Happy Birthday!! 4 dead, 20+ injured in ‘Bama.

[Loren Pechtel]

i.e. clothing made out of a material that makes bullets bounce off back where they came from without imparting any energy

It seems unlikely that we will ever produce materials that disobey the laws of thermodynamics.

People have this odd idea that anything they can imagine will someday be achievable by technology, but technology isn't magic, and scientific advances don't make new things possible - quite the opposite, science is the process of whittling down all of the imaginable things into the tiny subset of actually achievable things. Science doesn't make more things possible, it just makes it easier to sort the possible from the impossible.

And "clothing made out of a material that makes bullets bounce off back where they came from without imparting any energy" lies squarely in the 'impossible' camp.

Yeah, some time ago I got to thinking of how a sci-fi return-bullet-to-sender approach would work--and it doesn't seem possible. To actually return the bullet to the sender you need to send it back at the same angle and with the same ballistics.

If you have a good enough track on the bullet you could make a handwavium gravity generator that dropped a gravity field in it's path that flung it back. However, now it's going backwards and it's not symmetric. The reflected bullet won't go as far--against a nearby shooter it wouldn't matter, against a sniper it would.

Note that the departure angle is not a reflection--you would need a cornercube reflector, not a plain mirror. And cornercube reflectors only work within the reflector, they have edges where reflection doesn't happen. In normal real-world use they're always reflecting photons so these edges don't really matter, but a bullet shield either has to be bigger than the target or consist of many reflectors that have edges in between. (Common real world examples are those highway marker signs that you can see from far away when your headlights light them up.)

Weapons don't become obsolete because they are less deadly; They become obsolete because they're replaced by weapons that are equally deadly, but faster, easier, or and/or cheaper to use.

Disagree--weapons can become obsolete because they are countered too well. We don't have any really good examples, but consider the WWII anti-tank rockets. Even if you don't have the modern stuff you wouldn't use the old stuff because it's not going to punch through the armor. Such weapons still exist but only for use against soft-skinned targets.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People leave guns in parked cars. Theives break out car windows and steal stuff. Guns are a prize, easily sold or traded for meth or crack. Many guns used by robbers are stolen guns. Louisiana is now #2 in murders. This bad habit is a problem. Hence the crackdown. No more thoughts and prayers here.

It will only do any good if the cops go looking for guns sitting in cars and arrest people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think more robust background checks, gun licensing and liability insurance (including for things like improper storage leading to easy thefts) are good points to address.

The problem with insurance is few of the misuses would be insurable acts. It's really a backdoor registration scheme.

Note that we do not know who the shooters are nor how they acquired their weapons, so none of these might have been effective in this case.
I disagree about liability for manufacturers. We do not get to sue Ford if somebody commits a crime with an Explorer, so why should we get to sue Smith & Wesson if somebody commits a crime with an M&P Shield?

Agreed. I don't think a company should be liable for harmful use unless they encouraged that harmful use. (Tobacco companies, I'm looking at you! I don't think you should be stopped from making those coffin nails, but promoting them is encouraging harmful use.)

If anything, "strict liability" should be abolished for all goods, as well as the perverse idea of "punitive damages". It puts way too much power in random juries. If a company is not breaking any laws, I do not see why they should pay (especially pay in excess of damages) just because some jury feels they should.

Strict liability--agreed. The concept shouldn't exist. Punitive damages are reasonable, though--when a company knowingly chooses a path of bad behavior because it's cheaper I think juries should have the power to punish. They're already limited to a reasonable multiplier on actual damages, the insane jury awards you hear about almost always get knocked down by judges.

So, why the fuck are we trying to control illegal drugs, if guns and drugs are both impossible to control?

Aren't many libs in favor of legalizing all drugs, not just weed? I think full legalization goes too far, but I also think the punitive approach to possession/addiction is counterproductive even for crack, meth, fentanyl etc.

If it's not fully legalized you still have much of the problem associated with them. Cops aren't out to bust users other than to get them to flip on dealers.

If the stuff is too dangerous make it available by prescription to addicts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I AM, however, quite aware that what we believe today to be "impossible" could one day be possible.
Faster than sound travel through the atmosphere was thought to impossible, as it violated the laws of aerodynamics AS THEY WERE KNOWN AT THE TIME.

No. Examples of faster-than-sound were known to exist well before any attempts to push airplanes to such speeds. The question was whether a plane could survive in a supersonic realm, not whether it could get there. (And there are big issues with it--a plane must be designed from the ground up to survive in the supersonic realm or it's unlikely to survive.)

We may never pass through space faster than the speed of light, but that does not mean that faster-than-light travel is not possible - one "simply" must find a way to travel without "traversing"... as "easy" as changing your frame of reference from 3 dimensions to 4.. and then just "step" over a million light years away in an instant....
No, we cannot break the laws... but we have been pretty good at getting around them, so far.

No, it's more complex than that. The problem comes when you apply special relativity to any such craft you get paths through time.

It's actually not an inherent prohibition on FTL travel, though--it's not FTL per se that causes paradoxes, but FTL in an arbitrary reference frame. If you have a stardrive that enforces a reference frame you don't have paradoxes. (Say, something that requires you to be at zero velocity relative to the local fabric of the universe.)

less "fancy" - this "bulletproof" material can simply convert the energy of the bullet in a way that is safe for the wearer.... like wearing 10 inch thick high speed steel armor.. except it is only a millimeter thick and super comfy and workable.
There is a substance called Oobleck - it is a liquid until something hits it with force, then it acts like a solid. This concept, taken another level.
Anyway... nothing is impossible, if reframed.

Doesn't work. As it stands it's possible to die from a bullet that was stopped by your "bulletproof" vest. If you reflect the bullet you double the energy. (And you can't, anyway--infinitely hard things lead to paradoxes. There must be some softness and that means there comes a point you can't stop the incoming energy. Maybe it's above what a shooter can deliver, but the point must exist.)

 

[Derec]

The problem with insurance is few of the misuses would be insurable acts. It's really a backdoor registration scheme.

I can think of a few, related to improper storage. Like kids getting access and shooting somebody. Or a gun being stolen because it was improperly secured. Many (most?) illegal guns start as legal guns that have been stolen.
And what would be so wrong with registration?

Strict liability--agreed. The concept shouldn't exist. Punitive damages are reasonable, though--when a company knowingly chooses a path of bad behavior because it's cheaper I think juries should have the power to punish.

I do not think punishing a company based on feelings of a jury is appropriate unless they violated a law or regulation.
I agree that egregious behavior should be penalized, but not by tort juries. Make it a separate trial, with a different jury (or a bench trial), a higher burden of proof (e.g. clear and convincing proof) and binding guidelines on penalties. Juries should not get to pull a random number from where the Sun don't shine and make it the verdict. Also, any punitive moneys should not go to the plaintiff and their lawyers. Civil lawsuits should be there to compensate for damages, including reasonable pain and suffering, not make plaintiffs and their lawyers wealthy. This makes the US tort system into a lawsuit lottery where plaintiffs get to make millions if they get a sympathetic jury and we all pay in higher taxes (when a government entity is sued) or prices (when it's a corporation like McDonald's).
The whole concepts merely encourages unscrupulous lawyers like Saul Goodman.

They're already limited to a reasonable multiplier on actual damages, the insane jury awards you hear about almost always get knocked down by judges.

I do not see anything reasonable in many verdicts. Stella for example spilled hot coffee on herself. Why should she be a millionaire because of it? And the jury really made up "two days of global coffee revenues" justification for the dollar amount on the stop apropos of nothing.

If it's not fully legalized you still have much of the problem associated with them.

By fully legalized I mean anybody can buy it at a storefront type deal.

 

[Tigers!]

In truth, I don’t think he WANTS to understand it because it casts light on the utter corruption of our “conservatives”.
Tigers! has no desire to see conservatives as bad guys, since he considers himself one of them and HE would never behave so badly.

Thank you for your unsolicited psycho-babble analysis of my intentions and behaivour.
I have met many conservatives who behave badly. Conservatives, progressives - both can and do behave badly. No side has a monopoly on virtue.
You, like me, would rather "our" side did not behave badly, but they do.

Whilst my great-nephew in a US school has to do shooter drills that he did not need to do in an Aust. school I will continue to see that you have great problems.

 

[Derec]

Doesn't work. As it stands it's possible to die from a bullet that was stopped by your "bulletproof" vest. If you reflect the bullet you double the energy.

If you reflect a bullet (at almost the same speed) you need to transfer almost twice the momentum to yourself. But the energy will be less since energy is a scalar and most of it will stay with the bullet. Now, bullets are relatively soft, so they will not deflect (nearly) elastically anyway. You can still keep most of the kinetic energy with the bullet, but only for very shallow angles. If your "hard vest" is hit perpendicular to surface, I do not see it bouncing off very fast if at all. And you would need such a head on hit to send the bullet "back to sender" and not just in a more of less random direction where it could hit an innocent bystander.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here are states ranked by death by firearms.
1. Mississippi
2. Louisiana
3. Wyoming
4. Missouri
5. Alabama

Note that those states (except for WY, which Loren already said is due to suicides, not homicides) are also those with highest black populations.
View attachment 42978

Probably much more relevant is those are poor and red parts of the country. Blue cities in red states generally get starved of funding.

 

[Derec]

Yeah, some time ago I got to thinking of how a sci-fi return-bullet-to-sender approach would work--and it doesn't seem possible. To actually return the bullet to the sender you need to send it back at the same angle and with the same ballistics.

It would have to work similar to a retroreflector. In a retroreflector, light is bounced off a few times by a cube-shaped segment of mirrors. I do not see how that could work for bullets. Even if it could, you'd be wearing a a really bulky outfit made of hemicubes.

The reflected bullet won't go as far--against a nearby shooter it wouldn't matter, against a sniper it would.

Against a sniper it would not work anyway because of bullet drop. Even if you send it back at the same speed at the same angle, you'd still miss by a lot. Not to mention the drag losses during the roundtrip flight.

Note that the departure angle is not a reflection--you would need a cornercube reflector, not a plain mirror.

Right. And a bullet that bounces off three times even if the surface is infinitely hard would still lose almost all energy since the bullet is not particularly hard.

 

[Derec]

Probably much more relevant is those are poor and red parts of the country. Blue cities in red states generally get starved of funding.

As I said, there are multiple variables involved. But the difference in homicide rates by race are lopsided enough that we should not ignore it.
Now, economics play a role too. That's why for example Georgia is not in the top five - we are more prosperous than Alabama or Mississippi.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can only conclude that Americans do not really want gun control. It is just virtue signalling.

Your conclusion is based on your unwillingness to consider the truth; Americans want gun control, but a minority party, through aggressive gerrymandering, is in control of one of our houses of Congress, and that party is beholden to the 40% of their members who get their money from (Russia, via) the NRA.

There's also the issue that it's driven by the extremes, not the middle. We saw that locally--universal background checks polled 90%+, voted 50%+a hair because the ballot measure was done by extremists. (Who didn't even know what they were doing, it got chucked as impossible.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm sorry but the violence, at least where I grew up, was nothing like it is now. Kids played outside without any fear, and there were no school shootings etc. In fact, ever since the craziest of the right wing came to power and the right wing news media outlets became the most watched so called news stations, the hatred, racism and violence have increased.

The fear is mostly in the news. The actual crime rates are down.

And the worst ever school massacre was in 1927. 44 dead, 58+ injured--and but for a malfunction would have been much worse. The primary weapon was dynamite.

 

[Derec]

So states like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida are being run as if they were right-wing totalitarian states, not purple. And the Democrats need to win by a lot more in order to have smaller majorities.

Dems practice gerrymandering too.
Illinois May Be The Worst Democratic Gerrymander In The Country

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem with insurance is few of the misuses would be insurable acts. It's really a backdoor registration scheme.

I can think of a few, related to improper storage. Like kids getting access and shooting somebody. Or a gun being stolen because it was improperly secured. Many (most?) illegal guns start as legal guns that have been stolen.

But when kids get access it's usually someone in the family that's harmed--and insurance specifically excludes that case.

And what would be so wrong with registration?

Because it's the holy grail of the gun-banners and thus will cause major resistance.

Strict liability--agreed. The concept shouldn't exist. Punitive damages are reasonable, though--when a company knowingly chooses a path of bad behavior because it's cheaper I think juries should have the power to punish.

I do not think punishing a company based on feelings of a jury is appropriate unless they violated a law or regulation.
I agree that egregious behavior should be penalized, but not by tort juries. Make it a separate trial, with a different jury (or a bench trial), a higher burden of proof (e.g. clear and convincing proof) and binding guidelines on penalties. Juries should not get to pull a random number from where the Sun don't shine and make it the verdict. Also, any punitive moneys should not go to the plaintiff and their lawyers. Civil lawsuits should be there to compensate for damages, including reasonable pain and suffering, not make plaintiffs and their lawyers wealthy. This makes the US tort system into a lawsuit lottery where plaintiffs get to make millions if they get a sympathetic jury and we all pay in higher taxes (when a government entity is sued) or prices (when it's a corporation like McDonald's).

Unfortunately, if the money doesn't go to the victims the case won't get prosecuted in the first place. I do agree there's a problem, it's just I don't see something else that works better.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Doesn't work. As it stands it's possible to die from a bullet that was stopped by your "bulletproof" vest. If you reflect the bullet you double the energy.

If you reflect a bullet (at almost the same speed) you need to transfer almost twice the momentum to yourself. But the energy will be less since energy is a scalar and most of it will stay with the bullet. Now, bullets are relatively soft, so they will not deflect (nearly) elastically anyway. You can still keep most of the kinetic energy with the bullet, but only for very shallow angles. If your "hard vest" is hit perpendicular to surface, I do not see it bouncing off very fast if at all. And you would need such a head on hit to send the bullet "back to sender" and not just in a more of less random direction where it could hit an innocent bystander.

First, most bullets will hit somewhere near 90 degrees.

Second, what counts is the energy transferred to the target--and for that purpose the reflection in direction matters. Even if that red bullet left at the full 1200 fps the target gets quite a punch. Plates spread it more than vests and thus the wearer doesn't get hit as hard.

I'm not the one that suggested bouncing it back, I was rejecting it as impossible.

 

[Derec]

...the entire point of the second amendment was to let people kill uppity niggers and redskins with impunity...

[citation needed]
But even if that were the case, what happened in the 18th century when the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified does not change the fct that in the 21st century blacks have much higher homicide rates than whites.
Including the two shooters from the mass shooting in this thread.

To ignore that because of some sense of political correctness or "wokeness" is not doing anybody any good.
And neither is pretending that it is the white people who are the chief problem, as many race warriors are doing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, some time ago I got to thinking of how a sci-fi return-bullet-to-sender approach would work--and it doesn't seem possible. To actually return the bullet to the sender you need to send it back at the same angle and with the same ballistics.

It would have to work similar to a retroreflector. In a retroreflector, light is bounced off a few times by a cube-shaped segment of mirrors. I do not see how that could work for bullets. Even if it could, you'd be wearing a a really bulky outfit made of hemicubes.

Yeah, that's what I was rejecting. I didn't recall they took three bounces but your diagram is right about how they work.

And what happens when the bullet hits one of those edges? No reflection.

The reflected bullet won't go as far--against a nearby shooter it wouldn't matter, against a sniper it would.

Against a sniper it would not work anyway because of bullet drop. Even if you send it back at the same speed at the same angle, you'd still miss by a lot. Not to mention the drag losses during the roundtrip flight.

Drop wouldn't be an issue (it would work the same way in both directions) but I forgot about drag losses, yup, it will fall short if you're in atmosphere.

 

[Derec]

And what happens when the bullet hits one of those edges? No reflection.

Nope. You are right.

Drop wouldn't be an issue (it would work the same way in both directions)

I vacuum, yeah (symmetrical parabola) , but the bullet drops vs. time, and if your projectile slowed down on the way in, it would drop more flying back.
If you want to hit something 1000 m away, your bullet will drop more with a slower bullet vs. faster. That's why snipers have to take air density into account.

 

[Elixir]

I can only conclude that Americans do not really want gun control. It is just virtue signalling.

Your conclusion is based on your unwillingness to consider the truth; Americans want gun control, but a minority party, through aggressive gerrymandering, is in control of one of our houses of Congress, and that party is beholden to the 40% of their members who get their money from (Russia, via) the NRA.

There's also the issue that it's driven by the extremes, not the middle.

That’s what I said.

We saw that locally--universal background checks polled 90%+, voted 50%+a hair because the ballot measure was done by extremists.

Sounds extreme but sadly, there’s little reason to disbelieve it.

 

[Derec]

We committed multiple genocides to create this nation,

As did every other nation, including Indian tribes. History is often blood-soaked.

more than a fifth of us are descended from slaves,

[citation needed]
Black percentage of Americans is ~14% and not all blacks are descendants of slaves. Example: Barak Obama.

Why would any of us trust each other?

Some level of trust is required for the society to function. If I get in my car, I have to trust that most people will obey traffic laws for the most part. Just as one example.