My understanding is that hollow points were designed to prevent over-penetration rather than to harm more. How does the author know it was designed to "ensure maximum harm"? I can't help but think it was intentional.
Edit: Of course now that I read the rest of the article after initially writing this comment, I see that quote is also highlighted in a text box (side note, what is that called when they do that?).
If the energy of the round wasn’t expended into the target, it would simply shoot through and continue into the next target behind, which is the absolute worst case.
You may end up only injuring the intended target but killing an innocent behind it.
That's called a "pull quote".
The story of the FBI's switch from revolvers to semi autos is pretty interesting. They decided on 10mm but some agents found it to be too "hot" and had trouble controlling it. So they put out a request for a modified 10mm round and Smith and Wesson came up with the .40S&W. They developed the round before they had a production gun to shoot it, though. Glock had "acquired" some of S&W's new ammunition at a trade show to study it and found that by making minor modifications to their existing Glock 17 they could fire S&W's new ammo. They submitted the new gun to the FBI who chose it as the standard issue firearm for all of their agents.
minor modifications to their existing Glock 17
I do feel for the teacher; the situation is not ideal and I wouldn't want to have to shoot someone I'm supposed to take care of either.
I think it's good that this teacher sounds like someone who doesn't want to use his gun (not "trigger-happy"), I just hope in the unlikely situation where he would have to use it, that quality doesn't prevent him from stopping a threat before more harm is done.
The reasons they were designed to prevent overpenetration is because:
(1) overpenetration means energy which could go into damaging the target is instead wasted doing something else, and,
(2) that “something else” is sometimes harming things that one doesn't mean to harm.
Some people are arguing that hollow points were designed for (1), causing the most damage, and that (2), stopping in the target, is just a side-effect of its true purpose.
No, both are essential and important factors in what motivated the development of hollowpoints. The idea is both to maximize effectiveness against the intended target and minimize collateral damage; almost any time you have any justification to use a firearm the first is of central importance, and while the second may be less consistently important it is frequently important and overwhelmingly so when it is.
I carry every day, and have for over a decade now. It changes your mindset (for the better), and makes you confront your own feelings ahead of time.
I don't know how things develop at a school shooting but I wouldn't be too surprised if people ended up shooting each other or the wrong people. I hope the organizers have thought this really through.
More guns is not the solution to problems with guns.
Improving access to medicine, economic stability and programs that help empower educators and students to build safer spaces may be though.
In my school all the kids knew who was having a hard time and who was isolated, it would be better to reach out to these students rather than shoot at them. Students are going to school to learn and we're teaching and modeling militarism and violence.
The reason, my guess - doesn't make headlines, isn't good for bottom line.
"Jason lays out the story, how he learned belatedly that some students in his class had planned to leave early that day for a party in the woods. Jason, who had thought they were his friends, had not been told. When Jason realized he had been left out, he gave in to anger and posted a threat, hoping to ruin the other students’ fun. It was irrational, as most teenage decisions are.
In minutes, our conversation is over, and I watch as he is handcuffed and stuffed into the back of a cruiser. The deputies try to hold back community members on the opposite sidewalk. Other policemen are already at the courthouse to obtain a warrant to search his family’s property. The married campers, I think as the cars pull away."
Yeah, I don't know. I feel that we shouldn't be training civilians in the psychological dehumanization necessary to kill someone. Especially students they know. We know this kind of mindset is damaging to the psyche. Also, has there ever been a case where a teacher successfully shot a school shooter before any innocents could be harmed? America has so many school shootings, we'd have data... such unfortunate data.
I don't think there ever will be. I would probably not shoot a kid that I only suspect would shoot someone. I doubt a teacher would either.
(Also, is the kid a "school shooter" if he/she did not harm anyone?)
There has been a case where a principal got a gun from his car and stopped a school shooter though.
That's the thing, we'll never know how many shooting deaths were prevented by "a good guy with a gun", because we don't know if more people would have been shot and died if the shooter wasn't stopped.
There have been interviews with bystanders who had firearms on their person during a mass shooting and they didn't use their firearm because they didn't want the police to think they were on the side of the attacker(s). The idea that life is like a video game where there are unambiguous and easily identified "good guys" and "bad guys" in a chaotic situation is very juvenile.
I think I agree with you: It is difficult to identify between good and bad guys. A kid with a gun might be a good person making a terrible mistake which is why I wouldn't want to shoot him/her, especially if that person hasn't harmed anyone.
This is thoroughly refuted by the evidence:
>Guns can kill you in three ways: homicide, suicide, and by accident. Owning a gun or having one readily accessible makes all three more likely. One meta-analysis ”found strong evidence for increased odds of suicide among persons with access to firearms compared with those without access and moderate evidence for an attenuated increased odds of homicide victimization when persons with and without access to firearms were compared.” The latter finding is stronger for women, a reminder that guns are also a risk factor for domestic violence.
>There's been research showing that if you keep a gun in your home, that doesn't actually reduce your risk of gun violence. It actually makes you more likely to be a victim of crime or homicide or suicide.
>Individually, several studies have found that the presence of a gun in a home elevates the risk of death. A 2014 review of the research published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, found that access to firearms was associated with a doubled risk for homicide and a tripled risk for suicide. A 2017 piece by Melinda Wenner Moyer in Scientific American also ran through the evidence, concluding that gun ownership was associated with a higher risk of homicide, suicide, and accidental shootings.
>People often think that guns will potentially protect them from a home invader. But these kinds of events are relatively rare (and even then, the presence of a firearm can make it more likely that such a situation will escalate into deadly violence) — while the chances that a gun could be used to fatal ends in a domestic dispute, suicide, or accidental shooting are much higher, as the research on individual risk demonstrates.
>But about 30 careful studies show more guns are linked to more crimes: murders, rapes, and others. Far less research shows that guns help.
You're answering a different question than the one that was asked, which was how many people in the world are saved by the responsible use of guns.
"Mass Shootings", yes. "Shoot outs", no.
Venezuela, most shooting homicides are to cover up a crime, such as petty theft. These are inherently not "mass".
Syria is in active civil war, these are not "mass shootings" as much as battles. They're also more shootings to achieve a political end (not to create terror towards a political end) or for the personal vendettas of the shooter.