General Mikhail Kalashnikov, Designer of The AK-47 Gone At 94

[TheButterZone]

Only a guarantee of death, if the person being shot is 1) still 2) not provided medical care

In other words, an execution.

There are more efficient means of execution.

[LostDutchman]

Only a guarantee of death, if the person being shot is 1) still 2) not provided medical care

In other words, an execution.

There are more efficient means of execution.

Not in a dark alley.............................................

Not that I would know from personal experience or anything like that.

[TheButterZone]

Only a guarantee of death, if the person being shot is 1) still 2) not provided medical care

In other words, an execution.

There are more efficient means of execution.

Not in a dark alley.............................................

Not that I would know from personal experience or anything like that.

There are the external variables. People don't just conveniently appear in dark alleys, then stand still to be murdered, and guns make a fuckton of noise even if suppressed. You need other people to actively (drive them into the alley, hold them down) and passively enable (don't call police, ambulance, or otherwise intervene) murders in alleys. Few will be cowed by a single man gunpointing them to a less safe place then they currently are.

[bryant.coleman]

Then their makers have failed in most instances. It takes a lot of external variables to ensure a GSW (or multiple GSWs to the same person) is fatal.

What is the percentage chance that a person has for surviving, if he is hit in the head? 5%? 10%? or maximum 20%. So you can't say that they have failed completely.

[TheButterZone]

Then their makers have failed in most instances. It takes a lot of external variables to ensure a GSW (or multiple GSWs to the same person) is fatal.

What is the percentage chance that a person has for surviving, if he is hit in the head? 5%? 10%? or maximum 20%. So you can't say that they have failed completely.

I can't say what I didn't actually say. Read my bloody quote that you put there.

This first link is about as far as I have time to go in researching cranial GSW mortality. A quick skim finds it inconclusive on point, but instructive on how the non-fatal outcomes go.

http://www.surgicalneurologyint.com/article.asp?issn=2152-7806;year=2012;volume=3;issue=1;spage=98;epage=98;aulast=Lin#ref4
70,000 victims of GSWs resulting in 30,000 deaths annually, US
42.8% mortality rate overall

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/
19,392 intentional self-inflicted fatalities by GSW in 2010, ensured by the inflictor controlling/removing external variables

http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/firearms
80% used a handgun
there are far fewer survivors with head wounds than chest or abdomen, obviously
whilst using a firearm to commit suicide is one of the most reliable methods, it is not failsafe

30000-19392=10608 fatal non-suicide GSWs
10608/70000=15% of GSWs are fatal in chaotic situations (including negligent discharges, which are most certainly not the intent of the makers, so decrease that percentage even more after including only intentionally killing others)

Well, guns ARE made for killing. It just depends whether it's moral on who you are killing.

Once the frak again... then their makers have FAILED in MOST instances.

To sum up:
Guns have NOT successfully inflicted mortality most of the time, and the minority of time that they have, it is partly due to negligence, and mostly due to suicide, neither of which are intended by gun makers. Suicide may not be moral in a religious sense, but nevertheless should be respected as a human right, if the inflictor doesn't cause physical or financial harm to others.

[TheButterZone]

I think this deserves its own post...
From military tactics and defense contractor perspectives:
Tactics: If you wound the enemy, their comrades come to their aid, either stop shooting at you, or their accuracy and movement drops as they are trying to cover/extract them. Then you can wound even more of the enemy as they are distracted, inducing their surrender. If you kill the enemy, their comrades will usually abandon the body and remain as much of a threat to you as before you killed their comrade. Mourning/martyrdom comes after getting revenge/out alive yourself.

Defense contractor: War that ends with the swift termination of sufficient enemy life by small arms and ammo thereof isn't profitable.

Same goes for defense contractors selling to civilians for self-defense. Criminals already fear armed citizens, because they have self-preservation instincts. They statically shouldn't fear death as we see above, but certainly fear pain and imprisonment. But imagine if self-defense GSW mortality rates approached 100% after guns (or rather ammunition, for backward compatibility) were truly made to kill. Criminals are vastly outnumbered, and murder, a small percentage of all victimful/real crime, is primarily gang or personal-related. Look at the trend of "gun control" law removal correlating with decreased crime, and then watch that trendline go vertically downward if being a real criminal had only 2 ends: certain death or imprisonment. After an initial spike in sales, it would similarly flatline, as you won't see criminals all choosing to murder first, commit the lesser crime later; they will either be killed, kill themselves, go legit, or be imprisoned, and no so much need for guns if real criminals are gone, is there?

It is in the manufacturers' own interest that their most-used products are as ineffective at inflicting death as possible.

The AK-47 is a prime example of this. It shoots fantastically reliably, but inaccurately. Great for suppressive "spray and pray" fire, but misses moving targets most of the time, and when it does hit, fatal wounds are only by luck. If I had a death wish, I'd rather face a scoped large caliber rifle than run around in the middle east or Africa.

[flynn]

I heard it was a stupid accident while cleaning his weapon ...

[bryant.coleman]

I heard it was a stupid accident while cleaning his weapon ...

lol... he was 94 years old, but he was still very active and regularly practiced his targets. 

[LostDutchman]

The AK-47 is a prime example of this. It shoots fantastically reliably, but inaccurately. Great for suppressive "spray and pray" fire, but misses moving targets most of the time, and when it does hit, fatal wounds are only by luck. If I had a death wish, I'd rather face a scoped large caliber rifle than run around in the middle east or Africa.

Pure bovine scatology!

My experienced-based $.02.

[Cryddit]

When I think of guns I think of hunting arms.  Yes, made for killing, but somehow I had just never connected the "killing PEOPLE" thing with guns until I ran into it in adulthood.  To me it seems flatly insane to even consider aiming a gun at a person, and I can't imagine owning one specifically for that purpose.  But this may be because I grew up between the boondocks and the sky in a place where violent crime and the need for violent self-defense  was practically unknown but everybody had a few shotguns for bird hunting, a few big rifles for deer hunting, a few small rifles for small game hunting, a little pistol for barn varmints, a big pistol for walks in bear country, etc... 

Now I live in a large city, and the *PRIMARY* purpose of firearms as considered around here involves the potential of using them against people.  I find that more than a little disturbing, and simply don't own firearms anymore because I no longer have land on which to hunt.  A few years ago someone broke into my house in the middle of the night and I overhanded a bowling ball at him.  Knocked him down, broke a couple of ribs, incapacitated him until the police arrived.  He did manage to break a marble tabletop with his head when he went down, but that's acceptable losses.  Bowling balls are as effective as a gun at the kind of ranges you need for home defense, and much less legal trouble. 

[TheButterZone]

The AK-47 is a prime example of this. It shoots fantastically reliably, but inaccurately. Great for suppressive "spray and pray" fire, but misses moving targets most of the time, and when it does hit, fatal wounds are only by luck. If I had a death wish, I'd rather face a scoped large caliber rifle than run around in the middle east or Africa.

Pure bovine scatology!

My experienced-based $.02.

I think it's already been established that you are able to control all external variables when you shoot guns, so full-auto AK inaccuracy doesn't matter at point blank/still target range.

[xkeyscore89]

guns still indiscriminately kill people.

Perhaps you should replace your keyboard before it continues to make such ridiculous claims on the internet.

lol... I was expecting all sorts of people here... but this was a bit too much.. guns still indiscriminately kill people ..... as if the guns have artificial intelligence and fire on their own.... 

Well, I do confess that I own a firearm which may have been used for a bit of indiscriminate killing in the past.

It is a 1941 production John Inglis BREN gun, the proof marks of which show armourer service in both France and Belgium during the Second World War.  I named this gun "The Inglourious Basterd", borrowing a line from a movie because I thought it was slick.

Of course one of the Good Guys pointed the gun at Nazis and let fly, more or less indiscriminately, at least as far as ammunition use went but the targets were hardly chosen in an "indiscriminate" manner!

A BREN gun like mine:



My $.02.

The gun pictured is featured in one of my favorite movies: Lock, Stock, & Two Smoking Barrels.