• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is the news media biased, or just stupid on firearms?

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Lonbjerg said:
You link just confirmed my arguments...thanks for the laugh.
Click to expand...

Confirmed your argument? The guy is 10 times as fit as the shooter was, he was hit with a rather small 9mm ONCE in the stomach (on purpose mind you) and had he been pointing a gun and shooting his immediate reaction would have at least temporarily prevented him from continuing to do so. Now, your argument is that this dweeb could have taken 2 or 3 rounds, quite likely to be more powerful than the one in the demonstration, and he would have been completely unphased???

Oh yeah, what happened to the "equal and opposite reaction" there buddy? Why didn't the shooter feel the same splitting pain that the one who got shot did?

One thing you were right about, this ain't hollywood. Wearing a bulletproof vest doesn't make bullets bounce off of you having absolutely no effect.
 
eskimospy said:
Is this going to turn into a Treyvon Martin/George Zimmerman thread where everyone wildly speculates about scenarios they just made up in their heads? No one can possibly know what would have happened.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. I personally couldn't imagine even thinking about pulling my weapon and returning fire in a packed theater with people running everywhere, at the same time this is one of those situations that none of us have a clue what we would have done. However, the argument was really about the jackass who thought bulletproof vests make bullets bounce off of you and have absolutely no effect on the person who got shot.
 
Darwin333 said:
Wearing a bulletproof vest doesn't make bullets bounce off of you having absolutely no effect.
Click to expand...

It certainly worked for the Hollywood shooters...in that video bullets *literally* bounce off of them.

9mm too, if I remember correctly. Granted, the distance of travel was greater than it would be in a movie theater, but the environmental conditions were certainly better. There's also several videos on the net of CEO's self testing their ballistic materials, at point blank range, with little to no effect.
 
eskimospy said:
Why? What do you think will happen? I really can't foresee any circumstances where he will avoid conviction outside of an insanity defense, and in many cases mental facilities for the criminally insane are worse than prison. I personally don't believe in the death penalty so I wouldn't support that, but even if your primary goal is his suffering I'm not even sure that the death penalty is the worst thing for him.
Click to expand...

Really? I have never heard this before, did you read it somewhere? First hand experience maybe? (just kidding bud)
 
Darwin333 said:
Really? I have never heard this before, did you read it somewhere? First hand experience maybe? (just kidding bud)
Click to expand...

From what I've read about New York and their mental institutions and exploitation of mentally ill, I'd have to agree with eskimospy.
 
etrigan420 said:
It certainly worked for the Hollywood shooters...in that video bullets *literally* bounce off of them.

9mm too, if I remember correctly. Granted, the distance of travel was greater than it would be in a movie theater, but the environmental conditions were certainly better. There's also several videos on the net of CEO's self testing their ballistic materials, at point blank range, with little to no effect.
Click to expand...


We aren't talking about someone who is experienced in taking shots to his body armor. The bullet stills impacts all of its energy into the vest which then transfers it into the body. Depending on the type of vest and the round you are hit with people have gotten broken ribs by stopping a bullet with a vest. Like the guy said in the video, you will still get hurt, you might still get injured, but you won't die.... and that is from a single 9mm round and the guy wearing the vest was a lot bigger and stronger than the shooter.
 
Darwin333 said:
We aren't talking about someone who is experienced in taking shots to his body armor. The bullet stills impacts all of its energy into the vest which then transfers it into the body. Depending on the type of vest and the round you are hit with people have gotten broken ribs by stopping a bullet with a vest. Like the guy said in the video, you will still get hurt, you might still get injured, but you won't die.... and that is from a single 9mm round and the guy wearing the vest was a lot bigger and stronger than the shooter.
Click to expand...

Unless the shooter got lucky and hit a head shot, which ballistic helmet or not, is going to fuck your game up.
 
karmypolitics said:
No, it's usually something like you're talking about like sports or a movie or something and then OUT OF THE BLUE AND TOTALLY UNRELATED a gun nut will mention his gun as casually as a married man mentions his wife.

And yeah, then you look at the guy weird.
Click to expand...

Some gun owners are like that but the vast majority are not. Most people deliberately avoid mentioning owning guns when they know the other person will have a problem with it. I know I have some friends who would probably be shocked to know I own a gun.
 
xj0hnx said:
What are you even talking about? Making up scenarios to fill the void in the reality of your statement is lame. I am sure there are a few socially inept gun enthusiast out there that blurt out about guns during normal conversation, but it isn't some "problem" that runs rampant through the gun owner community. Get a grip.
Click to expand...

The "problem" that runs rampant through the gun-owner community is the almost obsessive fear of being attacked and the orgasmic fantasy of being the righteous hand of justice "putting down" the evil-doers.
 
shira said:
The "problem" that runs rampant through the gun-owner community is the almost obsessive fear of being attacked and the orgasmic fantasy of being the righteous hand of justice "putting down" the evil-doers.
Click to expand...

Granted, there are some like that...unfortunately.

They are the vocal (and rather annoying) minority though.

I equate them to protesters who engage in vandalism. The protest loses credence when a few "thugs" ruin it.

Most of us just go about living our lives. :\
 
etrigan420 said:
Granted, there are some like that...unfortunately.

They are the vocal (and rather annoying) minority though.

I equate them to protesters who engage in vandalism. The protest loses credence when a few "thugs" ruin it.

Most of us just go about living our lives. :\
Click to expand...

I posted a thread about this issue a few months ago, but like if you think about it, a gun is kinda cumbersome to carry around. It is a pound or more, and can be bulky, and isn't really something that you use on a regular basis unlike your phone or wallet.

In other words, to carry a gun around means that you are inconveniencing yourself with no "payoff" 99/100.

That's ultimately why I decided not to get a gun, when you consider how you would use it and the cumbersomeness of it. I suppose if the crime rate rose high enough I would consider it, or if I were employed in a high risk occupation like delivery driver.
 
shira said:
The "problem" that runs rampant through the gun-owner community is the almost obsessive fear of being attacked and the orgasmic fantasy of being the righteous hand of justice "putting down" the evil-doers.
Click to expand...

shira said:
So you're telling us that the adverb "often" properly applies to the phrase "getting shot [while] wearing body armor?"

Are you talking Afghanistan here, or just day-in-the-life urban-warfare America?

LULZ You gun guys really crack me up.
Click to expand...

You should stick to your Global Warming trolling, you're not very good at the whole anti-gun thing.
 
shira said:
The "problem" that runs rampant through the gun-owner community is the almost obsessive fear of being attacked and the orgasmic fantasy of being the righteous hand of justice "putting down" the evil-doers.
Click to expand...

How much time do you spend with the "gun community"? What is your sample size to form this sweeping generalization?

Obviously a fringe exists, a fringe will exist among any group. What you are suggesting is kind of like when some of the OWS protesters were caught jacking off in public or shitting on a police car. That behavior obviously runs rampant throughout the entire OWS community like the "problem" you describe above running through the gun community.

If you, and others (turns and glares at Karmy across the room) are truly interested in debating gun rights and control, educating yourself on basic terminology, laws, gun owner demographics, .etc, would go along ways in taking you seriously. Some of the shit being spouted is so off base and factually incorrect we might as well be speaking different languages.

But I am guessing you will instead continue using hyperbole and scary words, much quicker to reach your emotional orgasm that you so desperately crave.
 
Last edited:
shira said:
So you're telling us that the adverb "often" properly applies to the phrase "getting shot [while] wearing body armor?"

Are you talking Afghanistan here, or just day-in-the-life urban-warfare America?

LULZ You gun guys really crack me up.
Click to expand...

Someone made a comment that it would do absolutely nothing to the Aurora shooter had a person in the audience been armed and put a couple of rounds in his chest since he was wearing body armor. I was simply proving otherwise.

I apologize if my choice of adverbs was not up to your standards.
 
Darwin333 said:
Someone made a comment that it would do absolutely nothing to the Aurora shooter had a person in the audience been armed and put a couple of rounds in his chest since he was wearing body armor. I was simply proving otherwise.

I apologize if my choice of adverbs was not up to your standards.
Click to expand...

Depends on the boyarmour, let me refresh your broken memory:

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

They really got hurt eh?
First shot toook 'em....oh wait...second shot...oh wait...YOU LOSE!

People should shut the fuck up if their source are bad hollywood movies!

The incident is called the North Hollywood southout in 1997...look it up hollywood-boys..

EDIT: Added real footage from the event.
 
Lonbjerg said:
Depends on the boyarmour, let me refresh your broken memory:

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

They really got hurt eh?
First shot toook 'em....oh wait...second shot...oh wait...YOU LOSE!

People should shut the fuck up if their source are bad hollywood movies!

The incident is called the North Hollywood southout in 1997...look it up hollywood-boys..

EDIT: Added real footage from the event.
Click to expand...

Wtf? Did you not see the "based on real events" at the beginning?
 
Darwin333 said:
You are absolutely right. I personally couldn't imagine even thinking about pulling my weapon and returning fire in a packed theater with people running everywhere, at the same time this is one of those situations that none of us have a clue what we would have done. However, the argument was really about the jackass who thought bulletproof vests make bullets bounce off of you and have absolutely no effect on the person who got shot.
Click to expand...

In all fairness I think you guys were arguing two different things.

He is correct in the fact that being shot by a bullet will not knock you down. This is almost universally true outside of mounted weapons, because as he said in order for a bullet to carry enough force to knock someone down it would have to have enough energy when shot to likely bowl over the person shooting it too. You are right though in the fact that even though you won't go flying when shot, you will still be pretty unhappy that you got hit by that bullet and likely be in some severe pain that will make you a lot less interested in continuing your rampage.
 
TerryMathews said:
There are multiple reasons why you are incorrect but I know they would be lost on you.
Click to expand...

What a wanker way to say:
"I ignore the laws of physics and I ignore real footage of people not going down when hit MULTIPLE times by small arms fire..but I will try and sound like I have a point!"

The real would shows something else than what you claim...game over.
 
eskimospy said:
In all fairness I think you guys were arguing two different things.

He is correct in the fact that being shot by a bullet will not knock you down. This is almost universally true outside of mounted weapons, because as he said in order for a bullet to carry enough force to knock someone down it would have to have enough energy when shot to likely bowl over the person shooting it too. You are right though in the fact that even though you won't go flying when shot, you will still be pretty unhappy that you got hit by that bullet and likely be in some severe pain that will make you a lot less interested in continuing your rampage.
Click to expand...

Depends..a GOOD bodyamour (mil grade) uses not just kevlar...but also cheramics, with foam behind it...like the robbers used in the North hollywood shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

This shows that hollywood-boys are clueless...but I guess they have seen some kinky action movie they think are like reality that says otherwise :hmm:
 
Lonbjerg said:
What a wanker way to say:
"I ignore the laws of physics and I ignore real footage of people not going down when hit MULTIPLE times by small arms fire..but I will try and sound like I have a point!"

The real would shows something else than what you claim...game over.
Click to expand...

Who's ignoring the laws of physics? You're the one trying to use small caliber handgun bullets fired at rifle distances as evidence to support your assertions about an engagement with a maximum distance of what 100ft? That would be a return shooter from the back row. What's the front, 20ft?

You want some physics? E=mc^2. Velocity is the driving factor in kinetic energy for a bullet. Further it travels, less damage it does to someone wearing body armor.

Point blank, this guy's going to feel like Tyson punched him in the gut with the best armor. Junk armor? Broken rib easy.

I haven't heard what kind of body armor it was but I have a feeling it wasn't top notch. It seems to me that someone with that level of skill and knowledge would know how to keep an AR running properly and know better than to use a drum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top