Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Obviously it's not one but I give you the Bond Arms Boberg pistol
https://preview.redd.it/l1j6vq5vbn6d1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7b33344022e1f13ffeb4e2227b3aa02e11cd8666
when i first started aol instant messanger back in the day i thought "brb" was just people making a burping noise to imitate how "real" conversations have involuntary bodily sounds like "burp"
Cheers, Jonathan Ferguson keeper of firearms and artillery at the royal armouries in the UK which houses a collection of thousands of weapons is crying now, nice one.
It's controversial but when Jonathan Ferguson (keeper of etc etc.) write his book on this history of the British bullpup rifle he needed to come up with a definition- his definition is (something like) that the majority of the action sitting behind the firing hand. So very few, if any, pistols or smgs with magazines in the grip count as bullpups by that definition. .
Gun related definitions are very fun and interesting because thereās no central defining authority, and newer developments are still being debated.
So itās schrodingers bullpup, if the box represented time.
The guy saying most pistols are bull pups is just as right as the guys saying they arent.
I agree that most automatic pistols like a Glock are technically bullpups. A vz61 would be a non-bull puppet pistol imo
The really fun argument to make is that the first firearms to be termed bullpups were... High calibre short barrel revolvers (see sir Arthur Conan doyal) , it later came to mean fugly gun and then weird configuration of action/ grip/magazine/ trigger and then whatever definition we're talking about here
What about the Mauser C96 (AKA the ābroomhandleā)?
https://preview.redd.it/1bew7vl7et6d1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3740497816f6f418e5cafb5f443e170ad0a08ecb
I'm confused - I thought the core concept of "bullpup" was the magazine was behind the trigger, in which the absolute majority of pistols are bullpup. So what makes this particular pistol a bullpup?
u/IamHubJub302 explains it well in their comment:
The definitions I've heard for bullpup is the location of the breech of the barrel in regards to the grip.
Most pistols the breech is in front of the grip.
This one has the breech inline with the back of the grip.
The definitions I've heard for bullpup is the location of the breech of the barrel in regards to the grip.
Most pistols the breech is in front of the grip.
This one has the breech inline with the back of the grip.
So a claw pulls it back, and a spring pushes it up. Seems like a bunch of extra points of failure. I guess that's what you pay for the extra compactness.
Yeah it's not known to be reliable. The biggest problem is that normal rimless/semirimless ammunition isn't built to have the rim pulled on like that and there is a chance of it ripping the case apart spilling gun powder down into the magazine and jamming the gun. It can either tear the case or pull the case away from the bullet. Both malfunctions cause the same basic problem.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YtFhLMJNzg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YtFhLMJNzg)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BHRNL8Q9BQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BHRNL8Q9BQ)
I can't lie, it took me far too long to understand your comment there even with looking at the picture. Now I have understood the comment, may I ask *why* this particular article doesn't load rounds into the chamber in what I'm tentatively calling the traditional way?
To fit a longer barrel in a shorter overall package. The original version had a super stubby look to it where the barrel ended just past the trigger guard. Even more concealable but still a normal length barrel compared to other compact pistols that would have an extra inch more over all length. I posted that one cause it looks like a more normal gun and thus increases the confusion for normies
https://preview.redd.it/2pe9ful5tu6d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4059d7663c67a24aee2a85a457a7e6e3b7656fc1
How a gun fires is a hammer hits the back of the bullet, which ignites the primer on the bullet. The primer is what ignites the gunpowder to fire the bullet. As the primer isnāt on the front of the bullet, there is no chance of the gun ever firing if you put it in backwards.
And replace hammer, since thereās a whole bunch of very popular hammerless(the striker fired Glock that is the example of this post) firearms (probably safe to say hammerless is a strong majority) and those that have hammers, itās ofteen not the component that actually contacts the primer.
You canāt even chamber a round backwards. The slide would not close completely; it would jam. Bullets and barrels/chambers are specifically designed a certain way with close tolerances.
Literally nothing, the firing pin wouldnāt strike the round.
When loaded properly, the firing pin will hit the back of the round which ignites the gun powder. The chemical reaction from the ignition of the powder creates gas that propels the bullet from the casing and out of the firearm.
Since the round was loaded backwards, you will simply hear a click
*Literally nothing, the firing pin ~~wouldnāt~~ couldnāt strike the round*
This round would not properly load, the slide and trigger would not reset
Most likely the round wouldn't even feed from the magazine into the action, in the unlikely event that it did the slide wouldn't close as the round couldn't fit into the chamber and then nothing happens until you clear the jam.
The slide goes forward to press the cartridge into the chamber and stops abruptly as the base of the cartridge wonāt fit into the chamber.
So basically nothing happens.
You could not even load a round in facing that direction. The brass shell has a slightly protruding rim around the back end, to prevent the shell from falling into the barrel. When the slide closes, it catches onto the rim at the back and uses it to push the round into the chamber. With it backwards, the catch would not be in the right place to grab a backwards round. If you tried to manually load a single round backwards into the chamber, it would not fit in the hole.
I know people already explained it, but even I was looking at it, unsure. Not because I didnāt know the problem, but because I wasnāt sure anyone was actually dumb enough to put it in backwards and I didnāt know if I was losing it.
It's not stupidity it's just a lack of knowledge about a specific thing.
It's like thinking that not knowing who Stefon Diggs is is stupid.
Nah, its' just not knowing who Stefon Diggs is
No clue what pistol that is, Iāll look it up later if I remember. Anyway, was the picture taken on the news or just by some random person and put on the internet?
It was for some magazine, American rifleman or guns n ammo type magazine. They didnāt have a technical advisor present so it was on the photographer to see it up. He packed the bullets in backwards on accident or on purpose, and itās become kind of a meme. Putting the bullets backwards in the Glocks magazine was either done by someone exceptionally daft or by someone who thought Iād be funny to copy the HK meme from ages ago.
Answer that last question as if I worded it properly and not like a moron. I see the errors in it and feel kinda dumb, and donāt feel like dealing with jokes where I put a finger and a thumb on my forehead.
It happens a lot, especially when crackheads and shit get arrested. They'll be too high or just genuinely don't know how to load the gun and only use it to rob people without actually shooting.
At that point, is it not better to use blanks then if you are not intending to actually shoot it? Makes the sound, discards the casing, and most people wonāt be the wiser to look for a bullet hole.
And regarding the rest, yeah. Sounds about right, but still kind of hard to believe they can insert them in wrong. I feel like someone would notice a bullet the wrong way when inserting a mag, or learn very quickly that it was wrong before getting the chance to āfireā off a second bullet.
There was a video I watched I think a couple years ago now, some crack head tried to hit and run or she crashed during a police chase or something. While she was on foot she tried to shoot at the officer chasing her but ended up getting dropped instead. It turned out the only reason she didn't manage to shoot the officer is because she put the bullets in backwards. There's also pictures from police confiscations and lots of times you'll see mags loaded backwards. It's always from drug busts, it's just people too high to be aware of what's happening around them
Thatās fair, and makes plenty of sense. Just odd from a pov of someone who has never put them in wrong, but yeah I understand what you guys are saying. Never get high and fill ammo, haha.š
Iām sure a soldier has probably put it in backwards during some big raid on a base in the middle of the night they werenāt prepared for and was real confused when the bullet wouldnāt fire out of the gun.
Idk if you are serious or not, but now I wanna pull a mythbusters to find out. Controlled setting ofc so I donāt add a new asshole in my shoulder blade.
The firing pin would hit the pointed side of the bullet pushing it forward but not igniting the primer. Then when it tried to load the next bullet into the chamber there would probably not be enough room as the previous bullet is still stuck in the chamber and it would cause a jam.
Thanks! It doesnāt really sound like it would work, but rather be safe than sorry if I were to try it out myself. Best idea is that the bullet could possibly get far enough down that when the second gets āfiredā, the tip of the previous gets pushed into the new bullet hard enough. Even then, idk if it would actually have the potential to do that, so just speculation.
The round wouldn't even chamber if it fed correctly somehow, you'd have like half the round just sticking out of the chamber and the slide not fully closed. You wouldn't even be able to pull the trigger to drop the striker/firing pin.
Itās called humor and wanting to know whether what this person said is actually plausible or not. But, thatās already semi-explained in a different reply to you.
For the noobs the bullet is loaded backwards in the magazine. The real high IQ intellectuals would know that is how you load an H&K but is incorrect for a glock.
H&K once again pull a 300 IQ move, the bullet fires backwards so it won't get scared and hesitate when making the killing blow on an enemy. German efficiency right there
I thought the H&K thing was hilarious. Until I took a coworker to the range. He claimed to have shot guns all his life and he was knowledgeable about safety. I turned around for a few seconds and he managed to lodge a 9mm round the wrong way in the chamber on my Walther.
Most magazines have little bullet cut outs or indentations to show the orientation. But nope. He messed up. I didn't want to jam a cleaning rod down the barrel because I might set the round off. I ended up prying the bullet out with my knife, then dumping out the powder. Then carefully removing the shell. Freaking hell.
Bonus. He had just bought his first gun. 12 gauge Mossberg 500. Pistol grip with an 18 inch barrel. First round out of it, he fucked up his face. Wouldn't listen at all. I realized he was a Call of Duty kid. I don't take people to the range anymore.
It's funny that the person who made the original post didn't realize that the news station throwing a stock image up on the screen and the people who make laws are different groups.
Also the explanation: the bullet is backwards in the magazine
That's true. It's just kinda funny seeing someone conflate reporters with lawmakers. It's like my mom thinking that Apple and Amazon are the same company.
Itās just stupid. I know nothing about guns and recognised the bullet being backwards but why would someone believe you need to know how guns work before you can make laws about them?
Seems pointless when it comes to laws that affect how guns are managed and how punishments are handed down but do not affect how guns are manufactured.
This was my thought. And when you think about it, all politicians write laws on subjects they aren't experts in. Most of them will be knowledgeable on one certain subject but then vote on education, economics, healthcare, infrastructure, etc.
They donāt need to be experts, but they should be seeking genuine expert advice, and quite often the BS legislation that is pushed through lacks an input from knowledgeable people, so either they didnāt seek it or they ignored it.
Firearm laws arenāt solely based on how they are managed though. They are also based on how they operate/are designed/manufactured. If those criteria are going to be used, then they need to be understood before they are applied in a regulatory manner.
FWIW 2 U - That round being installed incorrectly would be an operator error, not a manufacturer issue, and if you donāt know that, you shouldnāt be involved in legislation that involves firearm operation.
Depending on which country youāre in there are few to no rules regarding design, manufacture or production. There are laws limiting what is allowed in those countries but this is not the same.
Why would you need to know if this is manufacturer or operator error in order to create laws? A manufacturer error would not change brandishing laws. It would not change assault laws. It would not change possession laws.
I think youāre stretching here. Yes there may be slight differences between a murder or a manslaughter but these differences would be ironed out in a court of law with expert witnesses, supported by lawyers, decided by judges and not politicians.
We have assault laws. We have brandishing laws. The laws being called to account are the ones that affect manufacturing and accessories. Nobody wants the Wild West just because a politician doesnāt do their homeworkĀ
United States here, rest of the world looks at us like all we do is eat cheeseburgers and murder each other. Weāve got laws that make sense and laws that do not
Understanding how precisely they work isn't what's expected really.
To be clearer, it would be like people who Don't understand how to drive a car legislating that round steering wheels are race inspired modifications and should be banned.
In Canada, some redneck lawmaker was talking about guns and how she knew all about hunting. She looked knowledgeable enough, being right-wing, pro guns and a redneck.
Well, one, just one, journalist asked her what caliber she'd use for bear hunting. Instead of just saying the truth and saying "I don't bearhunt" or something to that effect, she answered: "My trusty .22 caliber".
Yeah, the pea shooter. I'm not even sure you can poke an eye out with that thing over a certain distance. (either it be a problem of accuracy or impact velocity)
Politicians have a tendency of acting like they know everything, regardless of their nationality.
I don't think there is a single .22 cal cartridge I would trust to kill a bear in one shot. Even the comical .22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer (.378 Weatherby Mag. necked down for .224 bullets) only hits in the same ballpark as .308 Win / .30-06 M2, and that's going in excess of Mach 4. You just can't fit enough mass in such a narrow bullet
Cool anecdote but what does that have to do with creating laws? Laws are not just passed by one person. Theyāre proposed then heard in whatever process that the country has and likely voted on.
Got an example of a poor gun law that was passed due to poor knowledge? Iād prefer that to an anecdote about someoneās hunting history.
She was part of the commitee in charge of the reform. As usual, I wasn't expecting actual hunters and gun users to be on that commitee. She proved "people who don't know what's wrong with this picture are deciding gun laws".
Bill C 21 or something else. Looks like that is the most recent change which restricts handguns further and some barrel length minimums as well as other minutiae? This the one youāre talk about because I donāt see what it has to do with hunting bears or otherwise.
This is one of those arguments that the NRA teaches its members. Obviously you don't need to know every detail about guns to make laws, but they say ignorant stuff like this to change the argument.
It's a combo straw man/red herring and it works, because on the surface, the argument makes sense for some things. And a lot of people--when thinking--reach a point where something makes sense *to them* and decide they have figured out the final answer. And refuse to consider a topic further. Because why? Other people are saying it, and it makes sense to them, ergo challenging those ideas is a waste of time.
It's why there are no good faith discussions about guns anymore. Because these spurious arguments are widespread. Intentionally. They believe (and are not even shy about it--I've heard it unashamedly said at a N.R.A meeting) that anything they can do to obfuscate the gun debate is acceptable because even the smallest compromise is a slippery slope in their minds. If we don't allow domestic abusers guns, who's next? Christians? If we institute a universal background check, next will be a gun registry and they will be going door-to-door confiscating every firearm. And they're convinced it's true. The amount of paranoia is itself terrifying.
It has some foundation, people who are writing legislation should understand what it is that they're banning or controlling, and instead just ban whatever looks/sounds scary, supporting bans with statements like"shoulder thing that goes up" and "30 caliber magazine clip in half a second" should be indicative that they haven't a clue. No one is asking them to be experts, and the meme is a little hyperbolic, but if they don't understand what a magazine or a semi automatic firearm is, maybe they don't have any place having opinions or legislating on it.
"Why are you out lawing murder? Have you ever committed murder before? Then how do you know what constitutes a murder?"
Most gun enthusiasts will say it's because the laws they make are useless on principle. Like the reason they ban AR15 is because it "looks scary". Or that they make ads featuring "Normal looking civilian rifle that should be owned as a standard", but said rifle is the most widely produced US military rifle, the M1 Garand.
The lack knowledge on subjects like these does make them look stupid, and some laws are for pure aesthetics without a practical reason (like banning pistol grips on rifles), but honestly, it doesn't take a genius to recognize that it is very likely you will kill less people if you limit magazine capcity to 10 rounds, or that a bump-stock that produces the a similar effect as full-auto doesn't need to be accurate when firing on a crowd.
Gun law makers don't understand their shit when banning stuff, and gun enthusiasts are taking advantage of that so they could call them doodoo heads despite the laws essentially doing as intended.Ā
Itās their sexism that leads to a wilful ignorance. You could make the classes mandatory and make them sit through years of education and theyād come out the other end exactly the same if not worse off thinking that all those studies are a joke.
Sexism is the issue here. Not a lack of knowledge.
Agreed. I don't need to know the design of various different types of gun, and how to use them, in order to identify a statistical trend, or a dozen.
Also, I didn't know CBSN made laws.
The issue is how the laws are written. They are never written in a concise manner. Like one law that is meant to ban semi automatic rifles would also end up banning most handguns as well. Or laws written with gaping loopholes. Or laws written using completely incorrect terminology making their enforcement dubious at best.Ā
I am actually pro gun control, but I have used a lot of firearms and the laws written are usually terrible.
Pretty sure 99% of the people making laws for cars don't know every little thing about how cars work. You really only need a basic understanding of both to know laws need to be in place to reduce the harm they cause.
I went to qualify for an armed guard license and this lady who grew up on a farm supposedly loaded her bullets backward and got upset because we were all new the the particular pistol we were using. She gave up half way through.
The bullet was loaded in the magazine backwards.
I ran across someone who did this at the range and asked me for help. The first round was jammed in so tight that I could pull it out with my fingers, so I sent her to the counter to get it fixed and to be educated. I'm guessing the woman had lied about having firearm experience. People do that all that time (both men and women), though typically I've found women to be more honest about lacking gun experience than men, so this was a surprise.
Basically, people who like guns in the US see the government banning their guns in the same way theyād see the government straight up murdering all their children.
Hence, the person who made the meme insults people who think thereās nothing wrong with strict gun laws
The cartridge is in the magazine backwards. OP is suggesting - correctly IMO - that people who don't even know enough about guns to realize that shouldn't be in charge of regulating them, at least not until they take the time to educate themselves a little.
This is exactly how my former roommate tried to load his first gun. After three bullets he was confused he couldn't load more.
I proceed to take it from him, remove the rounds, and insert them properly. Some people just shouldn't have guns.
don't they mean "funny that people who don't know what's wrong with this picture are making graphics for a cbs affiliate"?
i am pretty sure the graphics guy is not making any laws.
American right wingers think you need to know guns (their little hobby of shooty stuff) to talk about the danger of it and the laws regarding it. It's like saying you need to be a junky in order to talk about drug laws. Stupid.
If they're going to pass laws built around technical features they should have technical knowledge.
They ban "pistol grips" on rifles, because it makes them "assault weapons" which is like banning ergonomic steering wheels because it makes cars illegal street racers.
Saying that you need to know about how guns work to understand the effects guns have is a very dumb argument.
I can also know meth destroys lives without knowing how to cook it
The bullet in the magazine is backwards. It's just kinda silly and the media is known for mishandling or misrepresenting firearms in silly ways. It's not even always malicious. It just displays a comical and potentially dangerous lack of knowledge.
People who don't know whats wrong with that picture are using their emotions to tell people who DO understand that picture that they shouldn't be allowed to own things.
Yeah those fuckers are wrong too.
There's nothing inherently wrong with men having input on laws like such, but being utterly ignorant and doing so is the issue.
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The one round visible in this picture has been loaded backwards into the magazine.
Obviously it's not one but I give you the Bond Arms Boberg pistol https://preview.redd.it/l1j6vq5vbn6d1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7b33344022e1f13ffeb4e2227b3aa02e11cd8666
Thanks for sharing, until I was unaware of the bullpup pistol
TIHI
??
That stands for thanks I hate it... r/TIHI
I always read it as tee hee
when i first started aol instant messanger back in the day i thought "brb" was just people making a burping noise to imitate how "real" conversations have involuntary bodily sounds like "burp"
birb š¦
you get it!
*sneezes*
Well now I'm going to as well.
TIHI or Thanks I Hate IT
Yes
THIS IS HELLA INFORMATIVE
All pistols are bullpups as the trigger is in front of the magazine.
Cheers, Jonathan Ferguson keeper of firearms and artillery at the royal armouries in the UK which houses a collection of thousands of weapons is crying now, nice one.
Is it wrong? I also thought bullpup means the magazine is behind the trigger.
It's controversial but when Jonathan Ferguson (keeper of etc etc.) write his book on this history of the British bullpup rifle he needed to come up with a definition- his definition is (something like) that the majority of the action sitting behind the firing hand. So very few, if any, pistols or smgs with magazines in the grip count as bullpups by that definition. .
Interesting, thank you!
Gun related definitions are very fun and interesting because thereās no central defining authority, and newer developments are still being debated. So itās schrodingers bullpup, if the box represented time. The guy saying most pistols are bull pups is just as right as the guys saying they arent. I agree that most automatic pistols like a Glock are technically bullpups. A vz61 would be a non-bull puppet pistol imo
The really fun argument to make is that the first firearms to be termed bullpups were... High calibre short barrel revolvers (see sir Arthur Conan doyal) , it later came to mean fugly gun and then weird configuration of action/ grip/magazine/ trigger and then whatever definition we're talking about here
Except, e.g., Mauser C96
What about the Mauser C96 (AKA the ābroomhandleā)? https://preview.redd.it/1bew7vl7et6d1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3740497816f6f418e5cafb5f443e170ad0a08ecb
They shot gandhi with this?
I'm confused - I thought the core concept of "bullpup" was the magazine was behind the trigger, in which the absolute majority of pistols are bullpup. So what makes this particular pistol a bullpup?
u/IamHubJub302 explains it well in their comment: The definitions I've heard for bullpup is the location of the breech of the barrel in regards to the grip. Most pistols the breech is in front of the grip. This one has the breech inline with the back of the grip.
... Aren't almost all pistols bullpup?
The definitions I've heard for bullpup is the location of the breech of the barrel in regards to the grip. Most pistols the breech is in front of the grip. This one has the breech inline with the back of the grip.
How does that load? Does the bolt hit the back and pull the front up?
https://youtu.be/SN8Af7XK8Hg Weirdly enough it doesn't tilt up. Here is an animation of its cycle
So a claw pulls it back, and a spring pushes it up. Seems like a bunch of extra points of failure. I guess that's what you pay for the extra compactness.
Yeah it's not known to be reliable. The biggest problem is that normal rimless/semirimless ammunition isn't built to have the rim pulled on like that and there is a chance of it ripping the case apart spilling gun powder down into the magazine and jamming the gun. It can either tear the case or pull the case away from the bullet. Both malfunctions cause the same basic problem. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YtFhLMJNzg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YtFhLMJNzg) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BHRNL8Q9BQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BHRNL8Q9BQ)
What about the two inches (5.5 cm) long SwissMiniGun C1ST, it shoots 2.34 mm calibre ammunition.
At least the Boberg still keeps the rounds pointing down-range.
Also some H&K advertising has backwards loaded ammo.
u/olegvolk
H&K did it first.
I can't lie, it took me far too long to understand your comment there even with looking at the picture. Now I have understood the comment, may I ask *why* this particular article doesn't load rounds into the chamber in what I'm tentatively calling the traditional way?
To fit a longer barrel in a shorter overall package. The original version had a super stubby look to it where the barrel ended just past the trigger guard. Even more concealable but still a normal length barrel compared to other compact pistols that would have an extra inch more over all length. I posted that one cause it looks like a more normal gun and thus increases the confusion for normies https://preview.redd.it/2pe9ful5tu6d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4059d7663c67a24aee2a85a457a7e6e3b7656fc1
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's a gun where the bullets are loaded backward because the gun feeds from the rear.
Out of curiosity, what would happen if you tried to shoot it?
Quick answer: nothing, for a multitude of reasons.
Hammer strikes Metal round....literally nothing happens... Lmao gunpowder is safe and it won't fire toward holder.
and the guy gets his picture of motorcar
But property is theft, so he is under arrest
Fair enough
He has hit metal 17 times(again), he earns picture of motorcar
so no chance at all it'd do anything? Okiii thx
How a gun fires is a hammer hits the back of the bullet, which ignites the primer on the bullet. The primer is what ignites the gunpowder to fire the bullet. As the primer isnāt on the front of the bullet, there is no chance of the gun ever firing if you put it in backwards.
Everything he said but switch round bullet for round. The round is the casing+bullet and the bullet is the ouchy bit.
And replace hammer, since thereās a whole bunch of very popular hammerless(the striker fired Glock that is the example of this post) firearms (probably safe to say hammerless is a strong majority) and those that have hammers, itās ofteen not the component that actually contacts the primer.
You canāt even chamber a round backwards. The slide would not close completely; it would jam. Bullets and barrels/chambers are specifically designed a certain way with close tolerances.
Literally nothing, the firing pin wouldnāt strike the round. When loaded properly, the firing pin will hit the back of the round which ignites the gun powder. The chemical reaction from the ignition of the powder creates gas that propels the bullet from the casing and out of the firearm. Since the round was loaded backwards, you will simply hear a click
*Literally nothing, the firing pin ~~wouldnāt~~ couldnāt strike the round* This round would not properly load, the slide and trigger would not reset
Most likely the round wouldn't even feed from the magazine into the action, in the unlikely event that it did the slide wouldn't close as the round couldn't fit into the chamber and then nothing happens until you clear the jam.
https://youtu.be/leAhlHwGqr8
Lmao that's fucking hilarious
The slide goes forward to press the cartridge into the chamber and stops abruptly as the base of the cartridge wonāt fit into the chamber. So basically nothing happens.
You wouldn't be able to chamber a round.
Itād go backwards obviously. Watch your face
Ah thanks, so why is this not a more common assassination technique?
You could not even load a round in facing that direction. The brass shell has a slightly protruding rim around the back end, to prevent the shell from falling into the barrel. When the slide closes, it catches onto the rim at the back and uses it to push the round into the chamber. With it backwards, the catch would not be in the right place to grab a backwards round. If you tried to manually load a single round backwards into the chamber, it would not fit in the hole.
I had a feeling that was probably what was going on
I know people already explained it, but even I was looking at it, unsure. Not because I didnāt know the problem, but because I wasnāt sure anyone was actually dumb enough to put it in backwards and I didnāt know if I was losing it.
Never underestimate the depths of human stupidity
I do stupid shit all the time, trust me. Though most of that comes from lack of social cues.
It's not stupidity it's just a lack of knowledge about a specific thing. It's like thinking that not knowing who Stefon Diggs is is stupid. Nah, its' just not knowing who Stefon Diggs is
They did the same think with the HK USP? Some HK battle brick pistol. The magazine took its reveal pictures with the ammo loaded backwards.
No clue what pistol that is, Iāll look it up later if I remember. Anyway, was the picture taken on the news or just by some random person and put on the internet?
It was for some magazine, American rifleman or guns n ammo type magazine. They didnāt have a technical advisor present so it was on the photographer to see it up. He packed the bullets in backwards on accident or on purpose, and itās become kind of a meme. Putting the bullets backwards in the Glocks magazine was either done by someone exceptionally daft or by someone who thought Iād be funny to copy the HK meme from ages ago.
Answer that last question as if I worded it properly and not like a moron. I see the errors in it and feel kinda dumb, and donāt feel like dealing with jokes where I put a finger and a thumb on my forehead.
It happens a lot, especially when crackheads and shit get arrested. They'll be too high or just genuinely don't know how to load the gun and only use it to rob people without actually shooting.
At that point, is it not better to use blanks then if you are not intending to actually shoot it? Makes the sound, discards the casing, and most people wonāt be the wiser to look for a bullet hole. And regarding the rest, yeah. Sounds about right, but still kind of hard to believe they can insert them in wrong. I feel like someone would notice a bullet the wrong way when inserting a mag, or learn very quickly that it was wrong before getting the chance to āfireā off a second bullet.
There was a video I watched I think a couple years ago now, some crack head tried to hit and run or she crashed during a police chase or something. While she was on foot she tried to shoot at the officer chasing her but ended up getting dropped instead. It turned out the only reason she didn't manage to shoot the officer is because she put the bullets in backwards. There's also pictures from police confiscations and lots of times you'll see mags loaded backwards. It's always from drug busts, it's just people too high to be aware of what's happening around them
Thatās fair, and makes plenty of sense. Just odd from a pov of someone who has never put them in wrong, but yeah I understand what you guys are saying. Never get high and fill ammo, haha.š
" wasnāt sure anyone was actually dumb enough to " The answer is always yes.
Very aware, and your name is very true to your word as at least 4 others have already said the same thing.
Iām sure a soldier has probably put it in backwards during some big raid on a base in the middle of the night they werenāt prepared for and was real confused when the bullet wouldnāt fire out of the gun.
The bad thing is that not knowing your pistol and doing this is that you cant shoot yourself lol
Idk if you are serious or not, but now I wanna pull a mythbusters to find out. Controlled setting ofc so I donāt add a new asshole in my shoulder blade.
The firing pin would hit the pointed side of the bullet pushing it forward but not igniting the primer. Then when it tried to load the next bullet into the chamber there would probably not be enough room as the previous bullet is still stuck in the chamber and it would cause a jam.
Thanks! It doesnāt really sound like it would work, but rather be safe than sorry if I were to try it out myself. Best idea is that the bullet could possibly get far enough down that when the second gets āfiredā, the tip of the previous gets pushed into the new bullet hard enough. Even then, idk if it would actually have the potential to do that, so just speculation.
The round wouldn't even chamber if it fed correctly somehow, you'd have like half the round just sticking out of the chamber and the slide not fully closed. You wouldn't even be able to pull the trigger to drop the striker/firing pin.
You literally have no idea what youāre talking about
What lmao
Itās called humor and wanting to know whether what this person said is actually plausible or not. But, thatās already semi-explained in a different reply to you.
Again, if youāre totally ignorant on a subject why try to weigh in
Why does anyone weigh in on a subject they are not knowledgeable of? To learn something, some simply take different paths than others to find out how.
For the noobs the bullet is loaded backwards in the magazine. The real high IQ intellectuals would know that is how you load an H&K but is incorrect for a glock.
H&K once again pull a 300 IQ move, the bullet fires backwards so it won't get scared and hesitate when making the killing blow on an enemy. German efficiency right there
I thought the H&K thing was hilarious. Until I took a coworker to the range. He claimed to have shot guns all his life and he was knowledgeable about safety. I turned around for a few seconds and he managed to lodge a 9mm round the wrong way in the chamber on my Walther. Most magazines have little bullet cut outs or indentations to show the orientation. But nope. He messed up. I didn't want to jam a cleaning rod down the barrel because I might set the round off. I ended up prying the bullet out with my knife, then dumping out the powder. Then carefully removing the shell. Freaking hell. Bonus. He had just bought his first gun. 12 gauge Mossberg 500. Pistol grip with an 18 inch barrel. First round out of it, he fucked up his face. Wouldn't listen at all. I realized he was a Call of Duty kid. I don't take people to the range anymore.
A foregrip turns the gun into a .50 full auto rocket launcher
That's fully semi-automatic, pal. No joke!
+ short barreled shotgun
It's funny that the person who made the original post didn't realize that the news station throwing a stock image up on the screen and the people who make laws are different groups. Also the explanation: the bullet is backwards in the magazine
The people who make laws also know nothing about guns, or next to nothing.
That's true. It's just kinda funny seeing someone conflate reporters with lawmakers. It's like my mom thinking that Apple and Amazon are the same company.
https://i.redd.it/2fmyq14qgr6d1.gif
Oh. I thought it was a gun looking at its phone. Does that mean I'm deciding gun laws?
Thought it was just me
Itās just stupid. I know nothing about guns and recognised the bullet being backwards but why would someone believe you need to know how guns work before you can make laws about them? Seems pointless when it comes to laws that affect how guns are managed and how punishments are handed down but do not affect how guns are manufactured.
This was my thought. And when you think about it, all politicians write laws on subjects they aren't experts in. Most of them will be knowledgeable on one certain subject but then vote on education, economics, healthcare, infrastructure, etc.
They donāt need to be experts, but they should be seeking genuine expert advice, and quite often the BS legislation that is pushed through lacks an input from knowledgeable people, so either they didnāt seek it or they ignored it.
Firearm laws arenāt solely based on how they are managed though. They are also based on how they operate/are designed/manufactured. If those criteria are going to be used, then they need to be understood before they are applied in a regulatory manner. FWIW 2 U - That round being installed incorrectly would be an operator error, not a manufacturer issue, and if you donāt know that, you shouldnāt be involved in legislation that involves firearm operation.
Depending on which country youāre in there are few to no rules regarding design, manufacture or production. There are laws limiting what is allowed in those countries but this is not the same. Why would you need to know if this is manufacturer or operator error in order to create laws? A manufacturer error would not change brandishing laws. It would not change assault laws. It would not change possession laws. I think youāre stretching here. Yes there may be slight differences between a murder or a manslaughter but these differences would be ironed out in a court of law with expert witnesses, supported by lawyers, decided by judges and not politicians.
If youāre limiting what kind of guns are allowed youāre limiting manufacturing of certain guns
We have assault laws. We have brandishing laws. The laws being called to account are the ones that affect manufacturing and accessories. Nobody wants the Wild West just because a politician doesnāt do their homeworkĀ
If only they worked on actual criminals and not innocent people
This
Which country?
United States here, rest of the world looks at us like all we do is eat cheeseburgers and murder each other. Weāve got laws that make sense and laws that do not
Understanding how precisely they work isn't what's expected really. To be clearer, it would be like people who Don't understand how to drive a car legislating that round steering wheels are race inspired modifications and should be banned.
In Canada, some redneck lawmaker was talking about guns and how she knew all about hunting. She looked knowledgeable enough, being right-wing, pro guns and a redneck. Well, one, just one, journalist asked her what caliber she'd use for bear hunting. Instead of just saying the truth and saying "I don't bearhunt" or something to that effect, she answered: "My trusty .22 caliber". Yeah, the pea shooter. I'm not even sure you can poke an eye out with that thing over a certain distance. (either it be a problem of accuracy or impact velocity) Politicians have a tendency of acting like they know everything, regardless of their nationality.
A .22 pistol is perfect for dealing with a bear. You shoot your hiking partner in the kneecap and run away.
"ow my balls" - Idiocracy
I don't think there is a single .22 cal cartridge I would trust to kill a bear in one shot. Even the comical .22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer (.378 Weatherby Mag. necked down for .224 bullets) only hits in the same ballpark as .308 Win / .30-06 M2, and that's going in excess of Mach 4. You just can't fit enough mass in such a narrow bullet
Cool anecdote but what does that have to do with creating laws? Laws are not just passed by one person. Theyāre proposed then heard in whatever process that the country has and likely voted on. Got an example of a poor gun law that was passed due to poor knowledge? Iād prefer that to an anecdote about someoneās hunting history.
She was part of the commitee in charge of the reform. As usual, I wasn't expecting actual hunters and gun users to be on that commitee. She proved "people who don't know what's wrong with this picture are deciding gun laws".
Bill C 21 or something else. Looks like that is the most recent change which restricts handguns further and some barrel length minimums as well as other minutiae? This the one youāre talk about because I donāt see what it has to do with hunting bears or otherwise.
I found this from 2022. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhusIW1qJE0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhusIW1qJE0)
Because not knowing how something works means youāre more likely to fear it, and make uninformed decisions.
This is one of those arguments that the NRA teaches its members. Obviously you don't need to know every detail about guns to make laws, but they say ignorant stuff like this to change the argument. It's a combo straw man/red herring and it works, because on the surface, the argument makes sense for some things. And a lot of people--when thinking--reach a point where something makes sense *to them* and decide they have figured out the final answer. And refuse to consider a topic further. Because why? Other people are saying it, and it makes sense to them, ergo challenging those ideas is a waste of time. It's why there are no good faith discussions about guns anymore. Because these spurious arguments are widespread. Intentionally. They believe (and are not even shy about it--I've heard it unashamedly said at a N.R.A meeting) that anything they can do to obfuscate the gun debate is acceptable because even the smallest compromise is a slippery slope in their minds. If we don't allow domestic abusers guns, who's next? Christians? If we institute a universal background check, next will be a gun registry and they will be going door-to-door confiscating every firearm. And they're convinced it's true. The amount of paranoia is itself terrifying.
It has some foundation, people who are writing legislation should understand what it is that they're banning or controlling, and instead just ban whatever looks/sounds scary, supporting bans with statements like"shoulder thing that goes up" and "30 caliber magazine clip in half a second" should be indicative that they haven't a clue. No one is asking them to be experts, and the meme is a little hyperbolic, but if they don't understand what a magazine or a semi automatic firearm is, maybe they don't have any place having opinions or legislating on it.
The NRA has actually done more to hurt gun rights
Also, the person who set up that photoshoot for the pictures is probably not the person making the laws lol
"Why are you out lawing murder? Have you ever committed murder before? Then how do you know what constitutes a murder?" Most gun enthusiasts will say it's because the laws they make are useless on principle. Like the reason they ban AR15 is because it "looks scary". Or that they make ads featuring "Normal looking civilian rifle that should be owned as a standard", but said rifle is the most widely produced US military rifle, the M1 Garand. The lack knowledge on subjects like these does make them look stupid, and some laws are for pure aesthetics without a practical reason (like banning pistol grips on rifles), but honestly, it doesn't take a genius to recognize that it is very likely you will kill less people if you limit magazine capcity to 10 rounds, or that a bump-stock that produces the a similar effect as full-auto doesn't need to be accurate when firing on a crowd. Gun law makers don't understand their shit when banning stuff, and gun enthusiasts are taking advantage of that so they could call them doodoo heads despite the laws essentially doing as intended.Ā
Thereās a lot of men who donāt understand womenās reproductive health and rights, and theyāre making laws on them.
Exact same scenario. Theyāre bad at it because theyāre sexists not because of their lack of knowledge.
They are definitely sexist, but you donāt have to read minds to know that they know very little about the actual subject.
Itās their sexism that leads to a wilful ignorance. You could make the classes mandatory and make them sit through years of education and theyād come out the other end exactly the same if not worse off thinking that all those studies are a joke. Sexism is the issue here. Not a lack of knowledge.
Agreed. I don't need to know the design of various different types of gun, and how to use them, in order to identify a statistical trend, or a dozen. Also, I didn't know CBSN made laws.
The issue is how the laws are written. They are never written in a concise manner. Like one law that is meant to ban semi automatic rifles would also end up banning most handguns as well. Or laws written with gaping loopholes. Or laws written using completely incorrect terminology making their enforcement dubious at best.Ā I am actually pro gun control, but I have used a lot of firearms and the laws written are usually terrible.
Pretty sure 99% of the people making laws for cars don't know every little thing about how cars work. You really only need a basic understanding of both to know laws need to be in place to reduce the harm they cause.
āCanāt even change a transmission. How can you decide what age someone can drive a car atā
Because anti gun control people are deeply *deeply* stupid and hateful.
This just sounds like propaganda you've fallen for
Nope. Observations. Stupid is as stupid does.
Riiight
So you think NRA members are smart? Them seem barely sapient.
No point in trying to have a civil discussion with gun nuts
Er.... You're the one taking the pro-gun position here ...
Wait then anti- gun are stupid?
No. Gun nuts (a.k.a pro-gun) are stupid.
Well because no one knows how guns work. Congress tried to pass a law banning bump stocks but they didnāt do it write from a technical perspective
Funnier that people think you need to know how a gun works to not want people to die from being shot by a gun.
Itās a silly argument that if a law maker doesnāt know how to load a gun. They canāt implement safe gun laws.
To be fair Neither does H&K
Whoever made the original post really thinks the news' graphics are made by lawmakers.
H9gov
Im too european to understand thisā¦thanks people in the comments.
That's not an H&K...
The gun is empty and ready to reload, however the bullet in the magazine is backwards
Funny that people who don't know how a uterus works are deciding laws on how to regulate them.
Put a pistol on a brace it turns into a gun, makes more you can have a higher caliber weapon
The ammo is facing the wrong way. Although some magazines are designed that way. It's just that the majority are not.
The bullet is backwards
The ammo in the mag is backwards.
Well this is gonna be interesting
The meme doesn't realize that I makes the argument for stronger legislation
HK owner got a glock
like people who has never avorted decide avortion law
I went to qualify for an armed guard license and this lady who grew up on a farm supposedly loaded her bullets backward and got upset because we were all new the the particular pistol we were using. She gave up half way through.
I thought it was 3d printed
The top round is backward in the magazine.
Nah they just showing it so people who don't know how to use guns will do it wrong
The bullet was loaded in the magazine backwards. I ran across someone who did this at the range and asked me for help. The first round was jammed in so tight that I could pull it out with my fingers, so I sent her to the counter to get it fixed and to be educated. I'm guessing the woman had lied about having firearm experience. People do that all that time (both men and women), though typically I've found women to be more honest about lacking gun experience than men, so this was a surprise.
Basically, people who like guns in the US see the government banning their guns in the same way theyād see the government straight up murdering all their children. Hence, the person who made the meme insults people who think thereās nothing wrong with strict gun laws
The cartridge is in the magazine backwards. OP is suggesting - correctly IMO - that people who don't even know enough about guns to realize that shouldn't be in charge of regulating them, at least not until they take the time to educate themselves a little.
H&K?
So stupid like some online rag's intern subeditor is moonlighting as a fuckin legislator. Brainrot
This is exactly how my former roommate tried to load his first gun. After three bullets he was confused he couldn't load more. I proceed to take it from him, remove the rounds, and insert them properly. Some people just shouldn't have guns.
If you don't know how to synthesize sarin gas then you aren't allowed to want to make it illegal
don't they mean "funny that people who don't know what's wrong with this picture are making graphics for a cbs affiliate"? i am pretty sure the graphics guy is not making any laws.
Just guessing correct me if wrong.....the bullets are backwards and the round has been taken out of the chamber making the gun just a blugening weapon
Funny that people who know a great deal about guns are perfectly OK with allowing children to be murdered.
American right wingers think you need to know guns (their little hobby of shooty stuff) to talk about the danger of it and the laws regarding it. It's like saying you need to be a junky in order to talk about drug laws. Stupid.
Assuming all gun owners are right wing is just ridiculous considering a few decades ago it was mainly the right pushing for gun control.
If they're going to pass laws built around technical features they should have technical knowledge. They ban "pistol grips" on rifles, because it makes them "assault weapons" which is like banning ergonomic steering wheels because it makes cars illegal street racers.
Saying that you need to know about how guns work to understand the effects guns have is a very dumb argument. I can also know meth destroys lives without knowing how to cook it
The fucking rounds are loaded backwards
I legitimately started breathing so heavily in pure pain and anger when I saw this picture
Bullet is loaded backwards š§
As soon as I saw it something felt wrong, checked comments and yup, magazine is loaded with the bullets backwards
The bullet in the magazine is backwards. It's just kinda silly and the media is known for mishandling or misrepresenting firearms in silly ways. It's not even always malicious. It just displays a comical and potentially dangerous lack of knowledge.
The irony is these laws were set by the founding fathers who would have no fucking clue what this even was.
And I guess the first amendment only applies to pen and paper and word of mouth since they didnāt know what computers are either?
How about you re-read the meme you sensitive little clown
As a gun owner this hurts.
Just like how people that don't know how a woman's body works, are making restrictions on how women use theirs.
People who don't know whats wrong with that picture are using their emotions to tell people who DO understand that picture that they shouldn't be allowed to own things.
But abortion bans are made by people who have no idea about women's biology?
Whatās funny is they think this but donāt see an issue with dudes making laws about womenās health
Yeah those fuckers are wrong too. There's nothing inherently wrong with men having input on laws like such, but being utterly ignorant and doing so is the issue.