How a Gun-Loving West Texas Girl Learned to Fear Assault Weapons

Surely there are a few left in Texas?

Hollow point bullets are not designed to be armor piercing. They are designed to expand and create more damage after entering the body. The expansion makes it less likely that the bullet will exit the body or even penetrate body armor.



I find it hard to believe a police officer trained in the use of firearms would actually think this. And now thousands of people will read it and believe it to be true.

There is so much contradictory misinformation about firearms out there that it becomes very difficult to sort through it all and get to the facts. The problem this presents is that in order to make sensible and effective legislation it needs to be based in reality.

I wonder if this is legit. I'm looking at the site and this is, indeed, an article on the site, but I wonder if the writer is legit.
Still, very powerful.

Hollow point bullets and armor-piercing bullets are both intended to wreak maximum destruction on the human body. Why should knowing that hollow points don't pierce armor have an effect on legislation? This is a real question.

I don't. I don't want people writing laws who don't know anything about, or are unwilling to obtain even the meagerest of understanding of what they are writing laws for. It is absurd.

As for hollow point bullets.

They are widely used in law enforcement and for self defense for two reasons.
1. They are designed to expand when they enter the body. This creates more "stopping ability" simply by creating more damage.
2. The expansion greatly reduces the chance that the bullet will exit the body and continue on to due additional damage to other who may be in its path. It is safer for bystanders. This is a great advantage in law enforcement. It is also helpful for civilians who are probably not as trained as laws enforcement is.

Now, in relation to assault weapons and the horrible incident in Newton. Those were not hollow point rounds. They were relatively small caliber but high power. And there were a lot of them. And the muzzle velocity out of that Bushmaster was a lot higher than anything any hollow point coming out of a pistol.

I understand that we want to do something. But I cringe when I hear factually incorrect statements about this or that aspect of firearms, and then a cry to base legislation on it. That's crazy stuff.

I am not an expert. But I do have some basic understanding. I expect lawmakers to as well. What is the point of passing laws that address fantasies? They will be a dismal failure and all this momentum will have been lost.

one edit: I am not an expert on armor piercing ammunition, but I do feel that armor piercing rounds would likely pass through a human body with far less damage than a hollow point or a standard target round. Armor piercing rounds are designed to penetrate and some even get sharper as they go through armor. This would probably produce a cleaner wound but it would exit the body having hardly slowed down and proceed to strike something or someone else.

I was curious why a bad law might be passed if lawmakers mistakenly thought that hollow point bullets pierced armor. I'm clear on the difference between the two kinds of ammunition now, thanks, but I had hoped you might give me an idea of what you think a bad law would be.

I tried to unpack your reply. If I'm understanding you right, you approve of civilian use of hollow point bullets, because the bullets will stay in the bodies of the people they are shooting, and this is helpful, because if civilians are shooting someone in a place where there are bystanders, the bullets won't go through the body and go on to strike the bystanders. I see that, but I'm not sure what training has to do with it. Aim? Wouldn't lack of training for civilians mean that they are more likely to miss the person they're trying to shoot, and hit bystanders with those great body-stopping bullets? This would seem distinctly unhelpful. On the other hand, armor-piercing bullets cause less damage to the human body, so a bystander would fare better if they are hit by mistake. Except maybe there would be other bystanders shot by the same bullet if they're in its path. Still, all the bystanders would have cleaner wounds, so there's that.

Is it fair to say you wouldn't object if lawmakers banned or limited civilian access to armor-piercing bullets, but you wouldn't want them to limit access to hollow point bullets? Or is it that you don't think civilian access to these bullets should be limited at all?

In fact it would make the existing level of violence more dangerous.

"Civilians" have been banned form owning/buying armor piercing rounds since 1986.



On edit: Training, regular training is essential for anyone who wants to use a firearms for self defense. I think some of the reasons are obvious. Being familiar with your firearm, knowing how to use it safely, knowing how to aim it, knowing how to load and reload it, and know how clean and maintain it. Most importantly, safety training. Storage. Locking it up to secure it when you are not carrying it. IMO many people get too comfortable with guns. That's when accidents happen or guns are picked up by people who have no business handling them.

On second edit: Hollow points are a legitimate self defense option and should not be banned.

You're just making assertions. I have been asking real questions, like what do you think would be a bad law, and why do you think hollow point bullets are helpful to untrained civilians, and you just talk past my questions. And give me a lecture on why training is good instead. Did my post lead you to believe I didn't understand why training would be good? I was interested in talking about this topic, but not when people only want to talk at me. Please don't bother to respond, I won't be returning to this thread.

She may not remember exactly what the officer said. Also, I wouldn't give too much credit to cops on their gun knowledge, just because they are cops. Some may know more than others.

I don't think the bullets are the biggest thing to worry about, but the capacity and rapid fire ability of the weapons.

to go on a rampage or rob banks can't get it easily. Then the cops have a chance to stop the perps - if the perps have not already offed themselves.

on edit: re traumatic experience. Still, thousands of people who don't know any better will read this and walk away thinking it is factual. The piece is a nice story. Moving and stirring. But in the long run misinformation is a disservice. If the author had fact checked, she could have qualified the officers statement by saying that her own research has demonstrated that the officer misspoke - here is the truth about hollow points.

Are hollow-points safer to use indoors compared to FMJs?
Are Hollowpoint Bullets More Dangerous?

Interesting opinion against hp rounds.
Hold Off on Hollow-Point Bullets

I don't see why not. It would give her more credibility.

It's somewhat wasted here.