tomuchgear

simple answer thank you. i go to that store becouse they carry a wide array of diffrent harder to find ammo. like fifty cal. shells. also they are a mom, and pop kind of store. i try to support stores like that. there is a bigger name store down the road bout twenty minutes. they dont typicaly carry hollow points at all. they do carry certain fun guns that i like to go in and dream about purchasing then the wife tells me know lol. the bigger name store has things like uzi's, things you see in rambo stuff like that. i like the more simple guns but wouldnt mind firing one of those like a fmp90.

i bet in the world you live in every one is a pony, eats rainbows, and craps butterflys.
there is no damn justice in the world.

clemson357

Gun owners act shitty because they are the only group of people who are continually and unapologetically attacked by the mass media and Congress, and blamed by about 30% of the country for the acts of criminals.

How would you react if someone said "the only people who need free speech are dangerous political extremists," or "the only people who need a Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures are those who have something to hide." You would probably call them a fucking idiot. Yet for some reason similarly uninformed attacks on the Second Amendment are not only tolerated, but applauded by a large segment of Americans.

I apologize if I came off as a jackass, which I usually do, but when it comes to things as important as the Bill of Rights I wish more Americans would make an effort to become informed. Hollow point rounds were specifically targeted by gun banners in the early 90's. In typical hysteria-inducing fashion, the gun banners dubbed them "cop killer bullets," which actually couldn't be further from the truth because hollow points are actually less likely to penetrate a bullet proof vest.




To answer your question, the main thing that determines whether a bullet penetrates body armor is the force behind it. Most handgun rounds won't, most higher-power rifle rounds will penetrate light body armor, but there are some bullet proof vests that are more resistant than others. A hollow point is less likely to penetrate body armor. The fact that the tip is hollow makes it expand easier; if a hollow point hits a bullet proof vest, it would dissipate more of its energy expanding and thus be less likely to penetrate. The reason hollow points are preferred for home defense it because they are less likely to go all the way through a person; a bullet that travels all the way through you will hit something else, perhaps a family member on the other side of a wall. Also, a hollow point expands, meaning it leaves a bigger hole in the person you shoot.

________________________

NeilPearson

I understand the effects of guns on crime. I am not anti-gun at all. I just don't care about them either way.

All I am saying is the best you are going to do is getting maybe 50 people up in a compound in the mountains somewhere. Then when the shit hits the fan you could very well fight off the first wave or two until the government starts taking casualties. I am sure you would do quite well... but even if the government loses the first battle, the second one is going to be a lot tougher. They have the technology, the money, the manpower and the resources to crush any civilian rebellion you can dream up.

Just because I am not an expert on warfare doesn't mean I don't understand that the general American population isn't going to get behind a rebellion. They are apathetic and way too busy with their own lives to risk getting injured for any cause.

Even when Nazi Germany went around collecting Jews, the population didn't do shit about it... it didn't affect them directly so they weren't going to stand up against the army. It would be suicide.

min0 lee

No problem, I asked this because I do remember hearing this a while back.

I'm not sure but I do believe Customs, DEA use hollow point bullets.

WillBrink

I think I answered your question fairly and without any attitude. However, we often find it a bit scary people have opinions of guns, some of whom are law makers, that know absolutely nothing about guns. That's scary.

- Will @ BrinkZone


The No#1 Science Based Performance, Fitness, and Bodybuilding Resource on the 'net....

WillBrink

For personal defense type ammo, go to a Police Supply store. The tend to have a good selection. For bulk range ammo, places like Dick's Sporting goods and Wallmart sell it by the case. The 'net also has some good deals if you look around. Regardless, ammo prices are WAY up.

- Will @ BrinkZone


The No#1 Science Based Performance, Fitness, and Bodybuilding Resource on the 'net....

WillBrink

You really have no clue what you're talking about. BTW, a large group of armed jews did stand up to the German army and put up quite a fight and died free men. Suicide? No doubt, vs. bing shipped in cattle cars to the gas chambers, they chose to fight. If there had been more, who knows. History is full of examples where people small groups have defeated larger (including this country), you just have to look. It does not mean they always win either, but they don't end up as slaves, subjects, or in gas chambers, etc., either.

What would the American people do? I have no idea and either do you, so it's moot. What not moot is the Founder recognized free people are armed, and that's an essential counter balance to tyranny in government. Beyond that, it's all a WAG, and one thing we can agree on, most Americans are fat and apathetic.

- Will @ BrinkZone


The No#1 Science Based Performance, Fitness, and Bodybuilding Resource on the 'net....

WillBrink

All law enforcement as a rule uses hollow point ammo which for future reference is call jacketed hollow point or JHP. There is a very small % of law enforcement who use some specialized ammo, but 99% of them use JHP in their side arms, but long guns, etc are another issue.

- Will @ BrinkZone


The No#1 Science Based Performance, Fitness, and Bodybuilding Resource on the 'net....

NeilPearson

First of all, just because people don't agree with you does not mean they have no idea what they are talking about.

And how did that work out for them? The thing is the US is not Nazi Germany. The US is not going to start killing citizens... There is really nothing the government is going to do that would warrant getting into a fight that will ultimately cost you your life. In the past maybe this was true but times have changed for the first world countries.

Nope... they don't always win. In fact find me an example of when they have won.

WillBrink

True, and you still have no idea what you are talking about and the rest of what you wrote proves it. Examples of were they have won? They are easy enough to find in both early and modern history. Let's start with the country you live in:

Between 1768-1777, the British policy was to disarm the American colonists by whatever means possible, from entrapment, false promises of safekeeping, banning imports, seizure, and eventually shooting persons bearing arms.

By 1774, the British had embargoed shipments of arms to America, and the Americans responded by arming themselves and forming independent militia companies.

On the night of 18 April 1775, General Gage, Governor of Massachusetts, dispatched several hundred soldiers of the Boston garrison under the command of Major Pitcairn to seize the arms and munitions stored by the illegal colonial militias in Concord.

When Pitcairn encountered the Minutemen on the Lexington common blocking his way, he demanded that they throw down their arms and disperse. Although willing to disperse, the Minutemen were not willing to surrender their arms. The rest is history.

- Will @ BrinkZone


The No#1 Science Based Performance, Fitness, and Bodybuilding Resource on the 'net....

NeilPearson

Actually, I completely understand your arguement. Just because I don't agree with it does not mean I don't understand it.

Oh, and don't forget that list of successful uprisings.

WillBrink

Your writings in this thread suggest otherwise. You have shown no "understanding" of either the history, issues, or data involved.

Oh, and don't forget to actually do your own research vs. making others do it for you. It appears you don't even know the beginnings of your own nation, which was a classic example of the issue. Plenty of modern examples to be found if you bother to research. God forbid someone on the 'net would actually research a topic before commenting in it.

- Will @ BrinkZone


The No#1 Science Based Performance, Fitness, and Bodybuilding Resource on the 'net....

NeilPearson

What have I shown that I don't understand? I know that the right to bear arms was given to the American people so they can protect their rights, their property and to keep the government in check. People, whether they are criminals, government officials, or anyone will think twice before screwing someone over if they know that person is well armed and might do something about it. I understand the data involved. I understand that gun ownership prevents crime. I don't know what it is that you think I don't understand.

First of all I am quite familiar with the beginnings of my own nation and well as yours. I am not an American.

If it is so easy to find a modern example, why don't you just post one? When people argue something, they generally try and back it up with prove instead of just saying, "Well I'm right and if you knew more, you would realize it." Really, how much more immature and ineffective can an arguement be?

Throughout this thread, instead of offering anything of substance you just insult the person you are talking to and write them off as not having any clue.

DaMayor

Its just the style of Brink.

At least he's consistent.

NeilPearson

The beginning of the nation was a very different scenario. The playing field was a lot more equal. Today the government has a lot more of an advantage. Thousands of troops, tanks, planes, satellite, missles... there is no way they are going to let a group of red necks in the hills overthrow anything.

In today's environment, the pen is much mightier than the sword. In the last hundred years, if you take up arms against the government, you just lose public support and end up dead. If you really want to get things done, you have to go through the right channels, protest, petition, raise awareness and then maybe you can win if the public agrees with you. The minute you pick up a gun, the whole country will turn on you and your message is lost.

WillBrink

If you actually did, we would not be having this conversation. If we agree, then why are we having it again?

- Will @ BrinkZone


The No#1 Science Based Performance, Fitness, and Bodybuilding Resource on the 'net....

NeilPearson

I agree with the values of gun ownership to protect yourself against other people. I also agree that the founding fathers put it into the constitution to keep the government in check and that it was successful at doing so for many years.

I just think the times have changed and you and me sitting at home with our guns is no longer a big deterent for the government. They aren't afraid of us anymore.

WillBrink

Agreed, that part it cleared up. Well summed up.

Well that is no doubt an interesting and worthy area of consideration and one could come to several conclusions on the matter, and it's impossible (minus a time machine) to know the correct answers. Thus, some look at history, data, the US Const. etc and feel it's as relevant today as it ever was, and some, like yourself, do not. Fair enough. You asked for some reading...It's also a worthy issue to look at in terms of larger scale human rights, and supplied is an article of note on the issue:

The Next International Right

Thursday, October 17, 2002

By Glenn Harlan Reynolds,
Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee

The past century was one of barbarism and mass murder, one in which the world stood by while large populations were exterminated by governments bent on power and possessed of the means of killing.

After World War II, the "international community" determined that the most important goal of the new international system created for the post-war era would be the prevention of genocide. "Never again," we were told, and nations signed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in large numbers.

Among the nations who signed were Cambodia (1950), the Congo (1962) and Rwanda (1975), though Rwanda was originally covered by Belgium’s agreement in 1952, when Rwanda was a Trust Territory administered by Belgium.

These three nations, of course, went on to become the greatest sites of genocide in the second half of the 20th century. (China's mass murders and starvation under Mao are more properly called "democide," as they did not single out a particular group or culture.)

In every case, the "international community" stood aside while the genocide took place unimpeded by the parchment barriers of international agreement. Tea, sympathy and peacekeeping forces were provided after the killing was done, but no action was taken to seriously inconvenience the killers while they were at work. International agreements, and the international community, have proved as useless as the League of Nations was in confronting Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia.

As one article on the Rwandan genocide in Foreign Affairs puts it:

As reports of genocide reached the outside world starting in late April, public outcry spurred the United Nations to reauthorize a beefed up "UNAMIR II" on May 17. During the following month, however, the U.N. was unable to obtain any substantial contributions of troops and equipment. As a result, on June 22 the Security Council authorized France to lead its own intervention, Operation Turquoise, by which time most Tutsi were already long dead.

Nor have efforts to deter genocide by trying killers after the fact done very well. As the magazine Legal Affairs reports, Rwandan killers have turned up actually on the payroll of the "International Court" designated to try war criminals. It is, said one observer, as if Klaus Barbie had turned up on the staff at Nuremberg. Pol Pot, meanwhile, apparently died in bed.

This has led some observers to suggest that genocide isn’t something that can be addressed by international conventions or tribunals. A recent article in the Washington University Law Quarterly argues that the most important thing we can do to prevent genocide is to ensure that civilian populations are armed:

The question of genocide is one of manifest importance in the closing years of a century that has been extraordinary for the quality and quantity of its bloodshed. As Elie Wiesel has rightly pointed out, "This century is the most violent in recorded history. Never have so many people participated in the killing of so many people."

Recent events in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and many other parts of the world make it clear that the book has not yet been closed on the evil of official mass murder. Contemporary scholars have little explored the preconditions of genocide. Still less have they asked whether a society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage.

Though it is a long step between being disarmed and being murdered--one does not usually lead to the other--but it is nevertheless an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed.

The result, conclude law professor Daniel Polsby and criminologist Don Kates, is that "a connection exists between the restrictiveness of a country's civilian weapons policy and its liability to commit genocide."

Armed citizens, they argue, are far less likely to be massacred than defenseless ones, and armed resistance to genocide is more likely to receive outside aid. It is probably no accident that the better-armed resistance to genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo drew international intervention, while the hapless Rwandans and Cambodians did not. When victims resist, what is merely cause for horror becomes cause for alarm, and those who are afraid of the conflict’s spread will support (as Europe did) intervention out of self-interest when they could not be bothered to intervene out of compassion.

It is no wonder that genocide is so often preceded by efforts to disarm the people.

Current events in Zimbabwe appear to be playing out in the fashion that Polsby and Kates warn against. If this is the case, then surely the human rights community could be expected to take on the subject of armed citizens, particularly as the right to arms is far closer to the individual rights that make up the "first generation" of internationally recognized human rights.

After all, the human rights community has long argued that all sorts of dramatic changes in international law are justified if they might make genocide unlikely and has been nothing less than flexible in discovering such "post-first-generation" human rights as "developmental rights," "environmental rights" and a "right to peace."

In fact, the human rights community has addressed the issue -- but from the wrong side. They seem generally supportive of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s effort to put in place a global gun control regime "including a prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms."

In other words, in the face of evidence that an armed populace prevents genocide, the human rights community has largely gotten behind a campaign to ensure that there will be no armed populaces anywhere in the world.

It seems to me that the human rights community has things exactly backward. Given that the efforts of the international community to prevent and punish genocide over the past several decades have been, to put it politely, a dismal failure, perhaps it is time to try a new approach. International human rights law is supposed to be a "living" body of law that changes with the needs of the times in order to secure important goals -- chief among which is the prevention of genocide. Given that the traditional approaches of conventions and tribunals have failed miserably, the human rights community should be prepared to endorse a new international human right: the right of law-abiding citizens to be armed.

It may seem odd to make such an argument at a time when D.C. is being terrorized by a mysterious gunman. But no one should pretend that rights do not have costs. We recognize the right to free speech not because we believe that speech does no harm, but because we believe that free speech has benefits that outweigh the harm. We recognize the right to abortion not because we believe that it is costless, but because the cost of having the state supervise women’s pregnancies is seen as worse. And we recognize the freedom of religion not because religion is safe -- it can and does lead to violence, as the worldwide epidemic of Islamic terrorism demonstrates -- but because having the government prescribe what is orthodox is worse.

Similarly, an armed populace might conceivably lead to more crime (though the criminological evidence suggests otherwise). But even if one believes that widespread ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens leads to somewhat more crime, that is not by itself an argument against creating such a right, merely a cost to be set against the increased protection from genocide that such a right would provide.

Given the high value that we (supposedly, at least) place on preventing genocide, it seems unlikely that minor increases in crime rates could justify eliminating such a protection.

I wonder if the Bush administration’s diplomatic corps will have the nerve and the integrity to push this argument at the U.N. and elsewhere, not merely as an argument in opposition to global gun control, which they have been making already, but an argument in favor of a positive right to be armed as part of international human rights law? Perhaps they will, if enough Americans encourage them to.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee and publishes InstaPundit.Com. He is co-author, with Peter W. Morgan, of The Appearance of Impropriety: How the Ethics Wars Have Undermined American Government, Business, and Society (The Free Press, 1997).

- Will @ BrinkZone


The No#1 Science Based Performance, Fitness, and Bodybuilding Resource on the 'net....

NeilPearson

I agree that an armed population protects them from genocide in countries like Cambodia, the Congo and Rwanda where that is a real threat. I just don't think that countries like the US, Canada, Britian, Australia, etc are in any threat of this happening. The governments just have no reason to do such things. Of these countries, many have strict gun laws and are not being threatened by their governments.

Even though I don't believe gun ownership is preventing anything in these areas (only because it wouldn't happen anyway), I don't think that allowing gun ownership hurts either. I know people enjoy their guns and I would never suggest that they should be taken away.

Now if the environment were different in the US and I thought there was any chance the government would want to kill me, then yes, I would want to be armed as much as possible even though I would know I had little chance of surviving when the shit hits the fan.

WillBrink

No four words have EVER lead to the deaths more people in all human history than "it can't happen here." You and I don't get to pick where and when things change for the worse, and no one knows the future. You don't get to hand pick where it may or may not happen, and again, history is quite clear how much things can change given time.

No one thought it would happen in Germany either (and I have personally spoken to people there at the time), which was the absolute hight of civil society, in science, technology, etc. It was not third world country, and it's the hight of human hubris to decide which place and time such things can happen, and where they can't, because you feel country X is safe from such things but country Y is not. Again, a recent Vice President of the US said not long ago:

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any
government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the
citizen to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should
not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should
not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms
is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in
America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."- Hubert H. Humphrey

It's also moot. You need to understand the concepts of inalienable rights, which the Founders and writers of the US Const. considered. Ergo:

The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a theoretical set of individual human rights that by their nature cannot be taken away, violated, or transferred from one person to another. They are considered more fundamental than alienable rights, such as rights in a specific piece of property.

Inalienable (Individual) Rights are: natural rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They are the most fundamental set of human rights, natural means not-granted nor conditional. They are applicable only to humans, as the basic necessity of their survival

Inalienable rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thus, the right to self defense, be it from tyranny or criminals, is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT no government can grant or take away. And that's how it works here...

- Will @ BrinkZone


The No#1 Science Based Performance, Fitness, and Bodybuilding Resource on the 'net....

NeilPearson

Honestly, if it ever did happen here, well the country would have to go down hill a lot before that happened and I would have seen the writing on the wall and already moved to Australia :P

Actually, the thought has crossed my mind anyway. We will just have to see how badly the next four years go. If they are anything like the last 4, I am selling everything except for my Canadian passport and getting the hell out of here.

danzik17

Do you really find it so hard to believe Neil?

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but look at how the various executive orders can be combined and why contracts were given to Halliburton to construct internment camps in the United States.

If inflation continues to stay out of control, I wouldn't be surprised to see riots begin. Then comes martial law and so on.

But is it really so hard to believe that our leaders don't give a shit about you and me? That they're just in it for the power and money?

Ron Paul 2012

Journal: danzik17's Log - 4-6 Week Strength/Bulk
Journal: Sub 10% by April <old>

clemson357

The ratio of Democide to Homicide in the 20th century is 20 to 1. 20 times as many people were killed by their government as were killed by another individual.

Governments are huge entities with that operate comparatively with little accountability. Its been less than 150 years since the American government finished up their last genocide, I wouldn't put it past them to do it again.

________________________

WillBrink

Because denial is the default coping strategy of most people, which is why history repeats itself. When ever a thing is just too terrible to consider as possible, denial is the result. It's simply how most people's brains are wired, which explains all kinds of behaviors from those who have crappy locks on their doors, to women who walk through dark parking lots alone late at night, to entire countries unable to cope with mass murder their own people are commit, and so on.

During WW2 other countries such as the UK and US knew all about the concentration camps (contrary to what some may think or have been told) because survivors fleeing Germany told them, spies told them, etc.. However, it was so horrible to even consider, they refused to believe the stories, and went into a collective denial about it. Until the troops finally walked up to the gates and saw the piles of bodies...

Anti gun types are of course the shining example of denial as coping strategy. Then there is a small % of people, for what ever reason, be it life experience or different wiring, who see things as they are, and don't have the luxury of denial.

Yes, you can have individual denial, group denial, and even national denial:

Denial: Denial is a defense mechanism' postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence...

- Will @ BrinkZone


The No#1 Science Based Performance, Fitness, and Bodybuilding Resource on the 'net....

dg806

Neil,
You don't think it can happen here? That the government won't kill people because they don't agree with what they are doing? You are wrong. Look at Ruby Ridge, and Waco. That should prove the point right there. I actually met the guy from Ruby Ridge at a gun show in Charlotte one year and have a book signed by him that he wrote about the incident. He is not the "crazy" guy most people would portray him to be. He is just an average citizen that wants to live a private, peaceful life, free from government intervention.

1-Andro Rx Pro-hormone