#### Comment Preferences

• ##### Right... you've never heard of ricocheting?(0+ / 0-)

Bullets can bounce, reflect, skip, or ricochet -- it all means the same thing, they can end up going in unintended directions. And the more shots you fire without knowing where they're going the greater the odds you have of doing unintended harm. Are you trying to make gun owners look like arrogant jerks or just yourself?

To me progress is not so much a goal as it is a process and I believe it will not follow a straight course. Remember, the drops of water that form the river may not take the shortest path but they will still reach the ocean.

[ Parent ]

• ##### No, they aren't the same thing.(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
annecros, PavePusher

Macroscopically, reflection is a perfectly elastic collision.  Ricochets are anything but; of course that's not the issue here.  An SUV presents a high angle of attack to a shooter, which substantially reduces the risk of ricochet.  And on top of that there's this neat little trick called aiming.  Smaller and intermediate pistol cartridges generally will not deeply penetrate large areas of the automobile body (partcularly around crumple zones, for the same reason).  So it's probably a better idea to go for the windows.  You could make the argument that shooting for the body represents a concern for a lack of a backstop if a round goes through one window and out the other.

If you think pointing out obvious holes in your so-called rules of engagement is arrogance, then I can't help you.

• ##### If you're going to split hairs(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
KVoimakas, PavePusher

Reflection is a mathematical concept that states I = R, merely the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. It says nothing about that collision absorbing any of the energy or not. Physics will tell you that there is no such thing as "perfectly elastic" collisions since some energy is always transferred in the collision.

But that's not the larger point which you did clarify. Your rules of engagement are arrogant. They assume that you, and you alone, are the only one with right to life and limb. Bystanders be damned because you're going to fire as many shots as you deem necessary. If your rules of engagement do not consider the tactical situation and merely "shoot enough shots to kill/incapacitate the target" then that is exactly what they are -- arrogant.

To me progress is not so much a goal as it is a process and I believe it will not follow a straight course. Remember, the drops of water that form the river may not take the shortest path but they will still reach the ocean.

[ Parent ]

• ##### just one point, a car is concealment, not cover(4+ / 0-)

The great majority of handgun rounds and just about all rifle rounds will blow through a car like it isnt there protecting occupants very little if any.....

Most any heavy caliber will blow through both sides of a car making even hiding behind it next to useless unless you get lucky and the round hits a window motor or similar.......

Car is only concealment, look for a solid brick wall....88s arent much better....

Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
Emiliano Zapata

[ Parent ]

• ##### Nitpick.(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
buddabelly

About half of handgun rounds will lodge themselves in the body without penetrating the occupants.  There is some risk of ricohet, but that is very small and usually when firing on a windshield obliquely   That's not likely the case at a gas station.

• ##### little risk of riccochet but the Buick-O-Truth(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
theatre goon

showed just how little protection a car really is, it kinda shocked me as I really thought it would do better but the actual firing tests show the truth.....Hell the laminated glass of the windshield is about the strongest part of the car....

The Buick-O-Truth, part of the Box-O-Truth website doing penetration testing

Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
Emiliano Zapata

[ Parent ]

• ##### Fortunately, you don't have to worry about that.(0+ / 0-)

To an insane degree, we can predict reflections in nature using the ideal model.  So long as we're not stupid enough to apply the model to bullets.  We're not stupid, are we?  Good.  Moving on.

Your criticism of my rules of engagement is stupid.  Stupid because your imagination is running wild based on dumb movies that you've seen.  I forgive you for that.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.