raz-0

I know judges can consolidate cases at lower levels, can SCOTUS do the same if they want? Because I could see wanting the state's response so you could consider such an action.

Airsoft is defensible not a firearm. I would argue potato guns are definitely firearms. But do you see the ag threatening home depot for selling 80% receivers? Nooooooo.

The barrel length lowers the pressure. It's a pistol cartridge using pistol powder with pistol burn rates. Most all of them are done burning powder and experiencing a pressure drop by the time they reach the end of longer barrels. They are designed to hit their specs ina 6" test fixture.

Sigh. Come on folks. Yes lots of this is speculation, but in theory educated speculation. Why won't folks be civil about it. Squibs, if indeed you aren't referring to something different because you use the jargon different, don't guarantee nothing but an undercharged round. Some folks will use it to mean a primer only, no powder load. Some will use it to mean anything drastically undercharged so as to induce a malfunction or dangerous situation. You may well be talking past each other. I know Maks is talking from pistol shooting experience. And yes, In the pistol shooting world, shooting out a squib does happen without rupturing the barrel. It is not usually done without harm. It'll ring the barrel usually. You'll see this come up a lot in the land of 1911s because the platform is designed to fire a 20k psi cartridge, and with modern metallurgy and because the platform was overbuilt to being with, it happily digests 35k psi .40 ammo all day and night. So in the world of bullseye where some of the shooters might as well be shooting air pistols based on muzzle velocity of their mouse fart loads, squibs do happen, and they do get shot out, and the pressure level isn't that high. In USPSA or IDPA it is more common that the more common faliur is BANG - bang- BANG-lockup, no obstruction. Where the squib lodged in the barrel and the shooter and RO didn't notice or catch it in time, and the bore is clear because the blockage was shot out. THe lockup usually occurs because the barrel is ringed. With a bull barrel 1911, it may not even really stop because you have so much steel at the point of the impact and the fitting is less picky than a bushing gun. Such internet trolls as the H&K engineering team designed the USP pistol and as part of the vetting of the design, they required it be able to shoot out a squib round and still function (yes, it damaged the barrel, but it would still feed and fire). This is all different than a rifle round in a rifle. MUCH higher pressures there. But in this case we are talking about pistol cartridges in a carbine. When evaluating PCC for static steel, we chroned a bunch of carbines. Many of them shooting hot .38 super to drive comped pistols. These were generally hitting .357 magnum velocities out of 5" barrels. Out of 16" barrel they were hitting... the same velocities. Which was a surprising result, but the truth. By the time you are 14" down a 16" or 18" lever gun barrel, the pressures have dropped to WAY, WAY below the 35kpsi in the chamber at ignition. The shooter claimed to be shooting both .357 and .38 special. So we may be talking 17k at the chamber. There are literally a BUNCH of ways this can happen based on teh pictures. And BTW the pictures look like the metal was thinnest at the cut for a particular groove of rifling So it split there cleanly. You can see similar thing with banana peeled barrels, you can also get rifle failures where you don't peel the barrel, but ring the barrel and split it at the stress risers where the lands and grooves meet. Sometimes those ring type bursts only breech one side because the button cut that groove a bit deeper. Pistol, rifle, regardless of cartridge, unless you have an overcharge seriously kabooming things, have a high tendency to split along the rifling. Which are fairly linear. From my experience, overcharges are what tend to cause random fracturing of gun bits. But that is pretty much at the action end of things for obvious reasons, and thus involves area where the stress risers likely aren't straightish lines. So what do we know from the shooter? They didn't notice any change in accuracy. If there were issue with the barrel, it could have shot like poop from second one. IF the shooter sucks, they may just not be accurate, or were using it at such close range you couldn't tell the difference between marginal shooter and "whoa that's not right". Lever guns are not the most accurate things. They were shooting both .38 and .357 IIRC (since the initial post has been wiped I gotta rely on my memory). This can lead to things. So what can we say? It didnt' blow up at the action. Thus it probably wasn't an overcharged round. It is technically possible there was no obstruction. IMO for that to be feasible, there'd need to be a defect in the metal or something really messed up about the machining. But a crack forms at a stress riser at the dovetail cut from it barrel whipping or something, and it would crack along the cut and swell until pressure dropped enough. That might not happen until it hit the weakest land groove interface and then it tore up that. I don't consider that high probability. The other possibility is that there was an obstruction. There's LOTS of ways this could happen. Some of them REALLY non obvious. 1) Muzzle in the dirt or equivalent. Sure. Maybe. In a rifle cartridge definitely, but .357 and ESPECIALLY .38 special out of a lever gun, I'm doubting it unless there was also something wrong with the metal or something grievously out of whack with the machining. 2) Left a cleaning jag in there or similar. depengin on the way it went down and the chocie of tools, marginally more likely than sume dirt in the muzzle. All the below are potentially assisted and or exacerbated by potentially bad metal, or by the fact that the dovetail cuts in the barrel often cause minor constrictions of the bore. 3) Squib round. Undercharged, leaves a bullet in the barrel. Full powered round. BLAMMO. 4) Mixing ammo. Lets say you were mixing lead 38 special and SJHP, SJSP, or JHP .357 with it. It headspaces off the rim. .38 is shorter and leaves a ring of soot and lead around the chamber mouth. Then the .357 gets the jacket stripped off it when this build up gets hefty enough. gets hung up at the binding you get from the dovetail cuts. The partial obstruction gets shot out as fragments when the barrel splits. 5) something like a SJSP gets peeled by the tight spot and repeat some form of the above. 6) shooting soft lead, and it scrapes a bit off at the binding near the dovetail cuts. repeat above scenario. 7) There's a crack or other defect that starts to bulge but not rupture. Something like really weak .38 special lead loads (maybe they bought some cowboy loads?) are barely trickling out the barrel to start and once bulged enough pressure drops and obstruction. Fire another round and it cracks but shoots out the obstruction or it goes flying once the barrel opens up. etc.

Henry will take car of him because where the failure occurred is a place where lever guns with tube magazines can have a lot of issues. As I stated in a previous explanation, if the barrel got out of spec when being machined, which can happen for a number of reasons, It could have been building up lead there until it effectively turned into a partial obstruction. Could be a QC issue, could be a bad batch of steel. The cost of a barrel replacement will be small vs knowing what kind of problem they have. Even if it is an end user problem.

.357 in a lever gun is pretty tame. 38 more so. You might not notice. however, unless it was cleaned after the failure, a slowly growing crack would leave a lot of residue form the leaking gasses.

Because if if there's four people who give zero fucks about what the public has to say and are pro RKBA and four people who give zero fucks what the public has to say who are gun grabbers, and one person who gives zero fucks about what the public thinks who may vote any which way, you don't grant cert unless you think you can win the argument with the court, who you do give a fuck what they think.

For the way it burst, it's not a real squib. It would have to be an underloaded cartridge that stopped basically right at the muzzle. This is unlikley but possible. My guess is the following: There's probably something wrong with the metal of the barrel. They got a bad batch of stainless with impurities or weird crystal structures or something. Much like SA did when they had the spate of stainless slides snapping off at the slide cut on their 1911s. It is also not uncommon for the machining for a lever action with a tube magazine to negatively impact the boar as far as accuracy on a good sample, and this is often due to the machining changing the bore diameter or roundness. Combine that with bum steel and the fact the angle on the dovetail is a stress riser, and one of two things happened. 1) It was a bad enough combination that it the bullets hammering into the bore constriction were able to basically split the end of the barrel open. 2) Lots of soft lead ammo was being shot, and the bore restriction at the cut was effectively scraping off some lead and causing a build up until #1 happened. #2 could in theory happen badly enough to kill a gun without bad steel being involved, but usually you stop shooting first and try to figure out why your gun is do horribly inaccurate.

What article are you reading? At no point does he argue 300 million gun owners. He points out there are about 250 million adults in the us and the at least number for how many guns per capita are in circulation. The biggest number he poses as actual resistance is the veteran population at about 20 million. I'd argue that the scenario is very wrong as a whole, but more on that at the end. The estimates are that the number of gun owners in the US are 100 million. The number that owns semi-automatic rifles is smaller than that. The only ownership stat he gins up is that to get all the semi-autos, you would have to raid 9 million households. This is based on his estimate of number of semi-auto guns out there (which is probably conservative for the reason he states), and his math of netting 3 prohibited guns per raid. Which Is a number that may be high or low. I really can't say. LOTS of people tend to own way more than one semi auto rifle. On the other hand, how good would the data mining be to target things successfully? My guess is that the number of raids would have to be much higher because you would have WAY less than 100% accuracy on semi auto ownership. This is where I think a whole bunch of people stop thinking rationally, and the author's nod to the IRA is apt, and it becomes important to keep in mind that the number of raids is seriously, seriously optimistic. His math is a bit off. Doing some rounding to whole numbers, it's really 869 raids per team, and thus 869 raids per officer to hit that optimistic number. Assuming no attrition, casualties, etc. There's ~100 million gun owners. The question is how many of them do you get? There's also another ~200 million non gun owners. the question is what will they put up with before they see the government as a problem? Because the reality is you are likely going to have to kick down WAY more than 9 million doors to get them all. Even at 9 million, that's basically one in every 13 homes. And that is if they ONLY ban semi auto rifles and things work out beyond optimistically. Realistically, even with high quality data mining, face to face sales, 80% receivers, etc will mean going to a number of households larger than that, AND so far the stupidity seems to want to include semi auto pistols. So... WAY. WAYYYYY more households than that. But lets be kind and say double it. That means kicking in the door of about 1 in 5 households. That will generate opinions amongst the populace. And he already suggested how it would be organized. It'll be the guys you know and trust. You ahve a handful of buddies you have known forever? One of them jsut got capped by a SWAT team last weekend and you are getting together after the funeral for a drink and really pissed off? Maybe you get to talking about how some fuckers need to pay? How many more people when they hear rumors of things that sound like they might be talking about you will give you a ring to let you know something might be happening but without putting any real skin in the game? This is how it happens at the very least. More organized than that? Look at how many gangs we have in the US. They have their own governing documents and rules and such. They are arguably competing forms of government in some locations. As a concept, the havock the IRA caused was with WAY less guns and with a peak of at best about 5000 active trouble makers. A lot more sympathetic ears and people willing to be low commitment on the fringe, but 5000 really problematic ones. I do think he is optimistic about the retribution on the ruling class. I suspect it would look much more like enough cops get killed that the cops collect their pay checks while knowing the cops just don't go into that part of town for anything real. I don't totally disagree with you. I have said before and I will say again that all politicians are scum. they don't care about anything but gathering power and influence and not wanting to work to retain it. If a ban ever did come about, there would be NO intention of enforcing it thoroughly. Just like there has been zero attempt made to really enforce ANY gun control law to date thoroughly outside of already regulated entities. Whenever something happens, nothing effective is suggested to prevent crime. What is suggested is something that would make it harder to mint new gun owners and to stifle the existing social structures of gun owners. Why? Because to the mind of a politician they see it as destroying a voting block that opposes them FOREVER. They will likely remain opposed, but opposed and unorganized and to diffuse into other voting blocks. They don't do anything about the crime because crime creates fear, and fear can be used to gather votes. Enforcement will be arbitrary and periodic so they can keep the former gon owning voting block afraid to stand up on the subject, and keep the anti-gun voting block intact and in fear of the evil criminal gun owners. Because if you actually solved the "problem" of gun owners, the anti-gunners could vote for whoever now. If you actually fixed the criminal problem, your voters who want law and order out of fear could go vote based on other priorities. The only real point of conversations like this are to point out how people are being lied to, and how those who give a crap need to focus on the other strategies and put some effort into them. IMO the real hazard for CW2.0 surrounding guns is that we DO get a half assed ban, and some politician thinks because they said it is so, it is truly so. And decides to do something else incredibly stupid that lets them find out how many guns they didn't actually confiscate.

There have historically been two generations of extractor spring. The original weaker one, and the later stronger one. Technically if you have the stronger one, you do not need the o-ring. But since it's hard to tell which you have, people jsut slap the o-ring on there anyway as it doesn't hurt.

Who knows what batteries will be around in 20 years? People who work on batteries. Battery technology moves SLOWLY. The economics of raw materials are going to be even less fixable. So first up, CObalt. 60% is in the African Congo. And we are fucked right there. The Chinese will own most of this, and the lefties will protest our using of it to death. Because that is largely already off limits, we already run into issues with accidentally procuring batteries with Cuban sourced cobalt. We got huge political problems with cobalt. Then there's lithium. Its everywhere, but you are looking at the lithium triangle for the vast bulk of it now and the near future. This is the easy lithium to get. The stuff is all over the place, but you are looking at a change in economic model of recovery once we need to stray out of this area, with likely a radical increase in cost. So on to the tech. First lithium battery - 1976. First "modern" design with lithium-cobalt oxide cathode cathode - 1980. commercial introduction of said technology - 1991. Currently we make minor improvements to the cathode design, membranes, and construction methods. Typically, in this mature area of research, they run about 3 years conception to POC, then about 5 years form POC to commercial availability if they are viable. Contemporary to the devlopment of the lithium battery were a number of alternative chemistries that were essentially dead ends. Could we get a genius who plucks something unprecedented out of thin air? Maybe, but odds are against it. So what's out there to participate in the current race? 1) Solid state lithium chemistry batteries - this gains us packaging options and about 2.5x the energy density of current lithium designs as well as faster recharge times. This mostly comes from an innate higher tolerance to heat and removal of flamable materials witht he move away form a liquid electrolyte. We even know how to make them. The problem is the method of making them does not at this time benefit from economies of scale and they are ruinously expensive. A roughly car-battery equivalent currently would cost about $100,000. An EV size battery would cost in the area of $80,000,000. So the big breakthrough is not what, but how. Panasonic, volkswagen audi group, toyota, nissan, BMW, hyundai, and dyson are all investing serious money into this technology and cracking that manufacturing problem. 2) Lithium air batteries. This is potentially one of the candidates for a solid state lithium battery based on "recent" breakthroughs. It's currently roughly at the state of the 1980 stage of lithium ion cells if their fix to some of the key hurldes are actually manufacturable fixes. Bonus is it looks like it gets rid of the need for cobalt in a lithium chemistry battery, and cobalt is the dirtiest and most expensive element in the current chemistry. 3) Aluminum air batteries. Just add water and you can have 1000 mile range!!! But you cant recharge it really. AS there is permanent degradation of the anode and cathode. This IMO is likely to fail based on the shortcomings of the technology. Not necessarily because it is non viable, just that it isn't special compared to the alternatives and likely to be book ended by a more achievable easier alternative, and a more advantaged complex alternative. 4) magnesium ion batteries - These are likely not going to happen. because they can't get a good liquid electrolyte going and a number of researchers have already abandoned it while it is in a state compared to lithium ion that is pre-1976. Those researches have moved on to... 5) solid state magnesium batteries. - compared to lithium it is still pre-1976. My guess is this will be abandoned due to the timing of development, OR it will be an alternative chemistry competing with solid state lithum to give us more options in sourcing materials. 6) liquid metal batteries - Nope not mercury, just really frikin hot. It's being researched, but I'm giving it low marks of going anywhere as it is based on the failed predecessor to lithium ion technology circa 1968. They have figured out how to make it less fragile, but it still needs a 300C operating temp. If it has any future, it's in power grid storage, not cars. That haven't fixed anything that made it an EV dead end in 1970, so... Also for power grid it will probably be killed by... 7) Flow batteries. If you read about this, it isn't for cars. It's for grid storage. It's more mature than #6 and scales well. If it is killed it won't be by liquid metal batteries, but something like pumped desalination brine that uses gravity as the energy store or other simple solutions. 6&7 are both of interest to darpa, and they are now soliciting portable field nuclear reactors, which tells you where their confidence is on both technologies. 8) lithium sulfer - no viable cathode yet. For the cathode designs the do have, the chemcical composition of materials leads to an 80% mechanical expansion as it is discharged. So... serious hurdles. 9) Flouride chemistries - potentially 8x the energy density of lithium chemistries. In theory, recent developments have overcome some of the significant hurdles of this tech. Namely a viable electrolyte, and a design approach that reduces operating temps from 150C to room temperature. This is pre-1976 state compared to lithium ion technology, or at best at about the 1976 mark depending on the details of that research. And by recent, I mean the research paper hit the news circuit December 2018. I will add that Bloomburg finaicial research, HSBC, and BP agree with me about EV uptake and manufacturing capacity. BP has recently put out some research. Here's anice article on the subject: http://www.thedrive.com/news/26550/bp-expects-oil-demand-to-peak-in-2030s-evs-to-have-little-effect-report BPs specuative financial analysis is that they expect peak oil consumption between 2030-2040. That is predicated on the notion that there will be widespread ICE bans before then, at lest for new vehicle manufacturing. Their numbers imply that they are expecting the vehicle market to either shrink, or be 90% or greater of new vehicle production by 2035. That's essentially saying my optimistic scenario of 100% new car sales in 10 years is more optimistic than theirs "worst case" (i.e. complete loss of a market). What they have a better grasp on I suspect is estimating fossil fuel demand psot EV switch. Mainly because they have a lot of money to spend on it and a vested interest. They say by 2040 they expect to see 320 millio EVs on the road, which will be approximately 16% of a projected 2 billion vehicles. What they don't expect is for fossil fuel demand to taper off at that point but to hold steady as other sectors continue to increase demand. So... Even if we switch 100% in 10 years, we are then looking at a 10-12 year ticking bomb on lithium supplies, and a petroleum market place that isn't likely to put a heck of a lot of pressure on the supply chain for used gas and diesel vehicles outside of the normal timeline on which used cars age out. So I'm saying that in about 10 years we will likely hit the tipping point where it is inevitable we are going 100% EV, or we will know we are scrambling for alternatives as we look at smacking into a brick wall on lithium. If we have a viable alternative, we are looking at ~2040-2045 as the optimistic case for 100% ev conversion for passenger vehicles in first world countries. The alternative to success or compromise is economic chaos and unrest. So we will either find a way, or we will stick with fossil fuels in some manner. My guess is that it will actually take longer to hit all those points, and plug-in series hybrids will displace straight up ICE and that manufacturer lineups will be commercially targeted diesel, with commercial and consumer EVs and hybrids making for the car line ups with the death of straight up ICE passenger vehicles in new manufacture by 2030 or so. Your approval of the engineering elegance will matter 0% as some engineering complexity will beat riots as an option. Yes, regulatory pressures could try to force us to avoid this, but you can see how well that has worked in France with the yellow vest movement.

What crap did I make up? I took it form your own initial post. IT said shot in the right shoulder with a picture of the dog with a wound on their left side. Which implies that they were shot through one or both lungs in a quartering shot, or it was more square on and is through the liver. A lung shot is generally considered a rapid and humane kill shot. We are ALL speculating on how that wound got there, but it is not a wound that would generally permit an extended period of suffering. Go look at your own pics and quoted article. Also my interpretation is simply requiring someone to have not made a mistake in mirroring the picture or stating the wounds. Your's is based on one aggrieved party making qualitative statements about bad feelings and what must have happened. Even if he isn't full of shit, your new quoted article contains no information on how much time passed between the dog being shot and the owner finding it. Which is where you are being speculative (i.e. making up crap as you put it) about whether the dog was killed humanely. I'm disinclined to give the benefit of the doubt to some dipshit who has an extensive record of creating a menace to the public via his treatment of his dogs. I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who has put up with said dipshit and his dangerous dogs for some time and by the appearance of the public record and the dipshit's own statements has attempted to do so reasonably. Yes the dog is a victim of the dipshit too. That sucks. But dogs left to their own devices aren't inherently virtuous. Some will want to be your friend. Some will cause you real problems with livestock while wanting to be someones buddy. Some will not be your friend and will try to eat your face.

It could if you were racking the charging handle along with flippling the safety back and forth. BAsically. the ar-15 trigger is single action. Normal cycle goes. rack it and cock the trigger and load a round. bang. BCG goes back and pushes the hammer onto the disconnect. BCG returns to battery loading another round release the trigger and the disconnect permits the hammer to engage the sear. Pull trigger to go bang and repeat. If the scre was impinging on the trigger, what you can get is rack it bang BCG goes back and pushes the hammer onto the disconnect. BCG returns to battery and loads another round. releasing the trigger fails and the hammer binds on the disconnect due to the impingement. Fiddling with the safety nudges things enough to get the disconnect to unhook. bang. These are the JP instructions for fitting their basic trigger setup. They are a good read for understanding the AR trigger and how change in fitment of bits can impact function and safety. https://jprifles.com/document_pdfs/JPFC_606.pdf

Then I really suggest you don't watch the guys other videos. They are basically making non-knife things into knives. Usually into sub par knives that aren't worth being made, but hey it's youtube.

Dude, you have an irrational love of doggies. I get it, they are pretty awesome when things go right, but they are still animals, and however you feel about them, there isn't as big a barrier as you might think between a house dog and a feral dog. But you have a severely distorted notion of "finished off". There is a doggo who the report said was shot in the right side. With a fucking bleeding hole in the left side. RIGHT where a doggo's lungs are. Which is a double lung shot. Which at least according to most hunting tests I have run into is the gold standard of good finishing shots on a deer. I don't see why it wouldn't be a on a dog. You keep assuming the dog was left to bleed out slowly in a field. I'm not sure where you dig this up from. The pictures would seem to indicate that wasn't possible. To me it looks like the chest wound is bigger. That might just be bleeding. It might also be that the truck gun is a shotgun, and he shot it, hitting it multiple places, it went down, and he put one through both lungs from up close to finish it ASAP. Look dude. All it takes is it being on the guys land anywhere near the livestock to be an ACTUAL issue. For it to be a legally sufficient issue it just has to be on his land in most cases. Doggos not roaming unattended are safer happier doggos.

This is just a gimped version of metalstorm, which was also stupid. Much like metalstorm, the only place this has anything approaching a reasonable application is area of denial weapons. Even then I'm not sure. Ina rotating barrel weapon, if you have 4 barrels, and you mess up one of them, you throw away one barrel and had to manufacture 5 total. For this if you screw up one bore, you throw away 4 and have to manufacture four more. Not to mention POI/POA issues depending on which barrel is firing, etc. I don't think infantry has the need of a rate of fire 3x that of a phalanx gun.

I will go beyond that. Here are some issues. 1) Anything laser related has the problem of being able to blind everyone who looks at the laser firing. This is problematic in terms of finding a manufacturer, or the public use of such a thing. 2) Anything that zaps you that is no more efficient than powder driving a projectile, and has an energy storage footprint no worse than a current firearm will have batteries that will have to basically be capable of discharging energy like an explosive. Exploding batteries are generally considered not a good thing. You will need something incredibly efficient, or to somehow power it via small explosive charges. This is where things like electrolasers come in to the picture. The laser bit which sucks just has to ionize the air a bit. Then you zap the target with electricity directed over the ionized air path. You don't have to burn a hole through things instantly and you don't have to impart the energy of a projectile to smash through things. It aint there, may never get there, but of the various options it looks to me like the least tough nut to crack.

"with sufficient force to injure a person." Given that the item is designed to, by default, not be injurious to someone, and that lots of people engage in an activity with said item that implicitly recognizes that they will not suffer injury from said item. It's pretty defensible to say that airsoft in general does not meet the definition of a firearm based on that bit I quoted from the statue right above. Hop it up and load up metal projectiles, and you may find you get smacked with manufacturing a firearm. Given the nature of most airsoft operating systems, possibly with manufacture of a machine gun. At which point pleas out the wazoo will be offered because NJ politicians wil look like the idiots they are amongst their peers if this thing goes to trial and every big box retailer who has been selling cheap ass airsoft guns feels compelled to weigh in on the side of "it's not a gun".

This. Trump wouldn't be setting any kind of precedent. That has been long since done. This is just the point where you get to tell the Dems told ya so. The only thing new this term was the way bump stocks were made NFA items. The dems could abuse the shit out of that. With that precedent sitting around, Obama's attmpt to executive order his way to gun control would have gotten a lot more answers from the brass at BATFE other than.. well all shotguns are for sale under an DD exemption, so you could make all of them DDs easily.

One it's seriously twisting semantics to say that I said the tesla has the most technology for the dollar. It might, it might not. What it does have is a car that has a minor parking lot bump that costs near 10k. And wile that may not be too absurd in the world of $100k sedans, in the world of $40k sedans it is, and a lot of the things that bump up the cost in the model S are present in the model 3. Beyond that, for the 20 year scenario, we already covered that we have lithium availability issues. So what if it goes up 10x in price. You still have to buy that stuff and put it in cars for a transition to succeed, an there's an obstacle to be overcome there. Add to that the fact the average age of a car on the road today is 12.1 years old. That number has been going up ever since cash for clunkers shut down. Even if you got all new car sales moved over to electric in 10 years, you still wouldn't hit the 20 year mark for complete conversion to electric. You'd need to do a new cash for clunkers style buy that was even bigger than last time and effectively subsidized lower income buyers to get into the EV market, even if used. On top of that, you have to problem that the current EV market is unlikely to be a good source of cheaper used EVs. Almost every vehicle is a product of a fairly vertically integrated design at the moment. Which is incredibly rough on spare parts supplies. An example of this is tesla moving from NVIDIA computing to an in house solution. How long do you think you will be able to buy raplacement computing for a tesla. Once again this isn't tesla specific. It's a problem exacerbated by increasing tech in cars that falls much more into the proprietary IP encumbered world of computing. But the transition will be negatively impacted by this issue as it will result in more overpriced, but disposable vehicles. IMO, I think the right thing for maximum impact would be well designed pulg-in hybrids. They are accessibly usable for all situations and renters and home owners alike. If designed well for the majority of repetitive commuting miles it is zero emission vehicle. by being plug in hybrids, it provides a nice transition target for recharging stations being built out.

This is like the bullshit argument of why didn't the cops jsut shoot him in the leg. You talked to the owner. The dog keeps coming back. Killing the dog means that at the very least the idiot owner has to buy a new one. You keep focusing on the legs. It was also shot through the right shoulder according to the article. From the picture it appears to have come out the left shoulder. That implies an attempt to finish the animal via a heart or lung shot. You keep projecting onto a situation what you want to because you like dogs.

If 20,000 PSI of viciously hot gas isn't going to clean it out, giant pipe cleaners aren't going to help. I've never seen anything but problems caused by the giant pipe cleaners. Avoid them. At best they just make you feel like you did something while perfomring a no-op that cost money.

You are judging it form your perspective. I've been waiting in line at a gun store listening to someone proud they got their deer in four shots. I'm pretty sure they weren't full of rage at the deer. Just a shitty and ignorantly unethical hunter. The incompetent don't know their limitations and love to exceed them and call it success. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

OK lets put it this way. Luxury cars are painting themselves into this corner and Tesla is leading the charge with their compute pakcage and sensors. Outside of the super exotics, they probably have the problem worst dollar for dollar. As for teh windshield thing, look at subaru. Their eyesight system needs the windshields to hold a very, very tight spec. If they don't keep producing them, you wind up with the issue of an insurance repair not being able to get key parts for a safety device. Waht does the insurance company do then? The insurance companies aren't saying, but those who have to deal with claims speculate the answer is total the car. Earlier in the lifecycle you are looking at a $2500 windshield replacement. Add a little bodywork, and even if you have the parts how many years does it take for a minor accident to total a car. EVs are being inherently bundled as tech rich vehicles and are at the bleeding edge of this problem. They don't have to be, but they are. The only part that kind of has to be is the battery pack tech given they are inherently pricey and are host to some key tech for safety of the battery pack.

Dear god don't be obtuse. He was giving an example of kind of expensive to buy, too expensive to maintain. The electric motor is likely not where things will fail. And granted it isn't just a tesla thing, but look at the cost to replace a windshield or a bumper these days due to all teh sensors and needing calibration. Teslas are INSANELY expensive to deal with from a body work standpoint. And unless they start standardizing on how to space optimize some of these processes across the industry, it's going to be problematic because one thing they all have inc ommon is needing a relatively large amount of space to calibrate. Which means you have limited facilities that can do it and that drives up cost. One of the fun things looming on the horizon is that it is entirely possible you will have to total cars over a broken windshield due to the active crash avoidance tech.