The second part I agree with but not so much the first part. Guessing how the NRA will jump on/over any given case is pretty much a crap shoot. Just when I think we have them figured out they surprise me.
The fact that some members of the NRA are pissed the organization has not come to the defense of someone getting shot for legally carrying. What did you think?
Hardened tungsten tips and sabot in a copper casing, maybe? Since these exist, are in active use and are designed to penetrate military-grade body armor, their being illegal for civilians to have is a side issue.
I disagree; it is pretty easy to understand the NRA’s silence, as reprehensible as it is. In the case of Castile, the NRA finds itself in a quandary. On the one hand, Castile was licensed to carry. On the other, Castile was black, or, in other words what Tripolar stated in post #4.
I hate you when you are right, yet I love that you Are right.
Thank you.
I LIKE reading Airman Doors posts. Sometimes I disagree, but dammit, I’m a better person for having read him than not having read him.
That Said, if through some genetic change he was born Black, it bothers me greatly that I might Never have Ever had the opportunity to have ever read him at all… because some Barney Fife Dick-Head probably would have killed him by now… just for open-carry.
And, Og-Dammit, I Like Reading Airman Doors…
(I’m a selfish bastard that way.)
There was the NRA that I Truly Wanted the NRA to be when I was Much younger and first got a gun license.
There is the NRA that through speech and silence well and truly IS the NRA now.
Who they care about… and who they don’t… to me, this honestly represents the two Huge differences between who they were Meant to be… and who they are. 
So the type of ammunition doesn’t matter at all, the only think that matters is velocity and mass? That’s really interesting. Are you sure that’s strictly correct? The diameter and composition matters not at all?
A lot of their members probably have racist views and wouldn’t want to support this case.
I’m sure there are probably plenty of color blind members as well, and hence the conflict.
There is some ammunition that is more effective at penetrating armor. The Five-seveN was designed with available steel-cored ammunition, which is of course harder and will distort less on impact which allows it to retain energy. That ammunition is available, but it isn’t cheap and it’s not sold at Bass Pro.
That said, centerfire rifle ammunition will always penetrate Level III body armor, for two reasons:
- The round has more powder behind it, allowing it to generate more energy, and
- The barrel is longer, which causes more of that energy to be trapped behind the bullet, allowing it to go much faster. The shape and design of the bullet also contribute to its ability to penetrate.
There is body armor that is rifle resistant, but it is heavy, unwieldy, laden with trauma plates, and isn’t commonly worn by anybody. Additionally, it doesn’t stop everything, there’s always a bigger bullet. Level III is typically what a police officer wears if they wear any at all, and that is designed to stop small arms. As a result, all centerfire rifles fire “cop killer” ammunition. .556 NATO/.223 Remington goes right through it, and that, contrary to the “high-powered” hype, is just an intermediate round, not even close to the more powerful commercially available rounds on the market. And, of course, no armor stops a head shot.
In this case, the generalization is actually the truth. The exceptions are highly specialized and very rare, and in any case aren’t something you’d want to bet your life on. To paraphrase the infamous Mall Ninja episode, if multiple hits from .338 Lapua is Plan A, you need to come up with a Plan B.
Probably didn’t need the long lecture but as I’m understanding it the answer to my question was “actually the type of ammunition does matter, but only below that of centerfire rifle ammunition, because above that anything is level III armor penetrating”.
So there was no difference at all between what was referred to as “cop killer” ammunition, and non-“cop killer” ammunition? In other words, there was literally no way to distinguish between types of ammunition that would and would not qualify for the popular term? It would have been impossible to craft a definition that made a distinction?
That is correct.
As for the long lecture, I wanted to make sure I didn’t have to revisit it 15 times like I usually do when the exceptions start popping up.
So you are saying the proposal was to ban “cop killer” ammunition, and the statute to do so would have had to define “cop killer” ammunition as “ammunition”.
So what’s the logic here?
That the NRA must resist reasonable changes to the law, because in the future there might be proposed changes that they would find unreasonable, and for some reason, at that time, the NRA would be unable or unwilling to resist?
Basically, yeah. Any polarizing issue works like this. Someone already mentioned abortion. Most reasonable pro-choice individuals would not fight tooth and nail for ‘abortion on demand’ including any & all late-term procedures. But if you’re not an individual but are instead a political organization who’s opposition has repeatedly and consistently stated their goal is absolute and total eradication of it, there’s little wiggle room.
Also why an online forum is a very inefficient method to discuss it… 
Ok, you’re basically agreeing that the logic doesn’t work but implying that at any organization level, it does. I don’t see how it ever makes sense, and I dispute that polarizing issues necessarily, or usually work like this.
Organizations don’t necessarily jump to the opposite end of the spectrum to combat an extremist foe. The NRA is really noteworthy in their commitment to playing hardball, common sense and reasonableness be damned.
I agree with him about polarizing issues and organizations. Credibility is given to extremist true believers.
And if you’re not hardline, you’ll lose committed constituents to someone who is – and the motivated true believers show up and send money, the moderates stay home and shake their heads. That is how the Fundamentalist Christians have power beyond their numbers.
I’ll agree that its at least the knee-jerk response or the usual train of thought but ---- the NRA was among the early organizations to point out the biased nature of some of the gun control laws (think back to when the “hot topic” was the more inexpensive handguns) and continues to make similar cases as they come along. When it fits within their core agenda they can, and do, love the heck out of the black community. Like most things associated with the Republican Party, I would like to paint it with the same broad brush but in their case I really don’t see it as a good fit.
For the record, Onomatopoeia’s statement, and your assent are blatantly, provably, wrong. Please provide one cite to show where the NRA has come out against a police officer of any color who shot a white man. Just one. You do understand that, by raw numbers cops kill more whites than any other race, a stat that has held every month for the last 36 months or so? When broken by % of population the stats change, for sure, but there have been plenty of opportunities to draw from should you care to support your words.
While we’re waiting, here is one recent example of a white gun owner being killed by cops in an egregious error. Seems the cops
went to the wrong house at night and shined flashlights about. When the homeowner grabbed his gun and stepped out to see what was going on (perfectly legal on his own property) he was shot and killed. Cops may or may not have identified themselves properly. The NRA reaction? None.
I’m not defending the organization. I am a gun owner but would never join the NRA precisely because they do not represent the middle of the road gun owners. Nor am I defending any questionable/wrong actions of police when the shoot a person (of any color). But to have a reasonable discussion both sides must quit poisoning the well with baseless claims.
True, kopek – but then in a case such as this they run into the pro-gun narrative that a law abiding armed citizen supposedly has nothing to fear if s/he is not doing anything wrong, cooperates and does not make any wrong moves… and when it turns out the threshold of what is cooperating or a wrong move is much tighter for a black citizen, they have to face that there is a substantial constituency out there that feels that is justified.
Now compare your stat with this one showing population breakdown by race, and the problem becomes rather self evident, don’t you think? A disproportionate percentage of African-Americans are getting killed.