h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20923201

There's been another one. Aurora, Colorado again. AE Hill would it be a knee-jerk reaction to talk about gun control now, with the third high-profile mass-murder in less than 4 weeks?

Only 4 people? Hardly worth reporting...

If it hadn't been in Aurora Colorado, scene of the theatre shooting, it wouldn't have made the national press.

Indeed, 4 deaths are only news-worthy if they've happened in another news-worthy shooty bang bang place...so much for the importance of life and whether it is worth reporting about its loss or not.

In other news (but related to this thread) I read a local story about a robbery at a "game room" (basically illegal but mostly ignored slot machine rooms). The suspect waited for the front door to be unlocked for another customer then bulled his way in, pushed the clerk to the floor, took an unknown sum of money from her apron, then ran out, got into his car and drove away. Another costumer who had a concealed gun ran out after the robber and shot at his fleeing vehicle.

Here's the surprising part of the story. The police arrested the vigilante shooter and emphasized that "it is illegal to shoot at a fleeing felon."

I found this quite an unexpected statement. Just a couple of years ago there was another case in the Houston/Galveston area that involved two burglars breaking into a house whose owners were out of town. The neighbor noticed the break in, called 911 (our 999), grabbed his shotgun and proceeded outside against the 911 operators explicit advice to remain inside and that the police were en route. The man goes outside and catches the two youths exiting the house and is recorded on the 911 call as saying "you're dead!" as he fires the gun and kills each young man with shots to the back. A grand jury no-billed the case.

Decisions about who to prosecute are discretionary. The police decide who to arrest, prosecutors decide to file charges, grand juries, in states that still use them, may decide to no bill.

Shooting a burglar as they're trying to escape isn't defense of habitation. Under the law it's murder, but hat doesn't mean it'll be prosecuted. Generally, grand juries follow the law and/or the advice of prosecutors, but they don't have to. I've seen a grand jury indict in spite of the advice of the prosecutor. I've also seen them nullify for reasons that have nothing to do with the law or the evidence.

Since I doubt that any where else still uses grand juries, perhaps I should explain. Grand juries are made up of a group of citizens who review cases brought to them by prosecutors. They hear evidence fro witnesses, generally just an investigating officer and maybe a victim. After the case is explained, the grand jury votes to true bill or no bill an indictment. To true bill an indictment, the grand jury must find probable cause that the defendant committed the offense. At one point it was considered a check by citizens on the power of the state to bring charges. Now it's a tool of the prosecutor. Grand juries have broad powers to uncover evidence. They also provide the prosecutor with political cover. If they really don't want to prosecute the case they can draft the indictment, put it before the grand jury, and make it seem unwinnable. Then the prosecutor can say they tried to bring the case, but the grand jury voted it down.

They're not even used everywhere in the US. I don't think Colorado doesn't use them. We use them for some felony charges, but the DA can bring charges without them.

HonestIago:

The reason I use the word “hysterical” a lot in this thread is because of comments like yours. True I did use the phrase “knee-jerk reaction” but not to mean that more control is not needed. I find it rather childish that you thought I meant that the issue should not even be “talked” about. I have consistently admitted that I think changes need to be made.

I was pointing out that quick fix poor ideas and resulting legislation could make matters worse.

I am happy to point this out because I think your example is typical of many hysterical responses in this thread. Emotions seem so high that some people can not even understand what was written.

Let me be quick to also point out that this forum has been useful in helping me to understand the issues from a different perspective. Some of the posts here have been quite brilliant. I assume others have likewise been entertained and educated by the discourse. I was especially pleased to read Sol’s perspective as a well reasoned post.

Two-Bit carried an extremely unpopular and possibly rather minority view without discombobulating the issues.

No one needs to take any of this personally. Take a deep breath and think.

This has been a good discussion, if sometimes hyperbolic, on a very difficult subject.

Here are my views. Most importantly, this is not a simply solved issue. There are no easy fixes. Many folks in this discussion think that gun control is a solution. That misses on two points. Significant gun control is probably very difficult to affect in this nation for political, cultural and constitutionally legal reasons. But, more importantly, because of the current culture and situation, such gun control would not alleviate the issue of gun violence. No feasible gun control legislation would eliminate the guns already available. Even if a gun control law was passed that would make even most guns illegal, people wishing to commit crimes would still be able to access guns (the familiar "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" slogan has its merits.) As has been pointed out, legal gun owners commit very few gun crimes. Legally licensed conceal and carry gun owners ever fewer. Any gun control legislation would mostly limit the rights of law abiding citizens.

Do I wish we lived in a more gun free society? Sure. But I accept the reality we have. I also wish I lived in a society where the rich didn't abuse the poor for their own profits, but that seems unlikely to change any time soon either.

~*~Americans are far less likely to give their government the benefit of the doubt. ... They've got that ridiculous quote from Jefferson about liberty versus security deeply engrained into their political psychology.~*~

Benjamin Franklin, rather. You might not like it, but I wouldn't classify it as ridiculous.

"He who would give up some of his liberty in order to attain a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty, nor safety."

What's the minority position that I hold? My position on the right to bear arms is the majority position where I live. The most vocal Obama supporter in my Facebook friends list spent the day at the firing range because of a story about a mother who was with her two small children who shot a burglar here.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/?src=pcb_article

The trend in Georgia has been to liberalize our gun laws. I very much opposed the 2008 revision that allowed people who didn't have a pistol permit to conceal a gun anywhere they wanted to. Prior to that, non-CCW holders who had a gun in their car had to keep it in an open and concealed manner or keep it in a latched compartment such as a glove box. I opposed that.

Then, in 2010, georgiapacking.org got the legislature to rewrite our gun laws again. In many ways it liberalized our laws, but it also made some subtle changes that I don't think they anticipated. I think the incorporated the prohibited person statute from the feds without meaning to. That means I should be able to arrest people cor carrying a gun if they've ever been convicted of domestic violence. That's been a federal felony for 20 years that the feds won't enforce and we couldn't. My interpretation is novel, but my solicitor general won't tell me that I'm wrong.

What is a kevlar bullet? I've never heard of it nor did I find anything when I googled it.

"Sky marshall use kevlar rounds that do not pass through the person they shoot, cause massive internal injury, and would not breach the skin of an aircraft - other types of ammunition would breach the aircrafts skin and depending on the altitude of the aircraft could cause an explosive decompression which would down the plane"

Planes don't explosively compress when they're shot. Air marshals might have bullets that are fragile so that they break up when they hit something. I'm not sure that I would trust those rounds. I used some when I was in the Air Force Reserve and they caused a lot of jams.

There was a controversy at one point about FAMs carrying .357 magnums that would overpenetrate and go through the first person they hit. We use a certain kind of hollow point to prevent that. Part of the point of hollow points is to expand on contact, cause more damage, and lose all it's energy in the first person it hits.

If you come up with a reference to the use of kevlar bullets please let me know.

In the circles I run, I know of no one who is enamored with the right to bear arms.
But I am sure that in the circles you run, most do favor the right to bear arms.
Scientific sampling is more of an Art.
However, in some of your other views, you seem to me to be well into the realm of minority. Please note that I did soften the statement with “possibly rather minority view” to take into account that I was expressing an opinion [not to deny my questionable grammar].

To be rather explicit, I do not think most people in the US want to kill a burglar with a gun. Your blood thirst may be representative of your culture which is biased by law enforcement and local ideas. I am not attacking your point of view, but you questioned my comment and I think you are wrong to think you are even close to expressing a majority view point from a national perspective.

"What is a kevlar bullet? I've never heard of it nor did I find anything when I googled it. "

Google finds over 2 million results for 'Kevlar bullet', including many videos: http://www.google.es/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SKPB_esES368ES368&q=kevlar+bullet

I'm not sure what that says about your investigative skills.

RE: can you point to any of those search results that pertain to a bullet MADE OF kevlar?

The video you point to describe how a KEVLAR vest stops a .45 ACP BULLET. Newsflash - the VEST is made of kevlar. The BULLET is not. Which part of this bypassed your English comprehension skills?

Before making sarcastic comments about other people's investigative skills, it's probably best not to post something that makes you look like a moron who's not able to read.

"RE: can you point to any of those search results that pertain to a bullet MADE OF kevlar?"

Did I say the bullet was made of kevlar?

"The video you point to"

Did I point to a specific video, or to a results page listing some 2 million hits?

Which part of this bypassed your English comprehension skills, HOO?

Search and ye shall find, kneejerker.

Can you describe a valid interpretation of the phrase "a kevlar bullet", which does NOT mean "a bullet made of kevlar"?

No, you didn't say the bullet was made of kevlar. You attempted to ridicule a man for observing that he'd never heard of such a thing by pointing out that the words "kevlar" and "bullet" often appear on the same webpage, or appear together in the titles of videos.

This made you look stupid. You appear to be in a hole, and are enthusiastically digging deeper.

My bad posting without thinking

I was actually referring to Teflon rounds - with shot suspended in a teflon gel.

I was incorrect regarding "explosive" decompression however decompression would occur and the effect of that would depend on the altitude of the aircraft, furthermore their would be the risk of a hydrolic line, control wire or fuel tank being hit.

Get over yourself, Hoo. You're the one looking stupid.

"What is a kevlar bullet? I've never heard of it nor did I find anything when I googled it." Two Bit

I googled it and found many results including some videos showing how Kevlar vests can be penetrated.

Now, go away and search for yourself...

Easy boys (and girls), despite radically disagreeing with some here (notably two bit) it's been one the calmer and more interesting debates I've had on h2g2, especially given that I, along with some others, are simply struggling to see where 2 bit is coming from

As a comment to slightly above, isn't teflon used to assist bullets in penetrating kevlar? Wouldn't that make it worse? Or is it a very thick amount of teflon with only a small piece of shot within?

@RE: "I googled it and found many results"

And I'm asking you to provide one - just one - of those results that actually mentions a "kevlar bullet". Because Two Bit googled it, and couldn't find one. I've googled it, and couldn't find one.

You, on the other hand, "googled it and found many results". The word you have disingenuously omitted from that sentence is the word "irrelevant". You found millions and millions of completely irrelevant results, because not one of them (unless you can point to one...) mentions a "kevlar bullet".

Or maybe you blame Two Bit, for his vague and cryptic statement "nor did I find anything when I googled it." Silly of him to say he didn't find anything, when in fact he meant he didn't find anything faintly relevant. Perhaps he considered that obvious. Stupidly, he was assuming a certain very, very low level of common sense in the people he was addressing, in that they would understand that a google search for practically any pair of words will throw up millions upon millions of results, but that those results don't necessarily have anything to do with the question you're interested in answering. He was crediting you with far too much wit. I certainly shalln't make that mistake in future.

"isn't teflon used to assist bullets in penetrating kevlar?"

This is a depressingly common misconception among people who get their information about the performance and behaviour of firearms from action movies. PTFE is used to *protect* the gun barrel from the potential damage they may suffer when firing a hardened bullet. The PTFE has absolutely nothing to do with the penetrative qualities of the bullet. Coating a normal bullet in PTFE will have no effect on that bullet's ability to puncture a given surface.