People who let getting shot affect their lives are pathetic, IMO. I've been shot before, and with some willpower, I'm able to brush it off. It's not hard. The people who complain about being shot do it for attention.

i mean any bullet will probably kill me

Yeah, it's pretty cool how those work. 



That said, I don't think that's the kind of ammo the average person should have.  It's just overkill, and it'd be pretty easy to accidentally hurt someone aside from the intended target if you're splitting 1 projectile into 9 or 10.

I see a lot of tissue damage and bleeding... I certainly wouldn't want to be the guy who gets shot with one, but I seem to be agreeing with his final thoughts. I wouldn't use it.

People who let getting shot affect their lives are pathetic, IMO. I've been shot before, and with some willpower, I'm able to brush it off. It's not hard. The people who complain about being shot do it for attention.

Did you shoot yourself?

You know, I'm quite fond of living in a country that isn't so gun nuts. Of course, naturally, there's always going to be somebody out there with a gun. But in most circumstances people up here don't fall back to guns so quickly. Getting robbed or mugged, it's usually a knife, or multiple people approaching from behind.

Which, in most scenarios, can give you a decent chance if you're smart. But personally, if I ever found myself in a bad enough situation, I don't think I'd enjoy plugging somebody full of holes with the equivalent of shrapnel bullets.

Beating them with a chair would be far more satisfying. Or bare hands too.

If somebody's going to be an asshole at that point, beyond reasoning or second chances, then why not make the most of it? Don't kill the fucker. Break bones and rough him up so bad that he's got to stay in a hospital bed for a long damn time. Maybe think about changing his life direction.

Beating them with a chair would be far more satisfying. Or bare hands too.

All I can say is, you better make sure you are stronger than the bad guy(s). A gun puts everyone on the same playing field..

 Let's say three people break into a man's house who is paralyzed from the waste down.. Do you honestly think he can physically fight off the three intruders with his bare hands? No, but with a gun and some basic usage training, he can.

And don't bring up rare cases, like the one that occurred in Africa.. That man was clearly a moron..

Kinky buttplug

Quote from: Septy on March 14, 2015, 02:14:51 PM

Quote from: Flee on March 14, 2015, 02:13:54 PM

Quote from: Septy on March 14, 2015, 02:12:34 PM

Quote from: Flee on March 14, 2015, 02:10:19 PM

Quote from: Septy on March 14, 2015, 01:51:52 PM

Quote from: Statefarm on March 14, 2015, 01:08:00 PM

Surprised that's legal

Why?

It's supposed to minimize any chance of the bullet going through the target and hitting an innocent person. It dumps all of its energy into the target. Great for home defense.

Because it's pretty disproportional, no?

What?

This type of ammunition.

What about it?

Using this type of ammunition seems to cause pretty disproportional damage. You get assaulted by someone and shoot him in the chest out of self defence? That stops the man. Ripping every single one of his organs to shreds or destroying any limb the bullet lands in seems a little unnecessary when a "normal" round serves as great self defence in its own.

If by normal round you mean FMJ. Just one bullet does not guarantee that the attacker will stop because a FMJ doesn't dump all of its energy into its target. It can go through the attacker and hit somebody else. Which is why you normally don't use FMJs for self defense, it can't stop an attacker in the least amount of bullets and it can unintentional harm others. If you have a gun and you're willing to use it for home defense the last thought on your mind  should be about the safety of the attacker.

Yeah, it's pretty cool how those work. 

YouTube

That said, I don't think that's the kind of ammo the average person should have.

What kind of ammo should the "average person" have?

I still like gyrojets the best.

Quote from: Sandtrap on March 14, 2015, 01:04:38 PM

Beating them with a chair would be far more satisfying. Or bare hands too.

All I can say is, you better make sure you are stronger than the bad guy(s). A gun puts everyone on the same playing field..

 Let's say three people break into a man's house who is paralyzed from the waste down.. Do you honestly think he can physically fight off the three intruders with his bare hands? No, but with a gun and some basic usage training, he can.

And don't bring up rare cases, like the one that occurred in Africa.. That man was clearly a moron..

Implying that he'd primarily use his legs to fight or even move. Just about anything around you can be turned into a weapon. Throw something hard enough and it'll hurt. Of course, somebody who's paralyzed has less mobility. That doesn't stop him from having a can of bear spray on him. A tazer. Knives.

So long as you've got your hands and a good head you've got some decent chances.

And saying that a gun puts people on an even playing field is bullshit. It puts one on one encounters with people on an even playing field. But what the fuck is going to stop three guys with guns when you've only one gun?

Unless you've got something that fits your situation like a shotgun. Guns come in so many types that it's not actually an even playing field. Not at all. Two guys with revolvers is an even playing field.

A guy with a shotgun over a guy with a revolver is not.

A guy with an assault rifle over three guys with assault rifles is not.

It all depends on how you use your head. Not what amount of firepower you have. Unless somebody is expressly breaking into your home to murder you, then you're in trouble if you've a knife and you're in a wheelchair.

But overall, up here, there are more scenarios involving things other than guns. It all depends on what fucked up part of the world you live in really.

Quote from: AngryBrute on March 14, 2015, 02:28:07 PM

Because the legal hooplah after this is even more crazy.

Now imagine the "legal hooplah" with you having used a type of ammunition that intentionally turns into what's basically shrapnel, specifically designed to do as much damage as possible and intentionally rip the guys insides to shreds, especially knowing that "normal" rounds have been shown to be very effective at neutralizing threats in the first place.

Thats why I dont use it. I dont want a WW1 inhumane knife scenario to happen.

I can talk to my lawyers. Ask if ammunition factors into the process.