Actually, I would argue that the primary purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is to deter potential adversaries from attacking the U.S. And I would argue that it has been very effective–no major power has attacked the U.S. since WWII.
Just like the security guard’s firearm, the purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is not simply to kill people. Instead, the purpose is deterrence.
The “real function” of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is most certainly not to “blow stuff up very effectively.” As a former U.S. Navy submarine officer who served on a strategic deterrent missile patrol, I will tell you that we all realized that if we ever had to launch those missiles in anger, that we had failed in our primary purpose of strategic deterrence. (Which is not to say that the missiles would not have actually been launched–they certainly would have if so ordered.)
(Sorry, this is getting more than a little off-topic.)
I agree that the reason we have a nuclear arsenal is not to blow things up. However, I still maintain that the purpose of the objects in the arsenal is to blow things up, and that this in fact is what they are designed to do. Otherwise we wouldn’t have them in the arsenal. But this is probably just semantic nitpicking and I agree that it is a giant hijack that I am more than happy not to continue.
(MrWhatsit is also a submarine veteran, btw. He served in the early 90s, as a reactor operator. This is also not relevant to the topic at hand, but I felt like mentioning it. )
Put it this way: suppose guns (and nukes :D) had no deterrent value- you could never display them or threaten to use them, just whip them out and go bang. And nobody knew or believed you were armed until they looked down and saw the bloody hole. Since such a world would be radically different from ours, I’d say that deterrence is a real function.
The OP’s seems to be asking whether the victim can sue the manufacturer of a gun after being shot by that make of gun. IE, some idiot robs a store, and shoots a customer in the process. The customer then sues the gun manufacturer. If that’s the question I’d be interested in hearing the theory of liability used to hold the gun manufacturer liable for the criminal act of a third party.
I could understand a products liability type claim for an unintentional injury, but that probably would involves a defective design or material/construction problem, certainly not an intentional act.
They’re made to do both, with accuracy. The intended effect at the target varies, and the bullet design will reflect that.
Fair 'nuf. My apologies for jumping your case like that. Your inadvertent choice of words comes with a mess-load of (often bitter) litigious and political history, as well as on-going political ramifications, and is a hot-button, knee-jerk issue for me.
Colibri gave me a swift kick, and my knee is now back in place.
Since every gun/ammunition dealer I regularly do business with appreciates the legalistic nuances of the greater issue as much as I, I’d probably get a discount from them just for that post.
But your thoughts are appreciated.
Too slow. The Chicago Reader has dibs on it. Although I think that these guys might want to make a bid on its use.
Not a bullet, I know. But I think it’s a pretty fair example of a “SplatBlaster Kill-o-Nator.”
I dunno; they might want to wait until they make that thing a double-barreled model.
And yes, one of those is going into my gun safe the moment it hits the local gun store. I must have at least one of anything that bad-ass looking; sorry, but it’s hard-coded into my genetic makeup.
And yet there were lots of lawsuits (personal, municipal, and, IIRC, some states) suing gun manufacturers for just that: some knucklehead commits a violent crime with a gun, and the victims sue the gun manufacturer for alleged negligence in their distribution policies. IIRC, there was even some talk back during the Clinton administration of having his Justice Dept. file suit on these grounds as well.
These lawsuits were almost universally deemed frivolous (even though many went forward, and in a few cases, judgements were awarded to plaintiffs), and were the impetus behind many preemption laws now on a lot of states law books, and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which Lumpy mentioned up-thread.
Varies between what and what? After the bullet penetrates the armour it either (a) delivers kisses and champagne (b) does a jig and sings a tune (c) kills people?
Or what? Wait, don’t tell me: you’re going to say that in some relatively exceptional circumstances the answer may be something tactical other than (c).
Princhester: Except for military deployment (at least in the civilized world outside USA), how many guns are acquired for the purpose of killing? How many guns are aquired for hunting or sports shooting? How many rounds are fired on people or during combat training? How many rounds are fired for totally acceptable purposes?
A SWC or WC revolver bullet is constructed for one purpose: To fly reliably through the air and punch a sharply defined hole in a piece of paper. A target hollowpoint like the Sierra MK is contructed for one purpose: To fly long distances without being overly deflected by wind, to be able to punch a hole in a piece of paper. A.22LR round is made to plink biathlon targets with minimum recoil and rapport. A Sauer TR (target rifle) is constructed for one purpose: To shoot accurately at paper targets. A skeet shotgun is constructed for one purpose: To be mounted reliably and reproducibly, to smash as many clay pigeons as possible in the fewest number of shots. A Walther GSP is constructed for one purpose: Maximum ergonomics for maximum precision when making holes in paper targets.
Dummy version: Most civilian guns and rounds are not made to kill people.
What the serious fuck is the point of of this whole “armour piercing rounds” issue? Pistol rounds that are specifically designed to penetrate soft body armor–most notably the tungsten-core KTW round–have never been available for sale to the general public (only to law enforcement agencies) and despite being labeled “cop-killers” and featured in action films that also involve such realistic portrayals of standard police procedure such as driving a motorcycle off of a highway ramp or torturing suspects, have never actually been used in the killing of a single peace officer. On the other hand, virtually any rifle round will penetrate soft body armor, and most large caliber rounds will do significant harm even through Class III armor, even if it has a soft lead core. Is there some reason that firearms in particular seem to attract the lunatic fringe of utter and often avowed ignorance about even the basic mechanics of firearms and weapon technology?
Firearms are by their very nature hazardous tools. If wielded incautiously or with malice their use can result in serious harm or death. As such, a reasonable level of care and responsibility is naturally associated with the possession and use of such items. Of course, this is also true with other commonly available tools, like chainsaws and automobiles. It is certainly true that the original intent of firearms was to be used in a military capacity on the battlefield, but it is also true that the vast majority of civilian-owned firearms are never used or intended to be used with malice toward another person except in extenuating circumstances in which the law recognizes the right of a person to defend his life and that of his family or neighbors.
Despite what you have seen on the televisor, most fire owners are not inbred degenerates or hardened criminals intent on wholesale slaughter, and despite the occasional ill-considered marketing campaign, no round “chews through flesh like a buzzsaw,” or any other such visceral means of enhancing lethality. Any round–even plain “roundnose” bullets–can kill or maim with ease, at the whim and skill of the user. A bullet designed to expand may improve its “one shot stop” performance, but that also means that the shooter is less inclined to empty a magazine into the target, posing a greater overall threat as explained previously.
It’s actually far simpler than you think SOAT. The issue is that this statement:
is dumber than a box of hammers and infinitely more disingenuous. I have not commented on anything at all else in this thread. Anything. At all. Nor did I raise the subject of armour piercing rounds in the first place. Yet both you and the previous poster see fit to write long pointless posts in response to mine containing vast quantities of combative rhetoric as if what you are writing was rebuttal of something I had said.
The word “uber-defensive” comes to mind for some reason I’m sure I can’t imagine.
Any bullet, if discharged in the direction of a human being, is “intended to kill”, either by deliberate malfeasance or gross negligence. A bullet with a hardened tip or core allows it to puncture tough materials. This does not make it inherently “more lethal” except to people who are wearing body armor or other cover, and again, such rounds are not available in pistol calibers to the general public. The infamous KTW round was actually meant for and sold to law enforcement for the express purpose of shooting through automotive sheet metal and glass (although how a peace officer is going to have the time and piece of mind to switch magazines when the suspect enters a car I don’t know), not punching through body armor. The production of these rounds were discontinued because there was not a significant market and the negative publicity surrounding them, and most patrol officers carry a shotgun with extra slug rounds or a rifle-caliber carbine to deal with suspects at range or behind cover.
In serious response, armor piercing munitions have a very strong tendency to retain their shape. In order to be effective at armor penetration, they are built with a strong metal core (steel or an alloy of steel) with a lead “jacket” wrapped around it for weight, all encased in copper or brass jacket to reduce barrel wear.
This makes for a strong projectile that doesn’t typically deform after it hits its target, unlike Hollow Point and Soft-Nose munitions which are made to expand upon penetratin to create a larger wound channel, increasing blood loss and improving the chances of a “one-shot-stop.” AP munitions will likely penetrate all the way through the target, especially a “soft” target like an unarmored human, or even a person wearing some form of ballistic protection.
For both self-defense (as well as LEO) uses, the “one-shot-stop” is considered the Holy Grail of ballistic performance, for the safety of the defender or police officer; as has been noted (not necessarily in this thread), no special munition is a substitute for shot placement.
For hunting, a “one-shot-stop” is considered the most humane way to hunt.
Now you may not like to have people shooting at each other for any reason, or you may not like hunting; you may consider it “unsporting” to shoot a deer with a high powered rifle.
But people do these things, and there has been considerable science performed to make sure that these munitions perform as designed with a high order of probability.
And just why, pray tell, am I dumb or disingenuous for pointing out (as several others have also done in this thread, too) that armor piercing ammunition has been specifically designed to pierce armor, and carries no special lethality?
Maybe I’m off-base, but you seem to be attaching some special moral significance to armor piercing munitions. As Stranger has pointed out (among others in this thread, too), no U.S. LEO has been shot or killed with any AP “Cop Killer Bullets.” The military uses them for the purpose of penetrating hardened targets, typically not people, but vehicles, light armored vehicles, concrete wall/bunkers, armored vehicles (tanks), and so on.
ETA: I was off-base for jumping all over Rigamarole and have been duly smacked for it. Rigamarole hasn’t acknowledged or accepted my apology, nor need he (she?) do so, but why are you taking my previous insulting post so seriously? It’s not like I insulted you.
Look, guys, let’s try to keep this discussion civil. There’s no need for these kind of personal remarks. No warning issued. However, if there continue to be problems with this thread I’ll close it.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
PS. This instruction is not intended to be limited to the two posters quoted, or to indicate these are the only questionable remarks. This goes for everyone.
For an unarmored target, an armor-piercing bullet is much more likely to retain its shape and travel completely through the body of the intended target. This means that much of the kinetic energy of the bullet is not transferred to the target, and also means that a shot by such a bullet may actually be less lethal than one from a conventional or hollow-point bullet (depending on where the target is hit). In this manner, ExTank is exactly correct: armor-piercing bullets are designed primarily to penetrate armor, even if it means they may be less effective at killing people than a conventional bullet. The other downside of an armor-piercing bullet is that they are much more likely to go completely through the intended target, or a wall, and hit innocent bystanders.
At the opposite extreme, a hollow-point bullet is designed to expand and not go completely through a target. They therefore transfer all of their kinetic energy into the target, as well as expand within the target, making larger wounds in the target. This makes them more lethal to an unarmored target, but also less likely to go through walls, car doors, etc. which is good if it is desired to not injure innocent bystanders behind those barriers. For this reason, hollow-point bullets may be a good choice for home defense and for police officers, in which the desire to avoid injuring innocent bystanders at risk of being hit by over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets is paramount.
Despite the fact that hollow-point bullets are arguably safer for innocent bystanders, the use of bullets that are designed to expand or flatten are actually prohibited by the Hague Convention of 1899, so they are not used by the military of NATO members, including the U.S.
Which is imbecilic considering that modern high-velocity “spitzer” (very long and narrow) rifle bullets tend to snap and tumble on impact with flesh, making them as lethal or more so than expanding bullets.
Conversely, many states prohibit hunting deer with FMJ, instead requiring HP or SP rounds. I’m not sure whether the weighting is stronger on a more humane kill or limiting traveling beyond the target.
I read Mark Bowden’s Black Hawk Down many years ago, but, IIRC, many of the Rangers assigned to that botched snatch in Mogadishu were equipped with AP rounds for their M-16s, and reported just this effect; many of the “sammys” (as they called the Somalis) would get shot multiple times with AP rounds and continue to fight, because the AP rounds weren’t sufficiently lethal to stop a human without a major organ hit.
)