Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / General => Topic started by: X-ray on November 11, 2006, 04:06:07 PM
-
(ltstanfo you will love this)
Another fine example of the media not knowing what the hell they are talking about. Is there no research done at all before they print this garbage?
Click (http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/walthamforest/walthamforestnews/display.var.1013959.0.bullet_found_in_doorway.php)
I've seen more accurate facts on CSI :lol:
-
For those of us that are not well versed in ballistics, perhaps you could expand on that "in the know" guffaw at the article.
To me, it looks like a round of live ammunition from a firearm of some description.
If I were to find something like it, what should I do? I would assume not repeatedly smacking it with a six inch nail in any small indentation I find on the base whilst looking at the head from the other side would be a start ;-)
-
@ Karlos
Well, I will first point out all the bollox, then I will tell you a little about ammunition.
----------------------------------------------------------
The .22 calibre short round bullet was found at the entrance
There is no such thing as a short round bullet. Anyway the thing they found was a cartridge. The bullet is the projectile that is loaded in that cartridge. It is not illegal to have bullets (unless they are hollowpoints). You can order a bag of bullets online legally (as I have done). It is live cartridges that are illegal without a firearms certificate.
The bullet, of Swiss origin, was still in its brass casing, complete with enough gunpowder for it to fire itself.
Okay here they change their tune and say the bullet was in a case, but the rest is crap. Firstly there is no way to determine how much powder is in the cartridge just by looking at it. It may not even have powder in it. It may not even have primer compound. And it definitely can't fire itself.
Mr Khan said that if it had been struck hard enough or exposed to heat it could have gone off.
Not the paper's fault, this is Khan's lack of knowledge. Firstly the .22 short is a rimfire cartridge and therefore has to be struck on the rim at the back before it will discharge. Secondly, tests have been done to determine how much heat is required to set these off, and it is quite a bit. For example it won't go off if left in a hot car or on a hot pavement. Even if it does goes off (let's say somebody set it off by means of a blowtorch) there is little chance for injury. The item most likely to cause injury is the case, not the bullet. This has been proven in house fires where ammunition has been involved.
It was live, primed and active," he said.
Not the paper's fault, Kahn's fault. He had no way of knowing whether it was a live cartridge or not. It is not a centerfire cartridge so he cannot comment on whether it is primed or not. Even if it was a centerfire cartridge with an intact primer cup, there is no way of telling whether there is primer compound within the cup, without opening the cartridge or discharging it (firing it).
Ammunition of this kind would ordinarily be used in a small handgun or pistol, and both can be owned legally under licence.
Bollox. Those handguns are banned. You can't license those. But the legality of handguns isn't a factor because those cartridges can be fired in .22 rifles, which are legal to own (even in semi-automatic) with a license (a firearms certificate). I have fired all lengths of .22 cartridges in the same rifle.
-
Regardless of the technical issues obvious to someone such as yourself, is it a proper for someone like me to assume that were I to find what appears to be an unfired round of ammunition to treat it as potentially dangerous?
I'm not so ignorant as to believe just manually handling it normally would be a risk but I imagine a curious person (read bored kid) might make a serious mistake trying to see what is inside?
-
@ Karlos
Here is a picture of a .38 Special and a .22 Long Rifle cartridge. The .22 short in the story will be the same calibre but a shorter case. It is therefore less 'powerful.'
(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/38vs22size.jpg)
Don't worry about what sort of bullet is loaded in that cartridge, generally they will either be lead like the .38 seen there or they will be lead but with a jacket (like what you see in the movies). The .22 bullet in a short or long rifle case is never jacketed. That copper look you see there is a 'wash' that can be scraped off even with your fingernail.
At the back of the cartridges there is a difference between centerfire and rimfire:
(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/Primersintactrear.jpg)
These are live cartridges. The .38 has a proper central primer cup and the .22 has no obvious primer, but there is primer compound inside the rim. The location of the primer in each case is arrowed. In the .22 the primer compound will be in the rim all the way around the base. Those imprints on the bases of the cartridges identify the manufacturer and have nothing to do with primers.
Here you can see where the firing fin of the gun in each case has hit the base of the cartridge in order to discharge it (arrowed):
(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/PrimersHit.jpg)
And here is a longitudinal section through those cases to show the difference between the two primers. The main capacity of the case is for the gunpowder (not shown):
(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/Primers.jpg)
It is very unlikely that you can set off a cartridge by dropping it on the ground. However I wouldn't do it. If you find a cartridge like that, it will be impossible to manually pull the bullet out with your fingers. They are crimped into the case and have to be fired out or extracted with a tool. These cartridges are safe to handle, and even if you were able to discharge one by hitting the back with a nail, it wouldn't go very far because it wouldn't be in a barrel where it could be propelled for any length of time by the gases of combustion.
So what do you do if you find one of those?
1) Get a clear plastic bag and pick it up like a dog turd.
2) Don't touch the case, because you might leave fingerprints on there.
3) Don't touch the cartridge with any tools and avoid unnecessary handling. Forensic tests can match that cartridge to a gun if it has been chambered and then unchambered.
4) That item could be evidence in a crime and you definitely don't want to add your prints or make extra impressions on that.
5) When the cartridge is in the bag, call the police to collect it (saves you a trip).
If you find a firearm: well that is a whole different kettle of fish...
-
@X-Ray
I understand the difference between a bullet and an unfired cartridge. This seems to be a semantic issue, really. A bullet was found (albeit still in the cartridge).
I can see that the story is factually ropey but the main point seemed to be about the fact the thing was found, not exactly what it was.
The bullet, of Swiss origin, was still in its brass casing, complete with enough gunpowder for it to fire itself.
Okay here they change their tune and say the bullet was in a case, but the rest is crap. Firstly there is no way to determine how much powder is in the cartridge just by looking at it. It may not even have powder in it. It may not even have primer compound. And it definitely can't fire itself.
I can only assume this is mostly down to a bad use of english (and lack of specific knowledge), but I assume it meant the cartridge could conceivably detonate if tampered with. Due to the lack of a barrel and the associated gas powered acceleration of the actual bullet, I have no real idea how dangerous this would be, but at very close range I can only assume it is potentially quite dangerous. I dpn't think they meant to imply it could literally "fire itself" :-D
As for the contents, upon finding a seemingly complete round of ammunition, is there any reason to assume it isn't actually what it appears to be? I would imagine that live ammunintion vastly outnumbers any other kind and therefore, if you find something like that in an unexpected place (ie not in a cabinet full of someone's private munitions collection) it's statistically a lot more likely to be live than not, right?
Mr Khan said that if it had been struck hard enough or exposed to heat it could have gone off.
Not the paper's fault, this is Khan's lack of knowledge. Firstly the .22 short is a rimfire cartridge and therefore has to be struck on the rim at the back before it will discharge. Secondly, tests have been done to determine how much heat is required to set these off, and it is quite a bit. For example it won't go off if left in a hot car or on a hot pavement. Even if it does goes off (let's say somebody set it off by means of a blowtorch) there is little chance for injury. The item most likely to cause injury is the case, not the bullet. This has been proven in house fires where ammunition has been involved.
Surely the guy was just expressing his concern. Like I said, if it were thoughtlessly tampered with, surely it could be dangerous.
If I found a seemmingly unused round of ammunition here, I'd be pretty concerned too. Now, as this guy is reported to be a member of a gun club you could say he ought to know more about munitions than he appears to.
It was live, primed and active," he said.
Not the paper's fault, Kahn's fault. He had no way of knowing whether it was a live cartridge or not. It is not a centerfire cartridge so he cannot comment on whether it is primed or not. Even if it was a centerfire cartridge with an intact primer cup, there is no way of telling whether there is primer compound within the cup, without opening the cartridge or discharging it (firing it).
Ok, but as I say, is there a valid reason to assume it isn't a complete round? Statistically, what is the likelyhood of it being something... I don't know... ornamental?
The last issue is, what was it doing lying around in the doorway?
-
"...I can see that the story is factually ropey..."
----------------------------------------------------
It isn't factually ropey, it is downright misleading and devoid of any research. There is a definite difference between a bullet and a cartridge, and it isn't just semantics. It is a critical element in the story. It is the difference between going free and perhaps having 5 years in jail. It also is the difference between having forensic experts at the scene for trajectory analysis and having a cop show up to collect a cartridge.
The legality of weapons and the nature of the item found, and the apparent danger it poses to somebody who handles it, is not something that is subject to dramatic license. You don't have the liberty of semantics when discussing arms and ammunition.
Certainly they offered several pieces of information as fact, when they clearly aren't.
The bottom line is:
1) The cartridge cannot go off by itself.
2) It cannot go off because of environmental heat.
3) It cannot go off if handled with fingers.
4) It is very unlikely to go off if dropped.
5) If it did go off without being chambered, the damage would be minimal. Mythbusters did a test with the larger .22 long rifle cartridges, held in a fuse clip and those cases had very little penetration. The .22 short will have even less.
As to how it got there, it probably dropped out of somebody's bag or clothing.
It's no excuse, the person who dropped that is liable. I've come home from a day at the range and found a cartridge in my bag before. Trouble was, it wasn't a brand of cartridge that I was firing. It was ejected from a weapon in an adjacent bay when the shooter was clearing a jam and the round just happened to go into an outside pouch on a shoulder bag I had. But it became my problem after I discovered it.
You do get all manner of replicas, blanks and deactivated ammunition. These are more likely to be seen than a real round lying in a doorway. Live ammunition is more difficult for criminals to get than illegal handguns.
Of course if you find a heap of cartridges in a crack den then those are probably not going to be replicas ;-)
You're right about handling it as if it is real: that is the safest way, but that doesn't mean you can make statements about its composition to the press, or that the press can entertain guesswork on the composiion and 'lethality' of the round.
-
(http://www.satan.org.uk/irc/mrlogic.jpg)
-
:-?
I don't get that, Cannon Fodder
-
The thread reminded me of the Mr Logic cartoon strip in Viz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic)
-
Armed Robber: No nonsense. Just give me all your money.
Mr Logic: I shall commence by pointing out to you that my demeanour is not one which could be described as nonsensical. Consequently I can attest you have no cause to reprimand me on your first point. On to your second point: Bearing in mind the potentially lethal situation in which I find myself, to wit: your presence in conjunction with the presumably loaded firearm which is presently levelled at my cranium, I will comply with your request comprehensively, albeit reluctantly. Here, twenty-seven pence.
------------------------------------------------------------
:lol:
-
Armed Robber: Twenty-seven pence? F*** off. There's more than that in the till.
Mr Logic: Indeed, undoubtedly so. However your request was for *my* money. The currency in the till belongs to a third party and is therefore not "my money". However, if you are still desirous of said money I would suggest that you re-phrase your original statement to recognise and incorporate this important distinction.
-
X-ray wrote:
Click (http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/walthamforest/walthamforestnews/display.var.1013959.0.bullet_found_in_doorway.php)
I've seen more accurate facts on CSI :lol:
"To get hold of one of these is not easy. You have to go through a scrutinised search, you need a licence and you have to belong to a club."
Here you just need to go to the sporting goods section at Walmart ...
-
CannonFodder wrote:
(http://www.satan.org.uk/irc/mrlogic.jpg)
:roflmao:
-
@ Wilse
I reckon the papers could use some help from Mr Logic instead of spreading bollox most of the time.
That's made me want to find old Viz comics now. I can see that dude being a real favourite :-)
-
Viz rocks! It's been a thorn in the side of censorship for nearly twenty years now with it's faux-Beano layout and some inspired characters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Poo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mellie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobby%27s_Piles
It doesn't travel well though, readers need an understanding of regional British humour...
-
X-ray wrote:
It isn't factually ropey, it is downright misleading and devoid of any research.
I see commonalities with your post, then.
There is a definite difference between a bullet and a cartridge, and it isn't just semantics.
But is it of interest to, say, the 98% (whatever) of the readership who are not [ex-]Forces, or acquainted with firearms. No. To such a person a "bullet" is a bullet, not a round or live ammunition.
It is a critical element in the story.
No it isn't. The critical element of the entire story is that a round of live ammunition was found in a shop doorway. This is hardly a common ocurence, and was deemed newsworthy. The find itself is *the* critical element.
It is the difference between going free and perhaps having 5 years in jail. It also is the difference between having forensic experts at the scene for trajectory analysis and having a cop show up to collect a cartridge.
But of little interest to the public. You a member of the public walked into a police station having picked up a live round to hand it in, even having handled it, its highly unlikely you will be charged. If they found the bullet itself, I doubt they would recognise it for what is is.
The legality of weapons and the nature of the item found, and the apparent danger it poses to somebody who handles it, is not something that is subject to dramatic license. You don't have the liberty of semantics when discussing arms and ammunition.
Yes it is when it is in the public interest to over-emphasise the danger. Ammunition is fairly harmless, but there is a risk regardless. It is not the role of a newspaper to educate their readership how to handle live ammunition, so better to over-emphasise the potential danger.
And frankly, like any other subject, weaponry is subject to semantics. You use it yourself, with the phrase "go off"...
Certainly they offered several pieces of information as fact, when they clearly aren't.
The bottom line is:
1) The cartridge cannot go off by itself.
2) It cannot go off because of environmental heat.
3) It cannot go off if handled with fingers.
4) It is very unlikely to go off if dropped.
5) If it did go off without being chambered, the damage would be minimal. Mythbusters did a test with the larger .22 long rifle cartridges, held in a fuse clip and those cases had very little penetration. The .22 short will have even less.
Where in the article are these offered...
The article does not mention environmental heat, it states "exposed to heat". That includes fire, and ammunition can "cook off" in a fire.
it does not state that it can go off if handled with fingers, nor if dropped.
Although the damage might be minimal, try explaining that to the parents of a child injured or even killed by an accidental discharge... that is an unacceptable risk. As per the Police quote - "if it goes bang, it is still lethal"
... but that doesn't mean you can make statements about its composition to the press, or that the press can entertain guesswork on the composiion and 'lethality' of the round.
Mr Khan was perfectly accurate to treat the round as live, describe the risks as per live, and echo the sentiment that one certainly wouldn't want a child to pick it up.
regarding the earlier comments how he should be better informed if he was a member of a gun club and owns a firearm licence, sorry, thats assumptive. There is no reason why those two facts would bestow much more knowledge other than the safe handling of weapons and ammunition.
Its is not actually stated that the ammount of "gunpowder" in the round was determined by visual inspection, consulting Sceptic Peg the local clairvoyant, or from subsequent Police analysis.
Mr Khan did not state where it had to be struck, nor did he say that it was a centrfire or rimfire. His "live, primed and active" comment was inacurrate, sure, but made a newsworthy soundbite. But again, as one treats all ammunition as live, its only sensible to pass this on (which perhaps he did, but the newspaper edited it down considerably, passing the substance rather than the wordage.
yes, there were errors in the reporting (as you picked up, the illegality of handguns), but nothimg that amounts to a public dis-service.
-
@ alewis
"...I see commonalities with your post, then..."
--------------------------------------------------
Oh really? Where was my post factually ropey and devoid of research?
"...But is it of interest to, say, the 98% (whatever) of the readership who are not [ex-]Forces, or acquainted with firearms. No. To such a person a "bullet" is a bullet, not a round or live ammunition..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Just because something ahs been erroneously described or misrepresented by a majority does not make it acceptable. That might be appropriate for Chavs discussing sports player nicknames, but it isn't appropriate for a piece that is written about the technicalities and hazards of a cartridge found in a doorway.
"...No it isn't. The critical element of the entire story is that a round of live ammunition was found in a shop doorway. This is hardly a common ocurence, and was deemed newsworthy. The find itself is *the* critical element..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oh, well in that case I will have to notify those reporters that I found a multicoloured bird-dropping on my front step this morning. You don't see too many of those around here, perhaps that find will be the critical element in their next story.
"...If they found the bullet itself, I doubt they would recognise it for what is is..."
--------------------------------------------------------
You are right on that point, but it doesn't take into account all the inputs into the story. If they have gone so far as to get a police opinion on the cartridge, they might as well call it a cartridge. It wasn't just Khan's opinion being reported, after all.
"...Yes it is when it is in the public interest to over-emphasise the danger. Ammunition is fairly harmless, but there is a risk regardless. It is not the role of a newspaper to educate their readership how to handle live ammunition, so better to over-emphasise the potential danger..."
----------------------------------------------------------
You call it over-emphasising, I call it misrepresenting. That is the first step in media scaremongering.
"...And frankly, like any other subject, weaponry is subject to semantics. You use it yourself, with the phrase "go off"..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I am guilty of making that slip, but then again I did it in the coffee house, not a news publication. Please don't be over-critical of me when I am not being paid to post ;-)
"...Where in the article are these offered..."
----------------------------------------------------------
I offered them, as a bottom line and adjunct to the pictures I posted, as a rebuttal for their statement that the cartridge could 'fire itself'
"...The article does not mention environmental heat, it states "exposed to heat". That includes fire, and ammunition can "cook off" in a fire..."
----------------------------------------------------------
And that would be the least dangerous of any possible discharge of a loose cartridge. Unless you are suggesting somebody sat with the cartridge in the fire until such time it discharged.
"...it does not state that it can go off if handled with fingers, nor if dropped."
----------------------------------------------------------
That was my information, as part of my bottom line.
"...As per the Police quote - "if it goes bang, it is still lethal..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I have not heard of a single case where a fatality has resulted from the loose discharge of a .22 short cartridge. In fact I have not heard of any significant injuries sustained from the discharge of a loose .22 LR cartridge either. Don't trust the police for accurate information about ballistics, I have first hand experience that tells me that the majority of them know very little about the subject. They might know the difference between a cartridge and a bullet, but not the effects of a loose discharge. The danger is vastly overstated and does not even approach the danger posed by a simple firework. The issue is more the legality of it. Do you think they would be up in arms if someone left an unlit firework in a doorway? Of course not.
"...Mr Khan was perfectly accurate to treat the round as live, describe the risks as per live, and echo the sentiment that one certainly wouldn't want a child to pick it up..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yep, I agreed to that in my response to Karlos (although I don't agree with how they described the risks).
"...regarding the earlier comments how he should be better informed if he was a member of a gun club and owns a firearm licence, sorry, thats assumptive. There is no reason why those two facts would bestow much more knowledge other than the safe handling of weapons and ammunition..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry but that is nonsense. There are range restrictions related to calibre, velocity, projectile composition and ammunition compatibility with club and members' weapons. These are per range, per club and sometimes even per bay/lane. Members should know this, especially if they have had their 13 visits as a probationer. Probationers generally cannot shoot alone for their first 6 visits and have to be signed off per weapon category after that. Are you a member of a rifle club here in the UK?
"..Mr Khan did not state where it had to be struck, nor did he say that it was a centrfire or rimfire..."
----------------------------------------------------
I know he didn't provide that information, I provided it. Next you'll be saying Khan didn't provide the pictures in this thread. I provided those as a reference for users to see what the differences are externally between the two.
"...His "live, primed and active" comment was inacurrate, sure, but made a newsworthy soundbite..."
---------------------------------------------------------
You've got to be kidding, right? Why didn't they go the whole hog and say it's guidance system was locked on? You can't make an excuse for that one, or the comment that it 'had enough gunpowder to fire itself'
"...But again, as one treats all ammunition as live, its only sensible to pass this on (which perhaps he did, but the newspaper edited it down considerably, passing the substance rather than the wordage..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I fully acknowledge that the press makes things up to spice up a story. Where did they get the 'substance' of the legal handguns though? That is quite a specific comment.
"...yes, there were errors in the reporting (as you picked up, the illegality of handguns), but nothimg that amounts to a public dis-service..."
----------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that this happens too often. There is no accuracy in the reporting. In an upscaled version of this, Panorama covered the risks associated with having X-rays in a hospital. They completely misrepresented what procedures are in place and the nature of the radiation involved. To use your description for it, they 'over-emphasized' the danger that is posed by ionizing radiation used for medical diagnosis. I had patients harassing me in the corridors, demanding to know what dose they had recieved in previous examinations because the program insinuated that hairloss and erythema were common occurences in radiography today.
They made a mountain out of a molehill with that cartridge story and I think you know why they did it: lack of research and a desire for sensationalism. At a forensic conference in 2004 a Sky News guy admitted to us that in a major incident they would find whatever sources they could (whether accurate or not) to provide background material for the incident if they felt that the authorities were not supplying them with information about the incident quickly enough. Stories such as this one are the delight of those who would like any ammunition (if you excuse the pun) to call for a total ban on firearms in the UK.
-
X-ray wrote:
@ alewis
"...No it isn't. The critical element of the entire story is that a round of live ammunition was found in a shop doorway. This is hardly a common ocurence, and was deemed newsworthy. The find itself is *the* critical element..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oh, well in that case I will have to notify those reporters that I found a multicoloured bird-dropping on my front step this morning. You don't see too many of those around here, perhaps that find will be the critical element in their next story.
:lol: Posible Bird flu!
as per:
X-ray wrote:
@ alewis
"...Yes it is when it is in the public interest to over-emphasise the danger. Ammunition is fairly harmless, but there is a risk regardless. It is not the role of a newspaper to educate their readership how to handle live ammunition, so better to over-emphasise the potential danger..."
----------------------------------------------------------
You call it over-emphasising, I call it misrepresenting. That is the first step in media scaremongering.
X-ray wrote:
They made a mountain out of a molehill with that cartridge story and I think you know why they did it: lack of research and a desire for sensationalism. ... Stories such as this one are the delight of those who would like any ammunition (if you excuse the pun) to call for a total ban on firearms in the UK.
It could be said this story has an agenda and is scaremongering for your own good. Quit letting facts, get in they way of them helping you, because the nanny state knows best whats good for you.
:lol:
-
"...I see commonalities with your post, then..."
--------------------------------------------------
Oh really? Where was my post factually ropey and devoid of research?
Ok, slighty tongue in cheek, and now that you have said part of your post were in rebuttal (I took them to mean rebuttal of specific points)
"...But is it of interest to, say, the 98% (whatever) of the readership who are not [ex-]Forces, or acquainted with firearms. No. To such a person a "bullet" is a bullet, not a round or live ammunition..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Just because something ahs been erroneously described or misrepresented by a majority does not make it acceptable.
it isnt being erroneously described or misrepresented by a majority. It is not understood by the majority of people, an entirely different concept. I agree, that simply because the *majortity* of *reporters* erroneously report something doesnt make it acceptable. However, lets say on ehad an informed reporter, he would, in all likelihood, write in terms the *majority* of the readership would understand. Hence bullet rather than cartridge.
"...No it isn't. The critical element of the entire story is that a round of live ammunition was found in a shop doorway. This is hardly a common ocurence, and was deemed newsworthy. The find itself is *the* critical element..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oh, well in that case I will have to notify those reporters that I found a multicoloured bird-dropping on my front step this morning. You don't see too many of those around here, perhaps that find will be the critical element in their next story.
You never know.
"...If they found the bullet itself, I doubt they would recognise it for what is is..."
--------------------------------------------------------
You are right on that point, but it doesn't take into account all the inputs into the story. If they have gone so far as to get a police opinion on the cartridge, they might as well call it a cartridge. It wasn't just Khan's opinion being reported, after all.
See earlier point. Again, phrasing in terms most readers would understand, rather than the minority who are intimate with the subject matter.
"...Yes it is when it is in the public interest to over-emphasise the danger. Ammunition is fairly harmless, but there is a risk regardless. It is not the role of a newspaper to educate their readership how to handle live ammunition, so better to over-emphasise the potential danger..."
----------------------------------------------------------
You call it over-emphasising, I call it misrepresenting. That is the first step in media scaremongering.
I agree that the press can scaremonger, as can the govt (who, for example, have been over-exaggerating the risk of terrorism to further their own agenda). But in this case, what use would scaremongering gain? But I feel that more often than not the press are not scaremongering, simply sensationalising to boost sales...
semanitcs
No worries :-) neither am I.. could be quite a lucrative job though!
I offered them, as a bottom line and adjunct to the pictures I posted, as a rebuttal for their statement that the cartridge could 'fire itself'
I see, as standalone terms in general agreement. I wonder if the phrase "fire itself" was shorthand for "could be fired without a weapon"... who knows. Immaterial. Technically they are inert, unless you have the misfortune to have been provided with old 7.62mm ball bought from India, or mortar rounds from Italy.... but thats another story!
"...The article does not mention environmental heat, it states "exposed to heat". That includes fire, and ammunition can "cook off" in a fire..."
----------------------------------------------------------
And that would be the least dangerous of any possible discharge of a loose cartridge. Unless you are suggesting somebody sat with the cartridge in the fire until such time it discharged.
Whilst it might be the least dangerous, there is still a risk. And that whislt the probability may be small, it is still there. And has produced casualties.
"...As per the Police quote - "if it goes bang, it is still lethal..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I have not heard of a single case where a fatality has resulted from the loose discharge of a .22 short cartridge. In fact I have not heard of any significant injuries sustained from the discharge of a loose .22 LR cartridge either.
The phrase was obviously used as a (sensible) general principle, and not specifically in relation to this calibre and find. That makes it very valid advice. Whether any one *has* been injured is immaterial; to wait for such an accident before issuing such advice would be closing the proverbial door after the horse has bolted.
Don't trust the police for accurate information about ballistics, I have first hand experience that tells me that the majority of them know very little about the subject. They might know the difference between a cartridge and a bullet, but not the effects of a loose discharge. The danger is vastly overstated and does not even approach the danger posed by a simple firework. The issue is more the legality of it. Do you think they would be up in arms if someone left an unlit firework in a doorway? Of course not.
A police officer in general, no. And why should they, they are simpyl the same as most member so of the public in that regard. Forensic officers, and *some* firearms officers, its a different matter, with the depth/breadth of knowledge differing according to role, experience and so forth.
I'm sorry but that is nonsense. There are range restrictions related to calibre, velocity, projectile composition and ammunition compatibility with club and members' weapons. These are per range, per club and sometimes even per bay/lane. Members should know this, especially if they have had their 13 visits as a probationer. Probationers generally cannot shoot alone for their first 6 visits and have to be signed off per weapon category after that. Are you a member of a rifle club here in the UK?
I once was, and found (like most activities) the individuals knowledge, skill, competency varied considerably. But, again, whilst I would agree that it makes a members' knowledge better than that of the average non-member, it does not make them experts. Neither does it turn them all into Mr Spocks capable of resisting the urge to 'look good in front of the camera', or in this case the microphone. Only human, after all.
"..Mr Khan did not state where it had to be struck, nor did he say that it was a centrfire or rimfire..."
----------------------------------------------------
I know he didn't provide that information, I provided it.
No, but you were rebutting his statement that it could discharge if it was struck. His statement is factually correct, without going into detail
"...His "live, primed and active" comment was inacurrate, sure, but made a newsworthy soundbite..."
---------------------------------------------------------
You've got to be kidding, right? Why didn't they go the whole hog and say it's guidance system was locked on? You can't make an excuse for that one, or the comment that it 'had enough gunpowder to fire itself'
See the above re human responses. Maybe the reporter asked him for a snappy phrase. Maybe he gave an answer regarding the composition of the propellant (or used the phrase 'propellant') to which the reporter asked him to put it into terms readers would understand (or he later did so). As an example. Most people understand that Semtex is an explosive, due to reporting. How many would understand the same of PE4, RDX, TATP, etc, without an accompanying explanation? Tell people it was gunpowder and they "get it".
The press also have to fit a story into a specific number of words, page size etc. I gather you feel the story should have had a number of sidebars explaining the various terms, theory of explosives, how a weapon works, etc etc etc. Which is what would probably be needed to have "accurately" reported the find and still have a story that most readers could comprehend. At the expense of the whole issue...?
The handgun phrase is a very valid point. Perhaps someone said they were "commonly available", in the context of illegally but without specifically stating so. The reporter, unaware of the legislation passed after Dunblane, assumed legitimately. Offered only as a sugegstion, because at the end of the day it was a huge gaffe. But, really, immaterial if someone then tried to buy a handgun and was educated that you cant, legally.
They made a mountain out of a molehill with that cartridge story and I think you know why they did it: lack of research and a desire for sensationalism.
I think they reported it because it is newsworthy - not an everyday occurence by far. They sensationalised it somewhat, to make it more interesting, but thats it.
... a Sky News guy admitted to us that in a major incident they would find whatever sources they could (whether accurate or not) to provide background material for the incident if they felt that the authorities were not supplying them with information about the incident quickly enough.
Whilst I agree this leads to inaccurate reporting, they also have a job to do (no matter how dispicable at times). they have deadlines and pressures, same as most other jobs. Could you imagine "here is the news. There is no news as we have to confirm anything we have heard". No. Perhaps they ought to prefix/substantiate with "our best information at this time is", which occasionally happens, or "details are sketchy".
That said, at the end of the day although we rely on the media for news, it is up to each individual to judge what for themselves...
Stories such as this one are the delight of those who would like any ammunition (if you excuse the pun) to call for a total ban on firearms in the UK.
Agreed, but then again that is an example of a diffwerent organisation mis-representing facts to further a particular agenda. bannign handguns has not lead to a decrease in fireamrs incidents, neither has tightening gun controls. It simple means law abiding people - the vast majority of whom woudl not run amok killing people cannot obtain them - whilst criminals, who have always been able to get them, still can. And by driving it underground even further has led to a thriving "black market" in illegal weapons.