It Has Happened Again...

[Polaris]

However, I can't actually find information on how fast shrapnel moves so if you would like to cite some evidence, I would be interested to know if what I said was really wrong.

I did some searching and (frustratingly) found that most of the working sites for anything related to bomb shrapnel and blast velocity had to do with nukes. Of the others, the speed of shrapnel I saw listed was so varying that I'm not sure what to make of it (100fps to 30,000fps), and a lot sounded like speculation for political reasons ("the eeeeeeeevil Israelis use cluster bombs with deadly high-velocity shrapnel going a million miles per hour" kind of stuff) I did find this page though, which lists a formula for determining velocity of detonation (VOD) when the quantity of explosive in a blast is unknown. It lists probable VOD for most of the major bombings in the last 30 years.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9704b/5willms.htm

This page (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/explosives-compositions.htm) lists the VOD for military explosive compounds. Composition B (WW2 TNT) is 24,000 fps. Under the list is the "slurry" category, which for our purposes sounds very like what would be found in homemade bombs. These have a VOD of 2,000-18,000 fps. Average that out to 9,000fps and you have velocities at least triple most rifle rounds.

Considering that a 5.56mm rifle round (used in all NATO rifles) and a 7.62x39mm rifle round (AK-47 rifle) have muzzle velocities of 3300fps and 2330fps (http://www.militaryfactory.com/ballistics_tables.asp), that puts the muzzle velocity of the most powerful reasonably common civilian firearms at the lowest end of the spectrum of bomb blasts. That might change a little if a .50BMG caliber rifle is ever used in a crime, but for now it's academic.

Of course, these numbers are for velocity of detonation, not velocity of explosion, but since most victims of bomb blasts are near the detonation, I don't think the distinction matters that much. Shrapnel nearer the blast I think it's safe to assume will be travelling at or very near the speed of detonation before losing velocity to gravity, etc.

Now I'm going to let this derail die. I'm not that concerned with it - I just got the impression you were telling me what I could say, or else. That puts me into orbit. Btw, a sunken chest would be great. Try as I might, I can't get rid of my adolescent man-boobs.

 

[RandFan]

That might change a little if a .50BMG caliber rifle is ever used in a crime, but for now it's academic.

Politicians in California talk about the .50 cal BMG all the time. It's now trendy to display a round (dummy I assume) to demonstrate how big it is and then declare that the opponent is pro .50 cal BMG's.

 

[CFLarsen]

? I'm not ignoring anything. I'm telling you why you shouldn't make hasty generalizations and I've demonstrated why.

I am not making hasty generalizations, quite the contrary. I base my point on facts, evidence, data.

See your link.

No, show me.

Not a clue, what's your point?

That, when we look at the history of the US, Denmark and Europe, for that matter, are far closer culturally and economically than SA. Immigrants brought along not just their workforce, but also their European values and ideas. The ties to Europe are far, far stronger than to SA.

They are being made, and they were used in Columbine. The large ones did not detonate, thank goodness, but small pipe bombs were used in the cafeteria.

These are but a few examples of cases where pipe bombs were made by students for the purpose of killing other students. These were minor relative to the scope of Columbine, but to suggest (without evidence) that they aren't being made is wrong.

Milwaukee, 2000

North Carolina, 2004

April, 2005

Of the three, the only injury was damaged fingers on a superintendent. Only one incident happened while the school was open.

Then, take a look at this:

Recent school shootings.

Germany 3, Canada 2, Yemen, Scotland, Argentina, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Netherlands and Sweden 1 each.

34 from the US. 70 dead, 116 wounded.

Yes, I pellet you with evidence, I know that. When are you going to wake up?

Because I have no reason to doubt that. However, take away the guns, and you'll remove gun-related crime, but you won't remove crime.

Of course not. You won't remove milk from the supermarket by removing bread. But gun-related crime is a substantial part of crime. Why not get at least that sizeable chunk out of the way?

Take away guns, you'll stop school shootings, but you won't stop students from trying to kill each other until you do something to get at the reasons why they want to.

The evidence does not support your contention.

And I feel the same about you.

The difference is, I provide evidence. You provide opinion.

Perhaps you should consider this possibility in yourself.

What do you think of the data above?

CFLarsen, Your worst nightmare;

[qimg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v148/Lexapro/nunswithguns.jpg[/qimg]

Could be worse. Could be all Sylvias....

 

[qayak]

I did some searching and (frustratingly) found that most of the working sites for anything related to bomb shrapnel and blast velocity had to do with nukes.

Thanks for the links and you have got me wondering now. The figures you posted don't seem to make sense because physics says that two objects will be affected by gravity the same, so a piece of shrapnel traveling a minimum of three times the speed of a rifle round should be deadly up to three times as far as long as the cross section is fairly similar. As shrapnel goes in all directions there should be a lot of damage from shrapnel many kilometres from even a moderate bomb blast.

Now, I know that the Halifax Blast of 1917 devastated the surrounding area for two kilometres but it was a huge blast, exceeding that of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Most other blasts just don't send shrapnel that far.

Now I have to figure this out but it is late. I am going to bed because its off to California for me tomorrow. I'll think about it while I lie on the beach, or maybe not.

 

[RandFan]

I am not making hasty generalizations, quite the contrary. I base my point on facts, evidence, data.

Not here you are not. You are simply making claims AND you are making hasty generalizations. Claiming that you are basing your point on facts is just a claim.

No, show me.

Oh that's rich. For proof you give me a link. That's it.

No, YOU show me. {sheesh} You are the worst at demanding from others what you will not do.

That, when we look at the history of the US, Denmark and Europe, for that matter, are far closer culturally and economically than SA. Immigrants brought along not just their workforce, but also their European values and ideas. The ties to Europe are far, far stronger than to SA.

The fatal error you are making is to assume that since the similarities are strong there are no differences. It is the differences that I care about. And, BTW, you concede to the difference. This is another example of you wanting to have your cake and eat it to.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, I pellet you with evidence.

The turn of phrase you seek is "pelt you with evidence." Pelt, the verb, indicates being struck or rained upon by a missile, or a series of blows.

A pellet would be a missile one gets pelted with. Matching the noun and verb of pelt, which in noun form is skin or fur, you could observe "a group of young boys pelting the pelt of a bear with their slingshots, shortly before the bear charges, killing them all in a fit of ursine rage."

DR

 

[Morrigan]

Then, take a look at this:

Recent school shootings.

Germany 3, Canada 2, Yemen, Scotland, Argentina, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Netherlands and Sweden 1 each.

34 from the US. 70 dead, 116 wounded.

Yes, I pellet you with evidence, I know that. When are you going to wake up?

When you're going to realize that the US has a substantially larger population than these countries. Larger, in fact, than the combined population of all the countries you just listed.

By the way, you're a liar.

 

[qayak]

For a gun license to require a formal firearms safety and handling course is not a bad idea. (I consider it part of my parental responsibility that before they leave home, my children are so educated and trained.) I know that TX and CT have a formal requirements, for safety and handling courses, for the concealed carry permit.

The NRA offers firearms safety courses all over the country. Depending on locale, so do many police departments.

The NRA are huge proponents of safe, responsible firearms ownership.

DR

If you look at the links I posted earlier, you will see a study done that suggests firearms training has no impact on whether kids handle guns safely or not.

A large percentage of the boys pointed the firearm at their friends and they did it without checking to see if the firearm was loaded. The numbers were the same for thse with training and those without.

That's the problem, they are children not short adults.

 

[RandFan]

If you look at the links I posted earlier, you will see a study done that suggests firearms training has no impact on whether kids handle guns safely or not.

I had firearm safter training when I was a kid. All I have is anecdotal evidence but this seems counter to my experience. Could you post the link, I've looked but I don't see it.

My thanks,

RandFan

 

[Darth Rotor]

If you look at the links I posted earlier, you will see a study done that suggests firearms training has no impact on whether kids handle guns safely or not.

A large percentage of the boys pointed the firearm at their friends and they did it without checking to see if the firearm was loaded. The numbers were the same for thse with training and those without.

That's the problem, they are children not short adults.

Maybe you don't get my point. You seem to make a presumption of "train and let loose" which is not what I am about. I have an obligation to prepare them for adulthood, and to raise them. Part of that is to teach and train them in responsible use of firearms. Once they become adults, and no longer are under my care (legally, as they'll always be my kids) they have to be prepared for their decision to, or not to, own and handle firearms responsibly as adults, and as citizens.

Your offer an argument about the futility of firearms training and education which ought to embarass you. People still screw up, even with the training. Heck, the military and police forces have accidents with firearms, with more extensive training than an NRA course.

That is no excuse not to teach, not to train. Taking that effort mitigates the risk without playing "chicken little" and quivering in fear of those oh so dangerous guns.

"Oh, an accident might happen." Accidents happen to idiots with guns with depressing regularity.

Heck, I might get careless and shoot myself in the foot next time I take out the pistol. Rather than play the moral coward via a strategy of avoidance, that risk is mitigated by intelligent and sober handling of firearms, which is a learned behavior thanks to my own education, training, and experience.

DR

 

[CFLarsen]

Not here you are not. You are simply making claims AND you are making hasty generalizations. Claiming that you are basing your point on facts is just a claim.

Rubbish. You can ignore the evidence, if you like. It doesn't make it go away.

Oh that's rich. For proof you give me a link. That's it.

Wrong. I give you a link and point directly to the evidence in it.

No, YOU show me. {sheesh} You are the worst at demanding from others what you will not do.

Again, I point directly to the evidence in the link. You do the same, if you want to criticize the content.

Show me.

The fatal error you are making is to assume that since the similarities are strong there are no differences. It is the differences that I care about. And, BTW, you concede to the difference. This is another example of you wanting to have your cake and eat it to.

Not at all. I have no problems recognizing the differences (after all, am I not the one who "bashes" America for all its faults?). I am pointing out that there are far more similarities between Denmark/Europe and the US than between the US and Saudi Arabia.

How can you possibly argue otherwise?

The turn of phrase you seek is "pelt you with evidence." Pelt, the verb, indicates being struck or rained upon by a missile, or a series of blows.

A pellet would be a missile one gets pelted with. Matching the noun and verb of pelt, which in noun form is skin or fur, you could observe "a group of young boys pelting the pelt of a bear with their slingshots, shortly before the bear charges, killing them all in a fit of ursine rage."

DR

I was hoping to make a pun. The shot went over your head, I'm afraid.

When you're going to realize that the US has a substantially larger population than these countries. Larger, in fact, than the combined population of all the countries you just listed.

But no single country has the extremely high number of school shootings. None.

 

[RandFan]

Rubbish. You can ignore the evidence, if you like. It doesn't make it go away.

Ignore what evidence?

I give you a link and point directly to the evidence in it.

Yes, and the same link proves my point. Thank you.

Again, I point directly to the evidence in the link. You do the same, if you want to criticize the content.

If I have to go read the link then so can you.

Not at all. I have no problems recognizing the differences (after all, am I not the one who "bashes" America for all its faults?). I am pointing out that there are far more similarities between Denmark/Europe and the US than between the US and Saudi Arabia.

It's the differences that count. So what if there are far more similarities. It's the differences that count. Therein lies that which is meaningfully for this discussion. That is exactly why you are making a hasty generalization. You are assuming that since there are X number of similarities that none of the differences matter when in fact it is only the differences that matter.

How can you possibly argue otherwise?

The devil is in the details. It is the differences and not the similarities that count. And, BTW, you concede that the differences are directly related. Odd that you admit that you want to use the similarities but discount differences that are directly relevant.

 

[CFLarsen]

Ignore what evidence?

What I presented. What you are trying to deny the existence of.

Yes, and the same link proves my point. Thank you.

Sheesh, can you make up your mind? Does the evidence exist or not??

If I have to go read the link then so can you.

I not only read it, I also quoted from it. Now, please quote the parts you find problematic.

Why do you stall? Can you do it, or do you refuse?

It's the differences that count. So what if there are far more similarities. It's the differences that count. Therein lies that which is meaningfully for this discussion. That is exactly why you are making a hasty generalization. You are assuming that since there are X number of similarities that none of the differences matter when in fact it is only the differences that matter.

The devil is in the details. It is the differences and not the similarities that count. And, BTW, you concede that the differences are directly related. Odd that you admit that you want to use the similarities but discount differences that are directly relevant.

No, no. I am saying that, even though there are more similarities than differences, in this particular case, there is a huge difference. And I want to know why.

Merely saying "Well, we are different" doesn't cut it. It simply doesn't cut it.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I was hoping to make a pun.

They can't all be gems, but the effort is usually worth it. May your next search find the acorn, oh Sunglassed Squirrel.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

And I want to know why.

Merely saying "Well, we are different" doesn't cut it. It simply doesn't cut it.

Insights on the why, which does not lend itself to a simple answer, is rooted in American cultural archetypes. I suggest two books written by two very different authors.

Born Fighting / James Webb

Three Roads to the Alamo / William C Davis

DR

 

[RandFan]

What I presented. What you are trying to deny the existence of.

I honestly don't have a clue what you are talking about as it relates to the subject of this particular line of discussion.

Sheesh, can you make up your mind? Does the evidence exist or not??

And this has what to do with what?

I not only read it, I also quoted from it. Now, please quote the parts you find problematic.

Why do you stall? Can you do it, or do you refuse?

No more than you sir. When did you quote from it?

No, no. I am saying that, even though there are more similarities than differences, in this particular case, there is a huge difference. And I want to know why.

Because we are different culturally. We have a different perspective, a different point of view. Just as Saudis see alcohol as a sin we see guns as a right. It is a prevailing view that is entwined in the fabric of our consciousness.

Merely saying "Well, we are different" doesn't cut it. It simply doesn't cut it.

Far more than merely saying "well we are similar".

 

[CFLarsen]

I honestly don't have a clue what you are talking about as it relates to the subject of this particular line of discussion.

And this has what to do with what?

If you can't keep up, there's nothing I can do about that. Try to read back.

No more than you sir. When did you quote from it?

In post #90. Do try to keep up, OK?

Because we are different culturally. We have a different perspective, a different point of view. Just as Saudis see alcohol as a sin we see guns as a right. It is a prevailing view that is entwined in the fabric of our consciousness.

That would require an overall common American culture. Please tell me what that is. A list is fine.

Far more than merely saying "well we are similar".

This emphasizes my point: You want the differences to be bigger than the similarities, regardless of the facts.

You don't want a solution. You want a problem.

 

[RandFan]

If you can't keep up, there's nothing I can do about that. Try to read back.

It has nothing to do with my keeping up. You are not making sense.

In post #90. Do try to keep up, OK?

How is post #90 relevant to the discussion that you and I are having?

That would require an overall common American culture. Please tell me what that is. A list is fine.

? We are different in our view of guns. That's it. That's all.

This emphasizes my point: You want the differences to be bigger than the similarities, regardless of the facts.

No, I only want to look at the issues that are relevant. We differ in our attitudes of guns. All the rest is irrelevant.

You don't want a solution. You want a problem.

I want the truth. I don't want to sacrifice rights in the vain belief that prohibition is a solution when it is clear in America's past that such prohibitions don't work. America is a dynamic. America is different than other nations. Merely saying that there are similarities proves nothing especially when the relevant differences are so stark.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I want the truth.

"You can't handle the truth!" Muahahahaha!

The problem with the proposed "solutions" is the creation of a larger victim class for an already armed criminal class to prey upon.

The solutators choose to ignore that downstream effect by wishing it away, the way some of Rummy's lads wished away the post conflict SASO problems in Iraq.

DR

 

[Tricky]

If you can't keep up, there's nothing I can do about that. Try to read back.

In post #90. Do try to keep up, OK?

That would require an overall common American culture. Please tell me what that is. A list is fine.

This emphasizes my point: You want the differences to be bigger than the similarities, regardless of the facts.

You don't want a solution. You want a problem.

You know Claus, you and I are on the same side of many issues, but I can barely stand to watch you debate. You badger people, try to force them into false dichotomies, put words into their mouths and you make snide, insulting remarks like the ones above.

Now RandFan and I are on the opposite side of most issues, but I've found him to be fair and reasonable, even when he is wrong (which is most the time ). You really should save your vitriol for those who deserve it.

If I were picking a team of debaters for my liberal side, you would not be on it. Not even fourth string. Like Bush, you recruit for the enemy. Lighten up, please. Everything doesn't have to be a fight.