PDA

View Full Version : .50 Cal effect on Japanese fuel tank



SkyChimp
05-15-2005, 11:42 AM
Aricle from July 1944 Naval Aviation News

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/fueltank.jpg

3.JG51_BigBear
05-15-2005, 12:09 PM
He, he, he, sweet

Loki-PF
05-15-2005, 03:57 PM
Skychimp:

This proves conclusively that the .50 cal could kill tanks! Thanks for confirming everyones suspicions, now bring on the Panzers! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Blutarski2004
05-15-2005, 03:58 PM
Weak structural materials + hydrostatic shock?

JG5_Scorpius
05-15-2005, 04:00 PM
Typical example of propaganda BS.

fordfan25
05-15-2005, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by JG5_Scorpius:
Typical example of propaganda BS.

yes your post is.

Gog..
05-15-2005, 04:33 PM
Agreed, bollocks! .50 cal did not do that. Typical propabanda BS!

How do I know?

I've fired the bloody things and I have examined my work and though impressive it wasn't that impressive by a long way.

Yes, a .50 could take out a tank if you got lucky and fired from above and behind, even tanks as fearsome as Tigers could be taken out with a lot of .50 cal hits in the radiators/engine deck area, but great cavernous holes like that.....****!

CKY_86
05-15-2005, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Gog..:
Agreed, bollocks! .50 cal did not do that. Typical propabanda BS!

How do I know?

I've fired the bloody things and I have examined my work and though impressive it wasn't that impressive by a long way.

Yes, a .50 could take out a tank if you got lucky and fired from above and behind, even tanks as fearsome as Tigers could be taken out with a lot of .50 cal hits in the radiators/engine deck area, but great cavernous holes like that.....****!

there we have it. proof that .50 can take out tigers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Rehlyimah
05-15-2005, 04:40 PM
I think what people are missing here is that this is a fuel tank, not an armored combat vehicle.

JG5_Scorpius
05-15-2005, 04:47 PM
Rehlyimah: "I think what people are missing here is that this is a fuel tank, not an armored combat vehicle."

No we are not.

EmbarkChief
05-15-2005, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Weak structural materials + hydrostatic shock?
Exactly. Take an empty beer can and shoot it with a .22 and all you will get is two neat .22 cal holes. Take another can and fill it with water and shoot it with the same little .22 round and it will blow it in half. That picture is just what I would expect.

VBF-83_Hawk
05-15-2005, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Loki-PF:
Skychimp:

This proves conclusively that the .50 cal could kill tanks! Thanks for confirming everyones suspicions, now bring on the Panzers! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Wrong kind of "Tank" you idiots. The article is refering to fuel tanks not vehicle tanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


...and with the size hole I see, no more 30 min flying aircraft that get a "fuel leak" from a .50cal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

IL2-chuter
05-15-2005, 04:55 PM
Looks like the tank was at least partially full (why would you "test" it any other way?) and what we are seeing is partly hydraulics. (Ever shoot a gallon container full of water with a 12ga. slug?) There is also a mention of improved "leaking proof" (self-sealing?) tanks at the end of the report. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif This probably doesn't apply to German aircraft . . . and **** flying 30 mins leaking! What about flying 30 mins (OK, exaggeration, a little) BURNING - ya, you, B-25 . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

As for tanks, rounds in the radiators/fans and engine compartment is what you're looking for . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

jarink
05-15-2005, 05:04 PM
It looks like it was shot at while not in the wing structure (anyone else notice the ribbing going around it?). That would have at least parially helped contain the huge exit hole.

Other very relevant details that are missing include:

1. Whether or not tank was filled
1a. Filled to what capacity
1b. Filled with what?
2. Range
3. angle of penetration
4. Whether or not it was contained or placed behind any structure to simulate the aircraft's skin.

Without all of these questions answered, it's no better than hearsay as to the effectiveness of a .50 cal vs. an Oscar.

nakamura_kenji
05-15-2005, 05:24 PM
i not see big fuss as jaanese plane already catch fire, but hit need first ^_^

IL2-chuter
05-15-2005, 05:32 PM
Oh, jarink . . . really? There is nothing that can be inferred without all the variables spelled out? ("It's no better than hairspray . . ." puleeeze.) (Figured out how to use the italics function, its fun! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"I "hear" the world is round, but until I see it for myself it's just what everybody says." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif (Next I'm goin for <span class="ev_code_PINK">colors</span> - er http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif , maybe a different one.)

EnGaurde
05-15-2005, 05:35 PM
how did a story about a fuel tank from a japanese plane and a single .50 cal bullet suddenly turn into the Great Tank Debate?

though with the number of people chipping in on the obvious fact that the greatest anti armour weapon ever invented was the browning m2, its become a bit of a mass debate....

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

IL2-chuter
05-15-2005, 05:38 PM
Use a pun - go to jail . . . ooo, BOLD . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

jarink
05-15-2005, 06:16 PM
Inferred, yes. Known, no.

As some others have suggested eariler, shoot an empty soda can with a .22cal. You get a .22 hole on one side and about a .30 hole on the other. Now fill another soda can with water and shoot again. The can will almost seem to explode!
Now, fill another can with sand and shoot. Hmm. Didn't even produce an exit hole.

Ahhh! Some seemingly simple variables can have a tremendous affect on the outcome! Without knowing these variables, no conclusion should be drawn from one photo.

Hey, Italics are fun! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

EnGaurde
05-15-2005, 07:30 PM
what the hell are you talking about jarink?

you mean we cant sum something up based on face value, and create our own little environment supported only by imagination, wild speculation and hard line cynicism?

bah who needs facts. They can be used to prove just about anything. Useless when its much more interesting to create our own little world of truth.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

arcadeace
05-15-2005, 08:07 PM
EnGaurde you sound like me a couple of years ago http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I do agree tho, its only an article about Japanese a/c self-sealing fuel tanks, a good article, and why they can easily go up in flames.

Waldo.Pepper
05-15-2005, 08:09 PM
Can anyone comment on how full/empty the tank was?

Aero_Shodanjo
05-15-2005, 08:19 PM
maybe it was <span class="ev_code_BROWN">either</span> half empty,...
...or half full.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

fordfan25
05-15-2005, 08:29 PM
how about i do a dumbed down test. ill get an old gas tank outa one of the wrecked old cars at my step dad's fill it up with water and shoot it with my 30-30,. i know it is not a self sealing tank ect but a 30-30 is not half the round a .50 is. but maby it would give a better indacation. of course my step dads father has a bolt action .50 but i dont know if he has any ammo left for it. i could do some mods to the tank. like coating it with tar or something. just a thought.

Loki-PF
05-15-2005, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Rehlyimah:
I think what people are missing here is that this is a fuel tank, not an armored combat vehicle.

No......What people are missing here is a facking sense of humor.

Tailgator
05-15-2005, 08:48 PM
ROFL

this pwnage brought to you by Skychimp

ImpStarDuece
05-15-2005, 09:17 PM
When I was a kid I used to take a a couple of mates and a .22 long out to the abandoned milking shed on the farm I grew up on. The shed had corrugated iron walls, thin and easy to perforate with a .22. Was lots of fun putting holes in cans, the ceiling and the floor.

One day we had the Bright Idea of painting a taret on the side of the shed. Cue red spray paint and heaps of masking tape. We would set ourselves up about 50-100m away from the shed and plink away at it.

Most of the time the rounds would go through the shed and out the otherside into the hill behind it, leaving a small hole in either wall. However, about 25% of the time the bullet would deform or tumble after hitting the target. It would then leave a hole that varied from about golf ball to fist sized in the wall across from point of impact. When we tried this with a .303 it didn't happen nearly as often but when it did occur you could put both hands through the hole it made on the other side.

Maybe the .50 tumbled after it hit the tank?

Anyway, here (http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm) is a pretty neat link to the effects of various calibre bullets on ballistic jelly. Shows just how big the temporary cavity can be from a tumbling bullet and hydrostatic shock.

EnGaurde
05-15-2005, 09:32 PM
from said link:


Having failed to influence law enforcement to any great degree, these gun-writers invented a new controversy: "civilians need personal defense ammo that penetrates the human body less deeply than law enforcement ammunition". Unfortunately, this kind of 'expert advice' can get you or a loved one killed if the shooting situation you face doesn't conveniently fit their stereotypical 'civilian self-defense shooting scenario.'

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

it seems im somewhat in the dark about how to kill someone properly and according to correct ballistics data.

Shooting situation you face? How often do these things happen???

Full on, that article.

fordfan25
05-15-2005, 09:38 PM
nothing beats a good 12 g shot gun

ImpStarDuece
05-15-2005, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by EnGaurde:
from said link:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Having failed to influence law enforcement to any great degree, these gun-writers invented a new controversy: "civilians need personal defense ammo that penetrates the human body less deeply than law enforcement ammunition". Unfortunately, this kind of 'expert advice' can get you or a loved one killed if the shooting situation you face doesn't conveniently fit their stereotypical 'civilian self-defense shooting scenario.'

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

it seems im somewhat in the dark about how to kill someone properly and according to correct ballistics data.

Shooting situation you face? How often do these things happen???

Full on, that article. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, its just a little intense http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

The main point is that the site backs the "deep, penetration = incapacitation" theory Vs. the "large temporary cavity = incapacitation" theory.

Some of the information is pretty scary though.

One of my favourite tidbits;


Physiologically, a determined adversary can be stopped reliably and immediately only by a shot that disrupts the brain or upper spinal cord. Failing a hit to the central nervous system, massive bleeding from holes in the heart or major blood vessels of the torso causing circulatory collapse is the only other way to force incapacitation upon an adversary, and this takes time. For example, there is sufficient oxygen within the brain to support full, voluntary action for 10-15 seconds after the heart has been destroyed

Loki-PF
05-15-2005, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by EnGaurde:
from said link:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Having failed to influence law enforcement to any great degree, these gun-writers invented a new controversy: "civilians need personal defense ammo that penetrates the human body less deeply than law enforcement ammunition". Unfortunately, this kind of 'expert advice' can get you or a loved one killed if the shooting situation you face doesn't conveniently fit their stereotypical 'civilian self-defense shooting scenario.'

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

it seems im somewhat in the dark about how to kill someone properly and according to correct ballistics data.

Shooting situation you face? How often do these things happen???

Full on, that article. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

EnGaurde your an Aussie right? No need for you to worry then mate, you can't own a gun. Only the criminals can have them in Oz! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

EnGaurde
05-15-2005, 10:20 PM
i recall the reason for the big british naval revolvers in .45 and up calibres (i think one got to .60?) were in response to indian berserkers climbing aboard and being so whacked out on whatever they where smoking / eating they became unstoppable on the deck of a ship. Circa 1800s? Unsure of the date but it sail era.

so the brits just made bigger handguns. Eventually the bigger, low velocity bullets stopped them in their tracks, literally an instant kill.

maybe thats were the Excellent AI rating sniper ability comes from.....? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Freelancer-1
05-15-2005, 10:26 PM
The most important thing to be learned from this thread is...

From IL2-chuter.

I don't know how to use the italics, bold and color functions. Feel free to toss a quick tutorial this way.

han freak solo
05-15-2005, 10:48 PM
Just adding to the already stated testimony....

From my own experience shooting holes through water filled containers, the "hydrostatic shock thing" blew that gaping exit hole. Ask a hunter about exit wounds being bigger than the entrance wound. Bullet deformation and hydrostatic shock both contribute.

And as how full it was.... I'd say d@mn near full or completely full. Makes for a more dramatic photograph!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

jarink wrote:
"As some others have suggested eariler, shoot an empty soda can with a .22cal. You get a .22 hole on one side and about a .30 hole on the other. Now fill another soda can with water and shoot again. The can will almost seem to explode!
Now, fill another can with sand and shoot. Hmm. Didn't even produce an exit hole."

This is the reason that I'd jump into a foxhole surrounded by sandbags instead of gas tanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

fordfan25
05-15-2005, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by EnGaurde:
i recall the reason for the big british naval revolvers in .45 and up calibres (i think one got to .60?) were in response to indian berserkers climbing aboard and being so whacked out on whatever they where smoking / eating they became unstoppable on the deck of a ship. Circa 1800s? Unsure of the date but it sail era.

so the brits just made bigger handguns. Eventually the bigger, low velocity bullets stopped them in their tracks, literally an instant kill.

maybe thats were the Excellent AI rating sniper ability comes from.....? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



thats why i plan on geting a 357mag or 44mag to replace my 9mm. it takes alot to bring down a crack head.

Gog..
05-15-2005, 11:34 PM
I've shot most things, alive and in-animate, cars, buildings, tanks, tins, buckets, kangaroo's, and drums of water just to name a few.

I have 6 guns myself, from small to 'man-sized' and I have shot centrefire 7.62mm into 44 Gallon drums full of water as well as .50 cal into 20 liter Jerry cans and 44 Gallon drums.

I saw some decent holes out the other side alright, no doubt about it, but never anything even remotely similar to that picture.

The story is baloney.

As far as exit wounds on the other side of people/animals, some of you have been watching too much TV, no they don't leave holes the size of dinner plates.
Remember Saving Private Ryan and that ******* medic that gets a chest full? The exit wounds were the size of chestnuts. That is about right and what I would expect from a 7.92mm full metal jacket round, none of this 'a hole you could put your head in' cra p!

As for .22 and the exit it leaves in timber, when you shooy something as fragile as wood, especially thin wood like a fence or wall, you will always get random sized exit holes, anyone who has been in the butts during a shoot will know what it's like when a round hits the target frame, anything can happen.

So, anyone basing thier opinion on TV, Movies or their experience as a kid with a can of soda and a .22 rifle needs to get out more.

EnGaurde
05-16-2005, 12:01 AM
So, anyone basing thier opinion on TV, Movies or their experience as a kid with a can of soda and a .22 rifle needs to get out more.

hmmm

i "get out" quite a bit. And ive shot many things too. I agree with in you part when bullets exit in so far they dont create Marianas Trenches, but on some occasions I have looked at the ragged hole and wondered just what happened.

Someone else nailed it earlier with regard to the "baloney" picture, when they said we dont know the variables and circumstances behind that particular shot.

to claim we do due to extensive civilian experience i think is somewhat dangerous... i'd believe an ex military gunner that has shot many browning M2s and had seen all manner of target damage characteristics before i scoffed and claimed only i knew best, because i'm in a gun club "... and i know guns".

pourshot
05-16-2005, 12:58 AM
I dont have a hard time beleaving that pic, I took these photos of a 20 ltr drum 3/4 filled with water and shot with a .300win magnum at around 20 mtr range.

As you can see it opens them up with ease, also note the second picture you will see that it has bounced a good 4 ft in the air and created a large cloud of water mist.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/drum/20ltrdrum-1.jpg
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/drum/20ltrdrum-2.jpg

Viking-S
05-16-2005, 01:13 AM
Nota bene! This article was written during war and published in an armed forces periodical!
Most nations exaggerate the own nations weapons effect on enemy materiel, its known as propaganda and is very common in times of war. What we se here is probably nothing but an early example of e.g. WMD. In other words an exaggeration bordering on lie.
It€s done in order to put confidence and fate of the nation€s resources into the population.
In those days it worked, today most people aren€t so gullible!

LeadSpitter_
05-16-2005, 01:28 AM
Put it this way look at Locomotive Engines of wwii 2" 3" thick of solid iron, much thicker then bulletproof glass or pilots protective armor.

Im sure you seen the thousands of train guncamera strafing videos with .50 cal fired from over 1000yards away. Same with liquid and dry cargo ships, let alone a little wooden japanese sail boat.

But in this community im sure they are all propaganda guncam clips that were rigged with explosives for .50 cal propaganda, some with the thousands of guncamera clips of 190s and 109s bursting into flames 190s wings being sherred off with 10-12 strikes on the wings at 300meters from hitting the 20mm ammo storage.

.50s .303s are so incrediably weak in this sim theres really no disputing that even at 200 150m convergence they are incrediably weak.

Watch the first rm clip about halfway thru when shooting thru the 2" steel tracks of a tractor.

http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/50calt1.rm

^^^

http://svd.s20.xrea.com/x/gallery.html cool gallery


Any true American would be interested in these two modified Barretts. ;-)

http://www.birdman.org/images/m82b1kpdwbig.jpg
http://www.birdman.org/products/M82entryl.htm


http://www.birdman.org/images/m82pistbig.jpg
http://www.birdman.org/products/M82pistol.htm


BFG-50 in action
http://www.serbu.com/wyo2.mpg
http://www.serbu.com/bfg115.mpg
BFG-50A SEMI-AUTOMATIC .50 BMG RIFLE COMING SOON.


http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976442783.htm Buying? LOL


http://www.mitchellsales.com/rifles/blackarrow/mitchellsales04.jpg
Mitchell's Black Arrow
http://www.mitchellsales.com/blackarrowMM.mpg
http://www.mitchellsales.com/rifles/blackarrow/


http://www.deserttoys.com/Rebel/18-1.mpg
http://www.deserttoys.com/Rebel/18-2.mpg
http://www.deserttoys.com/Rebel/specs.htm
http://www.deserttoys.com/
http://www.martscustoms.com/best_big_50_caliber_rifles.htm


http://www.barrettrifles.com/military/images/109b.jpg
Need More Power?
http://club.guns.ru/eng/ntw20.html
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=286


http://www.barrettrifles.com/video/M82A1_Intro.rm
http://www.barrettrifles.com/video/M82A1_Field_Strip.rm
http://www.barrettrifles.com/video/M82A1_Cutaway.rm
http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifles/rifles_82A1.htm


http://dogbegone.com/video.htm Not .50 but still funny. :haha:


I also found some CornerShot videos. :tup: (there's an earlier thread about this one)
http://defensereview.com/1_31_2004/cornershot.wmv
http://defensereview.com/1_31_2004/fox_news.wmv

Viking-S
05-16-2005, 03:00 AM
Put it this way look at Locomotive Engines of wwii 2" 3" thick of solid iron
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

That€s 50-75 mm!! I never heard of locomotive boilerplate that thick! As usual in the 0.50 threads we find all sorts of exaggerations and loose assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

"Purpose of Propaganda
The aim of propaganda is to actively influence people's opinions, rather than to merely communicate the facts about something......"

IL2-chuter
05-16-2005, 03:31 AM
Well, that's just counter-propaganda.

I personally am comfortable with the gas tank shot being authentic and Oswald being the lone gunman. I could give all sorts of reasons why but who the hell cares . . .

pourshot
05-16-2005, 03:38 AM
To all the naysayers do any of you have any comments about the pictures I posted and the affect hydrostatic shock has on a closed vessel, and how it relates to the image Skychimp posted?

The reason I ask is so many people comment €œit cant be real€ or €œit must be propaganda€ with no real life experience of the topic.

You know hydrostatic shock is what killed the Concord, the tire burst and a piece of rubber hit the underside of the wing tank, this in turn ruptured the tank at its weakest point and not at the point of impact.

IL2-chuter
05-16-2005, 03:47 AM
Right there with ya dude. I've blasted some rather impressive holes/tears in water filled cans/bottles/jugs/barrels with my 30.06 M1 and slug loaded 12ga. It's spectacular . . . though hopelessly propagandaish. Have fun, dude. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-- Back to my UFO information suppression job at the Pentagon . . . --

Jex_TG
05-16-2005, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by Viking-S:
today most people aren€t so gullible!

lmao! Yeah right! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG5_Scorpius
05-16-2005, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by Viking-S:
Nota bene! This article was written during war and published in an armed forces periodical!
Most nations exaggerate the own nations weapons effect on enemy materiel, its known as propaganda and is very common in times of war. What we se here is probably nothing but an early example of e.g. WMD. In other words an exaggeration bordering on lie.
It€s done in order to put confidence and fate of the nation€s resources into the population.
In those days it worked, today most people aren€t so gullible!

That's where you are wrong, you can see in this thread that it still works and also that people love to contribute to it. In this forum there are several people that are very good at finding pieces of information and present it as "evidence". The result is that some of the readers here actually believe that these exceptional events are typical.

TooMuchCheese
05-16-2005, 05:40 AM
Hmmmm..SC must be laughing his bollox off at the reactions on this thread.
Some points:

1. No-one here knows what EXACTLY this was a picture of.

2. No-one knows what exactly was allegedly fired at this object.

3. No-one knows what the properties of this object allegedly were.

4. No-one knows the exact variables that existed when this alleged picture of an alleged fuel tank was allegedly shot at with an alleged .50cal.

5. Therefore all this speculation and bollox about what a .50 cal can, and, can't do is simply unsubstantiated garbage. Period.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

JG5_Scorpius
05-16-2005, 07:11 AM
pourshot,

We are not disputing the fact that a .50 cal can give the result shown in the pictures, but question the repeatability of the event. In other words, if you would do the same test hundred times at various (realistic) distances various angles and various amounts of fuel, how many times would you get this result? An article that gives the impression that it would always result in an enormous exit hole is what we call propaganda.

reisen52
05-16-2005, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Put it this way look at Locomotive Engines of wwii 2" 3" thick of solid iron, much thicker then bulletproof glass or pilots protective armor.

Typical boilerplate on a large US WWII era steam locomotive was just under 1.5 inches (38MM)

Zeke

EnGaurde
05-16-2005, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by TooMuchCheese:
Hmmmm..SC must be laughing his bollox off at the reactions on this thread.
Some points:

1. No-one here knows what EXACTLY this was a picture of.

2. No-one knows what exactly was allegedly fired at this object.

3. No-one knows what the properties of this object allegedly were.

4. No-one knows the exact variables that existed when this alleged picture of an alleged fuel tank was allegedly shot at with an alleged .50cal.

5. Therefore all this speculation and bollox about what a .50 cal can, and, can't do is simply unsubstantiated garbage. Period.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

i think this applies to pretty much everything posted on here hmmm?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I too think its.... amusing to see how far this is still going.

all out of a simple interest post by the skychimp.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

JG5_Scorpius
05-16-2005, 08:08 AM
EnGaurde,

Skychimp starts threads like this on a regular basis, just to keep things a bit lively.

TgD Thunderbolt56
05-16-2005, 08:09 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


LOL...Chimp, you make a post like this then disappear only to let the sharks feed on each other? If you want to keep them circling, you'll need to chum a bit more.

TB

TROOPER117
05-16-2005, 08:51 AM
Good post Skychimp!
The article in question is refering to the ballistic characteristics and effect on an enemy aircraft fuel tank, and proving to the populace at the time that the weapons fitted to many of the allied airforces, could easily destroy an enemy fighter or bomber!
Hitting an armoured part of an enemy machine would have a different damage characteristic to be sure.
Before you sharks start 'zapping me', Please guys, teaching stuff like this is my job! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Blutarski2004
05-16-2005, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by EnGaurde:
i recall the reason for the big british naval revolvers in .45 and up calibres (i think one got to .60?) were in response to indian berserkers climbing aboard and being so whacked out on whatever they where smoking / eating they became unstoppable on the deck of a ship. Circa 1800s? Unsure of the date but it sail era.

so the brits just made bigger handguns. Eventually the bigger, low velocity bullets stopped them in their tracks, literally an instant kill.

maybe thats were the Excellent AI rating sniper ability comes from.....? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



..... If we are talking about naval small arms of the early nineteenth century (pre-metallic cartridge), these were muzzle-loading weapons up to .69 caliber with a muzzle velocity of about 11-1400 ft/sec. BIG knockdown power.

The American Model 1911 Colt .45 pistol was designed in response to experience of US soldiers fighting Philippine rebels in the post Sapanish-American War period. .38 caliber pistols were foundwanting in terms of stopping powr; hence the addvance to .45 caliber. The US is now facing the same problem with lack of stopping power with their 9mm Beretta pistol. Word has it that a number of Special Operations soldiers are opting to carry the older .45 caliber Colt 1911.

Blutarski2004
05-16-2005, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Gog..:
I've shot most things, alive and in-animate, cars, buildings, tanks, tins, buckets, kangaroo's, and drums of water just to name a few.

I have 6 guns myself, from small to 'man-sized' and I have shot centrefire 7.62mm into 44 Gallon drums full of water as well as .50 cal into 20 liter Jerry cans and 44 Gallon drums.

I saw some decent holes out the other side alright, no doubt about it, but never anything even remotely similar to that picture.

The story is baloney.

As far as exit wounds on the other side of people/animals, some of you have been watching too much TV, no they don't leave holes the size of dinner plates.
Remember Saving Private Ryan and that ******* medic that gets a chest full? The exit wounds were the size of chestnuts. That is about right and what I would expect from a 7.92mm full metal jacket round, none of this 'a hole you could put your head in' cra p!

As for .22 and the exit it leaves in timber, when you shooy something as fragile as wood, especially thin wood like a fence or wall, you will always get random sized exit holes, anyone who has been in the butts during a shoot will know what it's like when a round hits the target frame, anything can happen.

So, anyone basing thier opinion on TV, Movies or their experience as a kid with a can of soda and a .22 rifle needs to get out more.


..... I would hesitate about being quite so doctrinaire on the point of exit wounds. A great deal depends upon the circumstances of the wound. For example, head hits by high velocity rifle caliber rounds at short (<200 yds) ranges can produce massive exit wounds. This was a commonly reported phenomenon in WW1 trench warfare, where a great deal of short-range sniping took place.

A lot also depends upon the lateral stability and tumbling characteristics of the bullet, etc, etc. Very stable rifled bullets at medium and long range frequently did not tumble and produced very small exit wounds. This is what led to research into bullet characteristics and the discovery that designed lateral instability would improve lethality.

As far as that Japanese gas tank photo is concerned, I agree that it is difficult to evaluate what it really means without knowing the circumstances under which the test was conducted. But the photo is there to be seen; something produced that damage. I'm betting on very light Japanese construction materials, a full tank, and hydrostatic shock.

Aaron_GT
05-16-2005, 10:42 AM
Very stable rifled bullets at medium and long range frequently did not tumble and produced very small exit wounds.

They are capable of producing massive cavitation inside a body, though. And then sometimes they can pass through causing minor damage. It all depends.

Blutarski2004
05-16-2005, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Very stable rifled bullets at medium and long range frequently did not tumble and produced very small exit wounds.

They are capable of producing massive cavitation inside a body, though. And then sometimes they can pass through causing minor damage. It all depends. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Stable bullets can produce cavitating wounds at long ranges, yes. Bullet stability in the body depends upon (a) physical design of the bullet itself - particularly length and location of c/g, and (b) velocity of rotation as produced by the barrel rifling. Reduced rotational velocity at long range could, I imagine, produce conditions which encourage tumbling. Hitting a large bone can also cause a bullet to tumble. Ricochet hits will probably produce tumbling as well.

As you say, it all depends.

Asgeir_Strips
05-16-2005, 11:29 AM
i think that, that picture isn't propaganda..

its kinda like the bouncing bomb made by barnes wallis (when the british attacked the german dams in the ruhr walleys)

The energy of the bomb blast is much more effective if it detonates under water, since the energy won't "dissapear" in thin air away from the dam.. instead most of the energy become "trapped" under water and it destroy the dam much more effectively than a conventional dropped bomb..

i think the same rules of physics apply here when the 50 cal round shred that fuel tank...

allthough im not a professor or anything, this is just my two cents

FlyTyer1970
05-16-2005, 01:32 PM
In my opinion the effect of .50 cal ingame is quite devastating, one only needs to brush an Japanese a/c with a short burst of .50 cals to set fire on it. It even works with the weak .303 but then one need good accuracy and more than a short burst to get the same effect. I'm currently flying an campaign as an RN pilot in a Seafire over Iwo Jima and I don't break when my 20mm runs out but continue to fight, cant say the same when I fly against Russian a/c's in a 109 or 190 and are left with only 7.92mm. Back to my experience ingame with .50 cal. Tested flying for RAAF in a P40 and had a good time about it sending hordes of Japanese Zero's, Oscar's n' Betty's to the ground in flames and that in a plane that according to history was quite inferior to the Zero, blame it on poor AI or whatever but I'm quite happy with the power of all the different machineguns/cannons ingame except the MG151/20 when I'm trying to down IL-2's, they tend to bounce off a lot but I'm not complaining about it due to the fact that the MG151/20 is a killer against other less armored a/c's.

Sidenote. So far I've only been flying offline in different campaigns and is quite happy to continue doing just that. I'm a good pilot against all AI but the aces so I'm quite certain that I'd to use ctrl+e most of the time if I ever ventured online against real opponents.

han freak solo
05-16-2005, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Gog..:

As far as exit wounds on the other side of people/animals, some of you have been watching too much TV, no they don't leave holes the size of dinner plates.
Remember Saving Private Ryan and that ******* medic that gets a chest full? The exit wounds were the size of chestnuts.


You're right on that one. Depends on the weapon that struck the animal. I've seen holes in deer from a .30-30 come out the other side as big as a US Quarter.

Viking-S
05-16-2005, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Put it this way look at Locomotive Engines of wwii 2" 3" thick of solid iron, much thicker then bulletproof glass or pilots protective armor.

Typical boilerplate on a large US WWII era steam locomotive was just under 1.5 inches (38MM)

Zeke </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://www.sdrm.org/faqs/boilers/page74.html

"The following standard thicknesses of plates are used in locomotive boiler construction: Crown sheet, side sheet, and back fire-box sheet, 3/8 inch in thickness; for boiler pressures not exceeding 200 pounds, the boiler head, roof, sides, and dome, 1/2 inch thick, while for boilers with steam pressures between 200 and 240 pounds, these plates are 9/16 inch thick."

Give and take a few millimeters!

quiet_man
05-16-2005, 02:22 PM
@Viking-S
@reisen52
@LeadSpitter_

what exactly are the similarities between an Oscar fuel tank and a Locomitive engine?

now ... if they always made a fire below the tank, keept it under high pressure and used the fuel steam to turn the engine

that would explain alot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

quiet_man

han freak solo
05-16-2005, 02:25 PM
The American Model 1911 Colt .45 pistol was designed in response to experience of US soldiers fighting Philippine rebels in the post Sapanish-American War period. .38 caliber pistols were foundwanting in terms of stopping powr; hence the addvance to .45 caliber. The US is now facing the same problem with lack of stopping power with their 9mm Beretta pistol. Word has it that a number of Special Operations soldiers are opting to carry the older .45 caliber Colt 1911.

Have you seen the latest that the US military is thinking of adopting? The X8 or XM8 will be configured to fire the 5.56x45, 7.62x39, or 5.45x39. AND, there is a new round being developed that is currently set at 6.8x43 (called the 6.8mm Special Purpose Cartridge by Remington). This round is for the exact reason you're mentioning, better knockdown power than the standard M-16 round.

See http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?s=1-292925-xm8.php

or http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-oicw.htm

DRB_Hookech0
05-16-2005, 02:41 PM
it has been explained to me that if you look around your adverage city block....there is noting you can hide behind except maybe a engine block that a .50 wont go thru.

my 165 grain Nosler boattails make about a 3/8" wad in the dear I hunt. Not sure how many grains a .50 is...but I'd expect it would wad up to about an inch or more if it's a ball type ammo, and that my friends will make a very large hole coming out weather the tank was full or empty.

Blutarski2004
05-16-2005, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by han freak solo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The American Model 1911 Colt .45 pistol was designed in response to experience of US soldiers fighting Philippine rebels in the post Sapanish-American War period. .38 caliber pistols were foundwanting in terms of stopping powr; hence the addvance to .45 caliber. The US is now facing the same problem with lack of stopping power with their 9mm Beretta pistol. Word has it that a number of Special Operations soldiers are opting to carry the older .45 caliber Colt 1911.

Have you seen the latest that the US military is thinking of adopting? The X8 or XM8 will be configured to fire the 5.56x45, 7.62x39, or 5.45x39. AND, there is a new round being developed that is currently set at 6.8x43 (called the 6.8mm Special Purpose Cartridge by Remington). This round is for the exact reason you're mentioning, better knockdown power than the standard M-16 round.

See http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?s=1-292925-xm8.php

or http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-oicw.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... H&K make good weapons. Of course, so did Gene Stoner, until BuOrd got their hands on the M16. Hopefully we will not see a repeat of a BuOrd "improvement program" with this new weapon.

Hard to believe that the M16 family has been around for forty years, though ...

Gog..
05-16-2005, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by EnGaurde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So, anyone basing thier opinion on TV, Movies or their experience as a kid with a can of soda and a .22 rifle needs to get out more.

hmmm

i "get out" quite a bit. And ive shot many things too. I agree with in you part when bullets exit in so far they dont create Marianas Trenches, but on some occasions I have looked at the ragged hole and wondered just what happened.

Someone else nailed it earlier with regard to the "baloney" picture, when they said we dont know the variables and circumstances behind that particular shot.

to claim we do due to extensive civilian experience i think is somewhat dangerous... i'd believe an ex military gunner that has shot many browning M2s and had seen all manner of target damage characteristics before i scoffed and claimed only i knew best, because i'm in a gun club "... and i know guns". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks, cos' I'm a current Military Gunner! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

EmbarkChief
05-16-2005, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Gog..:
...or their experience as a kid with a can of soda and a .22 rifle needs to get out more.

Would you like me to send you pictures? I'd be shocked if I haven't been doing this longer than you have http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif. I've only personally had one freak exit wound on an animal. It was a white tailed deer hit with a .243 in the neck using 80 gr hollow points. The exit hole was just a tad bigger than a baseball. Best I could figure the round hit the spine and fragmented inside the animal and the resulting fragments created the wound. That was quite some time ago and I've never seen anything like it (except head shots of course) since.

The real question we should be asking is "How big is the tank in the picture?" 20gal? 40 gal? It makes a huge difference, the same way if you shot a 55 gal drum with a .50 vs. a 1 gal milk jug. Two completely different outcomes. Good examples of different things being hit with different firearms here...

Click Me (http://www.theboxotruth.com/)

jarink
05-16-2005, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Gog..:
...or their experience as a kid with a can of soda and a .22 rifle needs to get out more.

Actually, quite a few of these 'experiences' were as an adult. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The .22 is perhaps a bad example, since the .22LR typically uses an unjacketed lead slug. This allows it to deform much, much more than any military FMJ ammo or (as this firing test was done) with armor piercing ammo.

AP ammo just doesn't mushroom when it hits some thin aluminum fuel tank! An exit 'wound' like that illustrated is still possible, though, if the tanks were filled with liquid and the round hit something on entry that caused it to tumble. Possible, just not likely or typical.

I used it as an example since someone else did earlier and it's likely more juvenile delinquents (sorry, I mean fellow forum posters) have done something like this in their sordid past.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

BTW, I've shot lots of different guns with different ammo, loaded a lot of my own and experimented a bit with different bullet types and target effects. It helps when a good High School buddy's dad is a gunsmith and has a 75m shooting range in his backyard!

Thanks, Chimp, for a lovely ".50 cal" thread!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Aaron_GT
05-17-2005, 02:41 AM
With regard to the original photo, it is entirely possible that a 50 cal AP could do this. But was the fuel tank fired on when in or outside the wing of a plane? Planes are built with lightness in mind and I could imagine that the fuel tanks were intended to reach required strength when wrapped in the wing structure.

Snyde-Dastardly
05-17-2005, 09:35 PM
SkyChimp does it again! Gotta love it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

AlmightyTallest
05-18-2005, 09:53 AM
lol, great thread to keep everyone busy.

Now what would have happened if the fuel tank was hit by a .50 cal M1 Incindiary Round? Or an M-20 or M-8 Armor Piercing Incindiary round? U.S. aircraft routinely had a good mix of API, I, and AP rounds in the .50 cal ammo belts. I would imagine even a few hits with that kind of ammo mix would be devastating.


http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:UmKC5g1ln_AJ:www.democrats.reform.h ouse.gov/Documents/20040830103637-24584.pdf+.50+cal+M8+Incendiary+ammo&hl=en


On April 28, 1999, the United States Marine Corps Scout Sniper School invited the minoritystaff to their training facility in Quantico, Virginia, to see a demonstration of the fifty caliber weapon. During this demonstration, the Marine instructors discussed the destructive power of several fifty caliberrounds. They showed how armor piercing rounds penetrated one inch thick rolled homogeneousarmor found on armored vehicles throughout the world, a three and a half inch thick steel manholecover, a two inch thick steel track from a tractor, a piece of three quarter inch bullet-resistant glass, andfour cinder blocks with three quarter inch walls laid end-to-end. Finally, a Marine shooter fired multipleshots in rapid succession completely through a six hundred pound safe.

A good site with some guys that used M-8 API .50 caliber ammo to shoot at 55 gallon drums... Imagine if they were filled with fuel or fuel vapor when you read it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.rvow.com/m8_api.htm


Pyrotechnic performance of these projectiles is only slightly less than the M1 Incendiary. The flash varies exponentially with the amount of fuel, so while the M1 contains 3 times the incendiary mix of the M8, the flash is only about 30% larger. These M8 are also safer ( we have fired 20,000 plus rounds and not yet had a muzzle flash,) but they are less sensitive. When shooting through steel drums, they flash on the second surface creating a flash inside the drum. Similarly, when shooting vehicles, the projectile generally penetrates the skin and detonates inside on another sheet metal surface. High speed photos show the tip breaking off with the first penetration, exposing the incendiary mix which then detonates on the second impact. Plywood targets are merely penetrated with no flash. They will flash on a dirt backstop, but unless they strike a rock the projectile will more than likely penetrate about 6" into the surface before flashing, making only a small visible flash. But if your target is rocks, concrete, or heavy steel, these bullets provide a spectacular show!



Here's a similar article, with the M-20 APIT .50 caliber round being used from WW2.

http://www.rvow.com/m20%20API-T.htm

Blutarski2004
05-18-2005, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
lol, great thread to keep everyone busy.

Now what would have happened if the fuel tank was hit by a .50 cal M1 Incindiary Round? Or an M-20 or M-8 Armor Piercing Incindiary round? U.S. aircraft routinely had a good mix of API, I, and AP rounds in the .50 cal ammo belts. I would imagine even a few hits with that kind of ammo mix would be devastating.


http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:UmKC5g1ln_AJ:www.democrats.reform.h ouse.gov/Documents/20040830103637-24584.pdf+.50+cal+M8+Incendiary+ammo&hl=en

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> On April 28, 1999, the United States Marine Corps Scout Sniper School invited the minoritystaff to their training facility in Quantico, Virginia, to see a demonstration of the fifty caliber weapon. During this demonstration, the Marine instructors discussed the destructive power of several fifty caliberrounds. They showed how armor piercing rounds penetrated one inch thick rolled homogeneousarmor found on armored vehicles throughout the world, a three and a half inch thick steel manholecover, a two inch thick steel track from a tractor, a piece of three quarter inch bullet-resistant glass, andfour cinder blocks with three quarter inch walls laid end-to-end. Finally, a Marine shooter fired multipleshots in rapid succession completely through a six hundred pound safe.

A good site with some guys that used M-8 API .50 caliber ammo to shoot at 55 gallon drums... Imagine if they were filled with fuel or fuel vapor when you read it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.rvow.com/m8_api.htm


Pyrotechnic performance of these projectiles is only slightly less than the M1 Incendiary. The flash varies exponentially with the amount of fuel, so while the M1 contains 3 times the incendiary mix of the M8, the flash is only about 30% larger. These M8 are also safer ( we have fired 20,000 plus rounds and not yet had a muzzle flash,) but they are less sensitive. When shooting through steel drums, they flash on the second surface creating a flash inside the drum. Similarly, when shooting vehicles, the projectile generally penetrates the skin and detonates inside on another sheet metal surface. High speed photos show the tip breaking off with the first penetration, exposing the incendiary mix which then detonates on the second impact. Plywood targets are merely penetrated with no flash. They will flash on a dirt backstop, but unless they strike a rock the projectile will more than likely penetrate about 6" into the surface before flashing, making only a small visible flash. But if your target is rocks, concrete, or heavy steel, these bullets provide a spectacular show!



Here's a similar article, with the M-20 APIT .50 caliber round being used from WW2.

http://www.rvow.com/m20%20API-T.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Congrats AT. You've done some very interesting research.

AlmightyTallest
05-18-2005, 01:18 PM
Thanks Blutarski, I learned a lot from you and with some research about this subject a few months ago.

My personal guess is that the fuel tank picture is not faked, they may have just filled it full when they fired the .50 cal AP into it and then you got the hydrostatic shock that you mentioned.

I figure since American aircraft used a mix of .50cal ammo, that the combined effects would be more spectacular. i.e. an AP could cause leaks to a tank, exposing the fuel to air, Incindiary could start a fire if the tank had an empty space to ignite the fumes, API would probably have the chance to both puncture the tank and/or ignite any fuel that had exposure to the air.

Pretty intersting stuff to consider. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Great debate guys, keep it up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gibbage1
05-18-2005, 01:28 PM
All you people who say the test was not valid because the tank "may have been full" so the hydrostatic shock would over exadurate the effect are complete MORONS!!!

Look. NOBODY IN WWII ENGUAGED IN COMBAT WITH AN EMPTY TANK! If you have less then half a tank, your most likly GOING HOME! In most enguagements, aircraft had more then half a tank. I doubt you would be shooting at anybody with an empty tank simply because HIS ENGINE WOULD NOT BE GOING. DUH!!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Some people would find any excuse to disprove something. You people are REALLY reaching on this.

TooMuchCheese
05-18-2005, 02:18 PM
"All you people who say the test was not valid because the tank "may have been full" so the hydrostatic shock would over exadurate the effect are complete MORONS!!!

Look. NOBODY IN WWII ENGUAGED IN COMBAT WITH AN EMPTY TANK! If you have less then half a tank, your most likly GOING HOME! In most enguagements, aircraft had more then half a tank. I doubt you would be shooting at anybody with an empty tank simply because HIS ENGINE WOULD NOT BE GOING. DUH!!!!

Roll Eyes

Some people would find any excuse to disprove something. You people are REALLY reaching on this."

Oh dear how sad, just as the debate was becoming interesting some eejit has to come along and spoil it with infantile nonsense and personal insults. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
What "test" are you referring to?
What variables and what conditions applied during this "test"?
What were the actual results of the "test" and what comparisons were made?
In what way was the "test" validated and accredited, apart from being posted in an allied forces propaganda sheet?

BTW ALL news media was propaganda during WWII, every single last word that was allowed to be printed was controlled by government and ALL needs to be taken with a (large) pinch of salt PERIOD.

Gibbage1
05-18-2005, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by TooMuchCheese:

Oh dear how sad, just as the debate was becoming interesting some eejit has to come along and spoil it with infantile nonsense and personal insults. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
What "test" are you referring to?
What variables and what conditions applied during this "test"?
What were the actual results of the "test" and what comparisons were made?
In what way was the "test" validated and accredited, apart from being posted in an allied forces propaganda sheet?



So your saying this photo is invalid because it does not list all the factors? Look at what history says. Japanese aircraft where HIGHLY flammable because of un-protected fuel tanks. That is backed up by gun cam footages, pilots experiences, and even Japanese pilots said it. This shows a little of what contributed too it. Why do I think its a test? Just how many intact Japanese fuel tanks do you think they came across in WWII? Everything that was captured in tact or even damaged was sent for EXTENSIVE test's during and after WWII. To find out there weakness and straights to help out pilots better cope with the enemy's tech.

Why on earth would you think they would waist such a valuable resource on propaganda? These findings where presented too our military as information to help them during the war. If we handed them propaganda that said "The Japanese Zero is inferior in every way too the F4F including turn" it would just get US pilots killed. That's not good use of propaganda. Its like people calling stall speeds written in pilots flight manual "propaganda". That will only get our pilots killed and makes no sense.

As this is a test, and captured and in-tact Japanese equipment would be rare, they would try and test it in condition that would represent combat for results that would represent what would happen.

Also, let me point out the fact that I very much doubt they used fuel in the tank. If they **** it with an API or tracer, there would be no tank left to take a photo of http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



BTW ALL news media was propaganda during WWII, every single last word that was allowed to be printed was controlled by government and ALL needs to be taken with a (large) pinch of salt PERIOD.

Some media more then others. But propaganda has a reason. To gain something by a lie or exaduration. What would this artical gain? Nothing. Was it a lie? No. Japanese fuel tanks are weak. We all know this. So why are you so willing to jump on the propaganda boat? Also there is plenty of proof of what a .50 cal can do to an object filled with water. Even steel. The Japanese fuel tank help up better then the steel oil can posted a few pages back.

Gog..
05-18-2005, 03:44 PM
I think this thread is a sign of how pathetic we have all become (me included) because of Patchitis! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TooMuchCheese
05-18-2005, 04:51 PM
So, Gibbage you seriously believe EVERYTHING that is printed in newspapers???

How naive can you get http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

OMG any wonder that you can sell anything to some people..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

BTW Gibbage.... send me your bank details I have $150000000 that your long lost cousin (CIA agent and ESSo Executive), in Nigeria needs to get out of the country, all you have to do is send me $500,0000 and I will personally meet you at Lagos Airport with the cash..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Snyde-Dastardly
05-18-2005, 06:56 PM
Oh yeah,
Welcome back Gibbage

p1ngu666
05-18-2005, 08:31 PM
wonder how well a american or german fuel tank would have taken that hit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and i think chimp will be happy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

leeG727
05-18-2005, 09:47 PM
I€ve done some work in battle damage tolerant aircraft structure. The picture is accurate. The damage is the result of €œhydraulic-ram.€ The high velocity projectile enters the €œincompressible€ fluid and launches a shock that blows out the back of the tank. Poor design. Easy to prevent if you know what you€re doing.

LEBillfish
05-18-2005, 09:54 PM
Hydrodynamics is kewllll duuuude...love my Shower Massage by Water Pic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BanaBob
05-18-2005, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Hydrodynamics is kewllll duuuude...love my Shower Massage by Water Pic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I bet you do! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Why is the .50 caliber undermodelled by the way?

~S~
Bob

jarink
05-18-2005, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
All you people who say the test was not valid because the tank "may have been full" so the hydrostatic shock would over exadurate the effect are complete MORONS!!!

Look. NOBODY IN WWII ENGUAGED IN COMBAT WITH AN EMPTY TANK! If you have less then half a tank, your most likly GOING HOME! In most enguagements, aircraft had more then half a tank. I doubt you would be shooting at anybody with an empty tank simply because HIS ENGINE WOULD NOT BE GOING. DUH!!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Some people would find any excuse to disprove something. You people are REALLY reaching on this.

Lack of info on what was inside the tank when it was shot was only one quibble. I do not doubt that a .50 cal AP round hit that tank and caused that damage. If you re-read some earlier posts, I also raised questions about range, angle of penetration and also whether the tank would have been as seriously damaged if it were shot while still within the wing structure.

I would caution that impressions of the overall damage that could be done to the aircraft drawn from this one photo from this one test are dangerous assumptions!
(Sheesh!) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

There is not enough evidence presented to draw conclusions as to the actual effects of a single .50 AP round on the fuel tank in a combat situation, especially since it would also be inside the aircraft at the time, with who knows how much fuel in it, sloshing all over.

It's my firm opinion that the tank was indeed filled with some sort of liquid, probably water, when it was shot. Based on previous life experiences, I don't think any non-explosive round could have caused such damage to an empty tank.

[Rant on]
By the way, I'm not a moron. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

You'd do well to develop a habit of not indulging in such sophmoric name-calling behavior in the future if you ever want anyone to take your opinions seriously. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
[/Rant off]

irR4tiOn4L
05-18-2005, 11:46 PM
I dont mean to be rude, but what is it with Americans and guns? Im Australian also, and i dont think id like the fear that would come of having every second depressed psychotic on the street with a gun. Sure theres no such thing as evil people, and yet guns alone kill noone, but really its pretty obvious to me that allowing anyone to own a firearm is not a great idea - the whole self defence argument bears little water too - its plain that the major proponents of gun ownership are gun lobbies and recreational shooters, whether proffesional or backyard.

Peachy9
05-19-2005, 03:23 AM
An interesting article to add to the debate!!!

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-sr.html

€œSelf-sealing fuel tanks were as important as armour. Early attempts involved covering the inside or outside of a metal tank with some soft material, which expanded in contact with fuel, to seal any bullet holes. But this was not very efficient, and it was soon discovered that the bullet entry holes were a comparatively minor problem. The exit holes made by the tumbling bullets were considerably larger. Worse, the shock of impact and the pressure wave inside the tank caused it to rupture. In the first American tests, the entry holes were small, but the entire rear of the tank was knocked out. The answer was a flexible fuel cell of self-sealing material, with as few seams as possible, and suspended in straps so that it could absorb shocks without rupture. Such a tank should not be in direct contact with the fuselage skin, because the moving tank could cause the skin to buckle, the torn metal skin could cut into the tank, sparks were often generated when the projectiles passed through the metal skin, and the skin might trigger explosive rounds.
Evidently, self-sealing fuel tank installations were costly both in weight and in volume compared with conventional fuel tanks. And of course there was also a limit to their usefulness. The US Navy designed its self-sealing tanks to resist .50 hits and found that they also offered some protection against 20 mm hits. But if an explosive round blasted a large hole in the wall of the tank there was no hope to seal it. For high-altitude aircraft the fuel tanks had to be pressurised, but that made sealing far more difficult. Hence self-sealing tanks were increasingly replaced by integral fuel tankage after the war, despite the higher vulnerability.€

Source

The Story of the Self-Sealing Tank
in US Naval Institute Proceedings, February 1946. Page 205.


PS Australia - I am not American and not a gun nut but im interested as I am sure many people who have posted here are also.

Peachy9
05-19-2005, 03:33 AM
Although Australia I see your point - its a little tasteless that the subject changed to exit wounds in the human body.

Aaron_GT
05-19-2005, 03:50 AM
Hence self-sealing tanks were increasingly replaced by integral fuel tankage after the war, despite the higher vulnerability.

Post war there was a move to jets which tend to have thicker outer skins and are more resistant to sub 20mm calibre rounds (as was discovered in Korea). So that means the main threat in the early get age became explosive ammunition and a self-sealing tank is unlikely to help you there, except with regard to fragmentation from a hit near the fuel tank, but even then if you've gained a few hits from 23mm and 37mm cannon you probably need to be ejecting anyway. And then the threat became missiles. So the cost-benefit analysis might be that the weight saved from having self-sealing tanks which might only save you very occasionally might mean the extra performance to avoid getting hit in the first place.

BanaBob
05-19-2005, 06:43 AM
Sure there is a lot of gun violence in the US, doensn't mean we are violent, just means we are better shots. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

han freak solo
05-19-2005, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
I dont mean to be rude, but what is it with Americans and guns? Im Australian also, and i dont think id like the fear that would come of having every second depressed psychotic on the street with a gun. Sure theres no such thing as evil people, and yet guns alone kill noone, but really its pretty obvious to me that allowing anyone to own a firearm is not a great idea - the whole self defence argument bears little water too - its plain that the major proponents of gun ownership are gun lobbies and recreational shooters, whether proffesional or backyard.

That's a whole 'nother ball of wax. Very deeply ingrained in America with people on both sides of the battle. Really not good to be discussed here.

If you lived here for a long time, you still might not understand it all.

For me personally, my grandparents had land. On that land I was taught to shoot BB and pellet guns. By age 7, I was taught to shoot a .22 rifle. By age 10, me and my brother were allowed to go out into the countryside with either a .22 rifle or a .410 shotgun. At age 12, I was taught(again) how to shoot in the Boy Scouts of America. There's a merit badge to be earned for it.

I was taught that guns were for hunting and target practice. We were taught gun safety and responsibility. It never occured to me to use a gun against a person. Back in the day, the family guns weren't locked up. We knew that they were there for hunting or target practice only. Never for when you're mad at someone or for revenge if you just got the cr@p beat out of you.

My brother and dad also got extra gun training in the US Army. We still go shooting once in a while. We think of it as good recreation.

From a mechanical aspect I appreciate the engineering and manufacturing it takes to produce a gun. Admiring the construction of a gun is almost as fun as shooting them.

Blutarski2004
05-19-2005, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
I dont mean to be rude, but what is it with Americans and guns? Im Australian also, and i dont think id like the fear that would come of having every second depressed psychotic on the street with a gun. Sure theres no such thing as evil people, and yet guns alone kill noone, but really its pretty obvious to me that allowing anyone to own a firearm is not a great idea - the whole self defence argument bears little water too - its plain that the major proponents of gun ownership are gun lobbies and recreational shooters, whether proffesional or backyard.


..... The founding fathers of the United States of America felt strongly enough about the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms to specifically stipulate it the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, right after the enumeration of the rights of free speech and assembly in the 1st Amendment. I trust that they had their good reasons for doing so.

Blutarski2004
05-19-2005, 09:38 AM
This is strictly anecdotal, but while reading Barrett Tillman's book, HELLCAT, I noticed that about two out of three shot-down Japanese a/c reported in American After Action Reports were described as flamers.

Aaron_GT
05-19-2005, 09:44 AM
how to shoot in the Boy Scouts of America

I misread that at first has "How to shoot the Boy Scouts of America"!

AlmightyTallest
05-19-2005, 10:55 AM
lol Aaron http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

We're not that bad, I was a boy scout! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Blutarski, your reading the same thing I am when it comes to Zeroes... But I got Barrett Tillman's Corsair in WW2 and Korea and many of the Zeroes in that book in After action reports are described as flamers, or actually disintigrators, exploders etc. They mention it's partly due to the .50 cal ammo mix. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

someone in this thread also mentioned about why .50 cal was removed as an aircraft weapon by Korea. I have a report from a pilot that may help explain that one:

Source: http://www.afakansas.org/bleckley/jabara.html


No, the .50-caliber wasn't heavy enough," said General Meyer. "It just wasn't good enough for a jet airplane.

"It made a particularly acute impression on our guys because most all of those fellows had shot down airplanes in World War II. You had gasoline engines and highly volatile aviation fuel in those airplanes so, in effect, the API (armor-piercing, incendiary) ammunition became a fuse for the bomb, which was the target airplane itself. So a couple of shots that hit in the right place on the Me-109 or Focke-Wulf would...ignite the fuel and explode the airplane.

"Here, they'd clobber the hell out of the target and it kept on going....Now that was a rather unpleasant surprise! But we were shooting at an airplane that had two uniquely different characteristics. The first was the jet engine itself. With those turbos behind, it provided some protection for the vital parts. The second was that the fuel, especially at high altitudes, would not tend to explode. And then, the whole thing was faster so the shooting problem was a lot more difficult."


Also: about strafing steam Locomotives I found this tidbit from this site:

http://stonebooks.com/archives/031123.shtml


In December 1944 the Ordnance Section of the 12th Air Force. using 57"' Fighter Group fighter-bombers, conducted a study of attacks on a static Italian steam locomotive. Strafing damage was found to stall a locomotive and cause repairs ranging from one to 35 days, and that strafing was much more likely to achieve hits than bombing or rockets. It was suggested that strafing using a .50 belting of four armor piercing incendiary (API) rounds to one tracer was ideal (as opposed to the previous API-lncendiary-APl-Incendiary-Tracer belting). Strafing from 90-degree beam was suggested over an attack from a shallower angle, as these perpendicular strikes were more likely to perforate the locomotive's boiler and less likely to ricochet.

quiet_man
05-19-2005, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by BanaBob:
...
Why is the .50 caliber undermodelled by the way?
...

no one every said so in this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

quiet_man

BanaBob
05-19-2005, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by quiet_man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BanaBob:
...
Why is the .50 caliber undermodelled by the way?
...

no one every said so in this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

quiet_man </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said someone did, it was merely a question from my observation. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

~S~

Loki-PF
05-19-2005, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
I dont mean to be rude, but what is it with Americans and guns? Im Australian also, and i dont think id like the fear that would come of having every second depressed psychotic on the street with a gun. Sure theres no such thing as evil people, and yet guns alone kill noone, but really its pretty obvious to me that allowing anyone to own a firearm is not a great idea - the whole self defence argument bears little water too - its plain that the major proponents of gun ownership are gun lobbies and recreational shooters, whether proffesional or backyard.

irR4tiOn4L !

No worries Mate! As a resident of OZ your government has benignly removed that concern from your little shoulders. Only the criminals can own guns now. I'm sure that makes everyone feel much "safer" eh?

SkyChimp
05-19-2005, 08:08 PM
5 pages of nonsense. Holy cow. And I thought all I was doing was posting an interesting article from a WWII period naval magazine.

jarink
05-19-2005, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
5 pages of nonsense. Holy cow. And I thought all I was doing was posting an interesting article from a WWII period naval magazine.

What's on the next page of the magazine? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tailgator
05-19-2005, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
5 pages of nonsense. Holy cow. And I thought all I was doing was posting an interesting article from a WWII period naval magazine.

ENCORE http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif ENCORE

han freak solo
05-19-2005, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
5 pages of nonsense. Holy cow. And I thought all I was doing was posting an interesting article from a WWII period naval magazine.

Were just trying to get you up to what Jumoschwanz started with the "Hartmann, four kills with 112 rounds......." on the General Discussion Forum.

Placing any bets?

Giganoni
05-20-2005, 02:40 AM
Boy...Skychimp knew what he's was doing. He's just playing innocent, he always post articles from Wartime naval mags and always starts a small riot. I sometimes argue against the articles, but this one needs no argument. So they took a fuel tank out of an oscar and shot it with a 50 cal, whoopie. Its a feel good article, who cares if it did that much damage. Everyone here already knows Japanese fuel tanks were dangerous in a plane, this article proves they are just as deadly out of the planes and laying on the ground! Who cares about debating its validity, or if its proof the .50s are undermodelled.

I guess 6 pages of people care, so I am here to personally state that it is my belief that the hole was created by our collective brain power just leaving us in one last bowel movement. We need to find something to do (myself included) fast, we are getting desperate for controversy.

pourshot
05-20-2005, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by Loki-PF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
I dont mean to be rude, but what is it with Americans and guns? Im Australian also, and i dont think id like the fear that would come of having every second depressed psychotic on the street with a gun. Sure theres no such thing as evil people, and yet guns alone kill noone, but really its pretty obvious to me that allowing anyone to own a firearm is not a great idea - the whole self defence argument bears little water too - its plain that the major proponents of gun ownership are gun lobbies and recreational shooters, whether proffesional or backyard.

irR4tiOn4L !

No worries Mate! As a resident of OZ your government has benignly removed that concern from your little shoulders. Only the criminals can own guns now. I'm sure that makes everyone feel much "safer" eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I own guns as do around 100,000+ others and we are not criminals.

Cajun76
05-20-2005, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
I dont mean to be rude, but what is it with Americans and guns? Im Australian also, and i dont think id like the fear that would come of having every second depressed psychotic on the street with a gun. Sure theres no such thing as evil people, and yet guns alone kill noone, but really its pretty obvious to me that allowing anyone to own a firearm is not a great idea - the whole self defence argument bears little water too - its plain that the major proponents of gun ownership are gun lobbies and recreational shooters, whether proffesional or backyard.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

What is up with pacifist Australians and thier fear of a tool that can protect their family from someone who dosen't care if firearms are legal or not. It's plain that there are evil people, but defending yourself really is not a valid option. Merely lay down or kneel and let them shoot your wife in the head holds more water. It's plain that hand-wringing, uneducated folk with no proper training would be afraid of guns. Cars can be lethal too, and they should be next.


^ What's plain from the two paragraphs above is that people should be better informed and not lump a whole country in the same neat, prepackaged spoon fed drivel of idealistic poop.

If you don't like guns, fine. Don't try to take my right from me. It's mine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif See, no worries. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/61.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

BanaBob
05-20-2005, 09:18 AM
I'd rather have a gun and not need it then need a gun and not have it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

~S~

TROOPER117
05-20-2005, 11:09 AM
Cajun, I am most definately with you!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
I live in the UK and used to own my own rifle and a couple of handguns, ( rifle, K98k, plus a G21 and a Cz75.
Had to get rid of them when successive governments changed the laws so that I could no longer own one legaly!
Unfortunately, these laws didn't work as they were supposed to make it impossible for the bad guys to obtain firearms.
Since then, gun crime has increased to an extent that there are no go areas in some of our cities. The bad guys and criminals will always obtain weapons whatever the law says because they don't give a ****. However, law abiding gun owners who actualy obey the law of the land handed in their weapons and have been deprived of the sport they love!

Regards.... Dave S. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

LeadSpitter_
05-20-2005, 02:23 PM
http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/50calt1.rm

No comments on this real media clip???

J_Weaver
05-20-2005, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by BanaBob:
I'd rather have a gun and not need it then need a gun and not have it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

~S~

Thats very true. In fact I've been in both situations.

I don't know when people are going to see the light. Its not the guns that are the problem. Its the freaking people! In every county that has banned guns or highly restricted gun ownership the crime rate has skyrocketed. In the US the states with the lowest crime rates are the states with fewest gun laws.

Aaron_GT
05-20-2005, 03:40 PM
n every county that has banned guns or highly restricted gun ownership the crime rate has skyrocketed.

The overall crime rate in the UK (*) has decreased in the last 10 years even as the gun laws have become more restrictive. The idea that there is a close correlation between gun ownership and crime rates at least in the sense that other factors would appear to be dominant.

The BCS has measured increases in the rates of some forms of violent crime, though, mostly those associated with drinking. Alcohol consumption has fallen in Europe apart from in the UK and Ireland.

There's been a rise in the murder rate in the UK from about 1.2 per 100,000 to about 1.5 per 100,000 in the last 3 years, and criminal gun violence seems to be a large part of the cause. To put it in its historical perspective, though, 100 years ago the murder rate was about 1.2 per 100,000 and there were no gun laws whatsoever (apart from the 1689 Bill Of Rights which technically may still have restricted the rights of weapon ownership by Catholics). 1.2 per 100,000 in 1901 represented a fall over the previous 20 years. Murder rates in the UK hit an all time low post WW2 but this may be associated by the relative lack of younger men.

* As measured by the British Crime Survey (not done by the government) which has a more consistent methodology as the categorisation of crimes by police forces has changed over this period. For example in the last 10 years burglary rates in England and Wales have halved. The BCS works by surveying the populace and asking about their victimisation rates. There are still issues with under reporting of some forms of crime (domestic violence, sexual crimes) but less so for things like burglary. Muggings have remained essentially constant over the same period.

Headlines regarding increases in violent crime in the UK can be a bit misleading as there has been some recategorisation of some crimes by police forces from non violent to violent. Jack Straw, when he was Home Secretary, noted that this would be the case when a fairly big change in categorisation took place.

My sister worked as a statistician and DBA for a police force in the early 1990s and has personal experience of the difficulties of producing accurate statistics for past years when categorisations change, and this means that the BCS is a useful baseline statistic for the UK.

HellToupee
05-20-2005, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Loki-PF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
I dont mean to be rude, but what is it with Americans and guns? Im Australian also, and i dont think id like the fear that would come of having every second depressed psychotic on the street with a gun. Sure theres no such thing as evil people, and yet guns alone kill noone, but really its pretty obvious to me that allowing anyone to own a firearm is not a great idea - the whole self defence argument bears little water too - its plain that the major proponents of gun ownership are gun lobbies and recreational shooters, whether proffesional or backyard.

irR4tiOn4L !

No worries Mate! As a resident of OZ your government has benignly removed that concern from your little shoulders. Only the criminals can own guns now. I'm sure that makes everyone feel much "safer" eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what generally happens is the guns become harder to get so the stupid crims are stopped at that stage then the illegal ones become ibsorbant in price stops the poor ones there. Here in NZ i only know of 2 major shooting intances both revolving hunting rifles. Not even our police carry guns, they only equip them on special occasions once a kid was shot because he was waving around a toygun.

If only crims have guns well fine let the coppers worrie about em.

Cajun76
05-20-2005, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">n every county that has banned guns or highly restricted gun ownership the crime rate has skyrocketed.

The overall crime rate in the UK (*) has decreased in the last 10 years even as the gun laws have become more restrictive. The idea that there is a close correlation between gun ownership and crime rates at least in the sense that other factors would appear to be dominant.

The BCS has measured increases in the rates of some forms of violent crime, though, mostly those associated with drinking. Alcohol consumption has fallen in Europe apart from in the UK and Ireland.

There's been a rise in the murder rate in the UK from about 1.2 per 100,000 to about 1.5 per 100,000 in the last 3 years, and criminal gun violence seems to be a large part of the cause. To put it in its historical perspective, though, 100 years ago the murder rate was about 1.2 per 100,000 and there were no gun laws whatsoever (apart from the 1689 Bill Of Rights which technically may still have restricted the rights of weapon ownership by Catholics). 1.2 per 100,000 in 1901 represented a fall over the previous 20 years. Murder rates in the UK hit an all time low post WW2 but this may be associated by the relative lack of younger men.

* As measured by the British Crime Survey (not done by the government) which has a more consistent methodology as the categorisation of crimes by police forces has changed over this period. For example in the last 10 years burglary rates in England and Wales have halved. The BCS works by surveying the populace and asking about their victimisation rates. There are still issues with under reporting of some forms of crime (domestic violence, sexual crimes) but less so for things like burglary. Muggings have remained essentially constant over the same period.

Headlines regarding increases in violent crime in the UK can be a bit misleading as there has been some recategorisation of some crimes by police forces from non violent to violent. Jack Straw, when he was Home Secretary, noted that this would be the case when a fairly big change in categorisation took place.

My sister worked as a statistician and DBA for a police force in the early 1990s and has personal experience of the difficulties of producing accurate statistics for past years when categorisations change, and this means that the BCS is a useful baseline statistic for the UK. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another thing to remember Aaron is the huge societal (Is that a word? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) changes that have occured since the early 1900's. Typically, a boy would be taught the responsible use of firearms by his father. Nowadays, kids learn how to use a gun from TV and movies. Responible gun ownership is the key imo. The NRA in the US, for example, spends millions each year on responsible firearm use, far more than the goverment. Guns are never going to go away, and determined criminals will get their hands on them. It's not law-abiding gun owners that commit these crimes, so I don't understand why they would be disarmed.....

Cajun76
05-20-2005, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:

If only crims have guns well fine let the coppers worrie about em.

Because there's always an underpaid, overworked, under apprieciated bobby there right when you need them....

Aaron_GT
05-21-2005, 01:07 AM
Another thing to remember Aaron is the huge societal (Is that a word? ) changes that have occured since the early 1900's. Typically, a boy would be taught the responsible use of firearms by his father

In the UK that wasn't really the case as guns were comparatively rare in 1901 (TV was pretty rare too :-) ). Most people didn't have the opportunity to hunt in the slums of Britain and guns were relatively expensive. UK gun control in 1920 was prompted by a scare over a Bolshevik revolution, or the potential of one. There were still no restrictions on shotguns until the 1960s.

Sadly some law abiding gun owners do commit crimes with their guns, mostly domestic murder. Guns make it easier to at least start such a crime as you can fire a gun with less emotional involvement in the desire to murder than use a knife as a gun can act quickly at a distance. Completion rates, though, are about the same. Those who choose to use a knife are probably more psyched up.


and determined criminals will get their hands on them.

I wonder what the relative use by criminals of (real) firearms is in the US and UK is. Real guns (as opposed to bank jobs being done with convincing looking replicas, which counts as gun crime in the UK) is still relatively low in the UK, although climbing amongst drug gangs.

The argument from police here that replica weapons should be banned too, just in case the police shoot someone armed with one, does not convince me. If someone brandishes a replica weapon and gets shot by the police I have sympathy for the pychological damage done to the policeman who fired, but none for the person dumb enough to brandish the replica. I don't think we should be legislating to cover for every stupid act a person can do.

Cajun76
05-21-2005, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

Sadly some law abiding gun owners do commit crimes with their guns, mostly domestic murder. Guns make it easier to at least start such a crime as you can fire a gun with less emotional involvement in the desire to murder than use a knife as a gun can act quickly at a distance. Completion rates, though, are about the same. Those who choose to use a knife are probably more psyched up.



I understand this, up to a certain piont, but one takes a bigger risk climbing into a vehicle. Thousands die each year in cars, but just because there's some bad drivers, they're not going to take away everyone's car, knowhatamean? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

J_Weaver
05-21-2005, 05:05 PM
Cajun76, I agree. Responsible gun ownership is key. And yes automobiles are far more dangerous than guns. You know, if everyone was afoot there would be less mischief. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Who ever said that people shouldn't be able to own a firearm for self defence is cazy or has lived a very sheltered life. There are a lot of bad things in the world. I can protect myself from many of then with proper use of a firearm. I'm not talking just about people. For outdoorsmen dangerous animals are a real concern. I personally don't want to fight a mountain lion or bear with a bowie knife.

I read a while back that in the US a crime has never been committed wih a legally own machinegun. I found that interesting.

Aaron_GT
05-22-2005, 02:59 AM
I understand this, up to a certain piont, but one takes a bigger risk climbing into a vehicle. Thousands die each year in cars, but just because there's some bad drivers, they're not going to take away everyone's car, knowhatamean?

People asses risk incorrectly all the time (humans are very bad at this) so it means that some legislation passes easier than others.


Who ever said that people shouldn't be able to own a firearm for self defence is cazy or has lived a very sheltered life.

The average person is unlikely to find themselves in the situation where are firearm is truly necessary to protect themselves and few are well trained enough that they would be able to hit anything anyway. The pro gun lobby overstates the self defence case and the anti gun lobby over states the case against it. Avoiding situations and learning a martial art is probably at least as useful if not more so.


I read a while back that in the US a crime has never been committed wih a legally own machinegun.

That might have something to do with the fact that fully automatic weapons are not legal in the USA.

Aaron_GT
05-22-2005, 03:01 AM
Thousands die each year in cars, but just because there's some bad drivers, they're not going to take away everyone's car, knowhatamean?

Actually I think improvements in road and car safety would be a MUCH better priority than gun legislation.

TROOPER117
05-22-2005, 03:49 AM
Some people are really living in cloud cuckoo land. Learn a martial art??
Do you realise how long it takes, and just how much dedication is required to learn any kind of martial art? And even after years and years of dedicated training, still will not really be proficient at taking on an armed assailant in the real world!!
Get that notion right out of your heads. It will be far safer to you the individual, to recieve professional firearms training used with controlled aggression to quickly take on any armed criminal! That is if you still live in a country that allows law abiding citizens to defend their homes and families against attack!!

Regards....Dave S.

Aaron_GT
05-22-2005, 06:23 AM
If you look at typical incidents where violence is used against a person most are unexecpectedly, at very close quarters, typically from an assailant known to the victim. In these scenarios it is unlikely that the victim will be able to draw or use a firearm. Even in those instances where the assailant is unknown to the victim often the victim will have insufficient warning to wield a firearm. This is why firearms are less useful for personal defence in the typical situation people actually find themselves in than some suggest. There are unbdoubtedly instances in which a firearm WILL be the best defence, but less than you'd imagine.

To be able to wield a firearm in many of the situations you'd have to basically carry your gun, concealed, all the time, and be able to quick draw ahead of the situation. If you found yourself in a situation where you were unable to do so then you'd be back to self defence using fists and feet. That's why I suggest that knowing how to use your fists and feet is more useful. If anything it is a good backup!


That is if you still live in a country that allows law abiding citizens to defend their homes and families against attack!!

I live in Britain, which allows that right.

p1ngu666
05-22-2005, 09:04 AM
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more ppl are shot in america than any other country http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (thats not at war, or major civil unrest)

also, most ppl who are shot arent involved in a criminal activity either. also most guns in illegal hands are stolen from the homes of legal gun owners.

i can understand the bear attack thing tho, but guns are more dangerous than knife and axe which u should probably be carrying in the forest, in true ray mears style http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Aaron_GT
05-22-2005, 09:26 AM
more ppl are shot in america than any other country (thats not at war, or major civil unrest)

The USA is a big place. It is more useful to look at per capita rates.


also most guns in illegal hands are stolen from the homes of legal gun owners.

I don't think this is the case.

Aaron_GT
05-22-2005, 09:41 AM
more ppl are shot in america than any other country

Per capita murder by gun is MUCH higher in places like Trinidad (at least 10 times the rate).

han freak solo
05-22-2005, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I read a while back that in the US a crime has never been committed wih a legally own machinegun.

That might have something to do with the fact that fully automatic weapons are not legal in the USA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the right licensing and passing of qualifications, an American civilian can legally own fully automatic firearms. If a person does come up with the cash and passes the federal checkup the only thing you give up is freedom. From the two civilians I personally know that had this license, the feds can enter your home at any time without a search warrant. There's probably more to it than that.

I won't back this up with sources because that information is pretty easy to find out without my help.

State laws may restrict this though.

Aaron_GT
05-22-2005, 03:40 PM
It's possible to legally own fully automatic weapons in the UK too. The question is, how many people own fully automatic weapons as that will have an influence on how likely use is.

I see a lot of bogus statistics on both sides of the debtate though. Lots of data pooling, like lumping suicide rates into homicide rates.

BanaBob
05-22-2005, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more ppl are shot in america than any other country http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (thats not at war, or major civil unrest)

also, most ppl who are shot arent involved in a criminal activity either. also most guns in illegal hands are stolen from the homes of legal gun owners.

i can understand the bear attack thing tho, but guns are more dangerous than knife and axe which u should probably be carrying in the forest, in true ray mears style http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Where did you learn this? TV or Movies? or both, lmao! And remember, if it wasn't for guns you'd be doing the "Heil Hitler" salute. Sure it was the military, but civilians must have them too, just in case the military turns on you, lol. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Checks and Balances. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

J_Weaver
05-22-2005, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by han freak solo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I read a while back that in the US a crime has never been committed wih a legally own machinegun.

That might have something to do with the fact that fully automatic weapons are not legal in the USA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the right licensing and passing of qualifications, an American civilian can legally own fully automatic firearms. If a person does come up with the cash and passes the federal checkup the only thing you give up is freedom. From the two civilians I personally know that had this license, the feds can enter your home at any time without a search warrant. There's probably more to it than that.

I won't back this up with sources because that information is pretty easy to find out without my help.

State laws may restrict this though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, to legally own a full auto weapon in the US you have to have a Class III license. I know its very expensive. But its not really relative to our conversation, I just thought that it was an interesting bit of info.

Aaron_GT, no doubt that knowing how to 'fight' is a good to know. Here in the US there are several training programs that teach a good combination of fighting with your fish and your firearm. Its a very pratical course to take. I know I would if there was one in my area.

Like Alan Ladd said in the movie "Shane." "A gun is a tool, no better or no worse than anyother tool."

Accidents are always going to happen. People are always going to kill other people. A world without guns is not going to solve anything.

p1ngu666
05-22-2005, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by BanaBob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more ppl are shot in america than any other country http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (thats not at war, or major civil unrest)

also, most ppl who are shot arent involved in a criminal activity either. also most guns in illegal hands are stolen from the homes of legal gun owners.

i can understand the bear attack thing tho, but guns are more dangerous than knife and axe which u should probably be carrying in the forest, in true ray mears style http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Where did you learn this? TV or Movies? or both, lmao! And remember, if it wasn't for guns you'd be doing the "Heil Hitler" salute. Sure it was the military, but civilians must have them too, just in case the military turns on you, lol. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Checks and Balances. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yep, thats one of the reasons. mind u there was those around the world who waited to see if it would happen a few years back but it didnt at all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

everything ive read, or seen shows the usa haveing really high gun killings and injuries etc, sure there are more dangerous places to live.

also the world would be a VERY different place indeed without guns, so quiet possibly there would have been no hitler, or ww1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BanaBob
05-22-2005, 07:25 PM
Just take everything you read or see on tv/movies with a grain of salt, if I believed stuff from those formats, all Brits would have terrible rotten teeth, lmao! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

HayateAce
05-23-2005, 12:49 AM
So the .50 is undermodeled and the K4 DM is overmodeled. This is what the weaker players wanted.

47s and 51s destroyed German armor by the traincar load, but why should we expect any damage to German aircraft aluminum?

http://www.11tharmoreddivision.com/photos_05/images/446.jpg

Aaron_GT
05-23-2005, 01:19 AM
a good combination of fighting with your fish

Did he use five anchovies or six? Do you feel lucky punk? :-)

Sorry, couldn't resist (might lighten the tone somewhat).

Aaron_GT
05-23-2005, 01:24 AM
So the .50 is undermodeled and the K4 DM is overmodeled. This is what the weaker players wanted.

There's a difference between a sample of one fuel tank from a Japanese plane (it might be very damaged for such an impact, lightly, or averagely damaged, who knows), removed from the additional strengthening of wing structure, and a possibly stronger tank from a K4 in the structure, so I am not sure how many conclusions. From the work JtD and Gibbage have done it seems that the UBS/K and M2 dish out about the same damage per round, but there are differences in the way gun sync works which means 50 cal damage will be more 'lumpy'.


47s and 51s destroyed German armor by the traincar load, but why should we expect any damage to German aircraft aluminum?

The picture you show is of light open-topped armour.

Aaron_GT
05-23-2005, 01:34 AM
everything ive read, or seen shows the usa haveing really high gun killings and injuries etc, sure there are more dangerous places to live.

The murder rate with guns is about 4 or 5 per 100,000. (Total murder rate's something 8 per 100,000). It's a lot higher in other places. In other places it is lower (In the UK it's about 1.5 per 100,000). If you assumed none of the murders that are committed with guns in the USA and UK the murder rate in the USA would still be higher (on average) than that of the UK, so the higher murder rate is attributable to factors other than the larger number of guns. The lowest rate per capita is in New England, where gun restrictions are high, but some cities which have tight gun restrictions have high murder rates too. This is why I am unconvinced by the statistics used by either side of the debate because you can pick and choose pooled data to show almost anything you want without doing a proper multivariate analysis that might reveal what is going on behind the figures. There are going to be a whole range of things going on influencing murder rates, and I could see that guns could have an influence on an increasing it in some circumstances, reducing it in others. But it might not be the most important factor in either direction.

AlmightyTallest
05-23-2005, 07:43 AM
This turned into an interesting gun debate guys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The one thing I'm interested in and I hope our English and European friends can help out is the number of murders committed by knives or stabbings, both in the U.S. verses other countries that have more restrictive gun laws.

I remember a documentary that interviewed British police and their gear, and it was heavily geared toward protecting them from a stabbing they explained. In the U.S. the gear is mainly for protection from guns.

I came to the conclusion that if people want to kill each other, they will always find a way to do it. Take away guns, and people will use knives. Take away the knives, and people may use forks, or poison to kill fellow man.

Just my observations though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BanaBob
05-23-2005, 11:15 AM
Can you imagine being stabbed with a spoon? I think I'd rather be shot, lmao! Ouch. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
05-23-2005, 02:06 PM
The one thing I'm interested in and I hope our English and European friends can help out is the number of murders committed by knives or stabbings, both in the U.S. verses other countries that have more restrictive gun laws.

Around 2/3 of murders in the USA are committed using firearms. I think the equivalent figure is (from memory) about 10% in the UK. I don't know what proportion in the UK are stabbings, though.

I just checked on the home office's site, and yes, it's about 10%.

Interestingly firearm offences with guns that could be identified as real guns fell in the UK from 2003 to 2004. But the overall firearm crime stats show an increase as the number of offences with replica firearms or BB guns increased (up 66%), as did the unknowns and other categories.

Aaron_GT
05-23-2005, 02:10 PM
Break down of UK murder 2003/4 by weapon

Weapon type/male percent/female percent

sharp instrument/30/24
blunt instrument/8/8
kicking, etc/19/11
strangulation/3/11
shooting/11/3
burning/3/3
poison/2/5
other/23/26

Peachy9
05-23-2005, 02:41 PM
"It's possible to legally own fully automatic weapons in the UK too. The question is, how many people own fully automatic weapons as that will have an influence on how likely use is."

Aaron - It is possible to legally own automatic weapons and handguns in the UK but an application needs to be made directly to the secretary of state via the home office - something the average Joe is unlikely to get - this is effectively an all out ban on handguns and automatic weapons which has been in place since 1997. So our controls (since 1997) are pretty tight. Unfortunately a lot of guns are in circulation from the gulf and bosnia/balkans. I have heard of several guys who brought AKs back from the 1991 Gulf conflict. These are now probably in circulation in the wrong hands!

Loki-PF
05-23-2005, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
This turned into an interesting gun debate guys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The one thing I'm interested in and I hope our English and European friends can help out is the number of murders committed by knives or stabbings, both in the U.S. verses other countries that have more restrictive gun laws.

I remember a documentary that interviewed British police and their gear, and it was heavily geared toward protecting them from a stabbing they explained. In the U.S. the gear is mainly for protection from guns.

I came to the conclusion that if people want to kill each other, they will always find a way to do it. Take away guns, and people will use knives. Take away the knives, and people may use forks, or poison to kill fellow man.

Just my observations though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Such an interesting hypocrisy isn't it? Kill someone with a gun and we blame the gun. Kill someone with a knife and we blame the murderer. No one even thinks about banning knives

han freak solo
05-23-2005, 05:14 PM
Skychimp, right now this thread is ahead of "Hartmann, four kills with 112 rounds......." by Jumoschwanz.

137/3253 to 134/3059

Both completely hi-jacked. Congratulations?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

BanaBob
05-23-2005, 05:29 PM
LMAO! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Aaron_GT
05-24-2005, 02:10 AM
No one even thinks about banning knives

Various classes of knives are banned in the USA and the UK. In the UK there is a debate on restricting carrying of knives further (there is already a maximum knife length you can carry in public without being able to show good cause).

AlmightyTallest
05-24-2005, 08:44 AM
Thanks for that info Aaron. Let me know if I'm wrong, but it looks like there are more crimes committed with sharp instruments in proportion to the number of firearm or other crimes. I'm kind of curious to know what the "Other" weapon types means in your UK murder list http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kicking?? Murder by kicking is much higher than poison or shooting in that list? I'm actually shocked by this, but then again it proves my point that if people want to kill each other, they'll find a way. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Wars were fought way before guns were even invented after all.

Thanks for the info, this is pretty intersting info. Any chance we could get a breakdown of murders by weapon in the U.S.?

jarink
05-24-2005, 11:39 AM
Trying hopelessly to get back on topic....

I don't have 100% accurate statistics with me, but I'm reasonably certain that there are less than 1 or 2 murders committed each year in the US using a .50 cal MG.

This is true irregardless of whether or not the victim is in a German, Japanese or Italian fighter, a Tiger tank or a SpW halftrack. Proximity of a full or partially full fuel tank does not seem to matter, either.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Aaron_GT
05-24-2005, 12:04 PM
Thanks for that info Aaron. Let me know if I'm wrong, but it looks like there are more crimes committed with sharp instruments in proportion to the number of firearm or other crimes.

That's how I read it too.


I'm kind of curious to know what the "Other" weapon types means in your UK murder list

All other causes, I presume. Killing people by running them over, smothering, etc.


Kicking?? Murder by kicking is much higher than poison or shooting in that list? I'm actually shocked by this,

Male-on-male murder (which is most murders) is often associated with drinking. People get kicked to death outside pubs. That category also included punching and other such types of weapon. This has a long tradition and in the 19th century they even developed special cloggs in the north of England especially for the purpose.


but then again it proves my point that if people want to kill each other, they'll find a way. Wars were fought way before guns were even invented after all.

Very true. There is a potential for guns to make it easier to do it at a distance when not so angry that you could kick someone to death. But it is hard to prove either way as statistics are subject to data pooling, and other factors may be more significant. I'm of the opinion that governments should make as few laws regarding guns as possible, but I also think the self defence aspect of owning a gun for most people is overstated. Scarily the single person most likely to shoot you is your wife or husband.


Any chance we could get a breakdown of murders by weapon in the U.S.?

The only one I've seen is that 66% of murders in the USA are committed with guns. If you take out murders with guns in the USA and UK the murder rates per capita in each country aren't so different (on average).

han freak solo
05-24-2005, 06:57 PM
Dang, Skychimp....

I didn't think another long thread would get hi-jacked and pass this one up!

"Did America save Britain from invasion by Germany?" is all about beer now!

147/3446 there to 143/3424 here. Neck and neck, baby! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

BanaBob
05-24-2005, 08:00 PM
I believe at the rate our population is growing, there should be a lot more guns around, it doesn't even make a dent right now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

han freak solo
05-25-2005, 06:59 AM
This might help the US crime rate to drop if it were widespread.

Read more about the Sheriff at:
http://www.mcso.org/submenu.asp?file=aboutsheriff&page=1


"TO THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH JOE ARPAIO HE IS THE MARICOPA ARIZONA
COUNTY SHERIFF AND HE KEEPS GETTING ELECTED OVER AND OVER.

THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio (in Arizona) who created the "tent city jail":

He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for
them.

He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their
weights. Cut off all but "G" movies.

He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city
projects.

Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for
discrimination.

He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order
that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again only
let in the Disney channel and the weather channel.

When asked why the weather channel he replied, so they will know how hot
it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.

He cut off coffee since it has zero nutritional value.

When the inmates complained, he told them, "This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If
you don't like it, don't come back."

He bought Newt Gingrich' lecture series on videotape that he pipes into the
jails.

When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he
replied that a democratic lecture series might explain why a lot of the
inmates were in his jails in the first place.

More on the Arizona Sheriff:

With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just
set a new record), the Associated Press reports: About 2,000 inmates living
in a barbed-wire-surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have
been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer
shorts.

On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their
bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached 138 degrees inside the week
before.

Many were also swathed in wet, pink towels as sweat collected on their
chests and dripped down to their pink socks.

"It feels like we are in a furnace," said James Zanzot, an inmate who has
lived in the tents for 1 = years. "It's inhumane."

Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago
started making his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not
one bit sympathetic He said Wednesday that he told all of the inmates: "It's
120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have
to wear full battle gear, but they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your
****ed mouths!"

Way to go, Sheriff! Maybe if all prisons were like this one there would be a
lot less crime and/or repeat offenders. Criminals should be punished for
their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for their parole, only to
go out and commit another crime so they can get back in to live on taxpayers
money and enjoy things taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves.

Sheriff Joe was just reelected Sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona."

irR4tiOn4L
05-25-2005, 09:44 AM
I just want to emphasise the regressive nature of fighting gun crime with guns. Gun control is most effective where the level of guns in circulation is very low. In a country such as Australia, where this is the case, it is very difficult to obtain a firearm. Where the level of guns is relatively high, gun control legislation will leave gun circulation in criminal society less affected then gun ownership in the legal economy. This serves to create an imbalance and an increase in fear for the general population - although crime rates do not generally rise. Nevertheless it is a necessary step toward the aim of reducing the overall gun ownership in the country.

High gun ownership however does not reduce crime rates while the opposite has been shown to apply. No one here can argue that the UK has a higher homicide rate than the USA, and that this is because fewer people in the UK have guns. While guns are not to blame for killing, they facilitate that action as THEIR SOLE REASON FOR EXISTENCE. Cars are dangerous, but they do not exist to kill and serve a benefit we cannot at the moment do without. The only benefits guns give are protection for those living in the wilderness and recreational shooting - while a ranger or farmer may well need a gun to protect from predatory animals it is worth noting that most people will still be unable to effectively protect themselves from these animals with a gun. Bears in particular demonstrate this, as while these are very dangerous creatures, their thick skin means their brain and heart are extremely hard to hit - only a shotgun is effective enough to stop them (besides farmers and rangers acquire permits to this end in Australia).

Guns do not cause crime. They are a tool, as mentioned many times here. They alone do not 'deserve' to be blamed, if we personify them thus. However they make the act of killing much easier, and are used to facilitate crime far more often than they are used to stop it. While someone determined to kill will obtain, load and conceal their gun before the act, their victim is unlikely to be carrying the gun around or be in a position to make use of it. Thus even though both own one, the criminal has a far better use for his.

The real causes of crime are socio-economic deprivation - for proof of this investigate criminlogical research in this area. A materialist interpretation identifies the difference between working class and ruling class crime in terms of the proximity of the crime (eg working class crime is interpersonal, ruling class is fraud and other large scale crimes). Materialists also argue that while ruling class crime is far more damaging (eg negligent design of automobiles or inadequate workplace safety) ruling class crime is targetted and focussed upon - the presentation of this within the media shows this (how many law and orders are there about large scale fraud?). There are competing theories and much more to each but i wont go into that here. The most important factor to the kind of interpersonal crime we are talking about here is thus socio-economic deprivation - the privileged displace anger in different ways to the poor. Furthermore most armed crime occurs out of necessity (getting money).

I also must stress that it is important to understand closely the causes of crime and what drives it on a personal level. While most people are paranoid about the homicidal, unknown maniac coming in and shooting your wife, this is an incredibly small proportion of those who perform crime. Most crime by far is domestic, and could well be people like you taking the gun they say is for self defence and using it on their now ex-wife.
The great majority of victims also knew their assailant - unless you hang around with criminals lack of gun control could cost you your life.

Burglaries and robberies are the domain of the very disadvantaged and will exist as long as poverty does - they are more likely to use knives then guns and are typically not homicidal. These types of situations are also typically done at close range where guns are ineffectual protection, and usually the victim will not be carrying or close to a knife or firearm to defend themselves with. While those who do carry one and are skilled with it will likely dissuade a burglar or robber, most people will only provoke or panic the attacker and end up dead. As anyone in Australia will tell you, do not resist and its very very unlikely you will be harmed. Simply give them what they want or escape danger (in say a burglary).

Unfortunately this is not very macho advice, and im sure that peoples prides and pleasure from using guns drives half the arguments for them here. The worst effect of violent crime is the general fear and paranoia it causes in the population at large, and guns increase this fear dramatically. A large part is also played by the media though, and thus to reduce overall fear needs much more than just gun control.

One final note. The USA is first in G8 countries in terms of the amount of people living below the poverty line - 19%. Australia is second however, with 17%. The UK comes in at around 10%. Yet Australia has per capita far fewer people in prison, violent crime and homicides than the USA - less than would be proportional to its poverty statistics. The UK has more than Australia yet less than the US. This suggests that there are plenty of other factors in real world crime.

It is also sad how zealously people talk here of "evil" people and 'criminals' - it is a fact that about two thirds of incarcerated persons are serving jail sentences for fine avoidance, generally for failure to pay court and police fines.

irR4tiOn4L
05-25-2005, 09:45 AM
sorry bout the length, if you dont want to read it just ignore it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Once again, im sorry about the length there.

irR4tiOn4L
05-25-2005, 10:15 AM
Way to go, Sheriff! Maybe if all prisons were like this one there would be a
lot less crime and/or repeat offenders. Criminals should be punished for
their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for their parole, only to
go out and commit another crime so they can get back in to live on taxpayers
money and enjoy things taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves


By the way this is possibly the biggest load of **** ive read. That guy knows absolutely nothing about what crime is or what casuses it. The debts prisoners get in these prisons pretty much ensures theyll be back and their disadvantaged background, lack of prospects in the legal economy and 'prisonisation' means they will almost certainly be back, either commiting crime to survive and pay off their prison bills or because they are looked down, spat at and victimised wherever they go outside of prison and have no idea where to start living normally - they commit a crime to get back to the only environment they are familiar with and where they dont die on the street. Ussually they are not taxpayers because they barely ever had any money to tax and can definitely afford a lot less than even the poorest taxpayer. Most are in because they couldnt pay fines, even trivial ones such as legal aid and court fees. They are not likely to be in any better financial position when they do get out and will probably give up all hope of trying to live like most people. Rape rates in prison are very high, around 40%. This is very unpleasant and traumatic for them and not even a cold fish like the moron who said that could argue that anyone deserves this.

Prison is terribly, ****ed up place that does not rehabilitate most of its offenders and deters very few. The criminal justice system victimises the poor and disadvantaged, and throws them in jail because of their background, condemning them to a life of jail, crime and poverty. Very few manage to catch on in the legal economy after jail, and many are traumatised for life by what they went through in there. Contrary to what most think this was not these people's fault, they did not want this, they could not stop this and will not be able to change this after jail.

I think that guy has no idea what he is talking about and condemning people to and I hope the cold b@stard has trouble sleeping at night.

Blutarski2004
05-25-2005, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
sorry bout the length, if you dont want to read it just ignore it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Once again, im sorry about the length there.


..... No worries about the length. Some quick comments -

1. Your comparison of guns and cars is inapt. The function of a gun is not to kill, it is to provide a means of defence. MOST people do not arm themselves with the intention of killing another human being; most arm themselves in order to protect themselves. Misuse of guns by the abnormal few is no rationale to deny them to the law-abiding citizenry in general.

2. Socio-economic deprivation is ONE cause of crime. The choice between starvation and the theft of a loaf of bread is a clear one. However, few individuals in the First World are faced with such a stark choice. Consequently, one must seek other explanations to explain the crimes committed from motives of greed and lust. Why do some folks feel it necessary to build or participate in great criminal drug empires. About five percent of males are clinical psycopaths; that's a good starting point to think about this issue.

3. Yes, the rich and the poor statistically tend toward different criminal proclivities. White collar crimes are more common among "the rich" simply because they are more often in a position to commit them. The "poor" tailor their criminal activities to what options are open to them as well.

4. I find it interesting that, after forty years of evolving and expanding "Great Society" social programs and massive growth in federal government social spending, the USA still supposedly has 19 pct of its population living "below the poverty line". I suppose that depends on where in particular some interested parties desire to move "the poverty line". Either that, or we have been witness over the past forty years to the utter futility of governmental attempts to improve social conditions. Perhaps we ought to have just saved all that money. One or the other is the case here.

5. It is noteworthy that, at last count, the USA had approximately one licensed attorney for every incercerated prisoner. Is there a relationship here that we are missing?????

irR4tiOn4L
05-25-2005, 11:08 AM
Thanks blutarski for reading all that! A few quick replies..

1) The function of guns is not to provide a means of defence. Guns developed in history for the military purposes of winning battle by either killing or wounding to the point of incapacitation soldiers of the other side. They were also developed to serve an auxiliary role in wilderness protection and hunting. Modern guns do not differ much from this role and most domestic guns do not make use of rubber bullets or are replaced with pepper spray or other such means of self defence or control - they use lead bullets designed for maximum damage and penetration to mammalian creatures.

Cars developed as a replacement to the horse drawn carriage - a horseless carriage - apparent in their specification of engine power by "horsepower". Their primary function is as a means of transport to its occupants that is more rapid than walking/cycling and more flexible than flying/sailing/train. They have changed from early times to modern slightly in their role in that early cars were designed to be driven by a coachmen and ferry passengers about - modern cars are ussually driven by the passenger themself.

I do not argue that solely because guns are desinged to kill they should be denied to the general public for any purpose, including self defence. I also do not argue this based on what most people arm themselves most of the time for. I argue that guns are not useful in reality as a self defence weapon and yet are far more useful to criminal activity. I argue that because they are far more deadly than melee weapons their proliferation leads to more homicide victims, and their ease of use creates homicide cases which would not have occurred had guns been controlled.

2) I agree that it is one factor. I just thought it was a relevant one. However i do think enough people are faced with a stark enough choice for survival to result in a disadvantaged underclass and crimes of necessity. Most crime is crime of necessity - most people in jail are there because of it. Given that in Australia, a more egalitarian country then the US, 17% live below the poverty line, the top 50% of the population own 98.5% of the countries wealth and the average executive now earns 400 times what the average worker does, as opposed to 40 times in the 1970s, and you have a very good basis of which to understand most crime. Criminological studies have indicated a correlation between mere inequality and crime, both working and ruling class, a correlation beyond just the point of starvation - it seems excessive inequality leads to people turning to crime either to survive or enhance their wealth.
You make a good point with the psychopaths - however you dont say how many account for crimes.

3) As you say. But significantly, as i mentioned above, inequality is correlated with criminal activity. Ruling class crime also is causally linked to working class crime. One thing you overlook is that while both perform criminal activities, only one is severely prosecuted and thrown in jail. Or who the law is structured to prefer and catch.

4)The poverty line is specific and defined by the United Nations in the ranking of all countries - it is not subjective to any one nation or study specifically and information on the percentage of the population below the poverty line can be found with your countries statistics information center. I cannot speak for the USA, but in Australia reforms have moved more toward conservative liberalism rather than socialist safety nets. Inequality here has increased significantly - and since Australia has followed the trend in America i doubt its a different trend in the US. Check out the slums in Detroit.

Saving money will only lead to more crime, more drugs and more dying on the street. America is greatly geared toward those with money. Money gets you education. Money gets you health care. Money gets you a lawyer. Social safety nets for the disadvantaged are extremely inadequate. I dont know which 'Great Society' social programs you speak of.

5) Nice statistic but please say what you were replying to. If its the fact that 3/4 of prisoners are there for non violent crimes such as failure to pay fines (of which the proportion is 2/3), then i think this statistic is a lot more important than the number of attorneys to prisoners. That poor people are thrown in jail and subjected to institutionalised crime and abuse is not alright with me. American and Australian law both came out of English law, and that country is notorious for its differential treatment of the poor, such as with the 'poor acts' of the 19th century.

Aaron_GT
05-25-2005, 11:15 AM
The function of a gun is not to kill, it is to provide a means of defence.

This is a bit disingenous. By this logic a criminal caught carrying a gun could claim that the gun was not for an offensive action (a bank robbery) but for defence. This would be ridiculous!

It is more accurate to say that a gun (other than target or hunting weapon or riot control shotguns) is intended to kill (or at the very least cause severe injury) and it is by this mechanism that SOME that use guns wish to use this tool.

irR4tiOn4L
05-25-2005, 11:28 AM
Well put Aaron. Just cause a gun is a weapon doesnt mean it should be one. Its fun firing those things into cans and at targets. But frankly thats not what guns stored in the closet are for. Those are for either killing or incapacitating (whether in self defence or offence) or for gathering dust.

Aaron_GT
05-25-2005, 11:29 AM
Socio-economic deprivation is ONE cause of crime.

Overall crime (within a particular society) seem to follow economic curves in general. This does not mean that the primary mechanism that leads to people committing crimes is deprivation per se, though - the reasons seem to be much more complex than this, but when the economy is good in general crime in a country will fall, and when it is bad it will tend to increase. Crime rates vary between countries (even allowing for different classifications, which can sometimes make comparasion difficult - for example the UK classes more crimes as violent crimes than the USA) in ways that aren't obviously related to different economic conditions within the countries so must be other factors in play.

One interesting suggestion (this is based on studies in other primates where it is ethical to do the work, and some testing in Hungary) is that seritonin levels have a big effect on the likelihood of committing a crime. Seritonin levels are low in the depressed but also in those who have a comparatively lowly station in life and low seritonin is also associated with more violent or 'deviant' behaviour, certainly in monkeys and chimps, and given what testing there has been, seems also to be true in humans. When we lived in hunter-gatherer societies the hierarchical structure was fairly flat and even the ruling class weren't much better off than those at the bottom. As society has evolved there has been more disparity, and with the advent of TV you can see constant images of those with a higher social station. The suggestion is this may lead to depression of seritonin more widely than previously. There has been a rise in diagnosis of depression in the last 40 years, but then that could be an issue of reporting rather than anything else.

Of course having low seritonin shouldn't absolve anyone of having personal responsibility and is no excuse for committing crime, but if it is a factor maybe there are ways we can live that make this less of a problem? It reminds me a bit of the model villages the UK's chocolate Quaker families created 100 or so years ago. Either that or we all take prozac (but then it begins to sound like Brave New World).

Some also suggest that the seritonin issue is why some feel the need to build big empires (be they drug, media, or whatever) - the seritonin boost of being on the top of the pile might be addictive.

Aaron_GT
05-25-2005, 11:30 AM
It is more accurate to say that a gun (other than target or hunting weapon or riot control shotguns) is intended to kill (or at the very least cause severe injury) and it is by this mechanism that SOME that use guns wish to use this tool.

Oops that got a bit garbled. What I meant to say was that some may wish to use the implied threat of death or trauma a gun can be used for (what the tool does) as a defence.

Aaron_GT
05-25-2005, 11:37 AM
and throws them in jail because of their background, condemning them to a life of jail, crime and poverty

Well, no, it throws them in jail because they have committed a crime. Their background might have had an influence on whether or not they were more or less likely than average to end up committing a crime, but there has to be personal responsibility. You can't use the "It's a fair cop but society's to blame" argument. That is a weak argument.

Prison needs to do a combination of punish, separate out, and reform and rehabilitate. I'd support really touch community service for a lot of crimes so that restitution can also be brought in. Commit arson? Well looks like you need to spend sometime inside prison to reflect on the crime, and then a good deal of time clearing up the mess, being suitably contrite, and working (unpaid) for the community to make ammends. If that also means learning a trade, and getting some self respect and leading to a lower recidivism rate (and reducing the crime rate overall) then that's fantastic.

Also it might be that solving housing problems, issues of deprivation, etc., might also help tackle issues of crime. I don't see anything wrong with looking at those in terms of a broad sweep, but individual criminals need to have that individual responsibility.

It's almost a Quakerist view, I suppose, and I'm not even a Quaker.

TROOPER117
05-25-2005, 11:40 AM
RIGHT! To get back to the ****ing fuel tank debate!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Aaron_GT
05-25-2005, 11:42 AM
If its the fact that 3/4 of prisoners are there for non violent crimes such as failure to pay fines (of which the proportion is 2/3)

Although not necessarily for not paying parking fines. It might be a fine resulting from something moderately serious.

For people who haven't paid fines (it might be due to lack of funds) then I'd support community service. By locking people in prison it costs the community more both in terms of the cost of the prison and the potential cost of services for those left on the outside should that person be a breadwinner. I say better to make the person do community service (which still has costs, of course, but at least the community gets some benefit to defray the cost) if the cost-benefit analysis indicates it is cheaper. There are always things like picking up litter, weeding roadside verges, dredging canals, etc, etc that need doing.

Aaron_GT
05-25-2005, 11:43 AM
Sorry troooper http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif We've killed the thread.

BSS_Goat
05-25-2005, 12:14 PM
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

Blutarski2004
05-25-2005, 12:35 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Thanks blutarski for reading all that! A few quick replies..

1) The function of guns is not to provide a means of defence. Guns developed in history for the military purposes of winning battle by either killing or wounding to the point of incapacitation soldiers of the other side. They were also developed to serve an auxiliary role in wilderness protection and hunting. Modern guns do not differ much from this role and most domestic guns do not make use of rubber bullets or are replaced with pepper spray or other such means of self defence or control - they use lead bullets designed for maximum damage and penetration to mammalian creatures.

Cars developed as a replacement to the horse drawn carriage - a horseless carriage - apparent in their specification of engine power by "horsepower". Their primary function is as a means of transport to its occupants that is more rapid than walking/cycling and more flexible than flying/sailing/train. They have changed from early times to modern slightly in their role in that early cars were designed to be driven by a coachmen and ferry passengers about - modern cars are ussually driven by the passenger themself.

I do not argue that solely because guns are desinged to kill they should be denied to the general public for any purpose, including self defence. I also do not argue this based on what most people arm themselves most of the time for. I argue that guns are not useful in reality as a self defence weapon and yet are far more useful to criminal activity. I argue that because they are far more deadly than melee weapons their proliferation leads to more homicide victims, and their ease of use creates homicide cases which would not have occurred had guns been controlled.

..... I get the feeling from you reply that you are circling the self-defense tent, but cannot bring yourself to enter. Indeed, armies use firearms. What is the purpose of an army if not to provide a defense? In this case, a defence of the State.

Firearms are tools, and, like all tools, can be mis-used. The argument that any mis-use of an item is justification for an outright ban of said item is a VERY slippery slope IMO. I do not say that you have advocated banning firearms, but there has been a very concerted effort to do so here in the USA over the past forty odd years. I adamantly oppose the notion. We will never legislate our way to paradise, as some would believe possible, and the logic precedent set would create all manner of abuse. It is the same logic which says that, because some people have become obese eating "fast food", it should now be highly regulated or banned outright. Crazy? People laughed at me when I proposed it as a potential consequence of this sort of social management thinking. We had our first series of lawsuits on just this topic last year.



2) I agree that it is one factor. I just thought it was a relevant one. However i do think enough people are faced with a stark enough choice for survival to result in a disadvantaged underclass and crimes of necessity. Most crime is crime of necessity - most people in jail are there because of it. Given that in Australia, a more egalitarian country then the US, 17% live below the poverty line, the top 50% of the population own 98.5% of the countries wealth and the average executive now earns 400 times what the average worker does, as opposed to 40 times in the 1970s, and you have a very good basis of which to understand most crime. Criminological studies have indicated a correlation between mere inequality and crime, both working and ruling class, a correlation beyond just the point of starvation - it seems excessive inequality leads to people turning to crime either to survive or enhance their wealth.
You make a good point with the psychopaths - however you dont say how many account for crimes.

..... To respond to your above comments in their entirety would send us into the furthest reaches of political and sociological theory, which I think would be unwise. I'd rather confine the discussion to gun control. On that score, my opinion is that crime is largely a matter of psychology - i.e., that a certain segment of every population is disposed toward crime. Social conditions may certainly influence the incidence of crime, up or down, but the core of the matter is in the human psyche. As regards psycopathy, I can give no verified data, but would speculate that psycopaths will probably be greatly over-represented in the criminal population, since, by their very nature, they do not recognize the moral constraints which typically govern human social behavior.



3) As you say. But significantly, as i mentioned above, inequality is correlated with criminal activity. Ruling class crime also is causally linked to working class crime. One thing you overlook is that while both perform criminal activities, only one is severely prosecuted and thrown in jail. Or who the law is structured to prefer and catch.

..... Data I have seen here in the USA would bely that belief. On average, only one in two hundred felony convictions ever involve any prison time here in the USA. Hard to believe! OTOH, I do agree that one could view the differential in punishment between a person who robs a bank of 10,000 dollars and one who swindles that same bank out of 10,000,000 dollars as rather unfair. The differentiation between the two is of course the use or threat of violence, but the social impact of the swindler is inadequately accounted for IMO.



4)The poverty line is specific and defined by the United Nations in the ranking of all countries - it is not subjective to any one nation or study specifically and information on the percentage of the population below the poverty line can be found with your countries statistics information center. I cannot speak for the USA, but in Australia reforms have moved more toward conservative liberalism rather than socialist safety nets. Inequality here has increased significantly - and since Australia has followed the trend in America i doubt its a different trend in the US. Check out the slums in Detroit.

..... I actually grew up in Roxbury, during its transition into the official slum area of Boston. I cannot tell you how much money and how many programs have been dedicated to this area, all for mought. My experiences and observations there haveled me to the belief that the solution to such problems does not lie with top-down "official" solutions. Frankly, I am a supporter of the Bill Cosby school of social advancement.



Saving money will only lead to more crime, more drugs and more dying on the street. America is greatly geared toward those with money. Money gets you education. Money gets you health care. Money gets you a lawyer. Social safety nets for the disadvantaged are extremely inadequate. I dont know which 'Great Society' social programs you speak of.

..... The "Great Society" social program was implemented in the mid-60's by President Lyndon Johnson. It has changed the face of American government in the sense that vast majority of the national government's budget is now committed to social support programs of one sort or another. US siocial spending dwarfs even the defense budget. Literally trillions of dollars have been spent in the social welfare arena If this 19 percent US poverty statistic which you quote is truly accurate, then it is clear that the entire effort to "eradicate" poverty has been a stupendously colossal waste of money; 20 percent was the poverty figure bandied about in 1965 when the Great Society measured were originally passed. Either that, or the 19 pct figure has been rigged for the purposes of someone's particular agenda.



5) Nice statistic but please say what you were replying to. If its the fact that 3/4 of prisoners are there for non violent crimes such as failure to pay fines (of which the proportion is 2/3), then i think this statistic is a lot more important than the number of attorneys to prisoners. That poor people are thrown in jail and subjected to institutionalised crime and abuse is not alright with me. American and Australian law both came out of English law, and that country is notorious for its differential treatment of the poor, such as with the 'poor acts' of the 19th century.

..... IIUC, most of the prison population in the USA is currently serving time for drug-related offences, largely of a non-violent nature. My comparison of numbers of US lawyers versus the prison population was simply a tongue-in-cheek, but by no means untrue, comment to keep things on the lighter side. You know how such chats can quickly get heated to dangerous temperatures.

Aaron_GT
05-25-2005, 01:41 PM
I'd agree that bottom-up initiatives are likely to be the most successful (even if the initial seed money is top down). Top down is useful for some things though (city planning, slum clearance, etc) but even then you need to include those who live in the localities to give them a stake in the process. If you don't then it becomes another way to remove power from those at the bottom and make them feel disconnected and disenfranchised, which creates more problems.

BanaBob
05-25-2005, 03:52 PM
Remember the word, "Gun" comes from the combination of two words, "Good" and "Fun" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

irR4tiOn4L
05-26-2005, 05:38 AM
lol haha good fun. No Blutarski i think this is a great discussion - i know that stat was tongue in cheek as you say but dont worry good supported arguments only promote understanding, not anger.

I am sorry to say i didnt know about that reform program. As Aaron Gt argued, the materialist view does not explain why individuals commit crime - and in fact its a view that is not perfect by any means. Nevertheless there is a correlation between inequality, not just poverty, and crime. That might be why reforms have no effect - inequality has deepened.

I would have to dig out my sources, but i am sure that Australia has a very high (at least 50%) proportion of people in for fine avoidance, and America has a similar statistic. As you point out, drug abuse is the other major reason. But then when so many are born into addict's families, getting drugs is a matter of survival in itself. Drugs seem to play a very large part in petty crime.

Homicides however are not dominated by the poor - here psychopaths are probably overrepresented. Noone has argued that homicide offenders or violent crime offenders should not suffer punitive measures - though its worth noting that while jails are supposed to rehabilitate, both Australian and American jails dont - they in fact encourage repeat offences by prisonisation.

Overall crime rates in developed countries are extremely low compared to developing ones. We are blessed. But while somewhere like south africa the self defence argument bears much water, just have a look at the position of the USA in refernce to other G8 and first world countries - while the Czech Republic (where i am from), Australia (where i live now), Canada, South Korea, UK, Chile, New Zealand and a slew of others are all at the lowest rate in the chart, America is in the top 25 among predominantly developing countries with a murder rate 4 times that of most first world countries! What reasons are there for this?

Of course im going to predominantly put this down to lack of gun controls - but then i may be arguing that Australia and other countries should simply keep their gun controls, as legalising guns will almost certainly increase murders - it may be totally inapplicable to argue from this that a country with lots of guns such as the USA will see any decrease in murders by restricting guns (at least short term). Do i think it should do this with a view to the long term anyway? Yes, but then thats my opinion and i am not a voting american and do not posses any more right than to suggest my view to those who engage in its democratic processes.

What this whole gun argument needs is good statistics to at least give some indication of what effect can be expected of gun control.

Anyways i think thats about it from me on this - very interesting - thanks for this discussion guys but i think weve got to give the discussion back to the original poster.

BigKahuna_GS
05-26-2005, 09:48 AM
S!

From BSS_Goat :


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap



___

IL2-chuter
05-26-2005, 12:35 PM
Excuse me . . . I can't seem to find the exit . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif . . .



.

BSS_Goat
05-26-2005, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by IL2-chuter:
Excuse me . . . I can't seem to find the exit . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif . . .
.

It's over in the corner behind Raaaids time machine.

han freak solo
05-26-2005, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

Impressive site there.

FI.Spitsfire
05-28-2005, 02:22 PM
whos to say its not a small scale model hit with a 50cal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif