Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information


Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

More gun rubbish from Journal.ie

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    meathstevie
    Registered Users Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭meathstevie


    Sparks wrote: »
    That's not quite in line with what firearms actually do in reality. (For a start, a shotgun's pellet spread is going to be between half an inch and an inch per yard from the target, so up close it's for all intents and purposes a .72 caliber rifle. ....


    Mod Note: And none of us are terribly happy about the idea of discussing the "best way" to shoot a human being in this particular forum guys. Could we knock that aspect to this thread on the head please? Thanks.


    Sparks, you're spot on. Translate 32grams of compact bunched shot to grains and you're probably in .50BMG territory. I've previously been in a position where I've received quite some tactical training and trained in a variety of firearms and so on and I know one thing for sure. The two things you do not want to face from close range are either an IED of any size or a shotgun. Handguns are only pop guns when it comes to close range raw power. There's a reason why handguns are often just issued as a personal protection tool in a military and policing context.


  • Options
    #33
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users Posts: 14,946 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Traumadoc wrote: »
    Did you actually read the IMJ article or are you relying on the media to accurately report what was in the IMJ?

    The increase in gun crime presenting to Connolly could easily be explained by the massive increase in the population that has occurred in the last 15 years. The media want a story if that line was in the IMJ piece you can be sure it was not reported in the media.


    Guys.
    I DO NOT have this link!!!
    I am going by the foolish assumption that maybe a newspaper,if we can call it ,might actually report something factual without putting an anti gun spin on it. What is worrisome to me,and maybe many others is that this is the second article in the IMJ in two years where they have been pushing firearms as a "health issue,which has been done in the US,by various surgeons and places like the disease control centre in Atlanta".Last one here was about the "easy availability" of firearms for people who want to end it all.We discussed this at length here as well and came to the same conclusion hyped up,noise making by the IMJ but for what reason??

    Maybe I'm missing somthing .but if in ten years you have only had[going by the journal.ie report] seven shootings,thats hardly a massive epidemic and a health issue???
    Its not so much what was said but the attempted inferences being drawn in the article.

    Handguns are MORE dangerous because criminals like them and we have had 7 cases in a Dublin hospital in 10 years,and they are "high power".Shotguns are less dangerous because they are low power,and you will survive a blast easier from one because of that "fact."And criminals dont really like them nowadays.
    I've previously been in a position where I've received quite some tactical training and trained in a variety of firearms and so on and I know one thing for sure. The two things you do not want to face from close range are either an IED of any size or a shotgun. Handguns are only pop guns when it comes to close range raw power.

    Couldnt agree more,but if you were to translate the internal ballistics of a 9mm coming down ur 4.5in barrel .It is developing something like 950 HP for miliseconds in there.Thats the equivlient of three artic trucks worth of power.Not something to be trifiled with either.

    A shotgun shell is developing in say a 16 in barrel,[kind of a ball park length sawn of around here]758 HP with a bog std clay load.Thats pretty high power if you are on the reciving end.
    Some lad did some number crunching over on shotgun world.org on this topic.

    Plus, there is some mathematical formula that figures out that if say you were hit by one 00 buck pellet,it is cubed in the impact.IOW one pellet is worth three more. So if two hit you that's the equivilent of nine .32 cal pistol rounds hitting you at once.
    I'll finish with a story from the old West on this. Clay Allison.A famous gunslinger /outlaw known as the "Wolf of the Wa****a" decided one night in a saloon that he would amuse himself by threatning the locals with his six gun skills to dance under his gun.Included in this dance troupe was a 12 year old boy[Remember back then a 12 year old was considerd half a man and capable of looking out for himself and family].He took umbrage to this and went and returned with a shotgun and stated to the notorious gunslinger that as they had amused their infamous guest,he might like to return the favour of giving them a dance?
    The wolf did dance as he knew the boy wouldn't be impressd by his reputation ,and trying to get the drop on a double barrel with both hammers back being held by an irate youth was not a good idea,as he made his living by the gun and lived or died by it too ,he would certainly have known the destructive potential of a shotgun at close range in a gunfight.f
    Story paraphrased From The Worlds fighting shotguns.Thomas Swearengen

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Options
    #34
    gunny558
    Closed Accounts Posts: 107 ✭✭gunny558


    Sparks wrote: »
    It didn't draw a distinction between injuries caused by accidents from licenced firearms holders and intentional assaults by criminals.

    Why would it? Why would a medical journal be concerned about the whys and wherefores of how a person got shot, or was he shot by a licenced firearm or an illegally held one? All the doctors care about is that X amount of gunshot victims come into hosptial and Y amount leave the hospital and Z amount will have permenant problems.
    Sparks wrote: »
    As it's written now, the average Joe Public can't tell that the rise in shootings is solely the fault of the rise in drug gangs and associated crime

    Well, ya know the title of article is: "Handguns are now the choice of gangland criminals – so more people are dying"

    And then half way down the page (sorry I would quote but seems we arent allowed) the article even specifically says the increase in shootings is thought to relate to an increase in gangland activities.
    Sparks wrote: »
    that sort of article isn't good for us.

    Again, as I said before, Im still not seeing the issue with this article?


  • Options
    #35
    Traumadoc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,523 ✭✭✭Traumadoc


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    Guys.
    I DO NOT have this link!!!
    I am going by the foolish assumption that maybe a newspaper,if we can call it ,might actually report something factual without putting an anti gun spin on it. What is worrisome to me,and maybe many others is that this is the second article in the IMJ in two years where they have been pushing firearms as a "health issue,which has been done in the US,by various surgeons and places like the disease control centre in Atlanta".Last one here was about the "easy availability" of firearms for people who want to end it all.We discussed this at length here as well and came to the same conclusion hyped up,noise making by the IMJ but for what reason??
    SO you are saying the authors of this article are "sprouting rubbish" based on a foolish assumption.

    Class act.


  • Options
    #36
    gunny558
    Closed Accounts Posts: 107 ✭✭gunny558


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »

    So have I and I'd seriously beg to differ on that one..

    So you really think the Irish media are all in cahoots and using, [to quote your words]: "subtle mass conditioning tactic that has been used since ww1". And you think they are using this mass conditioning tactic to make joe public associate pistols with crime?

    If you want to believe that, thats fine. But its not a belief I share. I suspect I could argue all night with you over this and I'd never change your mind (and vice-versa).

    Grizzly 45 wrote: »

    Then they should stop mis reporting the information that they are fed and go and do some basic journalistic research to verify the facts


    Thank you just proved my point.ZERO research or checking of facts...

    Shure its coming from a Garda they must be experts too and tell the truth all the time..:rolleyes:

    Do you know how impractical that would be? To have each and every article written on every subject 100% factually correct?

    I have been shooting a fair few years at this stage and I wouldnt even take on with publishing issues relating to firearms in Ireland. Its a wreck. Ive been looking at firearm/wildlife acts for years and still dont even "get it". What hope has a journalist whos not even interested in this stuff and only has a few hours to get the article written?

    People know that when you read a newspaper you have to take it with a pinch of salt.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    mister gullible
    Registered Users Posts: 463 ✭✭mister gullible


    Just read the article on gun crime in yesterday's Indo. Presume it's the one that is under discussion here as it discusses the study which was published in The Irish Medical Journal. It's a completely harmless piece, does nothing to attack legitimate gun owners. If it is the same article then the knee jerk reactions here are over the top and verging on paranoid.


  • Options
    #38
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    gunny558 wrote: »
    Why would it? Why would a medical journal be concerned about the whys and wherefores of how a person got shot, or was he shot by a licenced firearm or an illegally held one? All the doctors care about is that X amount of gunshot victims come into hosptial and Y amount leave the hospital and Z amount will have permenant problems.
    They'd care because it would indicate there are two modalities of injury out there, with differing survival rates. That's rather a critical bit of information to know, especially if you're writing a paper that could wind up being used in policymaking, which this one blatantly could be.
    Again, as I said before, Im still not seeing the issue with this article?
    It's the lack of distinction being drawn. For example, almost all of those articles quote a doctor as saying that the strict firearms legislation in Ireland is the cause of the low number of casualties (compared to the US, I'm presuming because we're not low compared to anywhere else in the EU). That not only ignores the difference between legitimate firearms owners (who are obeying that strict firearms legislation) and drug gangs (who most certainly are not), but says we're liable to produce as many casualties as the drug gangs if it wasn't for those laws. If the latter group is the source of the casualties (and see my point about modalities in the last paragraph here), then the method that only affects the first group isn't going to control the overall casualty rate unless without that method the first group would be so large a source of casualties as to be comparable to the latter group.

    In other words, the article is saying that the laws that cripple our sport but don't stop the drug gangs, are the only reason we don't see more casualties => therefore the article is saying that if those laws didn't exist, we would be driving up the casualty rate (and not the drug gangs).

    You, me, and the other posters here might know that that's a load of hogwash for them to be selling; but Joe Q Public doesn't have a decade or so of experience with firearms the way the majority of posters here do.


  • Options
    #39
    gunny558
    Closed Accounts Posts: 107 ✭✭gunny558


    Sparks wrote: »
    They'd care because it would indicate there are two modalities of injury out there, with differing survival rates.

    I dont see how?

    A 9mm in the lung from 20 yards doesnt suddenly become more (or even less) dangerous depending on whether or not it was a tragic range accident or shot in the heat of the moment by a spouse or shot by a rival drug dealer. It makes zero odds. All that matters is the patient on the table with a bullet in his lung and how best to get it out and not what were the intentions of the person who put the bullet there.

    Sparks wrote: »
    especially if you're writing a paper that could wind up being used in policymaking, which this one blatantly could be.


    Im pretty sure the authors of this medical journal werent concerned about future firearm legislation when they were doing this study.
    Sparks wrote: »
    It's the lack of distinction being drawn. For example, almost all of those articles.....

    But we're not talking about other articles. We are talking about the one Grizzly linked in the OP and trying to figure out what this so called "gun rubbish" in it is that hes talking about... and why he thinks doctors are clueless and that the bar for medicine must be low.


  • Options
    #40
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    gunny558 wrote: »
    I dont see how?
    Because there's a difference between accidents and murders beyond the legal ones. Accidents are random, and in the case of firearm-related accidents, result in the immediate seeking of medical attention openly. Murders are not random, and even if the means chosen is not the most effective, the murderer is going to use that means as often as necessary to achieve their goal. In other words, if it's an accident, it's probably number 6 shot in the leg or some other random body part and the guy went straight to a doctor (meaning less time since the accident, meaning less chance of infection, meaning a better shot at saving their life); while if it's murder it's probably multiple close-range gunshots aimed for vital areas and the victim was probably not allowed seek medical attention (meaning more time for trauma to take effect, more blood loss, more damage, and a much lower chance of survival).

    The two modes do have a significant difference even purely on the grounds of medical treatment - yes, you might see similar techniques used in the operating theatre, but this paper's not on the techniques being used. It's an overall study on survival rates (or has been reported as such), and it sounds a lot more like an epidemiological study than anything else; and for such cases, even the mere existence of seperate modalities is a critical bit of information.
    A 9mm in the lung from 20 yards doesnt suddenly become more (or even less) dangerous depending on whether or not it was a tragic range accident or shot in the heat of the moment by a spouse or shot by a rival drug dealer.
    Correct.
    However, the six extra shots in the head and chest and the prevention of immediate medical treatment in the case of the drug dealer shooting do make a difference to the survival odds of the patient.
    All that matters is the patient on the table with a bullet in his lung and how best to get it out and not what were the intentions of the person who put the bullet there.
    If this was a medical textbook on removing bullets, maybe.
    If this was a paper on the overall increase in a particular medical problem being presented at a hospital, however, that's not the case.


    But we're not talking about other articles. We are talking about the one Grizzly linked in the OP
    ...which has large tracts shared verbatim with the other articles I linked to above, and most of them include the quote I'm talking about (though some paraphrased it, including the journal article, where it's paraphrased with the last line of the article).


  • Options
    #41
    useurowname
    Registered Users Posts: 396 ✭✭useurowname


    mister gullible wrote: »
    Just read the article on gun crime in yesterday's Indo. Presume it's the one that is under discussion here as it discusses the study which was published in The Irish Medical Journal. It's a completely harmless piece, does nothing to attack legitimate gun owners. If it is the same article then the knee jerk reactions here are over the top and verging on paranoid.

    Absolutely. Threads gone daft on it talking about media conspiracy and even posts asserting the more practical ways of shooting somebody. I'm not sure this is the best forum for the discussion, it's in 'sports' after all, must be a forum better suited to this, 'politics', maybe 'after hours'..I dunno?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    gunny558
    Closed Accounts Posts: 107 ✭✭gunny558


    Sparks,

    I respect your opinion, but my own opinion is that this medical journal in question wont have made any distinctions on why each victim was shot and who-dun-it.

    Without having read the journal, my interpretation is that this journal is focusing on deaths and injuries and what caliber/firearm has the highest fatalities/injuries.

    I dont think the focus is on: X amount of accidental shootings result in death, whereas X amount of intentional shootings result in death.

    Anyway. The only way we will come to a happy conclusion is if we are able to get a copy of said medical journal which will prove either yourself or myself correct. Until then we are wasting our time and efforts debating this aspect :)


    Sparks wrote: »

    .

    Accidents are random, and .... result in the immediate seeking of medical attention openly.

    .


    In other words, if it's an accident, it's probably number 6 shot in the leg or some other random body part and the guy went straight to a doctor

    .


    while if it's murder it's probably multiple close-range gunshots aimed for vital areas and the victim was probably not allowed seek medical attention (meaning more time for trauma to take effect, more blood loss, more damage, and a much lower chance of survival).

    .


    the prevention of immediate medical treatment in the case of the drug dealer shooting do make a difference to the survival odds of the patient.



    Err... I suspect there would be more delay in genuine accidents. Firstly, I think most hitmen go into a pub/house with pistol in hand and take a few pot shots at the victim and then scurry away as fast as possible. The Gardai and ambulance are usually on the scene in minutes.... contrast that with say a lone hunter out in the sticks who has an accident. Even the logistics on which is the best gate to park the ambulance at and how to get down to a bog and carry him back up to the road? Might have to climb fences? Rocky/slippery ground? Steep hills? Wade across a knee deep river? Trying to deal with curious/annoying livestock etc

    Sparks wrote: »
    ...which has large tracts shared verbatim with the other articles I linked to above, and most of them include the quote I'm talking about (though some paraphrased it, including the journal article, where it's paraphrased with the last line of the article).

    But Im not talking about those other articles. The question I asked originally to Grizzly is why is this particular newspaper article so bad. Hes accusing this paper of being biased against gun owners and is using this article as an example of that bias.... and Im just trying to see it from his (your?) point of view. Because in my mind that article is very reasonable.


  • Options
    #43
    juice1304
    Registered Users Posts: 1,805 ✭✭✭juice1304


    gunny558 wrote: »

    But Im not talking about those other articles. The question I asked originally to Grizzly is why is this particular newspaper article so bad. Hes accusing this paper of being biased against gun owners and is using this article as an example of that bias.... and Im just trying to see it from his (your?) point of view. Because in my mind that article is very reasonable.

    Because all we see is mad press, They wrote an article a few weeks ago about a man with a "sniper rifle" in a field after some woman walking her dogs thought it would be a good idea to take pictures from a bush of someone hunting and then have the newspaper write a story about it. the article also quoted an expert who could tell you the caliber of the rifle and what it was capable of without actually knowing, it was a short action rifle so it could have been any number of calibers.. He was also supposedly using a "Leupold scope" quoted by their expert etc... which it was not, it was a vortex pst..
    Find a story in the newspaper with a positive article about shooting


  • Options
    #44
    gunny558
    Closed Accounts Posts: 107 ✭✭gunny558


    juice1304 wrote: »
    They wrote an article a few weeks ago about a....

    You mean The Independent wrote an article about that a few weeks ago.....

    I guess you havent noticed, but in this thread we are trying to establish the problem Sparks and Gizzly are having with this particular journal.ie article.


  • Options
    #45
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    gunny558 wrote: »
    The only way we will come to a happy conclusion is if we are able to get a copy of said medical journal which will prove either yourself or myself correct. Until then we are wasting our time and efforts debating this aspect :)
    +1
    It's just gone up on IMJ.ie today too...


  • Options
    #46
    mister gullible
    Registered Users Posts: 463 ✭✭mister gullible


    So the IMJ paper only mentions 'gun crime' and statistics relating to gun shot wounds. Looks like a basic research piece. Does not attack legitimate firearm owners (not even touchy ones :D). Maybe the journos put a bit of spin on it but hardly enough to have all our guns seized!


Advertisement