Features

Sethomas · #1

So, my gun-shop-owning friend loves to go on and on about the bullets he keeps in the chamber when in public. He calls them something like "blaster (or glaster? who knows) safety rounds" or something, but the closest thing I can find to describing them online is "Hydra Shok". Apparently they're designed to create a hollow cavity inside the body, as to render any central shot lethal. He said that they're necessary because if you don't kill them, they'll sue. Or, if they don't sue, they'll come after you once they're out of prison.

To me, this strikes me as retarded. I personally think that anyone who uses these and kills someone with a shot that might otherwise have not been fatal should be prosecuted for manslaughter. I'm not saying that guns should be outlawed for self-defense usage, but turning them into deliberate killers rather than deliberate self-defenders should be illegal.

Thoughts?

kahljorn · #2

I guess it could be considered financial self-defense and future self-defense :O

Sethomas · #3

If those were valid points, which they're not.

kahljorn · #4

What kind of responses do you expect from this thread? It's not very thought provoking.

I don't really see a difference between killing someone and maiming them if they are trying to kill you. That's what happens IN THE WILD WILD WEST.
I guess if they didn't want to get killed they shouldn't have tried to kill someone else.

Isn't there some type of Kantian thing about treating people according to their own will? If they want to live in a world where it's kill or be killed, let them live accordingly. Obviously they wouldn't have held back from killing you.

I'd almost call him paranoid but I kind of understand the feeling. I don't see how it's invalid that you can defend your future by killing someone; isn't that what self-defense does in the first place? However, I wouldn't say it's just ok to kill people in the interests of your future unless your future(of being alive) is threatened; which it is if someone's trying to kill you.
Incarceration, in the first place, is basically protecting futures.. besides obviously serving the interests of justice. I think killing someone who likes to kill is "justice" though, anyway.

ps you take yourself too seriously.

Sethomas · #5

Well, there's the idea that killing is illegal but self-defense is okay. I agree with both, so what is the purpose of going to such great lengths to entangle the two? Justice isn't Kantian, and you can't steal from thieves nor run over jaywalkers.

SERIOUSLY.

kahljorn · #6

I didn't say justice was kantian that's why I used an extra paragraph/enter-space to break them apart.

Kant did say something about treating people according to their own will, though, didn't he?
Well that depends on what type of theft it is. Obviously, if a thief stole a diamond you could possibly get the diamond back. Also, considering he was acting in "Self-interest" you could say that jail is going against his self-interest, but is in others self-interest.
Same could be said for jaywalking i guess. I don't really consider jaywalking a "crime" though.
Also, you can't steal from a thief but you can charge him money or sell his house to pay for fines(that's kind of like stealing), make him work it off, or put him in jail for a certain amount of time. It's hard to make money if you're in jail, and that's basically stealing time from a persons life.
It costs time to earn money to buy things with money and would therefore have a "Time" value to them; if "Things" are stolen you are also stealing time. Of course that could be variable and is too confusing because who knows how much time they spent earning the money.

I guess they are entangled because it sucks to die if you haven't done anything wrong or something-- not very "Fair". I think it's, generally, much better to kill someone who is "Bad" then to let someone who is "Good" die at the hands of the "Bad"; at the "Goods" expense and the "Bads" profit and leisure/escape.
I might consider it to be slightly different if it's a "crime of passion"; as in commited by someone you know, possibly because of your own actions.

This kind of steps away from the Super Bullets portion of this, though, but I guess you can maim someone then shoot them in the head.
Which reminds me, if you use a normal gun, and the person is out to kill you, if you just maim them there's a chance they could still kill you in that moment.

Sethomas · #7

Sorry, I'd gone downstairs to do some laundry and shit.

I'll just address that last point. I think that given the first shot, when under attack, whether you hit them in the head or the chest or an arm or whatever is entirely dependent on your abilities and state of mind. You'd be acting out of adrenaline and not your full awareness. As such, I wouldn't say that intentionally hitting someone and killing them is in itself criminal. It just happens. However, if you shoot two or three or more times when the situation didn't necessitate it, or you use bullets that made the situation more lethal than it needed be, then that should be some degree of manslaughter.

mburbank · #8

I think that the statistical chances of needing to kill someone so they don't kill you are VASTLY, VASTLY smaller than the # of people who feel like they want to need to carry a gun.

Concidering that, creating amunition the makes it hard NOT to kill someone seems stupid to me, and seems to cater to a population who maybe shouldn't have guns at all.

sspadowsky · #9

I don't think this ammo is anything new. I'm pretty sure hydra-shocks have been around a long time, and they're basically souped-up hollow-points, if memory serves me.

At any rate, yeah, this guy sounds like a yo-yo who probably shouldn't be carrying a weapon. The type who jerks off to Guns & Ammo instead of Hustler.

Preechr · #10

I've actually been having this same discussion with my dad, as I'm thinking about trading in my .38 for a .40 or .45 while I can still get a 17 shot clip. My dad thinks it would be a better, more moral job of self defense to pop as many .22 or 9mm holes in an intruder as it might take to convice the guy to stop intruding. My feelings on the matter, however, are tempered by my experience being me.

Like Seth said, if the moment ever comes where I'm faced with a kill or be killed decision, I'm pretty sure I'm going to be freaking out completely. I can deal with stress pretty well, and I can keep my head in bad situations, but I doubt very seriously I'm going to be a very good shot at 3am when I'm woken up by a home invader. I figure I might need 17 shots to hit anything in the dark, especially if I've been drinking... which is pretty damn likely.

One thing's for sure: Living where I live, I've made the decision that I don't want my tombstone to read something along the lines of "Ran out of bullets," or something else related to my being insufficiently prepared to protect my own life.

DuFresne · #11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sethomas

So, my gun-shop-owning friend loves to go on and on about the bullets he keeps in the chamber when in public.

I can only assume your talking about this good old boy:

Angryhydralisk · #12

I think Chris Rock said it best (Or at the least, a scenario that'd be funny as shit to look at.). Make bullets $5,000 dollars apiece.

kahljorn · #13

I don't know about you guys but I care more about my life than someone who's dick enough to try and kill me. Also:

I think if someone tries to kill you and you stop them.. don't they get charged with ATTEMPTED murder? sounds like getting off easy, and I happen to know for a fact he's not doing me any favors.
What is the rate of vengeful recidivism from crimes anyway? i do wonder if criminals ever go back to "Finish the job", but they probably wouldn't(possibly for practical reasons, like not knowing who the person is or where they are). So maybe that makes the paranoia pointless. Doesn't necessarily mean he wouldn't try to kill someone else, though, since recedivism rates ARE normally high.

I just don't really understand all this spare the rod shit, though. I don't understand why you have to hold back on killing someone that was trying to kill you. What kind of stupid shit is that? I don't need a justice system to tell me the guy is guilty when he's shooting at me, and if the guy's going around trying to kill people anyway it's not like he's going to be a changed man just from going to jail for 10-15 years. I guess there's the chance that they could trace the gun and find all the crimes he's commited, so he can goto jail forever, but what the fuck does that mean: People get to pay taxes to support him for the rest of his life? great justice.
I like the justice system and all but I don't see the difference between being put in jail for life and being killed by someone you tried to kill. Isn't part of the point of the justice system to give some form of restitution to the victims?

I guess I would like to hear from you guys what exactly is the difference between the two? I understand your stance on his paranoia and super gun masturbation, but not on the rest.
I mean we can shoot to kill in a war but not when our own lives are at stake?

I don't like that we need "Excuses" to kill, granted by someone else when it's MY life at stake. Obviously, I understand excusing as far as justice goes(such as in self defense). However, saying stuff like, "OH ITS OKAY THAT HE KILLED BECAUSE OF HIS ADRENAL GLANDS" "OH HES JUST AN ANIMAL WHO WAS PROTECTING HIS LIFE BUT THEN HE WENT OVERBOARD". "HE DIDNT HAVE FULL AWARENESS" Fuck all that

that appeals too much to an insanity plea, rather than self-defense. i don't like that it's only okay to kill if you are in an "unhuman" state. that ALMOST pardons criminals of moral responsibility who are probably in an "unhuman" state.

I guess the questions it boils down to are these: Do you think it's wrong to kill in ANY situation? If not, what situations is it alright it? is it only right when it's "Right"? Or is it only alright to kill by mistake? Is it only right if it's governmentally sanctioned?

I don't know but I also simultaneously feel that civilians shouldn't have hollowpoint bullets.

ArrowX · #14

Seth, its not that they can sue you only if they lie about the exchange. i.e. trying to get away with saying that you were the aggressor. I didn't think they were legal for use as a civilian PDW.

mburbank · #15

See, now, I can imagine lots of situations where I'd want to have a gun that don't feature killing the other person, and in a tense situation, I don't want to say, hang on a sec, I need to reload as I only want to wound you.

In addition, people who think they would never do any such thing find themselves point a gun they own at a spouse or special friend, or their kid finds their gun even though they hid it real good, or some punk ass dufus gets all mad on account of having been dissed, and in all of those cases, it would be good if there was some chance the person on the recieving end of the bullet might survive. In fact, these scenarios happen WAY more often than the ones in which it's kill or be killed which don't happen to most people who aren't cops or soldiers ever.

I bet Dick Chenney is glad he wasn't using super duper explody bullets that one time.

Preechr · #16

When I first read the start of this thread, I asked one of the guys I work with what exactly a Hydro Shock bullet was, so he went out to his truck and pulled the clip out of his .45 to show me. I guess it depends on where you live, but here in the BY GAWD SOUTH, it's legal to carry them around in your truck loaded up in your hand cannon, apparently...

kahljorn · #17

Yes, Max, i definitley agree with that which is why I feel civilians shouldn't have hollowpoints. It'd probably just create a bunch of senseless slaughter.

ArrowX · #18

Its stupid, Civilians should only be able to carry at largest a .22LR if anything. Some guy down the street from me keeps a .480 caliber revolver loaded in his house at all times.

While looking up info on this, I noticed that use of the US army's berret M80 and higher rifles as a sniper is in conflict with the Geneva convention. I haven't checked it out but apparently when filing engagement reports the snipers have to say they were aiming for the opposing forces, ammunition, fatigues or helmet.

Edit:

Sweet fuck
Pictured is the round from the Steyr IWS2000 in comparison to a .308 winchester

kahljorn · #19

Well, I guess war is supposed to be "Honorable" so i guess it's good to try to prevent unnecessary casualities.

executioneer · #20

Quote:

Originally Posted by StupidKraut

Pictured is the round from the Steyr IWS2000 in comparison to a .308 winchester

um, yeah? it's bigger cause it's an anti-tank weapon, so?

kahljorn · #21

also i edited my response more if anybody has any reason to feel like reading it.

executioneer · #22

something to consider about hollowpoint rounds which hasn't been brought up: they're less likely to penetrate someone/something you're shooting at and hit someone behind them than regular bullets.