🚀 go-pugleaf

[with selective snipping...]
In <Nov17.172123.28884@acs.ucalgary.ca> maceache@acs.ucalgary.ca (Allison Scott MacEachern) writes:

>True, the blast is omnidirectional, but on the other hand
>accidental discharge of a weapon can injure/kill at longer ranges
>than any accidental explosion we're ever likely to see.

Granted; however within the confines of a house if a gun does go off it 
will either; A) be a shotgun that won't usually go any further than one 
room (unless you're using SSG or something like that) or B) be a rifle 
that may travel outside the house and then be stopped by something 
outside (another house or trees)(I think handguns would fall between 
rifles in their limited affect area and shotguns in their limited effect 
range).  Comparing this with an explosive detonation blast radius and 
secondary effects (such as dangerous debris, secondary explosions (chain 
reactions) and the possibility of fire) I think it shows the explosive 
edges out (and quite significantly in my mind) the firearm in danger.  I 
believe the original thread was trying to say that storage of firearms 
and explosives was the same; I think we can agree that it's not and under 
normal circumstances the explosive is more dangerous.

>See above. Actually, most explosives are pretty stable; it's
>usually detonators that are tricky, if anything is. The really
>dangerous stuff is _improvised_ explosive and firing systems, so
>to be fair we should compare those to improvised firearms, which
>can be *extremely* dangerous. (BTW, I'm perfectly happy to see
>restrictions on commercial explosives, as I am on some commercial
>firearms. The improvised stuff should definitely stay illegal,
>although I suppose that there's poetic justice in the fact that
>so many people kill themselves fooling around with improvised
>weapons.)

Agreed.  I'm going to have to qualify that though, there are people, 
legitimate sportsman, that have gunsmithing licences and are capable of 
changing/making firearms.  I'm thinking more along the lines of 
"wildcatting" however; taking an existing cartrige and changing it somehow 
to create a new shell with different characteristics (for example a .243 
Winchester is actually a necked down .308 Winchester).  Changes like 
these could be considered improvisations but are not done with criminal 
intent; we can agree that those kinds of changes (with criminal intent) 
are a problem.
-- 
"Never in the field of human | Will Christie | "He must be talking about our
 conflict has so much been   | #6382 Chinook |  liquor bills."  --Unknown
 owed by so many to so few." | 666th AW IHHD |  Canadian Spitfire pilot,
 --W. Churchill, Sept. 1940  | Ladder  Admin |  shortly thereafter