Energy = damage. FMJ leaving the body is energy not staying in the body, and therefore is damage not done.
With statistics showing a much higher one shot kill rate for JHP (up to 96% of the time) vs FMJ (63% of the time).
What is important is where the bullet lands when it hits a body. Under your energy = damage theory everyone should just carry .357 or 10mm in order to maximize energy.
An abdominal shot with a JHP round does much more damage and is much more likely to be fatal than a similar shot with an FMJ round. Obviously a head shot between the eyes is going to make a lot less difference.
Convenient link Canada Texas is 3/4 the population of Canada and has over double the total homicides. 1374 vs 594 in 2008 and 2007, respectively. 1/3 were by gun in Canada, and an equal number by stabbing. It's also pointed out that the higher crime rates are in provinces with higher gun concentrations. While totally disarming the population is never right, limitation on types and higher standards of ownership/acquisition are far from unreasonable.
BTW, I don't know if anyone has seen or posted this yet(didn't read the whole thread due to bull shit arguing), but here are some excerpts from the guys 1500 page manifesto he published hours before the bombing and shooting. While I don't agree with what he did, especially the killing of the youngins, I empathize with him. He feels close to the same way a lot of people feel about the immigration of Mexicans. Except he took it a full 100 levels above what most people would have. Thoughts?
The only limitation should be on psychos and criminals. You have nothing to fear from me whether I have a Glock or a rifle or even a M-249.
MAOHS, you and your gun are stupid, you stupid dumbass!!! Is that better you petty pathetic cocksucking faggot from Beverly Hills?
I know perfectly well what the word means. It's fucked up, and it's indicative of how far right this board has drifted.
Killed by who? Norwegians have a low murder rate....you'd have to scour the countryside begging for someone to do it.
Yeah, but you're a C.O., aren't ya? In my world, I'd base it on training as well. Probably moreso than a blanket ban over criminal records. Hell, I've got a record and was prior to it quite competently trained with several Canadian military small arms and a couple of historic ones. should a single assault conviction at 17 mark me for life? Sorta like how one's first motorcycle shouldn't be a 1500 cc Harley or GSX-R... one's first gun shouldn't be a Glock or likewise high powered.
I guess understanding the cause and empathizing with the enemy only applies to the United States, huh?
You're reading a little to far into it. I said the only limitation should be on psychos and criminals. I didn't say anything about blanket bans. Limitation may mean some are permanently banned from owning firearms. It doesn't mean all. Nonsense. A Glock is a perfect first gun.
No kidding. Pointit and shoot. No complicated safety. And easy to clean. One day, I will get my son a Glock. For his... 10th birthday.
I don't think you can just use gun laws and say they are the reason for that gun crime is at such a level. Texas has a HUGE influx of drugs, illegals, gangs, etc, etc....and as a result they'll obviously have more gun problems. If Canada and Mexico were side by side, our gun crime would be a lot higher.
I empathize with his feelings on nationalism and immigration, the same issues that we have here in the States. But what I don't empathize with is, and am very appalled by, is the extremes to which he goes to deal with it. I hope you can understand that....and please don't lump me in with right wingers.
Then how come Toronto has a ton more drugs than Saskatoon or the 'Peg yet a lower percentage of violent crimes? We certainly have a less homogenized population... definitley less isolated than either of those places as well. Ditto Montreal. Anyways, I chose Texas on the basis of population and the reputation as the most gun friendly state. Admittedly, less than encompassing, but a useful snapshot. I mean, I prolly bray the loudest among Canadaforge about our shrinking right to firearms in this country, but some realistic limits need to be in place. Not just limits, but also knowledge to perspective owners. Normally I use Switzerland as an example of not just why a civilian populace SHOULD be armed, but HOW. No wild west, gangster shit...but a means of defense or sport with the obvious safety habits. Zombie, I'll take your word for it re:simple operation and such. Although, I'd think something a little... slower(?) would be more appropriate for beginning shooters. Look at folks like Apostle who salivate for an opportunity to draw on someone... Apostle-just don't breed. Okay? You having a firearm troubles me because you are so fucking flippant about them. Your kid would wind up shooting himself or another child because of this irresponsible attitude. Get yerself a nice 1200cc Hyabusa and remove the front brakes so you can go faster instead.
x2 no less question - do YOU understand what the purpose of the Second is? I think over the last several years here, I've made more than enough posts to prove my deep understanding of it.
