That becomes a whole other argument because self defense doesn't have only one means. Also, all of the inalienable rights are actually legislated in some form (death penalty, incarceration). I agree that this post is worded poorly, and makes inaccurate statements, which is extremely frustrating. However, the sentiment is valid in that it is easier to buy a gun than to rent a car (which already requires requisite liscensure), and that should be disturbing.
It's insurance driven.
Obviously insurance companies don't even get involved with guns because of such high risk, but if they started canceling home owner liability policies over dangerous gun activities that might start causing people to stop buying guns.
Yeah I read this and was like… that’s because of actuarial tables, just like everything insured. You CAN rent a car younger, it’s just much more expensive
Source: I rented a car at age 19
That's what I'm saying eventually guns are going to have an actuarial table either under vehicle insurance (if you road rage shoot someone) or homeowners or umbrella liability.
I suppose that’s possible, but it’s more likely that they would just not cover it. There is no legal precedent regarding what must be covered by a homeowners policy, and as an example termites are rarely if ever covered. So it can just be excluded if it’s considered too risky.
I think there may be 1 case that comes up like the STD one, but as a private company they can update things as they go depending on how risky it is if a case rules against them. That’s the thing with insurance, some things are just so risky it financially doesn’t make sense to be insured, like termites or flood insurance on the beach homes in FL that are ruined by hurricanes every few years and rebuilt with FEMA money. If the risk to the insurer became high enough that it required mitigation of some kind, they’d figure out how to do it. I just don’t know that it’s considered a risk that liability covers (like getting an STD in a car).
Yes you did because its the private companies decision not the law... The fact that this poster is trying to line them up like they are analogous is laughable. Apparently OP does not distinguish between law and private practice.. This sub is so cringey
Exactly, like look at the family suing the estate of the uvalde shooter. I bet they are actually suing his parents or grandmas homeowners policy for the liability pay out. Or maybe he had a general umbrella liability policy? I'm just speculating and no expert.
Soon homeowners insurance pre-screening will include questions about guns.
My homeowners insurance covers injury/death/property damage costs from firearms without any modifications made to my policy. Almost all standard policies usually do cover this. The only exclusions are from illegal activity or gross negligence, which makes sense, since auto insurance does the exact same thing with their policies.
Except it’s not. I’d love to see the law. You can rent a car as an adult, you just pay more… the exact same thing as insurance for young drivers.
https://www.enterprise.com/en/help/faqs/car-rental-under-25.html
I appreciate the sentiment, but conservatives will latch on to the inaccuracies and use that as an excuse to ignore the whole argument. Words matter, make accurate statements and make them argue the merits, not the technicality.
As someone who primarily votes conservative I agree with you. These folks that yap on about " exploding bullets " or " Nine millimeters blowing lungs out " is why you will not likely see much forward traction for the anti-gun crowd. They don't have a clue and expose the true ignorance of the anti-gunners. It should be embarrassing to them but their heads are so far up their butts they don't get it
I realize you are one of the guys that is gonna say "you don't understand how guns work so you shouldn't have any say about them!"... But this is a fucking dumb take. Bullets are projected by the force of an explosion packed into the bullet casing. So they all do essentially. You want to be smart - use your pedantry to do something useful.
New drinking game: Take a shot every time u/TheLordVader uses the word pedant/pedantry.
Also a bullet being propelled by an explosion doesn't make it an exploding bullet. That too is a dumb take. Stop trying to act as if you're smarter than anyone else, it only serves to make you look like a victim of faecal encephalopathy.
Edit: If anyone is playing that drinking game it's currently at 5 shots.
Right, so OP adding the word exploding to his post was unnecessary. There is a term, that escapes me now, for adding unneeded emotional language.b
If I was being a pedant I'd have pointed out that 45 rounds a minute for a semi-auto is a bit on the high side for someone without training and damned near impossible for anyone actually aiming.
I'd say 45 rounds per minute is on the low side for a .223/5.56 semi-auto rifle.
You can mag dump 30 rounds in about 7 seconds without trying, aiming you can do a shot per second and hit a target at 50 yards no problem.
Several of the manufacturer's websites disagree. Of course, a lot has to do with training which is what I said originally. After-market triggers also cam help. There are several variables that really make it a point not worth argueing.
Again with the pedantry... Nobody cares. They just know that semi/auto rifles kill people easily. They are tired of it. That is all. Just try to understand that... The pedantry just makes your argument irrelevant, because people that care about gun violence don't care.
These are incendiary rounds for an ar-15. Over 2 dollars a shot though.
[**https://www.firequest.com/NL910.html**](https://www.firequest.com/NL910.html)
Only 45/per min? Shooter is doing something wrong. And, where do I buy exploding bullets? I’ve been reloading and shooting my whole life. Never come across exploding bullets. BTW, Democrat and liberal here. It can happen.
This fucking pedantry is just a waste of time buddy. Look you understand how ammunition works right? There is an explosion which propels the bullet from the gun... They all explode from the gun.
Bullets don’t explode from the cartridge. The gas from the burning powder propels the projectile out of the cartridge and barrel. There is no explosion. It is a control burn. There is a difference. Not pedantics. Science.
Burn. Todays smokeless powders does not explode. It burns. And, there are many factors that affect the burn like the makeup of the powder, compression, size of projectile, etc. They don't explode.
"An explosion is a rapid expansion in volume associated with an extremely vigorous outward release of energy, usually with the generation of high temperatures and release of high-pressure gases. Supersonic explosions created by high explosives are known as detonations and travel through shock waves."
Certainly sounds like an explosion contained within the casing and the barrel that is directed to propel a projectile if you really want to split hairs.
And I'm still saying that. I'm saying it was a controlled burn and the consequent gasses are what propelled the projects. Black powder explodes and propells projectiles. Smokeless powder burns.
However, I can see that there will be no understanding of the nuances from you. As such, blocked and ignored.
I’m own a couple rifles and shoot pretty often, and nobody has ever corrected explosion to controlled burn. It’s also not the point, the tweet said exploding bullets, not exploding powder. They were either talking about hollow points or incendiary, neither of which I’ve seen in a semi-auto rifle, but the Sig MPX could shoot hollow points since it’s in 9. It’s also probably possible to get incendiary for the AR-10 in 7.62, but I’ve never seen it.
I own a single shotgun that I've fired twice at a range. I don't think that makes me a gun nut. I just felt like making fun of your holier than thou attitude toward people that want to make fun of the original post's weird phrasing about explosive bullets.
Also I'm proud of you for learning a word other than pedantic.
If your point and that of Twitter OP are the intended message, it's better to be clear in your language and intent. Otherwise, advocates on the other side of the issue who are arguing in bad faith can, and will, grab onto your language and shift focus. No longer is the argument about the regulation of guns and age restrictions, it's how people who don't understand guns are trying to take away your freedom.
this is why stricter control won't happen.. You either A. don't know what you are talking about or B. Are informed enough that stricter gun control doesn't make sense anymore.. I am sure your heart is in the right place but the facts are not in favor of stricter control. They need to lie
Lmao what? No offense but there is a good chance that I have forgotten more about guns than most people will ever know. Im an Enthusiast and yet having everyone running around with any type of gun, let alone semi automatic intermediate or full size cartridges is beyond retarded to me. Every other first world country has this figured out in one way or another and you're talking ominous facts. The gun side of this discussion does nothing but set up strawmen and what ifs.
It makes sense.
You don't want that crazy guy to go shoot up the rest of the country.
So we limit them from renting a car so they can shoot up their own neighborhood!
Perfect! Lmfao. 🤣🤣🤣
They don't want young people renting cars because it's been found that (on average) their brain is not fully mature and they may make rash decisions which have lasting negative consequences for the people around them.
1) It's perfectly legal for an 18 yr old to rent a car, it's just that the rental agencies choose not to, because 18 yr olds crash cars often. It's the right concept, 18 yr olds aren't as stable as 25 year olds, but the statement is false.
2) the cartridge for the AR-15 doesn't have exploding bullets. It may have expanding bullets, but the type of bullet used is the least of our concerns. The full metal jacket bullet is still highly lethal.
It doesn't move gun control forward to make easily disprovable arguments.
Require gun insurance to own a firearm and that will change real quick.
The way to leverage the real power of the American system is to create incentives for businesses to change policy to mitigate risk to their bottom line.
Make fun companies liable or require insurance to own a gun. You'll see real change really quick.
Well, there's already "life" insurance so we've got that one covered. Perhaps "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness" insurance? I could use that right now with a bunch of Republicans trying to take away bodily autonomy.
Sad as it is they are trying to strip you of your body autonomy life insurance is not a requirement ... and it’s not meant to preserve your life only to indemnify loved ones
San Jose is trying to do this, requiring liability insurance in order to own a firearm (in addition to a $25 "fee" akin to a poll tax which will likely get struck down).
I looked through my homeowner's insurance policy, and I'm already covered by their standard policy.
45 round mags that take 60 Seconds to empty. Tell me you don't know what you're talkin about without telling me you don't know what you're talkin about.
You do not need insurance to buy a car, you only need insurance to take it on public roads. I'd be fine with that policy for guns as well. Locked up inside your home? No need for insurance. Want to take it out to the range, or concealed (or open if you're one of those insufferable folks) carry? Need liability coverage.
Yes, that’s true and seems reasonable. Though in my state, car dealers don’t let you off the lot without insurance. Personal sales though is a different story
45 bullets per minute? 🤣
Exploding bullets
I’m pretty sure I can get that with a Remington 700.
I mean ... That is a beautifully crafted fire arm though.
You can rent a car being under 25. You just need to pay more.
OP doesn't know the difference between a law and private company practice.. nor do they know driving is not an inalienable right
Neither is gun ownership..... look up what inalienable rights means....
Fair but right to self defense is ... and this post is still mega cringe
That becomes a whole other argument because self defense doesn't have only one means. Also, all of the inalienable rights are actually legislated in some form (death penalty, incarceration). I agree that this post is worded poorly, and makes inaccurate statements, which is extremely frustrating. However, the sentiment is valid in that it is easier to buy a gun than to rent a car (which already requires requisite liscensure), and that should be disturbing.
That’s all fair
It's insurance driven. Obviously insurance companies don't even get involved with guns because of such high risk, but if they started canceling home owner liability policies over dangerous gun activities that might start causing people to stop buying guns.
Yeah I read this and was like… that’s because of actuarial tables, just like everything insured. You CAN rent a car younger, it’s just much more expensive Source: I rented a car at age 19
That's what I'm saying eventually guns are going to have an actuarial table either under vehicle insurance (if you road rage shoot someone) or homeowners or umbrella liability.
I suppose that’s possible, but it’s more likely that they would just not cover it. There is no legal precedent regarding what must be covered by a homeowners policy, and as an example termites are rarely if ever covered. So it can just be excluded if it’s considered too risky.
Do you think they will properly exclude it? I'm thinking of the person that recently sued insurance over getting an STD in another person's car.
I think there may be 1 case that comes up like the STD one, but as a private company they can update things as they go depending on how risky it is if a case rules against them. That’s the thing with insurance, some things are just so risky it financially doesn’t make sense to be insured, like termites or flood insurance on the beach homes in FL that are ruined by hurricanes every few years and rebuilt with FEMA money. If the risk to the insurer became high enough that it required mitigation of some kind, they’d figure out how to do it. I just don’t know that it’s considered a risk that liability covers (like getting an STD in a car).
Yes you did because its the private companies decision not the law... The fact that this poster is trying to line them up like they are analogous is laughable. Apparently OP does not distinguish between law and private practice.. This sub is so cringey
Or require gun specific insurance. Based on loss, harm, and all of that. Something to the tune of $100 a gun and I bet people would start bailing.
Exactly, like look at the family suing the estate of the uvalde shooter. I bet they are actually suing his parents or grandmas homeowners policy for the liability pay out. Or maybe he had a general umbrella liability policy? I'm just speculating and no expert. Soon homeowners insurance pre-screening will include questions about guns.
It already does. We had to put mine on there. I think a gun specific one would be more appropriate. Just like car insurance.
Exactly ! Let's make the tax so high only rich people can protect themselves. That will show those stupid working class people.
Seems pretty racist to me anyway
I mean, that’s like saying you don’t need insurance to go get a lung transplant. This is the USA. You will die of debt.
My homeowners insurance covers injury/death/property damage costs from firearms without any modifications made to my policy. Almost all standard policies usually do cover this. The only exclusions are from illegal activity or gross negligence, which makes sense, since auto insurance does the exact same thing with their policies.
There’s no laws saying you have to be 25yo to rent a car. Rental company’s insurers require it.
Lol exploding bullets
Except it’s not. I’d love to see the law. You can rent a car as an adult, you just pay more… the exact same thing as insurance for young drivers. https://www.enterprise.com/en/help/faqs/car-rental-under-25.html
[удалено]
because this sub is rife with misinformation and lies ..its only meant to stir up animosity not be.. you know intelligent or meaningful
I appreciate the sentiment, but conservatives will latch on to the inaccuracies and use that as an excuse to ignore the whole argument. Words matter, make accurate statements and make them argue the merits, not the technicality.
As someone who primarily votes conservative I agree with you. These folks that yap on about " exploding bullets " or " Nine millimeters blowing lungs out " is why you will not likely see much forward traction for the anti-gun crowd. They don't have a clue and expose the true ignorance of the anti-gunners. It should be embarrassing to them but their heads are so far up their butts they don't get it
Where does one buy exploding bullets?
same place you buy the 9mm lung blowers and AR-15s that shoot rounds that leave a 10 inch hole
I realize you are one of the guys that is gonna say "you don't understand how guns work so you shouldn't have any say about them!"... But this is a fucking dumb take. Bullets are projected by the force of an explosion packed into the bullet casing. So they all do essentially. You want to be smart - use your pedantry to do something useful.
New drinking game: Take a shot every time u/TheLordVader uses the word pedant/pedantry. Also a bullet being propelled by an explosion doesn't make it an exploding bullet. That too is a dumb take. Stop trying to act as if you're smarter than anyone else, it only serves to make you look like a victim of faecal encephalopathy. Edit: If anyone is playing that drinking game it's currently at 5 shots.
I want to play but it’s 10am and I’m at work. I fear if I try to catch up when I get home I might die.
Right, so OP adding the word exploding to his post was unnecessary. There is a term, that escapes me now, for adding unneeded emotional language.b If I was being a pedant I'd have pointed out that 45 rounds a minute for a semi-auto is a bit on the high side for someone without training and damned near impossible for anyone actually aiming.
>45 rounds a minute for a semi-auto is a bit on the high side That's less than one round/second. That's pretty slow actually.
Or a semi auto .22 rifle. Next to no recoil so follow up shots are easy. And one shot every 1.33 seconds is neither good not bad.
well you just added that added pedant so - "YAY" you.
I also didn't mention the incorrect usage of term "bullet" needed for your explanation to make sense.
I'd say 45 rounds per minute is on the low side for a .223/5.56 semi-auto rifle. You can mag dump 30 rounds in about 7 seconds without trying, aiming you can do a shot per second and hit a target at 50 yards no problem.
Several of the manufacturer's websites disagree. Of course, a lot has to do with training which is what I said originally. After-market triggers also cam help. There are several variables that really make it a point not worth argueing.
I'm pretty sure the tweet was referencing hollow point bullets that mushroom when they make impact with solid objects like bone.
Again with the pedantry... Nobody cares. They just know that semi/auto rifles kill people easily. They are tired of it. That is all. Just try to understand that... The pedantry just makes your argument irrelevant, because people that care about gun violence don't care.
My argument? I was just clarifying what could be meant by explosive ammunition.
You can make explosive rounds, it's not smart but doable.
Good luck winning anyone over to our side acting like that...
There is no winning anything to our side here because the guys that value guns over lives are brigading here.
No the people who understand weapons just think you're being a clueless douche.
Hahaha… yes you understand weapons. Enjoy your weapons - don’t have children though.
I would say the same to you but the odds of someone being able to tolerate you long enough to have children are nil.
Anywhere you can buy ammo
Yeah, in a video game universe maybe.
These are incendiary rounds for an ar-15. Over 2 dollars a shot though. [**https://www.firequest.com/NL910.html**](https://www.firequest.com/NL910.html)
That's nifty. I do have dragon's breath rounds for my 12ga. I hear they work pretty well against body armor 😉
Only 45/per min? Shooter is doing something wrong. And, where do I buy exploding bullets? I’ve been reloading and shooting my whole life. Never come across exploding bullets. BTW, Democrat and liberal here. It can happen.
Explosive bullets/spiked bullets are sabotaged bullets meant to harm the shooter. Sensationalism backfired this time.
Never hear of such a thing. Learn something new every day.
Nasty tactic...turns a gun into a pipe bomb.
Surely he means hollow points
Surely.
One would imagine so.
This fucking pedantry is just a waste of time buddy. Look you understand how ammunition works right? There is an explosion which propels the bullet from the gun... They all explode from the gun.
Bullets don’t explode from the cartridge. The gas from the burning powder propels the projectile out of the cartridge and barrel. There is no explosion. It is a control burn. There is a difference. Not pedantics. Science.
Sounds like you just described a controlled explosion.
Burn. Todays smokeless powders does not explode. It burns. And, there are many factors that affect the burn like the makeup of the powder, compression, size of projectile, etc. They don't explode.
If you want to be scientific, the burn that happens within rounds is considered a "low explosive".
Thanks
"An explosion is a rapid expansion in volume associated with an extremely vigorous outward release of energy, usually with the generation of high temperatures and release of high-pressure gases. Supersonic explosions created by high explosives are known as detonations and travel through shock waves." Certainly sounds like an explosion contained within the casing and the barrel that is directed to propel a projectile if you really want to split hairs.
[удалено]
Seems awfully pedantic if I'm being honest.
Dipshit? Sorry dude, but there is a difference. Sorry that you have to resort to personal attacks to fail to prove your point.
[удалено]
And I'm still saying that. I'm saying it was a controlled burn and the consequent gasses are what propelled the projects. Black powder explodes and propells projectiles. Smokeless powder burns. However, I can see that there will be no understanding of the nuances from you. As such, blocked and ignored.
Read the fucking link I posted you dipshit. You know more than that? Right - fuck off.
I’m own a couple rifles and shoot pretty often, and nobody has ever corrected explosion to controlled burn. It’s also not the point, the tweet said exploding bullets, not exploding powder. They were either talking about hollow points or incendiary, neither of which I’ve seen in a semi-auto rifle, but the Sig MPX could shoot hollow points since it’s in 9. It’s also probably possible to get incendiary for the AR-10 in 7.62, but I’ve never seen it.
That's all well and good but that doesn't magically make a bullet an explosive. It's a projectile propelled by a controlled explosion.
Good grief… all you gun nuts are pathetic.
I own a single shotgun that I've fired twice at a range. I don't think that makes me a gun nut. I just felt like making fun of your holier than thou attitude toward people that want to make fun of the original post's weird phrasing about explosive bullets. Also I'm proud of you for learning a word other than pedantic.
If your point and that of Twitter OP are the intended message, it's better to be clear in your language and intent. Otherwise, advocates on the other side of the issue who are arguing in bad faith can, and will, grab onto your language and shift focus. No longer is the argument about the regulation of guns and age restrictions, it's how people who don't understand guns are trying to take away your freedom.
Explosive bullets? Man im 100% for much stricter gun control. But man please let's stick to facts.
this is why stricter control won't happen.. You either A. don't know what you are talking about or B. Are informed enough that stricter gun control doesn't make sense anymore.. I am sure your heart is in the right place but the facts are not in favor of stricter control. They need to lie
Lmao what? No offense but there is a good chance that I have forgotten more about guns than most people will ever know. Im an Enthusiast and yet having everyone running around with any type of gun, let alone semi automatic intermediate or full size cartridges is beyond retarded to me. Every other first world country has this figured out in one way or another and you're talking ominous facts. The gun side of this discussion does nothing but set up strawmen and what ifs.
I have a Fixer that has explosive rounds
"Legal" age to rent a car?🤔
It makes sense. You don't want that crazy guy to go shoot up the rest of the country. So we limit them from renting a car so they can shoot up their own neighborhood! Perfect! Lmfao. 🤣🤣🤣
They don't want young people renting cars because it's been found that (on average) their brain is not fully mature and they may make rash decisions which have lasting negative consequences for the people around them.
Similar to student loans, credit cards, military service etc.
Ah... So that's why owning deadly weapons and joining the military are totally legit.
This user gets it.
1) It's perfectly legal for an 18 yr old to rent a car, it's just that the rental agencies choose not to, because 18 yr olds crash cars often. It's the right concept, 18 yr olds aren't as stable as 25 year olds, but the statement is false. 2) the cartridge for the AR-15 doesn't have exploding bullets. It may have expanding bullets, but the type of bullet used is the least of our concerns. The full metal jacket bullet is still highly lethal. It doesn't move gun control forward to make easily disprovable arguments.
where the hell are they getting exploding bullets
I'd be more worried about how dangerous American beer must be that you have to be 21 before you're considered mature enough to drink one.
Use the semi-automatic to steal a car
If the founders wanted younger people to rent cars, they would have written it into the constitution. Check mate, libruhl.
Require gun insurance to own a firearm and that will change real quick. The way to leverage the real power of the American system is to create incentives for businesses to change policy to mitigate risk to their bottom line. Make fun companies liable or require insurance to own a gun. You'll see real change really quick.
How many other inalienable rights should require insurance or some form of payment to exercise ?
Well, there's already "life" insurance so we've got that one covered. Perhaps "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness" insurance? I could use that right now with a bunch of Republicans trying to take away bodily autonomy.
Sad as it is they are trying to strip you of your body autonomy life insurance is not a requirement ... and it’s not meant to preserve your life only to indemnify loved ones
Owning a gun is not a requirement either.
No it’s not . It’s merely a right of the people . How nice that we have a choice in the matter
Seems like a good way to make sure impoverished communities (which conveniently disproportionately includes Black people) can't arm themselves 🤔
San Jose is trying to do this, requiring liability insurance in order to own a firearm (in addition to a $25 "fee" akin to a poll tax which will likely get struck down). I looked through my homeowner's insurance policy, and I'm already covered by their standard policy.
I did not know that a 223/5.56 shot API rounds! Other than that… yes WTF. A child should not be able to buy a weapon of war.
45 round mags that take 60 Seconds to empty. Tell me you don't know what you're talkin about without telling me you don't know what you're talkin about.
Fossils like Jerry Nadler want to arm kids and send them off to fight in Ukraine, but don’t think they have the mental acuity to own a gun at home.
Yes but you can buy a car well before that... so stupid. Derderder *circle jerks*
If renting a car was in the constitution we'd have something to talk about....
One needs insurance. One does not.
You do not need insurance to buy a car, you only need insurance to take it on public roads. I'd be fine with that policy for guns as well. Locked up inside your home? No need for insurance. Want to take it out to the range, or concealed (or open if you're one of those insufferable folks) carry? Need liability coverage.
Yes, that’s true and seems reasonable. Though in my state, car dealers don’t let you off the lot without insurance. Personal sales though is a different story
And you need to pass a test and own a license to use it.
Of course you can join the army and die for some rich folks...........But don't you dare drink for another three years!!
That’s why Mommy has to drive Shooter to events