's friend) is at my house and (abusive ex) comes to my house and assaults her with a tire iron. In such a scenario, it's likely I could successfully defend myself in court that shooting the guy was justifiable. But I can't shoot him for less. If he was just hollering at her, or just smashing some inanimate object (her car) instead of assaulting her person, then shooting him would not be justified and I would go to prison if I did that.

In your scenario, there is no direct threat to the bystanders. Therefore, firing would be illegal.

Depends on the state's castle law. In Texas, you can shoot someone on your neighbor's property if you feel they pose a threat to life. A lot of states abolish the duty to retreat in any location. So, shooting the suspect would be perfectly legal.

However, it might not be a great idea because police might believe you are also a threat. In such an event, you had better be prepared to surrender immediately and explain your situation afterwards.

 

[Scotteq]

Depends on the state's castle law. In Texas, you can shoot someone on your neighbor's property if you feel they pose a threat to life. A lot of states abolish the duty to retreat in any location. So, shooting the suspect would be perfectly legal.

However, it might not be a great idea because police might believe you are also a threat. In such an event, you had better be prepared to surrender immediately and explain your situation afterwards.

Depending on the measure, NJ is the second strictest state in the nation: Below NY, above CA. We have Castle Doctrine here, but police are required to arrest in the aftermath of any incident at all. They can not let you go. You will go to jail prior to your arraignment. You will be charged. And you will have to defend your actions as Justifiable at a Grand Jury. Here, castle doctrine and justification are viewed as an "Affirmative Defense". That means the courts view it as an established scenario... not a free pass.

 

[smackababy]

Depending on the measure, NJ is the second strictest state in the nation: Below NY, above CA. We have Castle Doctrine here, but police are required to arrest in the aftermath of any incident at all. They can not let you go. You will go to jail prior to your arraignment. You will be charged. And you will have to defend your actions as Justifiable at a Grand Jury. Here, castle doctrine and justification are viewed as an "Affirmative Defense". That means the courts view it as an established scenario... not a free pass.

It varies from state to state. Texas is probably one of the most liberal in castle laws. I believe the only requirements are you are legally allowed to be at the premise, cannot be committing a crime, and have reason to believe the perpetrator will commit murder, rape, sexual assault, assault, or robbery.

 

[Moonbeam]

Wasn't the whole point of the letter that the bystanders are in danger so they shouldn't be bystanders?

I think so and my point on momentum vs. kinetic energy was that talking in terms of momentum wasn't nonsense but probably more intuitive to understand for the average person than kinetic energy and they are closely related anyway.

 

[Scotteq]

It varies from state to state. Texas is probably one of the most liberal in castle laws. I believe the only requirements are you are legally allowed to be at the premise, cannot be committing a crime, and have reason to believe the perpetrator will commit murder, rape, sexual assault, assault, or robbery.

/ nod

and as responsible people, we familiarize ourselves with the laws in our locales well in advance.

 

[Scotteq]

I think so and my point on momentum vs. kinetic energy was that talking in terms of momentum wasn't nonsense but probably more intuitive to understand for the average person than kinetic energy and they are closely related anyway.

If I may add: bullet design counts as well: Military ball ("full metal jacket") penetrates further than Hollow Points, which penetrate further than "Frangibles" (designed to come apart). This, in addition to the bullet weight and velocity formulas you guys are looking at.

 

[drinkmorejava]

I think so and my point on momentum vs. kinetic energy was that talking in terms of momentum wasn't nonsense but probably more intuitive to understand for the average person than kinetic energy and they are closely related anyway.

He could have talked about momentum and I wouldn't have said anything. But he said F=ma, which is not momentum.