We have previously discussed dubious constitutional and historical claims by President Joe Biden on gun bans. However, on Friday, he returned to a curious claim that he has made repeatedly: that “the bullet out of an AR-15 travels five times as rapidly as a bullet shot out of any other gun.” Conservative and gun rights publications have repeatedly shot down that claim but it does not seem to have any impact. As with Biden’s false claim that certain weapons were banned from private ownership at the ratification of the Second Amendment, the President continues to make the same false claim on velocity speed.
A June 30 Field & Stream column on the “Five Fastest Rifle Cartridges” listed the feet per second (fps) the five fastest rifle cartridges:
-
.220 Swift — A 40-Grain .220 Swift round moves approximately 4,300 fps.
-
.257 Weatherby Magnum — An 87-Grain .257 Weatherby Magnum round moves approximately 3,700+ fps.
-
.30/378 Weatherby — An 165-Grain .30/378 Weatherby round moves approximately 3,400+ fps.
-
.224 Clark — An 80-Grain .224 Clark round moves approximately 3,500+ fps.
-
.22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer — A 50-Grain .22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer round moves approximately 4,600 fps.
AR-15 rounds move at approximately 2,700 – 3,100 fps. Even handgun bullets can reportedly reach around 2,000 fps (though that is rare).
Even the Washington Post has called Biden’s repeated velocity claim “bungled” and factually incorrect. An AR-15 round, at 100 yards, is only slightly faster than most hunting rifles. However, when measured at the point of the departure from the barrel (as is commonly used on velocity), it is about twice the speed of a common hand gun. It is not the fastest (let alone five times faster) than other guns.
Those false statements can be dismissed as just another gaffe or “Corn Pop” story, but they refer to the factual foundation for gun control under the Second Amendment. Since President Biden is suggesting that such facts are material to a ban, there is a need for accuracy in such details.
The White House is ramping up the President’s call to ban “assault weapons” before the midterm elections. The position remains unclear, including additional references to 9mm handguns are possibly next on the list for prohibitions.
In support of the ban on AR-15s, Vice President Kamala Harris declared: “Do you know what an assault weapon is? It was designed for a specific purpose, to kill a lot of human beings quickly. An assault weapon is a weapon of war, with no place, no place in a civil society.”
Courts likely would press the Biden administration on why it is seeking to ban this model when other higher-caliber weapons are sold. AR-15s can handle a variety of calibers. However, they are no more powerful than other semi-automatic rifles of the same caliber and actually have a lower caliber than some commonly sold weapons which use .30-06, .308 and .300 ammunition; many of these guns fire at the same — or near the same rate — as the AR-15. None of these weapons are classified as actual military “assault weapons,” and most civilians cannot own an automatic weapon.
President Biden showed the same disconnect as Harris between the factual and the rhetorical basis for some gun-control measures. He condemned “high-caliber weapons” like 9mm handguns and said “a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body.”
Moreover, while other politicians like Texas gubernatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke have called for bans, there are obvious practical problems. With an estimated 393 million guns in the United States and an estimated 72 million gun owners; three out of ten Americans say they have guns. Indeed, gun ownership rose during the pandemic, particularly among minority households.
These weapons are worth hundreds of dollars. Owners would not only challenge such a law but might demand compensation for their seized weapons. There are also over 15 million such weapons in the United States. The ATF is a relatively small agency to carry out such a massive confiscation program. Even in Texas, a state confiscation plan would require an unprecedented law enforcement effort.
There are good-faith arguments for gun control, including arguments that the Second Amendment does not create an individual right to bear arms. We should continue to have that worthy debate but we should follow the rule of the late Sen. Patrick Moynihan that “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”
I only saw the headline here and I’m not going to waste the effort to read today’s little piece, but the headline is enough to compel me to ask: just what kind of drugs do you take, Turley, to have the stones to devote a post accusing Joe Biden of lying about anything as relatively unimportant as firepower when you are paid to overlook not just the tens of thousands of lies Trump tells about important things, like stealing TS/SCI documents, and the serious threat he poses to American democracy? That’s not to mention his financial crimes going back decades, in which he lied by over valuing assets to get loans and insurance on more favorable terms.
I disagree with your analysis of the Second Amendment limiting weapons to the muzzleloader of the time theory. The Founders knew weapons’ history, from rocks to cannons. They knew how a sharpened stick transformed into a spear, bows and arrows, and then a crossbow. And there were both automatic and semi-automatic weapons already in existence. So, the Second Amendment didn’t limit weapons to muzzleloaders, knives, and bows and arrows; it used the general term, arms, knowing weaponry would, as it had, change over time.
Karen, here are some less-inflammatory responses to your claims:
(1) “like stealing TS/SCI documents…” Misplaced maybe? Not yet determined if there was intent to steal.
Hillary had intent when she had her drives smashed and bleached, but she never got charged even by Trump’s DOJ. Her Pakistani administrators had intent when they fled the country to avoid questioning. I doubt they got charged.
(2) “the serious threat he poses to American democracy?” Unsupported statement. I could just as easily claim cancel culture is a threat to democracy. Or Antifa is a threat to democracy. Or BLM and CRT are threats to democracy. Does that prove anything?
(3) “That’s not to mention his financial crimes going back decades…” Latitia James hasn’t proven anything yet except that she hates Trump, and you don’t actually know the details of what she has on Trump. Anything a jury of liberals convicts him of will be reviewed by the Supreme Court. I’ll believe the Supremes, not you or Latitia.
The point of the article is the dishonest methods being used by the anti-gun lobby to scare people into supporting laws that only affect law-abiding citizens while criminals using illegal guns in crimes will typically only get a slap on the wrist and little or no bail. The “Financial crimes” lawsuit is political junk filed to aid an anti-Trump zealot’s campaign and if we want to highlight financial crimes we simply need to look at Hunter and James Biden and the amounts they fleeced that were co-mingled into Joe’s accounts. The “stealing TS/SCI” documents will amount to another Russiagate level hoax
Karen: Wow! right on sister!
Such craziness. Do you have pictures of Trump breaking in the WH to steal documents? Of course not. That means you don’t know what you are talking about. Overvaluing property to get a loan? Don’t you have any business acumen? Banks have their people evaluate value. Trump doesn’t decide what the bank values the property at and that is what counts when asking for a loan.
Due Diligence
Don’t leave home without it.
Anonymous, here’s some backup for independents who don’t want to be misled by another media hoax: as you point out, the loan applications listed what the banks thought the properties were worth. Trump was allowed to list his own opinions on the forms, which he did, but his opinions were not dispositive for getting the loans. The banks gave him the loans voluntarily, and he paid the loans back. There is no crime, there is no victim, and valuation is a matter of opinion.
Bill Barr, who is no Trump fanboy, stated he thought the James lawsuit was political. This is another shameless, political hoax by Democrats, abusing their offices to troll Trump and whip up their base. The real crime is the abuse of power by Democrats.
William “Mr. Deep Deep State Swamp” Barr
@Anon,
Why yes, those photos were in the safe along with that pee tape back at MAL
Of course the Feds came and retrieved them.
RE: “and the serious threat he [TRUMP] poses to American democracy?” We’re not a democracy, we’re a Constitutional Republic and I’ve got your insidious threat to that right here. The kind of machinations your Braindead Biden and his minions are up to while the nation sleeps. Hold a gun to the head of the ISO in order to affect and implement national policy when law cannot be passed. https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220913/new-credit-card-rule-creates-gun-registry
“PERSONS OF INDIGENT FORTUNE UNDER THE IMMEDIATE DOMINION OF OTHERS HAVING NO WILL OF THEIR OWN”
The American Founders intent included maximally free individuals and free enterprise per the Constitution and under infinitesimal and severely limited and restricted government. Turnout in 1788 was 11.6%. Vote criteria were male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres. Immigration law required citizens to be “free white person(s).” America was established as a restricted-vote republic. Never was America intended to be a one man, one vote democrazy.
America has been “fundamentally transformed” into communism under the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
_______________________________________
“[We gave you] a republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
1.I know I am old fashioned: This is Professor Turley’s turf; we are his guests. He chooses the topic for his (daily) comments and he let us share our thoughts. Whoever feels a heavy-handed moderation should think twice if such attacks passed the gate. “just what kind of drugs do you take, Turley, to have the stones to devote a post accusing Joe Biden of lying”
2. “To quoque” [1] (defense) – a subtype of “ad hominem” [2] – is a discussion technique that commentators like to use frequently here. It’s more popular as “whataboutery” [3] . All in all: It doesn’t fit within comment section: Our host expresses his opinion about “Biden’s false claim”. However, politics is a very dirty business.
3. Then Senator “from MBNA” Joe Biden’s (D-DL) was much more connected to financial corporations than to individuals who might suffer from their practices: He was pushing for bankruptcy reform legislation [4] supported by the company [5]. In 4/05 “New Bankruptcy Law” (BAPCPA) was passed which make it more difficult for consumers to file bankruptcy under Chapter 7 [6]. His son Hunter, most likely without his father’s knowledge, was a MBNA consultant before risen to the rank of EVP [7]
4. At the beginning of his tenure as VP, Biden was also much more focused on national issues: His presence at the “Beer Summit”, the push of his son Hunter to chairman of WFP-USA. As time goes by, he then was more focused on overseas.
5. When it comes to loyalty, politicians are in a crucial position: Before the electoral will cast their votes, but a defeat is more likely, former close allies change ships: While Beto O’Rooke’s (D-TX) stunt of an “inconvenient truth” [9] came out of frustration that Lone Star State, former seen as huge opening, is for DEMs out of play. It’s much more brutal, when NBC contributor Jen Psaki, until 5/12/22 WH Press Secretary, came up with “inconvenient truth” [10]. However, he good thing: President Biden doesn’t realize it.
[1] The phrase “Tu quoque, Brute, fili mi”is often used to signify an unexpected betrayal by a friend. William Shakespeare’s used this quote in “Julius Caesar” at the moment of Roman Dictator’s assassination, to his friend Marcus Junius Brutus. There is no historical evidence that Caesar said: “You too, Brutus”.
[2] Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where one attacks the character rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.
[3] It’s a procedure in which an argument is not discussed, but retorted with a counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation.
[4] The bill was first drafted in ’97 and introduced a year later. After approved by Congress, then President Bill Clinton vetoed.
[5] According to “Secret History of the Credit Card”, published by Frontline in ’04, MBNA [8], headquartered in Wilmington, DL was found to be one of the leading implementors of rate-jacking, such as doubling or tripling of interest rates, shifting billing due dates/payment cycles monthly and raising rates for customers whose payments were a day or two late. On 6/30/05, MBNA announced that it was being acquired by Bank of America for stock and cash totaling more than $35 billion, and the deal was closed on 1/1/06.
[6] Professor Elizabeth Warren, then a member of the National Bankruptcy Review Commission, was a vocal critic.
[7] Good read: Ben Schreckinger: The Bidens, inside the First Family’s Fifty Years of Tragedy, Scandal and Triumph (2021)
[8] The company was found by late Charles Cawley. He made donations to Joe Biden, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.
[9] https://nypost.com/2021/09/25/beto-orourke-blasts-biden-on-border-compares-him-to-trump/
[10] https://www.foxnews.com/media/jen-psaki-says-democrats-know-they-will-lose-midterms-referendum-president-biden
The facts needs to be verified, and understood. More important than muzzle or exit velocity is the kinetic energy of a bullet. It increases in proportion to bullet weight, and as THE SQUARE OF strike velocity. Any trauma center surgeon will back up that the extent of wound damage goes up in proportion to
1) strike kinetic energy
2) tumbling motion
The argument against high-velocity firearms (for self-defense) is they are designed to kill by a bleed-out injury, by causing massive tissue rupture with just one single hit.
Should self-defense weaponry be designed to kill as the first level of escalation above brandishment?
The 2nd Amendment does not give a right to arbitrarily rapid and assured lethality. Public safety can be better assured by limiting the kill rate of weapons allowed under the 2nd Amendment. After all, there is a right to life to be reckoned with. Where we need to be moving towards is a mindset of weapons for temporary incapacitation. If effective, those can serve as the self-defense platform — not death.
I think Biden is getting closer to a rational basis for honing the 2nd Amendment’s reach for today’s weapons. His awkward bungling of the facts does not change the physics facts as gathered by trauma center docs. It’s highly questionable whether there is a basic right to own highly-efficient killing equipment. That goes beyond self-defense.
The square of the strike speed, irrespective of direction. Energy is a scalar quantity, not a vector.
Amazing, there is a domain in which you grasp that the relationship between energy and anther variable is not linear.
I disagree with your analysis of the Second Amendment limiting weapons to the muzzleloader of the time theory. The Founders knew weapons’ history, from rocks to cannons. They knew how a sharpened stick transformed into a spear, bows and arrows, and then a crossbow. And there were both automatic and semi-automatic weapons already in existence. So, the Second Amendment didn’t limit weapons to muzzleloaders, knives, and bows and arrows; it used the general term, arms, knowing weaponry would, as it had, change over time.
Any center-fire rifle will have high exit velocities and the 50 Cal muzzleloaders used in the era of the 2nd Amendment produced massive damage with a velocity of about half that of an AR-15 but with a bullet that weighted about 10X more and 2.5X wider
Take a look at the actual deaths and what type of bullet or gun was used. One won’t see the numbers surrounding the fancy guns and fancy bullets. Then take a look at who does the shooting and killing. If one understands that, one can reduce gun violence. The rest of the exercise is meaningless.
RE:”Should self-defense weaponry be designed to kill as the first level of escalation above brandishment?” That’s an interesting question to put and open to debate in that it impacts on the policies and procedures of law enforcement as well as the response from a private citizen. The time frame from brandishing to the injury or death of a victim as a result of the discharge of a firearm in the hands of a perpetrator with intent to do harm might be seconds if not less. IMHO, if a perpetrator does so in the act of committing a crime, the INTENT is to instill or threaten by force, the fear of bodily harm or loss of life to the victim. Call it the “I WILL KILL YOU” factor, if you will, Thus, it invites a response in kind which is, unfortunately, often the case. Such perpetrators need to understand that, if one draws on an LEO or, unbeknownst to them, a citizen licensed to carry, confidence is high that they will die.
Should self-defense weaponry be designed to kill as the first level of escalation above brandishment?
The Constitution never mentions self defense. This is dangerously close to the meaningless “needs” test some think apply to enumerated rights.
The author’s and signer’s own words who gave of our most important law made very clear that Americans are to be armed.
And that included every arm needed to repulce all forms of tyranny.
Americans are misguided.
The weapons you need in the 21st century to deter tyranny are 1) communication skills, 2) good intel, 3) virtue, 4) honesty, 5) incorruptibiity, 6) belief in civility and good governance
Most of those who fantasize a shooting civil war are doing just that….fantasizing….meaning not playing out the complex scenarios and their inherent unpredictability, fog-of-war injustices, and temptations toward self-serving corruption. “The good guys always win”…comes from watching too much TV and video games.
The least convincing argument for highly-lethal weaponry is ability to stage civil war. We’re way too interdependent upon each other for civil war, and most would starve limiting their ability to fight. Transportation would deteriorate quickly, meaning no food, no fuel, no health care. Everyone loses….there are no winners….except in shallow fantasy-hero-worship visions.
Says a non-resident of Baltimore, Richmond, Atlanta…essentially any city run by Democrats
I just picked up more 9 mm ammo on sale to improve my target shooting. I sleep far better these days as compared to when BLM ANTIFA anarchists terrorized Richmond in 2020-21
Joe Biden, ballistition.
Maybe Biden should just stick to corruption and showering with young girls.
Zzclancy, and skinny dipping in front of female secret service agents.
…AND GRABBING AIDES BY THE GROIN.
___________________________________
“Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden”
“Ms. Reade, a former Senate aide, has accused Mr. Biden of assaulting her in 1993 and says she told others about it. A Biden spokeswoman said the allegation is false, and former Senate office staff members do not recall such an incident.”
– New York Times
Question: “President Biden: you’ve said that you believe that following the science is the right path to follow, right?” Biden says ‘yes.’
“Then sir, your statement that the AR-15 and similar weapons have a velocity 5 times greater than other guns is based on science, correct?”
At this point in the questioning, hemming and hawing would possibly, even likely, result.
“Mr. Biden, I have here in my hand a scientific study of bullet velocities of a wide variety of rifle and handguns — and in no study ever done as an AR-15 or similar weapon been found to have velocity of 5 times that of other weapons, not even 4 times, not 3 times, not 2 times, and the AR-15 velocity is slower, even far slower, than many other commercially available rifles.
Are you not telling the American people the true facts on purpose, or are you repeating false information given to you by your many ‘handlers.’
Ah, wouldn’t it be nice if Scott Pelley of the 60 minutes show had asked this question?
“Think about what you’re thinking about”. Brandon.
OT: “McDonald’s will face a $10 billion suit arguing it does not advertise enough on black-owned media
Plaintiff will be allowed to try and prove case in court, judge rules.”
—
An excellent example of how judicial decisions have impacted private enterprise.
Why should McDonald’s have to prove anything? If the government thinks McDonald’s is doing something wrong, the government needs to prove its case.
“.22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer” LOL!! I knew I read this blog for some reason 😀
I think I can channel with our PHOTUS (Potato Head of the United States) and translate his garbled bombast into coherent bombast. He’s probably meaning the cartridges in a sporting rifle can cycle five-times faster than a bolt-action rifle. I only have a bolt-actions, so I’m not an authority on sporting rifles, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that were so.
But Joe shouldn’t thank me yet. I have several brief observations. First, handguns are the weapons of choice for criminal activity. Long guns were known to account for only 3.5% of all homicides in 2020. The rest were handguns, knives, bats, bare hands, etc. etc. etc. and unstated guns (very likely unrecovered handguns), so the whole “machine gun” argument is just a fundraising gimmick to plunder the pocketbooks of pearl-clutching liberals. Gangs and drug traffickers are doing mass murder with handguns.
Second, if stop-and-frisk offends Democrats so much, how likely are they to really crackdown on guns in Watts and Harlem? Not likely. Are Democrats really enforcing existing gun laws in Democrat boroughs? No. Offenders get released every weekend by Soros prosecutors.
You don’t have to guess who the real targets of gun confiscation would be. Anybody the Democrat Party wants to beat down.
Finally, requiring the surrender of any firearms would overwhelmingly disarm those least likely to engage in crime. That’s a form of outlawing self-protection, and nothing else. Remember Hillary and her ball-peen hammers? No charges. Equal protection under the law is already dead, and they want to tear down self-protection next–but just for deplorables.
While I agree with the article in general, I’m not so sure about the relative speed of the AR-15 bullet in relation to others. For one thing, the Field & Stream article doesn’t include the .223 bullet (which can come in various forms.) I was in the Air Force when it replaced the M-1 carbine as its primary rifle. I distinctly remember the small arms instructor telling us that the lightweight .223 bullet was a lot faster than the .30 caliber. (The Army and Marine Corps were using .30 caliber equivalent to the 30/06 while the .30 caliber carbine bullet was a pistol bullet.) They demonstrated the bullet’s power by shooting up concrete blocks – they’d explode whenever the bullet hit. (Now, they probably would have done the same thing with a .30 caliber carbine bullet. I know for a fact that would with a 30/06 because I shot the chimney off of an old house we lived in when I was growing up with my 30/06.)
Democrats love to talk about “assault” rifles when there is no such thing. Even the militarized M-16s aren’t true assault rifles as they are designed to be fired a shot at a time even though they have a full-automatic capability – and if they’re fired repeatedly on full automatic they’ll melt the barrel.) The AR-15 is a lightweight rifle made of composite materials rather than steel and wood and they fire a .223 bullet, which is basically the same as the .220. (Shooting enthusiasts like to argue about bullets but the reality is that in combat it doesn’t make a dime’s worth of difference.) The Dems use the “assault rifle” term as an argument to convince the public of the need for gun control.
As for the Second Amendment applying to individually owned weapons, anyone who thinks otherwise is full of it. Madison used the militia as justification for individual gun ownership. Read Federalist 46 – https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0261 – and it becomes obvious that Madison saw an armed population as the defense against the tyranny of a standing army devoted to a national leader (a president.)
The .223 and 5.56 have almost the same ballistics at around 2800-3000fps with a 55gr bullet whereas the .30 is about 2000fps with a 110gr bullet. The 30/06 is faster than the 5.56 AR round with a much heaver bullet so a lot more destructive. The main reason for the 5.56 was that the army deemed that battlefields like Vietnam would be more common and close range engagements with a much lighter ammo and thus more rounds was needed but in Iraq and Afghanistan it was longer distance engagements they are moving to heaver ammo.
I thought the military should go to the 6.8mm SPC for their standard round (but not for DMRs), but who listens to me!
Diogenes, what is a DMR?
Ben, DMR stands for “Designated Marksman Rifle.” Basically, more power than the standard infantry rifle.
David, not Ben. My apology
RE:”“everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” The chief premise in political rhetoric is that the audience one is endeavoring to persuade consists of a basket of deplorables whose intellectual capacity and knowledge base is nil, and for which they have contempt.. The reason behind such an assessment is that the individual[s] making it were, indeed, elected. The late, great Groucho Marx would have put it this way…”I could never respect a constituency which would raise ME to high office.” Were it otherwise, we would not be obliged to suffer these fools, knaves, and charlatans, and the swill they are endeavoring to force down our gullets.
Joe the parrot (and his handlers) lost in the trees. Where are all you DT haters On your Dem Socialists Biden? Another indication that the election was taken as Bide could not can not draw a dozen people to a rally then or now. Dem candidates have vacated him as if he had leprosery. Big derecho of disclosures comin soon. Take all your counters and place them in your ears.
There are good-faith arguments for gun control,
A good faith argument in favor of infringing a natural right is an oxymoron.
Joe Biden simply does not understand that he is presenting an untruth. He is so convinced that some things are true because he has been so brainwashed by leftist rhetoric that he repeats it regardless of any facts that state the opposite. Then again, perhaps he knows that what he says is not true and he is therefore nefarious. Nefarious must be seriously considered.
Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) just hate the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That seems a bit odd even for a “fake” president. The 2nd Amendment is so clear a dunce could understand it. C’mon, man, put your thinking cap on. Go out and get yourself a brand new amendment to amend the 2nd if you think you can, and good luck with that.
_____________________________________________________________________
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Like almost everyone else, Jonathan Turley shows that he is confused about “velocity” versus “speed”.
Speed is a scalar, measured for example in fps, feet per second.
Velocity is a vector, having a direction and also a magnitude, the speed.
Summary: always use “speed” unless the direction is actually of import.
David,
You are of course correct in a classroom sense but you have forgotten that colloquial speech can be perfectly clear without being scientifically precise. For example people commonly muddle weight and mass with no ill effects–kilos and pounds for example. A kilo will still be a kilo on the moon but it won’t be 2.2 pounds as it is here. Do you usually give a speech about that? If you do, I sympathize because I am prone to being annoying in the same way.
The convention when speaking of firearms is to refer to ‘muzzle velocity’. If it helps you, when speaking of bullets both the speed and direction are ‘actually of import’. Try not to be in the path.
Professor Turley is rarely confused about anything.
Regards
Yes, why used a one syllable, well understood word when a three syllable, poorly understood and wrongly applied word makes you seem important?
If the three syllable “poorly understood” word is an industry convention then it is well understood and correctly applied. Do you prefer to be understood or to obfuscate with pedantic, irrelevant comments? How much is a scoop of ice cream? Everyone in an ice cream shop knows and wouldn’t welcome your coming in to explain each scoop is a little bit different.
You said you didn’t care for guns. It shows in your failure to recognize the industry conventions used when discussing them.
Does your car have a velocity meter?
Which direction is money moving, as in the “velocity of money”?
Just makes people seem important via obfuscation. Groucho Marx would have approved.
“Does your car have a velocity meter?”
No, but my car doesn’t come out of a muzzle aimed in an exact direction. Corrections are made for wind and drop and resistance as different forces, vectors, acting in specific directions add up to determine the actual path of a bullet. One of the reasons bullets hit targets is because they are intended to go in a specific direction.
What were you saying about velocity being speed and direction?
You have talked yourself into sounding stupid and pompous although I know you aren’t stupid. Happening a lot in government and academia these days.
I should add that as a bullet tracks a specific direction toward a target the wind resistance will slow the bullet’s speed so the velocity is changing moment by moment, the amount depending on the mass of the bullet, the flat plate resistance of the bullet, air density, and the initial or muzzle velocity of the bullet. That’s why one speaks of ‘muzzle velocity’.
Young, do not forget the Coriolis Effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force
😮
Doesn’t have much of an effect in the time and distances bullets normally travel but I wonder if it is a factor in very long range artillery fire.
So, tell me, does the effect make water swirl in a drain in the opposite direction below the equator?
Only in principle. Water is seldom perfectly still and drains are seldom perfectly symmetrical.
David: “Only in principle. Water is seldom perfectly still and drains are seldom perfectly symmetrical.”
+++
Naturally the hypothetical would exclude irregularities. Don’t obfuscate.
But you are wrong ‘in prinicple’. The water will swirl in the same direction. You are looking at it from ‘underneath’ your earlier point of observation, hence only a perceived reversal of direction leading to an erroneous conclusion in principle.
Swirl opposite in the two hemispheres:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-somebody-finally-sett/
But you need tropical cyclonic storms to notice the difference. It’s not “just perceived”. Be sure to point the bow of you ship into the wind so that you don’t capsize. The US Navy lost some destroyers in WW2 which failed to so point.
“Swirl opposite in the two hemispheres:”
+++
Imagine the direction of rotation without using the surface of the earth as your reference. A swirl looked at from above will look as if it is going in the opposite direction when looked at from below, which is where you are below the equator.
If it makes it easier, imagine looking at a galaxy from above and then from below. It doesn’t switch directions when you go under it. You have switched perspectives.
I thought you would visualize this faster.
Scientific American has been trash for awhile.
Be sure to point your ship properly:
https://www.britannica.com/science/tropical-cyclone
And there is nothing wrong with Scientific American; it is the fever in your brain which is affecting you. Better take a trip to Australia where being “upside down” will cure you. 🙂
David,
Thanks for posting an interesting issue. The answer is that the Coriolis Effect is a factor in targeting long range artillery. I think I knew that long ago and forgot.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap11/artillery.html
Notice that the term muzzle velocity is also used in this article.
David, check out Mach’s law and absolute vs relative space. Mach corrected Newton.
Regarding the Coriolis Effect it wouldn’t be an actual vector on the bullet [though it could be managed as one] so much as a case of the target itself moving.
Yes. Good for you.
Merriam-Webster
velocity noun
ve·loc·i·ty | \ və-ˈlä-sə-tē
, -ˈlä-stē \
plural velocities
Definition of velocity
1a : quickness of motion : speed : the velocity of sound
b : rapidity of movement – [my horse’s] strong suit is grace & personal comeliness, rather than velocity— Mark Twain
c : speed imparted to something – // “the power pitcher relies on velocity” — Tony Scherman
2 : the rate of change of position along a straight line with respect to time : the derivative of position with respect to time
3a : rate of occurrence or action : “rapidity the velocity of historical change” — R. J. Lifton
b : rate of turnover // the velocity of money
I’ve just had it. Other POTUS’ lies were at least plausible, this admin seems to think we are all jelly-brained five year-olds. Enough.
This rifle is basically a fast pea-shooter compared to other firearms. The blatant, blatant dishonesty challenging provable reality we are now getting seemingly daily, and the institutional reinforcement of it, has passed the point of anything resembling acceptable.
Vote. Them. Out. There will be a meltdown the likes of which we have never seen, but it is self-preservation at this point.
Not exactly. The rifle is the primary infantry weapon. You seem to be comparing them to artillery, which is a horse of a different color and which can be defeated by armed infantry as US troops in Vietnam found when PAVN troops overran firebases. Even machineguns (perhaps ESPECIALLY machineguns) are not impervious to a skilled rifleman. Remember Alvin York, remember Audie Murphy?
So the new Left (read fascists) desire censorship and to criminalize gun ownership.
I wonder if there’s any connection between those two power-lusting policies.
Anti 2nd Amendment activists don’t give a damn about truth and actual facts, President Biden and Vice-President Harris fall into this category, all they care about is suppressing actual facts and ginning up pure emotional outrage with tier false propaganda. They know that once they gin up the pure emotional outrage that facts will have little relevance to the mobs of emotionally immature troglodytes.
It’s this “winning is more important than truth” mentality of the left that lends credence to the fear of stolen elections. They are ‘all in’ on the ends justifying the means, then call their opposition fascists for taking them at their word. I believe this is a Marxist tactic. Thank you for adherence to the truth and calling out President Biden.
Unfortunately, the times Joe Biden was “full professor” [1] at University of Pennsalvania are gone. Or he never was a facultiy member but gave paid speaches and promoted the book “Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship, and Purpose” published under his name.
Anyway. Looking at Commander in Chief’s public appearances [2] I never would blame him for whatever he has said. I just would reference to “his handler” and “speachwriter”.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EPU6CLSie8
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bWM1zsnTJc