Widow wants hollow-point bullet ban local news journaltimes.com electricity experiments for 4th graders

Just reading the headline and lead-in paragraph was enough for me to form an opinion. Anyone who irrationally calls for an intentionally deadly weapon to be reduced in capability is clearly someone who has not thought the issue out in a logical manner – or a raging fascist who is unbalanced and ignorant of the realities of society. ALL BULLETS ARE MADE FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF KILLING. THEY ARE NOT DESIGNED TO WOUND. Police are trained to kill. That’s what is supposed to happen when faced with a deadly threat. It is an unfortunate reality that in a minority of society there are criminals with violence and mayhem intentions and the availability of deadly weapons for defensive use by law-abiding citizens is the balancing influence society has.

Jacketed hollow-point ammunition is actually a safer type of ammunition that prevents unintentional injury and death caused by over-penetration. When shot by a solid jacket bullet, the projectile goes right through a body and has enough remaining velocity to maim and/or kill 2 to 3 more people, which would usually involve innocent bystanders comprised of children, women and men that the shooter may actually know. This is the unintended consequences of demanding hollow-point bullets be banned.

The ownership of firearms is the only object that is guaranteed by our constitution for a very good reason, being for self protection against evildoers and governments alike. If anyone suggests that the law-abiding citizen should be deprived of that right in any capacity, only outlaws will possess guns and that is exactly why Chicago is responsible for 43% of the escalation in our entire country’s "gun violence" – which a perfect example of the abject failure of gun control laws.

If the victim’s wife wants to make a difference, she should lobby her elected officials to prosecute and punish criminals according to current laws, except they are not punished or incarcerated, and set free to victimize more innocent victims who can only hope to defend themselves against these thugs.

I’m very sorry for Stacy Blevins’s loss of her partner at the hands of a felon with a gun. It’s hard to imagine the agony she is going through. Out of respect and sympathy, I will try to keep my comments about her proposed ban on hollow point bullets as even-tempered and factual as I can.

The underlying probem in Mr. Norris’s death was not the type of ammunition. It was the combination of a criminal mind, a felony record, and a loaded gun. He was killed by someone with no respect for life. The choice of ammunition wasn’t even a secondary factor here.

Yes, it’s true that hollow points, because of their expansion, tend to create a more serious wound. But those same hollow points tend to stop within the body rather than exit and richochet off of streets and sidewalks, or simply go straight through the air and hit a second and even a third person.

Therefore, when Rep. Kessler argued that hollow points would save urban lives, he was exactly wrong. To require the use of full metal jacket ammunition would do the opposite. It would endanger more bystanders, because those bullets will travel much farther, and retain their energy in flight. For certain hunting applications, "FMJ" ammunition is inferior to hollow point, because it is less likely to kill an animal, and therefore will be more likely o prolong its suffering.

Again, it’s hard for me to overstate my feelings for Ms. Blevins. Ma’am, I am so very sorry for your Mr. Norris’s death, and wish you nothing but peace over time. Still, I urge you to re-think your advocacy of banning hollow point bullets. Yes, they were used to kill your partner, but his true killer was the terrible man who shot those bullets.

Though I feel for this woman’s loss, her argument to ban hollow points is misguided. Wanting to ban hollow points because a person used them in an irresponsible and illegal manner is akin to wanting to ban alcohol or motor vehicles because a person used them in an irresponsible and illegal manner; i.e driving drunk and killing someone. We could also ban matches and gasoline if someone used them to commit arson when someone is killed. Or how about banning plastic garbage bags used for intentional suffocation? Banning something doesn’t solve the problem.

But the biggest hypocrisy in this story is from the 2 lefty HEE HAW party loons that want to pass a ban. Maybe there should be a ban on people going to the dentist who don’t pay the bill such as mzzzz christine sinicki. And as far as the argument that fred kessler puts up his "wild west" claim is totally off the wall. "“I talked to medical people who said they would be more likely be able to save the victim of a regular bullet than a hollow-point bullet because they’ll explode in the body,” kessler said". But at the same time, fred wants law enforcement to be able to use them. This is stunning coming from a former circuit judge because by the appearance of kessler"s statements, that would be a way to eliminate the inconvenience of a court appearance for the accused.

And finally the author of this story. The author cites "The debate centered around the bullets that expand on impact, which do more damage and cause greater hemorrhaging, and the prey dies in a swifter, more humane manner." Here’s a news flash: That is EXACTLY why they are used in hunting! Or perhaps in the eyes of the author it would be more humane for wounded game to survive a wound but incapacitated, and eventually being mauled to by other predators? Was the purpose of writing this story really about a human tragedy or the promotion of an agenda?

An inanimate object doesn’t kill. Its the irresponsible and illegal use of that object by an individual that does. Banning something doesn’t solve the problem. But dealing with that individual to the extent the law allows does, and there is your justice for Jimmy.