Guns

Facepalm – Vice President Joe Biden

/ hsoi / 8 Comments

Vice President Joe Biden explains what one should do for self-defense: get a shotgun.

Biden, doing a Google+ “hangout” to promote President Barack Obama’s proposals for battling gun violence, had been asked whether a new assault weapons ban might infringe on the Second Amendment rights of those who want one “as a last line of defense” to fend off looters after “some terrible natural disaster.”

“Guess what? A shotgun will keep you a lot safer, a double-barreled shotgun, than the assault weapon in somebody’s hands [who] doesn’t know how to use it, even one who does know how to use it,” the outspoken vice president, a shotgun owner himself, replied. “It’s harder to use an assault weapon to hit something than it is a shotgun. You want to keep people away in an earthquake? Buy some shotgun shells.”

This is one of those things that is so stunningly misinformed and full of terrible advice that you just don’t know how to respond. I’ll try tho.

First, credentials.

I am an NRA Certified Instructor (Home Safety, Pistol, Rifle, Personal Protection Inside the Home, Personal Protection Outside the Home). I am an NRA Certified Range Safety Officer. I am certified by the Texas Department of Public Safety as a Concealed Handgun License Instructor. I have been an assistant Instructor with KR Training for four years. I’ve received hundreds of hours of instruction in firearms and self-defense, with a large stack of certifications. There’s more, but this is enough to make my point. And no, I’m not as awesome as Tom Givens or my mentor, Karl Rehn, but I’ve learned a thing or two.

Joe Biden’s credentials: owns a shotgun.

Maybe Mr. Biden has more credentials that would permit him to speak as an authority on this topic. I haven’t seen them, and even if he showed me a list, after hearing the above I couldn’t believe him.

Let’s see here…

First I will agree that a shotgun is a formidable weapon. It can do devastating things. I do keep shotguns as part of my personal defense plan. I find them to be a solid small armament. They can be the right tool for the job.

I’m curious how Mr. Biden’s statement holds up.

A double-barreled shotgun. So that’s 2 rounds. What if you miss? What if there’s a need to fire more than 2 shots? If the statistical average of a gunfight is “3 shots, within 3 yards, within 3 seconds” then 2 rounds leaves you below-average and behind the curve. Is it legally and morally sound to put good people at a disadvantage from bad people?

A shotgun is harder to hit something with than a shotgun? Um… I’m not sure about that. Well, perhaps. The point of a shotgun is to hit small flying objects, like birds (ducks, doves, pheasants, etc.) or clay discs (skeet, trap). It does this by using lots of little tiny pellets and has them spread out in a cloud. And yes, compared to trying to hit a small flying thing with a single bullet (rifle, pistol) well sure, a shotgun will improve your chances of success.

But we’re not talking about hitting small flying objects. We’re talking about personal defense — even Mr. Biden is speaking in the context of personal defense. In such a case, not only is the target much bigger and moves much more slowly, it needs a far different payload. It’s one thing to take down a 2 pound bird, it’s another to take down a 200# violent criminal actor. You still have to aim. A shotgun is not some “cloud of death”. The spread is not as vast as you think. In fact, you actually do NOT want your pellets to spread out because 1. less pellets on target means less ability to stop the attack, 2. less pellets on target means more pellets where you didn’t intend them to go, which could be bad.

I’ve written at length about rifle vs. shotgun, so just go read.

Let’s continue with Mr. Biden’s statements:

 “This town listens when people rise up and speak,” Biden said

I’m not sure what town he’s talking about. Lots of people are speaking in other ways, and then it’s not like y’all listen when it comes to other topics. It really sounds like you’re pushing a personal agenda.

Biden noted that “it’s not about keeping bad guns out of the hands of good people, it’s about keeping all guns out of the hands of bad people. There should be rational limits.”

Then I guess it’s just “collateral damage” that this also will keep the guns out of the hands of good people?

Or are we considered bad people too?

Mr. Biden, I am not sure upon what credentials you speak, but your words don’t make much sense.

I’ll just say this. If a double-barreled shotgun is all someone needs, then start by equipping your Secret Service detail with nothing but double-barreled shotguns. Your actions will speak far louder than your words.

 

My new EDC Flashlight – SureFire E2D

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

For the past 3-4 years, I’ve carried a SureFire E2L Outdoorsman as my every day carry (EDC) flashlight. I carry a flashlight all the time and at the ready because it’s useful. I didn’t realize how useful it was until I started carrying one all the time — I use it almost every day.

But over the years of carrying the E2L, my preferences have changed and a couple months ago I started on a quest for new EDC flashlight. I’ve hit a milestone on that quest – I’ve obtained a new flashlight, a SureFire E2D LED Defender

SureFire E2D LED Defender

First, it’s important to note this is the LED model; there’s earlier versions of the E2D that were not LED. Second, you’ll note the different tailcap in the above picture; I’ll discuss that below.

Why did I pick this? Because it fit all my requirements.

  • I wanted a higher beam output than the E2L, and with 200 lumens the E2D certainly meets that.
  • It has a better beam quality, but I’ll discuss that below.
  • The first click on the E2D activates the high beam (E2L, the low beam). My needs these days find me needing “most light, right now”, which means I want the first press of the button to give me a solid beam of lots of light.
  • It has a clip, and a clip in the “right” direction for my needs. One of my biggest uses of the clip is to hang the light from the brim of my cap so I can illuminate whatever I’m looking at (hands-free), and of course the beam moves with my head and eyes.
  • High and low beams, because while much of my current needs are “most light, right now”, sometimes I need to read something or see something else, so low beam is good. And no strobe.
  • The form factor is right for my hand, for my carry, etc.. BTW, my existing Comp-Tac flashlight pouch works just fine because the E2D and E2L have just about the same form factor. I did note I needed to tighten up the pouch a little bit for the E2D to fit, but that’s not a big deal.

So… my needs were met, thus.

Regarding the beam quality, from what my eyes can tell it’s actually pretty much the same beam as the E2L. But because it’s more lumens, things just look better. So I reckon it’s not so much the beam as it was the strength. To compare, the Streamlight Super Tac-X I have also has a 200 lumen output, but the beams of the Tac-X and the E2D are different — this is due to the reflector. The Tac-X is designed to really throw that light, so the beam is a little more focused and appears to reach further. The E2D certainly reaches far, but the light is… well, the best way I can describe it is closer to a floodlight than a spotlight, but it’s certainly not some sort of “room-filling” light… it’s still more spot than a ceiling lamp, but I’d just say the E2D’s beam is a little more “spreading/filling” than the Tac-X. That’s fine for my needs, because while I do want the throw, I also need the “fill”. What I’d really like to do is get out in the country where I don’t have the light pollution of the city and really see how the beams compare.

The clip is shorter but VERY strong. It’s tough to get under it, whereas the E2L’s is longer and “looser”, very easy to get under. That’s fine, if over time it means more durability and less chance of accidental snagging of the clip.

In the few days I’ve had the light and used it, it’s worked well and I’ve been pleased. It’s what I’ve been after.

However… not everything is rosy.

SureFire E2L (top) and E2D (bottom)

See the above picture and compare the two lights. Certainly they are cut from the same cloth, the difference being the E2D has this “Defender” styling. That’s a bit of a mixed bag.

First, the crenelation is of course part of the purpose of the thing. But it’s a little sharp. While of course that’s part of the point, when you pull the light in and out of the belt pouch all day AND the light is up against your bare skin well… sometimes I skewer myself. Just annoying.

Second, the this affects the accessibility of the tailcap button. Notice in the picture you can see the E2L’s button but you cannot see the E2D’s. They rise up the same, just the E2D has the “walls” around the button. I found this made it difficult for me to activate the button. When I hold the light and hit the button with my thumb, either I’m holding it wrong or I just don’t have enough thumb meat to get that button depressed. For me to work it, I have to come at the button with my thumb pointing down into the button and use the tip of my thumb – hardly practical for me. When I grab the light, regardless of how I grab it, I should be able to just press and go, but alas, the tailcap doesn’t allow it. Thus why you see the mixed light in the top picture – I just switched to use my E2L’s tailcap. It works fine.

Third, note the texturing on the body of the flashlight. It’s a bit more aggressive on the E2D. That’s great for a grip, but in the pouch, on my belt, against my skin? It’s sandpaper. It’s not majorly uncomfortable, but there’s enough times when I bend or twist my body just so and get rubbed and it’s annoying.

All in all these annoyances are minor, but I’ve also only had the light a few days. Over time I may grow to hate them or they’ll fade into the background and I will barely notice them. Time will tell.

But for now, the E2D stays on my hip as my new EDC flashlight.

Illustration of the folly

/ hsoi

In New York’s knee-jerk rush to implement feel-good-do-something-for-the-children legislation, they also screwed their local law enforcement:

The ban on having high-capacity magazines, as it’s written, would also include law enforcement officers.

Magazines with more than seven rounds will be illegal under the new law when that part takes effect in March.

As the statute is currently written, it does not exempt law enforcement officers. Nearly every law enforcement agency in the state carries hand guns that have a 15 round capacity.

Now, state officials are coming out saying this doesn’t affect the police, they are not in violation, but the simple fact is laws are specific and must spell out exemptions if they are to be any. Any time a law isn’t to apply to police, they spell it out. The fact they didn’t, means this applies to police as well. And so, they are working to “fix” the law.

What this demonstrates is the folly of such limitations.

“Why does anyone need one of those?” Well, this is why. If the police need them, first, that’s “somebody” needing one of those. Second, if no one ever needs more than X arbitrary number of rounds, shouldn’t that go for the police as well?

From Reason

DNAinfo.com calls the absence of a law-enforcement exemption a “loophole in the law,” but in fact it is the very opposite of a loophole: Cops are outraged at the possibility that they might be treated the same as “a regular citizen” under the law. One has to wonder: If, as Seabrook says, the new magazine limit will have no impact on criminals and if, as Seabrook and Palladino agree, more than seven rounds sometimes are necessary to “save lives,” what justification can there be for imposing this arbitrary restriction not just on “law-abiding retired cops” but on law-abiding citizens in general?

Indeed. Why should law-abiding citizens be restricted and the police not? What justifiable reasoning can be given? To say “they’re the police, they may need it” assumes the private citizen never needs it. I’ll keep thinking back to that one student of Tom Givens that needed 11 rounds in order to save his life. Obviously he needed more rounds than these laws would permit — are you going to look him in the eye and tell him nobody needs more than 7 rounds or 10 rounds? that his life wasn’t worth it? that saving “just 1 life” wasn’t worth it?

Whodathunkit

/ hsoi

(h/t Brian)

So what you’re saying is… criminals use criminal means to get their guns. They don’t go through channels that fill out 4473 forms, that get background checks. Really? You don’t say.

Furthermore, you’re saying that criminals are deterred by someone with a gun, because they don’t want to get shot. That concealed carry does deter them because criminals don’t know who has and who hasn’t a gun (so this means CC even improves the lives of anti-gun folks, security through obscurity).

That if a home is known to have armed residents, they’ll pick the home that is known to have unarmed residents.

Whodathunkit!

Now I’ll grant. This segment was produced by Fox News. You can see some bias crapola, like needing to point out “illegal immigrants” in the lead-in. Interesting choice of prisons too. And I’m sure of all the inmates they interviewed, they cherry picked the ones with the best sound-bites that served their purpose.

But for those that wish to dismiss this video segment, my challenge is to find refutation of what was presented. Go into a prison, talk with inmates and see how many are willing and prefer to victimize gun owners. I’m sure you too can cherry pick and find a gem here and there, but the fact remains that, on the whole, criminals are not stopped by laws, that adding more laws will not stop criminals from performing criminals acts, and that sometimes the only language a predator is willing and able to understand is seeing the teeth of a sheepdog.

Refresher – safe direction

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

Two men were rightfully arrested for their “target practice”. Basically, they were shooting at paper targets without a proper backstop, and the bullets were hitting homes over 500 yards away.

Seems like a good time to remind people what “safe direction” means.

Folks, when you’re engaged in target practice or just plinking because it’s fun, you MUST consider where your bullets will come to rest, to ensure they do so in a safe and complete manner, and that no unwanted destruction happens between the muzzle and that point of rest. This is paramount, else you are being unsafe with a gun.

Sometimes violence is the answer

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

I already see people reading the title of this article and shaking their head in disagreement. Hopefully they’ll be willing to set their bias aside and read with an open mind.

We are way more ‘civilized’ than we’ve ever been. Enough so that you can say there is a bias against physical violence in this society.

We’ve developed systems were the need for physical violence is greatly reduced. We rely on professionals to do our violence for us and enforce the rules. This is really an amazing development in human history. Realistically, we’ve never had it so good

The problem with this is people take it for granted. They assume this system is the ‘way life is.’ And you get some seriously fucked up and out-to-lunch assumptions about life in general and violence in specific.

The biggest one is that there is some ‘divine right’ about how violence is never supposed to happen to them. (Or that oh-mah-gawd-it’s-some-kind-of-life-long-trauma if it does.) Once someone takes this attitude, they’ve slipped an anchor to reality. Worse, they start making up their own version of reality to fit that imagined ‘right.’

A point that scares me is when they start saying ‘well because I don’t use physical violence, nobody else should either.’

I like to point out that people who say ‘Violence never solved anything’ are both liars and extremists. To begin with, in order for that statement to be proven true, you’re going to have to ask every person on the planet, “Hey, did violence never work for you?” Then you’re going to have to build a time machine and ask every person who has EVER lived, did violence not work for you?” Even without the time machine, you’re going to run into some folks who it worked pretty well for.

The use of the word ‘never’ is an extremist position. But people don’t think of it that way. So they don’t stand up and challenge that stupid statement. Most folks understand that sometimes physical violence is necessary. As a society, we need to have one hell of an argument about when that is. And yes, I like the fact that the bar is held up to a high standard with most folks. But we also need to understand there are folks out there who are rabidly against any kind of physical violence. And they’re willing to let you die to prove they’re right.

When you encounter someone like that you need to know how to point out that they’re position is a barking moonbat one — otherwise they’ll bully everyone who’s trying to find a reasonable compromise or understand WHY violence was necessary.

Because face it, sometimes you gotta use force to solve a situation. The challenge then becomes how to explain to people that it was the right decision given the circumstances and that you didn’t over react. This especially to the cops.

– Marc MacYoung

I used to be that way, to say that “violence is never the answer”.

Eventually I came to realize that sometimes violence is the answer.

First, you must accept that, for the most part, we all condone violence as an answer; we just delegate undertaking that violence to someone else – the police, the military, etc.. That’s what enables a lot of people to take the stance of “violence is never the answer” because of this delegation. But note it’s precisely because someone else is willing and able to do violence on their behalf, that they are enabled this “privilege” of being non-violent and espousing non-violence as some sort of ideal to strive for.

Would it be nice if we could eliminate senseless violence from the world? Sure. But it won’t happen, Jack. Violence is a part of life and being throughout history; it’s just part of the human condition. The trick is how you look at that violence.

See, violence in and of itself is neither good nor bad. It just is. The evaluation of good or bad depends upon the people involved and the context. If my daughter is being raped, that violent act is bad (in my book). If my daughter draws a gun and stops the rapist, that violent act is good (in my book). And yes, right there violence is an answer. In fact, it’s likely the only effective answer because begging and pleading, negotiation, curling up in a ball, praying, hoping for someone to come along… those are highly unlikely to stop the bad violence happening now. In fact, if someone else comes along, chances are they will and the victim will want them to undertake a violent act to stop the rape, else we’re back to begging and pleading.

Or consider, as Marc also discusses in his interview, that we all tend to look at violence in some very cut and dry way. That it’s going to be some dude getting up in your face, or that mugger, or a carjacking, or just like you’ve seen on TV and the movies. There are different levels, different contexts of violence. If you’re out somewhere, someone gets drunk, starts acting stupid, and just needs to be sat on until they sober up and stop running their mouth… well, you might have to use some violence on them to get them to shut up. But that doesn’t mean breaking their arm or shooting them; it may just mean a little restraining joint lock to get them to come along with you to another room where they can sober up in private. Was this bad violence? Well, the drunk might think so at the time, but most everyone else will probably be happy to be rid of him so they can go back to enjoying the party.

As Marc alludes to, the discussion to have is WHEN violence is the right and necessary answer. And yes, the bar should be held to a very high standard. Our trouble is we’ve become “too civilized” and it’s not politically desirable to talk about violence in a frank and honest way. We think we’re above it, so we’d rather deny it. Or that we’ve move so far away from it, so many people are detached and inexperienced/ignorant of the concept, they don’t even know how to begin to discuss it. This causes our problems because violence is very real, very much exists, and while chances of you being in a bad violent encounter may be slim, when it does happen it’s going to suck, especially if you’re not prepared for it.

Consider as well that when people think about “discussing violence”, most think about physical techniques. They think the discussion is only around how to throw and take a punch, how to shoot a gun, how to use pepper spray, how to knee him in the crotch and yell “NO!” and other such techniques. This is only part of it. Another part of it is how to see that violence is coming, because there are pre-fight cues. How to avoid violence in the first place (e.g. don’t go to stupid places; don’t associate with stupid people; don’t do stupid things). How to manage the aftermath of violence. To learn “emotional self-control” (which would be good for life in general) to keep you out of trouble. “Always Be Cool“. These are topics that are very much part of the discussion of violence, and to know when it’s the right answer… and perhaps how to keep it from needing to be the answer.

To say “violence is never the answer” is either ignorant or disingenuous. I was ignorant. I became educated. I prefer violence to not be the answer, but I accept that sometimes it is the answer. Hopefully we can have open and honest discussions on this topic, as that will serve humanity far more than denial will.

Hypocrite

/ hsoi / 7 Comments

And these are our kids. This is what they’re thinking about.

And so what we should be thinking about is our responsibility to care for them and shield them from harm and give them the tools they need to grow up and do everything that they’re capable of doing, not just to pursue their own dreams but to help build this country. This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe.

This is how we will be judged. And their voices should compel us to change.

– President Barack Obama

So…. how about the 3000+ children killed by abortions (census.gov) each day in the US? According to that census.gov data, that’s 1.2 million abortions per year. Compare that to the 543 people that have been killed in mass shootings over the past 20 years. So about 27 people killed in mass shootings per year versus 1.2 million abortions per year. This isn’t minimizing, it’s perspective on the killing of innocent lives (children or otherwise) and what is truly a culprit.

Where is your outrage?

Where is your responsibility to care for them, to shield them from harm, to give them not just the tools to grow up but even the chance to be born to they can pursue dreams to help build this country.

Why is this not your first task?

And yes… this IS how you will be judged.

If you want to talk about how “if it saves just one life then it’s worth it”, then I reckon banning abortion ought to be pretty damn worth it, eh?

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. — and his guns

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

Some people keep asking “why would anyone need one of those?”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. needed “one of those”. From the HuffPo:

Most people think King would be the last person to own a gun. Yet in the mid-1950s, as the civil rights movement heated up, King kept firearms for self-protection. In fact, he even applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

A recipient of constant death threats, King had armed supporters take turns guarding his home and family. He had good reason to fear that the Klan in Alabama was targeting him for assassination.

Granted King and his supporters didn’t use AR-15’s; they used the current technology of the time, as the AR-15 hadn’t been invented yet. But if it was today, they certainly would have because it’s the current technology of the time. Just like we use the Internet and iPhone’s, instead of black-and-white TV’s and hand-written letters.

In fact, you can see some of the racist roots of gun control because of Dr. King:

As I found researching my new book, Gunfight, in 1956, after King’s house was bombed, King applied for a concealed carry permit in Alabama. The local police had discretion to determine who was a suitable person to carry firearms. King, a clergyman whose life was threatened daily, surely met the requirements of the law, but he was rejected nevertheless. At the time, the police used any wiggle room in the law to discriminate against African Americans.

Lordy no! We can’t be letting them filthy niggers have guns! that might allow them to stand on equal footing with us! That might enable them to stand up to our tyranny! Hooray for gun control and its racist roots. *sigh*

Dr. King wasn’t the only civil rights activist that kept a gun:

T.R.M. Howard, the Mississippi doctor and mutual aid leader who founded the pioneering Regional Council of Negro Leadership, slept with a Thompson submachine gun at the foot of his bed. During the murder trial that followed the horrific lynching of 14-year-old Emmett Till, Howard escorted Till’s grieving mother and various others to and from the courthouse in a heavily-armed caravan.

Similarly, John R. Salter, one of the organizers of the famous 1963 sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in Jackson, Mississippi, said he always “traveled armed” while working as a civil rights organizer in the South. “I’m alive today because of the Second Amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms,” Salter said.

The original HuffPo article ends with:

Whether a broader acceptance of the King’s later pacifism would have made us safer than choosing guns, we will never know.

Nothing said Dr. King was aggressive about his use of guns. He used them to stay alive in the face of obvious danger to his life. Granted his life was cut short, but how much sooner could he have been taken from us? Might we never have heard his “I Have A Dream” speech? No, we will never know.

But this is why some people need guns. It may be that woman with a crazy ex, because a piece of paper called a restraining order will not keep him away from her. It may be the elderly couple that just cannot stand up to a strong young thug. It may be the black man in fear of his life because as far as we’ve come, we’ve still a long ways to go.

Most gun owners I know are not violent people (conversely it seems lots of anti-gun people are rather violent). They do not wish violence, they do not want violence. They are peaceful people and try to undertake actions and options of peace and avoidance. They would prefer to just go through their lives peacefully and being left alone, and leaving you alone to live your life. The difference is we accept ugly things may happen to us, and we wish to be prepared to contend with them if they do — just like Dr. King was.

Austin Gun Show Ban – next chapter

/ hsoi

Austin wanted to ban gun shows.

Much legal precedent, and the Texas AG came out and said “you can’t do that”.

Now it appears Travis County officials have accepted that:

AUSTIN (KXAN) – Travis County Commissioners on Tuesday voted to honor the existing contract with the organizer of the gun shows at the Travis County Expo.

The unanimous vote came after the five-member body met with its lawyers and heard from people with an interest in the topic.

Full story (h/t Tim)

As far as I can tell, it wasn’t a question of if they wanted to or not, but merely a question of if they had any legal ability to do so. And they do not.

“The first thing we ought to do is huddle with legal counsel in executive session for a follow up legal briefing,” Travis County Judge Sam Biscoe said before the vote. “We discussed it in part last Tuesday, and the preliminary determination was that we probably did not have the authority — which is why we didn’t take any action. ”

The angle I took with the Travis County Commissioners as well as the Austin City Council wasn’t that of guns — because it’s evident they have their minds made up on that topic. So, it was better to take the approach of what a politician cares about: money and re-election. If they tried this, they would have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in simple rental revenue, and they would have likely lost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars from the resulting lawsuits. Given “these tough economic times” and how it’s been tough for the City and County to manage a budget, all the other cuts they’ve had to make, all the tax increases they’ve done well… to invite revenue loss through severed contracts and lawsuits, that would simply be irresponsible.

Seems they realized this:

Opponents argue the county would lose $128,000 in rental-fee revenues from the pending contracts of the nine Saxet Gun Show events scheduled this year.

[Travis County Judge Sam] Biscoe said if they were to cancel those contracts, it’s more than likely the county would face legal battles for damages.

I doubt this issue has been put to rest, but it seems at least a dose of reality has been taken.

Updated:  I need to ammend this.

First, it seems the devil is in the details. They are going to honor the existing contract. The implication is future contracts will be “considered”, and you can bet they’ll reject them for whatever reason. And in some respects, that’s their prerogative.

Second, it seems the City of Austin is still going to figure out what they can do regarding city-owned properties. So yeah, the issue hasn’t been put to rest.

Sporting Ammunition and the Fire Fighter

/ hsoi

This video, produced by SAAMI, has been going around for a couple months, but because it’s 25 minutes long I didn’t have a chance to watch it until this past weekend. Make the time to watch it, because it’s informative and kinda cool too.

The video was made to address concerns of firefighters regarding sporting ammunition. Things like dropping ammunition, ammo getting crushed, and of course, ammunition being involved in fires.

The main takeaway is that sporting ammunition is difficult to ignite, and when it does it doesn’t propagate (e.g. one round going off doesn’t cause other rounds to go off and chain reaction into a big problem). As well, consider that gunpowder isn’t an explosion but rather an extremely fast burn with an extremely rapid expansion of gas. The gas wants to expand in the path of least resistance. This is why when a cartridge is contained within the chamber of a firearm, things work as they do because there’s only one path of least resistance: down the barrel and out the muzzle. But when the cartridge is “free standing”, there isn’t much to contain it so the brass case shatters, the bullet does fly, it’s nothing you still want to get hit with, but it’s all of such low velocity that it’s not a big problem.

Watch the video, you’ll see.

That said, still take care with storage of ammunition, and don’t be a dumbass and throw cartridges on a fire because you want to hear the rounds cook off.